"
i
| ; “a t ;
'
a
r a A
: | |
| ;
tay ‘
ty r
| to
‘
,
ti
>
af
;
3 .
ry
' "
aes
.
:
’
’ > ;
rs
.
te .
4y =
: >
r he
‘
be
i
; a
4 ;
"
e
: Be
' a
: mene bes
a, ?
“
'
“h rs :
am
Y rm 2
*
. /
» W
,
;
-
;
‘
i
4
“
> * i See Ritthe atid £ Phe senate
ALGOMA
DIOCESAN
CLERICAL
LIBRARY.
Poot ston, =
ees y.
3h,
AN ACCOUNT OF
THE PRINTED TEXT
OF THE
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT;
WITH
REMARKS ON ITS REVISION UPON CRITICAL PRINCIPLES.
TOGETHER WITH
A COLLATION
OF THE CRITICAL TEXTS OF GRIESBACH, SCHOLZ, LACHMANN,
AND TISCHENDORF, WITH THAT IN COMMON USE.
BY
SAMUEL PRIDEAUX TREGELLES, LL.D.
** Tta didici, fidem religionem constantiam in nullo negotio posse adhiberi nimiam: neque
in his libris, quorum nullam litteram neglegi oportere sentio, velim quicquam meo arbitratu
meoque iudicio definire, sed per omnia auctores sequi et antiquissimos et probatissimos.”—
Lachmann. N. T. Pref. ix.
LON DON:
SDAMUEL BAGS Pi RAND SONS,
PATERNOSTER ROW.
M. DCCC. LIV.
MAY 28 1993
AYSS4
TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS,
IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION
OF ENCOURAGEMENT BESTOWED ON BIBLICAL STUDIES,
THIS HISTORY
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT AS PRINTED,
DESIGNED AS AN AID
FOR THE MORE ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF TEXTUAL
CRITICISM,
IS, WITH PERMISSION,
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation
https://archive.org/details/anaccountoftheprO0Otreguoft
PREFACE,
Tus Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
is intended to give a correct statement of facts and principles,
brought down to the present time, for the use of Christian biblical
students.
It is of great importance for such to be thoroughly and funda-
mentally instructed in subjects of criticism, for this is a depart-
ment of biblical learning which can never be safely neglected ;
and if Holy Scripture is valued as being the revelation of God
concerning his way of salvation through faith in the atonement of
Christ, then whatever is needed for wisely maintaining its au-
thority, even though at first sight it may seem only to bear on the
subject indirectly, will be felt to be of real importance.
Forms of antagonism to the authority of Scripture have indeed
varied. There have been those who, with tortuous ingenuity,
charged the inspired writers with deception and dishonesty, and
who first devised the term ‘ Bibliolatry,” as a contemptuous
designation for those who maintained that it was indeed given
forth by the Holy Ghost: these opponents might well have been
vi PREFACE.
confuted by the contrast presented between what they were, and
the uprightness and holiness inculcated by those writers of the
Bible whom they despised. There have been argumentative
sceptics, —men who could ingeniously reason on the Zodiac of
Denderah, and other ancient monuments, as if they disproved the
facts of Scripture: God has seen fit that such men should be
answered by continuous discoveries, such as that of Dr. Young,
by which the hieroglyphics of Denderah were read, so that the
supposed argument only showed the vain confidence of those who
had alleged it. The Rationalistic theory has endeavoured to re-
solve all the Scripture narrations into honest but blind enthusiasm,
and extreme credulity. The Mythic hypothesis has sought to
nullify all real objective facts, and thus to leave the mind in a
state of absolute Pyrrhonism,—in certainty as to nothing, except
in the rejection of the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and of all
that testifies to Him as the Messiah. And yet more recently,
Spiritualism has advanced its claims, borrowing much from pre-
ceding systems of doubt and negation, and taking its name and,
in many points, its avowed principles, from those very Scriptures
whose claims it will not admit. It would have a Christianity
without Christ; it would bring man to God, but without blood
of atonement; it would present man with divine teaching and
guidance, while it denies the true divine teacher, the Holy Ghost,
who, when He works on the heart, ever does it by glorifying
Jesus ; it would adopt ethics from revelation, without admitting
that they have been revealed ; and it would demand holiness, and
that without the knowledge of God’s love, from which alone it
can spring, without the apprehension of those hopes by which it
can be sustained, and without owning that power from above by
which alone it can have a reality. Such have been successive, or
in part rival and mutually antagonistic, rulers of the Olympus of
scepticism and infidelity ;—-systems which profess to be new, and
PREFACE. Vil
which seek to establish this claim by recklessly rejecting the basis
of all known and long-cherished truth.
, 4 ’
véot ‘yap olaxoydpot
Ce Wier eb ’ -
kpatova Odvpzrou’ veoxpois
de 87 vdpors
4 47 Ld
Zevs aOerws Kparuvet’
A a5\ A U - dos -
Ta mpl S€ meA@pia voy dicTot.
Asch. Prom. Vinct. 153 (Blomf.)
And even now, perhaps, that boasted cry of ‘“ progress,” so often
heard, without regard to holiness and truth, and which is reiterated
by those who seek to conceal, even from themselves, their own
superficial pretensions, and to hinder others from knowing their
utter want of principle,—may have raised up some yet newer
claimant to dethrone preceding systems, in the vain thought of
maintaining a triumphant rule.
’ ld ta A a rs) A
véov véot Kpateire, kat Soxeire 07)
, > a , > > ? cal die Daan |
vaiew amevOn mépyap’. ovk ek TOV eyo
Seocovs rupdvvous exrecdvras noOdpny ;
, ‘A A a fol te 4,
tpirov be Tov viv Kotpavodyr’ endiopat
aioxiora Kal radxtora.— Asch. Prom. Vinet. 991.
In one thing, and one only, have these forms of opposition been
agreed: they have all of them re-echoed the serpent’s first whisper
of doubt and lying, —‘‘ YEA, HATH GOD SAID?”
It behoves those who value the revelation of God in his word,
both for their own sakes and on account of others, to be really
grounded in biblical study: that which is merely superficial will
not suflice; it would only be enough to enable the sharpness of
the edge of sceptical objections to be felt, causing, perhaps, serious
injury, without giving the ability needed to turn the weapon
aside: while, on the other hand, fundamental acquaintance with
the subject may, through God’s grace, enable us so to hold fast the
Vill PREFACE.
Scripture as a revelation of objective truth, as to be a safeguard
both to ourselves and to others.
The truth of God is as a rock assailed by waves; each in suc-
cession may seem to overwhelm it, but the force of each is in
measure spent on that which has preceded it, and modified by that
which follows. Each wave may make wild havoc amongst the
detached pebbles at its base, while the rock itself is unmoved and
uninjured. It is as thus knowing our grounds of certainty, that
we have to maintain the Scripture as God’s revealed truth.
Some have, indeed, looked at critical studies as though they
were a comparatively unimportant part of biblical learning. This
must have arisen from not seeing the connection between things
which are essentially conjoined. These studies contain the elements
of that which has to be used practically for the most important
purposes. They are the basis on which the visible edifice must
rest. The more we rightly regard Holy Scripture as the charter
of that inheritance to which we look forward, and which we know
as given at the price of the Saviour’s blood, the more shall we be
able to estimate the importance of TEXTUAL CRITICISM, by |
which we know, on grounds of ascertained certainty, the actual
words and sentences of that charter in the true statement of its
privileges, and in the terms in which the Holy Ghost gave it.
oie ane
Prymoutu, April 25, 1854.
*,* To prevent all possible misconception which could arise from what is said of
Lachmann in page 111, the reader is requested to observe distinctly, that no conjec-
tures were introduced into his text ; and those which he suggested in the preface to
his second volume had to do with places into which he thought that transcriptural
error had found its way, anterior to all existing documents.
CONTENTS.
§1—THE COMPLUTENSIAN EDITION . «. i «. 4 2B
The first printed Gr. Test., 1514. Neglect of Greek at the time of the invention of
printing, 1.—The Latin Vulgate the only SS. of Western Europe, 2.— Preparations
of Card. Ximenes for his edition, 2.— First printed portions of the Gr. Text, 2 note.
— University of Alcala, 3.— Delay of publication, and death of Ximenes (1517), 3.—
Publication authorised by Leo X. (1520), 3.—The editors’ account of their MSS., from
the Vatican, 4.— Moldenhawer’s search for Greek MSS. at Alcala; report that they
were sold and burned, 5.— The late Dr. J. Thomson’s* investigations—no MSS.
sold; all those of Ximenes still in the collection, 6.— No reason to doubt that the
Greek MSS. were really sent from Rome, 7.—Whether by Leo X.? Bishop Marsh’s
doubts, 7.— Character of the Complutensian Text, 8.— Unskilfulness of the editors,
8.— Their high estimate of the Latin Vulgate, 9.—1 John v. 7, supplied from the
Latin, 9.— Peculiarity of the accentuation, 10; and types, 11.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 1.
The critical sources of the Complutensian Polyglot, 11, 12.— Dr. James Thomson’s
letter to the Biblical Review, 12.— Extracts from Marsh’s Michaelis, 14; from
Dr. (now Sir John) Bowring, 14, 15.— Catalogue of the Alcala MSS. (now at Ma-
drid), 15.
§3.— THE MDITIONS OF: ERASMUS <2. ° 40 a er 9:
Proposal made to Erasmus (Apr. 17, 1515), 19.— Gr. Test. appears (Mar. 1, 1516),
20.—The MSS. used: defective in the Apocalypse, 21.— Non-insertion of 1 John v. 7,
21.— Attacks of Lee and Stunica, 21.— Vulgate sometimes used to amend the Greek,
23.— Aldine LXX. and Gr. Test. (1518), 24.— Erasmus’s second edition (1519), 24.
* While these sheets were in the press, Dr. James Thomson’s death occurred,
Feb. 20th, 1854.
Xx CONTENTS.
— Number of copies in Erasmus’s two first editions, 25.— Erasmus’s Latin Version
reprehended, 25, and nofe.— His third edition (1522), 25.—1 John v. 7, inserted from
the Codex Britannicus, 26, and note.— The fourth edition (1527), 27.— The fifth
edition (1535), 28.— Ancient testimony relied on, Acts xiii. 33, .. 28.
§ 3—THE EDITIONS OF STEPHENS, BEZA, AND THE ELZEVIRS. 30.
MS. authorities commonly neglected; edition of Colinseus, 30.— Stephens’ editions
of 1546 and ’49, .. 30.—His large edition (1550), with various readings, 30.— Censured
by the Sorbonne, 31.— Discussions on 1 John vy. 7,..32.—The only Greek MSS,
which contain it, 32 note.—Stephens’s fourth edition (1551), 32.— Verse divisions,
33 note. — Beza’s editions and MSS., 33.— Beza’s opinion of the spuriousness of John
viii. 1-12, .. 34.— Elzevir editions, 34, 35.—“ Textus Receptus,” 35,
§ 4—EARLIER COLLECTIONS OF CRITICAL MATERIALS :—WAL-
TON’S POLYGLOT; BISHOP FELL’S GREEK TESTAMENT. 36.
Various readings in Scripture, 37.— Collection in Walton’s Polyglot, 38.— Velezian
readings, 38.— Curcelleeus’s edition (1658), 39.— Bp. Fell’s edition (1675), 40.—-- Bar-
berini readings, 40.
§ 6.— MILLS GREEK TESTAMENT «2 4 (2. a “noe 74h
Dr. Bernard’s suggestion to Mill, 42.—Bp. Fell’s encouragement, 42.— Printing
stopped in 1686 by Bishop Fell’s death, 42.— Mill’s critical judgment, 43.— Kiister’s
reprint of Mill’s edition, 45.— Mill’s plan of publishing the text of MSS., 45.—
Wells’s revised Greek Test., 46.— Whitby’s attack on Mill, 47.—Collins’s use of
Whitby’s arguments, 48. — Bentley’s reply to Collins, 48.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 5.
Extract from Bentley’s reply to Collins, 49.— Mill’s labours objected to by Whitby,
50.— Use of various readings, 50, 51.— Comparison of profane authors,—Velleius
Paterculus, Hesychius, Terence, 51.—Tibullus, Plautus, Manilius, 52.—Stephens’s
Gr. Test., 53.— Reading of Acts xxvii. 14, ..53.— The wind Furo-aquilo, 54.—Texts
not rendered precarious by various readings, 56.— Text not preserved by miracle, 57.
§:6.—BENTEE YS: PROPOSED EDITION <3. 2. 4: “<6 5%
Hare’s appeal to Bentley, 58.— Wetstein’s communication, 58.— Bentley’s letter
to Abp. Wake, 59.—‘“‘ Comparative criticism,” 59 note.— Testimony of Greek and
Latin MSS., 59.— Greek and Latin texts as edited, 60.— Bentley’s plan, 60.— Frus-
trated, 61.—1 John v. 7, .. 61.—Walker sent to Paris, 61.— Bentley’s Proposals, 61,
62. — Middleton’s attack and Bentley’s reply, 63. — Patristic citations, 64.— Collation
of the Vatican MS., 65.— Mace’s Gr. and Eng. Test., 65.— Bentley’s death, 66.—
The non-appearance of his edition a loss, 67.— All account of it omitted in Marsh’s
Michaelis, 68 nofe.
CONTENTS. x1
§ 7.—BENGEL’S GREEK TESTAMENT . . . . . 68
Bengel’s early studies and questionings, 69.— Procures collations, 70.—His Gr.
Test. published, 1734, and its plan, 70.— Families of MSS., 71.— Misrepresentations
and opposition, 71.
§ 8—WETSTEIN’S GREEK TESTAMENT er ae ee) 9S,
Commencement of his critical studies, 73.— Visits Paris and England, 72, 73.—
Proposal to publish various readings, 74.— A critical text suggested, 74.— Quarrel
with Frey, 74.— Wetstein leaves Basle, 75.— His Prolegomena appear in 1730, .. 75.
—His changes of plan, 75.— Publication of his edition, 1751-2, ..76.— Character of
his edition, 77.— His own labours, 77.— His theories, 77, 78. — All ancient Gr. MSS.
charged with Latinising, 78.— Animadversiones et cautiones, 79, 80.—Semler’s re-
print of Wetstein’s Prolegomena, 81.— Lotze’s proposed new edition, 81, 82.
§ 9—THE EDITIONS OF GRIESBACH, AND CONTEMPORARY
DABOURS <0 2c) Se was FOS
New Testament criticism as left by Wetstein, 83.—Griesbach’s first edition,
(1774-7,) 88.—Theory of recensions, 84.— His value for ancient evidence, 85. — Mat-
thei’s editions, 85, 86.— Alter’s edition, 86.—Collations of Birch, etc., 86, 87.—
Texts of MSS. printed, 87.— Griesbach’s second edition (1796-1806), 88. — His prin-
ciples of criticism, 88, 89.— His manual edition, 89. — Hug’s system of recensions, 90.
— Importance of Griesbach’s labours, 91.
§ 1.—SCHOLZ’S GREEK TESTAMENT . . . . .~) 92
Two-fold division of MSS., etc., 92, 93. — His travels and collations, 94. — His reli-
ance on numbers, 95.— Uniformity of later Greek MSS., 95.— Not correct in fact, 96.
$1) LACH MANNS DITIONS) 529 i ee a ae. an) 7,
His first edition, 1831, 97.— His brief statement of its plan, 98.— Long misunder-
stood, 98.— Plan of Lachmann’s first edition: authority relied on, and the received
text wholly cast aside, 99.— Things wanting to complete’ Lachmann’s plan, 100.—
His larger edition, vol. i., 1842, 100.— Points of resemblance to Bentley, 101.—Old
Latin version, 102.— Lachmann’s estimate of degrees of evidence, 103.— Authorities
admitted, 104.— Mode of dealing with ancient errors, 104.— Lachmann’s principles
might have been extended, 105.— Misrepresentations as to his range of authorities,
105.— Reading discussed of Matt. xxi. 28-31, .. 106.— Rev. xviii. 3, . . 108. — Acts xiii.
33,..109.— Delay as to Lachmann’s second volume, 111.— His conjectures, 111.—
Acts xiii. 32,..112.— Attacks on Lachmann, 113.— Lachmann’s Latin Text, 114.—
Punctuation, 114.
Reasons for giving a clear account of Lachmann’s edition. Unserupulous mode in
which he was assailed. Even-handed justice. Quotation from Bentley. Gram-
matical reviewers: subjunctive futures. Lachmann’s own claims, 115 seq. note.
X11 CONTENTS.
§12—TISCHENDORFS EDITIONS... eee cee ee
His first edition (1841), 116.— Paris editions of 1842, 118.— His second Leipsic
edition, 1849, 118.— Selection of various readings, 119.— Adoption of ancient evi-
dence, 119.— Early variations, Rev. xiii. 18, . . 120. — Critical rules, 120, — Examples,
121.— Mark ii. 22,.. 121.— Matt. xxv. 16,.. 122. — Matt. xxiii. 4,.. 123. — Matt. xxiv.
38, .. 124. — Mar. viii. 26, .. 124. — Alexandrian forms, 125.—-avrotd and avrov, 126.—
Recensions, 127.— Tischendorf’s collations, 128.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 12,
The Greek MSS., of which the text has been published, 129.--Those prior to
Tischendorf, 129.— Those edited by Tischendorf, 130.—- His continued research for
MSS., 1381.
§ 13—ON AN ESTIMATE OF MS. AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH COMPARATIVE CRITICISM 2 bas) “iba.
“Comparative Criticism” defined, 132.— Preliminary list of MSS., 132.— Readings
of Matt. xix. 17, ..133.— Mr. Scrivener’s remarks, 134, 135.— Observations on them,
136.— Source of the common reading of this passage, 187.— Value of MSS. in spite
of incorrect readings (D), 187 note. — Small comparative value of the mass of MSS.,
138. — Matt. xv. 8,.. 139. — Matt. xx. 22,..140.— Matt. xviii. 35, Mar. iii. 29,.. 141.
— Mar. iv. 12, 24, x. 21, xii. 4, 28, xiii. 14, Luke viii. 9, 20, 28, 54, ix. 7, 54, xi. 2,.. 142.
— Luke xi. 29 (dis), 44, xii. 31, xiii. 24, John iv. 48, v. 16, vi. 22, . . 143.—John vi. 39,
40, 51, 69, viii. 59, ix. 8,11 (d¢s), 25, 26, x. 12, 18,14, . . 144.—John x. 26, 33, xi. 41,
Acts i. 14, 15, 11. 7, 23, 30, 31, 47, etc., ii. 22, xv. 24, 38, Rom. i. 16, . . 145.— Rom. iii
22, v.1, Vi. 12, viii. 1, x. 15, xi. 6, xiv. 6, 9, xv. 24, 29, xvi. 5, 25-27, .... 146.—1 Cor
ii. 4, iii. 4, vi. 20, vii. 5, Gal. iii. 1, Eph. iii. 14, . . 147.— Results of Comparative
Criticism, 148. — Value of the most ancient MSS., 149.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 13.—THE COLLATIONS AND CRITICAL
STUDIES OF 8. P. TREGELLES.
Authorities as cited by Griesbach and Scholz, 151.—Scholz’s Alexandrian read-
ings, 152. — Witnesses against his text, 152.— Edition proposed, to rest wholly on
authorities, 152. — Specimen prepared (1838) Col. ii., 153.— Gr. and Eng. Rev. (1844),
154.— Plan of Collations, 155.—F (Epp.), 155.— Disappointment as to Codex Vati-
canus, 156.—B (Apoc.), 156.—Codex Passionei, 157.— Codex Amiatinus, 157. —
Codex Mutinensis, 158.—U (Evv.), 158, Postscribed Iota, 158 note.—X (Evv.), 158.—
E (Evv.), 159.—1 (Evv.), 159.—G (Evv.), 159.— Fragments of G and H, 159, 160.—
Eng. Revelation published (1848), 160.— Curetonian Syriac version, 160.— D. (Epp.),
161.— Bartolocci’s collation of B, 161.—K (Evv.), 161.—83 (Evv.), 161, 162.—M
(Evv.), 162.—D (Epp.), 162.—H (Evv.), 163.— Uffenbach fragment, 163.— Lach-
mann’s Latin collations, 164.— Collations compared with Tischendorf’s, 164.— Ox
readings in D (Epp.), 164 note. — G (Epp.), 165.— Reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, 165 note.
Fragments P and Q, 165.—F (Evv.), 166.— Cod. Leicest., 166.— Dublin palimpsest
Z, and its chymical restoration, 166-169.— MSS. recompared at Basle, Munich, and
CONTENTS. X11
Venice, 169.— Cod. Amiatinus and Tischendorf’s edition, 169, 170.— Correction of
mistakes, 170 note.—The ancient versions, 170.— Mr. Rieu’s collation of the Arme-
nian, and Mr. Prevost’s of the Aithiopic, 171.— Ancient MSS. published and unpub-
lished, 172. — Results, 173. ‘
§ 14.—REMARKS ON PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM, 174.
Object, and opposite modes of seeking to attain it, 174.— Numbers against autho-
rity, 175.— Proofs that readings are ancient, 175, 176.— Character of all the most
ancient documents, 177.— Analogy of ancient and modern Latin MSS., 179.— Non-
accordance of the later Greek MSS., 180.— The later copyists, 182.— Charges of
innovation, 183.— Porson on interpolations, 184 note.— An ancient text of the
LXX. displaces the Aldine, 185.— Judgment on evidence,— prayer, 186.— Express
early statements as to readings; Matt. xix. 17, ..187.— Matt. v. 4, 5, .. 187. — Matt.
i. 18, . .188.— Matt. xxiv. 36, .. 190. —1 Cor. xv. 51, . .19].—1 Cor. xiii. 3, . . 191.—
Matt. viii. 28, Mar. v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, . . 192.— Matt. xxvii. 16,17, .. 194.—2 Tim.
iv. 1, . .196.— Luke xiv. 5, . .197.— Conjecture in the Edin. Rev., 199 note.— New
theory of Latinising, 201.— Mar. xi.8, Mar.i.41, ..203.—1 Cor. xi. 29, ..203.— Col.
ii.18,.. 204.—Aids as to ancient evidence, Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons,
205.—Luke xxii. 43, 44, Matt. xvi. 2, 3, .. 205.—Proved errata in MSS. Matt. xxvii. 28,
. - 205.—Heb. xi. 35,.. 206.—Matt. xxvii. 49, . . 206, 207.—Proper names, 207.—David,
Amos, 207.— Asaph, Siloam, Capharnaum, Nazareth, 208.— MaO@aios, 209. — vd éped-
kvotixov, 209. — AauBévw, 209.— Peculiar flexions, 209.— Interchange of vowels, 210.
—Iota subscript, 210.— Terminations -w and -o., 1 Pet. iii. 7,.°. 211. —-e. and -y, Fut.
subj., 211.— Punctuation, 212.— John i. 3, 4, Rom. ix. 5, .. 214, 215.—1 Cor. xv. 29,
.. 216.— Parenthesis, 217.—1 Pet. iii. 21, 2 Pet. i. 19, ..217.— Rom. viii. 20, . . 218. —
Rom. ix. 1,.. 219. — Conflict of evidence, 220.—Ascetic spirit, 1 Cor. vii. 5, Acts x. 20,
Rom. xii. 13, .. 222. — Rom. xiv. 17, . . 223. — Luke viii. 17, .. 223. — Matt. i. 25, .. 224.
— Acts xv. 22, .. 225.
§ 15—NOTES ON SOME PASSAGES OF DOGMATIC IMPORTANCE, 226.
1 John v. 7: reasons for not formally discussing the passage, 226.—1 Tim. iii. 16:
authorities which support es, 227; those which support a relative, 227.— True
readings of Cyril and Chrysostom, 227 note. — Correction of the MSS. A and C., 228,
— The fathers who read és, 229.— The passage altered by Macedonius, 229 and note.
—A relative the best-supported reading, 230.—és supported by the Greek autho-
rities, 230.— Translation of the passage, 231.— Acts xx. 28, . . 231.— Authorities in
favour of cod, 231.— Reading of B, 231 note.— Chrysostom doubtful, 232 and note.
— Cyril, 232.— Authorities for xvpiov, 232; for xupiov kai Geod, 232.— Results, 233. —
Readings absolutely supported by critical research, 234.— Passages of dogmatic value
restored, 234.— John i.18: testimonies in favour of povoyevis Oeds, 234.—1 Pet. iii. 15:
corrected reading, and result of comparison with Old Test., 235.—The LXX. version:
independence of the New Test. citations, when needful, 236.
§ 16.—NOTES ON JOHN VII. 53—VIII. 11; JOHN V. 3, 4; AND
MARK XVI.9—20 . . 286,
John vii. 58-viii. 11, of well-known doubtfulness: documents in its favour, 236.—
How introduced in Cod. 1, 237 note.— Augustine’s conjecture, 237.— Documents
X1V CONTENTS.
opposed to the passage, 238. — Unknown to Tertullian, 239 and note; also Cyprian,
Origen, etc., 239. — Doubts of Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, 240. -— Difficulties, 241. — Truth
of the narration, 242.— Papias, 242.— Dr. Routh’s judgment, 243.
John y. 3, 4: authorities for and against the last clause of verse 3, . . 248.— Those
against verse 4,.. 243; for it, 244.— Bp. Marsh’s judgment, 244.— Origin in scholia,
245. — Results in favour of the shorter form, 246.
Mar. xyi. 9-20. Propositions to be established, 246.— Testimonies that these
verses do not belong to St. Mark, 247.— Proofs that this Gospel has had these verses
from the second century, 251.— Evidence of existing monuments, that St. Mark did
not himself write these verses, 253.— Documents which contain them, 254.— Inter-
nal arguments, style, etc., 256.— Conclusions from the whole, 258.— Authority of
Scripture, even when anonymous, 259.— Butler and Warburton quoted, 260 note.—
Testimony of John the Presbyter to St. Mark’s Gospel, 260 and note.
CONCLUSION.
Present opposition to critical studies, 261.— Facts denied, 262 and note.— Recent
assertions as to the modern Greek text, 264.— Mischievous inventions, 265 and note.
— Bible circulation and non-intelligent translations, 267.— Texts still wrongly read:
1 John v. 7, . . 268.— Acts viii. 37, ix. 31, . . 269.— Acts xiii. 19, 20, . . 269.—1 John
vy. 13, Rey. xvii. 8, .. 270. — Present state and requirements of biblical study, 271.
INDEX
OF PASSAGES THE READING OF WHICH IS DISCUSSED
OR NOTICED.
MATTHEW.
i. itches Oy 4 -
25
v. 4,5
Vili. 28 A
XV. 8
Xvi. 2,3
eb Ogu Wy Gane
Xvili. 35
XX: oon
xxi. 28-3)
XXili; <4;
xxiv. 36
38
xxv. 16
Xxvii. 16, 17
28
49 A
MARK
i 41
ll 22
qt.. 329
Le eel gens
24
Vv. ]
Vili. 26
Xe. eel!
xi... °s
xl, 4
23
xiii. 14
xvl. 9-20
LUKE.
vill. 9
7 ;
seq.
LUKE.
Vili. 26
28
54
1x, 7
54
Xi, amar
29
”
44
Si 3)
xi, 24
xiv. 5
XXli. 43, 44
JOHN,
i 18
Iv. 43
Vv 3, 4
IG;
Vi 22
Be) oe
40
51
69 ;
Vii. 53- viii. 12
Vill. 59
5. eeameto|
iBL
”
25
Oss
x LP
13
14
26
33
xi, 4]
° ”
. 34, 236 seq.
144
xvl
KV ee
XX: 28
xxvu. 14
ROMANS.
Lule
111,22
Vi) a
vi. 12
Vili. 1
Ke 5
Zi 6
xii. 13
xiv. 6
9
Xv. 24
29
9 Se ae
eo-eh.
1 CORINTHIANS.
u 4
i 4
INDEX.
seq.
1 CORINTHIANS.
vi. 20
GALATIANS.
iii. 1
EPHESIANS.
iii. 14
COLOSSIANS.
ii. 18 .
lL TIMOTHY.
iil, 16
2 TIMOTHY.
17,-1
HEBREWS.
£L-3o
1 PETER.
ry ae
15
1 JOHN.
ew
it ee
REVELATION.
xiii. 18
xvi. 8
Xviil. 3
227 seq.
165 note,
AD AO ND) Ae
Copex Amiatinus. In p. 170, note, [have given a list of the places in which
Tischendorf has not followed my collation of this MS., but in which I find,
from Signor del Furia, that my collation really is right, As Tischendorf has
re-issued his impression of the Codex Amiatinus with a list of a few errata,
noticed since it first’ appeared, they are here specified for the information of
the reader.
Mat. xx. 4, dele meam.
xxiv. 15, lege Danihelo.
Mar. xiv. 40, lege rngravati.
Luke viii. 12, hi deest, a prima manu.
Acts viii. 17, lege rnponebant.
xili. 46, lege reppulistis.
Xvili. 12, lege Achaiae.
1 Cor. ili, 12, lege superaedificat supra.
xiv. 18, dele meo.
2 Cor. iv. 4, lege quae est.
Eph. iv. 25, lege in invicem.
vi. 13, dele in (2°).
1 Pet. iii. 6, lege oboedivit.
1 Joh. ii. 4, lege non (pro “nos”).
Rey. viii. 5, dele magnus.
These passages could not be inserted in the former list, as Tischendorf had
not marked them amongst the places in which he had not followed my colla-
tion: they are simply errata in his edition.
He also corrects in the canons and Ammonian Sections at Mat. iv. 21
(22,2); Mat. x. 42 (100,6); Luke xiii. 14 (165,2). Also, he says, that
Abbate del Furia informs him, that at John xviii. 37, the MS. has (by mis-
take, he considers) the notation (180,4). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, sec-
tion 4 begins at ii. 11.
Tiscuenporr’s MSS., p. 131. The MSS. described in the letter addressed
to me are now in the hands of Messrs. Williams and Norgate, Henrietta-street,
Covent-garden, for sale, for Prof. Tischendorf. The Palimpsest fragments
possess, even if it were only on account of their antiquity, a real value in
textual criticism. The two other uncial MSS. of part of the Gospels belong
probably to about the age assigned them by Tischendorf. I have examined
the whole collection ; and I shall be permitted to collate them for critical pur-
poses. In one of them I found very soon four occurrences of Lota postscribed :
2
so rare in Biblical MSS. in Uncial Letters (see p. 158). It should be added,
that Tischendorf has announced that the Palimpsest fragments will be in-
cluded in a new volume of Monumenta Sacra now in the press.
To the MSS. examined by me (mentioned p. 155—168), I may now add
the Palimpsest fragments of St. Luke amongst the Nitrian MSS. in the
British Museum. They consist of forty-five leaves (of the sixth century, as
seems to 'me), in which Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus has been
written in Syriac over the Greek. The older writing is in parts very difficult
to read; but by pains I can in a strong light discern almost every letter : this
is, however, a great strain on the eye of a collator.
Besides these precious leaves, there is also in the same collection a very
ancient Palimpsest fragment of St. John’s Gospel, and a few morsels of other
parts of the New Testament.
P. 171. Mr. Prevost’s comparison of the Aithiopic would have been more
exactly described as a collation of the text in Walton’s Polyglot, from which
Bode’s Latin version was made, with Mr. Platt’s text.
To the note, p. 165, might be added, that “perhaps the line in question
was used in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and some other places, simply to fill up the Latin
text which lies over the Greek.”
In p. 248, note, Hesychius of Jerusalem is called the contemporary of Gre-
gory of Nyssa. This has been done advisedly ; for if these homilies do be-
long to such a Hesychius, there are good reasons for not regarding him as the
Bishop of Jerusalem of that name in the sixth century, but as an earlier
Presbyter. Cave, I think, says that it would need an oracle to distinguish
the persons bearing the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem.
Let me request any who may wish to understand the principles of textual
criticism which I believe to be true, to read what I have stated in the section,
On an estimate of MS. authorities in accordance with ‘ comparative criticism” ;
so that they may not repeat the assertion that I regard the accidental age of a
MS., irrespective of its character, and apart from the evidence of ancient
versions and early citations.
It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and again, that the
testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence
(not mere assertion); and that the distinction is not between ancient MSS.
on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other,—but between the united
evidence of the most ancient documents—MSS., versions, and early citations—
together with that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on
the one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other. To which class
shall we look as including within itself the readings which have the best claim
on our attention as those which really belong to the holy word of God ?
July 25, 1854.
ANS ate AS INST
OF THE
PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT,
~ AND OF ITS REVISION BY CRITICAL EDITORS.
§ 1—THE COMPLUTENSIAN EDITION.
THE first printed edition of the Greek New Testament was that
which formed a part of the Complutensian Polyglot; the volume
in which the New Testament in Greek and Latin is contained was
completed Jan. 10, 1514.
It may seem a cause for surprise, that while the sacred Hebrew
originals of the Old Testament had been multiplied much earlier
by means of the press, the case was so different with regard to the
Scriptures of the New Testament in the original tongue. For
this difference many reasons may be assigned. ‘The Jews applied
the invention of printing at a comparatively early period to the
multiplication of the Old Testament in Hebrew: they were a
numerous and prosperous body in many parts of Europe, and
thus they were able to command both the skill and the pecuniary
means needed to that end; besides this, there was a demand
amongst them for Hebrew books.
The case with regard to the Greeks was wholly different. The
capture of Constantinople by the Turkish Sultan (1453), and the
bondage or exile of the Greek population, was an event which
was almost synchronous with the invention of printing; and thus,
although the dispersion of the Greeks led to the knowledge of
their language and literature being acquired by many in Western
Europe, yet it effectually hindered efforts on their own part to
2
2 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
print, and thus to multiply, copies of their Scriptures. Indeed,
so many Greeks earned in their exile a scanty living by copying
books in their own tongue, that they had a positive interest in not
using the newly-invented art of printing.
Besides, the early attempts at printing Greek were so awkward
and unpleasant to the eye, that few books were multiplied through
the press in that tongue until greater skill had been manifested in
the formation of the type. And so habituated were Greek scho-
lars in that day to read Greek abounding with contractions, many
of which were deemed by copyists to be feats of calligraphy, that
the endeavours to print Greek with separate types were despised
and undervalued.
In Western Europe, the Latin Vulgate was the form in which
Holy Scripture was known and received : so that even on the part
of theologians there was no desire for the original text; indeed,
the feeling was rather that every departure from the version of
Jerome, such as it was after it had suffered from the hands of
transcribers for more than a thousand years, would be a rash
and dangerous innovation. The Old Testament in Hebrew was
regarded as a book for the Jews simply, and no part of Holy
Scripture was thought to be suitable for the edification of Chris-
tians in any tongue except the Latin.
The preparations made by the celebrated Spanish cardinal,
Francis* XIMENES de CISNEROS, Archbishop of Toledo, for the
publication of the first Polyglot Bible, commenced in the year
1502; the work was intended to celebrate the birth of the heir
to the throne of Castile, afterwards the Emperor Charles V.
* The baptismal name of this remarkable man was Gonzalo: this he exchanged
for Francisco, when he entered the Franciscan order. Cardinal Ximenes was arch-
bishop of Toledo, regent of Castile, and a Spanish general, while also executing other
functions.
+ It should be observed, that the Complutensian New Testament was not the first
portion of original Greek which was printed. “The first part of the Greek Testa-
ment which was printed consisted of the thanksgiving hymns of Mary and Zacharias
(Luke i. 42-56, 68-80), appended to a Greek Psalter published in 1486. The next con-
sisted of the first six chapters of the Gospel by John, edited by Aldus Manutius, at
Venice, 1504, 4to."—Dr. Davidson's “Biblical Criticism,” ii. p. 106. “The fourteen
Sirst verses of the Gospel of John. Tubingen 1514: in the Library at Stuttgart, an
edition which has been incorrectly stated to be the whole Gospel of St. John, in
Masch’s Le Long, 3. iii. 624, and Marsh’s remarks on Michaelis, i. p. 415.” [Eng. ed.
ii. 845.] Hichhorn’s Einleitung, v. 249.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 3
It receives its name, the Complutensian Polyglot, from Com-
PLUTUM, the Latin name of ALCALA, in Spain, where it was
printed, and where the cardinal had founded an university. The
editors of the part containing the New Testament were Atlus
Antonius Nebrissensis, Demetrius Cretensis, Ferdinandus Pitia-
nus, and especially Lopez de Stunica: in fact, this last-mentioned
editor seems to have been the person who undertook the respon-
sibility of preparing the Greek text under the cardinal’s direction,
and at his expense.
Although the fifth volume of the Polyglot, which contains the
New Testament in Greek and Latin, was completed (as has been
said) Jan. 10, 1514, the Old Testament was as yet unfinished;
for the subscription to the fourth volume is dated July 10, 1517.*
The publication of the work, however, was delayed. There
can be but little doubt, that some at least felt alarm at the inno-
vation which would be introduced from the church taking for its
instructor in Holy Scripture any language except the Latin: it is
however worthy of remark, that the whole of this Polyglot
edition was finished in the same year in which Martin Luther
gave a stern shock to the corrupt theology which was then held
and taught, by fixing to the door of the electoral chapel at Wit-
tenberg his theses against the Romish doctrine of indulgences.
Before the publication of this work, on which the labour of so
many years had been bestowed, Cardinal Ximenes had died;f and
Pope Leo X., to whom it was dedicated, sent an authorization
for its publication to his executors: this document is dated March
22, 1520. There was, however, some delay even after this; so
that the work did not get into general circulation before the year
1522.
As this was the first printed Greek New Testament (although
not the first published), it is natural that inquiry should have been
* Cardinal Ximenes says, in his dedication to Pope Leo X., that the New Testa-
ment was finished first. “Imprimis Novum Testamentum Greco Latinoque sermone
excudendum curavimus simul cum Lexico Greecarum omnium dictionum: qué pos-
sunt in eo legentibus occurrere: ut his quoque qui non integram lingusze cognitionem
adepti sunt pro viribus consuleremus. Deinde vero antequam Vetus Testamentum
agerederemur : dictionarium premisimus Hebraicorum Chaldaicorumque totius Ve-
teris Instrumenti vocabulorum.”
+ Cardinal Ximenes did not survive its completion more than a few months. He
died Nov. 8, 1517, at the age of eighty-one, in the twenty-third year of his primacy.
+
4 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
made for the MSS. on which the text is based. _ It need excite no
surprise, that the editors have not themselves described the MSS.
which they used: such a proceeding was not then customary;
indeed, until some attention had been paid to textual criticism,
few editors of works, whether biblical, classical, or patristic, seem
to have thought of mentioning what copies they followed, any
more than this would have been done by the transcriber of such
a work, before printing had been invented: the archetype might
be mentioned, or it might not; just as in the case of an edition of
Milton or Bunyan, it is not common to state, in a reprint, what
edition has been followed.
The Complutensian editors, however, though they do not de-
scribe their MSS., give us some information with regard to them.
In their preface to the New Testament, they say, that “‘ ordinary
copies were not the archetypes for this impression, but very an-
cient and correct ones; and of such antiquity, that it would be
utterly wrong not to own their authority; which the supreme
pontiff Leo X., our most holy father in Christ and lord, desiring
to favour this undertaking, sent from the apostolical library to
the most reverend lord the cardinal of Spain, by whose authority
and commandment we have had this work printed.” *
In this we may distinguish the fact which the editors record,
from the opinion which they express. They must have known
whether or not they used MSS. from the Vatican, and they were
fully competent to record the fact; as to the antiquity of the
MSS. or their value, they could not be supposed to give any
judgement which lay beyond the horizon of their critical know-
ledge. .
Cardinal Ximenes also bears a similar testimony as to the place
from which he obtained the Greek MSS. He says, in his dedica-
tion to Pope Leo X., after mentioning the pains which he had
taken to procure Latin, Greek, and Hebrew MSS., “ For Greek
copies indeed we are indebted to your Holiness, who sent us most
* “Non queevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse: sed antiquissima
emendatissimaque: ac tants preeterea vetustatis ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur.
Quee sanctissimus in Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus
huic instituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta misit ad reverendissi-
mum dominum Cardinalem Hispanie ; de cujus authoritate et mandato hoc opus
imprimi fecimus.”
& #
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 5
kindly from the apostolic library very ancient codices, both of the
Old and the New Testament; which have aided us very much in
this undertaking.” *
When critical attention was paid to the text of the Greek New
Testament, and to the MSS. from which the first printed edition
was supposed to be derived, it was too hastily concluded from the
editors’ having mentioned that they had the use of very ancient
MSS. from the papal library, that the celebrated Codex Vaticanus
was amongst the number; and as the actual readings of that
valuable document were then almost entirely unknown, the
Complutensian text was relied on by some, as if it could be taken
as the representative of the Codex Vaticanus.
Afterwards, when Greek MSS. were more extensively investi-
gated, it was thought that those of the Complutensian Greek
New Testament were probably still preserved at Alcala; and thus
when the Danish professor Moldenhawer was in Spain for the
purpose of examining Greek MSS., he visited Alcala in 1784, in
hopes of finding them in the university library. He could find
none there of the Greek New Testament; and he imagined that,
for some reason of suspicion, they were kept secret from him.
At last he was told that, about the year 1749, they had been sold
to a rocket-maker, as useless parchments. Michaelis, in mention-
ing the result of these inquiries, says, ‘‘ This prodigy of parbarism
I would not venture to relate, till Professor Tychsen, who accom-
panied Moldenhawer, had given me fresh assurances of its truth.”
This account was for many years repeated and believed, until,
in 1821, Dr. Bowring cast some doubt on it: he did not however
fully clear up the story, or explain how it originated. But we
can now go farther, and say that the inquiry of Moldenhawer, and
the reply which it received, were alike grounded on mistake.
Dr. James Thomson made careful inquiries as to the MSS. be-
longing to the university of Alcala, and the result (ancluding an
* “ Atque ex ipsis quidem Greeca Sanctitati tusee debemus: qui ex ista apostolica
bibliotheca antiquissimos tum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti codices perquam humane
ad nos misisti: qui nobis in hoc negocio maximo fuerunt adjumento.”
The editors also say the same thing, in their preface to the reader, as to the Greek
MSS. They add however, “Quibus etiam adjunximus alia non pauca: quorum parte
ex Bessarionis castigatissimo codice summa diligentia transcriptam illustris Veneto-
rum senatus ad nos misit,” etc.
> >
» *
6 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
account of the investigation made several years before by Dr.
Bowring) was published in the Biblical Review for March, 1847.*
Thus we can regard as an ascertained fact, that all the MSS.
which were formerly known as belonging to Cardinal Ximenes,
and which were preserved in the library at Alcala, are now, with
the rest of that library, at Madrid; that the catalogue made in
1745 correctly describes the MSS. which still exist; that at the
time of the alleged sale to the rocket-maker, the library of Alcal&i
was under the care of a really learned and careful librarian, who
caused all the books of the library to be rebound.
It remains, however, a fact, that a sale to a rocket-maker did
take place at the time mentioned; but it could not have been of
MSS. belonging to the library; so that there can be but little
doubt, that the ‘‘ useless parchments” thus disposed of, were the
old covers of the books in the library, compacted of vellum and
folded paper.
Don José Gutierrez, the librarian at Madrid, furnished Dr. J.
Thomson with a catalogue of the Complutensian MSS.;f and
from this it appears, that the principal ones used in the Polyglot
are all safely preserved: the Greek New Testament is, however,
contained in none of them; also the one containing the LXX.
does not include the Pentateuch.
And thus we can only suppose that, when Moldenhawer was
inquiring at Alcal’i for what that library never had possessed, and
when he thought that the MSS. were concealed from him, the
librarians, to remove the suspicion, and to satisfy his inquiries in
some manner, referred to the sale of ‘useless parchments” in
1749, as if it set the question at rest. Neither the Danish pro-
fessor nor yet the Spanish librarians seem to have thought of the
previous question, ‘‘ Were any such MSS. ever in the library at
Alcala?”
As, then, the other MSS. used by the Complutensian editors
are still in existence, and as the collection contains none of that
part of the LXX. which comprises the Pentateuch or of the Greek
New Testament, we have only an additional reason for believing
* See the Appendix to this section, where Dr. Thomson’s communication to the
Biblical Review is subjoined.
+ See the Appendix to this section.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. ”
(what indeed never need have been doubted),* that the account
given by the cardinal and the editors was a simple fact, that
Greek MSS., both of the Old and the New Testament, were
furnished from the Vatican library ; and to that library they were
no doubt returned, when the object was accomplished for which
they had been lent. Stunica, in his controversies with Erasmus,
mentions a MS. which he calls Codex Rhodiensis, and which seems
to have been his own; he cites it occasionally as an authority,
but nothing more is known about it, nor did Stunica ever so
describe it as to make its identification possible.
It has been alleged, that if the date in the subscription to the
Complutensian New Testament be true, it is impossible that it
could have been edited from Greek MSS. sent by Pope Leo X.
Bp. Marsh says (Notes to Michaelis, 11. 846), ‘* Now Leo X. was
elected pope March 11, 1513;f and yet the subscription at the
end of the Revelation bears date Jan. 10, 1514. If therefore the
MSS. were sent by Leo X., they must have arrived when at least
three parts of the Greek Testament were already printed; and yet
the editors, in the preface at least, mention no other MSS.” It
does not appear on what data Bp. Marsh forms his conclusion, as
to when the printing commenced. As the first edition of Eras-
mus was completed in a far shorter time (see the following sec-
tion) and as he was at that time overburdened with other editorial
cares, which he had to sustain alone, there appears to be no suf-
ficient reason for judging that the editors of the Complutensian
text, who were several, and not distracted by other labours, could
not have accomplished this work in the manner in which they say
that they did. In fact, this argument only appears to be one of
the many cases in which supposed improbabilities are brought
forward to set aside direct testimonies.{
* The doubt seems to have been diffused, if it did not originate, through a remark
of Wetstein on the subject: “Neque dubito, quin, si accuratior inquisitio fieret, iidem
illi codices, quibus usi sunt editores, adhuc hodie Compluti reperirentur, argumento
ducto ex Melchioris de la Cerda Apparatu Latini Sermonis, Bibliothecsee Hispanics,
p. 61.” Wets. Proleg. in N.T., p. 118.
+ Precision is needed here, as it is a question of time. Leo was elected on the 28th
of Feb. 1513, and crowned on the 11th of March.
t There seems to be no ground for questioning the date in the subscription to the
volume of this book which contains the New Testament. We have the testimony of
Cardinal Ximenes himself, that this volume (the fifth in order) was printed the first,
8 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
One reason’ why it was important to ascertain, if possible, on
what MSS. the Complutensian edition was based, is, that, as being
one of the primary texts, it is desirable to know what its authority
may be, and how far readings which may have emanated from it
are rightly retained in other editions. But as the MSS. used by
the editors are wholly unknown, we can only form a judgment as
to their antiquity and value from the text itself; and this we are
able to do very decidedly. Bishop Marsh observes (‘‘ Lectures on
the Criticism of the Bible,” page 96), ‘‘ Wherever modern Greek
MSS.,—MSS. written in the thirteenth, fourteenth, or fifteenth cen-
turies,—differ from the most ancient Greek MSS., and from the
quotations of the early Greek fathers, in such characteristic read-
ings the Complutensian Greek Testament almost invariably agrees
with the modern, in opposition to the ancient MSS. There
cannot be a doubt, therefore, that the Complutensian text was
formed from modern MSS. alone.”
Although doubts may be felt as to the erudition of the Com-
plutensian editors, it need not be questioned that they really
regarded the MSS. which they used as being ancient and valu-
able. Such subjects were then but little investigated; and the
work of editing the Greek New Testament was altogether new.
That they were not very skilful in their work, may be seen from
the circumstance that, in Heb. vii. 3, they have blended the title
of the section of the epistle with the words of the text thus, wevet
iepevs eis To Sunvenes, EV @ OTL Kat Tov ABpaap mpoeTipnOn. Oew-
pete x. T.r.* It also need not be questioned, that the editors
fully intended to use their MSS. fairly; although, from their
reverence for the Latin, they would certainly have regarded any
Greek reading as being defective, if it did not accord with their
—that then the Lexicons, etc., were prepared ; but the volume containing this appa-
ratus, and the four which comprise the Old Testament, were all five printed and
finished by July 10,1517. This leaves but little more than eight months for each
volume, to say nothing of the time occupied in preparing the Lexicons, etc. If the
date Jan. 10, 1514, be doubted, as being too early, it makes the expedition used in
printing the other volumes only the greater. But, really, the fact that the other five
parts were printed in so few months each, is an argument that the New Testament
volume was not long in the press.
* Tt may, indeed, be said that this was an oversight on the part of Stunica and his
coadjutors, which must not be judged too severely, as reflecting on their scholarship :
in illustration of which reference may be made to the edition of the Latin and Greek
Codex Laudianus of the Acts, published by Hearne in 1715, who in Acts v. 24 (in the
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 9
valued translation. That they must in general have followed their
Greek MS. (or MSS.) simply, is plain, from the passages being
but few in which such an accusation could be made, as that of
alteration to suit the Latin.
Their estimate of the Latin Vulgate is shown by the astonish-
ing comparison which they use, in connection with the arrange-
ment of the Old Testament; where that version occupies the
central column, with the original Hebrew on the one side, and
the Greek LXX. on the other: this they compare to the position
of Christ as crucified between two thieves,—the unbelieving syna-
gogue of the Jews, and the schismatical Greek church.*
With this feeling of veneration, it can cause no surprise, that
in 1 John v. 7, 8 they should have supplied in the Greek the tes-
timony of the heavenly witnesses; and also that they should have
omitted the concluding clausule of the eighth verse. In both
these changes they evidently thought that they were doing right;
for in the controversy between Stunica and Erasmus, the latter
inquired by what authority the Complutensian editors had in-
serted 1 John v.7, and whether they really had MSS. so different
from any that Erasmus himself had seen: to this the answer was
given by Stunica, ‘‘ You must know that the copies of the Greeks
MS. folio 38 b.), inserted a Latin word in the Greek column as two Greek words;
reading thus:
KOLO OTPAaTHYOS
TOV LEpoU
KQL Ol apxLEpets
eBavp.acov
MENTE kau diyntopovr,
and in a note he reflects on the inaccuracy of Mill, who had cited the various reading
without wev're. The word really belongs to the Latin column, which precedes the
Greek: thus,
MIRARI COEPERUNT E@OAYMAZON
ET CONFUNDEBANTUR MENTE KAI AIHIIOPOYN,
where the length of the Latin line causes it to run on into the Greek column.
* “Mediam autem inter has Latinam beati Hieronymi translationem, velut inter
synagogam et Orientalem Ecclesiam posuimus; tanquam duos hinc et inde latrones,
medium autem Jesum, hoc est Romanam sive Latinam ecclesiam collocantes. Hee
enim sola supra firmam petram eedificata (reliquis a recta Scripture intelligentia
quandoquidem deviantibus) immobilis semper in veritate permansit.”
Profound, however, as was their reverence for the Romish church, they knew
nothing of those dogmas which were authorised at Trent, thirty years afterwards, for
canonising the Apocrypha. “ At vero libri extra canonem, quos ecclesia potius ad
eedificationem populi, quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirman-
dum recipit : Greecam tantum habent scripturam,” etc.
10 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
are corrupted; that OURS, however, contain the very truth.”*
This was quite enough for them; and this passage, in this edition,
demands particular attention, because it is in this one place that
the Greek Testaments in common use have been affected by the
Complutensian text.
In omitting the final words of ver. 8, xal ot Tpels eis TO Ev eiow,
Stunica and his coadjutors were guided by what they considered
to be the judgment of the Lateran council, and the authority of
Thomas Aquinas; for they justify the non-insertion by a note in
their margin; this being one of the very few annotations which
they have subjoimed. On the same grounds as they assign for the
omission in the Greek, these words are left out in Latin MSS.
subsequent to the year 1215.
Besides this passage, however, there are very few places in
which the charge of conforming the Greek to the Latin has been
suggested; although the variations of the two must have been
prominently brought before the attention of the editors, because
they affix a letter of reference to each word, and they use the
same letter again in the Latin column, to connect the two texts
verbally, where that is practicable. It should be added, that the
Latin Vulgate is given by the Complutensian editors with more
accuracy than had previously been shown in printing it.
Stunica and his fellow-editors have not given the Greek text
with the common accents; but they have marked every word of
two or more syllables with an acute accent on the tone-syllable.
In their preface, the editors refer to the peculiar manner in which
they had printed the Greek; and they defend it on the ground
that accents, breathings (which they omit, except in the case of
T), etc., are no parts of the genuine text, and that they are
omitted in the more ancient copies, and consequently they wished
to leave the sacred text with ‘‘ its majesty and beauty untouched”:
they add, however, that they have marked the tone-syllable of
each word with a simple apex, ‘‘ not as the Greek accent, but as a
mark and sign for the guidance of the reader.” . So that, if the
‘‘orace and majesty of the text” depended on its not being
printed with any grammatical additions, it would be as much
* “Sciendum est, Greecorum codices esse corruptos; nostros vero ipsam veritatem
eontinere.”
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 11
marred by the Complutensian editors as if they had used the
common accents.
The Greek type, in the New Testament, is large and peculiar:
in the LXX., however, they used such characters as were then
common.
The New Testament appeared with the brief title, ‘‘ Nouum
testamentum grece et latine in academia complutensi nouiter im-
pressum”; this is in the lower part of a page, above which (as in
the other volumes) appear the arms of the cardinal.
The Complutensian text never came into general use: before it
was published, another edition had pre-occupied the ground; it
was, however, followed by several impressions at a later period,
especially from the press of Plantin at Antwerp, and at Geneva.
There are passages in which the readings of this edition may
well be compared with those of Erasmus; some in which the
Latin and Greek texts differ will be noticed in speaking of the
Erasmian text.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 1.
Tue remarks on the Complutensian MSS. by Dr. James Thomson, and the
catalogue furnished to him by Don José Gutierrez, the librarian at Madrid,
were communicated to the Biblical Review: from that work they were trans-
ferred to the pages of at least one other periodical ; and it has been thought
well to insert them in this place because of their importance as bearing on the
history of the Complutensian text; and also in order to bring them before
some who might be unacquainted with them, as appearing only in periodical
publications.
On the catalogue, it may be remarked, that the Greek MS. of part of the
LXX. is in all probability the copy of the MS. of Bessarion, which was
transmitted from Venice to the cardinal; and that the Pentateuch and the
New Testament were probably those parts of the Scripture, for Greek copies
of which the editors were indebted to the papal library.
12 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
THE CRITICAL SOURCES OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN
POLYGLOT.*
REPRINTED FROM THE BIBLICAL REVIEW, NO. XV.
(To the Editors of The Biblical Review.)
London, February 4th, 1847.
Dear Sirs,—I take the liberty of forwarding to you a communication
analogous, as I conceive, to the objects of your Review, and I shall feel
obliged by your giving it a place in your periodical at your earliest con-
venience,
The first edition of the Greek New Testament ever printed, it is well
known, is that contained in the Complutensian Polyglot. It was printed in
1514, but was not issued to the public till 1522. In the meantime Erasmus
printed his edition in 1516, and reprinted it again in 1519 and 1522. The
editions following these, and which were printed in 1527 and 1535, were in
several places affected by the readings in the Complutensian. Stephens’s
edition afterwards, and also the Elzevir, were in like manner affected by the
Complutensian, and hence our Textus Receptus. From these circumstances,
and in consideration that the Complutensian Bible was the first Polyglot, and
published by a cardinal, it became an object of no little interest to know what
were the manuscripts used in the formation of this edition of the Bible.
In the earlier editions of the valuable work of the Rev. T. Hartwell Horne,
in his “ Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scrip-
tures,” there are some notices given respecting these manuscripts, on the
authority of Michaelis, but of a very discouraging nature. It is said that
when they were sought for, information was given, that they had for a long
time disappeared, having been sold, as waste materials, to be made into sky-
rockets.
Soon after I returned from South America, in 1825, I became acquainted
with several Spanish refugees then in London, and among these was a learned
Spanish priest, whose name is, I believe, pretty well known in this country,
—I mean Don Lorenzo Villanueva. I remember particularly having men-
tioned the opinion current respecting these manuscripts to this gentleman,
intimating that it would be desirable that a new search should be made for
them, as probably what had been reported concerning their fate might not be
true. Mr. Villanueva discredited the common report about these manuscripts,
* We are indebted for the following paper to Dr. James Thomson, a highly respected agent
of the Bible Society ; and we feel it due to that gentleman to express our gratitude for so valu-
able a communication.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 13
and expressed his belief of their existence still in Alcala, where they had been
deposited, and mentioned some circumstances in favour of his entertaining that
opinion on the subject.
On my return from Mexico, in 1844, I had thoughts of going into Spain
on the part of the Bible Society, and wished to obtain all the information I
could respecting that country. I had then the pleasure of becoming ac-
quainted with Don Pedro Gomez de la Serna, who had been one of the Secre-
taries of State during the regency of Espartero, and who came over to this
country with the ex-regent. This gentleman held for some time the situation
of Rector of the University of Madrid, which is the same establishment that
was formerly at Alcala, it having been some time ago removed from the latter
to the former place. I had thus a favourable opportunity of extending my
inquiries about these manuscripts. Mr. La Serna expressed his view as coincid-
ing with Mr. Villanueva’s, which I had mentioned to him, and indeed expressed
his confident belief as to the existence of the manuscripts entire at the present
day in the archives of that University, the same as they were left there by
Cardinal Ximenes. He had heard the report that was current about the van-
dalic destruction of these manuscripts, and felt grieved that his country in
this matter should have been thus maligned. In conversing further on this
subject, it was agreed that he should write to the present Rector of the Uni-
versity, who is his particular friend, in order to make the proper inquiries.
We soon heard from this gentleman, who stated that all the manuscripts were
there, and in good preservation. Subsequently the rector was written to by
his friend here, begging that a catalogue of the manuscripts might be sent ;
for it was desirable to know, not only their existence, but also what was the
nature of them, as bearing on the great subject of Biblical criticism. This
catalogue was sent, and is now in my hands. On mentioning the circum-
stances here noticed to Mr. Hartwell Horne, and inquiring of him what perio-
dical would be the most suitable for giving to the public this definite knowledge
of these interesting manuscripts, he mentioned yours.
It is to be understood, that the manuscripts in this catalogue are those
which belonged to the cardinal himself. There were others used besides in
the formation of his Polyglot, which were said to have been sent him from
Rome, and returned after the work was completed. Of these Roman manu-
scripts nothing is yet known, as to their number or value.
The last edition of Mr. Hartwell Horne’s work, published last year, came
into my hands soon after its issue, and on looking into it in regard to this sub-
ject, I found that the common and evil report respecting these manuscripts
had been changed, by a communication from Dr. Bowring, and I afterwards
learned that the two preceding editions contained the same notices. I in-
formed my friend La Serna of this more favourable view, and he was greatly
relieved by it.
It appears to me that it would be suitable to bring forward here all that has
been said against and for these manuscripts, that the whole subject might be
viewed together, many perhaps being little acquainted with the particulars of
14 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the case, I therefore give you, first, what is found in Marsh’s Michaelis, and
then the notices of Dr. Bowring, after which will follow the catalogue.
Before I close, I would beg leave to express my confident belief, arising
from the intercourse held with the parties concerned, that the freest access
will be given to any one, both to see, and also to examine with every minute-
ness, these manuscripts.
I remain, Gentlemen,
Respectfully and faithfully yours,
JamMES THoMsoNn.
See Marsh’s Michaelis on the New Testament, vol. ii. part i. pp. 440, 441:
—1793. After speaking of the arguments for and against the Complutensian
Polyglot, he says—
“Tn this situation it was natural for every friend to criticism to wish that the
manuscripts used in this edition, which might be supposed to have been preserved at
Alcala, should be collated anew. But the inconceivable ignorance and stupidity of a
librarian at Alcala, about the year 1749, has rendered it impossible that these wishes
should ever be gratified. Professor Moldenhawer, who was in Spain in 1784, went to
Alcala for the very purpose of discovering those manuscripts; and being able to find
none, suspected that they were designedly kept secret from him, though contrary to
the generous treatment which he had at other times experienced in that country. At
last he discovered that a very illiterate librarian, about thirty-five years before, who
wanted room for some new books, sold the ancient vellum manuscripts to one Toryo,
who dealt in fireworks, as materials for making rockets.”
In a note to this statement he says as follows :—
“The account which he gives is the following :—‘ As the University of Alcala has a
very considerable library, and has existed many centuries, it was reasonable to sup-
pose, that it contained many manuscripts. Gomez declares that they cost 4000 aurei,
and that among them were seven of the Hebrew Bible. In this library it is highly
probable that the Greek manuscripts were deposited which were used for the Com-
plutensian edition, and of which the German literati have so long wished to have
some intelligence. But all these manuscripts were sold in a lump, about thirty-five
years ago, to a rocket-maker of the name of Toryo, and were put down in the libra-
rian’s account como membranas inutiles.* Martinez, a man of learning, and particu-
larly skilled in the Greek language, heard of it soon after they were sold, and hastened
to save these treasures from destruction ; but it was too late, for they were already
destroyed, except a few scattered leaves, which are now preserved in the library.
That the number of manuscripts was very considerable, appears from the following
circumstance. One Rodan assured Bayer, that he had seen the receipt which was
given to the purchaser, from which it appeared that the money was paid at two dif-
ferent payments.”
See Monthly Repository, vol. xiv. p. 596, note. Dr. Bowring says, on
visiting Alcala, in 1819—
“T inquired for the manuscripts of Ximenes Cisneros: they had been cut up for
sky-rockets, to celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee.”
* As useless parchments.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 15
In the Monthly Repository, vol. xvi. p. 203, Dr. Bowring writes—
“Hackney, March 29th, 1821:—Having been instrumental in the circulation of a
misstatement, originally, but certainly unintentionally, made by Michaelis, I beg you
will allow me to correct it. That misstatement regarded the destruction of the
manuscripts at Alcala, from which Ximenes’ Polyglot was made.
“Those manuscripts never were employed, though the story has been frequently
repeated, for the purpose of making rockets. The oldest catalogue which exists of
the books at the Alcala University, is of the date of 1745. There is a prologue to it,
complaining of damage done to other manuscripts of less value, but no reference to
any loss of these scriptural documents. In the middle of the last century a famous
firework manufacturer (called Torija) lived at Alcala, but he was a man of letters,
with whom the most eminent of the professors were accustomed to associate; it is
impossible he should have been instrumental in such an act of barbarism. But what
demonstrates the falsity of the supposition is that Alvaro Gomez, who, in the 16th
century, published his work ‘ De rebus gestis Cardinalis Francisci Ximenes de Cis-
neros,’ there affirms that the number of Hebrew manuscripts in the University was
only seven, and seven is the number that now remains.
“ The period in which these manuscripts are said to have been so indignantly treated,
was one when the library was under the judicious care of a man of considerable emi-
nence, and when the whole of the manuscripts, amounting to 160, were handsomely
bound. There are at Alcala, indeed, no Greek manuscripts of the whole Bible; but
we are told by Gomez, that Leo the X. lent to Ximenes those he required from the
Vatican, which were returned as soon as the Polyglot was completed. These were
probably taken charge of by Demetrius, the Greek, who was sent into Spain at this
period by the Pope. It must not be forgotten that Ximenes’ character was one of a
strange affection for economy, of which everything at Alcala bears proofs. That
which he could borrow he would not buy. His ambition, proud as it was, was minis-
tered to by his avarice as well as his vanity —JoHn BowRING.”
“ Catdlogo de los Codices manuscritos que se tuvieron presentes a la formacion de la
Biblia Complutense, fielmente sacado del tndice de la Biblioteca de la Universidad
de Alcala, hoy de esta corte, por Don Josée Gutierrez, oficial de la misma*
Manuscritos Latinos.+
Biblia Latina maxims molis charactere Gothico antiquissimo exarata, cui Complu-
tenses in prologo ad Biblia plus octingentos annos antiquitatis tribuebant, quod
etiam ab illis scriptum legitur ad calcem annotationum in Liram de differentiis
Vet. Testam. ubi sic habent et notandum quod..... intelligimus quosdam vetus-
tissimos Codices Gothicis characteribus propter nimiam antiquitatem scriptos, quos
constat esse a temporibus destructionis Hispanize fueruntque reperti in civitate
Toletana et deinde in Libraria Collegii Complutensis collocati: totum Vetus et
Novum Testamentum comprehendit. Sed sunt ibi alia Biblia Latina ejusdem folii
et characteris, ut ab eadem manu conscripta videri possint, nisi quia horum charac-
ter paulo rotundior est: Codex est ejusdem molis ac precedens preter crassitud.
incipiens ab ultimis verbis cap. 7, Proverb. et terminat in Apocalypsi. Principio et
* Catalogue of the Manuscripts which were used in the formation of the Complutensian Poly-
glot, faithfully copied from the list in the Library of the University of Alealé [Complutum], now
of Madrid, by Don José Gutierrez, Librarian.
+ Latin Manuscripts.
16 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
fine caret, estque ejusdem omnino note cum precedenti. Utrumque Vol. mem-
branaceum.— Dos tomos, en pasta. [Two volumes, bound.]}
Biblia Latina duobus voluminibus maxim molis comprehensa: continentur hec et
hoc ordine: Genesis initio carens ad cap. 12. Exodus, 4 Regum defectivus: Isaias,
Hieremisz Prophetia: Baruch: cetera Hieremie (cujus Lamentationes iterum scri-
buntur ad marginem cum notis musicis, quod in aliis quoque libris fit,) Ezequiel,
Prophetz minores, Job, Psalmi, Proverbia, Parabole, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Sapi-
entia, Ecclesiastici queedam, varia particularium dierum Evangelia: totum Novum
Testamentum suo ordine.—Apocalypsis liber defectivus est a cap. 25. Codices
membranacei quorum character crassus est, et quadratus cum frequentibus ad
marginem notis, licet minutiore charactere et alterius recentioris nonnunquam de
horum antiquitate sic Complutenses ad Liram ubi supra: sunt etiam ibi in Biblio-
theca Complutensis Collegii alii codices licet non tam antiqui, sed tamen cum illis
antiquissimis mirum in modum concordantes: videntur seeculi XII.—Dos tomos,
en pasta. .
Psalterium et Cantica cum glossa, acephalos et ateles. Codex Latinus membrana-
ceus, charactere rotundo eodem cum eo qui est in glossa ad epistolas Pauli ut idem
calamus videtur.— Un tomo, en pasta. [ One volume, bound.]}
Commentaria in Apocalypsim Sancti Joannis. Codex membranaceus, charactere
quadrato descriptus: de auctore nil constat, aut de tempore; videtur tamen esse
satis antiquus.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Pauli Apostoli (S.) Epistole: cum glossa seu expositione marginali et interlineali
characteris minutioris. Codex membranaceis foliis affabre perpolitis exaratus,
cujus literee initiales miniaturis, et flosculis ornantur. Nil legitur de tempore, sed
est valde antiquus.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Expositio sive Commentaria Historica in Lib. Numerorum a cap. 1, usque ad XTX.
inclusive. Codex papyraceus charactere cursivo veteri exaratus, in quo nihil de
ejus Auct. et vetustate legitur.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Novum Testamentum 4 DD. Complutensibus annotatum, quorum annotationes post
illum seorsim collects reperiuntur: Codex papyraceus cujus character illius tem-
poris est, quo Biblia Complutensia elaborabantur. Item: adjunguntur Laurentii
Valle Adnotationes apprime utiles in Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem,
ex collatione Grecorum exemplarium Parisiis preelo excusse typis Ascensianis
Anno 1505, cum prologo Desiderii Erasmi Roterdami. Item: aliud opusculum
itidem preelo excussum sine loco et anno cui titulus ; Interpretationes Hebreeorum,
Chaldeorum, Greecorumque nominum Novi Testamenti.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Scripture Sacre Vocabulorum Acceptiones, sive significationes varie, que in diversis
sacree pagine locis jacent incognite. Codex membranaceus innominati auctoris,
charactere quadrato antiquo exaratus, in quo nil de tempore constat.— Un tomo, en
pasta.
Expositio sive Commentaria Latina in Psalmos, innominati auctoris. Preecedit pro-
logus, qui quidem videtur esse epistola Divi Hieronimi. Codex membranaceus,
charactere quadrato minuto exaratus anno D.N.I. 1269, ut patet ex nota quad. in
primo fol.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Sanctorale maxime molis in tria volumina divisum, sanctorum vitas per ordinem
dierum anni continens: Primum incipit a D. Stephano (nam acephalon est,) et
desinit in vitam S. Pontii Martyris V. id. Maii: Secundum a D. Marcellino, et
Petro, die mensis Julii secunda, et explicit in translatione S. Nicolai fine mensis
Augusti: Tertium incipit a D. Antonio, cui precedit vite alterius (forte Divi
/Xgydii Abbatis) fragmentum, et finit in translatione S. Isidori die 25 Decembris ;
litera est initialis, qualis in libris Chori, Ecclesizeque usui deservit ; litter initiales
quee plane maxime sunt, auro, minioque, et aliis coloribus mirifice variegatee exor-
nantur, quarum non paucee ayulse sunt propter incuriam, ut nonnulle que in ipso
*
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. LZ
operis ordine in Codicibus deesse deprehenduntur; nam codices imperfecti sunt
initio, et calce, preeter tertium cui in fine nil deest—TZres tomos, en pasta. [Three
volumes, bound. | :
Manuscritos Hebreos y Griegos.*
Bibliorum volumen Greecum incipiens a Lib. Judicum, et expliciens lib. Macha-
beorum: Codex membranaceus, charactere cursivo exaratus. Videtur esse unum
ex transcriptis que ex Bessarionis Codice 4 Venetorum senatu Em™ Cardinali
Ximenio ad Bibliorum editionem missz ; memoratur in Prol. ad Lectorem Biblio-
rum Complutensium.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Bibliorum volumina duo Chaldaica cum Latina interpretatione 6 regione apposita,
quorum primum continet Prophetas: secundum ad Esther, ad Cantica Canticorum
cum notis manu Alphonsi de Zamora ad marginem appositis: opus ab AA. Com-
plutensibus elaboratum, sed in suis Bibliis omissum; editum autem a Benedicto
Aria Montano in Bibliis Regiis in regione inferiore, qua de causa vide ibi in eorum
prologo. Codices 2 membranacei anno 1517 exarati, ut videre est in notis ad caleem
ipsorum appositis—Dos tomos, en pasta.
Bibliorum volumen Hebraicum continens Pentateuchum a cap. 9. Geneseos cum
Paraphrasi Chaldaica et Rabbinica ad margines: sequuntur varia Veteris Testa-
menti capitula cum eadem Paraphrasi: ultimum caput ex Hzechiele desumitur nec
finitur, caret enim fine. Codex membranaceus, charactere grandiori, elegante et
quadrato exaratus cum Massora recensione quod ex atramenti diversitate colliqui-
tur. De ejus antiquitate nil inibi legitur, est tamen valde vetus.—Un tomo, en
pasta.
Biblia Hebraica charactere quadrato elegantissimo conscripta, ad cujus finem notam
oblongam charactere itidem Hebraico, rudioris tamen formee exhibet in qua legitur
nobilissimos R. Isaac et R. Abraham medicos, honorabilis R. Maimonidis filios,
sacrum hoc volumen sibi pretio comparasse Toleti anno mundi 5040 (Christi 1280).
Codex est membranaceus omnes Veteris Testamenti Libros in Canone Judeorum
receptos, continens, auro aliisque coloribus in initialibus venuste ornatus. Ad
margines invenitur Massora parva et magna diversi, ut videtur, atramenti, literis
minutissimis hine inde in varias figuras et flosculos artificiosissime redactis et con-
tortis, ut fert Judeorum consuetudo. Id vero maxime reddit hune codicem com-
mendatione dignum, antiquitatem adeo miram redolere, ut saltem cum antiquioribus
etiam Pentateucho Dominicano Bononiensi merito contendere possit.— Un tomo, en
pasta.
Al final de esta Biblia se lee la siguiente :—' Vota: Rabbi Joseph Erasmo Moyses
Judio convertido a nuestra santa feé cathdlica dixo al ver esta Biblia el ano
1756. *Que no tenia semejante, que no habia otra; que no habia precio a su
digna estimacion: que sus notas al margin la hacian tan singular que a cogerlas
los Judios las pusieran entre diamantes.’—Ponela de antiguedad como de 1800
anos. Es hombre muy erudito en Hebreo y Biblias. Mui conocido en especial
en Salamanca, donde ensend. Estuvo aqui el aiio de 1756.—Tiene este libro
trescientas trienta y ocho fojas utiles.+
Biblia item Hebraica alia integra nitidissimo quoque charactere exarata cum Mas-
sora, et aureis literis in Librorum initiis, ad cujus caleem hee nota Hebraico idio-
* Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts.
t At the end of this Bible there is the following :—‘ Note: Rabbi Joseph Erasmus Moses, a
Jew converted to our holy Catholic faith, said, on seeing this Bible in the year 1756, ‘that there
was none like it, or at all equal to it, that it was above all price, that the notes in the margin
made it so singular, that the Jews, could they obtain it, would enclose it with diamonds, He
gave to it an antiquity of 1800 years. This individual was very learned in the Hebrew language,
and skilled in regard to Bibles. He was well known, especially in Salamanca, where he gave in-
structions, He was in Madrid in 1756,’—This Book contains 338 leaves, in good condition.
18 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
mate legitur: Ego Jom tov* filius sapientis Rabbi Isahac sat. Amarilio scripsi
hunc librum, qui vocatur Sanctuarium Domini. ..... et perfeci illum in mense
Thebeth anni creationis generis nostri 242 sexti millenarii in Tarasonah— Un
tomo, en pasta.
Zamora (Alphonsi de) Interpretationes Chaldeorum, Hebreorum atque Grecorum
nominum in tota serie Latini Canonis, tam Veter. quam Novi Testamenti conten-
torum. Codex autographus.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Zamora (Alphonsi de) Interpretatio Latina ex Hebraico Veteris Testamenti ad ver-
bum interlinealis tribus codicibus, quorum primus continet Genesim, secundus
Exodum, tertius Prophetas majores: Codices papyrac. autographi—TZves tomos, en
pasta.
Pentateuchum Chaldaicum cum Targ. Codex membranaceus alicubi in papyro a
Zamora suppletus: antiquitas ejus non claret, nam initio et fine carebat nisi a
Zamora perficeretur.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Abraham (Rabbi Aben Ezree) Peruse. in Genesim et Exodum: Codex papyraceus
cum membranis interjectis, charactere Rabbinico exaratus, antiquus, sed nil est
certum.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Kimchi (Rabbi David) Perus. Sepher Jieshaian, sive expositio libri Isais. Codex
papyraceus elegans, charactere Rabbinico exaratus; ad medium ejus legitur nota
scribes que sic habet: Ego Salomon Ben Abraham ..... scripsi hance exposi-
tionem, et conclusi illam ..... in anno 206, minor. supput. Christi 1446. In fine
defectivus est, et in principio ab Alphonso de Zamora quod deerat, suppletus.— Un
tomo, en pasta.
Chaiim (Rabbi Ben Samuelis) forte Toletanus ille, de quo Bartol. part. 2, folio 837,
cod. 541). Paraphrasis in Esaiam, Hebraico Idiomate. Codex papyraceus cum
pauculis membranis interjectis, charactere Rabbinico exaratus, et alicubi ab Al-
phonso de Zamora suppletus, cujus est nota ad calcem ubi dicit se hujus libri defec-
tus supplevisse anno Christi 1532: huic alia antecedit nota, ubi dicitur librum esse
Rabbi Chaiim Ben Samuelis, et scriptum fuisse anno mundi 5291, Christi 1241.
Hujus note calamus idem est, qui totum librum exaravit.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Pentateuchum Hebraicum in initio et fine ab Alphonso de Zamora suppletus in
papyro : membranaceus codex, charactere quadrato eleganti exaratus sine temporis
nota.— Un tomo, en pasta.
Psalterium Grecum: Codex papyraceus incipiens ab ultimo versu primi psalmi (nam
cetera desunt) antiquus, ut ex charactere patet, sed ibi nil certum legitur.— Un
tomo, en pasta.
Los trienta voliumenes que espresa este catalogo se hallan todos hoy dia de la
fecha en la Biblioteca de la Universidad Literaria de esta Corte—Madrid seis
de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis.— El oficial de Biblioteca,
JOSE GUTIERREZ.” +
* The two words (Jom tov) are copied exactly from the manuscript.
+ The thirty volumes which this Catalogue contains, are all at the present time in the Library
of the University of Literature in this city.—Madrid, 6th May, 1846.
JOSE GUTIERREZ, Librarian.
[This catalogue appears to be verbally incorrect in a few places; it is here
simply reprinted: it supplies more positive information as to the other parts of
the Complutensian edition, than as to the New Testament. ]
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 19
§ 2—THE EDITIONS OF ERASMUS.
ALTHOUGH Cardinal Ximenes had caused the first Greek New
Testament to be printed, yet from his deferring its publication
until the whole of his Polyglot should be finished, the first pud-
lished Greek Testament was given to the world by others. The
enterprise of FROBEN, the printer of Basle, and the editorial care
of ERASMUS, anticipated the work prepared under the patronage
of Ximenes.
The first edition of Erasmus had found its way to Spain while
Cardinal Ximenes was yet living: and although he saw that
his own edition was anticipated, he had the nobility of spirit to
repress the remarks by which Stunica sought to depreciate the
work which a rival scholar had edited. ‘I would (he said) that
all might thus prophesy (referring to Num. xi. 29); produce what
is better, if thou canst; do not condemn the industry of another.”
It appears that Froben, the printer of Basle, wished to anticipate
the edition of the Greek Testament which was (as he heard) in
preparation in Spain. He, therefore, knowing that Erasmus had
paid attention to the Greek MSS. of the sacred volume, caused
application to be made to him, through a friend, proposing that
is should be immediately undertaken at his office.
This was on April 17, 1515. It seems as if Erasmus had
before this made some preparations for such a work, as to the
revised Latin translation, which accompanied his Greek Testa-
ment, and the annotations which were subjoined. All these parts
had, however, yet to be brought into a suitable form for publica-
tion. Krasmus was in England when the proposition of Froben
was sent to him; this was reiterated; and not only did this
energetic printer ask him to undertake the New Testament, but
he also made application to him for his editorial care for various
other works. He seems to have reached Basle in the course of
the summer of 1515; but on Sept. 11, it was as yet undetermined
whether the Latin translation should stand by the side of the
Greek in a parallel column, or should appear in a separate volume;
20 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
for on that day Gerbelius wrote to Erasmus on the subject, strongly
advising that the Greek text should be separate, for convenience
of use and portability. A few days after this, Gicolampadius
joined Erasmus at Basle to assist him in correcting the proof
sheets; for he was at this same time over-occupied in editing the
works of Jerome, as well as other literary labours.
In less than six months from the commencement of the print-
ing, the whole volume was completed.* The date on the back
of the title page is ‘‘ Sexto Calendas Martias, anno M.D.XVI”;
that at the end of the dedication to Pope Leo X. is “*M.D.XVI.
Calendis Februariis”; at the end of the whole volume, is ‘¢‘ Mense
Februario, anno M.D.XVI.”; while at the end of the annotations
the date is given ‘‘ M.D.X VI. Kalendis Marti.”
The publication appears to have taken place immediately.
Erasmus mentions in his letters, that copies were at once sent to
various persons besides Pope Leo, to whom it was dedicated. As
the first publication in print of the original text of the Christian
Scriptures, its appearance was an event of no small importance.
We may, indeed, regard it as a mark of the overruling of God’s
providence that just before the Reformation was about to burst
forth, leading so many to inquire into the Scripture doctrine of
justification through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, 1t was so
ordered that the Scripture in the original language should appear,
so as to lead inquirers to study it in the tongue in which it was
given forth by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
The first edition of Erasmus was thus printed and published in
extreme haste.t The MSS. used for it are still, for the most
part, preserved in the library at Basle, so that we are not left to
mere conjecture as to their value and antiquity. Erasmus seems
* Nouum instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et
emendatum, non solum ad Grecam ueritatem uerum etiam ad multorum utriusq;
linguee codicum eorumq; ueterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad pro-
batissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem et interpretationem, precipue,
Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarij, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosij, Hilarij,
Augustini, una cum annotationibus, que lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione muta-
tum sit.
+ Wetstein indeed asks, “ At quomodo ipsam festinationem excusavit, aut quis
ipsum eo adegit ut festinaret 2?” The fact of the case, however, was that Erasmus
was in Froben’s hands, who would leave no stone unturned to get his edition into the
hands of the public before that which was already finished at Alcala.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 21
in general to have used them as diligently as the extreme speed
that was needed, allowed. For the Apocalypse he had but one
mutilated MS., borrowed from Reuchlin, in which the text and
commentary were intermixed almost unintelligibly. And thus
he used here and there the Latin Vulgate for his guide, retrans-
lating into Greek as well as he could. This was the case with
regard to the last six verses, which from the mutilated condition
of his MS. were wholly wanting.
In other places, also, he used the Latin Vulgate to supply what
he supposed to be deficient in his MSS., in the same manner in
which the Complutensian editors had done, only with greater
frequency.
The publication of Erasmus’s first edition excited great atten-
tion amongst scholars and theologians. There were many who
hailed its appearance, while others condemned it on every pos-
sible ground. If he had been content with publishing the Greek
text, or if he had only subjoined the Latin Vulgate, as then in
common use, all might have been well; but his own revised Latin
version was regarded as such an innovation, that every variation
from what had been commonly read, was regarded as presumption
or even as heresy. In fact the outcry with which Jerome had
once been assailed was now renewed against Erasmus. The anno-
tations also by which he justified what were regarded as his in-
novations were fresh causes of displeasure to many amongst the
monkish theologians of the day.
He did not insert the testimony of the heavenly witnesses,
1 John v. 7, and this was a ground of suspicion on the part of
many. It was in vain for him to say that it was not his place, as
an editor, to add to the Greek text which was before him; he was
treated (as other critics have since been) as though it had been
his duty to have invented evidence when he did not find it. The
controversies in which Erasmus was involved, in consequence of
the publication of his Greek Testament, are not without instruc-
tion to us; for we thus see what were the opinions on critical
subjects which were current in that day. He was attacked by
Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, and also by Stunica,
the Complutensian editor. The ignorance and presumption of the
former, are such as might seem almost incredible. If Erasmus’s
22 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
MSS. did not contain what Lee said ought to have been there,
he should have condemned and rejected them as worthless!
Stunica was an antagonist of a different stamp ;* and he had the
tact to point out the marks of overhaste in the edition of Eras-
mus, and to object to those things which really required correc-
tion.
Especially did Lee and Stunica complain of the omission of
1 John v. 7; and it was in vain for Erasmus to answer that this
was a case not of omission, but simply of non-addition. He showed
that even some Latin copies did not contain the verse; and that
Cyril of Alexandria, in his ‘‘ Thesaurus,” so cited the context of
the passage as to show that he knew nothing of the words in
question. All this availed nothing in a dispute with dogmatic
reasoners. At length Erasmus promised that if a Greek MS.
were produced which contained the words, he would insert
them. It was some time, however, before such a MS. made its
appearance. In the course of the discussions on this passage,
the authority of the Codex Vaticanus was appealed to for the first
time in a point of criticism. Erasmus requested his friend,
Paulus Bombasius, at Rome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for
him as to this passage; and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome,
June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory
verses of both the 4th and the 5th chapters of St. John’s lst
Epistle.
In the course of these discussions Erasmus expressed an opinion,
that Greek MSS. which contained any such passages must have
been altered from the Latin subsequently to the council of Florence,
in the fifteenth century. This was apparently suggested to have
been a secret agreement of that council. Much has been made of
this hint of Erasmus by later writers, as if the alteration of Greek
* The manner in which the Complutensian editors speak of the Apocryphal books
has been noticed above. It is rather curious to observe that Erasmus in his reply
to Lee (Ad notationes novas XXV.), alludes to them with much greater veneration,
as being received fully by the church. It is probable from this that in different
countries, before the council of Trent, they were regarded in very different ways,
and that their canonisation by that council arose (as has been thought) rather from
mistake, than from any other cause. Erasmus speaks of the Apocryphal books of
Esdras (amongst the rest), “que nunc Ecclesia sine discrimine legit ;’—both of
which books were rejected at Trent.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 23
MSS. to make them suit the Latin version had been a thing
practised in early ages.*
In proof that Erasmus at times used the Vulgate to amend his
Greek MSS., where he thought them defective, we need only turn
to his annotations for proof. Thus, Acts ix. 5, 6, we find in the
annotations: ‘Durum est tibi.) In grecis codicibus id non additur
hoc loco, cum mox sequatur, Surge; sed aliquanto inferius, cum
narratur hee res.” And yet in his text there is the full passage,
answering to the Latin, oxdypov cou mpos Kévtpa Raxtiver"
Tpéuov Te Kat OapPav citer, Kipie TL we Oéreis TrovjoaL; Kal 6
KUpLOS TrpOS avTOV, avdaorTyO1, instead of the simple reading adda
avacrTnt.
Again, on Acts viii. 37, the note is, “‘ Dixit autem Philippus,
Si credis &.) et usque ad eum locum. Et jussit stare currum,
non reperi in Greco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum
incuria. Nam et hec in quodam codice greco asscripta reper sed
in margine.” And this verse, little as is its claim to be considered
part of Holy Scripture, was inserted by Erasmus, as being sup-
posed to have been incorrectly omitted in his MSS.; and from his
edition, this and similar passages have been perpetuated, just as
if they were undoubtedly genuine. In such cases, we repeatedly
find the Complutensian editors, in spite of their reverence for the
Vulgate, give the Greek as they found it in their copies; although
from their mode of editing they must have been very well aware
of the difference between it and the Latin by the side; where, in
.fact, they fill up the Greek column in such a manner as to make
the variation conspicuous. In such places, if the Complutensian
text had ever acquired a place in common use, the many who now
uphold what they read, traditionally, just because they are ac-
customed to it, would have been as strenuous in repudiating words
as spurious, as they now are in defending them as genuine.
But let us make whatever deductions are needful, still Erasmus
is entitled to our thanks for the labour which he undertook and
* Some of Stunica’s criticisms on Erasmus are singularly amusing. The Complu-
tensian text had spelled Spain in Rom. xv., Iorava, as it stands in a few of the later
MSS.; Erasmus had spelled it Sravia; it is scarcely credible that Stunica should
have charged Erasmus with casting an intentional slight upon his country, by taking
away one of the letters with which it is spelled.
24 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
accomplished, in spite of so many hindrances. He furnished the
Greek readers of the Word of God with the first published edition,
six years before they could have obtained that which had been
prepared under the auspices of Ximenes.
The next published edition was that which appeared at Venice
in 1518, at the end of the Aldine LXX. It was taken from the
first edition of Erasmus, to whom it was dedicated. Of course, it
omitted the text, 1 John v. 7.
In March, 1519, Erasmus’s second edition was published,*
while he himself was absent from Basle: he employed much of
the time which had passed since the appearance of his first edition
in examining MSS., and in revising and improving his own Latin
translation.
To this edition was prefixed a letter of thanks, which Pope
Leo X. had addressed to Erasmus the preceding year, for his
Greek Testament. And yet, in his prefaces, sentiments had been
expressed but little in accordance with papal dogmas. He had
spoken of the importance of Holy Scripture to all Christians; and
had expressed a wish that it might be so translated and used, as
not to be in the hands of the learned merely, but also of the
common people, such (he specifies) as the Scots and Irish. Little
did the Pope think that in encouraging the publication of Holy
Scripture, he was sharpening that weapon which the Spirit of
God was about to use so powerfully against Rome, and Romish
doctrine and practice. Perhaps Erasmus, who was so conscious
of the evils which arose from ignorance of Holy Scripture, —
would have recoiled from the work in which he was engaged, if
he could only have seen the use which God would make of the
New Testament, in the hands of the Christian people, even in his
own day.
* In the title page of this edition, the extraordinary error was corrected which had
appeared in the title page of the first; in which Vulgarius appeared as the name of
a person; this only having been, by mistake, formed by Erasmus from Bulgaria,
the region of which Theophylact was archbishop.
+ In writing from Louvain, to Pirckheimer, Erasmus says, “ Novum Testamentum,
quod pridem Basile precipitatum, verius quam editum, retexo ac recudo, et ita
recudo, ut aliud opus sit futurum. Absolvetur, ut spero, inter quatuor menses.” This
letter is dated Nov. 2, 1517, in the printed editions: it can, however, hardly admit of
a doubt that the year should be 1518. The arrangement of Erasmus’s letters, as to
years, is all confusion.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. . 25
As to this second edition, Erasmus enjoyed comparative leisure;
he was not over-worked in reading proof sheets and copying for
the press, so as to be hardly able to accomplish the work pressing
on him. In this edition, others undertook the labour of correct-
ing what he transmitted to Basle.
The places in which the text was altered in this edition were
(according to Mill) four hundred; many of these were the errata
which had arisen from over-haste in the execution of the first
edition. It may be doubted whether all the changes were im-
provements. The text 1 John v. 7 was still not introduced.
Erasmus was not able, however, to bestow on this edition all the
care that he desired; he was hindered, he says, by the state of his
health.
It is not often that we know, with any exactitude, the number
of copies of an edition of any work which were published in early
times: we are, however, informed in one place by Erasmus, that
the numbers unitedly of his first two editions amounted to three
thousand three hundred: how many of these belonged respectively
to each edition, we do not know. The whole of these, however,
were in circulation by the year 1522, as is shown by Erasmus
then bringing out his third edition. This shows that the demand
for the Greek New Testament was considerable; and that Froben
had shown his judgment, in taking steps to meet a requirement
on the part of theological students.
The revision of the Latin version of Erasmus, in his edition of
1519, raised up against him yet more enemies. In his first edi-
tion, he retained, in the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, the
expression of the Vulgate, ‘‘ In principio erat Verbum”: in 1519,
however, he followed the phraseology of the early Latin fathers,
substituting ‘‘ Sermo” for ‘‘ Verbum.” This was deemed almost,
if not quite, a heresy; and he had to defend himself, in conse-
quence, against many attacks.*
Erasmus’s third edition appeared in 1522; in this he introduced
the verse 1 John v. 7, in fulfilment of his promise that he would
* Erasmus gives a curious account of the effect which this change of a word pro-
duced in England among some. A bishop (whose name he suppresses) was preaching
at “ Paul’s Cross,” when he went out of his way to attack EKrasmus’s new translation.
Tt was a shameful thing for those who had been so long doctors of divinity, to have
26 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
do so, if it were found in any Greek MS. Between 1519 and
1522, a MS. was brought forward in England, containing the
verse in a particular form; and he inserted it, not as convinced of
its genuineness, but to redeem his promise, and to take away the
handle for calumniating him which had been afforded by his ho-
nestly following his MSS. in this passage. The verse in question
continued to hold its place in the other editions of Erasmus, and
in those which were taken from them; it was, however, soon
moulded into a grammatical form, and one which did not so fully
display its origin in the Latin Vulgate as did the MS. from which
it was taken.*
This third edition differed from the text of the preceding (ac-
cording to Mill) in 118 places: several of the amended readings
were such as Erasmus took from the tacit corrections which had
been introduced into the Aldine reprint of his own first edition.
Soon after the appearance of Erasmus’s third edition, the Com-
to go to school again,—for such to receive instruction from any mere Greekling. At
length his zeal waxed so warm (he said) that he called on the lord mayor of London,
who was present, and on the citizens for aid, that-they would show themselves men,
and not suffer such new translations, which subvert the authority of Holy Scripture,
to obtain farther currency!
* The Codex Britannicus to which Erasmus referred is the Codex Montfortianus,
now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. His note on the place, in his third
edition, concludes thus: “ Verumtamen ne guid dissimulem repertus est apud Anglos
Greecus codex unus in quo habetur quod in Vulgatis deest. Scriptum est enim hune
ad modum, dr: zpeis cioily ot paprupodrtes ev TH ovpave, waTyp, Adyos, Kat mrEda* Kal oDTOL oF
Tpeis Ev eiouv.. Kai rpeis eigiv maptupovvtes ev TH yi Tvedma, Vdwp, Kai alua el THY MapTUpiay TOV
avOparwv, etc. Quanquam haud scio an casu factum sit, ut hoc loco non repetatur
quod est in Greetis nostris, cai oi rpeis cis 7d Ev cio. Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico
reposuimus, quod in nostris dicebatur deesse: ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Tametsi
suspicor codicem illum ad nostros esse correctum. Duos consului codices mire
vetustatis Latinos in bibliotheca que Brugis est divi Donatiani. Neuter habebat
testimonium patris, verbi, et spiritus. Ac ne illud quidem in altero addebatur, In
terra. Tantum erat, Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua, et sanguis.”
Accordingly in this form the passage stands in Erasmus’s third edition, only é&y.or is
added after wvedua, ot is inserted before the second paprupodrres, and xot before tdwp
(the two former of these words are thus in the MS.); the discrepancy between the
text and the note probably arose from an oversight in copying. Erasmus did not
omit the end of verse 8.
In his subsequent editions, he inserted the articles before maryp, Asyos and: mvetpa
(though he did not make a similar improvement in verse 8); and when subsequent
editors had grammatically placed ay.ov between the article and the substantive, the
verse assumed, in the common editions, the form which it has retained. Its origin,
however, is clear: the Complutensian editors translated it from the modern Latin,
and so did the writer of the Dublin MS.; the latter, however, was too clumsy even to
insert the articles.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 27
plutensian Polyglot found its way into general circulation. This
edition consisted of six hundred copies; and, though it might do
something towards supplying the demand which had sprung up
for the original Scriptures, yet the number of copies was too
limited. for it to be able to supersede in common use the Erasmian
text.
In the Apocalypse, however, it was superior to the mere piece-
meal text which Erasmus had been able to give; and thus, when
that critic published his fourth edition in 1527, there were at least
ninety readings in that book alone which had been emended on
the authority of the Complutensian: more corrections might have
been made; but Erasmus seems to have forgotten what all the
places were which he had himself turned into Greek, ten years
before, to supply the defects of his MS. If it is wonderful that
he should have allowed such readings to remain, is it not still
more wonderful that, for three hundred years, they have been
repeated in the common editions, although their origin has been
a matter of common knowledge?
Erasmus has often been blamed for using the Aldine reprint of
his own first edition as if it were a distinct authority. But it
appears from Erasmus's own words, that he was not aware that
such was the case. Indeed he could not have known it, for some
time at least; for he wrote from Louvain, or Antwerp, to his
friends at Basle, before the appearance of his second edition, re-
questing them to restore the concluding verses of the Revelation,
in accordance with the Aldine.* Hence the idea seems to have
been received, that there was MS. authority for what really rests
on none.
Except in the Revelation, Mill says, the fourth edition of Eras-
mus differed only in about ten places from his third. This fourth
edition differs from all the others published by Erasmus, in having
two Latin versions by the side of the Greek,—that of Erasmus
himself, and the Vulgate. It was thus thought, that the severe
* “Cum igitur Basileam mitterem recognitum exemplar, scripsi amicis, ut ex edi-
tione Aldina restituerent eum locum. Nam mihi nondum emptum erat hoc opus.
Id ita, ut jussi, factum est.”"—Eyrasmi Apologia ad Leum. 1520. This quotation is
taken from Wetstein, Proleg., p. 126; for this Apologia is not included in Erasmus’s
collected works.
28 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
-censures cast upon the new translation might be shown to be
undeserved.
In the fifth edition of Erasmus, published in 1535, the year
before his death, the text differs scarcely at all from that of the
year 1527 (Mill says only in four places); and as the fifth edition
of Erasmus is the substantial basis of the text which has com-
monly been used, and as that edition scarcely varies from the
fourth, we may look on the edition of 1527 as containing really that
revision of the text, which has obtained a kind of permanency.
Erasmus’s materials were but few, in comparison with those
which have been since available for purposes of criticism; they
were also comparatively modern; they might, indeed, have been
used to more advantage; but still, while criticism was in its
infancy, it is not too much to say that Erasmus’s name is
entitled to a high place amongst those who have laboured in this
field; and, had he possessed the materials since brought to light,
no one would have valued more than he those ancient MSS. and
versions, on the authority of which the New Testament might now
be edited.
He valued the readings of his Greek MSS. far more highly than
those of the Vulgate, in its condition after having suffered from
the hands of ignorant and careless transcribers. Had he, however,
extensively used ancient Latin MSS. (such, for instance, as those
which he mentions that he saw at Bruges), he would have found
that they would give a very different notion of the version of
Jerome from that which could be obtained from those in common
use. And had he been so situated, as to be able to use the more
ancient Greek MSS. (or those whose text agrees with such),* he
would have found himself in possession of ancient authority, both
Greek and Latin, in a sort of general accordance.
For, whatever may be said of the text which he produced,
Erasmus valued ancient testimony to readings. Thus his note on
Acts xiii. 33 is the following:—‘‘ Quidam codices habebant in
* Only one such MS. appears to have fallen under Erasmus’s own notice. This is
the MS. at Basle numbered 1 in the Gospels. This he thought to be of but little
value, from its readings being so different from the common Greek copies. In fact,
the MS. of the Gospels which he put for copy into the compositors’ hands, is one of
exceedingly little value. It still has the marks of Erasmus’s corrections, and the
printer’s notices of the beginnings of the folios,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 29
psalmo secundo, quidam, in psalmo, omisso numero. At Hierony-
mus palam testatur in Actis hunc psalmum qui apud nos secundus.
est, primi titulo citari; et hinc sumit* argumentum, aut primum
illum, Beatus vir, prefationis additur vice, aut illum et proxi-
mum, Quare fremuerunt, eundem esse psalmum.f Proinde nos
his autoribus germanam restituimus scripturam.” Thus he gives
the reading of the passage év TO Warues TO pore, considering
that the absolute evidence which he possessed was sufficient au-
thority to warrant his changing one word. This may be taken as
an illustration how Erasmus would have formed his conclusions if
ancient evidence had been before him. This is one of the places
in which the commonly received text did not follow Erasmus:
had it been otherwise, this reading would have been certainly
upheld, maintained, and defended by those who now condemn it
as an innovation.}
Thus it was that the Greek New Testament was published in
print, just in the same manner as other ancient works appeared:
in all such cases, the MSS. which came first to hand were used;
and with regard to almost all other works, pains were continually
taken to use such materials as might come to light for correcting
the text, and causing it the more exactly to represent the original
work as first written.
The Greek New Testament, however, soon became, as it were,
stereotyped in men’s minds; so that the readings originally edited
on most insufficient MS. authority, were supposed to possess some
prescriptive right, just as if (to use Dr. Bentley’s phrase) an
apostle had been the compositor. Dogmatic discussions (of deep
and real importance in themselves) occupied the minds of theolo-
gians; and thus textual criticism was neglected, or even shunned,
by those who ought to have cultivated it, as intimately connected
with true reverence for God’s inspired and holy word.
* The above citation is from Erasmus’s first edition, in which, however, this word
is erroneously printed “sumunt”; it is corrected in the edition of 1522, in which this
note also is expanded.
+ The edition of 1522 here adds, “Idem prodit ferme Hilarius, illud ingenue tes-
tatus, hunc primum citari a Paulo. Quin et divus Augustinus in commentariis
indicat hunc potius esse unum quam primum.”
t It is proper to add, for the reader’s information, that zpd7» is expressly stated to
be the reading by Origen, and that it is found in the Codex Beze (D). Tertullian
also (Adv. Mare. lib. iv. 22) cites the passage as from the first psalm,
30 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
§ 3—THE EDITIONS OF STEPHENS, BEZA, AND
THE ELZEVIRS.
From the time that Erasmus’s editions had obtained their place
in public use, it was long before any real attention was paid to
MS. authorities.
The edition of Colinzeus (Paris, 1534) deserves mention because
it was in some places based on MSS. which the editor had
examined: it was not, however, by any means a critical edition;
that is, one in which the text was throughout examined with
MSS; and thus, in the end of the Apocalypse, there are Erasmian
readings retained. Colinzus did not insert the text 1 John v. 7.
This edition seems to have had no influence whatever on those
which succeeded.
In the years 1546 and 1549, Robert Stephens printed at Paris
two beautiful small editions of the Greek Testament; and in
1550 appeared his folio edition, in the margin of which were
given various readings from MSS. which had been collated by
his son Henry Stephens.
The editions of 1546 and 1549 had contained a text blended
from the Complutensian and Erasmian ; in the folio, Erasmus was
almost exclusively followed. The collation of MSS. had probably
been made with Erasmus’s fifth edition, and thus Stephens in his
principal edition used it as the basis of histext. The various read-
ings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition, and
from fifteen MSS. It was supposed by some, that in this edition,
Robert Stephens followed MS. authority always; attention to the
book itself would soon have shown that this could not be the case;
for not unfrequently the margin quotesa reading differing from
the text, in which all the cited MSS. agree.
Critical collation was then but a new subject; and thus we
cannot be surprised that Stephens should have merely given a
kind of selection from what the MSS. contained. Mill says, “‘We
' find in this edition more than seven hundred Complutensian
readings omitted; that is a considerably greater number than
those which are given; for they do not amount to more than five
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 31
hundred and ninety-cight. And it is not very credible that the
other copies were examined with more care than the Spanish
edition.” Besides this, it may be said, that as the Complutensian
text is often incorrectly cited in Stephens’s margin, we may con-
clude that the same thing is true of the MSS. which were collated ;
for it would be remarkable if manuscripts were examined with
greater accuracy than a printed book.
In fact, the various readings in the margin of Stephens’s folio
edition seem rather to be appended as an ornament to the text,
than as giving it any real and fundamental utility.
This was the first collection of various readings of any extent;
and it was at least suggestive of what might be done by means
of MSS. in emending the text of the Greek Testament. Robert
Stephens, ten years before, in editing the Latin Vulgate, had
made pretty extensive use of MSS.; and in giving the work of
Greek collation into the hands of his son Henry, then aged only
eighteen, he might have had some thoughts of similarly applying
criticism to the Greek text. Circumstances may have led to his
change of purpose; and thus he only gave the variations in the
margin instead of using them himself. He was much harassed
by the doctors of the Sorbonne, even at this time, because of his
corrected Latin editions; and he may have feared to provoke
those severe censors more by publishing an emended Greek text.
The various readings in the margin did not however pass without
remark. The learned theological examiners, like their monkish
predecessors, stuck to the adage, ‘‘ Gracum est, legi non potest”;
and as they could make nothing out of what they found in
Stephens’s margin, they prohibited the edition, because of the
annotations; Stephens told them that there were none, but
various readings: they then desired him to produce the MS.
copy from which the variations were taken; they had again to be
informed that the MSS. were many, not one merely, and that the
library of the king of France was the place from which they had
(mostly) been taken, and to which they had since been returned.
Much inquiry has been made as to what MSS. were used by
Henry Stephens for his collations; several have been identified
(mostly in the French Royal Library), and the MS. which is
marked 8 by Stephens, and which is described as having been
on AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
collated in Italy, is either the Codex Beze, or else a document so
precisely resembling it, as to be an undoubted transcript.
The discussions connected with the passage 1 John v. 7, rendered
it a matter of interest to critics to inquire whether Stephens’s
MSS. could be identified; for in that edition, there is the mark
of omission preceding év 7 ovpav@, after which words is a semi-
circle, indicating that the omission extends thus far; the margin
contains a reference to seven MSS. as being the authorities for
this omission; these seven being the only MSS. which were
collated for that part. Hence some thought that these seven were
witnesses for the whole passage (those three words excepted) which
the Complutensian editors had introduced by translating it from
the Latin, and which Erasmus had, after some years, inserted
from the Codex Montfortianus. But no such MSS. were ever
found in the Royal Library at Paris, or any where else; and thus
it was supposed by more intelligent critics that the semicircle in
Stephens’s edition had been misplaced, and that it really belonged
after év 7 yy, ver. 8; thus including in the omission all the words
not found in the Greek MSS. The absolute ascertainment of
some of the MSS. in question has proved this to be a fact, so
certainly, that it is vain for any argument to be based on this
note of reference in Stephens’s edition.
Allusions to this passage are of necessity in inquiries as to the
history of the Greek New Testament as printed; because con-
troversies connected with it have led to extensive examinations of
MSS., and to a more accurate apprehension of the channels by
which Holy Scripture, like all other ancient books, has been
transmitted to us.*
Robert Stephens soon after the publication of his folio edition
made his escape from the censors at Paris, and betook himself to
Geneva, where he published a fourth edition containing just the
* Tt may here be mentioned that the only MSS. containing this text in any form,
which have been produced or discovered, are the Codex Montfortianus at Dublin,
brought forward as an authority to compel Erasmus to insert the words; the Codex
Ravianus at Berlin, a transcript from the Complutensian Polyglot, imitating its very
misprints ; a MS. at Naples, where a recent hand has added it in the margin; and the
Codex Ottobonianus, 298, in the Vatican, a Greek and Latin MS. of the fifteenth
century, in which the Greek is a mere accompaniment of the Latin and in which the
words are quite peculiar (ad rod ovpavod, etc.).
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 33
same text as the third; but with this remarkable peculiarity, that
this is the first ympression divided into our modern verses. Ste-
phens formed his plan of these divisions for convenience of refer-
ence in a Concordance which he projected.* This fourth edition
contains two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Erasmus, one
on each side of the Greek text.
Theodore Beza succeeded Robert Stephens as an editor of the
Greek Testament: he published five editions—in 1565, 1576,
1582, 1589, and 1598. He mostly followed the text of Stephens;
and he not unfrequently mentions various readings, and he occa-
sionally introduces changes into his text on MS. authority.
Two ancient and valuable MSS. were for many years in Beza’s
possession; one, of the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin,
which he afterwards sent to the University of Cambridge, where
it still remains; this is commonly known as the Codex Beze or
Cantabrigiensis: the other contains the Epistles of St. Paul, also
in Greek and Latin. This MS., which is called the Codex Claro-
montanus (from Clermont, whence it is said that it was brought),
is now in the Bibliothéque du Roi, at Paris.
Besides these MSS. Beza had the use of the collations made
by Henry Stephens for his father, and to which he seems to have
afterwards added the results of farther examinations of MSS.
Beza, however, was not much of a textual critic; he valued
readings more in proportion to their theological importance in
his eyes than to the testimony by which they are upheld. Indeed,
if the places in which he differs from Stephens’s third edition are
examined, there will be found but little reason for the changes.
All his five editions are accompanied by his Latin translation
(which had previously appeared in 1556), and by the Latin
Vulgate ; ample annotations are subjoined.
Beza’s text was during his life in very general use amongst
Protestants; they seemed to feel that enough had been done to
establish it, and they relied on it as giving them a firm basis.
* Henry Stephens, the elder, the father of Robert, had introduced verse numbering
in the Psalterium Quincuplex which he published in 1509. That is, he affixed nwmbers
to the verse divisions which exist in the Old Testament. Pagninus, in 1528, used
such a notation in the whole Bible; in the New Testament, however, his verses differ
totally from Stephens’s; they are often considerable paragraphs.
4
34 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
The Romanists, with whom they so often engaged in controversy,
understood, as yet, no principles of criticism, which could be
brought to bear on the position which the Protestants had thus
taken. The same was true of those with whom the Protestants
were engaged in so many discussions relative to the Trinity and
the Godhead of Christ. Beza could argue on 1 John v. 7, as if
the true position of Stephens’s semicircle were an undoubted
proof that seven MSS. at least contained the verse, and his adver-
saries, understanding the bearing of the case with as little of
correct apprehension as himself, were not able to controvert him.
But Theodore Beza did not suppose that a text ought to be
traditionally adopted, and then, as it were, stereotyped: his notes
gave him the opportunity for expressing his opinions; and he thus
proved that if his attention were properly directed to ancient evi-
dence on a passage, he so weighed it as to consider that it ought
to prevail. Thus the passage in John viii. 1—12, the omission
of which by critical editors has seemed to some such a proof of
temerity, or of want of reverence for Holy Scripture, was dif-
ferently regarded by Beza: he states the manner in which various
ancient writers knew nothing about it, and the great variation in
MSS.; he then concludes thus :—‘‘ As far as I am concerned, I do
not conceal that I justly regard as suspected what the ancients
with such consent either rejected or did not know of. Also such
a variety in the reading causes me to doubt the fidelity of the
whole of that narration.” *
And yet the plan of using a kind of stereotyped text of the
Greek New Testament was practically adopted by Beza in his
first edition, 1565; and this, by a kind of tacit consent was
admitted as a principle, when the Elzevirs, printers at Leyden,
published their small and convenient editions. The first of these
appeared in 1624. The editor, if any, is wholly unknown; it is
probable that the printers took the third edition of Robert Ste-
* Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi merito suspectum esse quod
veteres illi tanto consensu vel rejecerunt vel ignorarunt. . . . Tanta denique lectionis
varietas facit ut de totius istius narrationis fide dubitem.
+ ‘H Kotvy Acadjxn» Novum Testamentum. Ex Regijs alijsque optimis editionibus
cum curd expressum. By the Editio Regia, the third edition of Stephens was in-
tended, printed with the types of the French Royal printing-office.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 35
phens as their basis, introducing merely a few changes, which they
considered to be corrections, and using for this purpose a copy of
one of Beza’s editions. The text thus formed accords in some
respects with Stephens, and in some with Beza; while sometimes,
whether by accident or design is uncertain, it varies from both.
The Elzevir edition was soon reprinted in an extremely small
form; and in 1633 the publishers themselves brought out their
own second edition, which is considered as their best.* The first
edition had the notation of verses placed in the margin; in this
they were distinguished by the breaks in the text. The preface
speaks of the acceptance which this text had received, and of the
care which had been taken in purging it from typographical
errors. A high ground is assumed as to the text which is thus
presented. The reader is told, ‘‘ Thou hast the text now received
by all, in which we give nothing altered or corrupted.” f
From this expression in the preface has arisen the phrase,
‘“‘Textus Receptus,” as applied to the text of the Greek Testa-
ments in common use, in the supposition that they were accurate
reprints of the Elzevir editions.
Stephens’s text was that followed in the Greek New Testament
in WALTON’S POLYGLOT, 1657; it was also edited without
intentional variation by MiLu in 1707: and since that period
Mill’s text has been commonly reprinted in this country, having
thus become our current text: in foreign countries the Elzevir
edition has been regarded as ‘‘the received text”; although, in
point of fact, in many of those places in which the Stephanic text
differs from that of the Elzevirs (comparatively few as such varia-
tions are) the editions published on the Continent as ‘‘ the received
text,” follow such Stephanic readings; and sometimes (as in
1 Pet. iit. 7) they follow neither.
After the appearance of the texts of Stephens and Beza, many
Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which
the text of the Greek Testament in their hands was based ;
* On the title page is said, “Ex Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hac nova
expressum: cui quid accesserit, Preefatio docebit.” The Preface, however, gives no
account of what the critical principles or authorities were, which the editors followed.
+ “ Textum, ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum; in quo nihil immutatum aut
corruptum damus.”
36 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
they received with a kind of traditional submission what the
publishers presented to them; although they might have well
known that the same care and attention are demanded as to the
text of God’s Holy Word, as are bestowed upon ancient works
of a value infinitely less. But so it was; and those who justly
condemned the proceedings of the Roman Catholic Council of
Trent, in 1545, in declaring the Latin Vulgate version authentic,
and who showed the ignorance and weakness of the Papal decrees
by which in 1590 and 1592 diverse editions of the Vulgate were
declared to be exclusively genuine,—were, in fact, following a
Greek text which they had tacitly adopted as authentic; and they
did this with as little intelligence as did the Romanists in their use
of the Clementine Vulgate.*
§ 4.—THE EARLIER COLLECTIONS OF CRITICAL
MATERIALS:—WALTON’S POLYGLOT; BISHOP
FELL’S GREEK TESTAMENT.
As soon as the Greek Testament was printed, various readings
began to be observed. And thus, little as was then really thought
about true principles of textual criticism, or of their uniform applica-
tion, something of the kind was practised whenever any variation
in copies was noticed, and a choice had to be made between such
differences.
All ancient writings whatever, which have come down to us in
several copies, contain various readings ; that is, places in which
one copy differs more or less from another. ‘The causes of such
* We need not wonder that Bentley should have spoken of “the Protestant Pope
Stephens.” The following citation from Hottinger is given by Wetstein;—‘“Satis-
fecit Stephani et Bez industria Ecclesiis Reformatis hactenus omnibus. Quotquot
enim vel in Belgio vel Germania vel Gallia N.T. novas procurarunt editiones, mag-
norum illorum virorum codices religiose sunt secuti; Casaubonus etiam et Heinsius,
quorum tamen in crisi et antiquitatis studiis magnum est nomen, in illis acquieve-
runt.”
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 37
various readings are many: but they all bear the same relation
to MSS., which errata and variations made by compositors and
press correctors do to printed books.
It is zmpossible (unless human infirmity were overruled by a
miracle) for a writing to be copied again and again without the
introduction of some errors of transcription. Hence has arisen
the necessity of comparing and considering the various readings
of copies to obtain thereby a correct text. This is what is meant
by textual criticism. This labour of comparison has to be applied
to all ancient works, if we seek to ascertain what was actually
written by their authors. Had the inspired autographs of the
apostles and evangelists been in existence, there would have been
no room, as well as no necessity, for textual criticism.
If we compare the earliest editions of any important classic with
those in common use in the present day, we discover a remarkable
difference: we find other readings adopted, and many passages
convey a much clearer sense. Whence, then, does this difference
arise? Simply from editors having in the succeeding centuries
used a greater range of critical authorities,—from their having
laboriously examined MSS. so as to discover those on which most
reliance ought to be placed,—and their having used the critical
data so obtained, as their authority for a more exact and accurate
text. No one acquainted with the subject would have recourse
to an early edition of a classical writer (Cicero, for instance),
based upon slender and imperfect authority, in preference to a
text of the same author based upon the collations of MSS., and a
careful examination of authorities.
Such too should be the case with regard to the New Testament.
If God had so pleased, he could have preserved its text from all the
casualties of transcriptural error: but the text has not been so pre-
served; it is therefore no reflection on the divine wisdom, no want of
reverence for God’s inspired word, to admit the fact. God did not
see fit to multiply the copies of his Scripture for the use of mankind
by miracle; and just as He left it to the hands of men to copy His
Word in the same manner as other books, so was it left exposed
to the same changes, from want of skill in copyists, from careless-
ness or misapprehension, as affect all other ancient writings. To
this, however, it should be added (even though it be by anticipa-
38 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
tion), that the providence of God has transmitted to us far more
ample materials for the restoration of the text of the New Testament,
than we have in the case of any other work of similar antiquity.
The sources for textual criticism are MSS., versions, and early
citations, all of which may be used as illustrating and confirming
or correcting one another. Of these materials the original editors
possessed but few. They had some recent Greek MSS.; as to ver-
sions they had the Latin Vulgate only; and of early citations some
use, but only on a limited scale, was made by Erasmus.
The various readings printed in the margin of Stephens’s folio
(mentioned in the preceding section) form the first collection of
critical materials presented to the eye of the reader. To these
Beza added a few more in his notes; and a little was done from
time to time just as MSS. or ancient versions were brought under
the notice of scholars. The Syriac version (of which Tremellius
had published a Latin translation) was used occasionally by Beza.
The publication of various ancient versions, and of more correct
editions of the fathers, increased greatly the amount of critical
materials ready for use.
The first important collection of various readings, drawn from
MSS., is that contained in the sixth volume of Walton’s Polyglot,
1657. In the fifth volume the readings of the Codex Alexandri-
nus had been given under the Greek text; and the collection in
the sixth volume formed a valuable Apparatus Criticus. Of this one
of the most important parts is a collation of sixteen MSS. made
by the direction of the learned Irish Primate, Archbishop Usher.
Besides these, there are the Stephanic collection, and others which
had been made by various individuals; and also a collection (the
history of which formerly led to much discussion), which has
been commonly called ‘‘the Velezian Readings.” ‘They were first
printed in 1626, by De la Cerda, in his Adversaria Sacra. He
says that the Greek Testament, in the margin of which they
were written, had passed into his hands from Mariana, the Spanish
historian. Mariana says that he did not know how the copy had
come into his possession ; but he found in it the various readings
of sixteen Greek MSS. inserted by a former owner, Don Pedro
Faxardo, Marquis of Velez. The marquis seems to have stated
that eight out of the sixteen MSS. which he used, had come from
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 39
the Library of the King of Spain. Mariana was surprised to find
that the cited readings bore a strong resemblance to the Vulgate, so
that he thought that there might be some imposture in the matter.
In fact, but little doubt was soon felt that the readings in question
were not derived from any Greek MSS. whatever; so that the
empty boast of having used sixteen MSS. passed for what it was
worth, and the readings themselves have long ceased to be cited.*
Walton, however, is not to be blamed for inserting these readings
in his collection. Critical studies were not then sufficiently
advanced to authorise the selection of materials: all that was pre-
sented required to be brought together; the quality and value of
the material so obtained might be for after consideration.
In speaking of Walton’s Polyglot, reference must be made to
the versions contained in the 5th volume; which are a valuable
storehouse of materials in that department of criticism. The Pro-
legomena also contain information of great value.
In 1658, one year after the appearance of Walton’s Polyglot,
the Greek Testament of Curcellaus appeared with various readings
in the margin. The authorities for the readings were not given ;
and those drawn from MSS. were intermingled with mere con-
jectures. And as these conjectures bore on points of dogmatic
theology, this edition of Curcelleus (which was three times
reprinted) had the effect of deterring many from the study of
criticism even as then understood, because it was thought that it
was directed against the authority and integrity of Scripture, and
that it might undermine the most important doctrines. The right
course would have been to meet the false criticism of Curcelleus
by that which is true. It is probable that much of the alarm
expressed in connection with the critical apparatus of Walton’s
Polyglot, arose from the almost simultaneous appearance of Cur-
cellzus’s edition. It is certain that alarm was expressed; and
that the appearance of the various readings collected by Usher
* Although the Latin origin of these readings was sufficiently plain, yet still there
were points of difficulty. These were cleared up by Bishop Marsh in his letters to
Archdeacon Travis: he showed that the Velezian readings were fabricated to support
not the Latin Vulgate in general, but that version as it stood in the edition of Ste-
phens, 1539-40. Bishop Marsh’s process of induction is so curious and interesting
that it is well worth the attention of the critical inquirer.
40 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
and others was lamented, as if in some way Holy Scripture were
impugned. 7
To allay this feeling, and if possible to diffuse juster notions on
the subject, Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, published in 1675
a small edition with the various readings at the foot of the page,
with the authorities by which they were supported; those taken
from Curcellzus of course had only the abbreviation of his name
as their authority. Besides MSS., the margin contains citations
from the Coptic (Memphitic) and Gothic versions. Bishop Fell
gave the readings of some MSS. previously uncollated; and in his
appendix he added what has been called the Barberini collection
of various readings from twenty MSS. This collation was found
by Poussin in the Barberini Library at Rome, and he published
it at the end of a Catena on St. Mark, in 1673. In it the MSS.
are not cited separately; but merely so many as agreeing in any
particular reading. The collation had been made by Caryophilus
of Crete, about fifty years before. Wetstein suspected that the
whole was a forgery ; but Birch found the manuscript collation of
Caryophilus in the Barberini Library ; he also found the permis-
sion of Pope Paul V. to use MSS. in the Vatican, including the
celebrated Codex Vaticanus, for the purpose of the intended
edition of Caryophilus. It seems as if the plan was frustrated
from the want of patronage on the part of Urban VIII., who
succeeded to the papal chair soon after the death of Paul V.; the
short pontificate of Gregory XV. alone intervening. Caryophilus’s
plan was to have formed a Greek text on the united testimony of
Greek MSS. and the Vulgate: when any of his MSS. accorded
with the reading of the Latin, he would have adopted it in his
text.
Bishop Fell did not give extracts from the fathers, or cite
them as authorities; because he undervalued their testimony, not
apprehending how they may, by the union of their evidence with
that of MSS. and versions, be of the greatest use: they may often
show what the reading is in whose favour the evidence prepon-
derates. This edition of Bishop Fell, and the encouragement
which he gave to the more extensive critical labours of Dr. John
Mill, were of very great importance in furthering sacred criticism.
Richard Simon, one of the fathers of the Oratoire (or Con-
- OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 41
gregation of St. Philip Neri) at Paris, in his Histoire Critique du
Nouveau Testament, enlarged much the knowledge of MSS. and
versions. Though Simon did not himself conduct the student to
anything satisfactory in the way of result, yet he caused the
character of the MSS. to be better understood, and furnished
much information for those who were desirous of inquiring into
the subject.
§ 5—MILL’S GREEK TESTAMENT.
In the year 1707, the edition of Dr. JoHN MILL appeared; a
work on which that critic had been engaged for thirty years, and
which was completed only a fortnight before his death. Like
Cardinal Ximenes, Mill lived but just to see the labour on which
he had been so long interested brought to its conclusion.
Mill’s edition has been said to commence the age of manhood in
the criticism of the Greek Testament. There is some truth in the
remark; it might rather, perhaps, be termed a promise, the full
accomplishment of which was delayed and deferred through many
circumstances.
It appears as if Mill’s earnest and anxious endeavour had been
to bring together all the critical materials which were accessible;
so that every aid might be presented to the biblical student for
forming a correct judgment as to the text of the Greek Testa-
ment. He gathered together the various readings which had
been previously noticed; he collated such Greek MSS. as were
accessible to himself, and he procured collations of others to be
made by his friends; and he first used the ancient versions in
general and habitually, as well as the writings of the early fathers,
as evidences of the ancient text. Much may have been done by
later editors in collating MSS. with more correctness, and in exa-
mining valuable documents wholly unknown to Mill; they may
have done more in obtaining the variations of the ancient versions
with exactitude, and in collecting the citations scattered through
the writings of the fathers; but the real value and importance of
42 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
these sources of criticism were properly estimated by Mill, and to
the best of his opportunities he acted on them.
Dr. Edward Bernard, Savilian professor of mathematics at Ox-
ford, was the first who directed Mill’s mind to the importance of
New Testament criticism. Of this he gives a very interesting
account in his Prolegomena. After he saw the extended scale on
which authorities should be consulted and brought together, he
made all the collections that he could, without at the time con-
sidering what the result might be. Dr. John Fell, Bishop of
Oxford (editor of the Greek Testament of 1675), saw Mill’s col-
lections, and earnestly pressed on him to publish an edition,
according to the plan and extent which he and Dr. Bernard con-
sidered to be necessary for the purpose of completeness. This Mill
undertook; and the latter part of his Prolegomena is occupied
with a detail of his literary labours: it shows how the work
grew beneath his hands; what were the encouragements, what the
hindrances, until it reached its completion. Bishop Fell promised
to defray the expenses of the edition; and he desired that it
should be so printed as to excel even Stephens’s third edition in
beauty. It was easier to exceed that impression in the size of
the type, however, than in the real beauty of the characters.
Dr. Fell was very anxious for the printing to commence; and
at length the beginning of St. Matthew’s Gospel was set in type,
as a specimen. But, as it proceeded, Mill found point after point
which required re-examination; and the time which he devoted
to the patristic citations was rather irksome to his patron, who did
not apprehend with the same acumen as did Bernard and Mill,
the real value of those citations as critical subsidia. Sheet after
sheet was printed off, but slowly enough, as it seems. At length,
when the 24th of Matthew was in the press, the death of Bishop
Fell put a stop for a time to the progress of the work. This
shows that it must have commenced before 1686, for in that year
it was that the bishop died.
Mill was retarded by the cessation of the pecuniary aid which he
had received from Bishop Fell: indeed, he appears to have found
difficulty in continuing his work. After many years, the text
and readings of the New Testament were completed; but the
various materials which had reached his hands too late to take
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 43
their proper place, had to be arranged in an appendix. Before
the whole was then ready for publication, Mill had to prepare his
Prolegomena, which contain an historical account of the text;—
and of the principal editions,—of the versions, etc.; each being
described in connection with the time of its publication; while
the notices of MSS. are distributed throughout the Prolegomena
according as each was mentioned when speaking of its collator
or owner.
Of Mill’s editorial labours it may be said, in the words of Wet-
stein, ‘‘ This learned man alone did more, in the labour of thirty
years, than all those who had preceded him.”*
In stating the various readings, Mill frequently expressed his
opinions as to their value: in his Prolegomena, however, when
the whole work was completed, he often corrected his previous
judgment; so that it is in that part of his edition that we have to
seek for his matured and deliberate opinion. He thus showed
his true critical apprehension, that TRUTH is the great object to
be sought, and not the maintenance of a particular opinion be-
cause it was once expressed. Evidence must always modify critical
opinions, when that evidence affects the data on which such
opinions were formed; it must be so, at least, on the part of those
who really desire to be guided on any definite principles. Mill
did not desire or attempt to form a new ¢ezt; he simply used that
of Stephens’s third edition, correcting the errata, but not making
other intentional changes. When he departs from the Stephanic
text, it seems to have been from not being aware that the Elzevir
editions differed from it in several places: he supposed such varia-
tions to amount to but twelve. It is singular that ‘ Mill’s text”
has been, in this country, assumed to be a kind of standard; and
thus it has been imagined, that he had formed a critical text ;
and this is what we commonly use; and thus Mill’s supposed
authority has been sometimes quoted against what he maintained
to be the true readings of passages.
But though Mill laid down the plan of a critical edition, and
showed what the sources are from which to obtain a well-supported
text, there were many points in which the execution of his work
* “ Hic vir Cl. unus labore triginta annorum plus prestitit, quam omnes quiipsum
eetate preecesserunt.”
44 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
was of necessity incomplete. These things may be freely men-
tioned, not to detract from the real merits of that critic, but as
showing what remained for others to complete. The collation of
Greek MSS. was in that age somewhat rudely performed; it was
not felt to be needful to notice all minute variations, such, for
instance, as those which relate to the order of words; it was not
then customary (nor, indeed, was it till of late years) so to collate
a MS. as to leave no doubt as to what readings it supports, and
what it opposes; and yet, unless this is done, it is impossible to
form a correct judgment as to the balance of evidence. Mill was
unable himself to consult the greater part of the ancient versions,
and as he had no critical assistant for this part of his work, he had
to depend entirely on the Latin translations of the versions in
Walton’s Polyglot; and thus, whenever they are inadequate or
inexact, he was betrayed into error. The patristic citations which
Mill gave, were often less complete than they might be made by a
closer attention to this part of the subject: it should be added,
that this labour has been much facilitated, since the time of Mill,
by the editions of some of the fathers which have since been
published.
In speaking of these defects of Mill’s edition, it is not necessary
to rest upon his not having classified the MSS. the readings of
which he gave: for he had to collect the materials; and until this
should be done, no principles of arrangement could be laid down.
He does however often show in his Prolegomena what his opinion
is of MSS. which have a kind of relationship among themselves,
or with any particular ancient version: he often showed true
critical acumen in his estimate of readings, not in accordance with
what might seem at first sight to be correct. Michaelis says
(Marsh’s Introd., 11. 457), ‘* His critical judgment prevented him
from adopting a reading as genuine, because it was smooth and
easy; and, in this respect, he has introduced among the critics a
taste which is perfectly just, but contrary to that which prevailed
at the revival of learning.” And this judgment was in a great
measure formed during the progress of his work; for at first he
valued the evidence of numbers in his MSS. more than other
things; but as he became more alive to the value of the united
testimony of authorities of different kinds, he ceased to be swayed
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 45
by the consideration of numerical preponderance. This may be
seen clearly from his Prolegomena.
_ In 1710 a second edition of Mill’s Greek Testament was pub-
lished at Rotterdam, under the editorial care of Ludolph Kiister,
a Westphalian, who had resided for some years in England.
Kiister inserted the greater part of Mill’s appendix in its proper
places under the Greek text; he made the mode of reference to
the various readings more clear; and he added readings from
twelve MSS., which are described in his preface. Some of these
MSS. were ancient and valuable; and it was in this manner that
public attention was first called to them. Some copies of Kiister’s
were re-issued with a new title-page in 1723, and others again in
1746: this was only part of the unsold stock.
It has been already mentioned that Mill only survived the com-
pletion and publication of his edition one fortnight. It was thus
impossible for him to fulfil his intention of publishing the literal
text of some of the most ancient MSS.; and it was many a year
before any others were found fully to undertake that service to
sacred criticism.
Dr. Bentley, in his ‘* Epistola ad Johannem Millium” (first
printed in 1691), refers to the publication of these texts as part of
the plan which Mill had proposed to himself. After mentioning
the Alexandrian MS., the Codex Bez, the Codex Laudianus of
the Acts of the Apostles at Oxford, and the Codex Claromontanus
at Paris, and lamenting the chances of destruction to which they
were exposed, he goes on to speak of Mill’s plan for publishing
them at the same time as his Greek Testament. ‘The edition of
the ancient texts* was at each opening to exhibit the Codex
Alexandrinus, and the Codex Beze in the Gospels; in the Acts,
* “Tu vero, Milli doctissime, qui omnium mortalium maxime in eo studio versatus
es, non patieris hunc laudem tibi preeripi; sed maturabis veneranda illa pignora et
monumenta vetustatis a situ et interitu vindicare. Scimus enim te horum omnium
editionem instituere, que una pagina et in uno conspectu codicem Alex. qui familiam
ducet, et Cantabrigiensem cum versione sua, atque ubi hic deficit, Oxoniensem [i. e.
Laudianum] atque Gallicum [i.e. Claromontanum |] representet: quee singulas literas
atque apices exemplarium, etiam ubi a librariis peccatum est, accurate et religiose
subsequatur. Nihil illi purpure assuetur discolor aut diversum; nulle interpunc-
tiones, nulle note accentuum, quorum omnis hodie ratio preepostera est atque per-
versa: adeo ut qui tuam editionem sibi comparaverit. ipsa illa propemodum archetypa
versare manibus atque oculis usurpare videatur. Ea res, olim. ut certum est augu-
rium, et Britannise nostre splendori erit, et Ecclesie preesidio: tuos vero utique
46 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the Codex Laudianus was also to be introduced, and in St. Paul’s
Epistles there would be the Codices Alexandrinus and Claro-
montanus. Everything was to be given as left by the copyists,
without any corrections or changes.
It was not long after the publication of Mill’s Greek Testament
that an attempt was made to apply results of criticism, both to the
emendation of the Greek text, and also to a revised English ver-
sion. This was done by Dr. Epwarp WELLS, whose Greek
Testament, with an English translation, notes, and paraphrase,
appeared at Oxford, in separate parts, from 1709 to 1719. This
edition of Wells deserves mention, as being the first attempt to
present a critically-revised Greek text: as such, it is a very respec-
table work. Its appearance is a proof that textual criticism was
not decried by all in this country, and that the labours of Mill
were deemed to be of real value. .
It might have been expected that thirty years of toil which Mill
had expended, and the means which were thus afforded to the
biblical scholar to form his own judgment, in cases of various
reading, would have been appreciated highly by all who professed
to value Holy Scripture. But it was not so. ‘ The great dili-
gence which he displayed in collecting so many thousand readings
exposed him to the attacks of many writers, both in England and
Germany, who formed not only an unfavourable, but unjust opi-
nion of his work. Not only the clergy in general, but even
professors in the universities, who had no knowledge of criticism,
considered his vast collection of various readings as a work of evil
tendency, and inimical to the Christian religion.”—(Marsh’s Mi-
chaelis, ii. 458.)
labores amplissimis preemiis atque immortali gloria compensabit. Macte ista pietate
ct diligentia esto. In te omnes ora atque oculos convertimus, te unum in hoc curri-
culum vocamus: ipsi codices celerem tuam opem implorant et flagitant: quid cessas
per medias laudes et faventium plausus secundo rumore ingredi? ‘Tu vero, ut polli-
ceri de te possum, facies id sedulo; simulatque exibit Novwm tuum Testamentum jam
fere ad umbilicum usque perductum.”—Zp. ad Millium (p. 362, ed. Dyce)
The first of the ancient MSS. which Mill thus intended to publish, which actually
appeared in a printed edition, was the Codex Laudianus, edited by Hearne, in 1715;
the Codex Alexandrinus was printed by Woide in 1786; Kipling’s edition of the Codex
Bezze was published in 1793; while the Codex Claromontanus did not thus appear
till 1852, when Tischendorf edited it, from his own transcripts and collations and
those of Tregelles.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 47
The principal opponent of Mill’s edition was Dr. Whitby, whose
attack appeared in 1710: it may be well that Mill, who was thus
aspersed for his long-continued labours, had been removed from
the scenes in which such unjust and ignorant attacks can be felt.
They worked much mischief, however, amongst the living, who
were led to believe, through clamour, that textual criticism is
dangerous in the extreme.*
It is scarcely possible to conceive that Whitby could have
attempted thus to defend the common text, had he really been
conscious how it originated. And yet some will always be found
to listen and applaud, when writers like Whitby charge honest
and reverential criticism with rendering the word of God uncer-
tain, and with being hostile to Christianity. It was easy for
Whitby to say that, in all cases of important variation, the Ste-
phanic reading may be defended; for it is a rare thing for there to
be a paradox, however glaring, which does not find some one to
maintain it. But if it be asked by what arguments would Whitby
do this, we come to a very different point; for boldness of asser-
tion and invective against an opponent can avail only up to a
certain point. We might in fact seem to be discussing over again
the attacks of Lee upon Erasmus, grounded on his departures
from the Latin readings.
Whitby’s appendix contains ‘‘ Millius éavtov tiywpodpevos,” in
in which he attacks the changes of opinion on Mill’s part, as to
the value of various readings, which introduce a kind of contra-
diction between Mill's margin and his Prolegomena. Now this
accusation is a manifest proof how little Whitby was capable of
apprehending the subject on which he was writing, and how little
he understood what it was to carry on critical labours such as
those of Mill. No doubt that critic had changed his mind, in the
* The title of Whitby’s work was—
“Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Millii, 8.7. P., ubi ostenditur,
“1. Lectionum harum fundamenta incerta plane esse, et ad lectionum textus hodi-
erni convellendam protinus inidonea.
“2, Lectiones variantes, que sunt momenti alicujus, aut sensum textus mutant,
paucissimos esse, atque in iis omnibus lectionem textus defendi posse.
“3. Lectiones variantes levioris momenti, quas toties expendimus, tales esse, in
quibus a lectione recepta rarissime recedendum est.
“4, Millium in hisce variantibus lectionibus colligendis sepius arte non ingenua
usum esse, falsis citationibus abundare, et sibimet ipsi multoties contradicens.”
48 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
course of his work, as to many readings: he gives the results of
his latest consideration in his Prolegomena; and for this he was
thus to be blamed! It is possible that no amount of evidence
would have been sufficient to convince Whitby of a point to
which he was opposed; but it was not so with Mill. Whitby
seems to have valued the evidence of numbers as counterbalancing
all other considerations, except when numbers preponderate against
the common text. ,
If Mill could be thus charged with making the text of Scrip-
ture precarious, by those who professed to reverence its authority,
simply because he presented to their view thirty thousand various
readings, it is no cause for surprise that enemies of revelation,
who knew (what others might have known or remembered) that
Mill did not make the variations, but only stated the previously
existing fact, should have taken up the assertion, and declared
that the text of Scripture zs precarious on this very ground. They
used the ignorance of those who wished to uphold Scripture and
to condemn Mill, against themselves; so that, on their principles,
they could hardly answer the enemies of revelation.
And thus in 1713 Anthony Collins, in his ‘‘ Discourse of Free
Thinking,” was able to use the arguments of Whitby to some
purpose, in defence of his own rejection of the authority of Scrip-
ture. This part of Collins’s book ought to be a warning to those
who raise outcries on subjects of criticism. If Mill had not been
blamed for his endeavours to state existing facts relative to MSS.
of the Greek Testament, and if it had not been said that thirty
thousand various readings are an alarming amount, this line of
argument could not have been put into Collins’s hands.
In consequence, however, of Collins’s book, Dr. BENTLEY
published his reply, under the name of Phileleutherus Lipsiensis ;
and while he fully exposed the pretensions of Collins in his gene-
ral argument, using himself the assumed disguise of a Leipsic
doctor, and professing to regard all that was passing in England
from a foreign point of view, he so took up the subject of the
various readings of the Greek Testament, as to place the argu-
ment in its true light; and while, on the one hand, he vindicated
the sacred records from material or essential corruption, he showed
the importance of paying proper attention to critical studies.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 49
Bentley had to steer clear between two points,—between those who
wished to represent the text of the New Testament as altogether
uncertain because of the variations of copies, and those who used
this fact of differences to depreciate critical inquiries, and to de-
fend the text as commonly printed against all evidence whatever.
In the section which Bentley devoted to the subject, he showed
that the attention which he had paid to sacred criticism before he
wrote his Epistola ad Millium, twenty-two years previously, still
continued; and that, when soon after this time he issued his pro-
posals for an edition of the Testament in Greek and Latin, he was
not seeking to occupy a field to which he was a stranger.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 5.
Tue 32nd section of the Ist part of Bentley’s “Remarks upon a late Dis-
course of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F. H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lip-
siensis,” is often partially quoted, when various readings are discussed; and
references to it are not unfrequently made. As the principles laid down in it
are of the utmost value, and as the force of the argument can be but dimly
apprehended from mere partial quotation, the greater part of the section is
here appended: this forms in fact an integral part of the history of the appli-
cation of criticism to the text of the Greek New Testament.
In the preceding section Bentley had referred to Collins’s accusations of the
English elergy ; amongst others, Dr. Mill had been charged with “ rendering
the Canon of the Scripture uncertain.” Collins’s object in bringing forward
such points was, that he might allege, that until believers in Revelation were
perfectly agreed, others need not trouble themselves to inquire into its claims.
Dr. Bentley disposes of this charge against Mill in a few remarks, showing
that the Canon of Scripture could not have been complete before all the
books were written, and that this was simply what Mill and others had stated.
He then speaks of the use which Collins had chosen to make of Mill’s labours.
“Yes! but poor Dr. Mixx has still more to answer for ; and meets with a
sorry recompense for his long labour of xxx. years. For, if we are to believe
5
50 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
not only this wise author, but a wiser doctor* of your own, he was labouring
all that while to prove the text of the Scripture precarious ; having scraped
together such an immense collection of various readings, as amount in the
whole, by a late author’s computation, to above thirty thousand. Now this is
a matter of some consequence, and will well deserve a few reflections.
“T am forced to confess with grief, that several well-meaning priests, of
greater zeal than knowledge, have often, by their own false alarms and panic,
both frighted others of their own side, and given advantage to their enemies.
What an uproar once was there, as if all were ruined and undone, when
Capellus wrote one book against the antiquity of the Hebrew points, and
another for various lections in the Hebrew text itself! And yet time and
experience has cured them of those imaginary fears ; and the great author in
his grave has now that honour universally, which the few only of his own age
paid him when alive.
“The case is and will be the same with your learned friend Dr. Mit1;
whose friendship (while I staid at Oxford) and memory will be ever dear to
me. For what is it that your WuitByvs so inveighs and exclaims at? The
doctor’s labours, says he, make the whole text precarious, and expose both the
Reformation to the papists, and religion itself to the atheists. God forbid!
we'll still hope better things. For surely those various readings existed
before in the several exemplars; Dr. Mill did not make and coin them, he
only exhibited them to our view. If religion, therefore, was true before,
though such various readings were in being, it will be as true, and conse-
quently as safe still, though everybody sees them. Depend on’t, no truth,
no matter of fact fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion.
‘*‘ The 30,000 various lections are allowed, then, and confessed : and if more
copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what’s the
inference from this? Why, one Gregory, here quoted, infers that no profane
author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time as the New Testa-
ment has done. Now if this shall be found utterly false ; and if the scriptural
text has no more variations than what must necessarily have happened from
the nature of things, and what are common and in equal proportion in all
classics whatever ; I hope this panic will be removed, and the text be thought
as firm as before.
‘Tf there had been but one manuscript of the Greek Testament, at the
restoration of learning about two centuries ago, then we had had no various read-
ings at all. And would the text be in a better condition then, than now
we have 30,000? So far from that, that in the best single copy extant we
should have had some hundreds of faults, and some omissions irreparable.
Besides that the suspicions of fraud and foul play would have been increased
immensely.
“Tt is good, therefore, you'll allow, to have more anchors than one; and
* Bentley of course intends Whitby by this reference.
+ Bentley frequently used Collins’s phraseology, in his remarks.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 51
another MS. to join with the first would give more authority, as well as
security. Now choose that second where you will, there shall still be a thousand
variations from the first ; and yet half or more of the faults shall still remain
in them both.
“A third therefore, and so a fourth, and still on, are desirable, that by a
joint and mutual help all the faults may be mended ; some copy preserving
the true reading in one place, and some in another. And yet the more copies
you call to assistance, the more do the various readings multiply upon you ;
every copy having its peculiar slips, though in a principal passage or two it do
singular service. And this is fact not only in the New Testament, but in
all ancient books whatever.
‘Tis a good providence and a great blessing, that so many manuscripts of
the New Testament are still amongst us ; some procured from Egypt, others
from Asia, others found in the Western churches. For the very distances of
places, as well as numbers of the books, demonstrate, that there could be no
collusion, no altering nor interpolating one copy by another, nor all by any of
them.
“In profane authors, (as they are called), whereof one manuscript only
had the luck to be preserved, as Velleius Paterculus amongst the Latins, and
Hesychius among the Greeks, the faults of the scribes are found so numerous,
and the defects so beyond all redress, that, notwithstanding the pains of the
learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, these books still are, and
are like to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies
of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in
proportion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them made by skilful
and judicious hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true
words of the author.
‘© Were the very originals of ancient books still in being, those alone would
supersede the use of all other copies ; but since that was impossible from the
nature of things, since time and casualties must consume and devour all, the
subsidiary help is from the various transcripts conveyed down to us, when
examined and compared together.
“‘ Terence is now in one of the best conditions of any of the classic writers;
the oldest and best copy of him is now in the Vatican Library, which comes
nearest to the poet’s own hand; but even that has hundreds of errors, most
of which may be mended out of other exemplars, that are otherwise more
recent and of inferior value. I myself have collated several; and do affirm
that I have seen 20,000 various lections in that little author, not near so big
as the whole New Testament ; and am morally sure, that if half the number
of manuscripts were collated for Terence with that niceness and minuteness
which has been used in twice as many for the New Testament, the number of
the rariations would amount to above 50,000.
“Tn the manuscripts of the New Testament the variations have been noted
with a religious, not to say superstitious, exactness. Every difference, in
spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the. very order or
52 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
collocation of words without real change,* has been studiously registered.
Nor has the text only been ransacked, but all the ancient versions, the Latin
Vulgate, Italic,t Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and
Saxon ; nor these only, but all the dispersed citations of the Greek and Latin
fathers, in the course of 500 years. What wonder then, if, with all this
scrupulous search in every hole and corner, the varieties rise to 30,000 ? when
in all ancient books of the same bulk, whereof the MSS. are numerous, the
variations are as many or more, and yet no versions to swell the reckoning.
“The editors of profane authors do not use to trouble their readers, or risk
their own reputation, by an useless list of every small slip committed by a
lazy or ignorant scribe. What is thought commendable in an edition of
Scripture, and has the name of fairness and fidelity, would in them be deemed
impertinence and trifling. Hence the reader not versed in ancient MSS. is
deceived into an opinion, that there were no more variations in the copies than
what the editor has communicated. Whereas, if the like scrupulousness was
observed in registering the smallest changes in profane authors, as is allowed,
nay required, in sacred, the now formidable number of 30,000 would appear
a very trifle.
“Tis manifest that books in verse are not near so obnoxious to variations
as those in prose; the transcriber, if he is not wholly ignorant and stupid,
being guided by the measures, and hindered from such alterations as do not
fall in with the laws of numbers. And yet even in poets the variations
are so very many as can hardly be conceived without use and experience. In
the late edition of Tibullus by the learned writer Mr. Broukhuise [1708],
you have a register of various lections in the close of that book, where you may
see, at the first view, that they are as many as the lines. The same is visible
in Plautus, set out by Pareus. I myself, during my travels, have had the
opportunity to examine several MSS. of the poet Manilius; and can assure
you that the variations I have met with are twice as many as all the lines of
the book. Our Discourser { here has quoted nine verses out of it, p. 151; in
which, though one of the easiest places, I can show him xiv. various lections.
Add likewise that the MSS. here used were few in comparison: and then do
you imagine what the lections would amount to, if ten times as many (the
case of Dr. Mill) were accurately examined. And yet in these and all other
books the text is not made more precarious on that account, but more certain
and authentic. So that, if I may advise you, when you hear more of this
* When Bentley began to examine Greek MSS. of the New Testament for himself,
he learned that many of these points had been neglected by collators.
+ The Italic version was a phrase which Bentley afterwards thoroughly rejected. The
“Ttala” is once mentioned by Augustine, and this word Bentley considered to be a
transcriptural error. There is no occasion for such suspicions ; the word, however,
does not apply to the Ante-hieronymian Latin texts in general, but (as is clear
from the passage in Augustine) to a particular revision of the Old Latin which
was current in Upper Italy.
ft ¢ e. Collins, against whom Bentley was writing, although discussing at the same
time the theories and charges of Whitby.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 53
scarecrow of 30,000, be neither astonished at the sum, nor in any pain for the
text.
“Tis plain to me that your learned Whitbyus, in his invective against my
dead friend, was suddenly surprised with a panic; and under his deep con-
cern for the text, did not reflect at all what that word really means. ‘The
present text was first settled almost 200 years ago out of several MSS. by
Robert Stephens, a printer and bookseller at Paris; whose beautiful and
(generally speaking) accurate edition has been ever since counted the standard,
and followed by all the rest.* Now this specific ¢eat, in your doctor’s notion,
seems taken for the sacred original in every word and syllable; and if the
conceit is but spread and propagated, within a few years that printer’s infalli-
bility will be as zealously maintained as an evangelist’s or apostle’s.
“* Dr. Mit, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this ¢ezt fixed
by a printer is sometimes by the various readings rendered uncertain, nay, is
proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the
sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in
any single MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. "Tis competently exact
indeed even in the worst MS. now extant; nor is one article of faith or
moral precept either perverted or lost in them; choose as awkwardly as you
can, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings. But the
lesser matters of diction, and among several synonymous expressions the very
words of the writer, must be found out by the same industry and sagacity that
is used in other books; must not be risked upon the credit of any particular
MS. or edition, but be sought, acknowledged, and challenged, wherever they
are met with.
“Stephens followed what he found in the King of France’s copies, Acts
xxvii. 14, dveyos rupwrkds, 6 Kadovpevos EYPOKAYAQN ; and he is followed
by your translators, there arose against it a tempestuous wind called EU-
ROCLYDON. This reading, perhaps, your learned doctor would not have
now be made precarious: but if that printer had had the use of your
Alexandrian MS., which exhibits here EYPAKYAQN, it’s very likely he would
have given it the preference in his text; and then the doctor, upon his own
principle, must have stickled for this.
“The wind euroclydon was never heard of but here ; it’s compounded of
edpos kAvdav, the wind and the waves; and it seems plain a priori from the
disparity of those two ideas, that they could not be joined in one compound ;
nor is there any other example of the like composition.
“‘ But edpaxvAy, or, as the Vulgar Latin here has it, euro-aquilo (approved
by Grotius and others) is so apposite to the context, and to all the circum-
stances of the place, that it may fairly challenge admittance as the word of
* This is said according to what was then the common.opinion relative to Stephens’s
text ; when it was thought that it was edited from MSS., instead of following almost
absolutely Erasmus’s fifth edition: the only use made of MSS. was to take various
readings from them to place in the margin.
54 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
St. Luke.* Tis true, according to Vitruvius, Seneca, and Pliny, who make
eurus to blow from the winter solstice, and aquilo between the summer solstice
and the north point, there can be no such wind or word as euro-aquilo, because
the solanus or apheliotes from the cardinal point of east comes between them.
But eurus is here to be taken, as Gellius, ii. 22, and the Latin poets use it,
for the middle equinoctial east, the same as solanus ; and then in the table of
the xii. winds according to the ancients, between the two cardinal winds
septentrio and eurus, there are two at stated distances, aguilo and kaixias. ‘The
Latins had no known name for xatxias: Quem ab oriente solstitiali excitatum
Greci katkiay vocant, apud nos sine nomine est, says Seneca, Nat. Quest. v. 16.
Karxias, therefore, blowing between aquilo and eurus, the Roman seamen (for
want of a specific word) might express the same wind by the compound name
euro-aquilo, in the same analogy as the Greeks call edpdvoros the middle wind
between eurus and notus, and as you say now south-east and north-east. Since
therefore we have now found that euro-aquilo was the Roman mariners’ word
for the Greek xa:xias, there will soon appear a just reason why St. Luke
calls it dvepos rupwuixds, a tempestuous wind, vorticosus, a whirling wind ; for
that’s the peculiar character of xatxias in those climates; as appears from
several authors, and from that known proverbial verse,
"EAkav ef atrov as 6 katkias véedn.
So that, with submission, I think our Luther’s and the Danish version have
done more right than your English to the sacred text, by translating it NorD-
ost, north-east ; though, according to the present compass, divided into xxxii.,
euro-aquilo answers nearest to OST-NORD-oST, east-north-east ; which is the
very wind that would directly drive a ship from Crete to the African Syrtis
according to the pilot’s fears, in the 17th verse.
“The Alexandrian copy, then, though it has vastly increased the number
of readings, as you see in your Polyglot and Dr. Mill’s edition, has been of
excellent use here; and so in many other places; retrieving to us the true
original, where other copies failed. And what damage if all the other copies
of near the same antiquity, which Mr. Montfaucon has discovered, and Dr.
Mill never saw, were sometime collated as exactly, and all the varieties pub-
lished, let the thousands grow never so many ?
‘** When the doctor is so alarmed at the vast sum of 30,000 he seems to take it
for granted, that within that number the very original is every where found ;
and the only complaint is, that true are so blended with false, that they can
hardly be discovered. If that were the only difficulty, some abler heads
than ours would soon find a remedy: in the mean time I can assure him, that if
that be the case, the New Testament has suffered less injury by the hand of
time than any profane author, there being not one ancient book besides it in
the world, that, with all the help of various lections (be they 50,000, if you
* It has since been found that this is the reading of the Codex Vaticanus a prima
manu.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 55
will) does not stand in further want of emendation by true critic ;* nor is
one good edition of any that has not inserted into the text (though every
reader knows it not) what no manuscript vouches.
“Tis plain indeed that if emendations are true, they must have once been
in some manuscripts, at least in the author’s original ; but it does not follow,
that because no manuscript now exhibits them, none more ancient ever did.
Slips and errors (while the art of printing was unknown) grew presently and
apace, even while the author was alive. Martial tells us himself, how one of
his admirers was so curious, that he sent a copy of his poems, which he had
bought, to be emended by his own hand. (Martial vii. 11.) And we certainly
know from Gellius (i. 21; ix. 14), that even so early as Hadrian’s time, and
before, the common copies of Virgil had several mistakes.
“Not frighted, therefore, with the present 30,000, I, for my part, and (as I
believe) many others, would not lament, if out of the old manuscripts yet
untoucned 10,000 more were faithfully collected: some of which without
question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact, though of no
consequence to the main of religion; nay, perhaps wholly synonymous in the
view of common readers, and quite insensible in any modern version.f
m * % * % * *
“ But to return to our Discourser, and to close up this long remark : it is fact
undeniable, that the sacred books have suffered no more alterations than com-
* The word “critic” is used by Bentley and some of his contemporaries (e. g.
Bp. Hare) for Ars Critica, after the analogy of Logic, Music, Rhetoric, Arithmetic.
It seems to have fallen into disuse from the inconvenience that the same word stands
in English for him who exercises the art or excels in it, Criticus. And thus Criticism
has been adopted as the current term, and not Critic, to express the art.
Of late an endeavour has been made to force upon the English tongue the words
Patristik, Symbolik, Dogmatik, by some of those translators from the German, who,
even if they are skilled in the language which they seek to transfuse, are at least.un-
aware of the proprieties of that into which they profess to translate. Some of these
have sought to revive the word Critic in the sense in which it has gone out of use.
The analogies observed in the formation of Pneumatics, or Criticism, would be far
better to be followed, if new technical terms must be introduced: although it may be
observed that new technical terms, if not well explained, are commonly a veil for
indefiniteness of thought and absolute mysticism.
+ Bentley here gives specimens of conjectural criticism as applied to the text of
the New Testament. He soon, however, rejected the notion of introducing any con-
jectural emendations into the text, and was satisfied that the joint testimony of MSS.
versions and early citations present us with such materials for critical application as
we have not for any profane work whatever.
The conjectures inserted in Wetstein’s Greek Testament as those which Bentley
communicated to his friends, are such as few will probably think to have really pro-
ceeded from that Critic. There seems to have been some mistake or misapprehension
on Wetstein’s part. In the first edition of his Prolegomena in 1730, Wetstein inserted
these conjectures without giving any name in connection with them: he seems to
have failed in memory, when twenty-two years afterwards he ascribed them all to
Bentley.
56 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
mon and classic authors ; it has been the common sense of men of letters, that
numbers of manuscripts do not make a text precarious, but are useful, nay,
necessary to its establishment and certainty. And as Scaliger, Casaubon,
Heinsius, &c., when they designed to publish a correct edition of an author,
first laboured to procure all the manuscripts they could hear of, as the only
means that promised laudable success ; so Stephanus, Junius,* Curcellzus,
Walton, Fell, and Mill proceeded in the same method. All these, except
Stephens the printer, were christian priests; and what, pray, were they doing
with all this pains and labour? Why, according to our wise author, they were
confounding their own scheme. Very magisterial and decisive! And yet the
comfort is, that in his courteous distribution of all mankind into knaves and
fools, he can neither accuse the clergy here as playing their priestcraft, nor,
without involving with them the most learned of the daity, turn them over to
the second row of crackbrained and idiots.
‘The result of the whole is, that either a posteriori all ancient books, as
well as the sacred, must now be laid aside as uncertain and precarious ; or else
to say a@ priori, that all the transcripts of sacred books should have been
privileged against the common fate, and exempted from all slips and errors
whatever. Which of these our writer and his new sect will close with I
cannot foresee: there’s in each of them such a gust of the paradox and per-
verse, that they equally suit with a modern free-thinker’s palate; and there-
fore I shall here bestow a short reflection on both.
“Tf all the old authors are abandoned by him, there is one compendious
answer to this Discourse of Free-thinking. For what becomes of the boasted
passages out of Cicero, Plutarch, and his long list of ancient free-thinkers, if
the text of each is precarious ? those passages, as they came from the author’s
hands, might be for superstition, which are now cited against it. Thus our
writer will be found felo de se; unless the coroner, to save his effects, favours
him with his own titles of fool and madman.
“But I have too much value for the ancients to play booty about their
works, for the sake of a short answer to a fool according to his folly. All
those passages, and all the rest of their remains, are sufficiently pure and
genuine to make us sure of the writer’s design. If a corrupt line or dubious
reading chances to intervene, it does not darken the whole context, nor make
an author’s opinion or his purpose precarious. ‘Terence, for instance, has as
many variations as any book whatever, in proportion to its bulk; and yet,
with all its interpolations, omissions, additions, or glosses, (choose the worst
of them on purpose), you cannot deface the contrivance and plot of one play ;
no, not of one single scene; but its sense, design, and subserviency to the last
issue and conclusion, shall be visible and plain thorow all the mist of various
lections. And so it is with the Sacred Text: make your 30,000 as many
more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum: all the better to a
* i.e. Patrick Young, librarian to King Charles I, the earliest collator of the Cod.
Alex.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 57
knowing and serious reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to select
what he sees genuine. But even put them into the hands of a knave or a
fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extin-
guish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity but that
every feature of it will still be the same.
** And this has already prevented the last shift and objection, that sacred
books, at least, books imposed upon the world as divine laws and revelations,
should have been exempted from the injuries of time, and sacred from the
least change. For what need of that perpetual miracle, if, with all the present
changes, the whole Scripture is perfect and sufficient to all the great ends and
purposes of its first writing ? What a scheme would these men make! What
worthy rules would they prescribe to Providence! ‘That in millions of copies
transcribed in so many ages and nations, all the notaries and writers, who
made it their trade and livelihood, should be infallible and impeccable? That
their pens should spontaneously write true, or be supernaturally guided,
though the scribes were nodding or dreaming ? Would not this exceed all the
miracles of both Old and New Testament? And, pray, to what great use
or design? To give satisfaction to a few obstinate and untractable wretches ;
to those who are not convinced by Moses and the prophets, but want one from
the dead to come and convert them. Such men mistake the methods of
Providence, and the very fundamentals of religion ; which draws its votaries
by the cords of a man, by rational, ingenuous, and moral motives; not by
conviction mathematical; not by new evidence miraculous, to silence every
doubt and whim that impiety and folly can suggest. And yet all this would
have no effect upon such spirits and dispositions: if they now believe not
Christ and his apostles, neither would they believe if their own schemes were
complied with.”—Benitley’s Works, Dyce’s edition, iij. 347-361.
§ 6—BENTLEY’S PROPOSED EDITION.
MENTION has been already made of the early attention which
Bentley paid to the subject of New Testament criticism; this pos-
session of accurate knowledge of the facts which bear upon it
enabled him to meet the scepticism of Collins, by which he had
sought to cast a veil of uncertainty upon those records which
58 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Christians have ever regarded as the foundations of their hopes.
It is not surprising that he should have sought to take up the
subject at the place where Mill had left it, and to go onward with
the attempt to present a settled text of the sacred volume.
The public manner in which he had shown the causelessness
of the outcry which was occasioned by the fact that various read-
ings exist, directed attention to himself as the person who was
especially suited to undertake and execute such an edition. Dr.
(afterwards Bishop) Hare in his ‘‘Clergyman’s Thanks to Phile-
leutherus,”* publicly called on Bentley to carry out a work for
which his scholarship rendered him so peculiarly competent.
In the beginning of 1716, Wetstein, then a young man, came to
England, and showed Bentley the collations which he had made
of MSS. at Paris. Wetstein appears to have been wholly unaware
of the attention which Bentley had previously paid to sacred
criticism, for he says that this was the first time that he contem-
plated such a scheme. So far from this being the case, he had
already himself collated the whole of the Alexandrian MS.; and
the interest which he felt in the extracts which Wetstein had
made from the Codex Ephraemi, seems to have arisen from finding
how very often they confirmed the readings of that MS. Indeed
Bentley knew what MSS. of great antiquity had come to light
since the collations made by Mill and his friends, so that he was
competent at this time to have instructed Wetstein on the whole
subject. In 1723, Conyers Middleton complained that Bentley
had detained MSS. from the public library at Cambridge, some
for eleven years, some eight, and some for shorter periods; these
MSS. appear to have been connected with his Greek Testament
collations. Amongst other MSS. was the Codex Beze; which,
after having kept it for seven years, Bentley returned in 1722.
Thus it is clear that Bentley did not commence his preparations
subsequently to Wetstein’s visit, in 1716.
When Bentley saw the collections which Wetstein had made,
he pressed him to publish them, offering his assistance. Wetstein,
* The date of Hare’s pamphlet is March, 1713; this may very probably mean 1714,
according to our present reckoning; the 25th of March was then commonly counted
the beginning of the year in this country, until the adoption of the New Style in
L7o2.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 59
however, preferred to transfer these extracts to Bentley, who pur-
chased his services for a time, and sent him to Paris to makea
more complete collation of the Codex Ephraemi.
Bentley unfolded his plan of proceeding in a letter to Dr.
Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, April 16, 1716, while Wetstein
was still in England.
In this letter he refers to the alarm which had been needlessly
raised on the subject of various readings; and he expresses his
satisfaction that he hears that what he wrote on the subject in
answer to Collins, had ‘‘made several good men more easy in that
matter than they had been before.” He then gives some account
of his studies in (what may be called) comparative criticism.* He
found (he says) a wonderful resemblance and agreement between
the oldest Latin and Greek MSS. ; and by means of this agree-
ment he was able (he believed) to restore the text of the New
Testament to what it had been at the time of the Council of Nice
in the best copies then current. He even says enthusiastically,
‘so that there shall not be 20 words, or even particles, difference.”
He had found (he says) in collating one or two of St. Paul’s
Epistles in the Codex Alexandrinus, that the transpositions of
words, etc., had not been noticed by Mill and other collators; this
led him to recollate the entire MS. He then refers to the Codex
Ephraemi, and to the confirmation which the readings extracted
by Wetstein often gave to the Alexandrian copy.
He then speaks of the history of Jerome’s translation; which
(he considers) must at first have accurately represented in Latin
the best Greek MSS. then obtainable. But finding how different
the modern Clementine Vulgate is from the oldest Greek readings,
he examined the oldest MSS. which he could see of that version,
and then was well pleased to discover that there was often a
precise accordance between the Latin and the Greek.
Bentley next speaks briefly of the formation of the common
* The introduction of such a term as this scarcely demands an apology. Few
secular writers of antiquity admit of comparative criticism of the text, for they have
in general come down to us in MSS. of one language only. Not so the New Testa-
ment; for there a new element of textual criticism must be considered; and it is our
ability to use comparative criticism that enables us to form a more correct judgment
of the absolute and relative value of different MSS. and versions.
60 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
text of the Greek Testament. These sentences, both as to the
current Greek and Latin copies, are well worthy of attention :—
‘‘The New Testament has been under a hard fate since the
invention of printing.
‘‘ After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very
ordinary MSS., it became the property of booksellers. Robert
Stephens’s edition, set out and regulated by himself alone, is now
become the standard. That text stands, as if an apostle was his
compositor.
‘¢No heathen author has had such ill fortune. Terence, Ovid,
etc., for the first century after printing, went about with 20,000
errors in them. But when learned men undertook them, and
from the oldest MSS. set out correct editions, those errors fell and
vanished. But if they had kept to the first published text, and
set the various lections only in the margin, those classic authors
would be as clogged with variations as Dr. Mill’s Testament is.
‘‘Popes Sixtus and Clement, at a vast expense, had an assembly
of learned divines to recense and adjust the Latin Vulgate, and then
enacted their new edition authentic: but I find, though I have
not discovered anything done dolo malo, they were quite unequal
to the affair. They were mere theologi, had no experience in
MSS., nor made use of good Greek copies, and followed books of
500 years before those of double age. Nay, I believe, they took
these new ones for the older of the two; for it is not everybody
knows the age of a manuscript.
«©* * * To conclude: in a word, I find that by taking 2000
errors out of the Pope’s Vulgate, and as many out of the Protes-
tant Pope Stephens’s, I can set out an edition of each in columns,
without using any book under 900 years old, that shall so exactly
agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for
order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree better.
‘“‘T affirm that these so placed will prove each other to a
demonstration; for I alter not a letter of my own head, with the
authority of these old witnesses.”
Earnestly for a time did Bentley prosecute his design; great
pains were taken to procure accurate collations of the oldest Greek
and Latin MSS. It is to be lamented that the proposed edition
never appeared. The delays which arose from the strange conten-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 61
tions in which Bentley was involved, and the outcry which was
raised by well-meaning prejudice, so far prevailed as to delay the
work, until it was impossible for Bentley himself to superintend its
publication. And thus all that was accomplished was the acquire-
ment of a mass of materials.
It was very soon reported that Bentley was aaaeeds in such an
edition ; and before the end of the year in which he had informed
A echtcsho Wake what he had in hand, some took alarm in the
belief that he would not insert 1 John v. 7. This was made the
subject of a kind of an anonymous argumentative remonstrance
to Bentley; who replied (Jan. 1, 1716-17) that the decision as to
that verse must depend on ancient evidence, the same as all other
passages. In the following Ist of May, Bentley, who was little
accustomed to withhold his opinions, delivered his probationary
lecture as candidate for the Regius Professorship of Divinity ; in
this lecture he gave his decided judgment for the rejection of the
verse in question. In such a case boldness is prudence; if the
verse is not owned as part of Holy Writ by competent authorities,
it is needful to speak out, even though the equanimity of subjec-
tive dogmatists be ruffled, and though they may raise an antici-
pative feeling of condemnation against the honest critic.
Amongst other steps taken by Bentley, was that of sending
John Walker, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, to Paris to
collate MSS. for him. On his return, in 1720, Bentley issued
his Proposals for his Greek and Latin New Testament, accom-
panied by the last chapter of the Revelation, as a specimen.
The whole of Bentley’s Proposals were comprised in eight
paragraphs: the jirst spoke of the actual condition of the printed
Greek Text and the Latin Vulgate, and the importance of the
service of revising both, on the authority of MSS. of more than
a thousand years old. The second related to the view which
Bentley took of certain passages in St. Jerome ‘where he
declares, that (without making a new version) he adjusted and
reformed the whole Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars;
that is to say, to those of the famous Origen,” and also of the
passage containing Jerome’s statement that the order even of
the words is important in translations of Holy Scripture.
From these passages he concluded that the oldest Greek and
62 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Latin copies ought to agree both in words and in their order,
‘and upon making the essay (he says) he has succeeded in his
conjecture beyond his expectation or even his hopes.” In the
third paragraph he states his belief that the mass of various read-
ings may, from his collations, be so reduced in number as to
leave only about two hundred places in which the true text of a
passage can be a matter of doubt. In the fourth, he says, that he
uses as subsidiary, in order to confirm the readings which he
adopts, “‘ the old versions, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and AZthiopic,
and of all the fathers, Greeks and Latins, within the first five
centuries; and he gives in his notes all the various readings
(now known) within the said five centuries. So that the
reader has under one view what the first ages of the Church
knew of the text; and what has crept into any copies since
is of no value or authority.” In the jifth paragraph, Bentley
disclaims the use of conjecture altogether in the text itself of
the sacred volume; the notes are to contain all the evidence on
which every word rests; and also the common readings of Ste-
phens’s Greek and Clement the VIIIth’s Latin are to be plainly
exhibited. In the sixth, the reader is told that any conjectures of
the editor will be given, as such, in the Prolegomena, in which
also there was promised a full account of the MSS., etc., used.
The seventh paragraph informed the reader of the terms of sub-
scription; the price charged being rendered needful by the great
expense incurred: ‘the lowest subscription for smaller paper
must be three guineas, one advanced in present; and for the great
paper five guineas, two advanced.” The concluding paragraph
promised that the edition should be put to press as soon as a
sufficient sum was contributed by subscribers. John Walker was
to be the superintendent of the impression, and the profit or loss
was to be equally shared by him and Dr. Bentley.
The specimen was so arranged as to exhibit the general plan of
the edition. As the collations were by no means complete or
brought into order, the MSS. were not cited by name, but ‘‘ An-
glici duo,” ‘ Gallici tres,”* etc., were inserted in that part of the
* Tt is rather curious that Wetstein, who had had good opportunities for knowing
Bentley’s plan, and how he had himself explained these references, took them for
-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 63
page, as showing how the authorities would be cited, rather than
as giving references to actual MSS.
Almost as soon as Bentley’s proposals and specimen appeared, _
they were severely attacked in an anonymous pamphlet, written
by Conyers Middleton. This was replied to in a tone of great
severity in a pamphlet also anonymous, but which has been com-
monly attributed to Bentley, and which was undoubtedly, in part
at least, his. In this reply, however, Bentley is always referred to
in the third person, and remarks on Dr, Mill and his edition are
introduced, such as apparently Bentley would not have made; this
was probably a mere device. In general learning, and in acquaint-
ance with textual criticism in particular, Middleton was no match
for Bentley ; he repeats the merest assertions, such as might have
proceeded from Whitby, to exalt the early editors, to decry cri-
ticism, and yet to applaud the labours of Mill, in order to depre-
ciate those of Bentley. One thing is deeply to be regretted, that
such a subject was discussed in such a manner on Doth sides :* for
the solemn reverence due to God’s holy word was utterly forgot-
ten, and the question of the text of the New Testament was made
a mere point of intellectual gladiatorship. Middleton did not in
general understand the really weak points of Bentley’s plan, and
he spent his strength in assailing what was well-established.
Bentley gives important information on the subject before him,
and he well defends those true principles of criticism which Mid-
dleton had assailed. And yet the spirit of such advocacy was
utterly unsuited to the cause.t ‘Non tali auxilio.”
actual existing MSS; and thus in his Prolegomena tothe Apocalypse he inserts in his
list of MSS.—
“20 et 21, Duo Codices Gallicani, qui citantur in specimine Capitis ultimi Apo-
calypseos a R. Bentlejo edito.”
From Wetstein these supposed MSS. were transferred to Griesbach’s list. Scholz,
however, not doubting that these MSS. were amongst the others at Paris which he
had seen, excludes them from his list, and substitutes for them two Codices Vallicel-
liani, D. 20 and B. 86: however, he has never cited these Vallicellian MSS.; the only
places in which 20 or 21 occur in his notes are taken from Wetstein.
Why Wetstein should have referred to Bentley for two MSS. only from France does
not appear. Bentley sometimes cites “ Gallici tres,” “Gallici quatuor.”
* Bentley seems to have thought that Middleton’s pamphlet had proceeded from
Dr. John Colbatch, Professor of Casuistry at Cambridge, with whom he had at this
time a fierce feud. Much of his reply is based on this supposition.
+ “It is painful to narrate the animosity and virulence which displayed themselves
64 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Bentley mentions, in reply to a remark of his opponent on the
manner in which the citations of authorities stand in his specimen,
what the kind of notation was that he had adopted;—that of
distinguishing the MSS. by letters, A, B, C, etc., and «, 6, y:
this is, in fact, the system which was adopted by Wetstein, and
which has still continued in use.
He showed good discrimination in his use of patristic citations,
receiving them for as much as they were worth, remembering
that they, too, might have suffered from the hands of copyists ;
and thus in. many instances they possess but little value in evi-
dence. The case is wholly different when a father cites words
expressly, or where a peculiar reading is found in the quotation
which also accords with other ancient authorities. In small and
unimportant points the citations of ‘‘fathers” have been indubi-
tably modernized by transcribers, who adapted what they copied
to what was familiar to their own ears; while in readings of
marked peculiarity they could not do this, because the verbal
difference was so much greater.
Bentley might well be annoyed at being attacked in such a
manner by anticipation; and if he had replied in a different tone
and temper, all candid readers would have felt that he was the
agerieved party. We can easily understand how Bentley should
conclude his answer thus :—‘‘If they will need attack an edition
before it’s begun, let them put their names to their work. If
they do not, they shall have no answer ; and if they do, they will
need none.” However frequently the former of these sentences
may be applied, few could be Bentletan enough to use the latter.
Conyers Middleton replied to Bentley's answer in a much
longer and abler pamphlet than his former; its whole character,
in fact, was very superior to his previous attack. But still it did
not really bear on the critical points at issue; and one unhappy con-
sequence was, that the feeling was increased in this country that
it is unsafe to apply criticism to the text of the New Testament ;
that it is often better to retain readings traditionally, without
evidence, than to revise them in accordance with good and suffi-
cient testimony.
on such a subject as a new edition of the Gospel of Peace.”—Bishop Monk’s Life of
Bentley, ii. 130,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 65
Other publications attacked Bentley’s proposed edition; and it
is certain that the scheme was retarded,—that the expected per-
mission to obtain the paper free from duty was not granted,—and
that it was commonly believed that such an alarm had been ex-
cited as frustrated the edition.
Bentley’s time and thoughts were unhappily much engaged by
the feuds in which he had involved himself at Cambridge; and
yet, in spite of these hindrances, and the great opposition
raised, he continued to collect materials for his work, and to
receive subscriptions: the sum thus paid him in advance was two
thousand guineas.
The most important critical authority of which Bentley obtained
a collation for his intended edition is the Codex Vaticanus: of this
most important document he procured first a collation made for
him by an Italian named Mico, and he afterwards (as appears by
his published correspondence) obtained a more accurate comparison
of some parts of the MS. from his nephew Dr. Thomas Bentley,
and then from the Abbate Rulotta a collation of the corrections
found in the MS. This was sent him in 1729; so that up to that
time he had his Greek Testament still in hand.
While Bentley was prosecuting this design, discussions were
carried on as to the genuineness of the verse 1 John v. 7, as if
all criticism of Scripture must be directed to that one point, as if
no principles of evidence could be good unless they established its
authenticity, and as if none could be holders of the Christian faith
on the subject of the Trinity, unless this verse were maintained to
be part of divine Scripture. These discussions, conducted in such
a manner, could not really further Biblical studies: it is in vain to
determine a priori what must be received as God’s Word, and
then to condemn all the evidence which would contradict such
pre-devised conclusions. All this, however, made many feel that a
critical text of the New Testament would be a very dangerous book.
The maintainers of orthodox truth who decried criticism, were
punished for the line of conduct which they pursued; for in 1729
DANIEL MACE published his Greek Testament, with an English
translation, in which he boldly and arbitrarily changed passages,
with evidence or without it, in accordance with his own subjec-
6
66 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
tive notions. He was a man apparently of some ingenuity, of no
real or accurate scholarship, and possessed of but little principle;
he so contrived to use remarks in Mill’s Prolegomena, as to have
apparently the sanction of the name of that critic for his mode of
editing passages. In 1732 he was answered by Dr. Leonard
Twells, whose work met with great approbation at the time: a
fact which does not speak highly for the knowledge of criticism
then commonly possessed.
After the year 1729, we do not find any further notices of
Bentley’s continued labour for the publication of his Greek Tes-
tament. Hofmann, in his edition of Pritius’s Introduction, in
1737, says that it was an understood thing that Bentley had pre-
pared the edition, but that he had left it to be published after
his death.* In 1742, when that event occurred, Bentley left
his books, etc., to his nephew, of the same name as himself:
‘ probably expecting that he would give to the world his edition
of the New Testament, and others of his unpublished lucubra-
tions. But that gentleman never edited any posthumous works of
his uncle, and returned the money of the subscribers to the New
Testament.” f
After the death of Bentley’s nephew, many of his collec-
tions for his projected edition found their way to the library of
Trinity College, Cambridge, where they are still preserved. There
appears to be much more completed towards giving a revised text
of the Latin Vulgate than of the original Greek. The most
precious of the collations, that of the Codex Vaticanus, was tran-
scribed for publication by Woide; and after his death was edited
by Ford, in 1799. It is the most exact and complete collation of
that MS. which is accessible to biblical scholars.
This proposed edition, although never published, is of no small
importance in the history of the text of the New Testament. For
the time had arrived when it was possible to use some discrimina-
tion in the choice and the application of Greek MSS. to purposes
* “Tandem ipse Clar. Bentleius, futura forsitan adversa prudenter preesagiens, pro-
missam Novi Testamenti editionem vivus edere recusat, laborem hunce filio unico
eique doctissimo relicturus” (p. 406). Probably, in this description of Bentley’s son,
Hofmann confounded him with his nephew Thomas Bentley, or with Richard Bent-
ley, to whom he left his books.
+ Bishop Monk’s Life of Bentley, ii. 415.
“
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 67
of criticism. Bentley saw that the ancient MSS. are the witnesses
to the ancient text; and after this had been proved from the gene-
ral accordance of such documents with the ancient versions, and
the early citations, he was ready to discard from consideration, on
a question of evidence, the whole mass of the modern copies.
This limited the field of inquiry, and reduced it within tangible
and practicable bounds.
It is on many accounts to be regretted that the edition itself
never appeared, for it would have given the readings of ail the
ancient MSS. then known,—those of many ancient versions, toge-
ther with early citations; and as to the Latin Vulgate, it would
have presented a body of critical materials, such as have never
been brought together. The Greek text would probably (or cer-
tainly) have been that of the Greek MSS. which resemble the
oldest copies of the Vulgate; but this, though an ancient text,
would not have been sufficient to meet the requirements of criti-
cism. It would have been the text, not of the whole body of
Christian readers in the third and fourth centuries, but rather that
only which was current in the West. Bentley formed two hasty
conclusions: first, that Jerome revised the Latin versions pre-
viously current by the Greek MSS. of Origen; whereas the work
of Jerome, having been executed at Rome, was adapted rather to
such MSS. as were current there in ancient times; and also Jerome
himself says that he did not emend all that might have been
corrected, and in his Commentaries he appeals to MSS. against
what he had adopted at Rome. The second of Bentley’s hasty
conclusions was that, prior to the time of Jerome, there had not
existed one known and received Latin version, which having been
variously altered and revised, produced the confusion which that
father sought to remedy.
In spite of these drawbacks, Bentley’s edition would have been
a valuable contribution towards the establishment of a settled text:
it would at least have shaken the foundations of the traditional
‘‘ textus receptus”; and it might well have formed the basis of
further labours.
After Bentley’s time, it was long before New Testament critics
adopted the principle of selecting from amongst the mass of mate-
rials those which are really valuable, and worthy of adoption:
68 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
many indeed still shrink from this, as though it were an arbitrary
proceeding, instead of being, as it really is, a principle based upon
the soundest induction.
The labours of Bentley in this field have been long compara-
tively little known or understood in his own country;* and thus
attention has often been paid to topics of comparatively little
moment in the history of criticism, while those of such import-
ance have been overlooked.
With Bentley’s death the period closes, in which the textual
criticism of the New Testament peculiarly belonged to scholars in
this country. The names of Usher, Walton, Fell, Mill, and
Bentley, are a list of those that had continued such studies
amongst us for more than a century; so that the field might well
be esteemed especially ours. From the time of Bentley’s death
well nigh a century had passed away, before attempts were again
made to. revive the textual criticism of the New Testament in this
its former abode.
§ 7.—BENGEL’S GREEK TESTAMENT.
WHILE Bentley was delaying the completion and publication of
his projected edition, there were two others occupied in similar
pursuits,—Bengel and Wetstein.
* Michaelis gave a considerable account of Bentley’s labours, whick was wholly
omitted by Bishop Marsh in his translation, who inserted instead the following note,
for the information of Bentley’s countrymen:—“ Here follows in the German original
a long account of Bentley’s intended edition of the Greek Testament, and of the
controversy which was conducted between him and Middleton on that occasion.
But as the subject itself is of LITTLE IMPORTANCE, because Bentley’s plan was never
put into execution ; and as those whose curiosity may lead them to inquire into the
history of Bentley’s proposals, and the opposition with which they met from Middle-
ton, may derive better information from the publications of the time, than can be
expected from the work of a foreigner, I have taken the liberty to omit the whole
description. Those who wish to see a short account of this intended edition may
consult Wetstein’s Prolegomena, p. 153.” —Marsh’s Michaelis, u. 877.
The translation of the Introduction of Michaelis was long the storehouse of mate-
rials for all who in this country studied subjects of this kind. The omission of all
that related to Bentley’s edition has caused it to be but little known, except to those
into whose hands the pamphlets of a hundred and thirty years ago have fallen.
.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 69
Of these BENGEL was the first to publish the edition which he
had prepared: it appeared at Tiibingen in 1734.
It is always refreshing to see that critical studies, in connection
with God’s word, have been carried on by those who themselves
knew the real spiritual value of that sacred volume on which they
were engaged; and this gives an especial interest to Bengel’s
labours.
John Albert Bengel was born in Wiirtemberg in 1687: during
his period of study at Tiibingen, 1703-7, the various readings in
the Greek New Testament interested him much; for, having
learned to value the New Testament as being the declaration of
God’s revealed will, he was anxious to be satisfied that he could
know the precise form and terms in which it has been given forth.
Could it be true, that God had not guarded his own inspired
-word from material error? One cause of Bengel’s difficulty was,
that prior to the appearance of Mill’s edition, there were only
such partial collections of various readings, as raised in his mind
the feeling of anxious doubt. At length, however, patient study
led him to the conclusion that the various readings are less nume-
rous than might have been expected, and that they do not shake
any article of the Evangelic doctrine. Thus Bengel was gra-
dually led to see the need of a Greek text, based on really sound
principles of criticism applied to exact and complete collations.
It is well that, at this time, those in Germany who maintained
orthodox and Evangelic truth were not opposed to the application
of criticism to the sacred text.*
At first Bengel gathered materials wholly for his own use, but
others encouraged him to go on and complete his work for public
benefit.t He thus made application in many quarters for collations,
* In 1702 the celebrated Augustus Herman Francke, of Halle, had re-edited Bishop
Fell’s Greek Testament of 1675.
+ In Burk’s Memoir of Bengel, (Walker’s translation, p. 227,) it is stated that
Whitby and Le Clerc were amongst the number of those “who sent him repeated
exhortations to proceed.” If this be correct as to Whitby, he could have but little
understood what Bengel had in hand; for Bengel’s labours were as much opposed to
Whitby’s opinions, as were those of Mill ;—nay, they were more opposed; for Bengel
intended to revise the text itself. Ie Clerc would probably have encouraged any one
to undertake a work which might oppose the projected edition of Bentley, whom he
disliked much, in consequence of the manner in which that great critic had exposed
his pretensions in those departments of learning in which he knew less than nothing.
70 AN ACCOUNT OF TIE PRINTED TEXT
and he met with a response so far as to issue, in 1725, his ‘“ Pro-
dromus Novi Testamenti Greci recté cautéque adornandi,” in
which he gave a general notion of the edition which he after-
wards published. This work itself made its appearance in 1734:
the Text, except in the Revelation, never departs from that which
had previously been given in the same printed edition; in the
margin, however, he placed those readings which he accepted as
genuine, with a mark by which he indicated their value; he also
gave in the same part of his page other readings, the value of
which he considered to be sufficiently great for him to draw
particular attention to them.
The various readings and critical remarks upon them were
separately given in the Apparatus Criticus at the end of the volume.
He did not profess to give all the readings of the collated MSS.,
but only those which he judged to be of some importance ;
but one part of his plan, which was long neglected by more
recent editors, was of great value; he gave the evidence FOR as
well as AGAINST each reading, clearly stated. The great principle of
distinction between various readings was expressed by Bengel
according to his own judgment, in four words, Proclivi scriptiont
prestat ardua,—a principle then little understood, and which has
been practically opposed by many who have discussed such sub-
jects in later times. But surely in cases of equal evidence, the
more difficult reading,—the reading which a copyist would not
be likely to introduce,—stands on a higher ground, as to
evidence, than one which presents something altogether easy. In
the adoption of this rule, Bengel carried out an idea which is
often to be found in Mill’s Prolegomena: he likewise agreed with
Mill in attaching a high value to the Latin versions as witnesses of
the true text.
It is to be regretted that Bengel was not better furnished with
accurate collations of ancient Greek MSS; for with his critical
principles they would have led him much further than he ever
went towards forming a text resting simply on authority. He
must himself have desired such aids; for it was the hope of re-
celving them that delayed him some years from publishing. In
1726, Bengel wrote thus with regard to his Greek Testament.
‘Tt is already in such forwardness, that if other circumstances shall
=n tet) “a oe
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. il
permit, I may soon send it to the press. What principally holds
me back is the delay of Bentley’s promised edition of the Greek
Testament, a specimen of which was given many months since in
the English ‘ Library.’ Bentley possesses invaluable advantages ;
but he has prepossessions of his own, which may prove very
detrimental to the received Text. All danger, however, of this
kind, I hope I have the means of obviating.”* Thus there was
some delay in waiting for Bentley’s announced edition ; and when
this was hopeless, the publication of the first edition of Wetstein’s
Prolegomena in 1730 led Bengel to see the necessity of re-
examining both authorities and principles, before he put his
edition to press. Thus the delay from 1725 to 1734 may be
well accounted for.
Bengel clearly observed the difference existing in MSS. and
versions, so that he saw that in a general manner they belonged
to two different families. The one embraces the most ancient
documents whether MSS. or versions, the other comprises the
greater part of those that are more recent. It was thus that the
ground plan of a division into Alexandrian and Byzantine families
was laid down: these were termed by him, African and Asiatic.
This critic, like his predecessors, had to pass through misrepre-
sentation on account of his work: his own orthodoxy and god-
liness were unquestionable; but the Greek Testament, with the
text revised in some measure, and with further corrections in the
margin, was considered dangerous. One of his opposers, Kohlreif,
* publicly challenged him to a most uncritical measure; namely,
to hush the enemies of criticism by admitting that even the
various lections were given by inspiration, in order to meet the
necessities of various readers” ! t
Wetstein was the most able of Bengel’s opponents; he imme-
diately reviewed the new edition with much severity; he endea-
voured to disparage the critical principles on which Bengel formed
his choice of readings, by plainly asserting that we ought to adopt
* Letter to Marthius of Presburg. Walker’s translation of Burk’s Memoir of
Bengel, p. 437.
+ The former of these would in most respects coincide with those MSS. which
Bentley most highly valued, to the rejection of others in general,
{ Walker’s translation of Burk’s Memoir, p, 245.
72 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
those which are supported by the greatest number of MSS. The
attacks on Bengel continued till his death in 1752: one of the
latest proceeded from Wetstein, who inserted new remarks on the
subject in the Prolegomena which accompanied the first volume
of his Greek Testament in 1751. This, however, Bengel never
saw.
It was well that some valued the labours of this critic: amongst
others was Count Zinzendorf, who used Bengel’s text as the
basis of the German translation of the New Testament that he exe-
cuted. The pains taken by Bengel to regulate the punctuation of
the New Testament, and to divide it into paragraphs, were appre-
ciated by some; and in these respects he was followed by John
Gambold in the edition of Mill’s text, which appeared at Oxford in
1742; and these divisions have been very frequently adopted in this
country, as for instance, in the Greek Testament, edited by Bishop
Lloyd, in 1828, at Oxford, and frequently reprinted. In 1745, the
king of Denmark caused the authorised Danish version to be revised;
and the text of Bengel was used as the standard for that purpose.
Bengel felt that the attacks to which he was exposed were not
made so much against himself personally, as against the genuine
text of the New Testament; he thus bore the violent language
with which he was assailed, with much equanimity, while he
replied firmly and temperately to those who attacked him.
In one of his replies (in 1747) he said, ‘‘Oh that this may
be the last occasion of my standing in the gap to vindicate the
precious original text of the New Testament! The children of
peace cannot love contention; it 1s wearying and painful to them
to be obliged to contend even for the truth itself.”
Bengel’s text was repeatedly reprinted; and he continued up to
the time of his death to augment and correct his Apparatus Criti-
cus; the enlarged edition of which was published in 1763, under
the care of Philip David Burk.*
It is cheering to the mind of every Christian to observe the
* This is not the place to speak of Bengel’s other works; it should, however, be
borne in mind, that the revision of the sacred text was only one part of the labour
of this critic.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 73
spirit in which Bengel acts and speaks in connection with his cri-
tical labours. The revision of the text of the word of God was
with him no mere affair of learning or literary skill; but, knowing
the preciousness of that volume on which he was engaged, he
felt that he had to act in the consciousness of solemn responsibility
before God in editing His word:—and he knew that God could
give the needed intelligence and diligence, and thus he looked
to Him that the work on which he was engaged might be to the
glory of Christ.
§ 8—WETSTEIN’S GREEK TESTAMENT.
Tue Greek Testament edited by WETSTEIN, in 1751-2, greatly
enlarged the boundaries of the critical horizon by the accession of
new materials, from which more accurate judgments might be
formed on many points.
He commenced his critical studies when quite young. He was
related to the senior partner in the firm of Wetstein and Smith,
publishers and printers at Amsterdam; who, in the year 1711,
had brought out an edition of the Greek Testament, in which a
selection of the various readings given by Mill and Kiister were
repeated, and at the end an attempt was made to repudiate the
greater part of them as not worthy of notice, by means of the
application of certain canons of Gerard von Maestricht, the editor.
Wetstein’s relation to this publisher was intimately connected with
his becoming the editor of a Greek Testament.
In 1713, Wetstein, then just twenty, defended a dissertation at
Basle, which he had written on the various readings of the Greek
Testament. His relative, J. L. Frey, who presided on the occa-
sion, encouraged him after this to examine MSS. in different
libraries with more accuracy than had been previously done.
And thus, after a while, he went to Paris, and made extracts
74 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
from MSS. in the library there; he then came to England in the
beginning of 1716, where he showed his collations to Bentley,
who for a while employed him to compare MSS. at Paris, and to
whom he sold his collations.
In 1719, Wetstein was requested by his relatives, the publishers
at Amsterdam, who had heard before this of Bentley’s proposed
edition, to transmit to them without delay, for publication, the va-
rious readings which he had collected: it was, however, at length
agreed between the relatives that they should be reserved for a
second edition of the Greek Testament of Gerard von Maestricht,
which they had published in 1711.
About 1724, Frey requested Wetstein to make a selection of
those various readings which he judged the more important; he
accordingly wrote such readings as he judged preferable to the
common text in the margin of a Greek Testament. Frey pressed
on him to undertake the publication of the tert so revised. This
appears to be the first time that it occurred to Wetstein to do
more than edit the various readings which he had collected. He
hesitated for some time; but in 1728, his brother Peter Wetstein
being at Amsterdam, the subject was mentioned to the publishers
there, and they pressed for a specimen of the edition, with Prole-
gomena. It was desired (Hug says) to anticipate the forthcoming
edition of Bengel. With this request Wetstein complied; and at
once he obtained from Frey copies of the fathers, out of which he
gathered various readings; then he examined the early editions,
and began to bring the mass of various readings which he had
himself collected into some order.
In the beginning of 1729, Wetstein says that Frey’s whole con-
duct towards him was altered; and from that time he did nothing
but oppose both him and the work on which he was engaged.
On the 17th of September in that year, a petition was presented
to the town-council of Basle, from the theological faculty in the
university, and the parochial clergy, that J. J. Wetstein, deacon
of St. Leonard’s, be prohibited from publishing his criticisms on
the Greek Testament, as it was a useless, needless, and dangerous
work. The town-council did not grant the petition; but the
opposition of Frey and others continued unabated. The real
reason of this alarm, though it can hardly be gathered from Wet-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 75
stein’s ex parte statement, was the certainty that this critic had
adopted Arian sentiments, and that he was endeavouring covertly
to introduce them in his public preaching and academical lectures.
On these accounts disciplinary proceedings commenced against
him, which led to his leaving Basle, and taking up his abode at
Amsterdam, in 1733. He says, however, that the opposition of
the Basle theologians prevented the publication of his Greek Tes-
tament for nearly twenty years more.
In 1730, the Prolegomena which he had transmitted from Basle
were published anonymously at Amsterdam: they gave an outline
of his proposed edition, and an account of the critical authorities
which he had consulted. On many grounds, it is to be regretted
that Wetstein did not then publish his edition; because the criti-
cal principles which he afterwards adopted rendered him less able
to form a fair judgment of the value of the oldest authorities.
He was, however, constantly accumulating more materials; so
that, in each year, the work grew and extended under his hands.
In 1735, he wrote the Preface to a new edition of Gerard von
Maestricht’s Greek Testament, which was published by Wetstein
and Smith: in this he referred to the edition of Bengel; and,
indeed, the labours of that critic had no small effect on Wetstein;
for opposition to him led him to repudiate many of the critical
principles which he had previously held.
Originally Wetstein had thought of using the text of the Codex
Alexandrinus as his basis, all other authorities being compared
with it: he afterwards judged that it would be best to give a text,
such as was supported by what was (in his opinion) the best evi-
dence; but at length he determined to retain the common text,
and to place immediately below it, in a distinct manner, the read-
ings which he thought to be true.* But, in fact, the changes
which he thus proposed were not many, and not very important.
Twenty years before, he would have applied critical authorities
much more steadily and uniformly. In 1763, Bowyer published
* This plan of not changing the text itself, was adopted, it is said (Marsh’s Michae-
lis, ii. 475), at the request of the Remonstrants (Arminians), whom Wetstein had
joined on quitting Basle. He succeeded Le Clerc as rector of the Remonstrants’
High School at Amsterdam. Le Clerc’s latitudinarian sentiments on Scripture inspi-
ration, on the Godhead of Christ, and other subjects, are well known. In all these
points, Wetstein seems to have been his disciple.
76 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
an edition of the Greek Testament in London, in which Wet-
stein’s suggested readings were adopted in the text itself; and a
list of these (with the exception of those in the Revelation, where
they are numerous) is given at the end, the number of them being
three hundred and thirty-five only: of these not a few relate to
very minute points.
After such long preparations, and so many hindrances, Wet-
stein’s edition appeared at Amsterdam in two volumes folio; the
former in 1751, the latter in the following year. The upper part
of each page contains the text itself; below this stand those varia-
tions from it (if any) approved of by Wetstein; then the various
readings are placed; and as he had examined so many documents
which no one had previously collated, the part of the page which
these fill is often considerable. The lower part of the page is
occupied with a mass of passages from classical authors (both
Greek and Latin), Talmudical and Rabbinical extracts, etc., which
in Wetstein’s opinion illustrate some passage in the sacred text, or
elucidate the use of some word, or present instances of a similar
grammatical construction. The greatest variety is found in this
collection; while some parts are useful, others are such as only
excite surprise at their being found on the same page as the text
of the New Testament. Occasional remarks show that Wetstein
was not at all concerned to conceal his non-acceptance of the doc-
trine of the proper Godhead of Christ.
In the arrangement of the books, the Acts is placed after St.
Paul’s Epistles; this is done that it may accompany the Catholic
Epistles, with which it is found in many MSS.
Ample Prolegomena precede the first volume; in these, various
subjects are discussed which relate to the work in general; and
the MSS., etc., are described which are cited as critical authorities
in the four Gospels. Brief Prolegomena introduce the other three
parts of the work,—the Pauline Epistles,—the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, —and the Apocalypse.
The notation of MSS. is that which is still in common use:
the ancient MSS. (those in uncial letters) are distinguished by
Roman capitals, A, B, C, ete.; the other MSS. by Arabic nume-
rals. The notation recommences in each of the four parts; and
this is an inconvenience in two ways; for the same mark may
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 77
mean a valuable MS. in one part, and one of small importance in
another; and also the same MS. is cited with one reference in one
part, and with another reference in another: much confusion has
arisen from both these causes, especially from the latter.
Bishop Marsh says of Wetstein, what that critic had said of
Mill, that he accomplished more than all his predecessors put
together. If this character be too high, it is but little more than
the truth; and this must be borne in mind in considering the
edition; because otherwise it might seem as if a work, which has
been so often and so severely scrutinised, could hardly possess that
importance in sacred criticism which is admitted to belong to this.
Never before had there been so methodical an account presented
to the biblical student, of the MSS. versions and fathers, by
whose aid the text of the New Testament may be revised, as that
which is contained in the Prolegomena. The description of the
early editions has also a far more scholar-like completeness than
any which had preceded it.
Wetstein’s own labours had been considerable in the collation
of MSS.; they have indeed been often overstated by those who
took every MS. in his list as an authority which he had himself
examined: the actual number of the MSS. of the Gospels which
he had himself collated in the course of thirty-five years was about
twenty, and about an equal number in the other parts of the New
Testament. Besides this, he had, with great industry, collected
the collations of Mill and others, and had re-examined not a few
of the versions and fathers. And thus his notes present the
general storehouse of critical collations and examinations up to
the time of the publication of his edition.
To say that this part of his work might not have been much
improved, would be to exhibit a want of apprehension on the
whole subject; but none who understands the difficulties con-
nected with such a work, can do other than render a tribute to
Wetstein’s patient industry.
- The Prolegomena contain, however, besides what is valuable,
some strange theories. It had been long noticed that some of the
Greek MSS. which have a Latin version written with them, pre-
sent a remarkable resemblance to the readings of the Latin Testa-
ment. Hence arose a suspicion that in such MSS. the Greek
78 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
text had been adapted to the Latin, and thus the name Codices
Latinizantes arose. Also a suspicion had been thrown out by
Erasmus that, at the council of Florence in 1439, it had been
agreed that the Greeks who then united with the church of Rome,
should alter or correct their copies to suit the Vulgate; the term
Feedus cum Grecis was applied to this supposed compact; and if
any MSS. much resembled the Latin in their readings, it was
thought that this supposed compact might explain it: to this it
would have been a sufficient answer that the MSS. charged with
Latinising are ancient; whereas Erasmus only applied the notion
to any which might have been posterior to the Florentine council.
Wetstein, however, carried his charge of Latinising much farther
than had been done by others; for he applied it to every one of
the more ancient MSS.
Bentley had valued highly the MSS. which may agree with
the old copies of the version of Jerome; and on such he had
especially employed Wetstein’s labours; indeed the collation
which he made of the Codex Ephraemi at Paris, was not only the
work of the greatest toil and patience of any part of his edition,
but it was also about the most important. After the cessation of
Bentley’s intimacy with Wetstein, the latter, who seems to have
expected a continuance of employment, looked upon MSS. of that
class with a less favourable eye than before. But it was not until
the publication of Bengel’s Greek Testament, when public atten-
tion was particularly called to the high value which he set on the
Latin versions and the oldest Greek MSS., that Wetstein, who
involved himself in critical controversies with him, formed a less
and less favourable opinion of the oldest MSS.; every thing
which agreed with the Latin was now affirmed to be interpola-
tion from that version. This, if true, would affect not only these
MSS., but also the greater part of the ancient versions as well.
It might well be asked, how or when did Latin versions come
into existence? and how could Latin streams thus universally
affect Greek sources? And again, how could early Greek fathers
have followed the readings adopted from the Latin in subsequent
times ? :
To see the effect of a theory, it is only needful to compare the
first edition of Wetstein’s Prolegomena, with that which actually
' OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 79
accompanied his Greek Testament twenty-one years later: in the
one he speaks of these ancient documents in a very different tone
from that which he afterwards adopted. It is almost incredible
that the same person who formed such a harsh estimate of the
Codex Alexandrinus in the enlarged Prolegomena, could ever
have thought of using it as the basis of his text. This low value
for the most ancient MSS. seems to have hindered Wetstein from
taking any particular pains to obtain the use of the collation of
the Codex Vaticanus which had been made for Bentley.
Wetstein seems almost to wonder at the result of his own
theory; when he expresses his lamentation that all the most
ancient monuments should be interpolated from the Latin, and
that we have to descend several centuries from the date of the
oldest copies before we find any which, on his principles, could
be used for establishing a pure text. He observed certain phe-
nomena very accurately; but he accounted for them with as little
accuracy as the inventors of some of the old systems of astronomy
explained the motions of the heavenly bodies.
Many parts of Wetstein’s Prolegomena are encumbered with
his attacks on others, and by the details of his contentions with
Frey and Iselin. These portions are so mixed up by him with
the details of the history of his edition, that they cannot be passed
by without notice; although, even by Wetstein’s own showing,
they leave an unpleasant impression as regards himself. No one
who values Holy Scripture, and who desires rightly to appreciate
sound learning applied to the revision of its text, can do other
than desire not to find the New Testament accompanied by re-
marks in such a tone as many of those of Wetstein.*
Certain Animadversiones et Cautiones on the subject of the
text of the New Testament, and the examination of various read-
ings, were subjoined to Wetstein’s second volume. He laid
down, that the New Testament should be edited as correctly
as possible; that all critical aids should be employed to that
end; that the prescription of the common text should have
no authority whatever; that editors must form their own judg-
* “TDoctrinam ei concedo, et literas, et diligentiam, et multiplicem lectionem: sed
mansuetudinem, humanitatem, candorem in Prolegomenis ejus desidero.” Woide,
quoted approvingly by Bp. Marsh. Trans. of Michaelis, ii. 873.
80 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
ment as to accents, breathings, punctuation, and orthography ;
that conjectural emendations are never to be hastily admitted or
rejected; that the distinction of readings into those more and
those less weighty is useless; between two readings, the one
which is better sounding, or more clear, or better Greek, is not
to be at once chosen, but more often the contrary; a readiug
which exhibits an unusual expression, but which is in other
respects suitable to the matter in hand, is preferable to another,
which, although equally suitable, has expressions such as are not
peculiar; of two readings the fuller and more ample is not at once
to be accepted, but rather the contrary ; if of two readings one is
found in the same words elsewhere, and the other is not, the former
is by no means to be preferred to the latter; a reading altogether
conformable to the style of each writer, ceteris paribus, is to be
preferred ; of two various readings, that which seems the more
orthodox is not to be forthwith preferred; of two various read-
ings in Greek copies, that which accords with the ancient versions
is not easily to be looked on as the worse; patristic testimonies
have very great weight in proving the true reading in the New
Testament; the silence of the fathers as to readings of importance
in the controversies of their own times makes such readings
suspected ; great care must be taken in not adopting the errata
of collectors of various readings or of printers; the reading which
is proved to be the more ancient, ceteris paribus, must be pre-
ferred; the reading of the majority of MSS., ceteris paribus, must
be preferred; there is no reason why we should not receive a
reading into the text, not only if it is suitably attested, but even
when it is doubtful which reading is preferable.
Wetstein illustrates his axioms by pretty copious remarks and
examples: it is evident that he did not consider that any classi/-
cation of authorities could form a part of his system, and that
thus they were all before him as one labyrinth, through which
there was no definite guiding clue. Many of these axioms are
such as all critics must approve, and some pretty nearly accord
with Bengel’s rule, Proclivi scriptiont prestat ardua; while others,
such as that which sanctions the introduction of conjecture in the
text, and that which attributes so great a value to numbers, are of
a different kind. Had Wetstein applied his own rules to the
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 81
recension of the text, he would have done much more than he
actually performed in that department. But, while he stigma-
tised the oldest Greek MSS. because of their often agreeing with
the Latin versions, and supposed that this accordance was the
result of interpolation, he was hardly consistent in maintaining
that the agreement of MSS. and versions was an important testi-
mony to the true reading; and so, too, it was not easy to uphold
the authority of the most ancient readings, when the evidence of
the most ancient MSS. had been thus set aside. Some of Wet-
stein’s remarks on the citations found in the writings of the fathers,
as edited, are excellent: he was fully aware how habitually these
quotations have been modernised by copyists and editors: so that
he fully agreed with Bentley, that these citations must be exa-
mined first, and then a judgment formed as to what the cited
reading actually was. ‘The consent of the editions of the
fathers with the common text of the New Testament is often
deservedly suspected; and, as often as some ancient MS. accords
with the reading of a father, differing from the common editions,
and from himself as edited, this is to be taken for the genuine
reading of that father (and, so far, for that of the sacred writer),
and is to be preferred to that commonly edited.” |
Wetstein’s Prolegomena were reprinted by Semler in 1764, who
added his own notes and remarks: he also edited the supplemen-
tary observations of Wetstein with large additions in 1766. The
theories of Wetstein on the subject of what were called Latinising
MSS., as well as on other points, found in Semler a critic well
able to discuss them, and often to show their fallacy. It was,
however, long before some of these theories lost their hold on the
minds of biblical students. The edition of Wetstein received far
more attention than did the critical principles which he laid down,
which might have modified much of what preceded.
The notes of Semler brought forward much that was of import-
ance—much that has been almost essential to the biblical student.
A new edition of Wetstein’s Greek Testament was undertaken,
about a quarter of a century ago, by J. A. Lotze of Amsterdam:
the first part, containing the Prolegomena castigated, and the
7
82 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
supplementary remarks on critical principles, was published at
Rotterdam in 1831. Lotze retained the greater part of the notes
of Semler, to which he added others of his own.
Those parts of Wetstein’s Prolegomena which relate to his own
contentions with Frey and Iselin, or which speak severely of Ben-
gel and his critical labours, were wholly omitted by Lotze. On
some accounts none would regret their absence, but for one reason
they are almost necessary; because it is only in these parts that
the history of Wetstein’s own edition can be found. This may be
taken as a sample of the judgment exercised by Lotze in the pre-
paration for this edition: no other portion appeared, as the decease
of the new editor hindered the teat from being reprinted; and,
however much it may be desired that students should have access
to Wetstein’s edition at a more moderate cost, it is no cause for
regret, from the specimen afforded by the Prolegomena, that it
was not re-edited by Lotze. The misprints, false references from
one part to another, oversights and errors in judgment manifest in
the reprinted Prolegomena, fully justify this opinion.*
Succeeding editors have selected from Wetstein: Griesbach did
this avowedly, adding also other readings; and Scholz, following
Griesbach, used what he had extracted as the basis of his own
additions; but the critical materials found in Wetstein, have
never, as a whole, been reprinted.
* Semler’s editorial care in republishing Wetstein’s Prolegomena is not to be com-
mended. He added good notes, but all the rest seems to have been left to his printer;
hence remarkable mistakes have required correction in the preface, in which, however,
Semler speaks as if he had revised the proof-sheets himself. This is scarcely possible.
Some of the errata noticed by Wetstein are not corrected; nor are they in Lotze’s
edition, who even uses one of them as the basis of an annotation. The fact stands
thus :—Wetstein, in his account of different editions, mentions that published by his
relatives at Amsterdam in 1711, and speaks of what was done in connection with it
“a D. Georgio a Mastricht Syndico Bremensi” (Prol. p.177); among the errata (p. 967)
the word “Georgio” is corrected to “ Gerardo” (as it might be from the following
page); but Lotze retains “Georgio,” and gives a note on Gerard von Maestricht’s
edition, as if it had been wholly neglected by Wetstein; and yet the very next page
of Wetstein might have set Lotze right.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 83
§ 9—THE EDITIONS OF GRIESBACH, AND
CONTEMPORARY LABOURS.
WETSTEIN left New Testament criticism with a vast mass of
materials accumulated; with many MSS. and versions examined
partially; and with a kind of idea of indefinite vastness thrown
over the whole subject. The hints on the classification of MSS.,
which had been given by Bentley and Bengel, were no longer
heeded; and in many minds there was a kind of fear lest any
material variation from the common text would prove eventually
to rest upon fallacious grounds. Wetstein had so widened the
field for study, that it was some time before the authorities and
various readings which he had amassed were so understood and
appreciated, that an independent judgment could be formed.
And besides, there were certain received opinions amongst the
critics which were now rudely overturned: the high value which,
from the time of Usher and Walton to that of Bentley and
Bengel, had been ascribed to the Alexandrian and other most
ancient MSS. was denied; and they were peremptorily con-
demned as ‘“ Latinising.”
It was, therefore, of importance that the true character of the
most ancient MSS. should be shown,—that authorities should (if
possible) be arranged in an intelligible order, and that they should
be steadily, consistently, and critically used in the emendation of
the text.
The scholar who undertook this task was GRIESBACH. With
him, in fact, texts which might be called really critical begin ; so
that if any one wishes to give the results of critical inquiries as
applied to the common text, he would begin with that formed by
Griesbach. The first edition published by that scholar was one
commenced in 1774, in which the Gospels were brought into a
kind of synopsis: this part of the work was reprinted in the
common order three years later, and that volume, with the pre-
viously printed Epistles, &c. (1775), forms what is called Gries-
bach’s first edition. For this the critical materials were in great
part selected from those of Wetstein; they were not, however,
84 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
confined to what had been found in that edition; for Griesbach
during his travels had examined many MSS. and collated a few.
He had also made extensive use of the old Latin Texts published
by Blanchini and by Sabatier, and he had collected the citations
found in the writings of Origen with much care.
He differed entirely from the judgment of Wetstein against
the most ancient Greek MSS.; and on this subject accorded in
opinion with Bentley, Bengel, and Semler: he also approved of
the judgment of Bengel as to a twofold division of the Greek
MSS. into families,—one African and one Byzantine; but, like
Semler, he divided the former into two parts; so as in fact to
maintain that there are three classes of text—two ancient, and one
more recent. These three classes would respectively correspond
to the three sources from which Bentley speaks of MSS. having
come to us—from Egypt, from the West, and from Asia. The
names assigned by Griesbach to the three classes of text which he
sought thus to establish, were Western, Alexandrian, and Con-
stantinopolitan. The first of these contained (he considered) the
text which in the early periods had been in circulation, and which,
through the errors of copyists, required much correction; the
Alexandrian was, in his opinion, an attempt to revise the old
corrupt text, and the Constantinopolitan flowed (in his opinion)
from the other two. Thus, although the second only was an
actual revision, the term recension was applied to each of the three,
and under that name they are commonly discussed. The origin of
the Western and Alexandrian recensions was differently explained,
—only, on this theory, both existed as distinct in the latter part
of the second century.
The critical authorities were ranged by Griesbach under his
three recensions ; and each was valued, not so much for its absolute
evidence as for contributing its testimony as to what the reading
is of the recension to which it belongs. Thus, in forming his text
he placed more reliance upon union of recensions in attesting a
reading, than upon other external evidences.
In his first edition of the New Testament, many readings were
given in the margin with marks to indicate the recension, or the
mixture of recensions to which he considered them to belong.
Although his later critical edition is more complete, and in all
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 85
respects more valuable, yet if his system of recensions in its appli-
cation is the subject of examination, this first edition is necessary.
Griesbach showed great apprehension of the value of absolute
evidence to the antiquity of readings; and thus he was able to
form a judgment of the character of MSS. which had previously
been condemned (as by Wetstein), or had attracted but little
notice. In the form in which the Lord’s Prayer occurs in Luke
x1., Griesbach, in his first edition, followed the evidence of the
distinct statements of Origen, confirmed by some of the ancient
versions, although he could then show no ancient MS. as authority
for some of the omissions. His judgment was remarkably con-
firmed a few years afterwards, when the readings of the most
ancient of our MSS., the Codex Vaticanus, were published ; for
it was found that ail these omissions are confirmed by that docu-
ment. ‘This is an illustration of the independent channels through
which the antiquity (and often the genuineness) of a reading, may
become a matter of demonstration. Had not Griesbach been fet-
tered by his recension-theory, he would in all his editions have
adhered far more closely than he did to ancient evidence. As it
is, in all his editions there is a correction of the text in many
places ; suggested corrections in others, placed in the margin, or
noted (in the case of omissions) in the text itself. He did not put
forth an edition resting simply on authority.
Soon after the appearance of Griesbach’s first edition, other
collations were instituted. C. F. MarrHar published at Riga,
in twelve volumes, 1782-88, the New Testament in Greek and
Latin. The Greek was based on MSS. which he had himself
collated at Moscow, where he was a Professor for some years.
Having access to MSS. which had not been previously collated, he
was induced to take up a work for which he had no peculiar
fitness on the ground of previous studies. The tope and manner
in which he expresses himself are very unpleasant, especially
towards Griesbach ; and the want of acquaintance with the labours
of previous collators, which he manifests, often leads him into
great mistakes. In his earlier volumes he speaks of Wetstein’s
edition very contemptuously; but after he had seen the book
itself, and found that the opinions (or prejudices) of that editor
86 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
led him to estimate very lightly the most ancient MSS. which
Griesbach most highly valued, he changed his tone, and upheld
Wetstein to depreciate Griesbach. Matthezi appears to have col-
lated the Moscow MSS. with much diligence, so that the reader
is rarely in doubt as to the evidence of a MS. for or against any
particular lection. The Latin Vulgate is given in this edition
from a MS. (the Codex Demidovianus) with which Matthzxi met
in Russia.
All ideas of systems of recension or classification were wholly
rejected by Matthsei; and he never loses an opportunity of pour-
ing ridicule on Griesbach and his critical principles. In doing
this he applies the most offensive epithets to all the most ancient
MSS., and he endeavours to decry the citations given in the
writings of the fathers, as if they were worth nothing. He even
imagined that MSS. had been habitually corrupted by having
their text altered and adapted to what was found in certain fathers.
All MSS. which did not fall in a general way into a kind of
accordance with those in common use in later times, were utterly
condemned by Matthei. All of those from which he edited
his Greek Testament belonged to Griesbach’s Constantinopolitan
family.
Matthei published a second edition, without the critical autho-
rities, in three volumes, 1803-7.
It is painful and wearisome to see so much learning and patience
as Matthzi had, combined with so offensive a mode of speaking of
those to whom he was opposed. This will always make his dis-
cursive notes unpleasant to the student; and this long hindered
scholars in general from paying much attention to his arguments
against Griesbach’s system of recensions. It should be observed
that the tone and manner in which Griesbach speaks of Matthei is
always courteous, and devoid of a spirit of retaliation.
In 1786-7, ALTER published the text of a MS. in the imperial
library at Vienna: this was accompanied with the collations of
other MSS. in the same depository.
The Danish Professors BrrcH, ADLER, and MOLDENHAUER,
for several years, were occupied in collating MSS. principally in
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 87
Italy and Spain, at the expense of the King of Denmark. The
results of their labours appeared, as far as the four Gospels are
concerned, in 1788, under the editorial care of Birch. The read-
ings of the Codex Vaticanus were now for the first time published ;
in part from Birch’s collation, and in the Gospels of Luke and
John from that made for Bentley.* A fire in the royal printing-
house at Copenhagen having prevented the completion of this
edition, Birch published the various readings collected from the
Acts and Epistles in 1798; those for the Apocalypse in 1800;
and in 1801, those which had accompanied the text of the edition
of the Gospels were reprinted separately in the same form as the
rest.
Thus, in the course of a few years, there was a new body of
critical materials published, which was far larger than that which
had been collected by Wetstein from his own labours and those
of his predecessors; and, besides this, many of the newly-exa-
mined documents were collated with more accuracy than had
hitherto been customary.
And besides the new collations of MSS., the text of some few
of the more important documents was printed: Hearne had thus
edited the Greek and Latin Codex Laudianus (E) of the Acts in
1715; and, in the period now under consideration, Woide edited
the New Testament part of the Codex Alexandrinus (A) in 1786,
and the Codex Beze (D) of the Gospels and Acts was similarly
published by Kipling in 1793; also the Greek and Latin Codex
Boernerianus (G) of St. Paul’s Epistles was edited by Matthzei in
1791.¢ Montfaucon, in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana, had given
the text of the fragments of an ancient MS. of St. Paul’s Epistles
(H) and to the list of edited fragments had since been added two
Wolfenbiittel palimpsests (P and Q), containing parts of the
Gospels, published by Knittel in 1763, and the very ancient Greek
and Thebaic Borgian fragments (T) of part of St. John’s Gospel
which appeared at Rome in 1789.
And thus it was that in the twenty years which elapsed between
the first edition of Griesbach and the first volume of his second,
* The whole of Bentley’s collation of this MS. was published at Oxford in1799.
+ This is sometimes said to have been reprinted in 1818; but there was only one
impression: a new title-page was prefixed to the unsold copies with this false date.
88 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the materials had increased to double the quantity previously
known.* From these accumulations it was the place of a wise
critic judiciously to select what was worthy of especial consider-
ation.
The first volume of Griesbach’s second edition appeared in
1796. The preface is valuable, as giving not only his own prin-
ciples of criticism, but also an account of much which bears on
the history of the text. The general plan of this edition resem-
bles that of the first, amplified, corrected, and improved; various
degrees of probability as to various readings are indicated as before;
but no attempt is made to enter minutely into the refinements of
theory as to the additions and peculiarities of the recensions.
One of Griesbach’s principles was, that if a reading were sup-
ported by two out of the three recensions, the evidence in its
favour was exceedingly great. This might be almost the same as
saying, if the most ancient MSS. agree (for these MSS. make up
his Alexandrian and Western recensions), their evidence is pre-
ponderating; if they disagree, then if the later MSS. (Constanti-
nopolitan) agree with one of these classes, their combination must
prevail. This, however, would not always hold good, even on
Griesbach’s principles; for he considered that no document con-
tained one recension pure and unmixed; and thus those of the most
ancient classes, when their readings are in accordance with the more
recent, may often in such places possess no independent testimony.
The following is a brief synopsis of some of the general princi-
ples of criticism laid down by Griesbach:—No reading must be
considered preferable, unless it has the support of at least some
ancient testimonies.| As to readings, looked at in themselves, a
shorter is to be preferred before one that is more verbose;t so also
is that which is more difficult and obscure,—that which is more
* Birch probably did more than any other scholar in the collation of MSS. of the
Greek Testament.
+ “ Opus non erit, ut ssepe seepius repetamus, leetiones, quas in se spectatas potiores
esse judicamus, tum demum ceteris esse preeferendas, si nonnullorum saltim testium
vetustorum suffragiis commendentur.” (Proleg., p.1x1., ze¢e.)
t It can hardly be too habitually remembered, in criticism, that copyists were
always more accustomed to add than to omit. Those who know nothing of criticism
or of ancient books, biblical or classical, often imagine the contrary ; but such is not
the fact. Of course careless transcribers may omit; but, in general, texts, like snow-
balls, grow in course of transmission.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 89
harsh,—that which contains something unusual,—that which is
less emphatic (unless emphasis may be expected); in all these
cases, however, and others which are laid down, such as those
favouring ‘“‘ monkish piety,” seeming glosses, etc., weight of evi-
dence may cause the apparently less preferable reading to be
accepted as genuine.
Griesbach gives many remarks on the weight of evidence to be
attributed to different testimonies; and, as might be expected, he
treats at considerable length on the value of his different recen-
sions, and the manner in which their evidence should be estimated.
These considerations are such as would necessarily modify consi-
derably the critical principles of general application which he had
before laid down, and they therefore would affect the text which
he formed. Some of these considerations, however, apart from all
theories of recensions, are useful in forming an estimate of any
individual document; for if it has peculiarities, such as a tendency
to omit, or to insert, or to bring parallel passages into close verbal
agreement, or anything else of the kind, then, zz such cases, its
evidence is of far less weight than it would have had, if it had
not been characterised by such peculiarities.
In the places in which Griesbach differs from the common text,
he generally gives a reading which is better attested, though in
many cases not the best supported. That he improved the text is
unquestionable ; that he led the way for the same thing to be done
by others is equally certain ; and yet his own theoretical system had
very little to do with the benefit which resulted from his labours.
The concluding volume of Griesbach’s second critical edition
was published in 1806, after having been for several years in the
press. In the preceding year he published a manual edition, con-
taining the text and the more important various readings, but
without any statement of the authorities.* This edition contains,
* Griesbach’s manual edition has been reprinted, but without care as to accuracy ;
the edition of Leipsic, 1805, is the only one which can be trusted as giving his text ;
besides a short list of errata, the volume ought to be accompanied by a longer list,
relating mostly to the Revelation.
Tn 1827, Dr. David Schulz published a new and much-improved edition of the first
volume of Griesbach’s critical text and various readings. Its value is considerably
greater than the original work.
90 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
generally speaking, the most matured judgment of Griesbach as
to the formation of the text; and thus in the places in which it
differs from his critical edition, it is entitled to general preference,
as giving his critical judgment.
The system of recensions laid down by Griesbach occasioned
much discussion; and while some opposed it altogether, others
embraced and defended it, and others modified it, or made it the
starting-point of theories of their own. Of those who thus
formed new systems, the Roman-Catholic Professor Hue, of Frei-
burg, was the one entitled, as a biblical scholar, to the greatest
attention. He considered that the text was, in the early periods,
left without revision; and that its then state, with various corrup-
tions, is that found in the Codex Beze: to this he gave the name
of xown éxdocus: this old text, replete with errors of transcribers,
was (he supposed) revised about the same time by Origen in
Palestine, by Hesychius in Egypt, and by Lucian at Antioch.
To these recensions he ascribed the MSS. which have come down
tous. The only basis for the supposed fact of these three revi-
sions is, that some ancient writers mention the copies of Origen,
of Hesychius, and of Lucian: they say, however, not one word
about systematic revision, and they do not hint (what Hug as-
sumed) that the recension of Hesychius was adopted in Egypt,
as the text of the New Testament, and that of Lucian in Asia,
There is some ground for supposing that they did something with
regard to the Septuagint, which was adopted in those countries;
but although certain MSS. of the Gospels were called after those
two men, they seem to have been only received and used by a
few, and they could not have been revisions of the cow éxdoars,
if (as seems from Jerome) they contained various additions from
parallel places.* It was easier for Hug to show the weak points
of Griesbach’s theory, than for him to establish another on its
ruins: indeed, if Griesbach erred in assuming certain points as
facts, Hug did the same to a far greater degree. The untenable
* “Prgtermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos paucorum
hominum adserit perversa contentio: quibus utique nec in veteri instrumento post
septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, nec in novo profuit emendasse, cum
multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse que addita sunt.”
— Hieron. ad Damasum.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 91
point of Griesbach’s system, even supposing that it had some
historic basis, was the impossibility of drawing an actual line of
distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions:
together they might be clearly seen to stand in opposition to the
mass of Byzantine documents; amongst themselves there are cer-
tain differences (especially in St. Paul’s Epistles); but the precise
distinction, so as to afford a warrant for exact classification, is not
to be found. Indeed, Griesbach himself virtually gave up his
system as to this point, in the last work which he lived to publish.
In the second part of his Commentarius Criticus, in 1811 (the
year before his death), he showed that the readings of Origen
do not accord at all precisely with the Alexandrian recension to
which he had attributed them, and that thus the boundary-line
between Alexandrian and Western authority was not definable.
Soon after Griesbach’s death, Archbishop Laurence took up the
subject in his Remarks on Griesbach’s systematic classification of
MSS.; and he very fully demonstrated, that the final judgment of
that critic had been the correct one.
And yet the influence which Griesbach’s labours exercised
upon criticism was most important. There are many who, when
they hear that his system of recensions has been thoroughly de-
molished, think that all reference to his labours may be cast aside
as being zow unworthy of attention. This procedure savours both
of ignorance and temerity. Even though facts have been ac-
counted for wrongly, they still remain facts. Astronomical ob-
servations by a Ptolemzan may be highly valued, as good and
useful, by those who know the truth of the Copernican system.
Facts in chemistry stand good, even though the first observers of
those facts explained them on systems now obsolete and exploded.
The facts to which Griesbach gave a prominence should thus be
distinguished from the theories which he deduced from them.
Griesbach’s critical studies commenced at a time when Wet-
stein’s influence had cast discredit on all the most ancient MSS.,
and when every document which accorded with the most ancient
authorities was deemed unworthy of a voice in criticism. Against
this peremptory and arbitrary procedure Griesbach protested.
He sought in some measure to restore the ancient documents to
92 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the consideration which they had received from Bentley and from
Bengel. He showed that the MSS. charged with Latinising were
such as contained the readings cited by Origen; and all this was
labour well bestowed, even though he went too far in drawing
distinctions amongst the documents themselves whose text is
ancient. Within a few years after the time when Griesbach en-
deavoured to vindicate the character of the most ancient MSS.,
and to show their true value, documents were collated or came to
light which marvellously confirmed his judgment. A collation
of the Codex. Vaticanus was published for the first time, and it
was remarkable to find that it accorded so much with the charac-
teristics of the class of MSS. which Griesbach had styled Alexan-
drian; so too the text of the Borgian fragment (T) of St. John,
published by Georgi; and when the Dublin palimpsest of St.
Matthew came to light, it was a text of just the same character.
Thus were the facts confirmed, which Griesbach had previously
deduced from such data as he could obtain: the result, apart from
all theories of recensions, is, the value attaching to the ancient
documents as the witnesses of the ancient text.
§ 10—SCHOLZ’S GREEK TESTAMENT.
THE late Professor J. M. A. ScHouz, of Bonn, who had been a
pupil of Hug, after spending several years in the collation and
examination of MSS., and several more in arranging his materials,
published his critical edition in two volumes in 1830-36. He
had formerly been the proposer of a recension-theory according
to which all documents were divided into five families; éwo
African (Alexandrian and Western), one Asiatic, one Byzantine,
and one Cyprian. This theory he afterwards rejected ; and, in
its stead, he reverted to the two families, as they had been defined
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 93
a century before by Bengel. Instead, however, of deeming the
Alexandrian documents the more important, Scholz took exactly
the opposite view: he maintained that the true text should be
sought mainly amongst the Constantinopolitan documents.
These principles were defended with a certain degree of
ingenuity. Scholz alleged that his favourite family of MSS.
always presented one uniform text,—a text, which, having been
preserved in general purity before Constantinople received its
imperial supremacy, still preserved it (in spite of some Alexan-
drian intermixture in the fourth century); and thus, in the patri-
archate of Constantinople, this text was (he supposed) retained
and transmitted.
In support of this theory, he referred to the known discrepan-
cies of the MSS. and versions of the Alexandrian family from one
another ; and in contrast he maintained the general unity of the
Constantinopolitan MSS. as to the text which they present. It
is true that there was a difficulty arising from the fact that none
of the most ancient MSS. belong to the Constantinopolitan class ;
but this Scholz sought to obviate by pointing out that MSS.,
which were approved and kept in constant use, would necessarily
be worn out. It might, however, be asked, how it happens that
several documents of the Alexandrian family remain, and none
of the oldest class of any other, not even in fragments? Scholz
endeavoured to strengthen his cause by pressing into his service
some of the ancient versions; but they only serve his purpose in
places where they happen to differ from the Alexandrian text ;
an examination of their divergencies from the Constantinopolitan
documents would show that they accord far less with it. The
older fathers do Scholz but little service ; so that he is forced to
descend to about the fifth century before he finds those who use
the text which he prefers.
The result of Scholz’s classification is, that he calls Alexandrian
the most ancient MSS., the old Latin version, and the Vulgate of
Jerome, the two Egyptian versions, and the Ethiopic. This class
of text was also used by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, as
well as later writers.
He considers the later MSS. in general to be Constantinopolitan,
together with the old Syriac version (in part), the later Syriac,
94 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the Gothic, Georgian, and Sclavonic versions, as well as certain
fathers from the fourth century and onward. (He cites indeed
some earlier fathers, whose evidence really proves nothing.)
Now taking his own classification (which as to the old Syriac
is not very correct), it comes to this, that the witnesses against
his favoured family of authorities are formidable both from num-
bers and character; for all the oldest MSS. extant, and most of
the more ancient versions, are opposed to his conclusions. It is a
rather significant fact to see the dater of the versions ranging them-
selves unequivocally on the same side as the later MSS.
One part of Scholz’s labours must be definitely stated before
further considering his principles. He examined many MSS. in
the course of his travels, and he collated some; he described the
places in which many are preserved, which were previously un-
known to critics; so that the list of MSS. which he gives is nearly
double in number that which had accompanied the edition of
Griesbach. He has thus been an exploring traveller; and the
general report which he brings back of the regions in which he
has journeyed, is one highly favourable to the Constantinopolitan
views which he had imbibed.
But it sometimes happens that an exploring collector is by no
means the most competent person to classify and catalogue the
objects which he brings home with him: his own estimate of
their value may be far higher than that of an experienced man of
“science, whose time has been occupied rather with studying than
with wandering. And so it has been with Scholz; his estimate
of the number of MSS. which he has seen, as containing the true
text, is far higher than sober criticism can admit. And further,
the readings which Scholz gives from the MSS. which he has
collated are (in the cases in which others have tested them) by no
means accurate; his Greek Testament abounds in errata, and these
of an extraordinary kind; so that even if his collations, as made
by himself, were exact, his readers have not the benefit of their
accuracy ; for, as printed they can be depended on but little.
Scholz is entitled to the respect due to a laborious scholar,
devoted for years to one object: he has rendered no small service
in pointing out where MSS. are preserved; and those who come
after him may find from his list some documents worthy of their
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 95
attention which were previously unnoticed. It must be observed
that the greater part of the documents which none had consulted
before Scholz, have a place in the Uist which he gives, but no
readings are cited from them in his collection of various lections :
he calls the greater number of them Constantinopolitan (as doubt-
less they are), and rests on the supposed uniformity of text as
giving the weight of numbers in favour of what he advocated.
And thus in many discussed passages in which Griesbach had
varied from the common text in following ancient authorities,
Scholz, relying on numbers, followed the more recent documents,
and thus adhered to the received text or to readings not differing
from it greatly.
And hence the text of Scholz was highly valued by many who
feared innovation: they were willing to believe that a deep truth
lay at the basis of the system; and they acquiesced in his estimate
of authorities. Others, too, who were themselves dissatisfied with
Griesbach’s system of recensions, or who knew that competent
scholars had raised objections with regard to it, were willing to
assent to the twofold division of MSS., etc., proposed by Scholz ;
and this was often the case without inquiry and accurate investi-
gation into the correctness of his arrangement of documents and
authorities under the respective classes. Scholz’s twofold division
was supposed by some to be a new discovery of his own: they
overlooked Bengel’s distribution of documents into families, and
the entirely different estimate which he had formed of their
respective authority.
In this manner the critical principles of Scholz found many
advocates in this country: not so much amongst those who had
really studied the subject, as amongst the very numerous class
who deprecate all application of criticism to the sacred text.
When Scholz relied on the great uniformity of text found (as
he said) in the Greek documents written during the last nine
centuries within the limits of the patriarchate of Constantinople,
as though this uniformity guaranteed its genuineness, appeal was
made to the Latin MSS., in which uniformity was far more
manifest in those of a comparatively modern date, than in any
class of Greek copies; and yet it was a notorious fact, that the
later Latin MSS. accord in readings repudiated by the more
96 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
ancient, and which are totally different from what that version
was as it left the hands of Jerome. So that by analogy the uni-
formity of later Greek copies proved nothing whatever. Also the
mass of these Greek MSS. were written at Constantinople or on
Mount Athos; so that it would not be very remarkable if they
followed a few exemplars closely resembling one another. There
was a difficulty always, however, to be reconciled, if possible, to
Scholz’s theory, that the Constantinopolitan text was preserved and
maintained by a kind of Church authority ; and this difficulty was
the fact that some manifestly Alexandrian MSS. were written for
Church use in Constantinople in the later period: this is a good
disproof of the existence of a received text in the eastern imperial
capital.
But the alleged uniformity of the later documents of Scholz’s
approved family is not quite a fact;* so that the argument, if
it be worth anything, drawn from the supposed agreement, fails
utterly and entirely. Many amongst them may be generally
alike, but there is no settled and established standard to which
the copies as a matter of course conform.
Thus beyond the point of the twofold division of classes, Scholz
cannot be safely followed; for he substituted theories for proofs ;
and in advancing forward with his Constantinopolitan forces, he
seems to have forgotten how he had left the Alexandrian authori-
ties behind him, holding a sort of quiet possession of the text of
the first four centuries.
In the text itself, Scholz seems often to depart from his own
principles: this arises partly from the extensive use which he
made of the previous labours of Griesbach, and partly from the
difficulty of always combatting a mass of evidence sufficient to
rebut his hypothesis. He does not follow Griesbach in adopting
any signs of greater or less probability, so that all stands on the
same ground of acceptance.
In the margin he gave not only the readings of the common
text which he had changed, but he also placed there a mass of
readings which he terms Alexandrian; many of which are the
* In full proof of this, see Mr. Scrivener’s recently-published collation of the
Gospels. There is great want of uniformity in very many MSS., Church Lectionaries
and others, of the Constantinopolitan class.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 97
best attested of all by ancient evidence. He also gives there those
Constantinopolitan readings which he does not accept. It must
be owned, however, that both these terms are used in this margin
in a manner rather arbitrary, and that Scholz’s text is not nearly
as Constantinopolitan as might have been expected from his prin-
ciples: this is particularly observable in the second volume.
It is rather singular that a Roman Catholic should adopt a
critical system peculiarly opposed to the text of the Latin Vulgate ;
—a system in fact which would stigmatise that version, even when
fresh from the hand of Jerome, as following incorrect or even
corrupted copies of the Greek text.
Scholz’s edition was received with greater approbation in this
country than elsewhere; indeed the publication of the second
volume was aided considerably, even if the whole cost was not
defrayed, by subscriptions in England. This evidently sprung
from a feeling that Scholz’s labours were on the side of conserva-
tive criticism ; whereas such criticism, if rightly understood and
applied to the word of God, will seek to uphold what the Apostles
and Evangelists actually wrote, in their own words, and not as
their writings are found in the later copies.
If Scholz’s text is compared with that of Griesbach, it will be
seen that it is a retrograde step in the application of criticism ; and
thus though he maintained a truer system of families than Gries-
bach did, yet his results are even less satisfactory, because he
applied a theory to the classification of authorities by which their
respective value was precisely reversed.
§ 11—LACHMANN’S EDITIONS.
IN 1831 a small edition appeared with this title——‘‘ Novum Tes-
tamentum Grece. [Ex recensione Caroli Lachmann.” There was
no Preface; and the only indication of the critical principles on
which it was edited (besides what could be gathered from the text
8
98 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
itself), was a brief notice at the end, preceding a list of the places
in which it differed from the common text.
This notice stated, that the plan of the edition had been ex-
plained in a German periodical of the preceding year; and that it
was sufficient there to say that the editor had never followed his
own judgment, but the custom of the most ancient oriental
churches. That when this was not uniform, he had preferred
what (as far as could be ascertained) was supported by African
and Italian consent: that where there was great uncertainty, this
was indicated in part by enclosing words within brackets, and in
part by placing a different reading in the margin ;—the so-called
textus receptus being allowed no place.*
It need be no cause for surprise that Lachmann’s edition was
long but little comprehended in this country. The exposition of
his principles in a foreign periodical rendered it out of the question
for many (or indeed for most) of those into whose hands the edition
might come, to be in possession of the information which would
enable them to appreciate it. And as, in his brief notice to the
reader, he divided all the MSS. of which he spoke into eastern
and western, and as others had used the terms oriental or Asiatic,
as denoting the mass of the more recent MSS., such as contained
the text which had, perhaps, originally come into use in the
regions from Antioch to Constantinople, the mistake was made of
imagining Lachmann to be an adherent of the general principle of
Scholz. Of course, if the text of the edition had been studied, the
mistake would never have been made; but few, indeed, there
were who were inclined to form a judgment in this laborious
manner ; considering that they were not informed on what MSS.
the edition was based, or on what principles they were applied.
It is to be regretted that Lachmann had not, by giving a few
* The following is the whole of this notice in Lachmann’s own words :—-
“De ratione et consilio huius editionis loco commodiore expositum est (theol.
Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 817—845). hic satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam
judicium suum, sed consuetudinem antiquissimarum orientis ecclesiarum secutum esse.
hane quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit ea que
Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur pretulit: ubi pervagatam omnium
auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit.
quo factum est ut vulgate et his proximis duobus szeculis vecepte lectionis ratio
haberi non posset. huius diversitatis hic in fine libri adiecta est, quoniam ea res
doctis iudicibus necessaria esse videbatur.”
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 99
explanatory remarks, obviated the possibility of such mistakes ;
for he would thus have caused his labours to be appreciated at an
earlier period by those whose studies would have led them to
value them the most.
This small edition was actually the result of very close labour
and study, carried on during five years. Lachmann determined
to cast aside the received text altogether. and to edit in such a
manner as if it had never existed. His object was to give the
Greek Testament in that form in which the most ancient docu-
ments have transmitted it, according as these documents are
known: his plan was, in fact, this—such and such evidence ought
to lead to such and such results. And thus he professed implicitly
to follow ancient copies so far as then existing collations rendered
them accessible; the oldest Greek MSS. are the basis, compared
with the citations of Origen; the readings of the old: Latin (as
found in unrevised MSS.) and the citations of Latin fathers were
his subsidiary aids: and thus the text was formed; not giving
what he would necessarily consider to be the ¢rue text, but the
transmitted text of about the fourth century. This he considered
would be a basis for criticism, delivering it in fact from the read-
ings of the sixteenth century, and bringing us to a period a thou-
sand years and more nearer to the time when the sacred books were
written. Where the principal authorities agree in an error, a
certain unquestionable error, still Lachmann would follow them in
editing ; not as supposing, however, that such errors proceeded
from the writers themselves, but as regarding such errors to have
been parts of the textus traditus of the fourth century.
Let Lachmann’s critical principles be approved or not, still to
him must be conceded this, that he led the way in casting aside
the so-called textus receptus, and boldly placing the New Testa-
ment wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority. It
would have been well if he had made his object intelligible to
those around him; for, even in Germany, this was but little un-
derstood, and thus reviewers misstated his plan and purpose, and
described his edition in such a manner as to show that they did
not comprehend what he had intended, or what he had performed.
Even De Wette supposed that Lachmann’s time and labour had
been wasted, and this was to him a cause of deep trial.
100 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Two things were needful, besides a full exposition of Lach-
mann’s views, before it could be considered that the text was
really placed on the basis of the fourth century: care ought to
have been taken to procure collations of the ancient MSS. as
accurately as possible; and also the Latin versions were not sufh-
cient as subsidiary witnesses. A wider scope of ancient evidence
should have been taken. —
As Lachmann’s object was gradually better apprehended, a
wish was expressed by many that he would formally undertake
an edition with a full statement of the authorities on which he
relied in forming his text. At length, in 1837, Lachmann ob-
tained the aid of Philip Buttmann the younger, whose part of the
labour was to arrange the authorities for the Greek text only. On
this he was occupied for seven years; part of which time was after
the appearance of the first volume of Lachmann’s larger e lition.
In 1839, Lachmann and Buttmann went together to Fulda, that
they might unitedly copy and examine the very ancient Latin
Codex Fuldensis for the use of the forthcoming edition. In this
MS. the Gospels are thrown into a sort of combined narrative :
the object kept in view being not to omit any part of any of
the four histories: the consequence of this procedure is that a
Diatessaron is formed, always tautological, and often (from the
sentences not combining) quite contradictory. The Codex Ful-
densis has, however, a peculiar value as an authority for the Latin
text. In collating this MS. Buttmann read aloud, while Lach-
mann noted the various readings in a copy of the Latin Vulgate.
In the year 1842, the first volume of Lachmann’s larger edition
appeared. The variations in the éezt from the small edition of
1831 are not many; and as they have sometimes been made a
ground of unintelligent remark, it will be well in a few words to
explain the characteristic difference between the two. The text
of the small edition is wholly based on the sources which were (in
Lachmann’s sense of the word) orzental; and, where these differ
among themselves, the readings were adopted ‘“ que Italorum et
Afrorum consensu comprobarentur.” In the larger edition, Lach-
mann used the combined evidence (in his sense) of eastern and
western authorities.
The upper part of each page of the larger edition contains
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 101
Lachmann’s recension of the Greek text; in this, brackets are
used, as before, to indicate words of doubtful authority; and
immediately below the text readings are sometimes placed, as to
which the authorities fluctuate. The middle part of the page
contains the authorities,—the Greek arranged by Buttmann, the
Latin by Lachmann himself; in this part the reference to the text
is merely by dines, and the want of distinctness in the arrangement
is a sore hindrance to the usefulness of the work; it is probable
that these notes were perfectly clear to those who arranged them,
because they had the subject and the authorities altogether fami-
liar to their minds; but it is not so with regard to others; and
thus it has been to some a study to understand how the balance of
authorities is denoted in this edition. Lachmann’s own arrange-
ment of the Latin readings derived from different sources, in his
own hand-writing, were as clear and comprehensible as could pos-
sibly be wished.
The lower part of the page is occupied with the Latin version
of Jerome, edited mostly on the authority of the Codices Ful-
densis and Amiatinus; this latter MS. is one of great antiquity and
value, now preserved in the Laurentian library at Florence.*
In this edition, then, much was accomplished of that which
Bentley had purposed so long before: there are certain differences
of plan between that which each of these critics designed, and
yet there is a general resemblance.
Both maintained that the oldest authorities are to be relied on
as the witnesses to the genuine ancient text; and both relied on
the combined evidence of Greek and Latin readings. There was
this difference between the materials with which they were fur-
nished,—that while Bentley had taken all practicable measures for
obtaining the accurate collation of the oldest Greek MSS. (and as
to one—the Codex Vaticanus—he was more successful than any
one since has been), his Latin authorities were limited to the
ancient MSS. of Jerome’s translation ; whereas, the publication of
the texts of that Latin version, which in its various forms was in
* The Codex Amiatinus is of the sixth century, as also isthe Fuldensis. Lachmann
was only able to use the very imperfect and inaccurate collation of the Codex Amia-
tinus which had been published by Fleck. The text of this MS. has been edited by
Professor Tischendorf (Leipsic, 1851), from his own and S. P. Tregelles’s tramscripts
and collations.
102 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
circulation before the time of Jerome, has furnished a new body of
evidence ; and on those Latin texts which appeared to him to be
the most unaltered, Lachmann relied as being a valuable class of
witnesses. Bentley can hardly be blamed for not having under-
stood their value; for, while they remained buried in libraries to
which (in some cases) access was almost denied, it was impossible
for a true judgment to be formed of their contents; nor could it
as yet have been demonstrated that the Ante-hieronymian Latin
was one version subsequently altered and revised: the notion was
prevalent that the many forms of Latin text were so many sepa-
rate versions ; and this notion was by no means corrected by those
who used the term Jtala, and the one passage in Augustine in
which it occurs, as though the one original Latin version was
thereby denoted.
In Lachmann’s preface there is much that is valuable on the
subject of the Latin texts, and the mode in which alterations had
been introduced. He accedes to the opinion of Cardinal Wiseman,
which had been held long before by Wetstein and others, that the
old Latin was a version made in northern Africa.* He shows
how the text had been modernised into the form in which some
MSS. (such as the Codex Brixianus) exhibit it ;—a form far more
resembling the later Greek MSS., than that did in which this
Latin version had previously existed. He, therefore, rejects alto-
gether from his consideration as witnesses those texts of the old
Latin, in which the version has thus been changed.
One class of Latin text does not come forward in Lachmann’s
consideration at all ;—that in which the readings are introduced
which agree with the Alexandrian family (in Griesbach’s classi-
fication) far more than the old Latin did originally. Of this class
there were then only fragments published ; so that Lachmann was
unable so to take them into consideration as to form a judgment
on their nature.
The Latin texts, then, which have been transmitted to us con-
sist of, i. the old Latin version (as found in the Codices Vercellen-
sis, Veronensis, and Colbertinus) ; 1j. the same version revised with
what may be called a Byzantine tendency; (the Codex Brixianus,
* Wetstein says (in speaking of Mill), “Italicee versioni, h. e. indoctis, nescio qui-
bus Interpretibus, certe Idiotis Afris plus tribueret,” etc. Proleg. 176.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 103
etc.) ; uj. the old Latin made more Alexandrine (Codex Bobbia-
nus, etc.), and, iv. the version or revision of Jerome. Other MSS.
contain some admixture of this last with readings from what had
preceded it.
The mode in which Lachmann states the various degrees
of weight which attach to different readings is the following:
(i.) nothing is better attested than that in which all authorities
accord: (ij.) the agreement has rather less moment, if part of the
authorities are silent or defective: (iij.) the evidence for a reading
when it is that of witnesses of different regions, is greater than that
of witnesses of some particular locality differing either from negli-
gence or from set purpose: (iv.) but the testimonies must be con-
sidered to be doubtfully balanced when witnesses from regions
wide apart stand opposed to others equally separated in locality :
(v.) readings are uncertain which are in one form in one region,
and differently in another region with great uniformity: (vi.) lastly,
readings are of weak authority, as to which not even the same
region presents an uniform testimony.
To discuss the subject fully, it would be needful to examine
these principles in all their bearings, and also to inquire how they
were practically applied by Lachmann himself. A few remarks,
however, must here suffice. There are general truths, which
ought to be admitted by all who examine the subject, enunciated
in these principles; while at the same time they are connected
with points questionable in themselves, and still more so in
their application. For the value of particular witnesses, as
learned from the general character of their testimony, ought to
have a greater weight assigned to it, than these principles admit ;
and thus, in difficult places, certain authorities of weight may be
safely followed, even though it be true that others of different
regions present a different testimony: this is especially the case
with regard to such readings as were liable to alteration from the
hands of transcribers from the nature of the case. Lachmann
does not take these into consideration, because such points do not
fall within his plan of giving the text as transmitted and simply
as resting on authority: it may, however, be well said, that his
plan might have been suitably extended, so as to embrace these
104 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
additional considerations; and thus in cases of uncertainty from
the variety of reading, he might have relied upon such grounds
in forming his selection. He says, indeed, that upon his prin-
ciples, choice is excluded; this may be true to a certain degree,
while absolutely it is hardly possible: for at times a certain degree
of judgment must almost necessarily be exercised ; and therefore
it would have been an extension of his plan, not a departure from
it, to have brought into view those grounds of judgment which
might give a determining value to the evidence on some one side
in doubtful cases.
As it is, Lachmann’s plan was to place in his text whatever
reading was the highest in the scale according to his scheme of
numerical value ; and to indicate uncertainty by inclosing words
in the text within brackets, or by giving another reading in the
margin.
The authorities which Lachmann admitted were very few in
number: thus in the Gospels he used the collations of but four
Greek MSS., and four fragments, and two of these MSS. were
considerably mutilated. The only version admitted (as has been
said) was the Latin, in its twofold form,—as prior to the time of
Jerome, and as revised by him: the only fathers whose writings
were employed were Irenzeus and Origen, and the Latins, Cyprian,
Hilary of Poictiers, and Lucifer. In consequence of this restric-
tion there are passages in which two MSS. or perhaps only one
contain the sacred text; and thus an error in such a copy or copies
is assumed to be the wide-spread reading of the fourth century.
But in connection with such passages it must always be borne in
mind that Lachmann did not profess to give a perfect text; and
thus if a certain unquestionable error was attested by his authori-
ties, they were to be followed in editing; not as supposing that
such error proceeded from the sacred authors, but on the ground
that it belonged to the traditive text of the fourth century.
An instance of this is seen in Ephes. 1. 15, where the common
text reads, dxovcas tHv Kab’ twas Tiotw év TO Kupio “Inood, Kal
THY ayaTny THY eis TaVTas TOUS ayious: here Lachmann omits the
words 7) ayarnv, as not being found in the Alexandrian MS.,
and (apparently) not in the Vatican. But he gives this, not as
the true passage, as written by St. Paul, but as being (he thinks)
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 105
an early mistake,—an hiatus, in fact, of early copyists. He says
(Proleg., vol. i1., p. xii.) that it is manifest that ayd7rnv has dropped
from the text, but whether it be that word alone, or more, it is
impossible to say; comparing the passage with Col. i. 4, where
in the clause xal tiv aydarny hv exere, the words iv éyere are not
uniformly read in all the more ancient authorities. Now here the
reason for not giving either dyamnyv, or else thy ayarnyv, in the
text, on the authority of the Codices Claromontanus and Boerne-
rianus (two of Lachmann’s admitted witnesses), supported by the
more recent copies in general, and the other ancient versions, as
well as the Latin,* can only be the supposition that it had been
filled in as a correction in the copies in which it is found. And
yet, when the word certainly belongs to the text as an original
part of it, and when the versions vouch for it, and that without
any other addition, it can hardly be deemed an exercise of mere
choice for it to receive a place in the text, in spite of its omission
in certain ancient and valuable documents.
Thus far, then, Lachmann’s principles (to say nothing at present
of his range of authorities) might be safely extended, without at
all trenching upon his plan of presenting the traditive text of the
early centuries. It was, however, a great and grievous mistake,
on the part of those who criticised Lachmann’s edition, when they
lighted on such passages as Eph. i. 15, as if he had there given
what he believed to be the genuine and original text. Lach-
mann’s censors (such for instance as Tholuck) who did not appre-
hend his plan, or had not truly investigated the facts of the case,
copied from one another, in representing Lachmann’s range of
Greek authorities as more confined than it really was, especially
in his larger edition. Hence the following judgment of Tholuck
is far from correct :—‘‘ Since there are so few codices which are
written in uncial characters, and are preserved entire, Lachmann
has been obliged sometimes to adopt readings which are autho-
rised only by a single codex. Thus he has given the whole text,
from the fourth to the twelfth chapter of 2 Corinthians, according
* This case would come apparently under the fourth head in Lachmann’s state-
ment of weight of evidence; for the documents of the Western region stand opposed
to those considered peculiarly Alexandrian; and thus it seems that, even on those
principles, the reading is only doubtful,
106 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
to no other authority than that of the Codex B, and the whole
text from Hebrews ix. 14 to the end, on the basis of Codex A
merely.” Such statements have misled students; for it has been
supposed that they would not have been advanced, except on
grounds of competent knowledge. But how do the facts stand?
In the passage in 2 Corinthians, the whole, up to chap. x. 8, is
contained in C (Cod. Ephraemi), and the whole of the chapters,
said to rest on B only, are contained in D (Cod. Claromontanus)
and G (Cod. Boernerianus): in the latter part of the Hebrews,
the hiatus in C is from x. 24 to xii. 15, and in D there is there
no defect at all. It is important to state these things explicitly,
because the incorrect assertions have misled, and will still mislead,
those who are unacquainted with critical details.
While maintaining that a critical basis should be laid broad
enough for us not to be obliged to follow certain authorities into
known error, it is of great importance not to put down an attested
reading to be an error without full inquiry and examination. It
may be very natural thus to condemn a reading which differs from
what we are accustomed to see; but we must look well to it, lest,
in stigmatising a reading as devoid of meaning, we only show
that we have not understood it. ‘This is wholly different from
cases of known and certain mistake in MSS.
Matt. xxi. 28-31 affords an illustration of the importance of
not hastily condemning a reading as unintelligible. In the para-
ble of the two sons bidden by their father to work in his vineyard,
Lachmann retains the common order of the answers and actions,
that is, the jirst son refuses to work, but afterwards repents and
goes; the second son says that he will go, but does not: but in
the answer of the Jews to the inquiry of Christ, ‘‘ Which did the
will of his father?”—the answer in Lachmann’s text is 6 taTepos,
instead of the 6 mparTos of the common text. This was deemed
by De Wette to deprive the passage of all meaning ;* and Tis-
chendorf, who adopted it in the first edition which he published,
afterwards turned to the common reading. In examining the
authorities in this passage, considerable discrepancies will be found;
several have tatepos (or an equivalent) in the latter part, while
* Fe asks, “Was soll der Exeget mit dem blossen Lachmannschen Texte anfangen
in Stellen, wo er sinnlos ist, wie Matt. xxi. 28-31?” —Hinleitung ins N. T., ed. 5, p. 80.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 107
they avoid all difficulty by inverting the order of the answers, etc.,
of the two sons. Origen,* however, is an explicit witness, that in
the early part of the third century, the answers and actions were
in the same order in which we now have them,—the second son
professing a willingness and not going, the first refusing and
afterwards going. Hippolytus, an elder contemporary of Origen,
is an equally explicit witness, that the answer of the Jews to our
Lord was the latter, not the former.t| Now, I fully believe that
Lachmann gives the true reading of the passage, and that in some
documents the order of the answers has been changed so as to
avoid a supposed. difficulty, and that, in others, the word wpéros
has been introduced ‘instead of torepos, for a similar reason.
Transcribers felt persuaded, that the answer of the Jews must
have been that the son who really went into the vineyard was he
who did the father’s will; when, however, documents avoid a
difficulty in different paths, they give a very plain hint as to the
true state of the case as a matter of evidence. Jerome appears to
have translated. ‘‘ novissimus,” a rendering which elsewhere answers
to totepos: this, too, had been the Latin reading prior to the
time of Jerome (as shown in the Codices Vercellensis, Veronen-
sis, Corbeiensis, and the Evangelium Palatinum, published by
Tischendorf)) ; the best copies of Jerome’s translation (such as the
Codices Amiatinus, Fuldensis, and Forojuliensis) also retain it.
Jerome, in his Commentary, seems to have felt the difficulty, and
he appeals to other copies which read “primus” (such as the
revised text contained in the Codex Brixianus): he seems, how-
ever, to have had but little confidence in the copies that read
differently; for he tries to explain his own reading, novissimus, by
attributing this answer to the obstinacy of the Jews.
But what is to be said to this seemingly contradictory reading ?
The youngest son professed his readiness to obey, and then does not
act according to his father’s will, and yet the answer is 6 barepos.
I believe that 6 tarepos refers not to the order in which the two
sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about
* Ed. De la Rue, iij. 770.
+ The words of Hippolytus are, Kat ev 7@ evayyeAtw Tov ToujoavTa Td O€AnLa TOD TaTpds
civevd Eaxartos. (Hd. Fabric., tom. ij., p. 80.) éoxaros is the equivalent for Uorepos
in some MSS. of this passage.
108 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the elder son, datepov dé perapednOeis amprOev, ‘afterwards
he repented and went.” ‘‘ Which of the two did his father’s
will?” étorepos. He who afterwards [repented and went]. This
answers the charge that the reading of Lachmann is void of
sense.
Lachmann, indeed, in the Prolegomena to his second vol., p. v.,
suggests that this clause not being noticed in the Commentary of
Origen on St. Matthew, as it has come down to us, was unknown
to that father, and that therefore it was not in his copy: and thus,
though Lachmann thought that the words might be very well
explained in that manner just stated, he considered it more pro-
bable that the clause, Néyovew, “O totepos. éyes avtots 6 ’Inaods
was an after-insertion: probably he would not have thrown out
this suggestion had he taken into consideration the statement of
Hippolytus, to say nothing now of the combined evidence of
MSS. and versions.
In some places Lachmann really follows none of the Greek
authorities on which he avowedly relies. ‘This may be seen re-
peatedly in the latter chapters of the Apocalypse: in such cases
he considered that the combined testimony of the other authorities
was sufficient to warrant the introduction of the readings which
he adopts: it would, however, on any principles of criticism, have
been well if the Greek copies which contain the reading as he
gives it, had been mentioned.
In some places in his larger edition, Lachmann introduces a
critical correction of the authorities, the actual reading of which
he had given in his smaller. Thus in Rev. xviii. 3, the reading
of the oldest authorities is, 67u é« Tob Oupod THs Twopvelas avdThs
méntwKkav TavTa Ta Ovn, ‘* because by reason of the wrath of |
her fornication all the nations have fullen” (see Jerem. li. 4 and
49). And thus the passage stood in Lachmann’s earlier edition.
In the larger, however, the word wémtwxav is corrected into
mémwxayv ; no authority is cited for this change, and it seems to
be on the ground of the reading of the version of Jerome and the
supposed nature of the case. But still choice is introduced instead
of the simple following of authorities. But there was no need
to depart from the best attested and most ancient reading, for
it has sufficient witnesses. émtwxav is supported by A and C,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 109
while B (Cod. Basilianus) and ten others have the cognate reading
meTT@Kacw ; and this is the meaning found in the Memphitic
and A&thiopic versions. The most ancient reading has been vari-
ously changed in later documents; thus the oldest copies of Je-
rome’s version (e. g. the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis) read,
‘quia de ira fornicationis ejus biberunt omnes gentes” (the
modern Vulgate has ‘‘ de vino ire fornicationis”),—reading the
Greek as if they had Lachmann’s text before them, or as if 7é-
mtTwxay-had been misapprehended. In some documents (most
indeed) tod olvov is inserted before Tov @vjuod (as in Rev. xiv. 8),
and thus the reading of the common text seems to have sprung
up, ‘‘ because by reason of the wine of the wrath of her fornica-
tion all the nations have drunk” (as found also in the modern
Clementine Vulgate). The omission of tod oivov is sufficiently
warranted ; and thus the ancient reading in all its parts may be
retained without correction, on grounds of inferential reasoning.
And, in fact, what is the line of argument? whether it be most
likely that translators and recent copyists mistook zémtwxav for
mérrwxav (which they judged to be the sense of the passage),* or
whether the transcribers of the more ancient Greek MSS. were
unitedly mistaken, and that the two mutually confirming and
corroborating readings wrémTwxayv and mertw@xacw were alike mere
mistake: the reading thence arising being also somewhat the
more difficult of the two.
It may be asked, without any desire to be censorious, whether
Lachmann has not in this and similar passages shown some
tendency to indulge in subjectiveness? It is difficult not to do
this, at least in some measure, and thus it can be no cause for
surprise if traces of this feeling are found in every critical work.
_ In Acts xiii. 33, Lachmann reads os cal év TO Warwd yéypa-
mTat TO TpwTe@, on which Tischendorf remarks that he has given
this reading sine teste. The argument on the reading, however,
divides itself into two parts; 1. the order of the words; and 1). the
* The following is the note of Lachmann referring to rémwxay mavta ra €6vm in his
text: “werrwxay (sic rérwxe s) mavta ta im ACs, om. h.” By themark “s” Lachmann
designates the Elzevir text; by “2,” he signifies the citations of the Apocalypse found
in the writings of Primasius. Thus the version of Jerome at the foot of the page,
was the only authority for the word given in the text.
110 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
numeral to be adopted, whether Sevrépw or mpeTe. i. then, as to
order, Lachmann follows A BC and other authorities; as to the
numeral he gives that which Origen expressly mentions as being
the reading of the passage,* and which is found in D, although
in a different order. Thus it is hardly correct to say that Lach-
mann has edited the passage sine teste, as there 1s separate evidence
in favour of each part: this is not the place for fully discussing
the best form of the reading of this passage; it should, however,
be noticed that the reading wpwt@ was edited by Erasmus (rely-
ing on the express authority of Jerome), by Griesbach, and by
Tischendorf himself. In fact, it can hardly be doubted but that
Seutép@ has been a correction, to avoid a supposed difficulty, by
accommodating the passage to the present order and division of
the Psalms.
This passage affords a good specimen of the cases in which an
absolute and express carly testimony to a particular reading pos-
sesses a paramount importance :—there are other passages in which
Lachmann might suitably have given more weight to this kind of
testimony. It may also be noticed that, in balancing conflicting
witnesses to readings, in those passages which were lable to
alteration from parallel texts, a less amount of evidence may pre-
ponderate in favour of those readings which represent those pas-
sages as not precisely the same in their phraseology.
The contrast which Lachmann drew between his own mode
of editing and that of Griesbach was, that Griesbach’s inquiry had
been, ‘‘Is there any necessity for departing from the common
reading ?” while his own was, ‘Is there any necessity for depart-
ing from the best attested reading ?” To this it might suitably
be added, Ought we not to use all means for obtaining evidence
as accurately as possible? And, Ought we not, if relying on
ancient evidence, to take it in its widest extent ?
The printing of Lachmann’s second volume (to some passages
of which allusion has already been made) was completed, as to
the text, in 1845; it was not, however, published till 1850,
* The words of Origen on Ps. ii. are the following :—Avoiv évruxévtes éBpatkots avtvypa-
hots, ev may TH érép@ eVpomev apxnv Sevrépov Wadmov Taira’ ev 6€ TH érépw guNjwTETO TH TPUTY. kai
év tats mpdéeat 8 Tav amoatéAwy Td, Yids pou el av, ey OMEpoy yeyevinKa ae, éd€yeTO elvat TOD
TpwTod Waruod. as yap yéyparrat, dyoiv, ev mpdTw Wadruo xTA. Hd. de la Rue, ij., 537—8.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. lll
about a year before the death of the editor. Two reasons occa-
sioned this delay: it had been Lachmann’s intention to have
written pretty full remarks on various passages, and on the appli-
cation of criticism (1. e. the exercise of a critical judgment, not
a mere adherence to authorities) for their correction; and this
intention (though never carried out) caused delay: but the great
obstacle in Lachmann’s mind was the want of apprehension which
his friend De Wette showed as to his object and design: it was
this, in fact, that hindered him from giving the second volume
to the public so long as De Wette lived. That scholar seems,
indeed, not to have at all apprehended what Lachmann meant; and
thus, although more fitted mentally than most scholars of Germany
for understanding Lachmann’s edition, it was always so described
by him as to lead to misapprehension on the part of others. De
Wette would always have used exegetic clearness, as though it
had a primary importance in forming a judgment of the true text ;
and he was in so many respects a true pupil of Griesbach, that he
shrunk from an entire revertence to the really oldest authorities.
Although Lachmann never wrote the full remarks on passages
which he had once intended to have done, he prefixed to his
second volume a few notes on readings which had called forth the
observations of De Wette and others. In these notes he gives
occasionally his own conjectures as to the true readings of passages,
using the traditive reading of the oldest documents as his basis of
argument. These in general call for no further notice here; for
they belong, not to Lachmann’s principles as an editor, but to his
own personal opinions; and though it may be freely admitted
that all ancient books may contain errors of copyists, so old as to
precede all documentary means of their restoration, yet when we
have such united witnesses as we possess to the text of the New
Testament, it would be useless and rash in the extreme to depart
from what has been transmitted, in search of something which we
may suppose or imagine. But in the midst of Lachmann’s. con-
jectures, there are good and valuable remarks introduced: thus,
on Acts xiii. 32, he speaks of those who prefer to see the text
‘‘skinned over and plaistered,” rather than with the wounds
visible : that is, that some would prefer the text as it has passed
through the hands of copyists and non-critical editors, with the
112 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
wounds (if such there be) of the earliest copies and versions con-
cealed by a sort of artificial vail, to that which gives the text
as transmitted, a text which may be the basis of true exposition,
and from which what is genuine may be gathered on grounds of
evidence, which never can be the case if the concealment of modi-
fied and modernised phraseology be adopted and canonised. The
reading which led to these remarks is cal seis buds edvayyersto-
pea Tv pos TOvs TaTépas érrayyeNiav yevouévnv, OTL TavTnY 6
Oeds exmreTArpwxev Tols Téxvois 7 4@v, Where the common text
has Tots Téxvois aUT@V Hw tv, a reading which seems to have only
sprung up as an amendment, a ‘skinning over and bandaging”
of rots téxvors 74@v as found in the ancient authorities :—“ filiis
nostris,” as it stands in the Vulgate, both in the ancient and
modern copies: now here the first question is, not whether we can
give an exposition of the ancient text, but whether this is to be
received, as supported by authority, in preference to that which
seems to show its more recent origin. We may well pause before
we pronounce a reading void of meaning, when we find that
ancient copyists in various lands have transmitted it, and ancient
translators have equally allowed it a place in their versions.
Those who remember how Erasmus was assailed by Edward
Lee, and how Mill was criticised by Daniel Whitby, can feel no
surprise that Lachmann should have been similarly treated by
critics who had as little intelligence as those two writers as to the
subjects which they had undertaken to discuss. If Lachmann’s
edition only is known, it may seem as if he dealt hard words
against his censors; but if the nature of the attacks on him were
at all considered, the contumely with which he was assailed, the
names of reproach (such as simia Bentlett) which were invented in
order to make him appear ridiculous, then those who have com-
plained of his ¢one as ‘‘ bitter and arrogant,”* would at least be
obliged to own that he treated his assailants with gentleness and
courtesy, in comparison with their mode of acting towards him.
He did not spare the pretentious spirit of sciolists who wrote on
subjects of which they were ignorant, but he often dealt with
those whose opinions he was discussing in a tone of pleasantry,
* Scrivener’s Supplement to the Authorised English Version. Introduction, p. 23.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 113
which others have misunderstood or misrepresented. It is much
to be wished that those who have undertaken to criticise the spirit
and manner of Lachmann’s remarks, would, as a measure of even-
handed justice, bestow a due and fully-expressed condemnation
on the mis-statements, misrepresentations, and unseemly language
of those who set themselves up to be his censors.
Lachmann’s edition and its critical principles may be discussed
without any of these unbecoming accessories ; and praise and dis-
praise may be meted out according to the measure of what is
judged to be due. It would be well for those who take the place
of judgment to remember the words of Bishop Marsh : ‘Critical
editions are intended only for men who are acquainted with the
subject: and those, who are ignorant of it, should be initiated in
the science, before they presume to form a judgment.” (Marsh’s
Michaelis, ij., p. 887.) Lachmann did not object to intelligent dis-
cussion of his plans and principles, although he was not willing to
be set down as a rash and ill-informed editor.
The simple truth is, that Lachmann’s text was looked on as a
kind of WHOLESALE INNOVATION, and this was enough to give
offence to the whole generation of adherents of what they had
traditionally received. Much might have been done by a stmple
and full exposition of his plan and object ; but Lachmann unfor-
tunately neglected at the first to do this ; and afterwards, in re-
membering how Bengel was treated a century ago, he abstained
from replying to his censors, well knowing how fruitless such a
labour had been in the case of that critic.
Let any objections be raised to the plan, let inconsistencies be
pointed out in the execution, let corrections of varied kinds be
suggested, still the fact will remain, that the first Greek Tes-
tament, since the invention of printing, edited wholly on ancient
authority, irrespective of modern traditions, is due to CHARLES
LACHMANN.
It is in vain to call such a labour ‘ wholesale innovation,” or
to say that it manifests ‘‘ want of reverence for Holy Scripture” ;
for it is not innovation to revert to the first sources, it is not irre-
verence for the text of God’s word to give it forth on the best
and most attested basis. It is not cancelling words and sentences
when they are not inserted, because the oldest and best authori-
9
114 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
ties know nothing of them. Honest criticism has to do with
facts as they are, with evidence as it has been transmitted, and
not with some subjective notion in our own minds of what is true
and right,—a notion which has no better basis than recent, ill-
grounded tradition.
The pains which Lachmann took in editing the Latin version
of Jerome, subjoined to his Greek text, deserves more notice than
can be given to it in this place. The principal authorities were
the Codices Fuldensis (collated by himself and Buttmann) and
Amiatinus (or Laurentianus) at Florence: of this unhappily he
had only the very incorrect collation published by Fleck. With
some other aid from MSS., he revised the whole of the version of
Jerome; and although it requires no small measure of application
and attention fully to understand the authorities as given (when
they are mentioned), and though at first sight 1t may be difficult
to know precisely what the Codex Fuldensis itself reads,—yet in
result Lachmann’s recension of the Latin New Testament of
Jerome is of great value, and worthy of the labour bestowed. In
the Prolegomena to his second volume he says that he had in-
tended to give the means of forming a more accurate judgment of
the manner in which the Gospels are arranged in a kind of com-
bined narrative in the Codex Fuldensis, but the want of interest
in the revision of the Latin text, which he had found (he says)
to be general, induced him to desist. Perhaps his Latin text
would have been more valued if he had subjoined to it the varia-
tions of the Clementine Vulgate; for then it would have been
at once visible to the reader how much had been done for its
emendation on MS. authority. Some, however, who were by no
means disposed to bestow too much praise on Lachmann, appre-
ciated this part of his work. Mr. Scrivener (Supplement to the
English Version, p. 25) says of the attention paid by Lachmann
to the Latin translations, that on them ‘‘he has bestowed such
diligent care as entitles him to the gratitude of the biblical
student.”
Lachmann’s punctuation of the Greek text must not pass un-
noticed; for he took great pains to improve it; and though
minute punctuation is rarely of very much importance (because
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 115
passages in general are not ambiguous in their connection), yet
all care should be taken so to place the pauses as to rendcr them
subservient to the sense, or, at all events so as not to contradict it,
or hinder it from being apprehended. This part of Lachmann’s
edition was deservedly commended by Tischendorf, who in other
things was not too lavish in his praises: ‘‘In latino pariter atque
in graeco edendo textu, ille primus quod sciam eiusmodi inter-
punctionem adhibuit quae et intellectui textus prodesset et antiqui
sermonis conveniret rationi.” *
However little of real appreciation Lachmann met with, and
however much there was to discourage him, from the manner in
which his labours were received, he looked to a different judg-
ment from scholars of another generation. He says in the last
sentence of the Prolegomena to his second volume, ‘‘ I may be
allowed to hope that my object, undertaken with diligence and
with confidence of Divine aid, and brought to a completion to
the best of my ability, will be approved by posterity from the
utility being known, more than has been the case from this age.” f
Had Lachmann always been thus moderate in his hopes, he would
have been saved from some deep disappointments ; but probably
the manner in which he found that he was misapprehended caused
him gradually to be less sanguine in his expectations.{
* Proleg. in Cod. Amiat., p. xxiij.
+ “ Mihi quidem sperare licet fore ut consilia nostra, alacriter et cum opis divinae
fiducia suscepta, et pro viribus nostris ad finem perducta, utilitate cognita a posteris
magis quam ab hoe saeculo probentur; qui si nos operam pie ac modeste collocasse
iudicabunt, tantum nobis quantum a mortalibus expectari possit nacti esse vide-
bimur.”
ft For two reasons have I sought to give a clear and comprehensible notion of
Lachmann’s text and the principles on which it is formed: i. because of the mis-
apprehensions which still exist as to the plan; and ij. because of the points of simi-
larity to what I believe to be the true principles of editing the sacred text: so that if
I did not give Lachmann full credit for what he has done, I might seem to claim an
originality to which I have no title.
As to the jirst point, some may say that they learn nothing from what I have stated
above, that they have not been able to gather for themselves from Lachmann’s papers
in the Studien und Kritiken, and from the introductory pages of his Prolegomena.
Ifso, I am glad that such readers have paid more close attention than most have
done ; for the fact is plain that Lachmann’s plan has not been generally understood ;
for else the extensive misrepresentations would have been impossible.
And as to the second point, I intend elsewhere to give (as I have often done already
in print) a statement of the particulars in which I differ from Lachmann as to criti-
cal principles, and also of the entirely different path through which I arrived at some-
116 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
§ 12—TISCHENDOREF’S EDITIONS.
THE first of the editions published by Professor TISCHENDORF,
of Leipsic, appeared in 1841, in a small volume, containing the
text, some of the authorities, and Prolegomena, partly explaining
what the same results. The similarity is sufficient to make me feel desirous of not
claiming anything which is not my own:—a thing of which Lachmann when living
would have been the last to accuse me. Lachmann it was who first entered the
domain of textual criticism, in the direction and through the channel of access, which
Bentley pointed out a hundred and twenty years before.
I do not wish to overlook the points on which Lachmann’s plan and its execution
were capable of amendment, nor do I desire to conceal them from others; but I do
wish to protest against the arbitrary manner in which censors have condemned him
without a hearing, without taking the pains to know the facts of the case. It is easy
to speak of his “daring and mistaken theory” (Scrivener’s Supplement, p. 30), to say
that he “unfairly insinuates” that the “received text” is adhered to from mere
traditional feeling (ib., p. 32) :—for the real questions still remain behind, “ What
is the evidence which we possess as to the actual text of the New Testament in the
earliest ages?” and, “How can we reasonably suppose that readings are ancient, when
they not only have zo ancient vouchers, but all the ancient witnesses contradict
them?”
Some have taken offence at Lachmann’s “tone and manner”: no doubt he did
speak strongly of mistakes and ignorance on the part of those whose pretensions were
high ; some of his expressions might be rather rough; but he spoke of his own mis-
takes in terms quite as severe ; thus, if he made a mere oversight, he did not speak of
it as unimportant; it was pudenda negligentia : and if any think it remarkable that
he should have sometimes spoken of his censors in strong terms, let such suspend
their expressions of condemnation until they have read and well considered the mis-
statements, the perverse arguments, the uncourteous and reproachful language em-
ployed by the censors themselves. I own that I have but little patience with those
who direct their attention exclusively to the manner in which an assailed person
_ repels an attack, and have their eyes wholly blind as to the attack itself, and the tone
and manner in which it is made. True fairness would lead us to say that even if
there be something reprehensible in the mode of defence, yet the assault itself merits
far more strong condemnation. Bentley’s observations on a similar subject in the
Preface to his Dissertation on Phalaris are well worthy of remembrance: “I will
“ here crave the reader’s leave to make one general apology for anything either in my
“ Dissertation or my Defence of it, that may seem too severe. I desire but this favour
“ or justice rather, that he would suppose my case to be his own: and then if he will
“ say sincerely, that he should have answered so many calumnies with fewer marks
“ of resentment, I am content to lie under his censure. But it’s a difficult thing, for
“a person unconcerned, and out of the reach of harm, to be a fair arbitrator here.
“ He will be apt to think the injured party too angry; because he cannot have as
“ great a passion in seeing the ill usage, as the other has in feeling it... . "T'was an
“excellent saying of Solon’s, and worthy of the wisest of the famous Seven; who
“ when he was asked, Was jxiora ddixotev of avOpwra; What would rid the world of in-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 117
the principles adopted by the editor, and partly discussing (toge-
ther with some other subjects) the different systems of recensions
brought forward, with an especial reference to the theories of
Scholz, and the manner in which his Greek Testament was edited.
In many respects, it was at once evident that Lachmann’s
smaller edition (1831) had exercised a considerable influence on
“juries? If the by-standers, says he, would have the same resentment with those that
“ suffer the wrong ; Ei uoiws &xGowwro Tots ddixoupevors of my adixovmevor. If the reader will
“ but follow that great man’s advice, and have an equal sense of my ill-usage as if it
“had fallen upon himself, I dare then challenge him to think, if he can, that I have
“used too much severity.” (Dyce’s edition, i., p. xlviij.)
But perhaps Lachmann, after all, treated his censors with moderation. Just as
Galileo had to do with inquisitors who wandered into the domain of facts in science,
so Lachmann fell into the hands of reviewers who thought themselves competent to
express a judgment on facts in grammar. And thus when he spoke of iva décn (Rev.
viii. 3, of the common text) as being the subjunctive future (coniunctivum futuri
temporis), a reviewer castigated him for his ignorance that there was no such tense
as the subjunctive future (“das futurum hat ja keinen conjunctiv”): that is to say,
the existence of such a tense lay as much beyond the limits of his grammatical appre-
hension, as the motion of the earth was beyond the philosophical knowledge of the
inquisitors. And yet facts remain facts: if (as Pascal says) phenomena prove that
the earth does move, all inquisitorial decrees can neither keep zé from moving, nor
themselves from moving along with it: if there are subjunctive futures actually used
by Greek authors, all the decrees of reviewers cannot annihilate them; and if writers
of grammars do not recognise such forms, they only show that there is something in the
flexion of the Greek verb more extended than their rules and examples. Grammati-
cal forms are not used by authors because they had anterior existence in grammars ;
but grammars ought to recognise and explain forms, because of their actual existence
and use. Galileo was treated by the inquisitors as if he had been responsible for
making the earth move, and as if it had previously obeyed their dogmas and stood
still: just so critics have been condemned as if they had invented the various readings
of which they show the existence ; and Lachmann was even held responsible by his
reviewers for the fact that a certain tense is found in books, of which some grammars
make no mention. Would such censors deny that iva 8éoy does occur in Rev. viii. 3,
of the common text,and that xav6jowuo. is found in1 Cor. xiii.3? And if these forms
exist, why may no one say what part of the verbs they are, without fear of censure,
and without being liable to condemnation for pointing out the narrow limits of in-
quisitorial circumspicience ?
It is a kind of misfortune for such a man as Lachmann to fall into the hands of
reviewers whose knowledge was so much less than his, and who thought that nothing
could exist beyond the horizon of their own vision. Lachmann asked not that he
might be followed as a leader, but that what he had performed might be examined
and weighed; and then, as need might be, approved, corrected, and enlarged. “Id
praecipue officio meo contineri existimavi, ut adulescentes probos et candidos, in
quorum studiis fortuna ac spes ecclesiae et litterarum posita est, ea docerem quae
multo labore et anxia sedulitate quaesita viderer mili quam verissima repperisse; non
ut illi me tanquam ducem sectarentur aut in his quae tradidissem adquiescerent, sed
singula ut ipsi investigarent, investigata perpenderent, perpensa probarent corrigerent
augerent.”
118 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the mind of Tischendorf, in leading him often to adopt readings
on ancient authority: there was, however, throughout the edition
a considerable fluctuation. Indeed, as Tischendorf’s labours as a
collator were subsequent to the appearance of this edition, and as
in the course of years his critical principles became more definitely
formed, it is useless to recur to this first edition as though it could
be regarded as containing Tischendorf’s ¢ext: it merely occupies
a place in the history of the printed editions.*
The next editions which Tischendorf superintended were three
which appeared at Paris, in 1842. One of these had the Latin
Vulgate in a parallel column, and in this the Greek text was con-
formed to the Clementine Vulgate, whenever this could be done
on any MS. authority whatever. At the end, a table was given
of the variations of Stephens’s third edition, and Griesbach’s
second, from this peculiar recension of the Greek text. There
was a smaller edition, containing the same Greek text as that just
deseribed, but without the Latin or the table of variations. And
besides these, there was one which generally accorded in text with
that which had appeared at Leipsic in the preceding year; no
critical apparatus was subjoined ; but, at the end, the variations of
Stephens, Elzevir, and Griesbach, were appended. This edition
was not corrected by Tischendorf himself, and it seems to have
been executed very inaccurately.
In 1849 appeared Tischendorf’s second Leipsic edition; the
one in which the text is given as he judged that it ought to be
revised. It exhibits a recension of the Greek text, with a selec-
dion of various readings—the result not merely of the labours of
previous collators, but especially those of the editor himself, during
the years which had elapsed since the appearance of his first
edition.
* One of the most curious descriptions of Tischendorf’s plan and object is that
given by Mr. Scrivener: “A desperate effort has recently been made by Tischendorf
(Nov. Test. Lips. 1841) to retrieve the credit of Griesbach’s theory, or at least to vin-
dicate the principal changes which he introduced into the text of Scripture (e.g. Matt.
vi. 13; John vii.8; Acts xx. 28; 1 Tim. iii. 16).” (Supplement to Eng. Vers., p. 30.)
“Griesbach’s theory” apparently can only apply to recensions, as to which Tischen-
dorf had nothing in common with him; and as to the passages specified (in three at
least of them), the preponderating ancient evidence was valued alike by Griesbach
and Tischendorf (as well as others) and hence identity of reading. In fact, Mr. Scri-
vener goes on to show that so far from Tischendorf having made a desperate effort to
uphold Griesbach, his text is of a very different complexion.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 119
Prefixed there are Prolegomena, in which many subjects are
discussed —his own labours in the collation and transcribing of
MSS.; the critical principles which he now adopted; the dialect
of the Greek New Testament; the subject of recensions, etc.
In giving an account of what he had himself done, it becomes
evident that the results could not be comprised in a manual edi-
tion, such as this was. It was therefore necessary to adopt some
principle, or plan of selection; and this was done by often giving
the authorities which support his text, and also those which he
considered to merit notice. The manner in which he acted as to
this was very briefly explained in a note (p. xj.). The authorities
are cited with such brevity, that it requires a very considerable
degree of attention for the reader fully and quickly to observe what
authorities support, and what oppose, the readings mentioned. In
the Acts, Epistles, and Revelation, the readings are given less
sparingly than in the Gospels. To many, an edition which pre-
sented the full results of Tischendorf’s extended labours, would
have been far more useful and acceptable than any mere manual
could be.
The following are the principles laid down by Tischendorf for
the formation of his text:—
‘The text is only to be sought from ancient evidence, and
especially from Greek MSS., but without neglecting the testimo-
nies of versions and fathers. Thus the whole conformation of the
text should proceed from the evidences themselves, and not from
what is called the received edition.”
In this sound and important rule, Lachmann’s fundamental
principle is adopted. What the inspired authors actually wrote,
is a matter of testimony; the ancient evidences which have been
transmitted to us present us with the best-accredited grounds on
which we can form a judgment. Tuischendorf then adds, that,
where testimonies differ, the most ancient Greek MSS. deserve
especial reliance. Under the term, ‘‘ Codices Greci antiquissimi,”
he includes the documents from the fourth to about the ninth
century. This limit is, however, pretty wide; and these MSS.
themselves he would classify according to their age. This, if fully
carried out, would present several important features in the his-
tory of the text; for it would show a gradual change from the
120 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
most ancient documents of all, until such readings become general
as are almost identical with the mass of modern copies.
But, although Tischendorf carries down his ‘ most ancient
MSS.” as far as the ninth century, he adds, that the authority of
the older among them is much the greater: and that this autho-
rity, on the one hand, is greatly confirmed if there are corrobo-
rating testimonies of versions and fathers; and on the other hand,
it is not to be rejected, even though most, or all, of the more
modern copies read differently. |
In discussing the early rise of various readings, Tischendorf
speaks (p. xiij.) of the want of reverence for ‘‘ the written letter,”
on the part of the early Christians, and this he considers to be the
cause of some of the variations. The fact of such want of reve-
rence may, however, be doubted, and of course the consequence
drawn from the supposed fact would then fall to the ground. For
Irenzeus shows us what the early Christians thought and felt as to
the text of Scripture: in discussing the various reading which,
even in his day, had found its way into the text of Rev. xii. 18
(616 for 666), he speaks positively as to the point that the true
reading is 666; a fact which he learned from those who had
known the apostle John face to face: and then he alludes to those
who had introduced the reading 616, an erroneous number, which
he was willing to suppose to have originated in transcriptural
error—‘‘ We think that pardon will be granted by God to those
who have done this simply and without malice.” He would have
used very different language, had he supposed that.indifference
existed as to the words and letters of Holy Scripture. It is far
more in accordance with what we know, to attribute the early
origin of various readings in the New Testament to the ordi-
nary causes, which must have operated all the more rapidly,
from the frequency with which the Scriptures were transcribed,
for the use of individuals and Christian communities in the first
ages,
In addition to the principle of following ancient testimonies
entirely, Tischendorf lays down certain rules, which he adopts in
weighing authorities :—
i. A reading altogether peculiar to one or another ancient docu-
ment is suspicious; as also is any, even if supported by a class of
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. pe a |
documents, which seems to evince that it has originated in the
revision of a learned man.
ij. Readings, however well supported by evidence, are to be
rejected, when it is manifest (or very probable) that they have
proceeded from the errors of copyists. 5
iij. In parallel passages, whether of the New or Old Testament,
especially in the synoptical Gospels, which ancient copyists conti-
nually brought into increased accordance, those testimonies are pre-
ferable, in which precise accordance of such parallel passages is not
found; unless, indeed, there are important reasons to the contrary.
iv. In discrepant readings, that should be preferred which may
have given occasion to the rest, or which appears to comprise the
elements of the others.
v. Those readings must be maintained which accord with New
Testament Greek, or with the particular style of each individual
writer.
These rules are then illustrated by examples and remarks; and,
in point of fact, the application of critical principles needs just
as much tact, as is required in laying them down with accuracy.
On the first of these rules Tischendorf says, that, especially in
the Gospels, where the uncial MSS. are several in number, it
would be incautious to receive a reading into the text on the
authority of but one MS., unless such reading be in some mea-
sure corroborated. To this it may be said, that it seems unlikely
that, in the Gospels, it would be needful to rely on but one MS.,
unless, in such a place, many of the leading authorities are defec-
tive, or unless the passage present a remarkable discrepancy of
reading. 'Tischendorf would apparently introduce this latter limi-
tation. He gives as an example of this rule Mark ii. 22, where,
instead of the common reading, 6 oivos éxyetTas Kai 01 AoKOL aTro-
Aovvrat, he reads, 6 oivos amoAAvTAaL Kal oi acxol. This reading
he adopts as being that of the Vatican MS., though he would not
have received it, as resting on that single testimony, had it not
also been the reading of the Coptic (Memphitic) version. He
considers that, in the copies in general, this passage has been cor-
rupted from the parallel places in the other Gospels. It must
also be considered that, in this passage, the Vatican MS. receives
partial confirmation from other authorities. The following words
i2 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
(aXXa oivoy véov Eis AcKovS Katvovs BXyTEoV) he omits, on the au-
thority of D and four ancient Latin copies, considering that they
were introduced from the parallel passages. In such cases as
these, the great weight which attaches to the direct and united
evidence af all the other most ancient documents must be borne
in mind; and this must be weighed against the evidence of the
few witnesses, and the presumption arising from the known fact,
that parallel passages were so often brought into closer agreement.
Tischendorf says, that he has often paused in doubt in such cases,
as to what reading he should insert in his text; and this difficulty
may have been especially felt by him, as he does not indicate
probable or not improbable readings in his margin.
In cases in which particular MSS. appear to be partial to parti-
cular tenses of verbs, or modes of expression, Tischendorf would
use his first rule, as excluding such readings from being received,
simply on the authority of such MSS. He would exclude any
reading which may seem to have arisen from a recension (that is,
critical revision) by a learned man. He specifies Matt. xxv. 16, as
an instance; where he rejects the reading éxépdncev, though sup-
ported by A** BC D L, and other MSS., the Vulgate, copies of
the old Latin, Syriac, later Syriac in the margin, Memphitic,
“Ethiopic, and Armenian versions.* In spite of all this evidence,
he considers that it must be regarded as a critical emendation for
the common reading ézroincev. But as to this, must we not follow
evidence? If éxépdnoev be a critical correction, is 1t not strange
that it should be supported so strongly by the best and most
ancient MSS. in a body, and that this should be confirmed by the
versions? Tischendorf, indeed, admits that this critical correction
(if such it be), is as old as the second or third century: if so,
how can we prove this reading not to be genuine? or how can we
show the manner in which the reading évroincev (if genuine) had
been transmitted through the early period of the history of the
text? In this passage, Tischendorf has not stated the authorities
for the reading which he has adopted. It may be further asked,
whether a copyist might not have changed the more appropriate
term éxépdnoev into the more familiar ésroincev?
* To these the Arabic and Persic might be added, if they possessed (which they do
not) any critical value as authorities.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. © 123
As to his second rule, Tischendorf fully admits that it must
often be a matter of doubt whether a reading which appears to
have arisen from the error of a copyist, really did so or not. Many
things which would strike an inexperienced reader as transcrip-
tural errors are in fact not such, but true and genuine readings.
As to the confusion of similar words really arising from this
source, Tischendorf gives some good examples. Many readings,
which some (Tischendorf as well as others) would attribute to the
errors of transcribers, are, I doubt not, really genuine; and before
a well-attested reading be rejected as utterly devoid of sense, the
whole passage must be well and cautiously considered; and then
it will commonly be found that the reading in which the ancient
authorities agree, affords a sense, which, though perhaps not ob-
vious at first, is good; and that, so far from its being attributable
to the error of a transcriber, it must be considered as genuine, and
that the more apparently simple reading is only an attempt at
correction.
Tischendorf illustrates his third rule by Matt. xxiii. 4, where he
omits Kal dvoBdotaxta after Bapéa with L and a few later MSS.
and some versions: this he does because the common text agrees
with the reading of the parallel passage in Luke. This place is,
however, hardly a full illustration of the rule with regard to parallel
texts in the synoptical Gospels; because here the amount of evi-
dence for the retention of the words in Matthew is too consider-
able for it to be set aside at once by the application of a principle,
not universal but only of frequent use. Indeed in all such cases,
it is surely needful first to examine the evidence, and then to
compare the parallel passages: a judgment must be formed as to
probabilities, when it cannot be as to certainties.
In the case of parallel texts cited from the Old Testament,
Tischendorf states that he has continually used the collations in
the Oxford edition of the LXX. by Holmes and Parsons. In this
manner it may be better understood how much has been done
by the later copyists in amplifying the Old Testament citations ;
for the additions are not unfrequently in accordance with some of
the later MSS. of the LXX.
The fourth rule—that the reading should be preferred from
which the others have sprung—is described as being (if taken in
124 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
a wide sense) the principle of all rules. In support of this, re-
ference is made to Griesbach’s Prolegomena. Its application will,
however, depend very much on the subjective feeling of each one
who uses it. Tischendorf gives as an illustration Matt. xxiv. 38,
where the common reading is év tais juépais Tais mpo TOU KaTa-
KkAvaopov ; some MSS. insert éxetvars after épars, while others
(L, one Lectionary, three Latin MSS., and Origen twice) omit
rais mpo, and this latter form of the text is followed by Tischen-
dorf. He thinks it far more probable that the original reading
was ‘‘days of the flood,” and that the others have arisen out of it.
He considers that some copyists or critics thought that it was
hardly correct to say ‘“‘ they were eating and drinking in the days
of the flood,” and hence (he supposes) originated the reading
‘“‘ that were before the flood.” This might possibly be the source
of this reading ; but is not the evidence too great in favour of the
reading ‘‘ that were before the flood,” for this consideration and
this measure of evidence to suffice to overturn it ? The words
Tais mpo might most easily be passed over by a transcriber; and
as to the citation of Origen, how often do we not find a quotation
shghtly abridged, when nothing in the argument turns on the
omitted words? As to the term ‘days of the flood,” being not
strictly correct to express days that preceded the flood, the asser-
tion seems to me to go rather too far; the days preceding the
flood, up to and including that on which the flood came, might
be so called; so that if this had been the original expression of
the text, the idea of correcting it would hardly be sufficient to
account for the introduction of the words tats apo, so as to make
it ‘* before the flood.”
In the other passage which is given as an illustration of this
fourth rule—Mark viii. 26—there are much stronger grounds ; for
here pnde els THY KOpNV eicéNOns, without the words which follow
them in the common text, is the reading supported by B L, two
later MSS. and the Memphitic version. Other authorities intro-
duce a great variety of reading, all of which may easily have
sprung from that which Tischendorf has adopted; the common
text has, however, considerable support.
In cases such as those which Tischendorf here discusses, the
principle laid down by Bengel, Proclivi scriptiont prestat ardua,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 125
deserves a very prominent place: for in amplified readings it is
often apparent that an endeavour is made by different documents
to avoid a difficulty by different paths. Here too should be con-
sidered and remembered the habitual tendency of copyists to
amplify what was before them.
Tischendorf gives some remarks on adhering to the forms, etc.,
of the New Testament Greek—the fifth of the rules which he laid
down ; the subject, however is (as he says) too extensive to be
taken up in a mere passing way. The forms which have been
called Alexandrian have been by some rejected as spurious when
they occur in MSS. of the New Testament, although their ex-
istence in the LXX. version of the Old Testament has been main-
tained. Now, when the New Testament was written, Alexandrian
Greek was very widely diffused, and in many things the LXX.
formed the style, etc., of the apostolic writings. And also,
although the copies of the LX X. in common use are replete with
these forms, while the common text of the New Testament is
without them, this does not prove any contradistinction ; because
the LXX. has been printed from ancient MSS., and the New
Testament from modern. The ancient copies of the New Testa-
ment contain these forms, the modern MSS. of the LX-X. (as shown
in the various readings of Holmes and Parsons) do not; so that in
this respect there is a general agreement between the MS. autho-
rities. And thus Tischendorf says, ‘‘ The authorities on which we
rely in the Old Testament may be safely followed in the New.
Further, if it be thought that the Alexandrian grammarians were
prone to transform to their own peculiarities the works which
they received from elsewhere, it would be indeed wonderful that
they have not changed AXschylus or Sophocles, Plato or Aris-
totle into Eyyptians.”* This argument is excellent ; and on two
points very conclusive: Ist, that the occurrence of Alexandrian
forms in a MS. of the New Testament does not prove Egypt to be
the country of such a MSS. as to its origin; 2nd, that such forms
* “ Hine quibus testibus in Veteri Testamento fidem habemus, eosdem in Novo sequi
tutum est. Ceterum si grammatici alexandrini potissimum hoc egisse putandi essent,
ut quae aliunde accepissent scripta ad suam ipsorum consuetudinem transformarent,
profecto mirum esset quod non Aeschylum vel Sophoclem, Platonem vel Aristotelem
aeque ac sacros scriptores reddiderunt aegyptios.”—Proleg., xix.
126 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
being generally found in the older MSS. of the New Testament
may be safely followed (when properly attested) as belonging to
the books as they proceeded from the hands of the authors.
Tischendorf then gives an enumeration of some of these forms:
with this subject he connects notices of some orthographical
peculiarities of ancient MSS. One of the points of which he
treats is the entire rejection of the form avrod, and those which
flow from it; like Bengel, Lachmann, and some other editors, he
always gives avtod, etc., with the smooth breathing. This is a
point on which the most ancient MSS., as having neither breath-
ings nor accents (at least & prima manu), can afford us no direct aid:
they can, however, assist us zmdirectly; because we find before
avtov the pronouns elided, not into 颒, ad’, pcb’, nal’, avO, but
ém, am, “eT, KAT, avT ;—this is also the case in the LXX.
It may be added on the subject of Alexandrian forms, that here
too we must be guided simply by evidence; it can hardly be ex-
pected that there was precise uniformity in the original autographs
of the New Testament as to dialectic distinctions ; and therefore,
while fully owning the admissibility of these forms when well
supported, in each occurrence of such a form the evidence must
be weighed which belongs to that particular case.
These remarks will suffice to show what Tischendorf’s general
plan is in the formation of his text: he acknowledges the para-
mount importance of ancient authority; but he admits many
modifications, which might, in application, interfere materially
with the continual recurrence to the oldest class of documents.
Tischendorf’s general principle (which is that of Lachmann rather
differently expressed) may be used yet more widely than it has
been by him; and the true text should be sought in the most
ancient MSS., using the collateral aid of versions and early cita-
tions,—all modifying rules being subjected to the claims of absolute
evidence. ‘The application of such modifying rules should be re-
stricted to passages in which the real conflict of evidence is great.
In many cases, indeed, the balance of probabilities is all that can
be stated ; and thus, besides the reading given in the text, it may
be needful to mention others as possessing a strong claim to atten-
tion.
One of the subjects of which Tischendorf treats is that of Re-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 127
censions of the text, a subject which renders it needful to discuss
the principle of twofold division stated by Bengel, the modifica-
tions of Semler, the ordered system of Griesbach, and the refined
theory of Hug, of which the most fanciful part was the supposed
recension undertaken by Origen; the whole supposition of which
was a creation of the imagination.
The facts of the case (as has been already intimated) are simply
these, that the ancient documents may be considered as one family,
possessed of many features in common, and the more recent are
another family. The former of these classes (although differing
among themselves in many particulars) have a general agreement,
and these for the most part are also found in the more ancient
versions, and in the citations of the earlier writers. The later
MSS. agree amongst themselves more habitually than the most
ancient do, and these MSS. are supported in their readings by
the more recent versions. The Greek MSS. from the 12th century
and onward, present a marked agreement in many passages, in
which the most ancient are very different; and this is the most
recent form of the text. The absolute agreement of the mass of
the recent copies, of which many have spoken, as though it were
an evidence of the truth of the text which they contain, is an
over statement ; for the recent MSS. have their own peculiar varia-
tions from each other in particulars, in which all ancient evidence
opposes them.
On these facts of the case, Tischendorf proposes his classifi-
cation, which is (he says) applicable especially to the Gospels,
least of all to the Apocalypse, and more so to the Acts and the
Pauline Epistles than to the Catholic Epistles. He thinks that
the documents may admit of a fourfold division, which might
receive the names of Alexandrian and Latin, Asiatic and Byzan-
tine, not as being four separate classes, but rather two pairs: the
first pair would comprehend the more ancient documents, the
latter the more recent. But the line of demarcation would often
be extremely faint, if the attempt were made definitely to mark
out what should belong to each of these supposed classes. For it
may be questioned how far an actual classification of MSS. (to say
nothing now of any other authorities) is practicable beyond the
distinction of the ancient and the more recent; subdivisions no
128 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
doubt exist; and thus there are general truths on which Tischen-
dorf’s arrangement is based. Thus, in St. Paul’s Epistles, A B C
might belong to one division, and D (with E) F G to another, of
the same general class; while J K, on the one hand, and many
MSS. later than the twelfth century on the other, may be con-
sidered as divisions of the other class. Whatever truth there be
in theories of this kind, their importance is greater in connection
with the gradual modernisation of the text, than with the establish-
ment of the ancient and original readings: and if the term recen-
ston be used at all, let it at least be confined entirely to those
attempts to correct the ancient text out of which the modern
readings have arisen.
It should be stated that Tischendorf does not allow his theories
on recensions to influence his judgment in the application of his
critical rules; for such theories, if true, are not the basis on which
a judgment must be formed, but are a part of the conclusions
arrived at from data previously ascertained.
It has been stated above, that Tischendorf’s second Leipsic
edition was the result of his own extensive collations of ancient
MSS. since the appearance of his first. Since the publication of
that edition he had himself copied or collated almost every known
MS. which exists in uncial letters. He states that he has himself
examined every one of these documents, except H of the Gospels
at Hamburg; V of the Gospels and K of the Epistles at Moscow ;
the Codex San-germanensis at St. Petersburg; and (of those
whose text had been published) the fragments P Q at Wolfen-
biittel, Z at Dublin, and A at St. Gallen. The travels during
which Tischendorf was closely occupied in these collations ex-
tended from 1840 to 1844.*
As to the ancient versions, Tischendorf himself copied the most
valuable Codex Amiatinus of Jerome’s version (which he has
since published), and he also transcribed and collated himself
some other Latin authorities; the text of some of these he has
also published. For the versions in other languages besides the
* A detailed account of what Tischendorf did in copying and collating MSS. is
given in several successive parts of the Wiener Jahrbiicher, 1847, etc. (Anzeigeblatt).
For an enumeration of the texts of MSS. published by Tischendorf, see the Appendix
to this section.
etait
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 129
Latin he was under the necessity of depending on the extracts
made by others.
The text of Tischendorf, in many places, accords with that of
Lachmann, where both differ from the common text: this has
arisen from the fact that Tischendorf followed Lachmann in ascrib-
ing a high value to ancient authorities. Where Tischendorf differs
from Lachmann he commonly follows some others of the ancient
documents. In such points itis almost impossible to exclude some
measure of subjective feeling.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 12.
THE GREEK MSS. THE TEXT OF WHICH HAS BEEN
PUBLISHED.
No right estimate could be formed of the industrious labours of Professor
Tischendorf, unless the texts which he has published were definitely men-
tioned. A complete list of the MSS. which have thus been rendered accessible to
critics is, therefore, given, in order to bring the whole subject at once into view ;
some of the particulars have already been noticed in the preceding pages.
In 1715, Hearne published at Oxford the Greek and Latin Codex Laudianus
(E) of the Acts of the Apostles.
In the same year the Coislin fragments of St. Paul’s Epistles (H) were
published by Montfaucon in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana.
The palimpsest fragments of two MSS. of the Gospels (P and Q) at
Wolfenbiittel, were published by Knittel in 1762.
In 1786, the New Testament portion of the Codex Alexandrinus was pub-
lished under the editorial care of Woide.
In 1789, Giorgi edited at Rome the Greek and Thebaic fragments (T) of
St. John’s Gospel.
Matthei published, in 1791, the Greek and Latin Codex Boernerianus (G)
of St. Paul’s Epistles.
In 1793, Kipling edited the text of the Greek and Latin Codex Bezz (D)
of the Gospels and Acts.
In 1801, Dr. Barrett edited the Dublin palimpsest of St. Matthew’s Gospel
(Z) at Dublin; all that was then legible was published in facsimile en-
graving. [As to this MS., see the Appendix to Section 13.]
10
130 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
In 1836, the Greek and Latin Codex San-gallensis (A) of the Gospels was
lithographed in facsimile under the editorial care of Rettig.
This was the state of the case when Tischendorf began to publish his edi-
tions of the text of MSS.
The first which appeared was the Codex Ephraemi (C), a palimpsest con-
taining about two-thirds of the New Testament. The original writing had
been in a great measure restored by a chemical application (‘‘ tinctura Giober-
tina”), and thus much was legible which had previously been wholly hidden.
This edition of the New Testament fragments appeared in 1843. The Old
Testament fragments were similarly published in 1845.
In 1846, Tischendorf edited in one volume several MSS. and fragments ;
this work (‘‘ Monumenta Sacra Inedita’’) contained the following texts :—
L of the Gospels, a very valuable MS. at Paris; the readings of which
(though it does not appear to be actually older than the eighth century) pre-
sent a general accordance with the most ancient MSS.
The Basilian MS. of the Apocalypse (now in the Vatican); a MS. the
readings of which were previously but little known: this is one of the three
ancient copies containing the book of Revelation.
Three fragments, J N [, of great antiquity; which appear to be cer-
tainly parts of the same MS., though now so scattered and dispersed that four
of these leaves are in the British Museum, two in the Imperial Library at
Vienna, and six in the Vatican.
Besides these, the volume contains the text of the more recent fragments
© W ¥ and F*.
In 1852, Tischendorf published the Codex Claromontanus (D) of St. Paul’s
Epistles in Greek and Latin, from the transcripts and collations of himself and
Tregelles; this is the most important of all the Greek texts which he has
edited except the Codex Ephraemi.
This list of published MSS. shows at once for how much we are indebted
to Tischendorf: he has done far more in this department than had ever been
accomplished before. And when the character of the MSS. which have been
published by himself and his predecessors in that field of labour, is taken into
consideration, we are able to judge how very much has been done to facilitate
the labours of critics. For (with the important and lamented exception of the
Codex Vaticanus) these published copies include all the more ancient and
valuable of the MSS. which have been used for purposes of criticism.
There are two other publications of Tischendorf which should be mentioned
in this place :—
Ist. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus, a MS. of part of the LXX., of
extreme antiquity, found by Tischendorf himself during his eastern travels ;
this was published in a lithographed facsimile, beautifully executed, in 1846.
2nd. The Codex Amiatinus; a most valuable Latin MS. of the whole Bible
in Jerome’s version, written before the middle of the sixth century ; it is now
kept in the Laurentian Library at Florence. Tischendorf in 1850 published
the Latin New Testament according to the text of this MS. from the collations
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. T31
made by himself and Tregelles separately. This text is of very great import-
ance in restoring the Latin Vulgate to the condition in which it was left by
Jerome,
Dr. Tischendorf has still continued his researches for biblical MSS.; the
measure of success which has attended his recent efforts may be seen in the
following extract from a letter :—
“ Leipsic, July 11, 1853.
‘** My dear Tregelles,
* * *
““T embrace this opportunity to give you some information of the literary
discoveries which have crowned my last expedition to Egypt, whence I re-
turned two months ago.
“T have brought back with me seven Greek biblical MSS. Three of these
contain parts of the Old Testament. One, a palimpsest as old as the /ifth
century, contains parts of the Pentateuch; a second, of the eighth or ninth
century, is a veritable supplement [as to text] of the Vatican MS.; the third,
the writing of which perfectly resembles that of the Dialogues of Plato at
Oxford [in very early cursive letters], contains the whole of the book of
Judges and that of Ruth: its text is very curious and important.
‘** But the others, which relate to the New Testament, will be of greater
interest for you. Twenty-eight palimpsest leaves in uncial letters of the fifth
century, take a place amongst our MSS. of the highest class. Such readings
as that of the MS. A, els tov rémov (John xx. 25), are confirmed by this pa-
limpsest. Two other MSS. are of the eighth and ninth centuries: one of
these contains the two Gospels of St. Luke and St. John, the other comprises
fragments of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John, and the whole of St. Luke.
Both of these are more curious, in a critical point of view, than E G H K M
SUV. One of them, in the passage St. Luke iii. 23—38, confirms almost all
the readings of BL. The other has, in John v. 1, 7 €opr?) trav dipor: it is
enriched with scholia, which sometimes possess a critical value. My fourth
New Testament MS. is dated 1054; it contains the Acts of the Apostles,
wanting six or seven chapters. I was much surprised at the perfect agree-
ment of this MS. with A BC, and the other ancient MSS. But I must tell
you that I have not yet found more than a few moments to devote to an exact
examination of all these MSS., as well as of others which are not biblical.
** Amongst the Arabic fragments which I have brought with me, there is one
MS. of the eighth century (the date of another determines the age of this);
it contains five of St. Paul’s Epistles; this version has been hitherto unknown.
‘*T also possess a Syriac palimpsest of fifty leaves, as old at least as the fifth
century. The fragments of the Gospels which M. Tuch has deciphered prove
that this Syriac version adheres more scrupulously to the Greek than any other
Syrian text hitherto known.”
* * * * * * *
132 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
§ 13—ON AN ESTIMATE OF MS. AUTHORITIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH COMPARATIVE CRITICISM.
AS a preliminary definition of terms, I state that by ‘‘ Comparative
Criticism” I mean such an investigation as shows what the charac-
ter of a document is,—not simply from its age, whether known
or supposed,—but from its actual readings being shown to be in
accordance or not with certain other documents. By an estimate
of MSS. through the application of comparative criticism, is
intended merely such an arrangement as may enable it to be
said, that certain MSS. do, as a demonstrated fact, present fea-
tures of classification as agreeing or not agreeing in text with
ancient authorities with which they are compared.
The MSS. must first be stated according to age, and to known
affinities amongst themselves in certain particulars.
In the Gospels, the most ancient MSS. are—
A BC D and the fragments Z J (with N and I’) P Q T.
The uncial MSS. from the seventh century which frequently
accord with these, are L X A.
The other uncial MSS. are EF GHK MSU V, and
the fragments OR W Y OA F*.
There are also cursive MSS. which’ generally support the
most ancient documents; amongst these may be specified
133200,
In the Acts, the oldest MSS. are A B C D E.
Then come the uncials which present a differing text, G H.
(Besides these MSS. are the fragments F?.)
There are also cursive MSS. according with the most
ancient, such as 13, 31.
In the Catholic Epistles are the same MSS. of those in
the Acts, A B C, G, 13, 31, with the addition of J, a MS.
differing from the most ancient.
In the Pauline Epistles, the most ancient MSS. are A B
C D (with E, its copy), and the fragments H.
' OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 133
Uncial MSS. often agreeing with some of the above, F G.
Other uncial MSS. J K (also the fragments F*).
Some later MSS., such as 17, 37, agree generally with the
most ancient.
In the Revelation, the most ancient MSS. are A C.
Later uncial MS., B (Codex Basilianus, not THE Codex
Vaticanus).
Cursive MSS., often agreeing with the most ancient,
14, 38.
The process of investigation now is to take such passages as
afford good and unequivocal evidence; to inquire what are the
readings which in such places are supported by known ANCIENT
testimony ; and then to see what MSS. support such early evi-
dence : and thus it may be learned whether the most ancient MSS.
(and those which accord with them in reading) do or do not pre-
sent fair samples of the ancient text.
The passages brought forward first will be some on which the
advocates of the mass of the recent copies have relied; as though
the ancient MSS., which some critics have considered to be of the
most value, could not be followed rightly in the readings which
they present. The points of inquiry will be in such places,
1, What readings are attested as ancient, apart from the MS.
authorities ? and, 2, What MSS. support the readings so far au-
thenticated ? The reader is requested in each case to observe
particularly what reading is proved to be ancient by the joint
evidence of different versions, and (in cases where the place has
been cited) by early quotations.
(i.) Matt. xix. 17. ri pe A€yes dyabdv; oddels dyads ei py els. This is
the reading of the common text supported by the mass of the
more recent copies; other authorities, however, differ widely, and
the form which they give to the passage is, ri we épwrds rept rod
dyaGod ; els €or 6 dyads.
The evidence respecting this passage (and also as to the words
6 Oeos which the common text subjoins) requires to be stated dis-
tributively ; because the vouchers for the different readings in
the respective parts are not precisely the same.
134 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
1. Te we N€yers ayabov ; This is supported by the greater num-
ber of MSS., in accordance with the Peshito Syriac and the text
of the Harclean Syriac and the Thebaic (alias Sahidic) versions
(the latter as found in the Ozford fragments); also by the Codex
Brixianus, one of the Latin MSS. published by Blanchini.
Te we épwras rept Tod ayabod ; The Vulgate, all the Old Latin
copies except Cod. Brix. the Syriac brought into notice by Mr.
Cureton ; the Jerusalem Syriac (this Lectionary does read thus,
I made a special note of the place myself: the passage was
imperfectly examined by Adler); the margin of the Harclean
Syriac; the Memphitic (alias Coptic), the Armenian, and the
Ethiopic; the MSS. BDL, 1, 22; Matthei’s x., in addition to
the common reading.
2. ovdels ayabos, et yu) eis. So most MSS., three copies of the
Old Latin, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, and the Thebaic.
eis €oTw 6 ayabos. The Latin Vulgate ; the oldest and best copies
of the Old Latin; the Curetonian Syriac, and the Jerusalem Syriac
Lectionary ; the Memphitic, the Armenian, and the A‘thiopic.
BDL, 1, 22.
6 Geos is then added by most MSS.; by the Vulgate and most
copies of the Old Latin; the Curetonian, Peshito, and Harclean
Syriac; the Memphitic and the Thebaic: while it is not inserted
in the Latin Codices Vercellensis and San-germanensis 1, the Jeru-
salem Syriac, the Armenian, and the Aithiopic. B D L, 1, 22.
The reading which is opposed to the common text has the ex-
press testimony of Origen* in its favour; so that here we have
distinct evidence of its early existence; we find this statement
confirmed by several of the best and earliest versions; and, in
accordance with these united witnesses, certain MSS., few in num-
ber (but two amongst them being some of the most ancient), up-
hold the same reading.
The bearing of this passage on the question of the value of
ancient testimony will be best understood by citing what Mr.
Scrivener, an opposer of the principle of recurring to the ancient
MSS., as such, says on the passage in his ‘‘ Supplement to the
Authorised English Version.”
Matt. xix. 17. ‘‘ Griesbach and Lachmann here admit into the
* See Origen’s own words in the citation from Mr. Scrivener given just below.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 135
text an important variation, which, both from its extent and
obvious bearing, cannot have originated in accidental causes.
Instead of té pe Aéyets ayaBdv ; ovdels ayabds, ef pun els O Oeds,
‘Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is
God’: they read, ti we épwtas wepl Tod ayabod; eis eat 6
aya0os, ‘ Why askest thou me concerning what is good? He who
is good is One.’ I fear it is but too evident that this text was
mangled by some over-zealous scribe, who was displeased with
the doctrine of the Son’s inferiority which seemed to be implied
in it; and who did not perceive that His subordination to the
Father in the economy of grace, is perfectly consistent with His
equality in respect to the Divine nature and essence. The re-
ceived text is found in Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19; with no
variety in the manuscripts worthy of notice; and even in this
place Griesbach’s reading is contained only in jive copies (B D L,
1, 22), and partially in a sixth (Matthei’s x.). Now, all these
documents (except perhaps one) being Alexandrine, and B alone
being of first-rate importance, every rule of sober criticism calls
for the rejection of Griesbach’s correction, especially since it is
clear in what sources of mistaken feeling it took its rise. It is
supported, however, by the Italic, Vulg. and the Coptic versions
(with the slight addition of Deus), and in part by the Sahidic,
fEthiopic, and one or two of less weight. Syr. agrees with the
Textus Receptus; but the language of Origen (tom. ijj. p. 664)
may show at how early a period Griesbach’s variation had become
current: 6 wev odv Mar@aios ws rept ayalod épyou épwrnbévros
Tod cwTipos €v TO TL ayalov Toijnow ; 6 5é Mdpxos kat Aoveas
hac Tov cwTipa eipnKévat, TL we Aéyels ayabov ; ovdels ayabos et
pn els, 6 Beds. The process whereby Griesbach and Lachmann
persuaded themselves of the genuineness of their new text is
visible enough. The Codices BD, the Italic, Origen, and the
Vulgate, constitute a clear majority of the authorities admitted
by the latter. The former, conceiving that the joint evidence of
Codices B L, 1, Origen, the Sahidic, and Coptic, is decisive of the
testimony of his Egyptian family ; while the Codex D, the Italic,
and Vulgate represent that of the western recension; infers that
their joint influence will more than counterbalance Syr., Chry-
sostom, and the whole mass of corrupt Byzantine documents of
136:.-% AN ACCOUNT OF.THE PRINTED TEXT
every kind: although numerically they exceed, in the proportion
of about ninety to one, the vouchers for both his other classes
united. Thus it is only by denying the premises assumed by
these critics, that we can avoid subscribing to their perilous
conclusions.”
On this passage I willingly join issue with Mr. Scrivener; and
I do it all the more cheerfully, because I know that I am discus-
sing the question, not with some sciolist who thinks that he
shows his acuteness in argument, but with a scholar who main-
tains his views honestly, and straightforwardly, and who so writes
that all may know exactly what he means, whether they agree
with him or not.
But I not only join issue with Mr. Scrivener as to the reading
of this one passage, but I rely on it as supplying an argument
on the whole question as to the comparative authority of the mass
of MSS., and that of the few which are in accordance with ancient
testimony. On the one hand, let it be remembered, that we have
the distinct evidence of Origen, in full accordance with which are
(i.) the best copies of the Old Latin, (1j.) the Vulgate, (iij.) the
Curetonian Syriac, (iv.) the Jerusalem Syriac, (v.) the Memphitic,
(vj.) the Armenian, (vij.) the thiopic. On the other hand there
is no testimony of the same kind to place against that of Origen ; and
as to versions there are (i.) the Peshito Syriac (as zt has come down
to us), (ij.) the Harclean Syriac in part, (iij.) the Thebaic, and
(iv.) revised copies of the Old Latin. It is utterly unimportant, in
the present inquiry, to ask what the versions of the seventh century
and onward, such as the Arabic, Sclavonic, and Persic, may read.
To recur, then, to Mr. Scrivener’s arguments; I do not uphold
Griesbach’s recensions, nor do I now discuss Lachmann’s princi-
ples; but here there is, on the one hand, a reading of the text
older than the time of Origen, and, on the other, a reading of a
different complexion. It is in vain to speak of the text having
been mangled by an over-zealous scribe, unless proof presumptive
at least is given; for if there were an alteration from design, it
must have become diffused in some marvellous manner. For the
reading mentioned by Origen is that not only, in its essential
features, of the Vulgate, but of the Old Latin version, in all
copies except the re-cast Cod. Brixianus, and of all the ancient
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 137
versions, except the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, and the The-
baic (as found in the Oxford fragments); this reading must thus
have been diffused widely in all the regions of early Christianity.
Mr. Scrivener does indeed (‘‘ Collation of the Gospels,” page xv.)
express surprise that Griesbach “infers, that the joint influence”
of the MSS. and versions which support this wide-spread reading
‘‘will more than counterbalance the venerable Peshito Syriac,*
and the whole mass of Byzantine documents of every kind ;”—I
should have thought that no such importance could have attached
to the Peshito Syriac, as to outweigh the counter-testimony of so
many other versions: now, however, we may put in the opposite
scale the Curetonian Syriac, (a version far more worthy of the
epithet of ‘‘ venerable” than that which is called the Peshito as
it has come down to us), and which (as we might have expected)
accords with the other most ancient witnesses in upholding the
wide-spread reading. Whether ‘‘ every rule of sober criticism”
will require us to discard this attested reading, must, I suppose,
depend on what we consider such rules to be. Might I not well
ask for some proof that the other reading existed, in the time of
Origen, in copies of St. Matthew’s Gospel?
And as to the source of the reading existing in the mass of
MSS., need we feel any difficulty in seeking it out? For it is
that which is found in the two other synoptical Gospels; and
every one who knows MSS. minutely, must be aware how habitu-
ally copyists inserted in one Gospel the readings of another, so as
to bring them (perhaps unconsciously) into closer verbal agree-
ment. We do not know of a single MS. or version that has not
suffered more or less in this manner; we have to make the same
* But Mr. Scrivener sometimes gives little weight to the Peshito Syriac. Thus on
Matt. ix. 13, in his note on cis werdévovav which is not known as part of the text by the
ancient witnesses, he remarks, “ The accordance of the Peshito with the Vulgate and
earlier Latin versions, I have before noticed as a little suspicious.” Thus the evidence
of the Peshito, when confirmed by other versions of great age and excellent character,
is valued ess than if it stood in opposition to them.
+ 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 ex-
posure of such excessive ignorance as this might be well dealt with by one who
knows Greek MSS. as well as Mr. Scrivener. This ignorance is just as great, as
that would be of a man who thought that all copyists and compositors ought to be
infallible.
Some have marvelled that the Codex Bez (D) should have been highly valued by
138 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
complaint as was made by Jerome well nigh 1500 years ago. In
a case like this, where we have the direct testimony of Origen,
confirmed by good MSS., and upheld by versions widely diffused,
we need not hesitate to maintain the authority of that reading,
which is not exactly the same as that of Mark and Luke. How
naturally copyists sought verbal conformity, may be seen in this
passage; for C, 33, and some of the other MSS. which commonly
exhibit the same class of text as B L, etc., here accord with the
later MSS. in giving the reading rightly found in Mark and
Luke.
Mr. Scrivener is quite right in saying that the reading of BD L
‘‘ cannot have originated in accidental causes;”—the rival reading
may, however, have so originated, and the notion that it did so is
one of the highest probability. Indeed, if a designed alteration,
for doctrinal purposes, had taken place in Matthew, how could
Mark and Luke escape from a similar injury?
But the mass of the MSS., ‘‘in the proportion of about ninety
to one,” oppose what I have proved to be the ancient and wide-
spread reading of this passage :—what does this teach? Why,
that the mass of recent documents possess no determining voice,
in a question as to what we should receive as genuine readings.
We are able to take the few documents whose evidence is proved
to be trustworthy, and safely discard from present consideration
the eighty-nine ninetieths, or whatever else their numerical pro-
portion may be.
I do not see anything “ perilous” in the ‘ conclusions” to
which such a passage as this leads; on the contrary, it presents us
with a safe line of evidence, connecting our good MSS. with the
former part of the third century of our era. I should feel that I
did indeed put the text of the New Testament in peril, if I
adopted the authority of the mass of MSS. which is proved to be
at variance with what was read by the Christians of the third
century at least.
most critics from Griesbach onward, when it is known that it is replete with interpo-
lations: but this admitted fact does not affect the text itself; the interpolations
might be separated as definitely as the foot-notes of a book can be from the text.
The first book of Esdras in the Apocrypha is the canonical Ezra greatly interpolated ;
and yet Esdras preserves true readings of nwmébers, etc., which are all wrong in the
non-interpolated Ezra, both in the Hebrew text and the Greek version.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 139
(ij.) Matt. xv. 8. The common text reads “Eyyifer por 6 Aads ovTos TH
oTopatt avTav, Kal Tots xeiAcot pe Tysa* Other copies have 6 Aads
ovTos Tots xeiAcot pe TYLG Without the other words.
The common text is found in zone of the more ancient ver-
sions, but it is that of the mass of MSS.: the other reading is
that of all the more ancient versions which we have (the Thebaic
being here defective), of Origen and other fathers, and is in the
MSS. B D L, 33, 124. So that this one passage might be relied
on as an important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the
multitude which accord with ancient testimony. On this passage,
Mr. Scrivener remarks in opposition to the view just stated :—
Matt. xv. ver. 8. ‘‘Griesbach, Vater, and Lachmann, remove
from the text as spurious the words éyyifev ov, ‘ draweth nigh
unto me,’ and 76 otdwate adtov, wal, ‘with their mouth,
and.’ They are wanting in Syr. Vulg., the Italic, Aithiopic,
and Armenian versions ; in Origen, Chrysostom, and several other
fathers. This would form a strong reason for questioning their
authenticity, were they not found in all existing manuscripts
except five (B D L, 33, 124), all of which are decidedly Alexan-
drian. Fully admitting the weight of the versions on a point of
this kind, and the possibility that the disputed words were inserted
from the LX X. of Isaiah xxix. 13; I still think it unreasonable to
reject the reading contained in so immense a majority of the manu-
scripts of every age, and of both families. Indeed, we cannot do
so without unsettling the first principles of Scriptural criticism.”
Then, if so, those ‘‘first principles,” must be, that numbers, and
numbers only, shall prove a point; for here we have versions and
fathers rejecting certain words, and this testimony confirmed by a
few good MS. witnesses ; but because ninety MSS. to one can be
produced on the other side, the united ancient testimony must
(we are told) be rejected, although it is admitted that this host of
witnesses may possibly testify to what they got from Isaiah, and
not from St. Matthew; I should say, that on every true principle
of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as an amplification
borrowed from the prophet. This naturally explains their intro-
duction ; and when once they had gained a footing in the text,
it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists who almost
always preferred to make passages as full and complete as pos-
140 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
sible. To the evidence for the reading to which Mr. Scrivener
objects, as stated above, some items must be added; for the Mem-
phitic version, as well as the Curetonian Syriac, agree with the
other ancient translations ; so that (as the Thebaic is here defec-
tive) the whole of the more ancient versions give one according
testimony ; which Mr. S. rejects, thinking that if he were not to
do this, he would unsettle the first principles of Biblical criticism.
I should not wish to adopt principles which led to such conclu-
sions. It is right to add, the Latin Codex Brixianus does contain
the words; which is just what we should expect from the charac-
ter of the MS., as giving a remodelled version.*
We come again to just the same conclusion as before, that the
MSS. which are entitled to a primary rank as witnesses, are the
few and not the many; the few whose character is well attested
and confirmed.
(i1j.) Matt. xx. 22. The evidence on this passage shall be given in
Mr. Scrivener’s own words; only premising that the versions
which support the common text are the Peshito and Harclean
Syriac and the Armenian; while to the list on the other side
must be added the Curetonian Syriac. Mr. Scrivener (in accord-
ance with many other writers) means the Old Latin by the Italic,
the Memphitic by the Coptic, and the Thebaic by the Sahidic.
Matt. xx. ver. 22. ‘Griesbach and Lachmann remove from
the text cal To Bamticpa, 6 éym Barrifopat BarricOjva, and
the corresponding clause in the next verse. Their meagre array
of witnesses is of the usual character: six decidedly Egyptian t
MSS. in v. 22 (B D L Z, 1, 22, see note on chap. xix. 17);
Origen and Epiphanius amongst the Greeks ; the Sahidic, Coptic,
fEthiopic, Italic, and Vulgate, with their faithful attendants the
Latin fathers. But even if we grant that the Latin and other
versions are more trustworthy in their omissions than in their
additions to the text ; or concede to Origen the possibility that the
disputed words properly belong only to Mark (ch. x. 38, 39);
still it is extravagant to claim for translations so high authority,
* On the other side should be added that Codex 1 in part agrees with the reading
of BD L; it transposes éyy¢er wor, and rejects the other words mentioned above.
+ What if the MSS. be Zgyptian, the Latin versions are not; and therefore the land
of the MSS. even if it be Egypt, proves nothing against them.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 141
that they should be held competent to overthrow the positive
testimony of MSS. of the original....In v. 23, seven other cur-
sive MSS. besides those enumerated above, favour the omission
of the clause; two of them (Colbert. 33, and Ephes. Lambeth
71) being of some little consequence. But even there the evidence
is much too weak to deserve particular notice.”
If ancient and independent versions agree in not presenting a
certain clause or expression, then on all true principles of textual
criticism such omitted words are suspicious; but if the most ancient
MSS. agree with the versions in their rejection, then the case
is greatly strengthened ; and this is all the more confirmed if
early citations accord. The case would be more correctly stated
if it were claimed, that the united testimony of versions, fathers,
and the oldest MSS. should be preferred to that of the mass of
modern copies; and farther, that the character of the few ancient
MSS. which agree with versions and fathers, must be such (from
that very circumstance) as to make their general evidence the more
trustworthy.
Thus we may indeed see that an investigation, even though
intended, like that of Mr. Scrivener, to cast discredit on the
ancient MSS. as witnesses, tells on the opposite side, and shows
how needful it is to trust to ancient testimony if we would really
use the ancient text, such as was current amongst the Christians
of the first three centuries after the New Testament was written.
(iv.) Matt. xviii. 35. After capdiav tudv the common text adds ra
TaparTopata avTav; omitted, however, by ‘“‘ Griesbach’s old fa-
vourites B D L, 1, and three other MSS. of less note: the Vulg.,
Italic, Sahidic, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions.” So Mr. Scrivener,
who adds, ‘‘ But a version need be very literal indeed, to be
relied on in a case like the present.’”’ I should have thought that
but a small acquaintance with the better class of the ancient ver-
sions would prove that they are always literal enough to show
whether they acknowledged or not such a material portion of a
sentence. To the versions cited against the addition of these
words I may now add the Curetonian Syriac.
(v.) Mar. iii. 29. Common text, aiwviov kpicews. Vulg. has, however,
“reus ertt eternt DELICTI ;” so too the Old Latin, the Memph.,
Goth., Arm.; and this is the reading of Cyprian, Augustine,
and Athanasius. Corresponding with this B L, A, 33 (and one
142 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
other MS.), read aiwviov éuaptiaros, and C* (ut videtur), D,
69 (and two others), have aiwviov duaptias, a perfectly cognate
reading. |
(vj.) Mar. iv. 12. 7a duaptjara of the common text is omitted by
Origen twice; by one MS. of the Old Latin, the Memph., and
Arm., with B C L, 1 (and some other MSS.).
(vij.) Mar. iv. 24. rots axovovow omitted by the Old Latin, Vulg.,
Memph., Aith., with B C D L A, and some other copies.
(viij.) Mar. x. 21. dpas tov oravpév omitted by the Old Latin in
most copies, Vulg., Memph., (so too Clem. Alex. and Hil.), with
BCD, A,
(ix.) Mar. xii. 4. AoBodryjcavres omitted by Old Latin, Vulg.,
Memph., Arm., with B D L A, 1, 33, and four other copies.
(x.) Mar. xil. 23. drav dvactéow om. some copies of Old Latin,
Memph., Syr., with BC D LA, 88.
(xj.) Mar. xiii. 14. 70 pn$ev txd AaviyrA tod mpodyrov om. most
copies of Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., Arm., also Augustine ex-
pressly, with B D L.
(xij.) Luke viii. 9. A€yovres not in Old Lat., Vulg., Curetonian and
Peshito Syr., Memph., Arm., with B D L, 1, 33.
(xiij.) Luke vii. 20. Aeydvrwv not in Old Lat., Vulg., Curetonian and
Peshito Syriac, Memph., Goth., with B DL A, 1, 33 (and a few
others).
(xiv.) Luke viii. 88. 6 "Incods not in some copies of Old Lat.,
Memph., Theb., Arm., Aith., with B D L, 1 (and two others).
(xv.) Luke viii. 54. ékBaddv ew wdvras kat om. Old Latin, Vulg.,
Curetonian Syriac, with B D L X, 1.
(xvj.) Luke ix. 7. ia airod om. Old Latin (some copies), Cureto-
nian Syriac, Memph., Theb., Arm., with B C* DL, 69 (and one
other).
(xvij.) Luke ix. 54. as kat "HAlas éroiycev om. some copies of Old
Latin, Vulg., Curetonian Syr., Memph. 1, Arm., with BL (and
a few others).* The whole of the passage may also be examined
as to the readings in which the ancient versions and MSS. agree.
(xviij.) Luke xi. 2, etc.* The form in which the Lord’s Prayer is
given in the most ancient authorities in St. Luke’s Gospel is much
shorter than in the common text, which agrees far more with St.
* Tt has been said that the Lord’s Prayer, both in Matthew and Luke, has been an
especial object of attack by textual critics. The charge comes to this, that the dox-
ology in Matthew is omitted by critical editors, because it is attested that it is an
addition, and so in Luke it is matter of evidence, not opinion, that it has been enlarged
out of Matthew.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 143
Matthew. The parts in which the variations occur stand thus
seriatim :—
marep nuov: nuav is omitted by the Vulg., by Origen, by Ter-
tullian, with B, 1, 33 (ut vid.), and a few others.
6 év Tots ovpavois. om. by the Vulg., Arm., by Origen, by Ter-
tullian, with B L, 1, and a few others.
yernOytw 7d Oednpd cov ds év oipave Kat ert THs yns: om. Vulg.,
and some other Latin copies, the Curetonian Syriac, Arm., Origen
expressly, Tert., Jerome, Augustine expressly, with B L, 1, anda
few other copies.
(ver. 4.) GANG fdoor Huds dard Tod rovypod: om. Vulg., Arm.,
Origen expressly, Tert., Jerome, Augustine expressly; with B L,
1, and a few other copies.
This passage is a good illustration of the kind of agreement
which is often found between a few MSS. and readings which
are proved to be ancient by express testimony, such as that of
Origen.
(xix.) Luke xi. 29. After % yeved atvrn of the common text, yeved is
added by the Old Latin, Vulg., Curetonian Syriac, Harclean Syr.
(with *), Memph., Arm., with AB DL X, 1, 33, 69, and some
others.
(xx.) Luke xi. 29. rot zpodyrod* om. Old Lat., Vulg., Curetonian
Syr., Memph., Arm., Jerus. Syr., with B D L.
(xxj.) Luke xi. 44. ypapparets cat dapwraior troxpirai: om. Vulg. (and
some copies of the Old Latin), the Curetonian Syriac, Memph.,
Arm., also Marcion and Augustine, with B C L, 1, 33, and a few
others.
(xxij.) Luke xii. 81. rv BactAciav rod Geod common text; but 7. Bac.
avtod Old Latin in some copies, Memph., Theb., Ath., with
B D* L.
(xxiij.) Luke xiii. 24. 61a tis orevjs Ovpas is the reading of Origen,
where the common text has wvAyns. The reading of Origen is
found in B D L, 1 (and one other copy).
(xxiv.) John iv. 48. kat aryjAev omitted by Origen; so too in copies
of the Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Memph., with B C D, 69
(and one other copy).
(xxv.) John v. 16. The words kai eCyrovv airov dzoxreivat are omitted
by the Old Latin, the Vulg., Curetonian Syriac, Memph., Arm.,
as well as by Cyril and Chrysostom, with BC DL, 1, 33, 69
(and a very few others).
(xxvj.) John vi. 22. ékxeivo eis 0 eveByoay of pabytat airod: om. Old
144 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Latin (in some copies), Vulg., Memph., Goth., th., with ABL,
1, and a few others.
(xxvij.) John vi. 39. aatpds om. in copies of Old Latin, Peshito Syr.
MS., Memph., Theb., some fathers, with AB DLT,1, anda
few other copies.
(xxviij.) John vi. 40. tod méuavrds we common text ; but rod zarpds
pov, some copies of Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, as well as
Peshito and Harclean, Memph., Theb., Arm., 4th., Clement and
other fathers, with B C D L T U, 1, 83 (and a few other copies).
Several other versions, etc., blend together both readings.
(xxix.) John vi. 51. iy eyo decw om. Old Latin, Vulg., Curetonian
Syriac, Theb. Aith.; also Origen and other fathers, with B C D
L T, 33 (and one other).
(xxx.) John vi. 69. rod févros om. Old Latin, Vulg., Curetonian
Syriac, Memph., Theb., Arm., some fathers, with B C D L, 1, 33
(and one other).
(xxxj.) John viii. 59. dueAPov bia pécov airav Kai mapyyev ovtws om.
Old Latin, Vulg., Theb., Arm., so too Origen, with B D.
(xxxij.) John ix. 8. zvddds common text, but zpocairys in copies of
Old Latin, Vulg., Peshito, and Harclean Syr., Memph., Theb.,
Goth., Arm., Ath., some fathers, with A B C* DK LX, 1, 33
(and a few other copies).
(xxxlij.) John ix. 11. kai elev: om. some copies of Old Latin, Vulg.,
Theb., Arm., with B C D L, 1, 33 (and one other MS.).
(xxxiv.) John ix. 11. tiv KkodAvpBynOpav rod SiAwdp common text; but
simply tov S.Awa Old Latin, Peshito and Jerus. Syr., Memph.,
Theb., Armm., with B Dib: x1.
(xxxv.) John ix. 25. kal eizev: om. some Latin copies, Thebaic, Goth.,
‘Harclean Syr.; also Cyril; with A B D L, 1, 33 (and a few
other copies).
(xxxvj.) John ix. 26. adaAw om. Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., Theb.,
with BD.
(xxxvij.) John x. 12. oxoprifer 7a mpdBara common text; but om.
7a mpoBata here Memph., Theb., Arm., Aith., Jerus. Syr., with
B D L, 1, 338 (and a few other copies).
(xxxviij.) John x. 13. 6 d& pucOwrds pevyer om. by just the same au-
thorities.
(xxxix.) John x. 14. Common text yudoxopar tro trav épov, but
ywodokovot pe Ta éuad is the reading of the Old Latin, the Vulg.,
Memph., Theb., Goth., Ath.; also of Epiphanius and Cyril,
with B D L.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 145
(xl.) John x. 26. xaOds efrov tuiv om. Old Latin in some copies,
Vulg., Memph., Theb., Arm., and some fathers, with B K L M*,
33, and a few other copies.
(xlj.) John x. 88. Aé€yovres om. Old Latin, Vulg., Peshito and Harc-
lean Syriac, Memph., Theb., Goth., Arm., with AB KLM X,
1, 33, 69 (and a few other copies).
(xlij.) John xi. 41. od Hv 6 reOvnKas Keiwevos om. Old Latin, Vulg.,
Peshito Syriac, Memph., Theb., Arm., Aith.; also Origen re-
peatedly ; with B C* D L X, 33 (and three others). The Gothic
and Harclean Syriac have only ot jv; so also A K, 1 (and one
other copy).
(xliij.) Acts 1.14. Kat rH Seyoe not in Vulg., Peshito and Harclean
Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm., Aith., also some fathers, with A B
C* D EK, and a few others.
(xliv.) Acts i. 15. Common text poafyrav; but ddeAdoav Vulg.,
Memph., Theb., Arm., Zth., with A B C* 13, and two or three
others.
(xlv.) Acts il. 7. mpds ddApAovs om. Vulg., Memph., ith. with
A B:C,
(xlvj.) Acts 11. 23. AaBovres om. Vulg., Peshito Syriac, Memph.,
Theb., Arm., Atth., also Ireneus, and other fathers; with
ABC, and a few other copies.
(xlvij.) Acts ii. 30. 76 Kata odpxa dvaotncev Tov Xpiorov om. Vulg.,
Peshito Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm., Aéth., also Irenzeus, and
other fathers; with A B (sic) C D**, and one or two other
copies.
(xlviij.) Acts li. 31. 4 Yuxy airod om. Vulg., Pesh. Syr., Memph.,
Theb., AXth., also Ireneus, and other fathers; with A BC D.
(xlix.) Acts ii. 47; and iii. 1. Common text xa? jjuépay TH éxxAnoia.
‘Ext 76 aro 8 Heérpos cat Iwévvns. But the reading of the oldest
authorities differs much, (‘‘ cotidie in id ipsum. Petrus autem et
Johannes’) Vulg., Memph., Arm., th.; so also Cyril, and the
MSS. A BC, xa jyepav eri 75 ard. Leérpos 88 kat ‘Twdvrys.
(1.) Acts ill. 22. mpds rods marépas om. Vulg., Peshito Syr., Memph.,
with A B C, and a few more.
(Ij.) Acts xv. 24. Néeyovres mepuréuverOor Kai Typetv Tov vdomov om.
Vulg., Memph., Theb., some fathers; with A B D, 13.
(lij.) Acts xv. 38. Common text dzoordXovus: but drooreiAavras adtovs
Vulg., Memph., Theb., Aith., also some fathers; with A B CD,
and some other copies.
(liij.) Rom. i. 16. Common text 76 evayyéAvoy tod Xpeorod- but rod
re
146 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Xpwrrod om. Vulg., Peshito and Harcl. Syr., Memph., Arm., Aith.,
also Origen, and other fathers; with A BC D* EG, 17, and
others.
(liv.) Rom. iii. 22. ai él advras om. some Latin copies, Harel. Syr.,
Memph., Arm., Aith., also Clement, Origen, and other fathers,
with A B C, and a few others.
(lv.) Rom. v.1. Common text €xopev, but exoper, Vulg., Peshito Syr.,
Memph., Arm., Chrysostom, Cyril, and other fathers; with A B*
(sic) D J, 17, 37, and other copies.
(lvj.) Rom, vi. 12. atry ev tais éeriOvpiats avtod common text; but
rats ériOvpias airod simply, Vulg., Peshito Syr., Memph., Theb.,
Arm., Aith.; also Origen, etc.; with A B C* and a few others.
(lvij.) Rom. vili.1. pa) xara odpKa wepuratotow adda Kara mvedpa om.
Memph., Theb., Aith., also Origen, Athanasius, etc.; with BC
D* F G, and a few others. [The clause d\AG xara mvedua is
omitted by Vulg., Peshito Syr., Goth., Arm., with A D*¥*].
(Iviij.) Rom. x. 15. rév ebayyeALopévon eipyvyv om. Memph., Theb.,
/Hth.; also Clement, Origen, etc.; with A B C, and a few
others.
(lix.) Rom. xi. 6. «é 5é & épywv ovkére Eort xdpis, éret 7d Epyov ovKért
éotiv épyov om. Vulg., Memph., Theb., Arm., Ath.; with A C D
E F G, 17 (ut vid.), and one other.
(Ix.) Rom. xiv. 6. xat 6 pi dpovav tiv jyépav Kupiw od dpovel: om.
Vulg., Memph., th.; with A B C* DEF G, and a few others.
(Ixj.) Rom. xiv. 9. Common text, Xpiords kai dméGave kal dvéorn Kat
avetnoev: but om. Kat avéory Vulg. MS., Harcl. Syr., Memph.,
/Eth., Arm.; also Dionysius of Alex., and other fathers; with A
BC. Also for avéCyoev the reading eLycev in the same authorities,
also the Peshito Syr., and D E J, 17, 37, and some other copies.
(Ixij.) Rom. xv. 24. édevoouar mpos iuads om. Vulg., Peshito Syr.,
Memph., Arm., 4ith.; also Chrysostom, etc.; with A B C D
EF G.
(lxiij.) Rom. xv. 29. rod evayyeAiou Tov om. some Latin MSS., (Cod.
Amiatinus, etc.), Memph., Arm., th., Clement, and other
fathers; with A B C D EF G, and two later copies.
(Ixiv.) Rom. xvi. 5. “Axaias common text; but “Acias, Vulg., Memph.,
Armm., Aith.; Origen, etc.; with A BC D* EF G, and two
later copies.
(Ixv.) Rom. xvi. 25-27. These three verses are placed at the end of
chap. xiv. by the mass of the recent copies,—that is, by no less
than two hundred and sixteen of those which have been examined
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 147
in this passage, and by the Harclean Syriac; while they are found
in this place in Vulg., Peshito Syr., Memph., Eth.; with B C
D E, and five other copies. These verses stand in both places in
Arm.,with A, 17, and two others. F G omit the verses altogether.
Here then the ancient testimony of versions in favour of the com-
mon text accords with that of the most ancient MSS., in opposition
to the vast numerical majority of copies.
(Ixvj.) 1 Cor. ii. 4. dvOpwrivys codias’ om. avOp. Vulg. (in the best
copies), Pesh. Syr., Theb., Arm., 4ith., Origen five times; other
fathers; with B D E F G, 17, and a few others.
(Ixvij.) 1 Cor. ili. 4. capxixkof common text; but dv6pwro, Vulg.,
Memph., Aith., Origen, Didymus, and other fathers; with A B
CD EF G, 17, and one or two other copies.
(Ixviij.) 1 Cor. vi. 20. kai év 76 rvevpatt dpa arwa éote TOD Geod- om.
Vulg., Memph., Basmuric, A%th.; also Ireneeus, and other
fathers, with A B C* D* E F G, 17, and four others.
(Ixix.) 1 Cor. vii. 5. tH vyoreia Kai: om. Vulg., Memph., Basmuric,
Arm., Aith.; also Origen, and other fathers; with ABCDE
F G, 17, and a few others.
(Ixx.) Gal. iii. 1. 7H dAnOeia py meiecPar- om. some Latin copies,
Pesh. Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm.; also some fathers; with A
B D* F G, 17*, and one or two others; also the exemplars of
Origen cited by Jerome.
(Ixxj.) Gal. iii. 1. é tyiv: om. Vulg., Pesh. Syr., Memph., Theb.,
Arm., Aith., Cyril, and other fathers; with A B C,17*, and a
few others.
(Ixxij.) Eph. iii. 14. rod xupiov jadv “Incot Xpicrov- om. some Latin
copies, Memph., Ath.; also Theodotus, Origen, and others; with
A B C, 17, and one or two others.
Here, then, is a sample of the very many passages, in which, by
the testimony of ancient versions, or fathers, 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, resting on
combined evidence, might have made us doubt, whether the old
translators and early writers were not in possession of better copies
than the modern ones which have been transmitted to us. Such
facts so proved might lead to the inquiry, whether there are not
148 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
some MSS. which accord with these ancient readings; and when
examination shows that such copies actually exist, (although they
are the few in contrast to the many), it may be regarded as a
demonstrated point that such MSS. deserve peculiar attention.
I have cited more than seventy passages of this kind; and their
number may, I believe, be increased easily twenty-fold : *—they
all prove the same point,—that in places in which the more valu-
able ancient versions (or some of them), agree in a particular
reading, or in which such a reading has distinct patristic testi-
mony, and the mass of MSS. stand in opposition to such a
lection, there are certain copies which habitually uphold the
older reading.
The passages have been taken on no principle of selection
except that of giving such as bring out this point clearly.t Those
from St. Matthew are places in which defenders of the mass of
copies had themselves drawn attention to the ancient readings,
as though they could not be followed. For the sake of brevity
most of the passages have been given without remark, and without
any attempt to state the balance of evidence; for it was sufficient
for the purpose to prove that the best versions do uphold certain
readings (often in accordance with fathers), and that they are in
this confirmed by certain MSS.
Even when much might be said against a reading so attested,
it must, on principles of evidence, be regarded as highly probable,
even if not certainly genuine.
The result, then, of this Comparative Criticism stands thus :—
Readings, whose antiquity is proved apart from MSS., are
found in repeated instances in a few of the extant copies.
These few MSS., the text of which is thus proved to be
ancient, include some (and often several) of the oldest MSS.
extant.
In some cases, the attested ancient reading is found in but one
or two MSS., but those of the most ancient class.
* There are, I suppose, ona rough estimate, between two and three thousand places
of this kind.
+ Thus those which depend on the order of words have been wholly omitted ; for
although some of them are very striking, it might be thought that a preliminary in-
vestigation was needed to prove that the versions in general adhere to the original in
this particular.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 149
And, as certain MSS. are found, by a process of inductive
proof, to contain an ancient text, their character as witnesses
must be considered to be so established, that in other places their
testimony deserves peculiar weight.
It is in vain for it to be objected that the readings of the ver-
sions, on which so much stress has been laid, are purely accidents
of transcription or translation, and that the accordance of certain
MSS. with them is equally the result of fortuitous circumstances,
or of arbitrary alteration. This might be plausible in the case of
some one version; but when there are two versions which combine
in a definite reading, this plausibility is almost excluded ; and so
when the according versions are three, or four, or even jive, six,
or seven, the balance of probabilities increases in such a ratio, as
to amount to a moral evidence of a fact of the most convincing
kind.
Of course, it is fully admitted that versions may have suffered
in the course of transmission, and that some have suffered mate-
rially : but when the ancient versions accord, it is a pretty plain
proof that in such passages they have not suffered; and this 1s (af
possible) still more clearly evinced, when we find that the oldest
copies of a version (such as the Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate)
present in important passages a far more accordant text than is
found in the modern MSS. or printed editions of such a version.
So, too, as to patristic citations :—copyists have often modern-
ized them to suit the Greek text to which they were accustomed ;
they thus require examination (as Bentley showed*); but when
the reading is such that it could not be altered without changing
the whole texture of their remarks, or when they are so express in
their testimony that such a reading is that found in such a place,
we need not doubt that it was so in their copies. And so, too, if
we find that the reading of early fathers agrees with other early
testimonies in opposition to those which are later.
Comparative Criticism admits of a threefold application —to
MSS.—versions—and fathers. The same process which I have
used with respect to MSS., will, when applied to versions, show
how different is the general character of the Old Latin, the
* See Bentley’s Reply to Middleton (vol. iij. p. 523, in Dyce’s edition).
150 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, and others, from that of the Har-
clean Syriac, or the re-wrought Latin of the Codex Brixianus ;—
to say nothing of those versions which are scarcely worth men-
tioning in such an estimate, such as the Arabic and the Sclavonie.
And so, too, the general character of the citations of Origen and
others is sufficiently shown; and thus we obtain a three-fold cord
of credible testimony ;—not, be it remembered, that of witnesses
arbitrarily assumed to be trustworthy, because of real or supposed
antiquity, but of those valued because their internal character has
been vindicated on grounds of simple induction of facts.
But it is with MSS. that I have now specially to do; let then
the primary classification, stated in the beginning of this section,
be compared with the estimate formed by Comparative Criticism ;
and thus it will be clear, that the same MSS. to which, as a class,
the first place was given on the ground of age, are those which
deserve the same rank because of their internal character; for in
them as a class, or in some of them, the readings are found, the
antiquity of which has been independently proved.
Thus it is neither prejudice nor dogmatism to assign the highest
place in the rank of witnesses to the most ancient MSS., followed
by those which in text exhibit a general agreement with them :
and thus in places of doubt and difficulty the balance of proba-
bilities will lead to the adoption of the readings of such MSS. as
being the best supported. The limits of variation, also, will be
so far circumscribed, that we may dismiss from consideration the
various readings only found in modern Greek copies, however
numerous they may be.
Occasionally it has been shown that the ancient reading is only
found in one or two of the MSS.; this is a proof what an especial
attention is due to their united testimony. Thus the joint evi-
dence of the Vatican MS. (B) and the Codex Beze (D of the
Gospels and Acts) has often a peculiar weight, from their alone
(or nearly so) supporting the readings proved to be ancient.
We need not, therefore, consider a regard for the Vatican MS.
to be ‘‘a blind adherence to antiquity,” though it is our oldest
copy ; nor is it ‘‘ unaccountable” that the Codex Beze should be
valued in spite of strange interpolations. The Vatican MS. is valued
because Comparative Criticism proves it to be good as well as old;
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. oe ty
the readings of the Codex Bezz receive much attention, because
the same mode of investigation shows, that, in spite of all peculi-
arities in the MS., they possess an ascertained worth. And thus,
as to other MSS., Comparative Criticism proves their value, and
shows how they may be confidently used as witnesses.
APPENDIX TO SECTION 13.
THE COLLATIONS AND CRITICAL STUDIES OF
Ss. P. TREGELLES.*
Tue Textual Criticism of the New Testament had occupied my attention for
several years, before I contemplated any thing beyond employing for my own
use the results of such studies. While feeling the importance of those verities
which the Holy Ghost has communicated to us in the Scriptures of the New
Testament, and while considering the doctrinal value of particular passages,
I continually found it needful to refer to the statements of authorities as given
in critical editions, such as those of Griesbach and Scholz: with the former
of these I was familiarly acquainted ; the first volume was all that was then
published of the latter.
In referring to such editions, I soon found that my inquiries could not stop
at looking at the text given by critics; but that the authorities for or against
* There are two reasons why I should here speak of the critical labours in which I
have been myself engaged: 1st, Because the point which I have reached in speaking of
the historical order of facts in New Testament criticism brings me to what I have my-
self done; and 2nd, Because it has been wished that I should give an account in one
place of my collations, etc. I gave an outline of my proceedings up to Aug. 1848, in my
“ Prospectus of a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament, now in preparation,”
appended to “The Book of Revelation translated from the ancient Greek Text,” (and
also published separately); and some account of my more recent collations at Paris
and in Germany were given in letters addressed to Dr. Kitto, which appeared in his
Journal of Sacred Literature for July and October, 1850. The Appendix tomy “ Lec-
ture on the Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Transmission of the Books of
the New Testament,” contains a compendious statement of what I have done, and the
principles of criticism which I use in applying the materials that I have collected.
None, I believe, who value critical studies, will think that I have gone out of my way
to bring my own labours unduly before the attention of others.
152 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
particular readings of importance needed to be habitually consulted, if I wished
to follow evidence, and not the authority of editors.
Scholz’s first volume was published in 1830; the second did not appear till
1836: prior to that year, I made a particular examination, in the Gospels,
of those readings which he rejects in his inner margin as Alexandrian: in the
course of this examination, and with continued reference to the authorities
which he cited, I observed what a remarkable body of witnesses stood in
opposition to the text which he had adopted as Constantinopolitan. Thus I
learned that the most ancient MSS. were witnesses against his text; and not
only so, but when I sought to ascertain the character of these MSS. them-
selves, I found that they were continually supported by many of the older
versions. Thus, then, it was to my mind a proved fact, that readings could
be pointed out, certainly belonging to the earlier centuries; and that a text
might be formed, which, if not genuine, was at least ancient; and, if such
readings ought to be rejected, I felt that the proof which would warrant this
should be very strong.
While engaged in this examination, I went all through St. Matthew’s
Gospel, writing in the margin of a Greek Testament those well-supported
readings which Scholz rejected. ‘This was, of course, wholly for my own use:
but I saw that, as a general principle, the modern MSS. can have no authority
apart from ancient evidence, and that it is the ancient MSS. alone (although
comparatively few in number), which show within what limits we have to
look as to the real ancient text.
Hence there arose before my mind an earnest desire that some scholar,
possessed of the needful qualifications, mental, moral, and spiritual, and who
had leisure for such a work, would undertake an edition resting on ancient
authorities only, and in which the citations from MSS. might be given as
correctly as possible. For I saw, from the discrepancies of the citations in
Griesbach and Scholz, that something ought to be done to remove such dis-
crepancies, by re-examining the original MSS., or at least the best and most
complete collations.
Although I approved of Griesbach’s text in many of the places in which
Scholz follows the modern copies, yet I was not satisfied: for he did not take
the decisive step of disregarding the Textus Receptus altogether, and forming
a text resting on the best authorities throughout. I could not help regard-
ing it as rather a patch-work performance ;* for, unless every word rested on
ancient authority, I was not satisfied.
Thus there had arisen before my mind a plan for a Greek New Testament,
in which it was proposed—
Ist.—To form a text on the authority of ancient copies, without allowing the
“ received text” any prescriptive right.
* Subsequent studies have probably led me to regard Griesbach’s critical labours
more highly than I was then capable of doing; although his text, as such, still must
appear to me to present a kind of incongruous mixture in its character.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 153
2nd.—To give to the ancient versions a determining voice, as to the insertion
or non-insertion of CLAUSES, etc.; letting the order of words, etc., rest wholly
upon MSS.
8rd.— To give the auTHorITIES for the text, and for the various readings,
clearly and accurately, so that the reader might at once see what rests upon
ancient evidence.
As to the formation of a text, I then thought rather of giving well-
supported ancient readings, and stating all the evidence, than expressing any
very decided judgment of my own. I should not, however, have given the
“ Received Text,” except when supported by competent ancient authorities.
When the plan of a Greek Testament was thus far arranged in my own
mind, in August, 1838, I prepared a specimen. A passage which had pecu-
liarly occupied my attention, in connection with the ancient readings, was
Colossians ii. 2. I had seen that whatever the genuine reading might be, and
however doubtful it be, as a matter of evidence, which reading is true, yet
still Griesbach and Scholz had alike departed from all ancient authority in the
reading which they gave. This led me to take my specimen from the Epistle
to the Colossians. I took the common Greek text, and struck the words out
in all places in which the ancient MSS. varied at all; I then assumed the
uncancelled words as genuine and indisputable; and as to the gaps thus made
in the text, I filled them in (unless preponderating authority required an
omission) as I judged the ancient evidence to demand. I was quite unaware
at that time, that any one had adopted principles at all similar; I had supposed
that I stood alone in wholly casting aside the “‘ received text.”* I do not say
this as claiming any merit on the ground of originality, but rather as it
may be satisfactory to some to find that the same (or nearly the same) end
has been reached through different paths of study. It was some time before
I apprehended how far Dr. Lachmann had already acted on what I believed
to be the true plan; for, as he only had developed his principles in German
(a language of which I then knew nothing), and as his whole system was
completely misunderstood in this country, I unfortunately remained in the
same want of apprehension as others. I knew of his edition, but I was not
aware of the claims which it had on my attention.
Subsequently to the preparation of the Specimen of which I have just
spoken, I made it my habit to examine in my leisure time (which was not
very much) various editions of the New Testament: with Lachmann’s, which
I again took up, I was dissatisfied, from the authorities not being given on
which he based his text, and also from his speaking at the end of Eastern
testimonies as those which he would prefer: this led me (in common with
many others), for some time to suppose Lachmann to be a follower of the
* The specimen, as then drawn up, I have still by me; I had there placed in the
margin the MS. authorities which contain the portion of the text, with an indication
where any of them are defective, in the same manner as they stand in my published
specimen; and just as they have been given (wholly independently, I believe,) by
Mr. Alford.
154 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
critical principles of Scholz, instead of being the very opposite. But, even if
I had fully apprehended Lachmann’s plan, it would not have satisfied me; for
a leading thought in my mind was, fo give the full statement of all the ancient
authorities ; so that, be the true reading what it may, the reader would see
within what limits the variation of evidence is confined; nor would the princi-
ples of Lachmann’s text have been altogether satisfactory ; for nothing that
resembles a mechanical following of authorities is the proper mode of apply-
ing critical principles, nor could I confine the testimony of versions to the
Latin only. As to relying on the ancient authorities irrespective of modern
variations or received readings, I should be almost of the same judgment as
Lachmann ; and this was the critical principle which I had adopted before I
understood those which he had previously formed and applied.
From the time when my first specimen was prepared, I kept the object of
editing a Greek New Testament before me. I have increasingly felt the
importance of the object; believing such an undertaking, if entered on in the
fear of God, to be really service to Him, from its setting forth more accurately
His word.
After I felt the importance of the object, I mentioned it to any whom I
thought at all competent to undertake it, and who possessed more leisure than
myself for such a work. Some who saw my specimen understood what I
meant, some did not: no one took it up, and I gradually pursued the studies
and the critical examinations, which I found as I went on to be needful, if
such a work were ever executed.
In the course of my studies, I was of necessity led to become more accu-
rately acquainted with the ancient versions; and thus I knew their value to
be much greater, in all points of evidence, than I had at first supposed. For,
so far from their being merely witnesses to the insertion or non-insertion of
clauses, I learned that they were continually explicit in their testimony as to
minute points. When Fleck’s collation of the Codex Amiatinus of Jerome’s
Latin version was published, in 1840 (imperfect and inaccurate as that colla-
tion is), it was highly satisfactory to me to find in what a vast number of
passages it confirms the oldest Greek readings, in opposition to the modern
Clementine Vulgate. ‘This was a valuable confirmation of the critical princi-
ples which I had adopted. It was soon however evident, that Fleck’s collation
could not be relied on for completeness or accuracy—a fact which I had the
fullest opportunity of confirming a few years afterwards.
I need not here detail the hindrances in my way: although from time to
time I did something, yet I was often stopped: at length, in the end of 1841 and
in 1842, after thinking over the peculiarly incorrect condition of the Greek
text of the Book of Revelation, and also how desirable it is that the mere
English reader should be in possession of this book translated from accurate
readings, I formed a Greek text of this book, from ancient authorities and an
English translation. This was published in June, 1844. I then gave some
account of the critical principles on which I had acted, and announced my
intention of editing the Greek Testament with various readings.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 155
I have had cause for thankfulness, in connection with the text of the Apo-
calypse which I edited. It has been used in this country by expositors of
that book, whose schemes of interpretation have been the most different from
one another. I trust that I may regard this as a proof that I succeeded in one
part, at least, of my endeavour; namely, to give, without bias or prejudice, the
text which, according to the evidence, I believed to belong to the truth of
God’s word.
After the publication of the Greek and English Revelation, I applied myself
almost unremittingly to my Greek Testament. I found that it was important,
whenever practicable, to collate the ancient MSS. in uncial letters over again,
in order to avoid, if possible, the errors which are found in existing collations,
and to this part of the work I devoted myself.
The mode in which I proceeded with my collations was the following :—
I procured many copies of the same edition of the Greek New Testament,
so that all the MSS. might be compared with exactly the same text.
When a MS. was before me, I marked in one of these copies every varia-
tion, however slight ; I noted the beginning of every page, column, and line,
so that I can produce the text of every MS. which I have collated, line for
line. This gave a kind of certainty to my examinations, and I was thus pre-
vented from hastily overlooking readings. I marked all readings which are
corrections by a later hand, and all erasures, etc. At leisure, I compared my
collation with any others which had been previously published ; and I made
in my note-book a list of all variations (such as readings differently given,
or readings not noticed by former collators); then I went over this list
with the MS., re-examining all these passages ; and, to prevent all doubt, Z
made a separate memorandum of every discrepancy, so that, in all such cases,
I feel an absolute certainty as to the readings of the MSS.
I used, of course, a separate Greek Testament for each collation; otherwise
the marks of various readings, beginning of lines, etc., would have caused
inextricable confusion.
Also I traced one whole page, in facsimile, of each MS. which I collated
when abroad: this is often important, for the writing of a MS. is one of the
criteria as to its age, etc.
These details of my proceedings, as to the mode of collation, and the parti-
culars which I give of the different MSS. which I have examined, are mostly
for the information of those who have some acquaintance with biblical criti-
cism. ‘The letters A, B, C, etc., in connection with MSS., are the marks of
reference used in critical works in denoting the respective MSS.
Before I went abroad in 1845, I had collated the Coprx Avarensis (F of
St. Paul’s Epistles) in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge, to which
the Rev. W. Carus, with great kindness, procured me access. This is an
important MS., and the collation previously published is only partial, and not
very accurate. It was made by Wetstein, who gathered certain readings from
it, during a very short time when he saw it at Heidelberg. As it has been
supposed that this MS. was a copy of the Codex Boernerianus (G of St. Paul’s
156 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
Epistles) at Dresden, or vice versd, it was important to be able to compare the
readings of this MS. in all places, with those of that Codex (published by
Matthei in 1791). While this re-collation of F proved that, in many places,
it agreed with G, in readings previously unnoticed, yet it was abundantly
evident that neither of these MSS. was copied from the other : both probably
were transcribed from the same exemplar.
One principal object which I had in going abroad was to endeavour to
collate for myself the Vatican MS. (B). This important document was col-
lated for Bentley by an Italian named Mico, and this collation was published
in 1799; it was subsequently collated (with the exception of the Gospels of
Luke and John) by Birch. A third collation (made previously to either of
these, in 1669,) by Bartolocci, remains in MS. at Paris.* As this is the most
important of all New Testament MSS., I had compared the two published
collations carefully with each other: I found that they differed in nearly two
thousand places; many of these discrepancies were readings noticed by one
and not by the other. I went to Rome, and during the five months that I
was there, I sought diligently to obtain permission to collate the MS. accu-
rately, or at least to examine it in the places in which Birch and Bentley differ
with regard to its readings. All ended in disappointment. I often saw the
MS., but I was hindered from transcribing any of its readings. I read,
however, many passages, and have since noted down several important read-
ings. The following are of some moment: Rom. v. 1, exwpev is the original
reading of the MS. (thus agreeing with the other more ancient MSS. etc.); a
later hand has changed this into exoyvev. The collations of Birch, Bentley, and
Bartolocci, do not notice this passage. In Rom. viii. 11, the MS. reads d:a ro
evotkouy avtou mvevpa: to notice this reading explicitly is of the more import-
ance, because Griesbach and Scholz cite the Vatican MS. as an authority for
the other reading (which, however, they reject), dua rov evotxouvTos avrou mveu-
pearos.
My especial object at the Vatican was thus entirely frustrated ; and this I
regret the more from my increased conviction of the value and importance of
the Vatican MS. I inspected several other MSS. in the Vatican library; I
was only, however, able to consult them in particular passages. One of these
is the Codex Basilianus (B in the Apocalypse: the Vatican MS. is defective
in that book) ; one of the three ancient copies which contain the Revelation.
From the very defective character of the collation of this MS. which was
communicated to Wetstein, it was supposed that this MS. had many chasms.
By transcribing the first and last line of every page, I obtained certain proof
that the MS. contains the Revelation entire: besides this, I was allowed to
trace four pages. 'Tischendorf has since published the ¢eat of this MS. (not a
facsimile edition) ; in a few places, he has, however, erred as to the readings ;
—in Rev. xvi. 9, he reads tnv e£ovoray,—the MS. really omits mny: in Rev.
xvi. 12, he reads roy peyay rov ehpatnv,—the second roy is not in the MS. I
* This I copied in the Bibliothéque du Roi, in 1849,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 157
do not mention these particulars in order to find fault with Tischendorf, to
whose critical labours I am so deeply indebted ; but for the sake of that accu-
racy in little things which has an importance in all that relates to textual
criticism. From having a facsimile tracing of that part of the MS., I am able
to make these corrections with certainty.*
It is needless to dwell on the detail of my annoyances at the Vatican: there
was one repetition of promises made and then broken ;—hopes held out which
came to nothing. All that I could actually do there was through the real kind-
ness of the late Cardinal Acton, whose efforts were unremitting to procure me
access to the Vatican MS. Cardinal Acton at once obtained permission for
me (which had been previously refused) to collate in the Bibliotheca Angelica.
The introduction, etc., which I brought from Bishop (now Cardinal) W1sr-
MAN to Dr. Grant, then the Principal of the English College at Rome, was
utterly useless. I must speak with gratitude of the efforts to aid my object
on the part of Abbate Francesco Batre wi, and of Dr. JosepH Nicuoxson
(since Bishop of Hierapolis in partibus, and coadjutor to the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Corfu).
I now have to speak of collations not merely attempted but executed; all
these collations having been made in the manner above described.
At Rome, I collated the Codex Passionei, containing the Acts and Catholic
Kpistles (G), and those of St. Paul (J): this MS. is in the Bibliotheca
Angelica, belonging to the Augustine monastery, to which access was allowed
me by Dr. Giusrrper Paterno, the librarian.
At Florence, I collated the New Testament part of the Codex Amiatinus ;
a most important MS. of the Latin translation of Jerome, belonging to the
sixth century. I have to acknowledge the kindness which I received at the
Laurentian library, from Signor del Fura, the librarian, and the aid afforded
me there as to all I wished to examine. The Codex Amiatinus had been
previously collated, partly by Fleck, and partly for him; this collation is,
however, so defective, and so inaccurate in many important respects, that it
gives a very inadequate idea of the real text of this noble MS. Fleck’s (so
called) facsimile, too, gives no proper representation of the regular and beau-
* Tischendorf has questioned my accuracy as to one of these passages since I first
published them: he says (N. Test. Proleg. p. lxxiv.), “Ibi paucis aliquot locis, certe
duobus, errorem se deprehendisse, nuperrime indicavit Tregelles (A. Prospectus of a
Critical Edition, etc. p. 20) legendum enim esse xvj. 9, efovovav non mv efovcray (quod
vereor ne ipse male videret) et xvj. 12, efpammv non Tov edpatnv.” I will freely allow that
Tischendorf’s eyes are better as to strength than mine are now; in 1845, however, I
saw both clearly and easily; and, as to this passage, mistake was excluded by my
having made a facsimile tracing.
peya* K BAacdypynoar ot avo. Td Svona
Tod Ou Tov éxovToseovaiay emt Tas TAN
yastavras .kal dupeTtevonaay Sovvat av
The letters stand thus: the final s of exovros being under » in the one line, and above
» in the other: the initial e of efovorey has yn above it and e below it.
158 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
tiful writing of the MS., nor even of the stichometry of the lines: it could
not have been traced from the MS. itself.*
At Modena, Count Giovanni Gatvant, the librarian at the ducal palace,
enabled me to use the Codex Mutinensis, 196. The ancient writing of this
MS. (H) contains only the Acts of the Apostles (with some chasms) ; the
Catholic and Pauline Epistles are in a later hand: this MS. had been examined
previously with so little exactitude, that my collation was virtually the first ;
except, indeed, that of Tischendorf, with which I afterwards became ac-
quainted, but which, except extracts, remains unpublished.
At Venice, I collated the Codex Nanii (U of the Gospels), now in the
library of St.. Mark: no collation of this MS. had been previously published,
except as to particular places. Although the general text is that of the later
copies, yet in many remarkable readings it accords with the Alexandrian (or
more ancient) class of MSS. The librarians at St. Mark’s, Venice, who
kindly afforded me the fullest access to all that I wanted, were Dr. GrusEPPE
VALENTINELLI, and (the late) Signor ANDREA Baretta. Those who know
how Monrraucon was treated, a century and a half ago, at the library of
St. Mark (see his ‘‘ Diarium Italicum,” page 41) will understand how gladly
I acknowledge this courtesy. JI know by experience what Montfaucon de-
scribes, for I have met elsewhere with the same kind of exclusion.T
At Munich I collated the Codex Monacensis (X) of the Gospels (formerly
Landshutensis, and previously Ingoldstadiensis). This MS. is now in the
University Library at Munich, having been removed, with the university,
first from Ingoldstadt to Landshut, and thence to its present location. Through
the kindness of the late Dr. Harter, one of the librarians, I was able to use
this MS. out of the library; and this, of course, facilitated my labour in col-
lating it.
The readings of this MS. are commonly ancient ; but, interspersed with the
uncial text, there is a commentary in cursive letters : it would seem as if its
text had been transcribed from some ancient copy, of which even the form of
the letters was in some measure imitated. The condition of this MS. (X) is
such as to render its collation in parts extremely difficult: some of the leaves
have become brown, while the ink has faded to a sort of yellow. ‘‘ Parce
oculis tuis,” was the expression of the kind librarian, Dr. Harter, when he
saw me engaged in the collation of one of the almost obliterated pages of this
* T afterwards found that Tischendorf had collated this Latin MS.; he has since
published its text from his and my separate collations; in that volume he has given a
lithographed facsimile of about a quarter of a page, executed from the whole one
which I made when at Florence.
+ In speaking of this MS., I may mention that it is the only uncial copy in which I
remember to have observed a post-scribed iota. In this MS. this is found once, Matt.
xxv. 15, where ai (i.e. @) occurs. [have not seen a swb-scribed iota in any uncial docu-
ment. Lachmann points out that in the Codex Bez, Mar. i. 34, nidioar (i. @. pSercav)
occurs; and that in the Codex Boernerianus (G Epp.), Eph. vi. 6, is found Hi zs,
where the blundering copyist may have thought that #7s was a word in which the
iota might or should be added.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 159
Codex,— one on which he felt sure that nothing could be read. In this MS.,
the order of the Gospels now is, John, Luke, Mark, Matthew ; but before the
beginning of John there stand two injured leaves, to one of which I have just
alluded. ‘Tischendorf, in his description of this MS., seems to have entirely
overlooked them. They contain part of Matthew, commencing ch. vi. 3 (in
fragments of lines at first), and ending at verse 10. Also in the Commentary
Matt. v. 45 is found. The statement of Scholz, that this MS. is defective up
to Matt. v. 40, is not quite correct, though more so than that of Tischendorf,
who overlooked these earlier fragments. :
In connexion with this MS., I may express my obligation to Dr. Scholz for
the aid which he gave me, during his visit to England, previous to my going
on the continent, by informing me where different MSS. (and this one in
particular) are now to be found.
At Basle, I collated the Codex Basileensis B vr. 21 (E of the Gospels).
Besides comparing my collation with that of Wetstein, and verifying all dis-
crepancies, I had, through the kindness of Professor Mutuxr, of Basle, the
opportunity of using a collation which he had himself made of this same MS.
I also collated that part of the MS. B vi. 27, which contains the Gospels (1).
This MS., though written in cursive letters, is, in the Gospels, of great
importance, from the character of the text which it contains. To the late
Professor Dk WetTE I am under great obligation, for the kindness with which
he procured me the use of these MSS. out of the library.
I returned to England in 1846, disappointed indeed as to the Vatican MS.,
but well satisfied that the time had not been wasted, which I had devoted to
the re-collation of other documents; for I thus learned how often I should
merely have repeated the errors of others, if I had not re-examined the docu-
ments for myself.
In 1847, I collated (G of the Gospels) the Codex Harleianus 5684 in the
British Museum. Of this same MS. there exists a fragment in the library
of Trinity College, Cambridge, which I met with in 1845, while examining
Bentley’s books and papers. In that marked B. 17, 20, there are two frag-
ments of vellum with a part of the Gospels on them, written in uncial letters,
placed loosely in some pieces of more modern Greek MS. in cursive characters.
The Rev. John Wordsworth (who took great pains in describing, etc., Bent-
ley’s papers) says in the catalogue, ‘“‘ The two loose scraps are copies of some
other MS.” It appeared, however, plain that they were really ancient frag-
ments. Accordingly, I made a facsimile of each. One of them struck me as
certainly in the same handwriting as G, which I had inspected several years
before. On re-examining my facsimile with G, this persuasion amounted to
a certainty ; the writing was identical with that of the former part of G ;
and in calculating the lines in a page, etc., this fragment would form half a
leaf (the outer column being gone). It contains part of Matt. v., ver. 29-31
and 39-43. This MS. was one of the two Codices Seidelii, both which after-
wards were in the possession of Wolf, of Hamburg. Wolf says, in his
description of this MS., that it commenced at Matt. vi. 6 (as it does now), so
160 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
that this fragment must have been separated previously. The other MS. of
the Gospels, which Wolf possessed, is denoted H, and at the time when I found
these fragments, its present location was unknown; but, as I had identified
the one fragment with G, the other was (I had no doubt) part of H. This
second fragment contains part of Luke i.,—ver. 3, Geopure to 6, macats Tac—
(the lines having all lost about ten letters at the end), and ver. 13, avrov 6
ayyedos, to 16, ex xowWuas (the lines having similarly lost about ten letters at
the beginning). This fragment is on thickish vellum, and it seems as if it
had been cut round with a knife. How could these fragments get into Bent-
ley’s possession? Who could have been guilty of thus wantonly mutilating
Greek MSS.?
Some years afterwards, I noticed the following passage in Wolf’s letter to
Bentley, of Oct. 1, 1721: “Ut de extate ac conditione utriusque Codicis eo
rectius judicium formari posset, adjeci specimina, A et B signata, quibus in
collatione ipsa [a Wolfio sc. Bentleii gratia instituta] designantur.” Could
these ‘‘ specimina” mean bits of the MSS. themselves? I looked again at my
facsimiles, and there, indeed, were the letters A and B (at the top of the one
and the foot of the other); and thus it actually appeared that Wolf had been
the mutilator of his own MSS.! This was a yet further proof that the frag-
ment marked A is part of the Codex G. And thus, though I had not yet
seen the MS. H (which came to light at Hamburg), it was a matter of cer-
tainty that the other fragment belonged to it. Having thus brought home the
charge to Wolf of mutilating his MSS., by the coincidence of his statement
with the discovery of the fragments themselves, of course it is clear how to
understand what Wetstein says of H, ‘ Specimen istius Codicis a possessore
mihi missum vidi Amstelodami mense Januario, an. 1734.”
In 1848, I remodelled the translation of the Book of Revelation, which I
had previously published: it now appeared without the Greek, but with the
text more closely conformed to the ancient MSS. In 1844, it was zmpossible
to do this absolutely ; but after the publication of the Codex Basilianus, I
was able to follow ancient authority as to every word. ‘This edition was
accompanied with a Prospectus of the Greek Testament, on which I was
occupied ; and it was the means of making me acquainted with several points
which were of some importance for me to know, such as the present place of
deposit of the MS. H.
In the early part of 1849, through the kindness of the Rev. Wm. CurEron,
I became acquainted with the very important and valuable Syriac copy of
part of the Gospels, to which he first drew attention amongst the MSS. in the
British Museum from the Nitrian monasteries.* It was extremely confirming
to the critical opinions which I had previously formed and published, to find
* The MS. of the Curetonian Syriac Gospels, in its present mutilated condition,
contains Matt. i. to viii. 22; from x. 31 to xxiii. 25. Of St. Mark, there are only the con-
cluding verses of the last chapter (ver. 17 to 20). Then follows St. John i. 1—42, and
from iii. 6 to vii. 37. There are also fragments of John xiv. 11—29. St. Luke begins
in ii. 48 to iii. 16, then from vii. 33 to xv. 21, from xvii. 24 to xxiv. 44.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 161
the text of this hitherto unknown version, altogether ancient in its readings,
and thus an important witness to the ancient text. It was worth my while to
have learned Syriac, if it had only been that it enabled me to use the Cureto-
nian Syriac version for myself.
When Professor Tischendorf was bringing out his second Leipsic edition of
the Greek Testament, he sent me the part containing the Gospels before the
volume was completed: this led me to compare the readings which he has
cited, in that part of the New Testament, out of any MSS. which I had
collated, with the variations which I had noted: I immediately sent the result
to Tischendorf, so that, when the complete volume appeared in the summer of
1849, he gave corrigenda in his Prolegomena, as to the readings of the MSS.
of the Gospels E G U X.
In 1849, I was again able to go abroad to collate; and I then remained at
Paris for several weeks. I first collated Codex Claromontanus, D of St. Paul’s
Epistles ; a MS. of peculiar value, both because of its antiquity and its text:
although beautifully written, it is difficult to collate, from the number of
correctors who have interfered with the original text. The primary reading
is, however, almost invariably discernible.
The collation of the Codex Vaticanus made by Bartolocci is amongst the
MSS. of the library at Paris (No. 53); I transcribed it as a contribution to
the correct knowledge of what that MS. contains: this collation is, however,
very imperfect, though useful as sometimes supplying readings omitted by
Bentley or Birch, and as confirming one or the other of the two collations.
Next I began to collate the Codex Cyprius, K of the Gospels; but a few
days after I had commenced, a severe attack of cholera brought me very low ;
and though, through the mercy of God, it was not long before I was conva-
lescent, I was so weakened, that it was impossible for me to resume my colla-
tions until after a considerable interval.
In the spring of 1850 I returned to Paris; and after finishing the collation
of the Codex Cyprius, I took up the Colbert MS. 2844. This MS., in cur-
sive letters, is noted 33 in the Gospels, 13 Acts and Cath. Epp., and 17 in
St. Paul’s Epistles. This is the MS. which Eichhorn speaks of as full of the
most excellent and oldest readings; styling it ‘‘ the Queen of the MSS. in
cursive letters.”* It had not, however, received such attention from collators
as it merits: this may probably have arisen from its injured condition, which
is such as to make it a work of great difficulty to collate it with accuracy ;
the time, too, needed for this is greater than what most of those who merely
examine MSS. would like to expend on one document. Larroque, whose
extracts were used by Mill, collated this MS. very negligently. Griesbach
recollated eighteen chapters of St. Matthew, from which he gathered about
three hundred readings not noticed by Larroque. He also made some extracts
* “Ter Text ist....voll der vortrefflichsten und iiltesten Lesarten. Die Konigin
unter den Cursiv geschriebenen Handschriften.” Hinleitung in N. T. v. 217.
12
162 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
from the Epistles. It was his desire that some scholar who had access to the
Bibliothéque du Roi would carefully recollate this excellent MS.*
Although Scholz speaks of having collated this MS. entirely, yet his exa-
mination of it must have been very cursory; for he cites readings from it
utterly unlike those which it actually contains, besides a vast number of
omissions. I have taken particular care to be certain of the readings which I
cite, by re-examining with the MS. everything in which I differ from others.
It is difficult to convey a just notion of the present defaced condition of
this MS. The leaves, especially in the lower part, have been grievously
injured by damp; so that part of the vellum is utterly destroyed. The leaves
have often stuck together, and, in separating them, parts have been entirely
defaced. The book of Acts is in the worst condition: the leaves there were
so firmly stuck together, that, when they were separated, the ink has adhered
rather to the opposite page than to its own; so that, in many leaves, the MS.
can only be read by observing how the ink has set off (as would be said of a
printed book), and thus reading the Greek words backwards ; I thus obtained
the reading of every line from many pages, where nothing could be seen on
the page itself: in some places, where part of a leaf is wholly gone from
decay, the writing which was once on it can be read from the set-off. It
might be thought by some unaware of this, that readings were quoted by
mere blunder from parts of the MS. which no longer exist.
I have had some experience in the collation of MSS.; but none has ever
been so wearisome to my eyes, and exhaustive of every faculty of attention,
as this was.f
After this valuable but wearying MS., I collated Codex Campensis, M of
the Gospels.
Then I re-examined the Codex Claromontanus, D of St. Paul’s Epistles ;
so as to compare my collation with that of Tischendorf, especially as to cor-
rections of different hands. That I might form a more accurate judgment,
I made a facsimile of the different kinds of alterations, and then classified the
others according to their agreement in form of letters, ink, etc.
A few months before my stay in Paris, in 1850, M. Achille Joubinal had
published a pamphlet complaining of the carelessness with which (he said) the
MSS. in the Bibliothéque du Roi are kept. He said that thirty-four leaves of
* “ Perquam negligenter codicem hune contulit Larroquius, cujus excerptis usus est
Millius. Equidem denuo excussi X VIII. capita Mattheei, atque ex his collegi 300 cir-
citer lectiones ab illo preetermissas. Preeterea ex epistolis decerpsi etiam nonnullas,
... Utinam vir doctus, cui aditus ad bibliothecam Regiam patet, reliquas etiam codicis
egregii partes denuo et accurate conferat !”—Griesbach. Symb. Crit. i. p. clxviii.
+ This MS. contains parts of the Prophets; then all the New Testament (except the
Apocalypse) in a very peculiar order,—the Gospels last. It is clear, however, that the
Gospels did once immediately follow the Prophets; for the writing in the beginning
of St. Matthew is just like that with which the Prophets end. The handwriting
gradually changes a little, so that the end of St. John is just like the commencement
of the contents of the Epistles.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 163
the Codex Claromontanus, which had been cut out by Aymon, and sold to the
Kar! of Oxford in 1707, and restored by him (in 1729), had again disappeared.
As I had examined this part of the MS., as well as the rest, in 1849, I was
surprised at the statement, as well as grieved. However, I had the satisfac-
tion to find that this was all a stupidly and shamefully erroneous assertion ;
the leaves were as safe as when I had collated them in the May preceding.
They still remain in Lord Oxford’s binding, with a label appended to them
to record his liberality in restoring them to the Paris library. They are kept
among other show books in a glass case, as conspicuous in that library as
‘“*Charlemagne’s Bible” is in the British Museum.
There was a single leaf lying loose in the MS., which had also been
separated and sold by Aymon (folio 149), at the foot of which is written,
‘** Feuillet renvoyé de Hollande par Mr. Stosch, Mars 1720.” To render this
less liable to abstraction, I procured it to be fixed into its place before I left
Paris.* My critical labours at Paris concluded with making facsimiles of
the MSS. and fragments (besides those which I have spoken of as collated by
myself) L and W of the Gospels, and H (the Coislin fragments) of St. Paul’s
Epistles. The text of these three documents has been published.
The kindness and courtesy of M. Hasx, ‘‘ Ancien Conservateur” of the
library, deserve to be gratefully mentioned by me; I have also to express my
obligation to M. Emmanuret Mixxer, an assistant-librarian in 1849, and to
M. Letrronne (son of the late well-known Academician), who occupied the
same place in 1850.
At Hamburg, through Dr. Petrersen’s kindness, I was allowed to have
access to the city library for ¢wice the number of hours that it is commonly
open. Here I collated the Codex Seidelii, H of the Gospels, which no one
seems to have used critically since the very inaccurate and defective collation
of Wolf. Of course, I found that the fragment in the library of Trinity
College, Cambridge, belongs to it.
I also collated the Uffenbach fragment of the Epistle to the Hebrews (53
Paul) twice, with what care I could.
At Berlin, whither I next went, I saw much of Prof. Lacumann: he dis-
cussed many points connected with New Testament criticism ; it was very
* Tam sorry to say that I found another of M. Joubinal’s accusations to be more
authentic. He says that the leaf of the Old Testament part of the Codex Ephraemi,
from which the facsimile was made for Tischendorf’s edition of its text, has disap-
peared. had seen it in July, 1849, lying loose at the end of the MS., but in the spring
of 1850 it was gone: I also found that in the printed edition of the New Testament
part of this Codex, the lithographed facsimile had been abstracted. I was able to
secure the original leaf of the MS. from which this had been taken, by causing it to be
fixed into its place. .
+ The Codex Seidelii of St. John’s Gospel, of which Michaelis speaks (Marsh’s
translation, il. p. 215. nofe), as never having been collated, is only this copy under a
mistaken description. Bentley heard of such a MS. of St. John having belonged to
Seidel, and he wrote in 1721 to La Croze to procure for him a collation of its text: the
reply shows that it was this MS. of the four Gospels, H. It is time to weed lists
of MSS. of those things which ought never to have been introduced into them.
164 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
interesting to hear from himself an explanation of his plan, etc., in his Greek
Testament. He showed me the books from which he has condensed his Latin
readings. These collations are very nicely inserted in different Latin New
Testaments. I regret exceedingly that they have not been published ; for
they would form a valuable contribution to the criticism of the Vulgate. For
instance, in 1 Pet. iii. 21, the addition found in the common Vulgate, “‘deglu-
tiens mortem, ut vitee eternz heredes efficeremur,” is enclosed in Lachmann’s
edition within brackets, with the note, ‘‘om. F. al.” showing that it is omitted
in the Codex Fuldensis and another. 'To what other he refers, it is of some
importance to know; for Porson (whose knowledge of Latin biblical MSS.
was great) says of this passage, that the Lectionarium Luxoviense (some read-
ings of which were published by Mabillon) was the only copy then known
that was free from that addition. The codex alius, however, to which Lach-
mann alluded, is one of the excellent MSS. at Wolfenbiittel mentioned in his
Prolegomena. I entreated Lachmann to publish his Latin collations,—little
thinking how soon this scholar was to be taken from us.
I went to Leipsic, to compare my collations with some of those executed by
TiscuEenDorF. For our mutual benefit I made the comparison of our respec-
tive collations of K, U, and X of the Gospels, of H, and G (Cod. Passionei)
of the Acts, of the Epistles J (Cod. Passionei). I also recompared my colla-
tion of E of the Gospels with that of Professor Miiller, which I had seen at
Basle, four years before, and I examined it with Tischendorf’s own collation.
The MS. 1 in the Gospels had been collated by Dr. Roth, and I compared his
collation with mine. These were all the MSS. of which Tischendorf had
collations available for comparison ; those whose text he has published, he had
copied. I made out lists of all discrepancies, so that I might get the varia-
tions recompared in the MSS. themselves, so as to ensure (as far as possible)
perfect accuracy.
I communicated to Tischendorf my examination of his extracts from the
Codex Claromontanus ; my notes served to correct some oversights of his, and
to confirm him in other places.*
* In Tischendorf’s edition of the Codex Claromontanus, the notes of the corrections
of different hands fill in the Appendix sixty-two quarto pages, in double columns. Adi
these Greek corrections Irecompared with the MS., and they are printed from his and
my notes; sometimes indeed we differed as to which hand had made the correction,
and then Tischendorf has givensimply his own opinion; but as to the corrections
themselves, I can certify that they are allin the copy. In ail these places I was careful
to ascertain the original reading of the MS., of which there can scarcely ever be a
doubt. Whoever compares these corrections of D in Tischendorf’s Greek Testament
with the Appendix to Codex Claramontanus, will see that many amendments have
been introduced.
In 1 Cory, viii. 4, Iread the line
NEPIAGTHCFNCCEWUCOTN
as originally written; and I noted that OY'N had afterwards been erased; (a later
hand has changed PNUOGEUWOG into BBCOCGWC). On this, however, Tischen-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 165
At Dresden I examined the Codex Boernerianus (G Paul.) especially as to
those places in which its text, as published by Matthei, differs from that of F.
The resemblance of this MS. to the Coder Sangallensis, A of the Gospels
(published in a lithographed facsimile by Rettig), is even more evident in
looking at the MS. itself, than in examining the facsimile specimen in Mat-
thei. At the beginning of the Codex Boernerianus there is one leaf, and at
the end there are eleven, written on in a later hand exactly like that of the
leaves prefixed to the Codex Sangallensis. It is thus evident that these MSS.
are the severed parts of the same book.*
On my return towards England, I examined the palimpsest fragments of
the Gospels P and Q in the library at Wotrensirrec: I think that the book
in which they are, contains faint traces of more old writing than has as yet
dorf observes, “non possum quin Tregellium cl. errasse existimem, nuntiantem post
BPCOCGEUOCE additum in codice esse OYN.” Icanonly repeat that the vellum
bears traces that these three letters were once there, as may be observed by a person
accustomed to read erasures in ancient MSS., when this page is held in the proper
light. Of course each one must hold his own opinion; but Tischendorf might have
thought it likely that the memorandum which I made on the spot with the MS.
before me was not altogether a mistake; for in 1 Cor. i. 24 he inserts T6 after
1O,AALOIG (which in his Greek Testament he had said was omitted) on my in-
formation, saying in his Appendix, “‘‘T6: id nunc in ligatura codicis latet.” I
read the word by opening the book wide.
* The reading of 1 Tim. ili. 16 in this MS. is worthy of notice, because of assertions
which have been made respecting it of late. The following sentence has been quoted
from Le Clere’s Epistle to Optimianus, prefixed to Kuster’s edition of Mill’s Greek
Testament :—‘ Codicem vidi qui fuit in Bibliothec&é Francianaé in hac urbe, anno
MDCCV. vendita, in quo erat O (nempe in1 Tim. iii. 16), sed ab alia manu additum
Sigma. Codex est in quo Latina interpretatio Grece superimposita est: que hic
quoque habet Quop.” ‘Tothisthe following remark has been added :—* In this Codex
the alteration is betrayed, not merely by the fresh colour of the ink, and by the word
quod, placed immediately above the altered word, but by the difference of the size of
the letters ; for the corrector, not having room for a full-sized C, has stuck a small one
up in the corner between the O and the letter E which follows, thus O*%. Dr. Gries-
bach could hardly fail to be aware of this, yet he quotes G without any remark, as
supporting the reading és not 6. The Codex F (Augiensis) was copied from G, after
it had been thus altered.” These statements would have required proof, and none is
given. Le Clerc seems to have argued on the reading of the Greek, backward from
the Latin quod: it might be well asked, how the ink could look fresh after a lapse of
a thousand years? Also in fact F is nof a transcript of G, so that it may be left out
of the question. Toset this whole matter at rest, and to test these assertions, I made
a facsimile of that page of G. The sigma stands on a level with the line, and there is
no pretence for saying that it is an addition ; the words are not cramped together, but
they stand thus Oc Eda NEPCOGH ; with three sixteenths of an inch between
the words. It has also been said by those who suppose OC here to be a contraction
for 6cos that there is a line overthe O3; but this is not the mark of contraction, but
it lies over the vowel, drawn upward from left to right. In folio 57 of the MS., such a
line occurs twice; Gal. iii. 24, the initial vowel of wa is so marked, and Gal. iii. 28, ev:
(where the common text reads «is), It may be a mode of denoting the spiritus asper.
166 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
been deciphered, though it appears that Knittel, who published P and Q,
and the Gothic fragments, took pains to ascertain that the other writing is at
least not biblical. Through Professor Lachmann’s introduction, I received
there every kindness from Dr. ScuénEMANN, the librarian (become quite
blind), and Dr. Horcx, the secretary.
In passing through Holland, I took the opportunity of examining, at
Urrecut, the Codex Boreelii, F of the Gospels ; Professor Royaarps kindly
introduced me to Professor Vinxxr (who published Heringa’s collation of the
text of this MS.), and to Mr. Ansr, the librarian. This MS. was found at
Arnhem a few years ago, after it had been lost for about two centuries. It
was still just in the same state as when it was found, the leaves being all loose
in a box: in fact, from its not having been bound and catalogued, it was some
time before it could be found for me to examine in order to make a facsimile.
In speaking of the MSS. which I have myself collated, I may now mention
the latest which I have thus examined;—the Codex Leicestrensis (69 Gospels,
31 Acts and Cath. Epp., 37 Paul. 14 Apoc.), which, though not older than the
fourteenth century, contains a ¢ext in many respects ancient; and it was the
desire of several scholars that I should recollate this MS., which is the most
important of those in cursive letters which we have in this country. Applica-
tion was made to the Town Council of Leicester, to whom it belongs, on my
behalf; and through the kind exertions of Grorer Toxier, Esq., then the
Mayor of that place, this MS. was transmitted to me, in the autumn of the
year 1852, to use in my own study. (Due security was, of course, given for
its safety and restoration.) Through this particular act of courtesy, which
deserves my fullest acknowledgment, I was able without inconvenience to
collate this valuable MS.
Besides the MSS. which I have collated, or re-examined, I have endea-
voured, with some measure of success, to restore what remains of the Dublin
palimpsest Z of St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Dr. Barrett, the discoverer of the ancient writing of these important frag-
ments, when he edited them in 1801, gave but a very partial description of the
state of the different leaves; and thus it was wholly a matter of uncertainty,
when but a part of a page appeared on the engraved plate, whether the rest of
the leaf still existed, but was illegible, or whether it was no longer extant.
There are also many places in which lines, words, or letters, in the pages in
other respects tolerably perfect, are wanting in the published edition.
As this MS. is one of the more important monuments of the text of St.
Matthew’s Gospel (and as, indeed, all the fragments of such antiquity are of
great value), it was very desirable to ascertain its present condition; to learn
what parts are really there; to use chymical means for restoring the text in
any part in which the vellum still exists, and which could not be read by
Dr. Barrett; and thus to exclude from among the citations of authorities for
readings the unsatisfactory doubt of ‘? Z.”
Mr. Henry E. Brooke, B.A., of Trinity College, Dublin, had the kindness
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 167
to examine the MS. for me; and, after having taken some pains, he was able
to identify the larger number of the leaves containing the older uncial writing.
This was not easy, in the state in which the MS. then was. On inquiring,
through Mr. Brooke, whether the authorities of Trinity College would take
measures for the restoration of the older writing, it appeared best for me to
go to Dublin myself and do it, if permitted by the Provost and the rest of the
Board of Trinity College. Accordingly, in October, 1853, I went thither,
and my object was most kindly furthered by the Rev. James Henthorn Todd,
D.D., librarian of the College, and one of the Senior Fellows. After giving
him and the Board ocular proof that the process of chymically restoring the
obliterated writing was not injurious to the material, or to the later writing,
I was allowed to proceed, and in the early part of November it was accom-
plished.
The first thing was to identify the pages from which the fragments had
been edited by Dr. Barrett. Mr. Brooke had already saved me much of this
labour ; and by a continuous examination in a strong light, I was able to
discover all, with the exception of one leaf. In thus examining the MS., I
saw at once that, where Dr. Barrett published but half a page, the other half
was gone; for, in such cases, the scribe who re-used the ancient vellum for
more modern works, has made out his page by sticking on another piece to
the ancient uncial fragment. The condition, too, of the MS. is much worse
than it was in Dr. Barrett’s days; for it has been rebound,* and that without
any regard to the ancient writing. The binder simply seems to have known
of the Greek book in the cursive letters, which are all black and plain to the
eye. And so, the pages have been unmercifully strengthened, in parts, by
pasting paper or vellum over the margins; leaving indeed the cursive writing
untouched, but burying the uncial letters, of so much greater value. Also in
places there were fragments, all rough at the edges of the leaves; and these
have been cut away so as to make all smooth and neat; and thus many words
and parts of words read by Dr. Barrett are now gone irrecoverably. And
besides, the binder seems to have taken the traces of the ancient writing for
dirt marks, and thus they have been, in parts, industriously obliterated ; and
in those places in which the writing instrument of the ancient copyist had
deeply furrowed the vellum, a new surface of size (or something of the kind)
had been superadded.
The MS. being in such a state, I had to endeavour chymically to restore
the words and letters in the parts still extant, which are blank in Dr. Barrett’s
publication. And in this I was very successful; so that, in the existing
portion of the MS., there is hardly a reading as to which any doubt remains.
After doing what I could to the portions previously identified, I re-examined
the whole of the volume in search of the one leaf not previously found. At
* No person now connected with Trinity College, Dublin, is responsible for the
manner in which this was done. It was the work of a departed generation, when the
library must have been under care of a very different kind from that now exercised
by Dr. Todd.
168 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
length I noticed, that, in one place, the texture of the vellum was like that of
the fragments of St. Matthew; and though there was not a letter or line of
the older writing to be seen in any position or light, I determined to try, as
an experiment, whether the application would bring out any buried letters.
In doing this, it was beyond all expectations of mine to see the ancient
writing, first gradually, and then definitely, appear on the surface.
The volume contains no ancient leaves of St. Matthew, besides those edited
by Dr. Barrett. The fragments of Isaiah and of Gregory Nazianzen, in the
same volume, differ from those of St. Matthew, and from one another, as to
vellum, handwriting, and age.
I cannot speak of important discoveries through my work on this MS.; but
still it was worth the trouble, if it only were that readings in it are rescued
from mere uncertainty and conjecture, and questions are set at rest. For
instance, in Matt. xix. 24, Tischendorf cites this MS. for the reading xajuAov,
and as it is of older date than the time when « and 7 were confused by copyists,
it might seem like authority for that word, instead of the common xapn)ovp.
Now, the presence of the Iota was simply a conjecture, from the blank space
in Dr. Barrett’s page ; and Lachmann cautiously cites, “xay:Aov Z”. But I
brought the whole word KAMHAON distinctly to light: the H is at the end
of one line, the three other letters at the beginning of the next.
As the authorities of Trinity College, Dublin, still possess the copper plates
on which Dr. Barrett’s (so called) facsimile is engraved, it is to be hoped that
they will republish the text of this MS. with the addition of all that can now
be given. This object would be furthered by Dr. Todd, the librarian, for
whom [I have inserted, in a copy of Dr. Barrett’s work, all that could be read
on the MS. as restored.
In such a republication, the text in common Greek types may well be
omitted: in fact, its insertion was an injury to Dr. Barrett’s book; for, while
what he had read in 1787 was expressed correctly by the engraver whom he
employed, his accuracy of eye was so thoroughly gone in 1801, that he made
great and strange mistakes in expressing the same text in common Greek
letters.*
* And yet it has been an accusation against Lachmann, that he remarked on
Dr. Barrett’s unskilfulness. Mr. Scrivener says (Supplement to Authorised Version,
Introd., p. 24, note), “It might almost be said, that Lachmann speaks well of no one.
.... But the most amusing case of all is Dr. Barrett’s, who was guilty of editing
the facsimile of the Dublin palimpsest of St. Matthew (Z of Scholz). After duly
thanking the engraver for his workmanlike skill, Lachmann kindly adds, ‘ Johannem
Barrettum, qui Dublini edidit anno 1801, non laudo: hominem huius artis, ultra
quam credi potest, imperitum.’” This censure much amused Lachmann when I drew
his attention to it; for he supposed that he had gently hinted Dr. Barrett’s unskilful-
ness; little dreaming that this would be turned into a charge of speaking ill of others.
He thought that, when the engraver had expressed the text correctly on one page,
and Dr. Barrett had given it in a different manner on the opposite (reading letters
wrongly, and marking others as omitted, which the engraved plate exhibits as there),
that it was well to hint the fact, lest the wrong page should be taken as the authority
for the text of this MS. Dr. Davidson quite agrees with Lachmann: “The editor
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 169
The work of the engraver gives a sort of general idea of the letters, etc. ;
but it cannot be commended for calligraphic exactitude; there is a stiffness
and hardness in the engraving, very different from the formation of letters by
the copyist from whose hand the MS. proceeded: this is very observable in
the letters M and A.
Of course, I looked at the Codex Montfortianus, such as it is. This MS.
is commonly described as being on glazed paper: the glazing seems, however,
to be confined to the pages which open at the verse 1 John v. 7; and the gloss
is, apparently, the result of the many fingers which have been applied to that
one place of this recent MS.; or, if not, the material at that place must be
different.
After my return from the continent, I have at different times sent to various
libraries lists of the discrepancies between Tischendorf’s collations and mine ;
from Basle, Munich, and Venice, I received prompt and satisfactory replies to
my inquiries, so that I have full testimony as to the readings, in every place
of doubt.
Signor VeLLupo compared the list I sent with Codex U at Venice; Dr.
Srrout did the same with X at Munich; and E and 1, at Basle, were exa-
mined by Dr. C. L. Roru. They are entitled to thanks from me, and from
all who desire complete accuracy in critical data.
I also sent to Florence the places in which Tischendorf differed from
me, as to the text of the Codex Amiatinus; and Signor Francesco peu Furia
promptly sent me a full statement (made by his son, the Abbate del Furia) of
each reading.
When I was at Leipsic, in 1850, I found that Tischendorf’s edition of the
Latin New Testament from this Codex was about half printed. I had sent
gives on the opposite page to the facsimile the words in the usual Greek type, with
lines corresponding. Here his accuracy cannot be commended. In fact, he has made
many blunders” (Biblical Criticism, ij. 311). Lachmann did not know that the
engraved plates were what Dr. Barrett read rightly in 1787, and the printed pages
were what he read wrongly in 1801. His judgment, however, as to the incorrectness
of the latter, was quite a true one.
No one would more fully see that the censure on Lachmann was undeserved, than
Mr. Scrivener himself, if examining Dr. Barrett’s publication. It is evident that he
had not done this (even if he had seen it), when he thus blamed Lachmann. I learn
this from his note, page 261. “In verse 7 [of Matt. xxi.], Scholz asserts that the
Codex Z reads érexd@icev. Buttmann informs us, that nothing remains of that word
in Codex Z but the first two letters.” Now, if Mr. Scrivener had access to Dr. Bar-
rett’s publication, he might have spoken on this point from the facsimile, without
having to quote from another as to this published book.
Lachmann thought that this was a good example of the mode in which reviewers
in his own country had treated him—passing a judgment first, and learning the facts
(if at all) afterwards. I am surprised that Mr. Scrivener should have charged Lach-
mann with hardly speaking well of any one, with the Preface before him, in which he
so commends Bentley and Bengel.
170 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
him a transcript of my collation; and thus there was a confirmation of several
readings. I regretted, however, that the printing should have taken place
before the passages in which we at all differed should have been recompared
at Florence.*
It would have been a comparatively easy thing to have drawn out a select
statement of the readings of the MSS., borrowing the citations of the versions
from previous editions, and giving the citations from the fathers similarly on
second-hand authority. But this was not the object for which I had toiled.
I wanted to give all the readings supported by ancient MSS., and not a mere
selection, as Tischendorf has done. And further, I should not be satisfied
without doing my utmost to give the citations from the versions with all the
correctness that I could; and so, too, I found it needful to examine and
re-examine the writings of the fathers (as far as Eusebius inclusive) so as not
to repeat citations without knowing the bearings of each passage with the
context: hence has arisen a great expenditure of time and labour. Also, as I
wanted (what has never been done fully) to give the evidence both for and
against every reading, where there is really any balance of testimony, a vast
amount of work was needed. In all this, the condition of my eyes, after
collations and trying study of several years, has retarded me in a manner
which I can hardly describe.
Of the Ancient Versrons, I use and examine myself the Latin and’ the
SYRIAC.
The Lattn consist of (i) the Orv Larry, as found in the Codices Vercel-
lensis, Veronensis, and Colbertinus (ij), the revised text of Upper Italy, as in
the Codex Brixianus (iij), a revised text, in which the influence of ancient
MSS. is discernible, as found in the Codex Bobbiensis (this text was unknown
to Lachmann), and (iv) the Vulgate of Jerome, in which I follow ancient
MSS. Besides these, many Latin copies contain a mixed text. Many writers
have unsuitably blended all the non-Hieronymian Latin texts, under the
name of Italic.
The Syriac are (i) the Curetonian, from the Nitrian monasteries of which
mention has previously been made.—(ij) The version commonly printed as the
Peshito: of this, I collated the whole of Rich’s MS., 7157 in the British
Museum: this MS. is a good proof how the Syriac scribes modernised their
* From the recomparison of the places of discrepancy made by Abbate del Furia,
I am able to point out the following corrections for Tischendorf’s edition of this Latin
text.
Matt. xxvii. 20, principes autem sacerdotum; not, princeps.
Mark xiv. 48, de duodecim; not, er duodecim.
Luke ix. 13, duos pisces (sic).
John vi. 54, et bibzé; not, et bibedé.
2 Tim. iii. 16, divinitus inspirata; not inspirata divinitus.
iv.10, Tischendorf here gives Galliam in his fext, stating in his Prolego-
mena (p. xliij.) that Galatiam is the reading of a corrector: Del
Furia says that there is no change, but that Galatiam is the only
reading of the MS.
1 Pet. iii. 20, Dei patientia; not, Dei clementia.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 171
copies.—(iij) The Harclean, published by White, under the name of the
Philoxenian.—(iv) Besides these versions, there is in the Vatican the Lec-
tionary, called by Adler the Jerusalem Syriac; he published many readings
from it: I have myself extracted the readings of some passages, and I also
possess a transcript of a few leaves.
For the Mempurric* version, I follow Schwartze’s edition of the Gospels, -
depending on the collation which he has subjoined. It is to be regretted that
Boetticher’s edition of the Acts (in continuation of what Schwartze left
unfinished at his death) is a bare Egyptian text, without version or collation.
The Tuxsaic is also collated by Schwartze ; the fragments of this version
were collected and published by Woide and Munter.
In the Goruic, I follow the edition of Gabelentz and Loebe.
Zohrab’s edition of the ARMENIAN, on the authority of MSS., has as yet
been unused by critical editors. A collation of this version had been promised
me by my Christian friend Sarkies Davids, M.D. (Glasgow), from Shiraz ;
but, after his death, happy in the conscious knowledge of Christ’s redemption,
it was long before I met with any one competent and willing to undertake the
task. In 1851, however, the Rev. T. H. Horne kindly exerted himself for
me, and through him I was introduced to Mr. Cuarxes Rrev, of the British
Museum; who has so collated this version, as to afford me all the need that I
could ask. He performed this far more with the spirit of one who wished to
render a service to sacred criticism, than in consideration of such remunera-
tion as I could offer. In speaking of this version, it is well to say, that it is
wholly incorrect to suppose that its MSS. were altered to suit the Latin
Vulgate: Zohrab found no trace of the Latinising readings in any copy
which he collated. The first printed edition by Uscan, and those that follow
it, stand alone in such alterations.
As to the Erntoric, Bode published a Latin version of it, from the text of
Walton’s Polyglot: Mr. T. P. Puary edited the same version from MSS.;
unfortunately, however, he preserved no lists of various readings, and but few
memoranda; the latter he kindly sent me; and, through the Rev. T. H. Horne’s
instrumentality, Mr. L. A. Prevost, of the British Museum, has compared
for me Bode’s Latin version with Mr. Platt’s text.
The versions later than the sixth century do not possess any value as wit-
* These two Egyptian versions, Memphitic and Thebaic, are very often termed in
critical works Coptic and Sahidic; but these latter names, however common, are
objectionable: Coptic is rather a general term applying alike to the old Egyptian
tongue as a whole; the Memphitic is the dialect of Lower Egypt, and therefore there
is a great incongruity in assigning to it a name formed, it is said, from Coptos, a place
in Upper Egypt. There is no such geographical incongruity involved in terming the
Thebaic, “Sahidic,” for each shows a connection with Upper Egypt. But still to call
the ancient dialect of the Thebais by a name Aix. Sa-id, imposed after the occupa
tion of the Arabs, is as unsuitable as if we were to say that the Gauls in Julius Cexsar’s
time spoke French. I was confirmed in my opinion of the impropriety of the name
Sahidic, at hearing an inquiry whether it were.not the dialect of the Delta, taking it
from the city Sais.
i722 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
nesses to the ancient text; their readings may, therefore, be omitted; for it is
worse than useless to allow them to encumber a critical page, and to perpe-
tuate citations from them, on the accuracy of which but little reliance can
often be placed.
The following is a brief summary of the MSS. as to their availability :—
The text has been published of the MSS.
i. of the Gospels A C D L A, and the fragments Z (see above) PQ TJ N
TO RoW ye,
ij. of the Acts, A C D E, and fragment F (of these A C contain also the
Cath. Epp.)
iij. of St. Paul’s Epistles AC DG. Fragments H F2.
iv. of the Revelation A C B (i.e. Cod. Basilianus).
The readings of F V of the Gospels I take from the published collations ;
so too as to E and K of St. Paul’s Epistles (the latter of which contains also
Cath. Epp.).
The readings of the Codex Vaticanus B, I gather as best I can from the
three published collations.*
All the rest of the uncial MSS.7 (and a few others) I have myself collated.
i. of the Gospels EG H K M U &, 1, 33, 69 (besides the restoration of Z).
ij. of the Acts G H, 13, 31 (these, except H, contain also the Cath. Epp.).
iij. of St. Paul’s Epistles D (prior to its publication) F J, 17, 37, and frag-
ment 53.
iv. of Revelation 14.
And besides these, I have examined and made a facsimile of almost every
one of the MSS. which have been published, and also collated the printed
texts.
There is a great deal of truth in the opinion expressed by Dr. Davidson,
that it would be far better for the offices of collator of MSS. and editor of
the text, to be dissociated.{ But things desirable are not always practicable.
It would be far better for an architect not to be compelled also to toil as a
* The edition which Cardinal Mai has caused to be printed from this MS. remains
as yet unpublished; if it should be rescued from this unworthy obscurity, it will
enable critics to use the authority of this MS. with some measure of confidence.
Often, as to the readings, there is now no doubt; but all the three collations have
their imperfections. That made for Bentley is by far the best of those that have
been published, and yet that critic was not satisfied with it, for he caused the Abbate
Rulotta to re-examine the whole MS. as to the earlier writings and the corrections.
This labour of Rulotta seems to be entirely lost.
+ I do not here take into account the recently-discovered MSS. of Tischendorf, to
which I expect soon to have full access.
t “We are thankful to the collators of MSS. for their great labour. But it may be
doubted whether they be often competent to make the best critical text out of existing
materials ... We should rather see the collator and the editor of the text dissociated.
We should like to have one person for each department.”—Davidson’s Biblical Criti-
cism, ij. pp. 104-5.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 173
quarryman ; and yet, if stones could not be otherwise obtained, quarry them
himself he must, if he would build at all. An artist is often the grinder of
his own colours, and photographers prepare their own materials. If what is
needed cannot be obtained ready to hand from the labour of others, those
whose special place it is to apply the materials must be themselves preparers.
There is a danger lest a collator should overvalue what he has toiled on
himself. And yet, in my own case, the authorities of the highest value are
those which have been published or collated by others, through whose labours
I have benefited. I say this, although I consider that the value of X. 1, 33,
69, and of D F of St. Paul’s Epistles, is very great, and that the restoration
of parts of Z was an important work: my general critical principles were
formed on sufficient data before I began to collate, and thus I was hindered
from estimating MSS. etc., because they were connected with my own labours.
There are many subjects of interest closely linked with the retrospect of
my work ; it was this that brought me into connection with Dr Werte, the
disciple of Griesbach, with whom I had much intercourse, both in Rome and
Basle. Thus, too, I met ScHouz, who indicated to me, with much kindness,
before I left England, where various MSS. had now migrated: and in more
recent time, I was thus brought into acquaintance with LacuMany, the first
who edited irrespective of traditional authorities, and with Tiscuenporr, the
publisher of so many ancient texts. And all of these, except the last, and not
these only, but LaurEAnr and Mouza, the custodi of the Vatican, Barrtra
of Venice, Harter of Munich, Cardinal Acron, and others with whom
collations have brought me into connection, have, in these few years, passed
away from this present earthly scene.
In this country, also, my labour of collations, etc., has been to me the
occasion of intercourse with scholars not a few ;—of these one may be spe-
cified, the Patriarch of all who have been occupied with Sacred Literature,—
Dr. Rouru.
I may give the result of my studies in a few words :—TI now propose —
I—To give the text on the authority of the oldest MSS. and versions, and
the aid of the earlier citations, so as to present, as far as possible, the text
commonly received in the fourth century ;— always stating what authorities
support, and what oppose the text given.
II.—In cases in which we have certain proofs which carry us still nearer
to the apostolic age, to use the data so afforded.
III.—In cases in which the oldest documents agree in certain, undoubted,
transcriptural error, to state the reading so supported, but not to follow it;
and to give the grounds on which another reading is preferred.
IV.—In matters altogether doubtful, to state distinctly the conflicting evi-
dence, and thus to approximate towards a true text.
V.—To give the various readings of all the uncial MSS. and ancient
versions, very correctly, so that it may be clearly seen what readings possess
174 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
any ancient authority whatever. ‘To these I add the more important citations
of the earlier writers (to Eusebius inclusive). The places are also to he
indicated in which the common text departs from the ancient readings.
Enough has been said to show what the critical principles are, on which I
consider that the Sacred Text should be edited. The following section on
critical principles and their application, though it relates, not only to this
particular branch of the subject, but to the present point in the history of the
printed text, becomes in fact a further development of the views here expressed,
together with a consideration of objections sometimes brought forward, with
remarks on the evidence as to the reading of particular passages.
§ 14. REMARKS ON PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL
CRITICISM.
THE object of all Textual Criticism is to present an ancient work,
as far as possible, in the very words and form in which it pro-
ceeded from the writer’s own hand. Thus, when applied to the
Greck New Testament, the result proposed is to give a text of
those writings, as nearly as can be done on existing evidence,
such as they were when originally written in the first century.
While the odject of the textual criticism of the New Testament
is admitted to be the same, there are two very different routes by
which different editors may seek to arrive at the proposed result ;
they are, however, so different, that the conclusions cannot be
identical: the one is, to regard the mass of documents numeri-
cally, and to take them, on the ground of their wide diffusion, as
the general witnesses to the text which should be adopted; the
other is, to use those documents which are in themselves ancient,
or which, as a demonstrated fact, contain ancient readings; and
thus to give a text which was current at least in the fourth
century of our era. On the one side, there are the mass of MSS.
written from the eighth century to the sixteenth; on the other
side, there are a few MSS. of great antiquity, together with a few
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 175
of later date; and these are supported by the ancient versions in
general, and by the citations of ecclesiastical writers. To those
who delight in numerical display, the more ancient witnesses may
seem to be but a meagre array; and they speak of them as such,
pointing with a kind of triumph to their own more ample list :
but numbers do not always insure victory, as was learned by
Xerxes and Darius Codomannus; much less is that the case in
questions of ¢ruth and fact, than in contentions of martial power ;
and here the real question is, not, What was read most generally
in the sixteenth century, when the Greek Testament was first
printed ? but, What was read commonly and widely in the earliest
period to which we can recur ?
Now I believe that two things are of the utmost importance at
present in the criticism of the text of the New Testament: (i.) To
draw a line of demarcation as to what critical aids shall be admitted
as good and useful witnesses; and (i1.) To determine as a fixed
and settled principle that the only proof that a reading zs ancient,
is, that it is found in some ancient document.
Both these ideas were enunciated by Griesbach: he said,
‘‘ Perhaps we shall soon have to think of lessening our critical
aids, rather than of increasing them without limit... . Those,
indeed, who carry on criticism as though it were a mechanical art,
are delighted with so numerous an array of MSS.” (Symb. Crit. i.
Pref. 2.) On the other point he said, ‘‘ There is no need to
repeat, again and again, that readings, which, looked at in them-
selves, we should judge to be the better, are not to be preferred,
unless authenticated by at least some ancient testimonies.” (Gr. Test.
i. Proleg. p. lxii.)
The selection of authorities must not be a mere arbitrary pro-
cedure; but it must be the adoption, as a basis, of such as are
proved to be witnesses worthy of confidence. Ancient MSS., the
older versions, and such early citations as have come down to us
in a trustworthy form, are the vouchers, and the only certain ones,
that any reading zs ancient. And again, Comparative Criticism
(see § 13) proves, that in selecting these authorities we do not
act empirically or rashly, but that we rely on the evidence of
witnesses whose character admits of being tested. And besides
those MSS. which are actually the oldest, we may use as valuable
176 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
auxiliaries those whose general text accords with them, and that
on two grounds; Ist, Because the character of such MSS. is
shown from their general agreement with the oldest; and 2nd,
Because it is also proved by the same criteria of accordance with
the best early versions and citations. The MS. ‘ 33” would
on this ground have been proved to contain a text of the highest
character; and this (especially perhaps in the Epistles) would
give it a claim to be admitted as an authority, even though the
oldest uncial documents had not been in existence. Indeed, at
the time when Griesbach wrote the greater part of his Symbole
Criticze, before a collation of B had been published, and when the
palimpsest C was but partially known (as was the case long after),
there was not a better witness available for the ancient text, as a
whole, than this MS., imperfectly as it had then been collated.
Thus, if the oldest MSS. had not existed, and we were left, as we
are with respect to so many classical authors, to MSS. later than
the tenth century, true critical principles might still have guided
us aright in many respects. But we may be thankful that
God has in His Providence ordered otherwise than that we should
be so left; and thus we have the satisfaction of using the oldest
MSS. as witnesses of the ancient text. Their age would cause
them to have a primary claim on our attention ; their proved cha-
racter equally shows that this claim is well founded.
The readings of the most ancient MSS. are not matters of
doubt; for; with the lamentable exception of the Vatican MS., all
those of this class which are available for criticism have been pub-
lished ; and as to the Vatican MS., we are more often sure what
its readings are than the contrary. Thus it is useless to object
that the readings of these MSS., as a class, are involved in doubt ;
for such an assertion is wholly a mistake. Even with regard to
such a MS. as the Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul’s Epistles,
which has suffered from the hands of repeated correctors, it is in
vain to urge against it that it has been so treated; for this does
not affect the actual original readings of the first scribe, which are
still visible. .
Nor can it be urged as an objection of any weight that we do
not know by whom the ancient copies were written: if there had
been any force of argument in the remark, it would apply quite as
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 177
much to a vast number of the modern codices. If I find an
anonymous writer, who appears to be intelligently acquainted with
his subject, and if in many ways I have had the opportunity of
testing and confirming his accuracy, I do not the less accept him
as a witness of historic facts, than I should if I knew his name
and personal circumstances. The Epistle to Diognetus is a trust-
worthy document of early Christianity, though we have no evi-
dence as to the name of the writer, who he was, or where he
lived; and though we are acquainted with but the name, and
nothing more, of the person to whom it was addressed.
But it has been repeatedly urged that the few most ancient
MSS. bear but a minute proportion to the mass of those which
perished in the early centuries; and thus the lost copies may have
contained a very different text. To appeal from what we have to
what we never can have, from what we know to what we never
can know, would transfer us at once from the domain of facts and
proofs into that of mere conjectures and suppositions. The words
of Cicero might be taken as a sufficient answer to such sur-
misings: ‘‘ Est ridiculum, ad ea que habemus nihil dicere; QUE-
RERE QUZ HABERE NON POSSUMUS.” (Cic. pro Arch. iv.).
What if any one were to say, in defence of any doctrine or
practice, that it is true that it is not taught, or that it may even
seem to be discountenanced, in the twenty-seven books of the
New Testament which we have, but why may it not have been
inculcated in other writings of the Apostles, or their companions,
which we have not? In the realms of pure imagination one ques-
tion as to possibilities is just as good as another.
Does it not strike those who bring forward this trite objection
(until, on their own confession, they are weary of repeating it), as
at least singular, that ALL the oldest documents belong to the
kind which they decry, because of their being in the numerical
minority ? That each newly-found palimpsest should exhibit its
relation to the oldest copies previously known? That a version
coming newly to light (such as the Curetonian Syriac) should
still so perversely differ from the array of recent MSS.? But,
indeed, if in the early centuries MSS. did exist which accorded
with the later mass of copies, such documents would present a
strange and unaccountable contradiction to the other monuments
13
178 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT.
with which we might compare them. Comparative Criticism
would be able to prove that their text was at least suspicious.*
One objection raised against the oldest documents is that they
were written by Egyptian copyists, and that they exhibit Alex-
andrian forms of inflection, etc. All this may be admitted for
argument’s sake: but what then? This does not show that the
MSS. are corrupt, or that the Alexandrian scribes introduced the
forms to which they were accustomed. For this objection, when
examined, contains two parts; that the Alexandrian copyists, as
being studious of elegance, mended the books which they tran-
scribed ; and also, that, in the Greek MSS. of the New Testament,
written at Alexandria, forms which exhibit a rusticity of dialect
were introduced. One of these objections or the other might be
discussed, but hardly both at once. It has also been said that we
might more suitably seek copies of the New Testament from the
parts, in which the books which compose it were written, rather
than from Egypt; as if there was some stigma inthe name. Now
the fact is, that in those days Alexandria was the great centre of
Greek literature; and thus publishers of books (in the ancient
sense of the word) were especially congregated there. To object
to receive copies of works from Alexandria because they had been
written elsewhere, would be just as reasonable as if objection were
made to Sir Walter Scott’s works printed in London, or to
Schiller’s printed in Leipsic. Now, as to Alexandrian forms, it
is well said, that if they had been introduced into the New
Testament by Egyptian copyists, how comes it that the classical
MSS. written in that country are free from them? And as these
forms were in the LXX. long before the New Testament was
written, would it not be remarkable if Greek formed so much on
the model of that version, exhibited no trace of them? Does not
this very consideration go some way to show that the MSS. which
are wholly free from these inflections must have been improved by
non-Alexandrian scribes? And if rusticity of Greek be a distin-
guishing mark of Egyptian copies, does not this, at least, show
* Various facts and arguments which were mentioned in preceding sections have
been treated, of necessity, in greater detail in this. A mere reference to what had
been previously said would not have been sufficient here, where the subjects are more
formally taken up.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 179
that there could have been no general attempt to produce elegance
of diction? Of course they were exposed to the same liability of
mistake as ever has been the common lot of transcribers; but it
would be as little reasonable to bring such formal accusations
against the compositors and correctors of a London printing-oflice,
as against the Alexandrian copyists as a body. In ancient times,
when Greek literature had become diffused, it was as natural to
obtain copies of books in that tongue from Alexandria, as it is
now to obtain English works from London.*
It has often been said that the uniform text of the later MSS. is
an evidence in its favour, and that thus the variations of the oldest,
not only from the more recent, but also from one another, show
that we cannot rely on them as authorities. If this had been a
fact, it might have been sufficiently met by another which is more
striking ; for it has never been even alleged that the later Greek
MSS. are so uniform in their text as are the later Latin; and yet
the recent MSS. of the Vulgate agree in perhaps two thousand
readings, differing from what Jerome could have given, and also
from the few very ancient copies which have been transmitted.
And thus the Latin MSS. supply us with an argument from
analogy ; the mass of the recent copies contain a text notoriously
and demonstrably incorrect; the few oldest MSS. supply the
means of emendation ; and these few must be followed if we think
of giving the genuine text of Jerome’s version. It is quite true
that the mass of the Greek copies do agree in readings which
differ from the ancient; and then the advocates of numerical
majority point triumphantly to the proportion in favour of the
modern reading as being ninety or a hundred to one. Transfer
the ground of discussion to the Latin, and then the odds may be
increased tenfold ; for in cases of the most absolutely certain cor-
ruption of recent ages, the proportion of MSS. in their favour will
* But does not Strabo charge booksellers of Alexandria with multiplying errors
by employing, for the sake of gain, incompetent copyists? (Strab. Geog. p. 609, ed.
Casaubon.) No doubt he does; and he makes the same accusation against those of
Rome; for, in the first century, Rome and Alexandria were the two literary centres
of the two languages of the east and west. Some at Alexandria were careless, but
this is very different from making a general charge, or from comparing Alexandria with
some other Greek city. If I say that there are London printers who employ incom-
petent compositors, I may state a fact, but I do not condemn either the masters or
the men zz a body, much less do I charge London books with general inaccuracy.
180 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
be perhaps nine hundred or a thousand to one. So futile is an
argument drawn from numerical preponderance. And the text of
Latin MSS. has been found to be almost a criterion of their age ;
the century to which they belong has been shown to present a
singular relation to their actual text.
But although the later MSS. often show a general agreement in
favour of some reading opposed to the most ancient, it is not
strictly true that these more modern copies contain an uniform
text: Mr. Scrivener’s recent collation of MSS. of the Gospels*
has proved this, and has swept away at once and for ever the
argument drawn from the supposed unity of text. The recent
copies have their own kind of variations, so have the ancient; the
real question is, ‘‘ Within the limits of which class are we to
seek for the genuine and original text ?”
In speaking of the modern copies as opposed to the ancient,
I mean the cursive documents in general as opposed to the MSS.
anterior to the seventh century. The copies from the seventh
century to the tenth, that is, the later uncials, accord in text, in
part with one, in part with the other, of these classes. And
besides this general division there are cursive MSS., as I have
again and again said, which accord with the ancient text; and
there are also cursive MSS. which, though generally agreeing in
text with the mass, contain lections, here and there, such as are
found in the ancient copies. These facts do not in the least inter-
fere with the general phenomena of transcriptural mutation, nor
with its general course in one direction. They only show that
there were exceptions, but just such exceptions as prove the rule.
It cannot be doubted that, in the Latin New Testament, the text
current before the time of Jerome gradually gave place to his’
version or revision; and yet the Colbert MS., containing one of
the purest ante-hieronymian texts of the Gospels (edited by Saba-
tier), was written in the twelfth century. Just so Greek MSS. of
* “A full and exact collation of about twenty Greek MSS. of the Holy Gospels,
(hitherto unexamined) deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library
at Lambeth. etc., with a Critical Introduction. By the Rev. Frederick Henry Scri-
vener, M.A.,” Cambridge, 1853. The MSS., the collations of which are given in this
volume, are mostly in cursive letters, and but few among them contain really ancient
readings. The book is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the character of
the later MSS., of which so few have been carefully examined. Mr. Scrivener seems
to have used scrupulous accuracy.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 181.
the ancient class of text were occasionally written in later ages;
although the general course was the same; and the new vari-
ations introduced demonstrate that there was no established,
uniform, Constantinopolitan text.*
It is granted freely that the oldest copies differ among them-
selves,—that none of them is perfect ; but these considerations do
not take away their value as critical authorities: they are certainly
monuments of what was read and used in the time when they
were written; and from their contents, in connection with other
ancient evidence, it is for criticism, in a Christian spirit and with
proper intelligence, to seek the materials for reconstructing that
* Mr. Scrivener, after showing how MSS. of a more recent date contain readings
less modernised than some that are older, adds, “ Examples such as these can be mul-
tiplied almost indefinitely, even with our most imperfect acquaintance with the great
majority of cursive records: and, to my mind, such phenomena are absolutely fatal to
the scheme of those persons who have persuaded themselves that a process of gradual
change and corruption of the inspired writings was silently yet steadily flowing on-
wards in the same direction during the middle ages, till the sacred originals passed
from the state exhibited in the most venerable uncials A B C, or even D, into the
stereotyped standard of the Constantinopolitan church, whereof our codices 1 m n
[Mr. S.’s notation of three of those which he collated] may be looked upon as fair
representatives. Thus easily is rooted up from its foundations the system which
would revise the text of the New Testament on the exclusive authority of the most
ancient books.” Introd. p. lxviij.
I admit the phenomena noticed (as I have said above), but I do not see that they
prove in the slightest degree that the course of corruption did not advance in the same
general direction. There was no Byzantine standard, and thus ancient readings at
times re-appeared. The note of victory is sounded, however, too soon in the close of
the above paragraph; for all that has been shown is that some modern copies may be
valuable auxiliaries to the most ancient—a thing which the advocates of “the system”
to which Mr. 8. refers would fully admit. Ifthe expression “ exclusive authority of the
most ancient books” has been used, it has been in connection with the fact that the
proof that a reading #s ancient, is that it has some ancient voucher; and that an ancient
MS. contains an ancient text is a mere axiom. But what later MS. could Lachmann
have used as a collateral witness of the ancient Greek Text? Was there one cursive
document of that class of which a trustworthy collation was available? That he
would have valued the aid of Cod. 1. in the Gospels, and of 33 throughout, in spite of
their more recent date, might be seen to be certain from the use which he made of
the Latin Colbert MS. of the twelfth century. But I need not state this as a matter
of inference : for Lachmann never saw a full collation of 33 till he saw mine (as indeed
none had ever been made), and inexamining it he judged it to be a sincere monu-
ment of the ancient text (though written in the eleventh century), and he quite
approved of the use which I intended to make of it ; for he himself considered that it
deserved a place beside the older uncials as much as does the Latin Codex Colbertinus
beside the ancient Codices Vercellensis and Veronensis.
The “system” to which Mr. Scrivener refers is really that of upholding proved
ancient authority; it is maintained that this should be exclusively followed; and
this principle is untouched by any peculiarities of the later MSS.
182 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
fabric of revealed truth which has been in some measure dis-
figured by the modern copyists and their followers, the early
printers.
But if any choose to advocate the mass of the modern copies as
authorities, the difficulty is great; not only because of their in-
ternal variations, but also from the fact that such an advocate will
find that his witnesses stand opposed to every one of the most
ancient copies, also to the ancient versions as a class, and not only
to these, but to every Christian writer of the first three centurics
of whom we have any considerable remains.
In saying these things, I do not undervalue the MSS. in general :
as monuments of the history of the text they are very important ;
and not unfrequently some which are not amongst the most
ancient are of great value as collateral witnesses; but I do protest
against the whole notion of numerical criticism as opposed to
ancient authority, be that notion defended by whom it may, or in
whatever mode.
It has been indeed said that the quiet monks and others who
copied the MSS. from the seventh century and onward, had no
desire of literary pride, and that thus they may probably in an
honest and good spirit have copied faithfully what was before
them; while, on the contrary, the Alexandrian scribes, having
a certain pride of literary elegance, might have mended and
improved what they were transcribing. To this supposition I
reply, Ist. That the later copyists did alter and change in many
ways, from the common principles of human infirmity, what was
before them; 2nd. That the Alexandrian scribes retain rusticity
of form far more than their monkish successors, so that the latter
might be supposed to be more studious of elegance; 3rd. That
this surmise, if it were a good argument, would apply to the
Latin as well as to the Greek, and there it signally fails: and thus
nothing can be built upon it. Let it be remembered that no set
of copyists are held up as infallible; that mistakes were made in
early ages; that greater mistakes were often made in trying to
correct them ; that the mprovement of different passages (especially
the synoptical Gospels) by the introduction of what is found in
parallel places, spread widely even before the end of the fourth
century ; while, however, the host of MSS. are those which con-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 183
tain the most manifest proofs of this mode of improvement. Thus
to be at all certain that the readings which we advance are ancient,
we must place ourselves on evidence which is certainly such.
And this is called innovation: and it often seems as if words
sufficiently hard could not be found to stigmatise the temerity of
those who thus have recourse to the ancient documents. A col-
lator or critic is sometimes treated as if he made the variations
whose existence he points out; an ancient reading is called his, as
if he had invented it conjecturally: it is just as if, in fact, a
physician were guilty of causing the illness whose working he
detects, and to which he seeks to apply the fitting remedy.
Those, too, who are not so devoid of intelligence as to argue
thus, speak just as strongly of critics who recur to ancient autho-
rity. If a passage which has hardly a trace of evidence (or none)
in its favour is not inserted, an editor is accused of expunging or
cancelling it; his ‘‘ rashness,” ‘‘ tampering” with Holy Scripture,
making ‘needless alterations,” ‘‘ want of reverence” for God’s
word, ‘‘ reckless innovation,” etc., etc., are stigmatised in the se-
verest manner. And if scholars use such language, because
others have abstained from preferring the evidence of the fifteenth
century to that of the fifth, we need not marvel that those less
informed have re-echoed the cry; as if criticism on ancient
grounds were really a (hardly covert) attack on Scripture, and on
the sacred truths revealed therein. Serious discussion of a ques-
tion is almost excluded, when a moral stigma is endeavoured to
be affixed by anticipation to those who hold one particular opinion,
to which the other party objects.
But Jerome long ago taught textual critics what they must
expect, for not adding to the ancient copies what readers had
found inserted in those that were later. ‘‘ Quis enim doctus
pariter vel indoctus, cum in manus volumen assumserit, et a saliva
quam semel imbibit, viderit discrepare quod lectitat, non statim
erumpat in vocem, me F'ALSARIUM, me clamans esse SACRI-
LEGUM, qui audeam in veteribus libris, addere, mutare, corri-
gere.” (Ad Damasum.)
It is a simple fact that many, learned as well as unlearned, are
afraid of reading a passage at all differently from that to which
they have been accustomed as Holy Scripture; and this feeling of
184 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
indefinite apprehension is a hindrance to their minds in looking
fairly and fully at the evidence or the cases. Their own subjective
feeling hinders them from rightly weighing objective facts: so that
there is even a reluctance to admit TRUTH, although owned to be
such on grounds of overwhelming objective evidence—evidence to
which the judgment is compelled, though with regret, to submit.*
It is to be lamented that the feeling thus exists, even on
the part of some scholars, that recurrence to the most ancient
sources for the text of Scripture deserves to be so condemned and
deprecated, that they hold up critics (conscientious men, it may
be), who press the importance of ancient testimony, as reckless
tnnovators, and they thus lead an unjudging crowd to condemn
them and their labours. ‘‘Sed ego ita existimo, quo majus
crimen sit id, quod ostendatur esse falsum, hoc majorem ab eo
injuriam fieri, qui id confingat. Vault enim magnitudine rei sic
occupare animos eorum qui audiunt, UT DIFFICILIS ADITUS
VERITATI RELINQUATUR.” (Cic. pro. M. Font. v.).
In illustration of the results of appealing to ancient documents
as witnesses of an ancient text, I have already referred to the
difference between the few very ancient MSS. of the Latin Vul-
gate, and vast number of those that are modern; the same thing
is shown in the printed editions of works now revised according
to early authorities, but which were first printed from recent
copies.
* That I have not stated too strongly this unwillingness to surrender subjective
feelings even when absolute evidence compels, is shown, I think, by Mr. Scrivener’s
note on St. Matthew vi. 18: “é 7d davepd ‘ openly,’ is found in all Eng. in Beza and
Castalio; but is omitted by Syr. Vulg. and Campbell, I FEAR correctly,” etc. Why
should there be any FEAR in simply following evidence ? for TRUTH, the truth of God’s
Scripture in its own proper words, is that which has alone on these questions to be
upheld.
The following sentence of Porson (Letters to Travis, pp. 149, 150) is well worthy of
attention: ‘Perhaps you think it an affected and absurd idea that a marginal note
can ever creep into the text; yet I hope you are not so ignorant as not to know that
this has actually happened, not merely in hundreds or thousands, but in millions of
places. Natura (says Daillé) ita comparatum est, ut auctorum probatorum libros
plerique omnes amplos quam breves malint: verentes scilicet, ne quid sibi desit, quod
auctoris vel sit vel esse dicatur. To the same purpose Bengelius, Non facile pro
superfluo aliquid hodie habent complures docti viri (he might have added, omnesque
indocti), eademque mente plerique quondam librarii fuere. From this known pro-
pensity of transcribers to turn everything into text which they found written in the
margin of their MSS., or between the lines, so many interpolations have proceeded,
that at present the surest canon of criticism is, Preferatur lectio brevior.”
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 185
The first text of the LX-X. which obtained a wide and general
currency, was the Aldine (Venice, 1518). This was repeatedly
reprinted and habitually used. About seventy years after this
first appeared, the Roman edition of the LXX. was published
(1586), based on the Codex Vaticanus; how was it that the
Roman text obtained such a currency as to displace the Aldine,*
and to maintain its stand in public estimation for more than two
centuries and a half? How should Protestants have been willing
to concede such an honour to this text which had appeared under
Papal sanction? It gained its ground and kept it, because it was
really an ancient text, such in its general complexion as was read
by the early fathers. The Roman editors shrewdly guessed the
antiquity of their MS. from the form of the letters, etc., and that
too, in an age when Paleography was but little known; they
inferred the character of its text, partly from its age, partly from
its accordance with early citations; and thus, even though they
departed at times inadvertently from their MS., they gave a text
vastly superior to that of the New Testament in common use from
the days of Erasmus. The goodness of the Vatican MS. of the
LXX. has been severely tested, but its value is plainly shown by
the various readings collected and edited by Holmes and Parsons.
Few have studied the critical apparatus of their edition, confused
as it is in arrangement, and in many ways wearying to the reader;
but those who have done so, see how the whole confirms the prin-
ciple of recurrence to ancient MSS. as authority for the ancient
text. I can say this conscientiously, for I have read the whole of
the various readings in Holmes and Parsons’s edition through,
and it all illustrates that principle of recurrence to the ancient
MSS. which should be applied equally to the text of the New
Testament. The modern MSS. of the LXX. in general widely
differ from what was read by the early fathers.
If, then, from one ancient MS. we obtain a text of the LXX.
of known ancient value, why should those who themselves adopt
that text in preference to the Aldine, object to the New Testa-
* The comparative oblivion into which the Aldine text has fallen would be almost
total, if it had not been that Conrad Kircher used it as the basis of his Concordance
to the LXX. Kircher’s Concordance is now little used; but when Trommius (then
aged nearly seventy) undertook an improved Concordance to that version, he made
considerable use of Kircher, and in consequence he employed the Aldine Text himself.
186 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
ment if edited on analogous authority ? And as the Codex Vati-
canus is the basis of the Roman LXX., why may not this same
MS. (in conjunction with other authorities), be equally trusted as
a witness to the ancient text of the New Testament ?
Thus, then, I revert to the principles previously expressed, that
the mass of documents are not to be taken as competent witnesses,
and that some ancient voucher must be sought for every admitted
reading.
In confining the examination to the ancient documents, all
care must be taken rightly to understand their testimony, and to
weigh it in all its particulars. | .
Authorities cannot be followed mechanically ; and thus, where
there is difference of reading amongst the more trustworthy wit-
nesses, all that we know of the nature and origin of various read-
ings, and of the kind of errors to which copyists were liable, must
be employed. But, let it be observed, that discrimination of this
kind is only required when the witnesses differ; for otherwise, we
should fall into the error of determining by conjecture what the
text ought to be, instead of accepting it as it is.
And while all pains and the exercise of a cool judgment should
be employed in estimating the value of evidence, let it never
be forgotten, that just as it is the place of a Christian to look to
God in prayer for his guidance and blessing in all his under-
takings, so may he especially do this as to labours connected with
the text of Scripture. The object sought in such prayer is not
that the critic may be rendered infallible, or that he may discri-
minate genuine readings by miracle, but that he may be guided
rightly and wisely to act on the evidence which the providence of
God has preserved, and that he may ever bear in mind what
Scripture is, even the testimony of the Holy Ghost to the grace of
God in the gift of Christ, and that thus he may be kept from
rashness and temerity in giving forth its text. As God in his
providence has preserved Holy Scripture to us, so can He vouch-
safe the needed wisdom to judge of its text simply on grounds of
evidence.
For my own part, I have that reverence for Holy Scripture,
that so far from feeling timidity as to not receiving as divine,
words or phrases which do not rest on competent authority, my
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 187
fear would always be, lest, on any traditional ground, such readings
should be received as are not supported by evidence. We reject
the Apocrypha in spite of tradition; and there is no want of
reverence in our doing this, for those books are not Scripture ;
just so there is no want of reverence for Scripture, in our not
accepting the modern readings in opposition to the ancient, in-
volve what it may.
Where there is the united evidence of the oldest MSS., ver-
sions, and citations, criticism has no place, for the reading is not
in question.
In passages where testimonies differ, an express statement that
the reading was so and s0, is of very great value.
Thus the express testimony of Origen, that Té we Meyers ayabov ;
is not the reading of Matt. xix. 17, would have very great weight
alone ; for it is decisive of the fact that this was not the reading of
the third century; so that this sentence would be suspicious even
if it were not rejected as it is by the best MSS. and versions;
which, with Origen, read r/ we épwrds mepi Tod ayaGod ; (see the
evidence in full in the preceding Section, p. 133). Such passages
might be multiplied greatly, in which express testimony accords
with the conclusion to which other evidence would have led.
But there may be express testimony which gives a determining
value to conflicting evidence. Thus, in Matt. v. 4, 5, the order
of the benedictions in most copies (as well as the common text)
is, waxdptot of TrevOobvTes.... wax. ot Tpacis xTA. But Origen
(iv. 740) says, évvovay 5¢ Tod TovovTov AawBdvw éemioTHCAas TH
tafe Tov ev TO Kata MartOaiov paxapicpav, év ols weTa TO.
PaKkdploe of TTwYOl TO TVEvMATL, OTL AUTa@V eoTWW 7) BacireEla TOV
ovpavov, éENs yéypartas TO’ waKdplol ol Trpaéis, OTL avTOL KANpO-
Vouncouar THY YAV’ THpEL yap év TOUTOLS OTL TPWTOV MEV TOV WaKa-
pifopévov % Bacirela éote TV olpavav' Sevtépov dé KANpovomn-
cova THY yhv. Now though the only MSS. in favour of this
reading are D, 33, (B C D are the only MSS. of the oldest class
that contain this portion), it is supported by the order of the
Eusebian Canons and Ammonian Sections,* and by the Old Latin
* Ammonius seems, in the third century, to have divided the four Gospels into
sections, placing opposite each other those which were parallel, so as to construct
what is called a harmony. Eusebius so arranged these sections as to throw them
188 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
in all copies (except Cod. Veronensis, and the revised Cod. Brixi-
anus), by the Vulgate, and by the Curetonian Syriac. So that
few as the MSS. are which contain it, this reading was once
widely diffused, and it is maintained by the distinct testimony of
Origen and Eusebius. This express testimony overbalances all
that could be said in favour of the common order of these verses,
as deduced from the other MSS. and versions.
The search after ancient evidence may lead us very far back ;
so far indeed that hardly any existing MS. goes to such antiquity
in its text ; the last referred to is a passage in which only two of
the MSS. contain the demonstrated ancient reading. Now, in
Matt. 1. 18, we know how it was read in the second century from
Trenzeus, who (after having previously cited the words ‘‘ Christi
autem generatio sic erat”) continues, ‘‘ Ceterum potuerat dicere
Mattheus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed previdens Spiritus
Sanctus depravatores, et preemuniens contra fraudulentiam corum,
per Mattheum ait: Christi autem generatio sic erat.” (C. H. lib.
ij. 16. 2.) This is given in proof that Jesus and Christ are one
and the same person, and that Jesus cannot be said to be the
receptacle that afterwards received Christ; for the Christ was
born.
In all such cases it may be supposed. that Irenzus or any other
writer only testifies to what was in his own copy, and therefore
the evidence may go no farther than as relates to that single
exemplar; we may always then inquire whether an express state-
ment has such confirmation as to show that the reading was
all into ten tables, the first containing those portions common to all the Evan-
gelists; the next three those that were common to three of them; the next five
those that were common to two; and the last comprising what was peculiar
to each Gospel. These sections and canons often attest what passages were or
were not read in the third century. In this place the order of the Sections and
Canons as placed by Eusebius in the margin is = (i. e. =, a ; showing that the
26th section (under Canon X) was something peculiar to St. Matthew, namely, paxdpror
ot mpaets ktA; While the 27th section falling under Canon V, contained something com-
mon to Matthew and Luke. A reference to the table shows that it is the 48th section
of St. Luke that answers to the 27th in St. Matthew; the words in St. Luke being the
latter part of vi. 21. Thus in St. Matthew, the clause, paxdproe of mevOodrtes, Ste avror
mapaxAnO@jcovra, answers to that in Luke, paxdpror of KAraiovres viv, dtu yeAdoere. Tran-
scribers have confused the notes of the Canons as they stand in the margin of many
MSS.; but the fable which makes the 27th section of St. Matthew answer to the
48th of St. Luke, corrects the confusion and supplies the ancient evidence.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 189
widely diffused. Let it be remembered that in this place the
common reading is tod dé ‘Incod Xpiorod, while Ireneus main-
tains that "Incod is not in the sentence. The Old Latin and the
Vulgate support Irenzus’s reading, and thus we have full proof
that it was common in the west; and further, the same reading
is found in the Curetonian Syriac, fom Laoa [weet 2 ord.
Thus, then, we have full proof that this reading was also eastern.
But how does the case stand as to MS. authority? Not a single
known MS. supports it.* But while this is owned, it can be
proved that this was once the reading of one of our oldest Greek
MSS., now defective in this passage. The first leaf of the Codex
Beze (D) is gone, but the Latin text on the opposite page pre-
serves the readings; so that it does not admit of reasonable doubt
that that MS. omitted “Ijcod. Thus, then, the statement of
Ireneeus is confirmed by a variety of independent testimony.
Lachmann marks the Jrenean reading =, as being equal to the
common which stands in his text: it is thus that he distinguishes
those readings which are (in his judgment) as well attested as
what he admits into his text, but which he does not introduce
either into the context or the inner margin, because he considers
that they have no ancient Greek authority for the actual words.
There is one important exception to the general consent of
MSS. in favour of the common form of the text; for the Vatican
MS. reads (as cited by Birch), tod 5& Xpictod “Incod:t this
subtracts greatly from any supposed common agreement of MSS.
on the passage. It must be remembered that transcribers con-
tinually added "Incods to Xpioros, and vice versa, from the mere
habit of associating the names; hence it is not remarkable that it
should have been added here: the position, too, of “Incod here
between the article and the adjective Xpiotod, seems to belong to
the time when this had become a sort of united proper name: in
* Tischendorf indeed cites Cod. 71 in its favour; this seemed to be a mistake from
the silence of all others who had examined this MS.; and now that Mr. Scrivener has
included this copy (Cod. Ephesius at Lambeth) in his “ Collation of the Gospels,” we
may be sure that this reading is noé there.
+ Lachmann refers to Origen iii. 9654 as an authority for the same reading as is found
in the Vatican MS. The passage occurs in Jerome’s Latin translation of Origen’s
28th Homily on St. Luke, where the words are, “Christi autem Jesu generatio sic
erat.” This is rather doubtful ground for citing Origen’s authority, especially as in
the Greek fragments of this very homily we find the common reading.
190 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the New Testament this collocation is only found in passages
certainly erroneous in reading, or else suspicious in the extreme.
If we were arguing on grounds of internal evidence it might
well be asked, How would the phrase be understood, with "Inaod
between the art. and the adj., giving the collocation its full force
and meaning? for then ‘‘the adjective does not distinguish the
substantive from any other, but from itself in other circum-
stances ;” so that the adjunct Christ would not distinguish the
Jesus here spoken of from the many others who bore it, but
it would indicate that our blessed Lord had been born in some
other manner, and that now the Evangelist said ‘“ the birth of
Jesus as the Christ was thus.”
In another place (C. H. ij. 11, 8) Irenzeus cites the same text,
and then in the Old Latin version it stands of course in the
same form. It is, however, a curious illustration of the manner
in which transcribers have moulded citations in the writings
of the fathers into the form of reading with which they were
themselves familiar, that we find in the Greek text of this pas-
sage of Ireneeus, as preserved in the citation of Germanus, Patri-
arch of Constantinople, the words given as read in the common
Greek copies,—a reading which Ireneus repudiates as expressly
as any one can a reading of which he never had heard.
In Matt. xxiv. 36, after ovdé of dyyedXou TMV ovpavev, B D, and
some versions, add ovdé 6 vids (as in Mark); the absence of this
clause from ancient Greek copies, especially those of Origen and
Pierius, is so attested by Jerome,* that we might even consider the
evidence irrespective of the MSS. which have come down to us.
And thus we may safely regard these words as introduced from
the parallel place in Mark by harmonising copyists: the non-
insertion is supported then by MSS. (once existing) in the third
century, as well as by the Vulgate, the Peshito and Harclean
Syriac, the Memphitic and Thebaice.
Sometimes an early variation of reading is stated (which still
exists in our copies) so fully, as to give the opportunity of com-
paring the ancient express testimonies with those still extant, and
* “Tn quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, neque Filius: quum in Grecis, et
maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum.” Hieron.
in loc. (ed. Vallarsii. vij. 199).
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 191
then forming a judgment on the whole evidence. Thus, in 1 Cor.
xv. 51, there are three readings the early existence of which can
be shown from Jerome (Ad Minervium et Alexandrum) and
Origen (as cited by Jerome, and as reading differently in one
of his extant works).
I. wavres ob xoupnOnodpeba, travres Sé adraynoopeba.
we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.
Il. wdvres xowunOnodpeba, ov Travtes 5é adraynoopeBa.
we shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed.
IIL. wavres dvacrnaopeba, od mravtes dé dddaynoopcba.
we shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed.
The jirst of these readings is nearly the same as that of the
common text (which however introduces pév); it is supported
(besides this ancient testimony) by B D*** J K 37 and most
later MSS. The Pesh. and Harcl. Syr. Memph. Goth. and some
fathers.
The second reading is that of C F G (17) [and of A nearly],
the Arm. and /£th., and some fathers.
The third is the reading of D*, and the Latin Vulg., and
of many Latin fathers.
Thus the evidence for each of the three readings is strong ;
but we can treat the question on the same grounds as if we had
lived in the third century, for to that point the early testimony
carries us.
Does not the first of the readings then possess the best claim
on our attention? For the connection is such that the Apostle
immediately speaks of the sets who will not sleep, but will be
changed when the trumpet sounds at the coming of the Lord.
From this reading I consider the others to have sprung; the
expression mdvtTes ov KolwnOnoouefa seems to have been mis-
apprehended, as though it meant ‘ none of us will sleep” (just as
mas in New Testament Greek, when followed by a negative, is
sometimes equivalent to ovde/s): it is no wonder that the negative
should have been transposed in order to avoid this seemingly
impossible statement. Origen in one place (i. 589 f) reads od
TUuVTES Kol. SO as to connect the negative with the whole of the
sentence.
1 Cor. xu. 3, Jerome (ed. Vall. vij. 517 ©) mentions the same
192 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
diversity of reading, xavOjowpat and Kavyjowpuat, which we
still find: an error on the one side or the other of part of a
letter. That the former is the ¢rue reading need not be doubted.
Perhaps the rarity of a subj. fut. helped the introduction of the
latter of these two readings, as a means of avoiding a form which
sounded strange.
Great care must be taken not to be hasty in assuming that we
have express testimony to a reading; all particulars of the evi-
dence must first be weighed.
In Matt. vii., Mark v., and Luke viii., we have narrations of the
miracle of our Lord in casting out devils across the sea of Galilee,
in which there is a great diversity as to the name of the region,
Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes.
In Matt. vill. 28, the evidence stands thus :—
Tadsapnvav BC MA and some more recent copies, Pesh. and
Harel. (txt.) Syr.
Tepyeonvov LX KSUV (and C*** in mg.) 1 (and most
copies), Memph. Goth. Arm.
Tepacnvav D apparently, though now defective, because this
is the reading of the Latin. Old Latin, the Vulg. Harel. Syr.
in mg. (codd. 33 and 69 hiant).
In Mark v. 1, the authorities stand thus :
Tepacnvav BD. Old Latin; Vulg.
Tepyeonvav LAU 1, 33, and later MSS. Harel. Syr. in mg.
Memph. Arm. Ath.
Tadapnvrov ACEFGHKM (and SVe sil.), 69, and most
copies. Pesh. and Harcl. (txt.) Syr. Goth.
In Luke viii. 26, thus :—
Tepaonvav B C* D, Old Lat. Vulg. Theb. Harel. Syr. mg.
Tepyeonvav C** PL X, 1, 33, ete. Memph. Arm. /Mth. Jer.
Syr.
oer AEF G H K MA Gr. (and SVe sil.) 69 Pesh.
Hel. (txt.) and Curt. Syr. (Curt. Syr. is defective in the other
places.) |
The statement of this evidence seems to show that Tadapnvav
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 193
is the best supported reading in Matt., and Tepacnvav in Luke,
and (probably) in Mark. The great variety of reading in the
versions seems to have sprung from the manner in which not
only in MSS. but also in versions, parallel passages were altered
from one another. But a testimony from Origen (iv. 140) has
been quoted, as if it proved that T'epacnvav was the reading in
Matt. It does seem to show that Tepyeonvav (or Tepyecaiwv)
was a reading then unknown; and it has been judged that this
reading originated in the conjecture expressed by Origen. He
says—
TO pévrovye tyuapticOa év tots “EXAnviKois avtiypados TA
TEpl TOV OVOMATwY TOANAXOD, Kal dd TOUTwWY dv TIS TreLaOeEin EV
Tois evaryryeAlots* 4) Trept Tovs Ud THV SaLpoviov KaTaxpnuvitopé-
vous Kal év TH Oadrdoon cupTrvuyopévous Yoipous oiKovouia avaryé-
ypamrra: yeyovévar ev TH yopa TOV Tepacnvav. Tépaca dé tis
"ApaBias éoti mods, ote Oddaccay ovTE NluvnV TANTIOV ExoUTA.
Kal ovK dv ovTws Tpopaves Yrevdos Kai evéXeyKTOV OL EvaryyedtoTal
eipyKerav, avopes emlpmedas yuweoKovTes TA Trept TV "Iovdaiav.
émrel Kal €v OALyoLs evpopev ‘ eis THY yOpav TOV Tadapnvav,” Kat
™pos TOUTO AexTéov. T'ddapa yap rors pév éote THs 'Iovdaias,
mTept nv Ta SiaBonta Ocpwa tvyyave, Aiuvn Sé Kpnuvots TrapKet-
pévn ovdaueas eat év ait i) Odracoa. “Adda Tépyeoa, ad’ as
ot Tepyecaios, Todus apxaia rept THv viv KaXoupévnv TiBepidda
ALuYHV, TEpl Vv KPNLVOS TrapaKeipevos TH AimVN, a’ ov SelkvUTAaL
TOUS Yolpovs UTTO TOV Salovev karaBeBAiodas. cpunveveras dé
» Té beh deg mapone éxBeShanorov, ETMVULOS OVTA TaYA adi
TUK@S OU Tept TOV gomnija “reroujeact TAPAKANécavTes AVTOV
peTaPhvat €x TOV Opiwv avTaV oi TAV YolpwY ToNiTaL.
The geographical difficulty need not be discussed here, though
it seems clear enough that Origen had no authority for the
mention of Gergasenes in this narration, and that this word may
have obtained its place to avoid a difficulty, real or supposed.
But is there any ground in this passage for the assumption that
Origen had before his mind only Matt. viii.? This remark
occurs in his Commentary on John, when discussing the meaning
and (what he considers to be) the corruption of proper names.
He refers to the narration, but not to any one of the three
Evangelists by name; hence I regard the application of this
14
194 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
passage, as though it were an express testimony to the text of
St. Matthew, to be a mistake; it is a good evidence that the name
was sometimes read Gadarenes sometimes Gerasenes, and AGAINST
Gergesenes as not being then a known reading. But this passage
cannot be, I believe, appropriated to any one of the Evangelists
exclusively.
In Matt. xxvil. 16 and 17, some few copies prefix "Inaobv to
BapaB Pay as though this had been the name of that malefactor,
and that Barabbas (son of Abbas) was the surname or appellation
merely. For this reading the authority of Origen has been cited
from a passage no longer extant in Greek, but which stands
thus in the Latin Interpreter of his Commentary on Matthew :—
‘* Habebat autem tune vinctum insignem, qui dicebatur Barabbas.
Congregatis ergo eis, dixit eis Pilatus: Quem vultis dimittam vobis
Jesum Barabbam, an Jesum qui dicitur Christus? Sciebat enim
quod per invidiam tradiderunt eum. In multis exemplaribus non
continetur, quod Barabbas etiam Jesus dicebatur, et forsitan recte,
ut ne nomen Jesu conveniat alicul iniquorum.” (ii. p. 918.)
Now this does not give any ground for citing Origen for this
reading in both the verses, for (as Lachmann, i. xxxviij. very
properly pointed out) Origen’s interpreter only mentions Jesus
Barabbas in the words of Pilate, ver. 17; and further, Origen
himself (i. p. 316) quotes that sentence without ’Incodv: he cites
these words with rov before BapaSBav, as now read in B (tiva
Oérxere tov S00 arrodvcw vpiv; tov BapaBBav } “Incobv Tov
Aeyouevov Xpiorov). A scholion in certain MSS. (sometimes
ascribed to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch) also speaks of ancient
copies which gave the words of Pilate Incotv tov BapaBBav. If
then this supposed ancient authority were unexceptionable, still it
would relate to ver. 17 only; but it has been shown how doubt-
ful it is in itself, and that Origen himself cites there the contrary
reading; and thus the inquiry arises, What existing evidence is
there for such a reading? In ver. 16, ‘Incodv BapaBBay is found
in 1 4 prima manu, and two other copies; also in another, & cor-
rectore: also in the Armenian and Jerusalem Symiac versions.
In ver. 17, Incodv tov BapaSPav is the reading of 1 4 prima
manu, and of the two above mentioned which agree with it; and
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 195
a similar reading (though perhaps without rov) is given by the
corrector in the fourth:* the same two versions support the
reading here. If, however, the authority of Origen’s interpreter
be pleaded in the one verse, it should be in the other also; and
thus the insertion of "Incodv in ver. 16, must not be admitted :
and further, if this interpreter is a good witness that some copies
contained this name in ver. 17, he is equally competent to testify
that some copies, and those too, perhaps, in his opinion, prefer-
able, were then without it. Thus the adoption of this reading in
both verses, involves a great inconsistency. Let it be freely
admitted that, in the early centuries, some copies read, in ver. 17,
atorvow tpiv ’Incodv BapaBPav (or ’Incodv tov Bap.). This
need not be felt to be the slightest difficulty: it might have
arisen, cither from a copyist taking the words which follow (omit-
ting at first BapaBPav ), and then, correcting himself in part,
without erasing the word which he had written; or it might have
sprung still more easily from a repetition of the two last letters of
tiv, which would form the contraction IN for Incodv. Thus,
ATIOAYCQYMINTONBAPABBAN
ATIOAYCQYMININTONBAPABBAN
This slight mistake is all that would be needed to introduce
the reading. Few, perhaps, are aware how often errors of this
kind arose in the ancient, undivided writing, from the accidental
repetition of a few letters : indeed, the name Jesus has found its
way in MSS. into many places simply from this cause: after the
pronoun AYTOIG, the three last letters having been repeated,
AYTOIGOIG, this has been read as the contraction for avrois 6
*Inaods.
After the marginal scholion already noticed had been appended
to certain copies, it can be no cause for surprise that the name
*Incodv was inserted (at full length as in Cod. 1, and not as a
contraction) in some few copies in both verses.
Thus slight are the grounds on which some would apply the
* Scholz’s 299: but he leaves us in uncertainty as to this; for he incorrectly quotes
the other three MSS. in ver. 17, without noticing that they insert roy; in this Tischen-
dorf has followed Scholz ; and as he inserts the word ’Iygodv in his text in both verses,
the want of accuracy as to the wording of his authorities is of all the more conse-
quence.
196 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
notion of ‘‘ explicit ancient testimony” to this passage, and thus
important is it to sif¢ such testimony. Lachmann well asks, how
could any suppose that if the evangelist had written “Incotv Bap-
aBfay in verses 16 and 17, he could have expressed himself (in
verse 20), of d€ dpyvepels Kal ot mpecBvTepor erretcav Tors GyAous
iva aitnowvta Tov BapaBPBav, tov 6é IHSOLN arorécwow.
It may be fully admitted, that ancient authorities may agree in
upholding a reading which cannot be the true one. In every
passage, however, where this is supposed, the whole case must be
examined, so as to see whether there is really something incon-
gruous in the ancient reading, or whether the objection springs
from subjective feeling, and from that alone. If there is a certain
error, let us next inquire if any means of correction are supplied,
and if evidence does not furnish us with such, then we must avoid
having recourse to the modern conjecture which recent traditional
copies might supply. Better by far is it to preserve an ancient
work of art which bears the marks of the injuries of time, than to
submit it to the clumsy hands of some mere workman who would
wish to mend it. If somewhat defaced, it might still bear testi-
mony to the genius of the artist whose mind conceived it, and
whose hand wrought it;—but, if unskilfully repaired, the original
design must of necessity be yet more defaced and obscured; so
that a true judgment could scarcely be formed of its original
excellence.
But at all times let the objections to an ancient reading be
weighed, and let it be seen whether they have not simply sprung
from some traditional notion as to what the meaning of a passage
ought to be. Thus, in 2 Tim. iv. 1, the common text runs thus,
Stapaptupopar | ody eyo] év@rriov Tod Oeod Kai [Tod Kupiov| 'Incod
Xpictod Tod pédrovtTos Kpiverw Cavtas Kal vexpovs Kata THY eTt-
ddveav adtod Kal tv Bactrelav avtod: in our English version,
‘“‘T charge [thee] therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ,
who shall judge the quick and dead at his appearing and his
kingdom.” It is admitted that the words ody éy@ and Tod Kupiov
(placed within brackets above) are not genuine ; and also the best
authorities have Xpiotod before ’Incobd: but, besides these differ-
ences, the best authorities have cal tiv émid. instead of kata
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 197
tiv émup. And this last-mentioned variation has been pointed at
as devoid of sense. But whence does the supposed difficulty
arise? Entirely from the meaning ¢radttionally assigned to d:a-
paptvpouat, which has been taken as though it expressed a charge
given to Timothy, for which purpose ‘‘ thee” has been added in
translating. But d:awaprvpouae means far more fitly, ‘I testify,”
‘‘T bear witness,” than ‘I charge,” and especially so in such a
connection as this: see Acts xx. 21, 24. Of course, it is fully
admitted that such a phrase as ‘I testify that” such a thing should
be done, may, in its ultimate result, be equivalent to ‘‘ I charge
that”; here, however, the case is wholly different. The following
is then the form of the verse, as found in the oldest and best
Greek and Latin copies :—
Atapapripopat évsriov ToD Meod Kat Xprorod ‘Incod, tov péAAovtos Kpivew
Cavras Kal vexpovs, Kal THY éripaveray avTod Kal THY BactAclav aiTod.
‘* Testificor coram Deo et Christo Jesu, gui judicaturus est vivos ac mor-
tuos, et adventum ipsius et regnum ejus.”’
‘“‘T bear witness in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to
judge the quick and dead, both to His appearing and His king-
dom.”’
Thus the ancient copies really contain a very good meaning,
and one which would, no doubt, have been seen at once, if it had
not been obscured by a kind of traditional misapprehension. To
this it may be added, that the order of the words in the Greek, as
thus corrected, being somewhat opposed to modern idiom, may
have aided in perpetuating the misapprehension.
Sometimes the reading of a passage which is supposed to con-
tain something incongruous, is not merely that of the ancient
copies, but also of so many others as to be perhaps the numerical
majority. Thus, in Luke xiv. 5, our Lord says, in the common
text, ‘‘ Which of you shall have an ass or an ox (dvos 4 Bods)
fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the
sabbath day?”
But, instead of évos, the reading vids is found in(A) BEG H
M 8 (U) V A, with many later copies (in A U preceded by the
article 6); the same reading has been cited from the Peshito and
Harclean Syriac (to which I may now add the Curetonian Syriac
198 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
ajoZ of ojD), the Thebaic, and two copies of the Old Latin
(corrected).
IIpé8arov is the reading of D; while évos, as found in the
common text, is that of K L X, the Old Latin; the Vulg., Memph.,
Arm., Ath. The other ancient MSS. not cited by name are here
defective, as is the Gothic version.
That vids 7% Bods is the best-supported reading is most certain;
évos seems to have sprung from Luke xii. 15, where our Lord is
also defending his having healed on the sabbath, saying, ‘‘ Doth
not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass (ror
Bobv avtod 7 Tov évov) from the stall, and lead him away to water-
ing?” Here we have dévos so connected with Bods on the subject
of the sabbath, that it would be surprising indeed if some copyists
had not introduced the word into this second passage; translators,
also, would have the same tendency quite as strongly; for they
ever sought to make intelligible what they rendered; and vids
might be as much a difficulty to them as it has been to some later
eritics. IIpoBarov, as found in D, seems to be simply another
correction, taken from the ‘‘ one sheep” (apéBaroyv év) falling into
the pit on the sabbath, Matt. xii. 11.
And yet the reading uids has been opposed by many, who have
thought that almost any conjecture is admissible in such a case.
Michaelis says (ii. 394), ‘‘ The first editors of the Greek Testa-
ment so sensibly felt the impropriety of the reading vids 4 Bods,
Luke xiv. 5, that they unanimously inserted évos, though they
found it not ina single MS. It is true that they had the autho-
rity of the Vulgate, but even there the alteration had probably
been made from mere conjecture.” It is probable that Michaelis
mistook in thinking that the early editors did not find évos in any
of their copies; but still he approved of this, which he considered
to be a purely conjectural reading of theirs. It seems, in fact, to
be a conjecture of an earlier period.
Mill had suggested, that for vids we should read OI: and,
though Lachmann of course inserted vids in his text, yet he men-
tions this conjecture most approvingly in the Prolegomena to his
second volume, page vij. He says, ‘ Luke xiv. 5. tivos tuav TS
(or rather O T3) % Bods eis dpéap meceitas ; that which pleased
the early correctors is devoid of skill, namely, to substitute dvos or
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 199
apoBarov. Mill was most true in his conjecture OLS. For I
prefer writing dis rather than o/s, a form perhaps too Attic, and
which by the ancients was not written ds.”
Very similar conjectures have been put forth by a writer in the
Edinburgh Review,* who traces however the reading vids or 6 uids
to the Latin ovis. This writer says that the reading vids is ‘ ob-
viously an absurd one,” ‘‘ a senseless reading,” etc.
But this conjecture has not nearly as much to recommend it as
that of Mill and Lachmann: it is complicated; and probably the
writer would not have thought of it, and afterwards believed it to
be so certain, if he had not been engaged in maintaining a new
theory, on the supposed Latinising of the most ancient Greek
MSS. (on this subject a word presently).
If we had not the most ancient MSS. as witnesses, Mill’s con-
* Edinburgh Review, No. CXCI., July 1851, p. 34. “Luke xiv.5. The reading of
the Textus Receptus is, rivos ipa dvos } Bots eis dpéap mecetrar; if there were no varia-
tions in the MSS., there would be nothing here but what might be expected. The
two animals, ‘the ass’ and ‘the ox, are continually coupled together in the Old
Testament, and therefore may be naturally expected in connection with one another
here. But how to account for the extraordinary variation of the older Greek MSS.?
With two exceptions [this is not quite correct: see above] the uncial codices all have
the reading rivos ipav vids 7 Bods eis ppéap mevetrac; ‘ Which of you shall have a Son or
an ox fall into a pit ?’—a reading which is obviously an absurd one, but which is
sanctioned not only by a large number of uncial MSS., but by some versions and
ecclesiastical writers. Of the two exceptions, the one is the Vatican Codex [this is
an erroneous statement; the Alexandrian MS. probably is meant, but that is not
alone] which has 6 vids (a reading which would witness against itself by the article,
even if there were nothing suspicious about vids); and the other the Codex Beze,
which furnishes a clue to the whole difficulty. That MS. has rivos e& ipav mpdBarov %
Bods cis $péap mecetrar; The Latin equivalent of zpéfarov (ovis) being written in the
margin of a Greek MS. by way of explanation of the word, was, no doubt, taken by
transcribers for a Greek word erroneously spelt, and indicating an alternative read-
ing. One probably thought the initial letter forced out of its proper place, and that
for ous was to be read vids. Another, taking the initial letter for the article, thought
that the o of the last syllable had been omitted, and that by ours was meant 6 vids, the
reading of the Vatican [read Alexandrian] Codex. Whether 6évos is an arbitrary
correction of the senseless reading vids, or whether there were two very early alter-
native readings, tivos judv mpdBarov } Bods, and rivos ipav vos 7 Bods, we will not pretend
to determine. But we think no one, whose attention has been once called to the
matter, will doubt for an instant that the reading rivos icv vids Bods (which has far
more weighty MS. authority than any other) grew up in the way we have described,
through the intervention of a Latin version.”
To this I say, in the words of a German of the last century, on a different subject,
“Then I am that no one”: even if a conjecture had been needful and justifiable, why
should we wander to the Latin for ovis, when the Greek tongue itself supplies us
with O12? To do this, would be like making an immense circuit to reach a point
near home.
200 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
jecture might have had much in its favour: for the later of the
uncial codices do so confuse vowels, as to exchange OI and TY:
thus gos and ov are confounded; and so ots might have been
written vs, identical in letters with the contraction us for vids.
But the oldest MSS. are free from vowel changes such as this, and
besides, the versions do not support the word sheep (be the Greek
dis or mpoBarov) in the passage.
The investigation then shows, that, without license of conjec-
ture, the reading vids cannot be rejected: is it, then, so absurd
and senseless as has been asserted? Let the whole context be exa-
mined, instead of narrowing the question just as if we had to
inquire, whether we should have expected the collocation ‘son or
ox”?
Our Lord is here speaking of the sanctification of the sabbath,
which the Pharisees deemed that he had violated by healing on
that day. Now the law of the sabbath, as given in the decalogue,
Deut. v. 14, runs thus: “ In it thou shalt not do any work, thou,
nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy
maid-servant, nor thine OX, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle.”
This law, then, is divided into two parts; the former relating to
the rest of the persons, the latter to that of the animals of him to
whom it is addressed. At the head of the former stands the son,
of the latter stands the or. But, though persons and animals
were alike to rest, yet, if either had fallen into a well, our Lord
shows (in full conformity with the decisions of the Jewish doctors,
so that no one could answer a word), that he should be delivered
from this danger and inconvenience, even on the sabbath; and
similarly had he acted in healing the man that had the dropsy.
Was there, then, any thing strange in his referring to the son and
the ox in the very terms of the law of Moses, as the heads of the
two classes whose rest was commanded? ‘* Which of you shall
have a SON or an OX fallen into a pit, and will not straightway
pull him out on the sabbath day?” Though you are commanded
to let them rest, yet, on emergency, you may act for their welfare.
The article in the Edinburgh Review, to which allusion has
just been made, repeats the charge of Latinising against the oldest
MSS., and not against these only, but also sometimes (as in the
passage just given) against even the numerical majority. A new
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 201
theory is, however, brought forward, as explaining and accounting
for the alleged ‘‘ Latinising.”
After speaking of ‘‘ the alteration of Greek MSS. from Latin
ones” as a ‘‘ fact,” ‘‘to which it would be desirable that the atten-
tion of scholars should be more carefully directed than has hitherto
been the case,” the Reviewer develops his theory thus: —
‘‘ The main origin of the comparison of Greek MSS. with Latin
ones, is probably to be looked for in the intercourse which took
place between some of the principal ecclesiastics of the Greek
church and the church of Rome, during the time of the Arian
troubles. Among others, Athanasius and his successor Peter, in
the fourth century, and John, also bishop of Alexandria, in the
fifth, passed a considerable time at Rome, and probably brought
from thence not only an intimacy with the Latin language, but
also copies of the Scriptures as used in the Latin churches. Now
nothing would be more natural than for the possessor of any one
of these, when he found a discrepancy between the Greek codex
used in his own church, and his new acquisition, to note the varia-
tion in the margin, either in Latin (as it existed) or in its Greek
equivalent, or perhaps in both; the former for his own satisfac-
tion, the latter for the information of his successors who might not
be ‘ docti sermones utriusque linguz.’”
This theory is then illustrated by three passages: the third of
these has just been mentioned ; the second is thus stated :—
‘‘ Mare. xi.8. The Textus Receptus has zroddol 8é (cal modXol:
BC) Ta dria adtov éctpwoay els THY 6d0v, GAXrou SE aTiBddas
exomTov €x TaV Sévdpwv Kal éotpwoav (éotpwavvuov’ Da b c) eis
Tyv odov. For the last clause, the Vatican Codex (B) has the
variation ado 6€¢ oT1Bdbas Korypavtes ex TOY aypav. Now it is
not at all difficult to conceive how both these readings might be
derived from a common original, if it were not for the strange
discrepancy between dypav and Sévépwv. But these words can
never have been directly interchanged with one another. The
change must have come through a Latin version; ‘ arborum,’ the
translation of dévdpwy, became readily altered into (or taken for)
‘arvorum,’ and the Greek equivalent of this (dypav) was placed
in the margin as an alternative reading to dévdpwv. The true
reading is (we have little doubt) to be gathered from the combi-
202 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
nation of the two sources: Kal 7roAAol TA iuatia abTav EoTpwoav
els THY OOdv, GdXot Se oTLBdbas KoYpavTes Ex TOY Sévdpwv.” (Edin.
Rev. CXCI., July 1851, pp. 33, 34.)
There are a good many questions involved in this ¢heory and its
application. The examples ought themselves to be of the clearest
nature, so as to be legitimate premises for a process of inductive
reasoning ; and they ought, if applied to a particular theory, at
least to involve no impossibility, an anachronism for instance.
To investigate the case before us, the evidence for dypév (instead
of dévdpwv, of the common text) must first be stated: BC LA
(Greek); the Memphitic version as edited by Schwartze, the The-
baic, and the margin of the Harclean Syriac; also Origen twice.
This last-cited authority upsets all connection of this passage with
the Latinising theory now advanced; for, as Origen twice cited
aypav in the third century, it could not have been introduced
through Latin influence in the fourth. ‘‘ The change must have
come through a Latin version,” is only an assertion, requiring
proof, and that is not supplied by a second assertion, that it took
place in a certain manner: and whether ‘‘ these words CAN never
have been directly interchanged,” or not, must depend wholly on
facts: few that have examined various readings are not aware that
the most unaccountable changes have continually taken place—
words have been mistaken for one another, wholly irrespective of
sense or of resemblance. Aévdpwv is a reading which may well
have arisen from an attempt, designed or not, to correct dypor,
the reading which has the support of the best MS. authority, as
well as of good versions, and Origen. For dévépwyr is the reading
of the parallel place Matt. xxi. 8, and a copyist would easily
enough exchange ‘‘cut branches from the fields,” for ‘‘cut branches
from the ¢rees.”* Proclivi scriptioni prestat ardua. The cases in
which one evangelist had been corrected to produce verbal agree-
ment with another, could hardly be over-estimated at the end of
the fourth century.
* The reading S€vSpwv would affix definitely to orBddas (or cro.Bddas) the signification
of branches. But this is not exactly the meaning of orBds, even though it might be
80 applied: “ stuffings of leaves,” or cushions so made, is what the word implies ; so
that here it might mean such herbage as was gathered from the fields to strew before
our Lord. The nature of the case would almost exclude the notion of any branches
being strewed in the way of the ass’s colt, except the small ones covered with fresh
verdure.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 203
The other case brought forward by the Reviewer is Mark i. 41,
where, for the common reading omAayyviobeis, the Codex Beze
(D) has dpyioGeis, and in the Latin zratus (which is found in Cod.
Vercellensis, and one other Latin copy). The Reviewer supposes
that iratus came from miseratus, misread in some Latin copy, and
that dpyioels sprang from a retranslation into Greek. This may
possibly be the origin, but even then we might ask for some proof
that any Latin copies ever read miseratus; and it would be vain
to argue from a peculiarity in the Codex Bez, as though we
could generalise from such a point. But the notion of dpyicGeis
and iratus might just as well spring up from confounding this
miracle of healing with the very different one in Mark iu. 5,
where per’ dpyfs occurs. This passage is but a poor help to the
theory, that Greek MSS. became conformed to the Latin through
a comparison in the fourth century; for one doubtful supposition
cannot be rightly brought forward to strengthen another of the
same kind.
So much, then, for the charge of Latinising, in its most recent
form. The supposed fact should first be proved; for until that is
done, it is vain to invent theories to account for it. It may, how-
ever, be remarked, that Greeks were but little likely to introduce,
or even to notice, Latin variations. If versions ever affected
copies of the original, it could hardly have arisen, except among
those to whom such versions were vernacular; and Greek fathers
show little proof of much acquaintance with Latin, acquired
through residing in the West or otherwise.
The difficulty felt as to a passage in the form presented in the
most ancient authorities, when arising solely from the mode in
which such a passage has been traditionally apprehended, is well
illustrated by 1 Cor. xi. 29, where the oldest copies read, 6 yap
éoViwv Kal tivwv Kkpiwa éavtd éoOier Kal tives on Staxpivev Td
c@pa, without davakiws after rivwv, or Tod Kupiov after TO cdma.
A great difficulty has been raised as to the former non-insertion,
as if it involved some unprecedented ellipsis of ddoximacras, or
some such word, or as if the verse would thus affirm absolutely of
him who eateth and drinketh, that he doth eat and drink judg-
ment unto himself, not discerning the body [of the Lord]. But
204 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
let the words be taken just as a schoolboy would be told to
construe them if they occurred in some common book, and then
all notion of difficulty, harshness, and ellipsis, vanishes at once.
My Scaxpivov must be taken with the nominative before the verb,
and then we get the meaning plainly enough, ‘‘ He that eateth
and drinketh not discerning the [Lord’s] body, eateth and drink-
eth judgment to himself.” All this would be too obvious to
require its being pointed out, had it not been that very learned
men have stumbled at this very sentence, and raised a difficulty
where none really exists.
Simply to construe a sentence according to its grammatical
meaning, and in the order of construction, will sweep away many
supposed difficulties in the ancient readings, and it will even make
phrases which at first seemed contradictory to be identical in their
general meaning. Thus, in Col. ii. 18, ‘* Let no man beguile you
of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,
& un éwpaxev EuBatevov ix pvovovpevos UT TOD Vvoos THs capKos
autov, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly
puffed up by his fleshly mind” ; the negative p27 is not recognised
by the oldest and best authorities. This looks at first like a con-
tradiction; and hence it has been inferred that, if we so read, we
conclude that the person spoken of had seen what is mentioned.
But simply construe the sentence without 7, and the supposed
difficulty vanishes: ‘‘ intruding into those things which he, vainly
puffed up by his fleshly mind, hath seen;” it was not that he
actually had seen them, but only as thus puffed up. It is not
surprising that, in such a sentence as this, the versions should
generally have introduced the negative, thus to exclude all notion
of its being predicated that he had seen them.
The passages to which reference has thus been made, may be
taken as instances of the supposed difficulties which have been
started in connection with the oldest readings,—difficulties which
disappear when investigated, and which thus lead the more
strongly to the confirmed conclusion, that the ancient documents
are the witnesses to the ancient text.
All proper means, of course, should be used for checking the
testimony of the oldest MSS., especially in places of supposed
_ OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 205
mistake. One important aid in this, as to the Gospels, is afforded
by the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons ; for we are thus
enabled to show the insertion or non-insertion of clauses in the
third century. Thus in Luke xxii., vv. 43, 44 are omitted in A B;
they are marked with asterisks in others; they are omitted in the
Thebaic, the revised Latin Cod. Brixianus, and in one MS. of the
Memphitic; but, besides their being supported by other autho-
rities, they form the section marked — ; that is the 283rd section
of St. Luke, belonging to the tenth Eusebian Canon, comprising
what is peculiar to the respective Gospels. Thus the section,
though omitted by such good authorities, is well and satisfactorily
supported. It was passed over, in church reading, at an early
period, and hence transcribers omitted it. Its genuineness is well
vouched by Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, and Hippolytus. But, besides
the MSS. which now contain it, it 1s supported, as to evidence,
even by A, which omits it; for that MS. has the Ammonian
Section and Eusebian Canon in the margin, opposite the end of
verse 42, to which they cannot belong.
In Mat. xvi., B and some other authorities omit the latter half of
v. 2 (from éWias yev.) and all v.3; but here again the Eusebian
Canons aid us, by arranging these verses as answering to Lu. xii. 54,
etc. The omission in B produces verbal conformity to ch. xii. 39.
A proved erratum in MSS. (the best in themselves) must be
rejected: thus, in Matt. xxvil. 28, where the order of the words
in the best MSS., etc., is, nal éxdvcavtes adtov yAaptda KoK-
Kiyvnv weptéOnxay avt@: but here the MSS. B D and the Old
Latin are cited as reading évévcaytes: of these, however, D and
the Latin copies read évdtcavtes avTov iwdtiov tophupody xal,
so that B stands alone in having merely évévcavtes for éxdtcavtes.
The origin of the erratum seems to have been the parallel passage,
Mark xv. 17, cai évdudvoKovow (common text évdvoverv) adrov
moppipav Kal trepiTiOéacw avTt@ mréEavtes axdvOwov otépavov:
hence the change of one letter, as in B, and then, to make this
consistent, the addition (from John xix. 2) in D, etc. In such a
case as this, it is no departure from principle, but the very con-
trary, to adhere to such authorities as A L, and the mass of MSS.
(including 1, 33, 69) and versions, in reading éxévcapres.*
* Cod. 33 has abrav ra iparia aitod.
206 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
In Heb. xi. 35, the only two MSS. of the most ancient class
which contain the passage, A and D*, read €\aBov yuvaixas, in-
stead of yuvaixes: the latter, however, is supported by the oldest
corrector of D (in the seventh century, probably), J K, and 17
and 37, and the rest of the cursive copies. Now, this reading of
A D* seems simply to have been suggested to the copyist by the
collocation of words: ‘‘ they took wives,”* was a notion more
readily suggested to them than ‘‘ women received”: also, the sub-
ject of the passages is, the persons who exercised faith, so that this
would be made in one sense more consistent. But the latter
words of the clause were then left without meaning or connection,
€& avactdcews Tovs vexpovs av’Tav. This is quite enough to hint
that there must be an erratum, and thus we are, of course, thrown
on the testimony of the other ancient MSS., confirmed as it is by
the ancient versions.| The Commentary of Chrysostom (which,
even if not his, is about contemporary) shows how he must have
read the words in the text, and early scholia preserved in MSS.
give proof of the same thing;} so that we may confidently reject
yuvatkas, as an early erratum of some copies, and retain yuvaixes,
not as savouring of conjectural emendation, but as being the de-
monstrated ancient reading of the text.
Some have pointed to Matt. xxvii. 49, as though the principle
of recurrence to ancient authorities would require, at the end of
that verse, the addition of the words ddXos dé AaBav Aoyynv Eve-
* The divisions into orixo, in D, show a kind of punctuation, and thus a very
peculiar meaning has been given to this passage, in connection with the preceding
words: in the Latin text of this MS., the hiatus in the construction occasioned by
the erratum yvvaixas has been partly obviated by an alteration in rendering.
TMAPENBOAACGKAINAN CASTRAS CEPERUNT
AAAOTPIONGAABONTYNAIKAG cee ACCEPERUNT MU-
GEANACTACGOQCTOYCNGKPOYGAYTQN DE RESURRECTIONE MORTUO-
RUM SUORUM
+ Some indeed have spoken of the Syriac as though it did not support the common
Greek reading: this, however, it does, though in a paraphrase. Ler\ CD90
* And they gave to women their sons, from resurrection of the dead :” the translator
so rendering as to indicate that the faith referred to was in the prophets, not in the
women.
tf Chrysostom’s note (after citing the words as we have them) is,—Ta xara rovs mpo-
dytas évtava A€yer, Tov "EAtoatov, Tov "HAiav: vexpovs yap avéatyngayv ovToL.
The scholion published by Matthsi from his Cod. a is,—EAafov yuvaixes] 4 x7pa Kal
N Twpavitis.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 207
Eev avdtod tiv wreupay, kab éEnrOev tdwp kai atwa. This clause
is found in the very ancient and valuable copies B C, also in L U
and five cursive MSS., in the Aithiopic and the Jerusalem Syriac.
But the other versions do not contain this clause, and their united
testimony is, in such cases, of paramount weight. The Eusebian
Canons mark them as peculiar to St. John (chap. xix. 34); and
indeed St. John himself (in verse 35) intimates very plainly that
he was testifying to a circumstance not previously on record; so
that, on the face of it, this clause cannot pertain also to St. Mat-
thew. The MSS. in general are free from it, and amongst others
A D, which belong to the most ancient class. To this testimony,
we must, of course, adhere; and if surprise be expressed by any,
that such excellent copies as B C should wrongly insert it in Mat-
thew, it is only needful to inform such, that no manuscript what-
ever is wholly free from the harmonising mistakes of copyists, who
brought passages into verbal agreement with one another, and
inserted in one Gospel what properly belongs to another. <A
scholion which is found in the margin of a Greek MS., ascribing
this insertion in St. Matthew’s Gospel to the effects of Tatian’s
Harmony (or Dia Tessardn) is probably right in its statement of
the fact.
Among the points which may be specified in which the oldest
authorities should be followed, are proper names, as to which, not
a little has been done by copyists in the way of alteration, and
attempted correction. Thus, from the name David having been
commonly written by contraction AAA, has arisen the vicious
orthography found in common editions, 4a@ié6. The older MSS.,
when they give this name at full length, spell it Javed, and in
this they ought to be followed; it is a point quite unimportant
whether the copyists meant by es the diphthong, or the simple
vowel «¢ (which are continually interchanged even in the oldest
books), for we cannot do better than adhere to the form which
they actually give. In Hebrew names in general, when written
in Greek, the forms best supported by authority should be used,
even though they show that the sound of the name had been
somewhat corrupted by the Greek writers. Thus, in Matt. i. 10,
we need not be surprised to find that "Ayos is the reading of B C
208 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
M A and other authorities, where the common text has “Ayer:
nor can we rightly argue that as the latter was properly the name
of this king, therefore the other form must be a mistake of
copyists; for the argument lies directly the other way: the better
authorities give the name in such a form that others were inclined
pro more to correct it. The real question is not, What was the
form of the name in Hebrew? but, How was it written in Greek?
For nothing can be more habitual than the changes of the termi-
nations of proper names, when transfused from one language to
another. Similar to this is "Acad instead of the commonly edited
"Aca in verse 7. In Josephus it may be seen how there was a
tendency to add a consonant to a Hebrew proper name; he then
further appends a declinable termination.
Some of these forms of the oldest MSS. seem strange to those
who are unaccustomed to them; but we must remember that we
find no difficulty with regard to names of which we have adopted
the Greek rather than the Hebrew forms; thus, both in the Old
Testament and the New, we have through the Greek adopted
Moses, Solomon, Eve, Abel, etc., which are quite as inadequate as
the instances just mentioned, to express 230, ni, mie’, nw,
The proper name Shiloah affords a good example of the changes
made in giving such a word a Greek form. This, in Hebrew, is
mov Isa. viii. 6, and M2 Neh. iii. 15; while YAwdy is employed
as the Greek equivalent in the New Testament, and also in the
LXX. in Isaiah. This shows that no objection can be raised
against such forms, from the added consonant giving a termination
quite foreign to the nature of the Greek tongue. We may also
remember how, in English, we find no difficulty in using James
as the equivalent for that which sounds so differently, “IdxwPos.
In names of places, etc., the older orthography should of course
be followed, and thus the form Kadapvaovp stands on a higher
ground of authority than Kazrepvaovy of the later copies. In
some words there seems to be such a difference of orthography,
that each occurrence must stand on its own degree of evidence:
Nazareth is an instance of this; this name is sometimes found
simply Nafapa, and this seems to have been the name in itself’;
and then it is lengthened in different occurrences, by various au-
thorities, into Nafapdr, Nafapa0, Nafapér, Nafapé0: the latter
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 209
appears to be the form generally best attested; in Matt. iv. 13,
however, Nafapa simply appears to be correct. It may be in
itself wholly indifferent whether we spell Ma@@aios or Mar@aios,
but the former has the united authority of B D, and there was no
reason why it should be changed into this form from the latter;
while the analogy of Greek orthography would tend to the alter-
ation the other way.
In grammatical forms, the old authorities must be allowed to
assert their claim; and thus the vd épedxvotixdy ought to appear
in the flexion of verbs, whether a consonant follow or a vowel;
so too in the datives plural of nouns and participles. This reten-
tion of vis not peculiar to a few of the most ancient copies, but
it is so widely extended that its present gencral omission is re-
markable. So, too, as to AauBavw and its compounds; in which
the ancient MSS. retain the p before a labial, where the common
books omit it. In this we must follow the old copies, in the rus-
ticity of sound, and write Ajnprperas, AnupOyoeras, etc. In other
points of orthography, united testimony should prevail over
custom.
But besides these points, there are others in which the oldest
MSS. (or some of them) stand opposed as to grammatical flexion
to the other copies: in these cases, the forms in the later MSS.
may be considered to be corrections. Amongst these must be
reckoned the accusatives in -av, such as yelpav, aorépay, the geni-
tives and datives in -ns and -y instead of -as and -q, such as pa-
xaipns, -pn, o7relens, o7relpn.
So, too, peculiarities as to the formation of verbs; such as
the second aorist with the terminations of the first, as 70a,
AOapev, eopdunv: peculiarities as to the augment, such as not
doubling the letter p, as épa8dicOnv; the reduplication of the
same letter, as pepavticpévor; the insertion of the augment before
the former part of a compound verb, as érpogyrevaav for mpoedr)-
Tevoav (or mpougyt.) To these points, amongst others, might be
added the formation of the third person plural of the perfect, with
the same termination as the first aorist, as yéyovay, éopaxav: also
the termination -ocap for the third person plural of the imperfect
and second aorist.
It must always be borne in mind, that the uncial MSS. contain
15
210 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
many interchanges of vowels; arising, apparently, from the mode
of pronunciation which prevailed when they were written; in the
MSS. older than the seventh century, this was, however, not
nearly as prevalent as in those that are more recent; and thus the
probability of confusion of syllables (or even words) is far less in
the oldest class. In all, the interchange of e and «¢ is habitual;
so too of az and ¢€ in most (from which, however, B is in great
measure exempt); while the other confusions of vowels are rare in
the oldest class,* so that they cannot be charged, like the more
recent copies, with confounding » and o,—a permutation which
would continually affect the sense; and which, if general, would
often make the true reading of a passage a point of conjecture:
in any question of reading between omega and omicron, the most
ancient copies must determine.
In those interchanges of vowels which were common even when
our oldest MSS. were written (e and ct, and au and e), the ordi-
nary rules of Greek orthography must be followed throughout :
but it must be remembered that, whichever is written, it involves
no license of conjecture to read the other.
Iota subscribed or postscribed belongs to the same subject as
vowel changes. ‘This letter had formerly been postseribed, as may
be seen in inscriptions, and in secular MSS., such as the Vatican
fragments of Dion Cassius;f but it was wholly omitted in biblical
codices before the time when our most ancient copies were writ-
ten,t and the subscribed Iota belongs to a much more recent pe-
riod.§ Its insertion, therefore, in printed editions, is rather a
compliance with modern practice, than a requirement of ancient
* The interchange of the words 4 and «i appears to be anterior to the confusion of
sound, which subsequently led to the substitution of one vowel for another.
+ For instance, ENTQICYNGAPIOQI, AYTQI, GKEINQI; but on the same page
occurs TOIOYTQANAPI, showing that the insertion of the Iota was on the wane.
t For the only traces of Iota postscribed in uncial MSS. of the New Testament,
see above, page 158 note.
§ The cursive MSS. are most irregular in their use of the postscribed or subscribed
Tota. The following is the testimony of Mr. Scrivener, in his “Collation of the
Gospels” (a book of great value on such points, for the facts which it contains) :—
“T have diligently noted in the preceding chapter which of the copies I have collated
retain, and which reject, the «. In the great majority « ascriptum is found but rarely ;
in all, it is far oftener neglected than inserted: .... « subscriptum is seldom met
with at all except in m and n, and even in them I must make the same reservation ;
it is still more frequently omitted.” (Introd. p. 1xxj.)
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. Zit
authority. But, though the oldest MSS. of the New Testament
show no instance of this Iota, yet there are cases in which there
may be perhaps a trace of its existence: for the oldest MSS. pre-
sent the forms d (written, of course, dw) and S04, and yw (yw)
and yyvou, etc., as though they might stand interchangeably the one
for the other: as if, in fact, AI of the more ancient orthography
might be expressed by either 42 or AOI. In all these points the
authorities must be followed; but this fact suggests the inquiry,
whether the terminations -ov and -@ ever stand the one for the
other in circumstances of a different kind; for if this appears to be
the case, it must be considered as orthographic variation merely;
and thus to disregard the form actually occurring, would not be
in any sense license of conjecture.
An instance of a word in which it has been supposed that the
termination -o ought to be -@, is found in cuyxAnpovopor, 1 Pet.
i. 7: for which it has been proposed to read cuyxAnpovoym, so as
to be closely connected with the dative singular oxevet, which has
immediately preceded. Now, though there is no direct authority
for so taking this word, yet there is no occasion to alter a letter of
the text to enable us to understand it thus, if the connection and
construction really require it;* for, when the postscribed « had
ceased to be written, -ws was in fact expressed either by -ov or -.
In the MSS. later than the seventh century, there is a similar
(almost indiscriminate) use of -es and -7 (for -7 as well as for -n
simply). Thus, in Matt. viii. 20, cAivn is written Krier in G K
M X. Now, if it could be shown that, at an earlier period, ne
(after the « had ceased to be written) was expressed at option by
-n or -el, it might account for some of the terminations which we
find. Thus it would explain away the future subjunctive (as it
now stands) wa eon. But until it has been shown that such
interchanges were in use prior to the general confusion of vowels,
as found in the later uncials, this must remain a future subjunc-
tive, in spite of those grammarianst who wish to bend the facts of
* The Elzevir text has often been quoted (among others by Tischendorf) as though
it read cvyxdAypovouors, this, however, is a mistake; for it accords with the Stephanic
reading -wor. For -uos, which Tischendorf has adopted, there appears to be hardly
any MS. authority at all.
+ An allusion has been made, in the concluding foot-note to § 12, to the manner in
which Lachmann was attacked for calling iva déon the future subjunctive. Besides
212 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
language to their rules, instead of making the rules the record of
the facts previously existing.
As the oldest MSS. are without accents (for those in B are from
a later hand), they must be placed according to the ordinary rules,
irrespective of what we find in those MSS. which contain them;
for in the oldest of such MSS. they are frequently placed with but
little regard to exactness.
PUNCTUATION is a subject on which, generally speaking, editors
have thought themselves at liberty to act according to their own
discretion: because there is no proof that the stops were any part
of the original documents, and thus their introduction has been
regarded as simply marking the sense affixed by the copyist (or
by those whose exposition he followed) to the sacred Text.
But although it is fully owned that authoritative punctuation
does not exist, yet there are, in many of the ancient MSS., marks
of distinction, which serve as pauses; and where there is any
uniformity in their collocation, a supposed necessity should be
very great which leads to a departure from them. To this may
be added, that, at times, early writers distinctly show how they
connected words, and where they introduced pauses; and this,
in such a case, may be called authority, as far as it goes. Pauses
are indicated in some MSS. by a simple dot* between two words,
accompanied at times by a small blank space: and, after sticho-
metry was introduced, the division of the lines, with or without
a dot, served the same purpose. It will generally be found that
these ancient pauses answer to some of our stops, because lan-
Rev. viii. 3 of the common text, the same construction is found in the authenticated
reading of John xvii. 2, iva wav 6 déSwxas aired Sian avrois Swyv aidrov. There would be no
difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical critics.
* Farther than this we cannot go in our definitions; an endeavour has been made
to distinguish between the powers of such a dot, according to its place in the middle,
the top, or the bottom of a line, as indicating a greater or less pause. This theory,
however, is untenable; and all that can be said is, that a dot indicates some pause, so
that the words included between such dots were meant to be taken together in read-
ing, whether much disjoined from the rest of the sentence or not.
Stichometrical writing was intended for the same purpose,—namely, to aid the reader,
who might often have found difficulty in reading aloud the Greek as written without
even word-divisions: hence the orixo. were in part dependent on the reader’s breath,
and in a long sentence they would indicate often much smaller pauses than in a short
one. The divisions into orixo. very often answer to the place of a dot in previous use.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 213
guage is more frequently definite than the contrary; and though
it sometimes happens that sense may be made of a passage with
variety of interpunction, yet such a case is the exception: it
commonly holds good, that he who understands the subject will
be able to supply the pauses, even when no stops are marked : *
and so the sense of most Greek writers enables an intelligent
editor to introduce the modern notation of stops as we use them.
The great aim in the interpunction of the New Testament,
ought to be so to place the pauses as not to hinder the sense from
being apprehended. Where an editor must determine how he
will connect words, he has to examine the scope of the passage,
and to avoid, on the one hand, adhering to a traditional division
unless it is supported by both sense and grammar, and on the
other he should not reject an ancient interpunction, when it can
be proved to be such, provided it involves no impropriety ; even
though it may differ from what has been usual ever since the
sacred text was printed.
Thus, in John i. 3, 4, the habitual ancient division is pre-
sented thus:—zravta 80’ adtod éyéveto, Kal ywpls adtod éyéveto
ovde &. “"O yéyovey ev ait@ San Fv, Kai 7 Son v To hos TOV
avOporev. ‘All things were made by him, and without him
was not anything made. That which was in him was life, and
the life was the light of men.” The modern practice has been to
disjoin 6 yéyovey from the latter sentence, and to connect it with
the former, and this our English version follows. But the other
connection is that of Irenzus, Clem. Alex., Theophilus, Ptolemy,
Heracleon, and Theodotus, in the second century; Tertullian,
Hippolytus, Novatian, and Origen, in the third; and _ subse-
quently Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Mar-
cellus, Eunomius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary, Ambrose, both
Gregories, both Cyrils, Augustine, and other Latin writers. This
is sufficient proof that this mode of dividing the sentence was
common. To this the best ancient MSS. (which have any inter-
* Thus the stops, marks of parenthesis, etc., form no part of a modern Act of Par-
liament, and in the roll, as engrossed, none of these distinctions appear. Such phrase-
ology must be used as will not be ambiguous, for the Legislature enacts no punctu-
ation. A curious instance of this occurred in the “ Reform Bill” of 1832, in which
Lord Brougham had, in Committee, to move an alteration in the order of the words,
for as they stood the wrong borough would have been disfranchised.
2i4 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
punction) adhere, as AC DL (B has not any distinction in the
whole passage), and also more recent copies, such as 1,33. And
although versions are on such points liable to change in course of
transcription, this mode of distinction is found in some which
we still possess in ancient MS'S., such as the Old Latin, excellent
MSS. of the Vulgate and the Curetonian Syriac, and also the
Thebaic. To depart, therefore, from this ancient and widely-
diffused mode of dividing this sentence, must be regarded as the
innovation, and adhering to it (in spite of modern editions), must
not be so deemed.*
While the more minute interpunction must be left to an editor’s
discretion, he ought not, without good cause, so to introduce the
colon or the period as to change the sense. When this is done, it
requires that a definite and sufficient reason should be given.
Thus, in Rom. ix. 5, the common punctuation is cal é& ov 6
* Tt cannot reasonably be doubted that the division of these verses, now common,
was invented to oppose the Macedonians, who affirmed that the Holy Ghost was in-
cluded in the wévra 8’ airod éyévero: this was not very dextrously met by joining
5 yéyovey to the former sentence to limit révra and ove év.
That any revertence to a demonstrably ancient punctuation will be regarded as “in-
novation,” and will be called a new interpunction, must be regarded as certain; since
readings once spread into almost every region where the New Testament was used, are
called new when any critic adopts them on grounds of evidence. The following remarks
of Mr. Scrivener (Supplement to Authorized Version, Introd. p. 47.), in some respects,
go too far. “Even were we to grant that no such points were employed by the writers
of the New Testament themselves, still the system of punctuation, which long usage
has established, is not to be disturbed on slight grounds. It has existed from time
immemorial, and is doubtless the arrangement which those, whose native tongue was
Greek, judged most suitable to the order of the words, and the exigency of the sense.
Hence it is that I look with much suspicion on the innovations in punctuation which
have been proposed by Griesbach, and more recently by Lachmann. Though there
are cases in which their adoption may possibly be the least of antagonist difficulties
(e.g. 1 Cor. vi. 4; Heb. vii. 18,19; x. 2; James iv. 5), yet it is a resource to which we
should betake ourselves only in the last extremity.” To this Mr. Scrivener subjoins,
approvingly, a sentence from an (anonymous) work of the late Mr. Edgar Taylor. “If
I give a man the liberty of punctuating for me, I resign him much of interpretation.”
That, however, depends on whether the author has so written as to express his mean-
ing, and as to exclude any generally false interpretation, and whether he who punctu-
ates understands what is before him, and acts honestly. The “long usage” to which
Mr. Scrivener appeals cannot rightly apply to any case in which anterior usage is
notorious, and the “time immemorial” must not be limited to the period which has
elapsed since the first edition of Erasmus. Let punctuation be always subjected to
the reason of the case; and though in the greater distinctions change will not often
be required, and even then it will probably be commended by some authority, yet the
fact must be freely owned, that never in printed editions or MSS. has the insertion of
the smaller pauses been on a “system of punctuation which long usage has established.”
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 215
YplaTos TO KATA odpKa, 6 dv él mdvTwV Geds edroYNTOS els TOdS
aiavas. anv. This is not only the mode in which the passage
has been taken in modern times, but so it has been connected
habitually ; and though the pauses in the ancient MSS. do not
help us, yet the early writers do, for they so quote and explain
the passage as to connect the last clause with ypuoros. There
are, indeed, etghteen writers in the first four centuries who are
proofs of this, and (in spite of the very erroneous statement of
Wetstein) there are none who can be cited in opposition. The
versions too unanimously confirm this connection of the words,
which in them is not a mere question of punctuation ; for let that
be changed, and then, in a translation, the whole sentence must
be re-cast. The onus probandi rests, then, on those who would
change the commonly-received connection. This has been done
by some modern editors, who have introduced a full point after
odpxa. ‘They thus give a different meaning to the whole sen-
tence, intending apparently to introduce a doxology, ‘‘ God, who
is over all, [be] blessed for ever!” But the clause thus left dis-
joined would be altogether contrary to the principles of Greek
collocation ; for the order of words in a doxology would have
been entirely different : edAoyntos must have introduced the sen-
tence. This is evident to any one who will compare the doxolo-
gies with evAoynrTos in other parts of the New Testament and the
LXX.* Thus, whether we look at the passage in the light
of philology or authority, the division of the sentence at odpka
is equally opposed.t In fact, the division was originally suggested
by some in opposition to the application of 6 av él ravtwy Beds
to the Lord Jesus Christ, and others may have adopted it without
due consideration. Those who, in spite of Greek idiom, would
make the concluding words of this passage a doxology, are by no
means agreed where to place the stop. ‘The passage is pointed as
given above by some modern editors; the late Professor De Wette,
* And this Socinus himself admitted. See J. J. Gurney’s “ Biblical Notes and Dis-
sertations on the Doctrine of the Deity of Christ,” p. 445. This passage is examined
in that work with great ability, pp. 423—456.
+ Ifit be said that MSS., such as the Codex Ephraemi (C) have a point after odpxa,
let it also be observed that that MS. has a similar point after vouobecia, Aatpeta, and
émayyeAior, in ver.4; at none of which places we could introduce more than a comma,
if indeed even that were needed.
216 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
however, translated thus—‘‘ und aus welchen Christus stammet
nach dem Fleische, der iiber alle ist. Gott sei gepriesen in Ewig-
keit ! Amen.”
But a new punctuation is here not only needless but inadmis-
sible: the only connection of the words which will bear the test of
criticism is that commonly received: the climax of what the
Apostle has to say of the privileges conferred on Israel—‘ of
whom, as concerning the flesh, CHRIST came, who is over all
GOD blessed for ever. Amen.”
The mode in which Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theodoret,
explain the passage 1 Cor. xv. 29, has appeared to some as if it
could not be easily connected with the actual words of the text.
They understood tirép tay vexpdv somewhat in this way ; per-
sons baptized receive a rite symbolical of death, but not of death
only, but also of RESURRECTION; if the dead did not rise, this,
then, would be i7rép Tov vexpov TovTéoTt TOV cwudTev, and what
meaning would there be in baptism so received or administered ?*
For then the believer would be ‘ planted in the likeness of Christ’s
death,” without the acknowledged hope of resurrection. In this
exposition they could not have so connected the words tép trav
vexpov with the preceding Bamrifowevor as is done by our common
punctuation. (As to this, the ancient MSS. afford us no help in
the passage). The following would apparently be the division of
the sentence according to this exposition: é7rel Ti Trotmoaovcw ot
Barrifopevor; wTrép TOV vexp@v, eb ONwS VEKpOl OK éyElpovTaL’
Ti Kal Barrifovrar vrép avtav;t ‘* Else what shall the baptized
do; [It is] for the dead, if the dead rise not at all; why then are
they BAPTIZED for them?” In baptism there is the retrospect
of the believer having died (judicially) in Christ our surety, and
having risen in him, as partaker of spiritual life from him as so
raised ; and as baptism thus declareth how death, as the damna-
tory sentence deserved by us, has fallen upon our holy and perfect
surety, so are we pointed on to the assured hope of our resurrec-
tion, and our receiving, in body as well as in spirit, the blessing
* If there were no resurrection, then baptism would be for the dead. et 8& vexpdév éove
7d oma, Kal ovK avictarat. Ti SimoTe Kat Barrigerar; Theodoret.
+ avray, instead of rv vexpdv of the common text, is the ancient reading.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 217
secured to us through Christ’s precious blood. If the dead rise
not, baptism would be vain; for, as the Apostle had said just
before, they who are fallen asleep in Christ would have perished.
If punctuation, according to the mode in which this passage was
understood by early writers, be adopted, then the expression
‘baptized for the dead” may be safely excluded from our theo-
logical vocabulary, as not being a thing mentioned in Scripture ;
except as a thing which could not exist, unless the Christian doc-
trine of the resurrection of our mortal bodies be first set aside.
Baptism for the dead, in that sense, might be the confession that
our sins have merited death, God’s denounced penalty ; but with-
out the knowledge that the redemption of Christ has thus met
death, and that his resurrection declares the value of his propi-
tiatory sacrifice to every believing sinner.
The proper placing of parenthesis marks has much to do with
the intelligibility of a sentence; for it is thus that words which
are connected with what has gone before, but which, as to loca-
tion, wait till the end of the sentence, can have their construction
made plain to the reader’s eye. Thus, in1 Pet. 111. 21, our English
version rightly marks a clause as parenthetic; 6 Kal yuds dvTi-
tuTov, viv cwter Bamtiopa, (ov capKos amdbecis pitrou dAda
cuverdncews wyabns érnpwetnua eis Oeov), dv avacrdcews "Inood
Xpistov. ‘* The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also
now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
the answer of a good conscience towards God), by the resurrection
of Jesus Christ.” In this case, however difficult we may find it
to read such a passage aloud in English, rightly connecting the
words (a difficulty which, in Greek, is mostly, if not entirely,
obviated by the construction of the language, as owfeu may wait
for 6c’ dvaotdcews), yet the parenthesis marks help the eye, and
the true construction is seen.
An instance of a similar parenthesis is found, I consider, in
2 Pet. i. 19, which I should mark thus: tov rpodntixdv Aéoyov, b
Kaas TroLeiTe TpocexovTEs, (WS AVXV@ haivorTs ev adbypuNnp@ TOTe,
€ws ov tuépa Siavydon Kat pwoddpos dvateirn), év Tals Kapdiass
tueav. ‘The prophetic word, whereunto ye do well to take heed,
(as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day have dawned,
218 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
and the morning-star arisen), in your hearts.” What the meaning
of the latter words may be, according to the common punctuation,
I do not see; for the day does not dawn in the heart of one
already quickened by God’s Spirit to believe in Christ, nor does
the morning-star arise there; but the Prophetic Word is to instruct
us, not till something is wrought in us, or some spiritual light re-
ceived by us, but until the shining of the day of God, the coming
of Him who has said, ‘“‘I am the bright and morning star.” No
objection can rightly be raised as to this connection being forced ; for
what is more frequent than the occurrence of dependent words which
relate to a more distant verb or participle, and not to the nearer ?
In Rom. vii. 20, I would introduce a similar kind of paren-
thesis, with a construction of the same sort: 77 yap paTavornte 4
KTlow vrreTayn (ob>y éExovoa AAG Sid TOv UTroTakavTa) er’ EdTribE,
dTt Kal avTn 7H KTiots EXevOepwOnceTat, KTA. ‘‘ For the creation was
subjected to vanity (not willingly, but in consequence of him who
hath subjected it) in expectancy, because the creation itself also
shall be delivered,” etc., so as to connect ém’ éAmiée with bretdyn,
and not with umora£~avta.*
At the beginning of Rom. ix. is a passage in which many have
found a difficulty, which would, I believe, be obviated, if part of
the words were read as parenthetic, thus: ’AdjGevay eyo €v
YpLoT@, ov Yrevdouat, cupmpapTupovans jot THS TuVELdnTEwS kLou EV
* Thus, too, the words are connected by Mr. Alford in his Greek Testament, but
without the introduction of the parenthesis by which this would be indicated. He
says in his note, “ én’ éArié. must not be joined with irordéavra, because then the éamis be-
comes the hope of the izorééas,—but with imeréyn, being the hope of the trorayetoa.”
Mr. Alford, in his Greek Testament, has shown himself in a great measure an ad-
herent of the principle of recurring to the ancient authorities. This, in his first vol.,
he did avowedly as a kind of provisional measure; in his second vol. (Acts to 2 Cor.
inclusive) he has discarded the notion of a provisional text, and has introduced what
he considers to be the best readings. But in doing this he often departs widely from
the ancient authorities, and exercises a great deal of choice. In his digest of various
readings (which occupy the part of the page between the text and the notes), he
continually endeavours to account for the variations found in MSS., especially when
he does not follow those best attested by ancient evidence: but this habitual pragma-
tism really belongs to the realms of pure conjecture ; for we might just as well discuss
philosophically the mistakes made through inadvertence by modern compositors, as
trace the mental phenomena of a large portion of those made by their predecessors,
the ancient copyists: some we can classify and explain, as having to do with common
causes of error, but there are many about which nothing further can be defined beyond
stating the fact. And it is utterly unsafe to use a pragmatic argument in opposition
to absolute evidence.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 219
TVEVLATL Wyi@, STL AVTIN Lol EoTLY meyaddAn Kal adidrELTTTOS OdvYN
TH Kapdia jor, (nvxounyv yap avdJewa civas adTos éy@ ard TOD
XplaTov), UTép THY adEAPOY [Lov TOV GUYYEVOV fou KATA TapKa:’
in this manner joining wrép THv ad. wou, with Avi... Kal adidn.
odvvn TH K. wou instead of with dvdOeua. ‘I have great heavi-
ness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I myself did wish to be
anathema from Christ), for my brethren, my kinsmen according
to the flesh.” Paul felt full sympathy for his own nation still
remaining in unbelief, for he had once been in their condition,
thinking in himself that he ought to do many things contrary to
the name of Jesus of Nazareth, and doing them: the desire of his
heart had ¢hen run in full opposition to Him whom he now knew
as the Christ, so that his wish had been to stand in no other rela-
tion to that person, than in one which he now knew to be ana-
thema. The preceding chapter has ended with the most absolute
statement of the impossibility of his being separated from Christ
his Saviour. ‘‘I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord.” How, after this strong and full assertion, can
we imagine the Apostle, immediately in the most solemn manner,
calling on Christ and the Holy Ghost as witnesses to a wish on his
part to be anathema from Christ for his brethren? This is incom-
prehensible to me; nor can I suppose that the New Testament
can on its own principles sanction such an idea, even hypotheti-
cally, as that any could be the substitute for others, except Christ
himself. He who knows the love of Christ in his heart cannot
indulge in such an awful thought; and what could be said to the
Holy Ghost being the witness with the A postle’s conscience (if he
had admitted such a sentiment), and this being left by the Spirit
on record for our instruction?
When once the position has been definitively taken, that the
ancient evidence is that which we must especially regard, other
considerations affecting various readings must have their place, in
order to judge between the ancient authorities, when they differ
among themselves.
220 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
If the difference is found in so few MSS. as to bear but a small
proportion both as to authority and number, and if it is not sup-
ported by witnesses of the other classes (versions and citations),
then it may be looked on as an accidental variation, and one which
does not materially disturb the united evidence of the other wit-
nesses.
But, where there is real conflict of evidence,—a real and
decided variation amongst the older documents, then, in forming
a judgment, the common causes of various readings, and the kind
of errors to which copyists were liable, must be considered; and
thus a decided judgment may often be formed.
As copyists were always more addicted to amplification than
the contrary, as a general rule it must be said, that less evidence is
sufficient (other things being equal) in favour of an omission than
of an insertion; especially if the insertion is one which might
naturally be suggested. Thus, in Mark vi. 36, some authorities
read, va amredOovtes els Tos KUKAM aypols Kal Kopwas ayopdcw-
ow éavtois Ti Paywow, while others have... . ayopdowouw éav-
Tois apTous, TL yap paywow ovK éEyovorv: in this and
similar cases of conflicting evidence, the rule approved by Porson
holds good, Preferatur brevior lectio.
Some of the amplifications might be called common additions,
such, for instance, as avT@ or avtots after Néyes or etzrev, Inoodvs
before or after Xpuotos, 6 ‘Incovs at the beginning of a narrative
in the Gospels, where the nominative was thus supplied in read-
ing; so, too, at the beginning of an ecclesiastical lesson; and in
such portions, when taken from the Epistles, adeddot was in like
manner introduced.
One cause of amplification seems to have been the pure mistake
of repeating letters: thus, after avrois, there is in some copies the
addition 6 ‘Incods in Matt. iv. 19; viti. 26, 32; xvi. 15; xix. 8;
xxii. 20, 43; xxvi. 38, etc., which might indeed have been a mere
common addition, but which seems more probably to have arisen
from the three last letters of arroic having been repeated,—
AYTOIGOIC, and then the added o1c having been read (since it
would make good sense in the passages) as o1¢ the contraction for
6 ‘Incovs, found in the MSS. in general.
One of the most habitual kinds of amplification arose from
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 221
inserting in one Gospel that which belongs to the parallel place in
another ; by this means, a sort of harmonising verbal agreement
was produced: this was long ago noticed by Jerome; and pro-
bably, just as often, similar sentences in the same Gospel were
brought into exact verbal identity. Another mode of amplifica-
tion was that of adding to a citation from the Old Testament; a
copyist, perhaps, in these cases, having noted in the margin how a
passage was read in the other Gospels, or what the connection
was of the Old Testament citation ; and this marginal annotation
would then become a sort of authority to the next copyist to insert
the whole in the text. It is thus that zz all ancient works, mar-
ginal scholia have been intruded into the text: happily, with regard
to the New Testament, we can, by means of our existing monu-
ments, go back to a period far earlier than classical MSS. lead us,
and the various channels of transmission of the sacred text are so
many different checks, on the ordinary classes of transcriptural
error.
Omissions by copyists sometimes appear to have occurred from
one source which might be called systematic; these are those
which have taken place 6v’ owovoréXevtov ; that is, where the eye
of the scribe was deceived from two clauses ending with the same
word or syllable; and thus all that was intermediate was passed
by. Sometimes, but more rarely, an omission of a similar kind
took place from two sentences beginning alike. Of course, omis-
sions took place in different circumstances from the mere fact that
transcribers were not infallible; these and many other variations
of MSS. and versions cannot be explained on any pragmatical
principles.
In cases of conflict of ancient evidence, Bengel’s rule—
Proclivi scriptioni prestat ardua,
is of wide application: there are difficult readings which deserve
the name, from the terms and expressions used, and also those
which present some kind of involved construction, such as a copy-
ist would be likely to modify or alter; to the same head may be
referred readings which exhibit some grammatical peculiarity,*
* Some of these peculiarities have been noticed above (page 209). Amongst others
may be reckoned the peculiarity of a double augment in verbs compounded with two
prepositions, such as éroxadicmut. From this verb, arexareord6y is found in many MSS.
222 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
which, although retained by the ancient Alexandrian copyists,
would offend every Byzantine Aristarchus, and all the successors
of that class of critics—men often of real and extensive learning,
but who look at every object from one point of view—that of
present intelligibility. .
In judging of conflicting evidence, it has often been laid down
that we should adhere to that reading from which the others would
be likely to spring: the rule is good, but the application is often
very difficult; still, however, it should be borne in mind, and used
when it really can. |
The confusion of vowels has often been brought forward as a
source of various readings; but as the oldest MSS. have no such
confusion beyond those of ev and 4, and a and e, the supposed
interchange must not go beyond these limits: any that have to do
with and o, for instance, can have no place: such variations are
intentional in such MSS.
At times, readings have been introduced from the ascetic spirit
which prevailed at the period when the MSS. were written. Thus,
in the common text, in 1 Cor. vu. 5, 77 vyoteia nal has been
introduced before 77 mpocevyy, and vyotevwy Kal stands similarly
after 7unv in Acts x. 30. The better authorities know nothing of
these additions. Such, too, seems to have been the origin of other
peculiar readings: in Rom. xii. 13, the text has tats ypelais Tov
aylwv Kowwvoovres: now, when ayvot were no longer familiarly
considered to be Christ’s believing people on earth, but something
far more exalted, it is no cause for surprise that ypetais should
have been changed into pvelais, an idea utterly foreign to the sub-
in Matt. xii. 13, and other places. This is not the case merely in the most ancient
copies, but also in very many others. But though it did not offend even the critics
of Constantinople and Mount Athos, it surprises modern scholars that any should
adopt such a form, even on competent authority. Thus Mr. Scrivener (“Supple-
ment,” page 21), speaking of Scholz, says, “ Few other critics would have introduced
into the text the anomalous form amexareord6y (Matt. xii. 13), and that, too, chiefly on
Alexandrine authority.” To this might be answered, that even if the evidence for
this form and for the common amoxateoré@y had been equal, the former would deserve
the preference, because of its being apparently anomalous, and not, therefore, a copy-
ist’s attempt at improvement. Mr. Scrivener subjoins in a note, “ avrerapetdéaro how-
ever is found in several MSS. of Chrysostom, Hom. in Mattheum, IT., p. 20, where
see Mr. Field’s note. I recollect no other examples of such a form.” Among other
similar instances may be mentioned xaredi7yjrnoa, Dem. 542.1 (cited in Liddell and
Scott under écatréw).
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 223
ject on which the apostle is writing: the passage then seemed to
be an exhortation to communicate at the memorials of the saints,
(uvera, memoria, being used to express the days set apart to com-
memorate the dead), and thus it would accord with the corrupt
customs which Jerome describes in writing against Vigilantius,
when the communion was celebrated at the graves of martyrs, etc.
From a similar spirit, probably, arose the addition found in a MS.
which, in Rom. xiv. 17 (“the kingdom of God is not meat and
drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost”)
after duxatoctvn, adds cat doxnots, using the word apparently in
the sense to which it had become appropriated.
It would be, however, an entire mistake to suppose that there
was any evidence of doctrinal corruption of the sacred records
having taken place, unless in an occasional manner, as in the
above instances: but, in those and in all similar cases, the wide
diffusion of MSS. and versions were safeguards against the recep-
tzon of such readings; and our ancient authorities, as a class, take
us back to a time anterior to the introduction of any such changes.
When a passage has been discussed, and reasons have been
assigned for the adoption of a particular reading, it is always well
to consider the reasons, even though they may not be satisfactory
in carrying conviction on the subject. Such reasons commonly
bring to light what can be said against the best-attested reading.
Thus, in Luke viii. 17, od ydp éotw KpuTtov 6 od havepov yevn-
OETA, OVE aTrOKpUov 6 ov pw) yvwocOR Kal eis pavepov EXOn, for
ov un yvwoOH, the reading of B L, 33, the common text has od
yvoocOnoerat. On this Mr. Green observes—‘‘ Luke viii. 17, od
yap €oTt. . . amroxpugov 6 ob yvwobycetat Kai eis pavepov édOn,
is remarkable ; because, though 6 ov yvwaOynoeras is correct, 6 ovK
EXOn is a solecism: but €\6n appears to be used as if od pr) had
preceded. The reading 6 ov pu) yvwoOF has evidently arisen from
a critical correction, to render éA67 consistent.”* On the other
hand it may be said, that the common reading may as probably
(or more so) be borrowed from Matt. x. 26, where the same words
occur, ovdév yap éoTw Kexaduppévov 6 ovK aTroKadupOynoeTat, Kal
* Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, by the Rev. T.S. Green,
M.A., page 128.
224 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
kouTTov, 6 ov yvwoOnoeras.* Alteration from parallel pas-
sages was far more habitual, than change on real or supposed
grammatical grounds.
Matt. 1. 25. ws ob érexev Tov viov adths Tov mpwtdToKov. Here,
for the words Tov viov aiths Tov pwtoToxoy, only vidv is found in
B Z, 1, 33, with the Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Memph., Theb.
(some of the versions retaining adrijs). Now, this omission (or
non-insertion) has been by some attributed to design, on the part
of those who wished to exclude the idea of the Mother of our
Lord having had other children besides him. Hence they have
not abstained from charging the authorities which do not contain
the words, with arbitrary alteration. But in Luke ii. 7 the words
stand, cal érexey Tov viov avths Tov mpwrdoroxoy, and thus the
alteration in Matthew (if alteration there had been) would be
incomplete, for 7pwroroxoy in Luke would be equally a difficulty.
The known propensity to insert in one Gospel what is found in
another, would make the probability very great in opposition to
the genuineness of the words in Matthew; and this probability,
which would turn the scale if the evidence had been equal, is
confirmed by the best witnesses: there are, in fact, no testimonies
which can be brought forward such as would at all counterbalance
B Z. The versions show, too, how gencral this reading was in
both the East and the West. Had the omission of zpwtotoxoy in
Matt. i. originated from the dogmatic ground of upholding the
‘* perpetual virginity of Mary,” we might have expected to have
found the shorter reading in the later MSS. and versions, and not
m the earlier: for, before there is in the mind a disposition to
accommodate a text to a doctrine, the doctrine itself must have
become pretty generally received. But how does it stand in this
case? Why, that the longer reading with mpwtdtoxor is all but
universal, from and after the time when it was deemed all but a
heresy to suppose that Mary had other children besides Jesus. So
little had dogma to do with the reading found in B Z. Versions
such as the Curetonian Syriac and the Old Latin, and probably
also both the Egyptian, are anterior in date to the adoption of
this opinion as an article of faith; and it is curious to observe that
* In Luke viii. 17, D reads adda iva yrwoO9, partly confirming BL. adda iva seems
to spring from 4AX’ iva eis davepov éAGy, in Mark iv. 22.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 225
while the Old Latin is content with jfilium, the version of Jerome,
the strenuous asserter of the dogma that Mary had no other child-
ren, is filium suum primogenitum. He doubtless followed the MS.
which he had before him in inserting the words: the older trans-
lator followed his MS. in omitting them.
I have rested the more fully on this passage, because so much
has been said of the dogmatic bias of the copyists and translators,
who did not insert the words found in the common text. It was
thus important to show that this dias (if it had existed) would
have affected the later scribes, and not the earlier, and that the
occurrence of the words in Luke (without any doubtfulness of
authority) shows that dogmatic design in Matt. is most impro-
bable, and that the common error of parallel amplification is suf-
ficient to account for the lengthened later reading.
The tendency to produce verbal conformity in different passages
will often, when considered, outweigh the pragmatical grounds
assigned for not following the more important authorities. Thus,
in Acts xv. 22, we have Tore éd0fev tots dtocToNoLs Kal Tots TpeE-
aButépos ov OdXn TH Exxdyoia éxreLapévous avdpas €& adrav
méuayat, ‘‘ Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the
whole church, that, having chosen men from among them, they
should send,” ete. (or, ‘‘to choose and send men from among
them”; of, as in our common version, ‘‘ to send chosen men”);
farther on in the same chapter (verse 25) we have, in the letter
written on the occasion, éd0€ev auiv yevouévois owoOupabdov €xreE-
Eapévots avdpas tréurpat, ‘ It seemed good to us assembled with
one accord to choose men and send them,” according to the read-
ing of A BG, etc. The common text has here ékAefapévous just
as in verse 22, with C DE H, etc.; but this reading can be so
simply attributed to the harmonising tendency of copyists, that
here the varying reading stands on a higher ground on that consi-
deration, as well as possessing the support of at least equal evi-
dence. Mr. Alford says of the reading of A B G, ‘‘ Grammatical
correction”; but as in fact the sentence with the common reading
would have required xo grammatical correction, and as the harmo-
nising of copyists explains the difference of MSS., the varying
reading should be preferred. The sense is not affected; but there
is just this importance in the reading of A B G in verse 25, that,
16
226 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
had it been before our translators, they could not have given the
rendering ‘‘ chosen men”; for this would require them to join
together dative and accusative; and this would have hindered
them from supposing that, in verse 22, the participle should be
taken in a passive sense (as if é«AeyOevras) agreeing with dvépas,
instead of seeing that 1t governed it, and translating accordingly.
The passages to which attention has been directed, will serve as
examples of the application of principles as to evidence: it is
impossible for critics or editors to state continually in detail the
arguments connected with the evidence; the proofs must be stated
fully, and the results given: the mental links in the chain of argu-
ment must be understood from the general subject being rightly
apprehended. Jn this, the student who comprehends what princi-
ples have to be applied, will find no real difficulty, while to one
who does not understand such principles, it would be fruitless to
remark constantly the same things. If authorities and their value
are known, few difficulties will be raised as to their application in
particular instances.
§ 15. NOTES ON SOME PASSAGES OF DOGMATIC
IMPORTANCE.
AMONGST the passages to the reading of which discussion has
been directed on theological grounds, the more prominent are
1 John v.72 } Vim ins 16s and Acts xx: 28.
To enter into a formal discussion of the genuineness of the “‘ testimony of
the heavenly witnesses,” 1 John v. 7, is really superfluous ; for it would only be
doing over again what has been done so repeatedly that there cannot be two
opinions in the minds of those who now know the evidence, and are capable of
appreciating its force. The passage stands thus (the words not known by
the ancient authorities being enclosed within brackets): Ver. 7, dre tpeis
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 227
eioly of paprupovvres [ev TS ovpave, 6 matip 6 Adyos Kal Td Gytov mvedpa’ Kal
ovrot of Tpeis ev iow. (ver. 8) Kal rpeis eto of paprupoortes ev TH yh] TO mvEevpa
kat 7d Ddwp Kal Td aiua, xrA. I only add, that 7f the marked words be con-
sidered genuine, then any addition of any kind, found in any MS. (however
recent), and supported by the later copies of any one version in opposition to
the more ancient, possesses as good a claim to be received and used as a por-
tion of Holy Scripture.
In 1 Tim. iii. 16, there are three readings, Oeds épavepoOn év capxi, as In
the common text; ds éhav. xrA. and 6 ear. xrA. Now, to state the evidence
for these readings respectively, it is necessary (as I had occasion long ago to
point out), to divide the authorities at first into those which support the sub-
stantive 6eds, and those which have in its stead a relative pronoun: what rela-
tive is the better supported by evidence is for after consideration.
In favour of the substantive. @eds is supported by the uncial MSS. J K
(also D from a third corrector), and the cursive MSS. in general.* But it
is upheld by no version whatever, prior to the Arabic of the Polyglot and the
Sclavonic, both of which are more recent than the seventh century, and possess
no value as critical witnesses. Some of the Greek fathers, who, as edited, have
been cited as authorities for the reading @eds, ought to be omitted from the
list; because it is certain, from other parts of their writings, that they did
read és in this passage, or because more exact collations of the MSS. of their
works show that Oeds is an unauthorised addition ; so that in this case copyists
have amplified by introducing this reading; just as in the former case they
substituted it, as being that to which they were accustomed, for és, which was
then become peculiar.f
The fathers, then, who support Oeds are, Didymus, Dionysius of Alexandria,
and Theodoret, the two former possibly, the latter not improbably ; and in
more recent times John Damascenus, Theophylact, and Gicumenius. Cyril
Alex. and Chrysostom do not belong to this list.
In favour of a relative. ds is the reading of A C* F G, 17, and two other
cursive MSS. 6 is the reading of D*. It has, indeed, been said, that the
true reading of AC F G is doubtful; and, indeed, some have cited them all for
Geds ; and it has been asserted also that G originally read 6.
Both A and C have suffered correction in this word; A in modern times,
* Tn one cursive MS., Cod. Leicest., I observed that the reading is 6 O«ds.
+ Thus Cyril Alex. really read és, though in his printed works 6cds also occurs; the
very context would prove that this latter reading had no place in Cyril’s sentence.
Several MSS. contain a scholion to the purport that és was the Cyrillian reading, even
though the MSS. themselves contain the common text @eds (6 év ayious KuptAdos . .
dnow, “OX epavepwOy).
Chrysostom has been cited in favour of 6eés; but I have had occasion to point out
that though the word so stands in the editions, yet the citation of the same passage of
Chrysostom in the Catena on 1 Tim., published by Cramer (p. 31), shows plainly that
cis Erepov avayer TO Tpaypa OTL epavepwOyn Ev GapKi, has been transformed into eis érepov
dvé-yer To Tpaypna, A€ywv Oeds epavepwOy ev TapKé.
228 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
and C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into
@C by introducing two little strokes, and then there was the contraction com-
monly found for @eds. The ink in which this has been done in A is suffi-
ciently modern and black to declare its recent application, but it has been said
that the trace of an original transverse line may be seen besides the modern
black dot in the middle, decisive that the first letter is not O but ©. Wetstein
attributed this stroke, which in some lights is visible at one side of the O, to a
part of the transverse line of the letter G on the back of the leaf. He says
that it was only visible when he held it in such a position that he could see
some light through the leaf. ‘This was denied by Woide, who said (trusting
to the eyes of others rather than his own) that the 6 was so placed that no
part of it could be seen directly opposite to the O. Now I can state positively
that Wetstein was right and Woide was wrong: for I have repeatedly looked
at the place, sometimes alone, sometimes with others; sometimes with the un-
assisted eye, sometimes with the aid of a powerful lens: and as to the position
of these two letters, by holding the leaf up to the light, it is seen that the 6G
does slightly intersect the O, so that part of the transverse line may be seen on
one side of that letter.
As to the reading of the palimpsest C, before the writing had been chymi-
cally restored, it was shown by Griesbach and others that the line denoting the
contraction was not like the writing of the original copyist; and since the |
ancient letters have been revivified, it is abundantly manifest that both this
stroke and the transverse line (previously invisible) forming the © are additions
of a later corrector: Tischendorf states this explicitly in the Prolegomena to
his edition of the text of this MS.; and I can abundantly confirm, from my
own repeated inspection of the passage, and from comparing these strokes with
the other corrections, that this is the fact.
With regard to F and G it is a mistake,* that either or both of them read
OG; they read os, and G has no correction in the place, as if it had ever read
6. It must be remembered that F and G are both of them copies of some one
more ancient MS., and thus they are but one witness.
The versions which support a relative, are 1 the Old Latin, 2 the Vulgate,
3 Peshito and 4 Harclean Syriac, 5 Memphitic, 6 Thebaic, 7 Gothic, 8 Arme-
nian, 9 Aithiopic: that is, atu the versions older than the seventh century.
(Also a MS. Arabic version in the Vatican.) This united testimony that
Geds did not belong to the passages in the days when those versions were
made, is peculiarly strong; and when it is remembered that no version of simi-
lar antiquity can be brought forward to counterbalance these witnesses of
every region of Christendom, the preponderance of testimony is overwhelming.
It may now be stated that some of these versions cannot show whether they
support ds or 6, from the want of genders in the relative; while others (such
as the Vulgate), which mark the neuter, have given, not improbably, what
was considered to be constructio ad sensum, by taking pvarnpioy as a personal
* See above p. 165, note.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 229
designation for the antecedent. The two Syriac versions (the Harclean as to
the text at least), the Armenian and the Zthiopic, are wholly doubtful as to
this point: the Old Latin and the Vulg. have the neut. quod: the Gothic has
the masc. relative, and so too the Memph. and Theb.; but, in the case of these
two latter versions, it is said that the word by which pvornpior is translated is
also masc., and so the mase. relative in itself proves nothing.
Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, read és, while the Latin
fathers in general (e.g. Hilary, Augustine, etc.) have quod. The silence of
the fathers as to this passage in the fourth century, when, if they had known
the reading @eds, it would have maintained an important part in arguments,
must not be forgotten, for such silence expresses much.
In addition to the evidence of MSS., versions, and early citations, there is a
narrative which relates to this passage. According to this narrative, Mace-
donius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was deprived by the Emperor Anastasius,
anno 506, for having corrupted the Scriptures (called in the account “ evan-
gelia,” asa general term), especially in this passage, by changing one letter so as
to make OC into OC.
‘“‘Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ab imperatore
Anastatio dicitur expulsus, tamquam evangelia falsasset, et maxime illud apos-
toli dictum, gui apparuit in carne, justificatus est in Spiritu. Hunc enim im-
mutasse, ubi habet O3, id est, gui, monosyllabum Grecum; litera mutata O in
© vertisse, et fecisse ©S, id est, ut esset, Deus apparuit per carnem. Tamquam
Nestorianus ergo culpatus expellitur per Severum Monachum.”
Such is the testimony of Liberatus Diaconus,* rather less than fifty years
after the event took place. It has, indeed, been thought that the reading Oeds
could not have been introduced by one who was imbued with Nestorianism ;
for it has been said that this reading would contradict the distinction which
that form of doctrine made between the natures of Christ, as though they were
* Breviarium, cap. xix. I take the citation from Bentley (Dyce’s edition, iij. 366),
who adds, “The editions of Liberatus, instead of © and ©3, have 2 and O3; but it
appears from Baronius, that the manuscript had no Greek letters here at all, and that
they were supplied by the first editor. I have not scrupled, therefore, to correct the
place, as the Latin clearly requires: for DEUS answers to ®EO3S, and the Greek
monosyllable OS is in opposition to that dissyllable. Andso Hincmarus in his Opus-
culum, chap. xviij., where he cites the same story (without doubt out of Liberatus),
has it plainly, as I have put it, O iz © vertit et fecit ©.” Itis important toremember
this fact out of Baronius, that the MS. of Liberatus had no Greek letters; for it has
been cited again and again, as if it had been said that Macedonius changed és into ss,
and this has even been put in opposition to the testimony of Hincmar. “The first
editor,” whoever he may have been, had probably some notion how a short O might
be interchanged with a long one, and hence the mistake ;—one which might have been
avoided, if he had noticed the Latin guz and Deus ; but probably he did not understand
that ©= would be the common contraction for 6cds.
The same transaction regarding Macedonius and the corruption of Scripture is
referred to in the Chronicon of Victor. “ Messalla V. C. Coss. Constantinopoli,
jubente Anastasio imperatore, sancta evangelia tamquam ab idiotis evangelistis com-
posita, reprehenduntur et emendantur.”
230 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
not joined in unity of person. But it must be remembered that Cyril was .
the orthodox authority then with the strong anti-Nestorian party, and he read
ds epavepwbn: also the reading @eds decidedly favoured the conception then
Sormed of the doctrine of Nestorius; as if it had taught that God was mani-
fest in or by the flesh of him who was born of Mary, whereas the reading 6s
strongly asserts unity of person.
This narration shows that in the early part of the sixth century the readings
és and 6eds were both known; even if it be doubted whether this was the
origin (as it may have been) of the latter. If it did sospring up,* andif it
was thus propagated, the versions made previously are witnesses against the
addition: “cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat
falsa esse que addita sunt,” says Jerome (ad Damasum) of similar cases.
It is thus seen that for reading a relative pronoun in this place, there are the
MSS. ACD FG, 17, and two others, nine ancient versions, and some fathers
certainly.
For reading the substantive @eds, there are J K (two of the later uncial
MSS.), and the cursive copies in general ; no version prior to the seventh cen-
tury ; and of the fathers of the earlier centuries there are only some doubt-
fully.
Codex B does not contain this epistle.
Thus the evidence in favour of a relative preponderates greatly ; for it is not
to be supposed that the independent more ancient versions could agree fortui-
tously in ignoring the substantive G'od, if they had it in their copies ; and if
none of them had it, then the Greek copies must have agreed in reading a
relative.
The advocates for Oeds, as being the reading supported by the numerical
array of copies, are accustomed to divide the evidence into three heads, 1 6eds,
2 ds, 3 6: and then, by giving the ancient versions in general to 6, they seem
to make os rest on weak grounds: but upon such a question the testimony of
versions must not be separated thus minutely; for the primary question between
the substantive and the relative must first be settled, just as in all preliminary
inquiries, cognate readings must be taken as presenting united evidence, when
contrasted with something wholly opposite.
A relative is then by far the best attested reading. The next inquiry is,
what relative, 6s or 6. ‘This must be decided by Greek authorities, for most
of the versions are doubtful. os then has in its favour A C F G, 17, and two
others, with Cyril and other Greek fathers, while 6 is only supported by D a
primé manu. Thus ds is by far the best supported reading.
It is also the reading from which the others might most easily have sprung
from supposed correction; while the change from 6 or @eds into 6s would in
such a sentence be most unlikely. And further, os is the more difficult read-
ing; for the inquiry immediately arises as to the structure and translation of
* Tf so, the occurrence of 4e4s in any earlier citations must be occasioned by copyists
or editors assimilating, pro more, the Biblical citations to the text which they were
accustomed to read.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 2a
the sentence: Does és go back to Geod (évros for an antecedent? or are we to
take pvornpiov os for a constructio ad sensum? or is the antecedent under-
stood, that being the nominative to the verb of the next clause éd:caiwOn, “he
who was manifested in the flesh, was justified,” etc.? Ido not think that either
of these solutions is precisely the true one; os appears to me to relate to the
person indicated, with something of the same kind of indefinite emphasis (if I
may use the term) as is found in the mode in which adros occurs in 1 John.
**Confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He wno was manifested in
flesh, (he who) was justified in spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who)
was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who)
was received up in glory.”
The passage thus sets before us the whole dignity of Christ’s person ; and it
has been well asked, If He were not essentially superhuman, how could the
Apostle have emphatically declared that he was manifested in flesh ?
I now pass on to Acts xx. 28, mowpaivew thy éxkAnolay.... iy mepierromnoato
dia Tov aipatos Tod idiov.
After éxxAnoiav there are three readings which are entitled to be considered
as to their claims to fill up the place which I have left blank.
1. Ti éxkAnoiay Tod Oeov, the Church of God.
2. Try éxkAnoiay rod kupiov, the Church of the Lord.
3. Thy é€kkAnoiay Tod kuptov kal Oeov, the Church of the Lord and God.
There are also three readings which have to be mentioned simply with the
evidence for them; none of which has a claim requiring much attention: (i.)
T. €kkK. TOD Kupiov Oeov in one or two later MSS., and the Arabic of the Poly-
glot, a version of no critical importance; (ii.) 1. éxk. tod Oeov Kat kvpiov, in
one cursive copy; (iil.) r. ékx. rod xpiorov as found in the Peshito Syriac (and
of course in the Erpenian Arabic made from it); Origen so reads once; and
this lection is found in three copies of Athanasius, and in Theodoret twice. Jthas
no MS. authority, and it might easily have sprung from the connection, in which
the Church is mentioned as being his who redeemed it with his own blood.
To revert, then, to the readings with regard to which there is some amount
of evidence.
1. Tod Oeod. This is found in B, and about twenty cursive copies :* and in
the following versions (1) the Vulg. in the most ancient MSS., as well as in
the common Clementine (but not, however, in the Complutensian edition).
* As doubt has been cast on the reading of B,I state explicitly that this zs the
reading of that MS. The late Mr. Edgar Taylor procured a tracing of rather more
than three lines in this passage from the custode of the Vatican library: and it ap-
peared in the editorial Monitum prefixed to the second London reprint of Griesbach’s
Greek Testament (1818). But it was soon suggested that though the MS. now reads
OY, it might formerly have had KY: I therefore, when at Rome, directed my attention
particularly to that point, and I can state positively that the © stands without any
erasure, or trace of there having been originally aK. This was contrary to what I
had expected; for I had quite anticipated that I should have found that it had at first
the same reading as A C.
oe AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
(2) the Harclean Syriac (text.), and a Syriac lectionary in the Vatican of the
eleventh century. Epiphanius and some later Greek writers have this reading,
as also have Ambrose and other Latins. Athanasius in some MSS. has this
reading, and Chrysostom has been cited for it; however, he certainly himself
has kupiov, and the reading Oeov has been taken from the Homilies on the Acts
which bear his name; but even there the reading is doubtful.* Cyril of
Alexandria reads 6cod twice, in a treatise on the name GOeorékos, as applied to
the Virgin Mary, edited by Cardinal Mai (Scriptorum Collectio Vaticana, viij.
part 2, pp. 125,126). It is necessary to notice this explicitly, because it has
been remarked that this reading is not found in Cyril, and the supposed silence
of this anti-Nestorian writer has been made the basis of argument. The
genuineness of this treatise is supported by its being cited in the Emperor
Justinian’s epistle to the Alexandrian monks (p. 306), edited by Mai in vol. vii.
of the same collection. This treatise is likewise thoroughly Cyrillian in tone
and style. T
2. Tov xupiov is the reading of AC DE, 13 (with thirteen other cursive
MSS.), of (1) the Old Latin, as found in D and E, (2) the Memphitic, (3)
the Thebaic, (4) the Armenian, and (5) the margin of the later Syriac.
Irenzus (or his contemporary Latin interpreter), Eusebius, the Apostolic
Constitutions, Didymus, Ammonius, Athanasius in one MS., Chrysostom (on
Eph. iv. 12), and at a later date Theophylact (three times), have this reading ;
as also, among the Latins, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, and others.
3. Tov kupiov kal Ocod: this is the common reading of MSS., being found in
G H, (also C a tertid manu) and in more than a hundred cursive copies, also
in six lectionaries. As to versions, it is found in the Sclavonic alone,{ which
is of the ninth century, and has no voice in criticism. Theophylact has this
* Tn expressing my opinion that the Homilies on the Acts are not really Chrysos-
tom’s, I shall not be accused of rashness by those who understand the real state of
the question: a statement which I once made that I thought they were not really his,
was met by such remarks as if this was some new opinion of my own, previously
maintained by no one. In reading those Homilies, I felt often astonished at their
contents and style being so un-Chrysostomlike ; and this was when I had for some
weeks read hardly anything except his works, so that my perceptions were fully alive as
to such points. On examination I found that, from Erasmus onwards, scholars had
doubted or denied that this work is genuine. This was no small confirmation of my
previously formed judgment.
+ Some of the other works published by Mai in the same place as Cyril’s, are cer-
tainly not his (in one of these, p. 56, xupéov is cited in this passage); they contain abun-
dant proof that they were subsequent to the Eutychian controversy ; and not only do
they combat heresy of later date than Cyril’s time, but they express sentiments by no
means Cyrillian.
t It is instructive to see how repeatedly, when the mass of modern MSS. oppose the
ancient, they are supported by xo versions except those later than the seventh century.
In speaking of the Sclavonic as belonging to the ninth century, I do not discuss whe-
ther or not the other books were translated about the same time as the Gospels. We
know when this version was began, but as to its completion we have no evidence: the
oldest existing MS. of the whole Sclavonic Bible is of a.D. 1499. (Davidson’s Biblical
Criticism, ii. p. 238.)
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 233
reading once, so that when he has rod xupiov simply, he may probably abbre-
viate the reading to which he was accustomed. This reading is found in the
Complutensian edition, and as it is that supported by numbers, it would of
course have been defended by many if it had been in the common tert. The
Latin in the Complutensian differs from other copies of the Vulgate in having
“dni (i.e. Domini) et dei.”
In this conspectus of authorities, the {thiopic version has not been cited for
any of the readings: it is doubtful whether the Roman text of this version
should be quoted for Ocot or xupiov, and the edition of Mr. Platt has ypiorod.
All that can be said is, that, like the Peshito Syriac, it opposes the compound
reading Tov kupiov Kat Oeov.
The whole question must lie between rov xupiov and rov Ocod ; for the read-
ing that combines both fails as to ancient MS. authority (showing plainly that
the mass of copies must not be valued on the ground of numbers), as to ver-
sions, and as to early citations: if this had not been sufficient, it might be
added that it is the longer reading, and as such would require preponderating
evidence before it could be received.
Tod Oeov has good witnesses in B (the other MSS. are unimportant) and the
Vulgate ; but rod xvpiov has preponderating testimony; for B alone could not
on such a point outweigh AC D E; and as to versions and fathers, rod kupiov
stands on stronger ground; and therefore it should be accepted, even while all
that can be said in favour of rov Oeod is fully admitted. Either of these read-
ings might easily have sprung from the other, as the change is but one letter
(KY and @Y); and, while 4eod might claim the preference as being, in connection
with “blood,” the more difficult reading, 7 éxxAyjoia rod kupiov is a reading found
nowhere else in the New Testament; so that a copyist would naturally alter it
to éxk. Tov Oeov, as is found 1 Cor.i.2; x. 32; xi.22; xv.9; 2Cor.i. 1; Gal.
i.13; 1 Tim.iii. 5, 15. This whole passage may also be compared with 1 Pet.
v.2, rotudvare TO ev tuly Tolpvioy Tou Beov Eta Kom ovYTes, Which might
aid in suggesting rod Geot in Acts xx. 28, mpooéxere....7@ Totmvio, ev @
ipas rd mva TO dyov Cero emiockdmovs ToLpaivery Thy €xkAnolay Tov Kupiov.
Thus the introduction of @eov, instead of xvpiov would be natural, though the
contrary would not be so; and even if the evidence for éxk. rod xupiov had not
been so strong, it would have been confirmed by its peculiarity, and by the
immense probability of the familiar phrase being substituted for it.
But although this passage with the reading xupiov gives no direct testimony
to the Godhead of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is of very great doctrinal value ;
for it brings out in full view the true sacrificial character of his death on the
cross: ‘Feed the Church of the Lord, which He hath purchased with his own
blood.” Thus, even if the dignity of his person were not here stated, the
preciousness of his blood is emphatically declared, as being that which was
adequate to meet the infinite holiness of God and His wrath against sin, and to
secure the Church unto Christ as His own, as that which He has thus appro-
priated at so costly a price. If this work of propitiation is rightly considered,
and its value as thus declared as applied in result, how much does it show that
234 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the dignity of this Redeemer exceeds that of a mere man. His blood was so
unspeakably precious that it was capable of outweighing, even before God, the
sins of all his people; and ¢his it is that shows how exalted must be the per-
son of whom such things could be spoken. If this passage, as rightly read,
does not declare our Lord’s Godhead, it still states, in clearest words, his re-
demption and Lordship.
Many have shrunk from the results of criticism because of these three pas-
sages: they were accustomed to them as setting forth theological verities ;
and they have desired to cling to them; although they might have known
that in argument they are worthless, because opposers are full well aware
how groundless or uncertain are those readings of these passages which some
have called orthodox. The consequence unhappily has been, that the most
essential and fundamental truths of Christian doctrine have been supposed
by some to rest on uncertain grounds. Now, the same criticism which
shows that particular readings are not genuine, proves incontestably that
others are unquestionable; and thus no point of orthodox truth is weakened,
even though supports, which some have thought sustained it, are found to
differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are undoubted passages
enough (such as Matt. i. 23; Johni. 1; xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; Phil. ii. 6;
Heb. i. 8) which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing
to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence,
and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early
controversies.
Criticism, however, need not be at all feared; if it takes away on the one
hand readings which were thought to have some dogmatic value, it will give
on the other quite as much. Iustances of this will be seen in two passages,
John i. 18, and 1 Pet. iii. 15.
John i. 18, Oedv ovdeis Edpakev TamorTe 6 povoyevns vids 6 dy els Tov KéATOv
Tov matpos, exeivos eEnynoato.
Here, instead of povoyerns vids of the common text, great authorities sup-
port povoyens Oeds. This is the reading of BC*L, 33. (As to B, this
reading is given in Bartolocci’s MS. collation at Paris, and I myself saw it in
the MS. at Rome; in C it was chymically brought to light.) This is sup-
ported by the following versions, the Peshito Syriac and the marg. of the
Harclean; the Memphitic (sic) and the /Mthiopic: and as to fathers, the
reading may almost be called general, for it is that of Clement of Alexandria,
Ireneus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Lucian, Basil, Gregory of Nazian-
zum, Gregory of Nussa, Didymus, Basil of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium,
Cyril of Alexandria, ‘Titus of Bostra; as also of ‘Theodotus (in the second
century), Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, etc.; and amongst the Latins, Hilary,
Fulgentius, Gaudentius, Ferrandus, Phebadius, Vigilius, Alcuin, etc. The
reading of the common text, vids, is found in A and the MSS. in general: of
these A alone belongs to the most ancient class; D is here defective. It is
that of the Old Latin, of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, the text of
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 235
the Harclean Syriac, and the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary, and the Arme-
nian. It is found twice in Origen, in Eusebius, Basil, and Ireneeus (though
all these writers have also the other reading, and in general they so speak of
Geds in the passage, that vids must have proceeded from the copyists) :—the
Latin writers in general agree with the Latin versions in reading jilius.
In forming a judgment between these two readings, it must be remembered
that povoyeris would naturally suggest vids as the word which should follow
it, whereas @eds strikes the ear as something peculiar, and not elsewhere
occurring in Scripture; the change, being but of one letter (YC for 6G), might
be most inadvertently made; and though the evidence of the Latin versions
and the Curetonian Syriac is not of small weight, yet the same chance of
change would, in a case of this kind, affect the copyists of a version (or indeed
the translators) just as much as the transcribers of Greek MSS. eds, as the
more difficult reading, is entitled to especial attention ; and, confirmed as it is by
MSS. of the highest character, by good versions, and by the general consent of
early Greek writers (even when, like Arius, they were opposed to the dogma
taught), it is necessary, on grounds of combined evidence, to receive it in pre-
ference to the easier and more natural reading vids. No critical edition hitherto
published has given @eds in the text ; it is placed, however, in Lachmann’s inner
margin, as a reading between which and that in the text the evidence stands
in doubt: he gave it that place on the combined testimony of Origen and
Irenzeus, but he did not know (for then it was not ascertained) that this read-
ing is that of B and C, two of the principal witnesses that he admitted.*
1 Pet. iii. 15, xvpsov S€ tov Oedv dytacare, so the common text; but instead
of Gedy the reading yptoroy is supported by most preponderating evidence ;
for it is the reading of A BC, 13, and some other cursive MSS.; of the
Vulg. the Peshito and Harclean Syr., the Memph. Theb. Arm. (the /thiopic
has neither word); it is also cited by Clement and others: the reading Gedv is
supported by the evidence of no MS. older than G and J (at Moscow) of the
ninth century, and it is found in no version older than the Arabic in the Poly-
glot. Thus the reading ypurréy may be relied on confidently. This occurs ina
citation by the Apostle from Isa. viii. 12, 13. In the Prophet the words are,
“Neither fear ye their fear nor be afraid; sanctify the Lorn of hosts himself.”
The citation of the Apostle exactly agrees with this, except in the concluding
words, in which, in the corrected text, we have kipuov dé rov xpiorov dyiacare,
“‘Sanctify the Lord Christ”: this shows that the expression }N& Niky 77
‘* Jehovah of hosts Himself” in the prophet, finds its New Testament expo-
sition as an equivalent in kvpuoy tov xpiordy, “the Lord Christ,” thus marking
the divine glory of our Lord in the most emphatic manner. And this is in
thorough accordance with the Apostle’s train of thought; for the following
* When Lachmann really knew from me the MS. authority in favour of éeés, he at
- once admitted the claim of that word to stand in the text instead of viés. Indeed, his
principal witness for giving the preference to the latter word was B, which had been
supposed to read thus.
236 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
words of the prophet, in which he says that Jehovah of Hosts should become
‘a stone of stumbling and rock of offence,” had been previously applied by
him (ch. ii. 7, 8) to the Lord Jesus. The LXX., which so often has in-
fluenced copyists to bring passages in the New Testament into verbal confor-
mity with it, has not caused the introduction of the word @edv; for the passage
there runs rov dé PdBov adrod od pH PoBnOjTe ovSE py TapaxOyre- Kvprov avdrov
dytdcare. In this citation the Apostle shows how independent the New Tes-
tament writers can be of the LX X. when needful; indeed, in some part of the
passage the LXX. so reads as utterly to contradict both the Hebrew text and
the New Testament use of the facts previously revealed. To the LXX. trans-
lators it was incomprehensible that the Lord could become a stone of stum-
bling and rock of offence to Israel; and thus, in ver. 14, a negative is intro-
duced, kal odx as AlOov mpooképpate ovvavtnceabe, OVSE HS TETpaS TT@paTL.
On such points, and all that relate to the Godhead of Christ, and in doctrinal
statements, the LXX. is continually at variance with both the New Testament
and the Hebrew text.
§ 16—NOTES ON JOHN VII. 53—VIII. 11; JOHN V.
3,4; AND MARK XVI. 9—20.
In the application of criticism to some of the longer passages
which are found in some copies, but omitted in others, it is neces-
sary to state the evidence fully and distinctly, so as to obviate,
if practicable, all possible misconception as to its value and bear-
ing. A few such passages will now be considered; in doing
which, it is only needful to premise that the principle of following
the evidence which Divine Providence has caused to be transmit-
ted to us, must in these cases, as well as in all that are similar, be
strictly maintained.
St. John vii. 53 —viii. 11, is a passage which has held its place
in the text by a very doubtful tenure, as is familiar to all who are
acquainted with the simplest facts relative to biblical criticism ;
and even in the copies which contain these twelve verses there are
peculiarities of a singular kind.
This narrative is found in some form or other in the following
authorities: D F G H K U, and more than 300 cursive copies,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 237%
without any note of doubt or distinction, as also in a few lection-
aries. In E it is marked with asterisks in the margin; so, too, in
sixteen cursive copies (two of which thus note only from vii. 3).
In M there is an asterisk at vii. 53, and at vii. 3. In S, it is
noted with obeli, and so, too, in more than forty cursive codices.
This narrative is placed at the end of the Gospel, by itself, in ten
cursive copies;* four others similarly place viii.3—11. Four MSS.
(of which Cod. Leicestrensis, 69, is one) place this passage at the
end of Luke xxi., and one copy has it after John vii. 36.
As to versions, it is found (i.) in Cod. Colbertinus and some
others of the Old Latin (Cod. Veronensis is here defective);. (ii.)
the Vulgate, (iii.) Athiopic, and (iv.) Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary.
(As to the other versions, see below.)
It is mentioned by Jerome as being found in many copies, by
Ambrose, Augustine, and other writers since the fourth century.
But, though cited from the time of Augustine and onward, that
father was well aware that the passage was far from universally
read in the copies then extant; and he endeavoured to account for
the fact by a conjecture: ‘‘nonnulli modice, vel potius inimici
vere fidei, CREDO, metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieri-
bus suis, illud, quod de adulteree indulgentia dominus fecit, aufer-
rent de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit, qui
dixit, Deinceps noli peccare.” (De Adult. Conj., 11.6, 7.) But
this supposition of Augustine would not account for the fact of
the omission of this passage having been so general, as it will be
shown to be when the testimony of the versions against it is
stated.
* One of these is the excellent Basle MS., Cod.1. On the last leaf this passage is
added, with this prefatory note: 1d mept ris porxadidos Kepddaov. ev TH KaTa iwdvyny evay-
yedtw* ws év Tots wActoaw (Sic) avtypddois* i) Keysévov> wy 58 mapa THY Oelwy TpwY* THY épyy-
vevodvtwv wryymovevOev* pnt dn iwdvvov Tod x. K Kupihrov adrekavdpe/: ovSE pv b7d Oc0dH: pwoov-
€oT: Kai Tav Aout |» wapéAcupa Kr| Tov Tém |* KelTat 2 OVTWS* eT’ dALya THs apy. TOD Ts Ke| EERS TOD
€pevynoor kat ide* ote mpopytms ek THS yadtAalas* ovK éyeéperar. This note has been printed
commonly (as taken from Wetstein) with mistakes such as mAciorors for mAcloow, an
alteration which has been so rested on in argument as to affect the sense.
The 86th section (7s’), to which this note refers, commences at John vii. 45, and
extends to the end of vill. 18. Now whatever may be the antiquity of this prefatory
note, it appears to have belonged to a more ancient copy than Cod.1. For, as it
quotes Vil. 52, ov« éyetperar, it can hardly have originated with this MS., which has in
the text obx éyetyeprar [sic] (though commonly quoted for éyewpera, as given by Wet-
stein, who must have followed the note at the end, instead of the text itself of the
MS.). éyewperar is the best-supported reading (B D T 4, 33, ete.).
238 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
This passage zs omitted by A B C T (MSS. of the oldest class*),
by L X A,f by Cod. 33, and more than fifty other cursive copies,
by more than thirty lectionaries, in some of which, if not all, this
passage is omitted where it would occur in the middle of a section.
In connection with MSS. which omit this section, reference must
be made to those mentioned above, which mark it as doubtful, or
transfer it to the end of the Gospel, or place it elsewhere ; for all
these are so far witnesses against its insertion.
The versions to which this section does not belong are (i.) the
Old Latin (as found in Cod. Vercellensis, the revised Cod. Brixia-
nus, and some others), (ii.) the Peshito and (ii1.) the Harclean
Syriac, (iv.) the Memphitic, in the MSS. of value and authority,
(v.) the Thebaic, (vi.) the Gothic, (vii.) the Armenian.
It is true that, in some of the editions of the Peshito Syriac,
subsequent to that in Walton’s Polyglot, this section is found;
but it does not belong to that version: and so, too, such MSS. of
the later Syriac as are cited as exhibiting it at all, mention that it
is an addition. As to the Armenian, stx old codices of those used
by Zohrab omit the whole passage, as also do the MS. lectionaries;
nineteen MSS. have the section separately, at the end of the
Gospel, while only five (and those the most recent) place it here.
One proof that it is a later addition, and not an original part of
this version, is found in the great variety of forms in which it
exists in those Armenian copies which contain it at all; some of
these are quite peculiar, and resemble none of the Greek copies.
It is thus rejected, as not a genuine part of that version. (For
this precise statement I am indebted to Mr. Charles Rieu.)
Though the mere silence of ecclesiastical writers is no proof that
they were unacquainted with a particular section, yet that silence
becomes significant when they wrote expressly on the subject to
which it relates, and when they wrote in such a way as to show
* A and C are defective in this part of St. John’s Gospel; but it is certain, from
the exactitude with which the quantity in each page of these MSS. can be calculated,
that they could not have contained these twelve verses.
+ In Land A there is a blank space left, but not sufficient to contain the passage:
the copyists seem to have had a notion that something was here inserted in some
exemplars; but this was clearly not the case with regard to those from which they
were transcribing. In A, the first words of viii. 12 were at first written directly
after vii. 52, and then a line was drawn through the words.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 239
that they could hardly by possibility have been acquainted with
it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote
Commentaries.
Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian* and Cyprian
knew nothing of the passage; while Origen and Chrysostom show
in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence.
It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen’s
silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John’s Gospel,
and he had no occasion to mention this narrative : but, in reading
his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not
impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52
and viii. 12: for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40
to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner
(iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the
subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of
Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed.
The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Para-
phrase of this Gospel, 1s worthy of notice; for though he does
pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and
of such length as this, is unnoticed.
* Granville Penn, in his “ Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant,” states
well the argument which may be drawn from Tertullian’s silence: he says, “That the
passage was wholly unknown to Tertullian, at the end of the second century, is mani-
fest in his book De Pudicitia. The Bishop of Rome had issued an edict, granting
pardon to the crime of adultery, on repentance. This new assumption of power
fired the indignation of Tertullian, who thus apostrophised him: ‘ Audio [etiam]
edictum esse propositum, et quidem peremptorium, “Pontifex scilicet Maximus [quod
est] episcopus episcoporum, dicit [edicit]: “Ego et mechie et fornicationis delicta,
ponitentia functis dimitto”’ (c. 1). He then breaks out in terms of the highest
reprobation against that invasion of the divine prerogative ; and (c. 6) thus challenges:
“Si ostendas de quibus patrociniis exemplorum preceptorumque calestium, soli ma-
chia, et in ea fornicationi quoque, januam peenitentie expandas, ad hance jam lineam
dimicabit nostra congressio. ‘If thou canst show me by what authority of heavenly
examples or precepts thou openest a door for penitence to adultery alone, and therein
to fornication, our controversy shall be disputed on that ground.” And he concludes
with asserting, ‘Qusecunque auctoritas, queecunque ratio mecho et fornicatori pacem
ecclesiasticam reddit, eadem debebit et homicide et idololatris pcenitentibus subve-
nire.— Whatever authority, whatever consideration, restores the peace of the church
to the adulterer and fornicator, ought to come to the relief of those who repent of
murder or idolatry’ It is manifest, therefore, that the copies of St. John with which
Tertullian was acquainted did not contain the ‘exemplum celeste,—the divine exram-
ple, devised in the story of the ‘woman taken in adultery’ ” (pp. 267, 268). Was this
edict that of Callistus, referred to in the recently-discovered Philosophoumena (of
Hippolytus), ix. 12, pp. 290, 291?
240 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
It thus appears that the oldest MS. authority for this narration
is D, and that the only important versions in its favour are the
Vulgate, and such copies of the Old Latin as contain it. The
Vulgate resolves itself into the testimony of Jerome, who men-
tions that copies existed of both kinds,—those which contained it
and those which did not. I have put together the authorities
which contain this narration, because, in fact, those in which it is
found give it in such a variety of phraseology, as exceeds the
difference commonly understood by the term various readings.
In D, the oldest MS. which contains it, it is utterly unlike the
other copies; and they, too, abound in extraordinary variations.
This circumstance would weaken the testimony of the authorities
which contain this narration, even if there had been a less con-
clusive array of witnesses (all the oldest MSS. except D, most
versions, and decided testimony of fathers) on the other side.
In the fourth century, this section seems to have obtained a
place in some copies (first perhaps in the West, where it was
first mentioned), but even then it is spoken of doubtfully; it gra-
dually was received into most MSS., but still with expressions of
uncertainty, and with notes of its doubtful authenticity; and thus,
even though it was adopted as a part of the printed text by the
first editors, yet its genuineness was not believed by Erasmus
himself: the same opinion was held in that century by Calvin,
Beza, and other biblical scholars.* If the last three hundred years
have removed all feeling of question from many, it has not been
from better grounds of certainty having been discovered, but from
that kind of traditional inertness of mind, which has rendered
many unconscious of what have been deemed the most manifest
facts of criticism.
We can no more canonise this passage, if it were not genuine
Scripture from the beginning, than we can the books of the Apo-
crypha, or any other writings. If the best MSS., versions, and
fathers, know nothing of such a portion of Holy Scripture, it
behoves all who value God’s word not to adopt, as part of it, what
is not only unsupported by sufficient evidence, but which is op-
posed by that which could hardly be surmounted. The ancient
* See Beza’s note on the passage, above, page 34.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. : 241
translators iz general could not have agreed, in so many countries,
to pass by so considerable a portion of this Gospel, if they knew
it, or had it in their Greek copies.
I do not rest at all on the internal difficulties connected with
this passage, on the supposition that it is genuine Scripture; _be-
cause, if it had been sufficiently attested, they would not present
anything insurmountable. The peculiarities of the language are
indeed remarkable, and very unlike anything else in St. John’s
Gospel; but to this it might be said, that the copies differ so much
that it is almost impossible to judge what the true phraseology is.
Perhaps the difficulties in the passage have been over-estimated:
at least we have no reason to conjecture that any omitted it on
account of such difficulties, any more than we have to think that
any expunged it on doctrinal grounds, as suggested by Augustine.
It may be felt by some to be a serious thing to conclude, that
twelve whole verses which they have been accustomed to read are
no part of Holy Scripture; and yet if they are only in possession
of a moderate share of information, they must know well that
they are and have always been regarded as of unproved genuine-
ness: I would also ask such, if it is not a very serious thing to
accept, as part of the word of God, what (as they have the full
opportunity of knowing) rests on precarious grounds, and is con-
tradicted by the best testimonies? Would it not render all Scrip-
ture doubtful, and go far to undermine all true thoughts of its
authority, if all that rests on utterly insufficient evidence, and all
that is supported by unquestionable testimonies, were placed on
the same ground? It is impossible to give real and sufficient
sanction to that which is not attested to be a genuine part of a
book of Scripture, and thus, while it is in vain to attempt to raise
it to the place of authority, the only consequence will be to de-
press the true Scripture to the low and unsatisfactory level of such
unattested additions.
Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine
part of St. John’s Gospel, and though I regard the endeavours to
make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve
all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for
doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing
unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history.
17
242 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and
phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it
to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations
current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded ac-
tions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been
transmitted to us. Zhis, from the variety of its forms, seems to
have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps
some one added it at the end of John’s Gospel, as one of the
‘‘many things which Jesus did which are not written in this
book,” and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to
belong.
We learn from Eusebius, that Papias transmitted an account of
a woman who was accused before our Lord, éxréOevtar 5é Kal
aAANV toTopiav Trept yuvatkds, él TroANAats dpaptias diaBrnOel-
ons émt tov Kupiov: iv 16 nad’ ‘EBpalous evayyédov teptéyer
(H. E., iii. 39). ‘* Papias also put forth another history concern-
ing a woman accused of many sins before the Lord: and this
history is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.”
The Hebrew original of St. Matthew’s Gospel appears to have
been the basis of ‘‘ the Gospel according to the Hebrews”; and it
seems, from the mode in which Eusebius mentions the narrative
as having proceeded from Papias, that he regarded it as a later
addition introduced into that Hebrew document. It has been
much discussed whether this is the same as the narration in John
vu. 53—viiil. 11. In favour of the identity may be mentioned
that in D (Cod. Bez) the sin of the woman is spoken of in a
general manner, é7l duaptia yuvaika eiAnupevny, instead of év
povyeia KaTetAnupevrnv. And if it had been circulated in the
fourth century in a Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic) dress, the leading
forms in which it is now found might have originated in different
Greek translations of the narrative; or else from the writings of
Papias in Greek, and from a Greek translation of the Syro-Chal-
daic form of the narration. From Ruffinus’s version of the passage
in Eusebius, it seems clear that in the age immediately subsequent
to that historian, it was thought that the narration to which he
referred, was the same as that which had by this time found its way
into some copies. Ruffinus renders, ‘‘ Simul et historiam quan-
dam subjungit de muliere adultera, quee accusata est a Judzis apud
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. - 243
Dominum.” Attention to this, and also to the point of resem-
blance between the Cod. Bez and the words of Eusebius, was
directed by Dr. Routh; who adds, ‘‘ Evidenter constat, etiamsi
suspecta hzec evangelii pericope eadem esse censeatur atque historia
Papiana, nondum eam codici Novi Testamenti tempore Eusebit
wnsertam fuisse” (Rel. Sac., 1.39). The judgment expressed in
these last words, however contrary to the notions of those who
prefer modern tradition to ancient evidence, is fully confirmed by
the most searching investigations. We first hear of this narrative
in any copies of the New Testament after the middle of the fourth
century. The statement of Eusebius gives us a probable account
of its origin, and I believe that we shall not err if we accept this
as a true history, transmitted not by the inspired apostle St. John,
but by the early ecclesiastical writer Papias.
JOMN. Vee Ae ey we Tov aclevotvTwv, TUPAaV, Yoav, Enpav,
[éxdeyouéevav tHv Tov datos Kivnow|. (verse 4) [dyyedos yap
Kata Katpov KaTéBawev év TH KoNvUBHOpa Kal érdpacce TO Vdwp*
0 ovv Tpa@Tos euBas meTa THV Tapaynv TOD VdaTos, bryins éyiveTo,
@ OnmoTe KaTElYeTO VoonmaTt |.
There exists a great variety of reading in this passage of the
common text; which, however, can be more conveniently dis-
cussed by taking in order the two separate parts which are in-
cluded above within brackets.
The last clause of verse 3, éxdeyou. T. T. 0S. Kivnow, is omitted
by A* B C* L and a few cursive MSS.; also by the Curetonian
Syriac, the MSS. of the Memph., and by the Thebaic version;
also by Nonnus in his metrical paraphrase.
This clause is found in most MSS., including D (the only one
of the most ancient class which contains it), 33, and some of the
later uncials; also in the Latin and other versions.
Ver. 4 is omitted by B C* D, 33, and a few other cursive MSS. ;
it is marked with asterisks in § and others; it is omitted in the
Codices Brixianus and Rhederigianus (f and 2) and others of the
Old Latin; in the Curetonian Syriac, in the Memphitic MSS., the
Thebaic; while of the Armenian, Mr. Rieu states, ‘‘ Many leave
out verse 4. Amongst the few which have it, some mark it with
244 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
apostrophes.” In the Harclean Syriac the former half of the verse
is marked with an asterisk (dyyedos . . . 7d bOwp), and the re-
mainder is marked with an obelus; this latter part of the verse is
omitted in the Aithiopic (except in Mr. Platt’s edition). Augus-
tine is cited as omitting the verse.
This verse is found in A L and the other MSS., and in the
versions not already mentioned. (The Gothic is, however, de-
fective in all this part of St. John’s Gospel.) Tertullian says,
‘‘ Piscinam Bethsaidam angelus interveniens commovebat. Obser-
vabant qui valetudinem querebantur. Nam si quis prevenerat
descendere illuc, queri post lavacrum desinebat.” (De Baptismo,
c.v.) Chrysostom, etc., have the passage. ,
_ The authorities in favour of this verse differ greatly among
themselves as to the words and their connection: thus, some have
ayy. yap, and some ayy. 6€; some then add xvpiov, and some
tov Geov, while others, with the rec. have neither: cata Ka:pov
is inserted elsewhere in some authorities, and in the best copies of
the Old Latin is altogether omitted: instead of xaréBauvev, some
copies (including A) have édovero: the best Old Latin codices
omit év Th Kodvp87nOpq, and also peta Tiv Tapaxyny TOD VdaTos.
There are also several other minor variations; and thus the testi-
mony in favour of the verse is materially lessened; the Old Latin
in particular had it in a far shorter form.
The following are the remarks of Bishop Marsh on this verse:
‘‘ As this verse is totally omitted in the Codex Beze and the
Codex Vaticanus, which are the two (?) most ancient MSS. now
extant; is likewise omitted in the text of the Codex Ephrem,
(which was somewhat inferior [?] in age to the Codex Bezz), but
written in the margin as a scholion [by a much more recent
hand]; is written in more modern manuscripts in the text itself,
but marked with an asterisk or an obelus, as suspicious; and in
manuscripts still more modern, is written without any mark; we
see the various gradations by which it has acquired its place in our
present text, and have proof positive that the verse was originally
nothing more than a marginal scholion, and of course spurious.
Other passages likewise in the Greek Testament owe their present
existence in the printed editions to the same cause.” (Notes to
Michaelis, ij. 737, 8.)
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 245
How much does the discovery of the Curetonian Syriac, and
the fact that it omits the whole passage, confirm this judgment,
that we have here a marginal scholion inserted in the text!
In fact, the words added in the common text to verse 3 seem to
have been one scholion, and verse 4 another; the former intended
to explain why the multitude of the sick waited there; the latter
as an exposition of what the moving of the water, spoken of sub-
sequently in verse 7, might mean. These scholia belonged at first
to different MSS. (whether in margin or text); the former only 1s
found in D; only the latter in A; and the insertion of both in the
same copy seems to have sprung from the cherished principle of
transcribers,—to omit nothing that is or seems to be part of the
text.
I have spoken of verse 4 as one scholion; but this, too, may be
divided into two parts, as is seen in the Harclean Syriac; and
these are shown by some of the authorities to have had once a
separate and independent existence: but when the varied forms in
which this verse had floated, assumed a more defined and concrete
character, then both members were superadded, though, when
attached to the preceding scholion, the last member contained a
repetition.
Tertullian gives us a plain proof that this process had com-
menced in his day; although it is wholly uncertain whether these
scholia, or any one of them, had as yet found its way into the text
itself. In this and in all similar cases, it is only what might be
expected if we find the versions in general containing the passage;
for the transcribers of the versions had exactly the same tendency
to make the text full and (as they thought) complete. The thing
which is worthy of remark is, when we find that existing copies of
the versions do not contain additions, and this is most often the
case when we possess them in MSS. of extreme antiquity, such as
that of the Curetonian Syriac. Such MSS. take us back appro-
ximately to the time when the version was actually made, and
thus they often give us the text free from later accretions.
Copyists had no motive for omitting these clauses, if they had
them before them; for there was no wish to avoid anything which
spoke of miraculous interference:* but, on the other hand, scho-
* IT only mention the fact, that some have chosen to accuse critics who do not
246 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
liasts had strong pragmatical reasons for explaining why the mul-
titude of sick persons lay in the porches, and to what the moving
of the water in verse 7 referred, and why the impotent man had
remained there so long. With the text in its shorter form, these
points are unexplained ; and this is an indication that the longer
form originated in a pragmatical desire to meet a difficulty by a
marginal note or notes, and that then (as usual) all found a place
in the text of subsequent copyists. B C (with D, 33, mostly),
copies of the Old Latin, the Curetonian Syriac, Memphitic, The-
baic, and the MSS. of the Armenian, preserve a text to us ante-
rior to this process of accretion.
Thus the shorter form is upheld, Ist, by the early evidence ;
2nd, by proofs of the gradual insertion of two (or three) scholia
in the text of different copies; 3rd, by marks of doubt still conti-
nued after the insertions were combined and had become common;
as well as, 4th, by the grounds of argument affecting the question
of omission or addition.
St. Mark xvi. 9—20. The last twelve verses of this Gospel
have some remarkable phenomena connected with their history ;
in order fully to discuss their authority, it is needful first to
establish by evidence of facts certain propositions.
I. That it is historically known that in the early ages it was
denied that these verses formed a part of the Gospel written by
St. Mark.
II. That it is certain, on grounds of historical transmission,
that they were from the second century, at least, and onward,
known as part of this book.
III. That the early testimony that they were not written by
St. Mark is confirmed by existing monuments.
After these propositions have been established, the conclusions
to be drawn may assume the form of corollaries.
adopt this passage as genuine, of having done so from their wish to get rid of the
mention of supernatural agency. I regret that those who have thrown out such
insinuations have not first informed themselves of the opinions of such critics,
before they indulged in injurious and improper insinuations against their honesty
and orthodoxy. But could the opinions of these modern critics, by any process of
reflex action, affect the ancient MSS. and versions? I say again, that crifics are held
responsible for Jjinding the evidence to be such as it is. Is this equitable?
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 247
(I.) The absence of this portion from some, many, or most
copies of St. Mark’s Gospel, or that it was not written by St. Mark
himself, is attested by Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of
Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome; and by later writers
(especially Greeks), who, even though they copied from their
predecessors, were competent to transmit the record of a fact.
(i.) Eusebius, in the first of his Questiones ad Marinum, dis-
cusses 7@s Tapa wey TO MartOaip ‘dé caBBatov” daiveras
b] , e / \ \ lal 4 é< a. a A a ih
EYNVEPHEVOS 0 CwTNpP, Tapa Sé TH MapKw “ trpwl TH wid TOV caBBa-
tov.’ * He thus commences his solution of the difficulty : todrov
ditt adv ein 7) AV 6 ev Yap TO KehddraLoy av’To THY TOTO
gacKovaay TrepixoTTivy abetov, elmor dv wn Ev ATacLY avTHY
/ a > is a \ 4 b ,
dhépecOat Tots avtTiypadots tov cara Madpxov evayyendiov.
\ ? cs b) a an > / X fi te
Ta y ovv akpLBH TOV avTiypadwv TO TEXOS TEPLyYpadeEs
Ths Kata Tov Mdpkov totopias év Tots Noyols Tov dpOEvTos veavi-
oKov Talis yuvarEl Kal eipnKoTos avtais, ‘un hoBeicbe, "Incodv
a ss ve ene x Aa v4 bw 3 id 6é \ > tA
Enteite tov Nafapnvov:” Kat tots €&ns, ois emudéyet, ‘* Kal aKov-
” \ > \ SN 3 >? an rl 9 3 7
cacat Epvyov, Kal ovdevi ovdev eitrov, EpoBotvTo yap.” év TOUT@
yap oxedov év &tract Tots avtuypddos Tod Kata Madpxov
evaryyediou TrepiyéypaTrtat TO TéAOs’ Ta 5é EES oTraviws év TicLW
> ’ > > n , No EN ” \ i +
GX OUK €v TAL PEpomeva TepiTTAa ay ein, KUL padLoTA ElTrEp
éxyouey avTiNoylav TH TOV NoiT@V EevayyedoTa@v papTupia’ TavTaA
ev ovdv ElTroL aV TIS TapaLTOUpEVoS Kal TaVTN avalp@Y TrepLTTOV
épwtnua. (Mai Scriptorum Collectio Vaticana, i. ed. 2, 1831,
p- 51, 2). Eusebius then goes on to explain the supposed diffi-
culty, irrespective of the supposed authorship of these verses. This
testimony, then, is clear, that the greater part of the Greek copies
had not the twelve verses in question. It 1s evident that Eusebius
did not believe that they were written by Mark himself, for he
says, kata Mdpkov peta tiv avadotacw ov déyeTas HPOaL Tois
pabnrais.t| The arrangement of the Eusebian Canons are also an
argument that he did not own the passage ; for in genuine copies
of the notation of these sections the numbers do not go beyond
* Similarly cited p. 74, and also p. 53 (ter.), except that there rod cafBdrov is the
reading.
+ Cited from Eusebius in Victor’s Commentary on Mark ii. 208, ed. Mattheei, Mos-
cow, 1775. The quotation is here taken from Matthei’s New Testament, ii. 269, and
Griesbach’s Commentarius Criticus (ii. 200), who adds, “quod scribere non potuisset
si pericopam dubiam agnovisset.”
248 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
ver. 8, which is marked ody’ (233). Some copies, carry indeed,
this notation as far as ver. 14, and some to the end of the chapter;
but these are unauthorised additions, and contradicted by not only
good copies which contain these sections, both Greek and Latin
(for instance A, and the Codex Amiatinus), but also by a scholion
found in a good many MSS. at ver. 8, ws ade EicéBuos éxavo-
vicev. It has been objected that these sections show nothing as
to the MSS. extant in Eusebius’s time, but only the condition of
the Harmony of Ammonius, from which the divisions were taken.
The objection is not without significance ; but it really carries
back our evidence from the fourth century to the third ; and
thus it is seen, that just as Eusebius found these verses absent in
his day from the best and most numerous copies, so was also the
case with Ammonius when he formed his Harmony in the pre-
ceding century.
(ii.) Gregory of Nyssa says, in his second Homily on the Resur-
rection,* év Trois dxpuBéatepors avTiypadors To KaTAa Mapxov
evayyédov pwéxpt Tod ** époBodTo yap,” &yeu TO TENS.
(iii.) Victor of Antioch, in his Commentary on Mark, says:—
erreton ev Tal TOV avTiypadwv TpdcKeTar TS KaTa Madpxov evay-
yerio, ‘ avaoras b€ TH pid Tod caBBatov mpwt épavn,” KTV. SoKet
5é toto Svabwvely TH bd TOD MarOaiov cipnuéve, epodpev, ws
Suvarov hw elmetv, Ste vevdOevtas TO Tapa Mdpx@ tedevtaiov &v
A \ t/ \ , SEN \ ” 7
Tiat hepopevoy. TARY iva wn SoEwpev él TO ETOLMOY KaTapevyely,
ovTws avayvocoucba, “ dvaotas 8é,” Kat brrootiEavtes éemayouer,
“owt TH wld To caBBarov,” KTA..... Tapa TAELTTOLS aVTL-
> YY \ rn \ 3 , 3 a \ ,
ypapos ovk hv Sé tadTa Ta émidepopeva ev T@ Kata Mapxov
> / e , \ Dik. > / e€ a \ ’
evayyedio’ as vida yap évouicay aitd tives eivar. nels de €&
axpiBav avtiypadpwv, ws ev TAElaTOLS EvpOVTES aUTAd, KATA TO
a ’ I iA ¢. ” e b) / VA
Taraotiwaiov evayyéduov Mapkov, ws yer ) adjOeva, ouvTebei-
Kapev Kab THY ev ALTO erripepopevnv SeaTroTiKhVy avdoTAacL pETa
10, eboBovvto yap. (Matthei Gr. Test. ii. 269.) This remark of
* This is not the place to discuss the real authorship of these Homilies; they have
been commonly attributed to Gregory of Nyssa, and they may probably be vindicated
as his by a critical editor, when any such will exert his abilities on the works of that
Cappadocian bishop. As it is we can only read him in editions very inferior to those
of his contemporaries, his brother Basil and Greg. Nazianzen. If, as some have
thought, these Homilies really belong to his contemporary, Hesychius of Jerusalem,
the argument based on the citation is not affected, the only difference is the name of
the witness.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 249
Victor is worthy of attention ; for his testimony to the absence of
these twelve verses from some or many copies, stands in contrast
to his own opinion on the subject. He seems to speak of having
added the passage in question (to his own copy, perhaps) on the
authority of a Palestinian exemplar.
(iv.) Severus of Antioch, in the sixth century, says, év pév odv
Tois axpiPecTépols THY avTiypddav TO Kata Mdpxov edvayyédcov
Kéxpt Tod ‘ epoBodvTo yap,” éxeu TO TéAOS’ ev OE TiGL TpoTKeEtTaL
Kat Tavta, ‘ avactas 8& mpat mpotn caBBdatwv ébavn mpaTov,”
xTr.* This testimony may be but a repetition of that already
cited from Gregory of Nyssa; but if so, it is, at least, an approving
quotation.
It is worthy of remark that both Eusebius and Victor have rH
pa where our text has mpwty ; this may be an accidental vari-
ation ; as they do not afterwards give the words precisely as they
had before quoted them ; or it may show that they spoke of the
passage, ver. 9—20, without having before them a copy which
contained it, and thus that they unintentionally used 79 pid as
the more customary phraseology in the New Testament.
Dionysius of Alexandria has been brought forward as a witness
on each side. Scholz refers to his Epistle to Basilides, as though
he had there stated that some, or many, copies did not contain
the passage; and Tischendorf similarly mentions his testimony ;
while, on the other hand, Dr. Davidson (Introd. i. 165) places
Dionysius amongst those by whom the passage ‘is sanctioned.”
All, however, that I can gather from his Epistle to Basilides
(Routh, Rel. Sac. iii. 223—32) is, that in discussing the testimony
of the four evangelists to the time (whether night, or early in the
morning) at which our Lord arose from the dead, he takes no
notice whatever of Mark xvi. 9 ; and this he could hardly fail to
have done, as bearing more closely on the question, when referring
to the beginning of the same chapter, if he had acknowledged or
known the last twelve verses. His testimony, then, quantum
valeat, is purely negative.
Jerome’s testimony is yet to be adduced. He discusses (Ad
Hedibiam, Quest. II. ed. Vallarsi, i. col. 819,) the difficulties
brought forward as to the time of the resurrection. ‘ Hujus
* (Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 74.)
250 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
queestionis duplex solutio est; aut enim non recipimus Marci
testimonium, guod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Grecie
libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, presertim quum
diversa atque contraria Evangelistis ceteris narrare videatur ; aut
hoc respondendum, quod uterque verum dixerit,” etc. He then
proposes to remove the difficulty by a different punctuation, in
the same manner as Eusebius and Victor did. But an endea-
vour has been made to invalidate Jerome’s testimony by refer-
ring to what he says in his Dialogue against the Pelagians, II.
15. ‘* In quibusdam exemplaribus, et maxime in Grecis codicibus
justa Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii scribitur : Postea quum accu-
buissent undecim apparuit eis Iesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem
et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem
non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes; Seculum istud
iniquitates et incredultatis substantia* est, que non sinit per im-
mundos spiritus veram Det apprehendi virtutem: idcirco jam nunc
revela justitiam tuam. Cui si contradicitis, illud certe renuere
non audebitis ; Mundus in maligno positus est,” etc. (Ed. Vallarsi.
ij. 744, 5.) Hence it has been inferred that Jerome contradicts
himself as to the Greek copies. But (i.) that conclusion does not
follow, because he may here speak of those Greek copies which
did contain the verses in question, and not of the MSS. in general.
(ai.) If this testimony be supposed to relate to Greek MSS. zn
general, it is at least remarkable that we have no other trace
of such an addition at ver. 14. (iii.) Jerome wrote against
the Pelagians in extreme old age, and he made in that work
such demonstrable errors (e.g. citing II. 2, Ignatius instead of
Polycarp), that it would be a bold step if any were to reject an
unequivocal testimony to a fact stated in his earlier writings on
the ground of something contained in this; especially when, if
the latter testimony be admitted as conclusive, 1t would involve
our accepting a strange addition at ver. 14 (otherwise wholly
unknown to MSS., versions, and fathers) as a reading then current
in Greek copies.
These testimonies sufficiently establish, as an historical fact,
* “Unus Vatican. sub satana est, quam certe preferrem lectionem, si gui haberet
pro gue.” Vallarsi. Quia might be suggested for qua, or the relative might be con-
nected with incredulitatis.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 251
that in the early ages it was denied that these twelve concluding
verses formed a part of the Gospel of St. Mark.
(II.) I now pass to the proofs of the second proposition ;—that
it is certain, on grounds of historical transmission, that, from the
second century at least, this Gospel concluded as it does now in
our copies.
This is shown by the citations of early writers who recognise
the existence of the section in question. These testimonies com-
mence with Ireneus:* ‘In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus, Eé
quidem Dominus Iesus, postquam locutus est eis, receptus est in
celos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei” (C. H. iii. 10. 6). This sentence
of the old Latin translator of Irenzus is thus cited in Greek in
confirmation of his having used this part of the Gospel: “O pep
ody KUpLOS eTa TO AaAHCaL avdTois dveAnpOe eis TOV ovpavoy, Kal
éxdbicev éx SeEtav ToD Oeod. Hipnvaios 6 tev atrooTOAwy TANT IOV
éy TO Tpos Tas aipécers y ACY TOUTO aYnVEYKEV TO PNTOY ws
Mapxq eipnuévov.t
Whether this part of St. Mark was known to Celsus has been
disputed. My own opinion is, that that early writer against
Christianity did, in the passage which Origen discusses (lib. IT.
§§ 59 and 70), refer to the appearance of Christ to Mary Mag-
dalen, as found in Mark xvi. 9; but that Origen, in answering
him, did not exactly apprehend the purport of his objection, from
(probably) not knowing or using that section of this Gospel. This
would not be the only place in which Origen has misapprehended
* Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria, have been often
mentioned as sanctioning this passage. So Scholz, following apparently Griesbach’s
Greek Test. but without attending to Griesbach’s correction in his Commentarius Cri-
ticus (ii. 201), as to the two former of these writers. Hug says (Fosdick’s trans. p.
480 note), “ We shall look in vain in Clem. Romanus for the passage referred to in
some editions of the N. T. It is in Pseudo-Clement’s Constit. Apost. 1. viii. c.1. I
find, too, no passage in Justin Martyr, nor in Clement of Alexandria.” It is strange
that Hug, in making this remark, should not have noticed that the whole section in
the Apost. Const., to which he supplied the reference, is taken from Hippolytus zepi
xapicparwv, the very work to which Hug had referred in the place to which this note is
appended. Those who originally cited Clement and Hippolytus made one authority
into two. So, too, Ammonius has been quoted on the same side, when it is certain,
from the Sections which he formed, that he belongs really to the other.
+ Published by Cramer from Cod. Harl. 5647, in the Addenda to the Catena on
Matt. and Mar. This fragment is not noticed by Stieren in his recent edition of
Irenzus.
252 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
the force of remarks of Celsus from difference of reading in the
copies which they respectively used, or from his not being aware
of the facts to which Celsus referred.*
Amongst the works of Hippolytus, enumerated as his on the
ancient marble monument now in the Vatican, is the book rep
YapisuaTwv atrooToMK Tapddocts, in which this part of St.
Mark’s Gospel is distinctly quoted: (apostoli loquuntur) ws av
TeTEAELOpévoyv Huav dnalv [6 KUplos| Tacw awa Tept Tov &&
avtod Sia Tod Tvevpatos Sidouévwv Yyapiopdtov, Yneta Sé Tots
TioTevoaclW TAVTA TrapaKoAovOynceE’ ev TO OvopaTt pov Samora
éxBarovat, yAwooats Kawvais Nadjoovat, ders apodot, Kav Oavd-
oyLoy TL Tiwow ov pn avTors BrdrYrer Eri appoaTous yeElpas
émiOnoovot, Kat Karas E€ovor. Tovtav tav yapicudatwv mpo-
Tepov pev utv SoOévTwY Tois aTToTTONOLS, MEANOVTL TO EvaryryéLOV
KaTayyérrew raon TH KTicE Erretta Sé Tots Ov HuaoV TIcTEVTACLY
avayKaiws yopnyoupevov. (Eid. Fabr. i. 245. Cotel. Patr. Apost.
1. 391, ed. 1724).f
After these testimonies of the second and third centuries, there
are many who use the passage ; such for instance as Cyril of
Jerusalem, Ambrose, Augustine, Nestorius, (ap. Cyr. Alex. vi.
46.)
Under this head may be mentioned the MSS. and versions in
* Tn proof of difference of reading, I refer to Origen against Celsus, vi. 36; where
Celsus says of our Lord émei réxtwv iv thy réxymv, and Origen denies that he is himself
80 called in any of the Gospels received by the Church. Celsus seems to have fol-
lowed Mark vi. 3, as found in the common text, and in the ancient copies A BD;
Origen’s reading seems to have been 6 tod réxrovos vids kai Mapias, as in Codd. 33, 69,
the Old Latin, etc. As to facts, Origen tries to render suspicious the remarks of
Celsus against the Christians as mutilating their ears,—remarks which really (as has
been pointed out) applied to the Carpocratians. See Iren. C. H. i. 25, 6, and Hippol.
Philos. vii. 32, sub fin. (p. 256.)
+ This is not the place to discuss the form and composition of the “ Apostolical
Constitutions,” or how far the genuine work of Hippolytus has been interwoven in
the eighth book. The introductory treatise is certainly, in the main, genuine, even if
a later writer has so moulded it as to make the apostles speak in the first person.
Chevalier Bunsen, in his “ Hippolytus and his Age,” ii. 243, 4, speaks doubtfully of the
first sentence from which the former part of the above citation is taken. But Hip-
polytus knew well the writings of Irenzeus, in which the latter part of Mark xvi. is
quoted; so that the use of that portion is no objection; and further, this citation is
almost essential to introduce what follows, the genuineness of which Chevalier Bunsen
maintains (érera 5 rots murreVoacw). I see no occasion for supposing that the com-
piler made other change in this treatise, except putting it into the first person plural,
as if the apostles unitedly spoke.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 253
general (the conspectus of their evidence on both sides will be
given under the next proposition) ; and amongst the MSS. those
may in particular be specified which continue the Ammonian
Sections on to the end of the chapter. This seems to have been
done to supply a supposed omission ; and in ancient MSS., such
as C, it is clear that the copyist took this section for an integral
part of the book.
The early mention and use of this section, and the place that it
holds in the ancient versions in general, and in the MSS., suffi-
ciently show, on historical grounds, that it had a place, and was
transmitted as a part of the second Gospel.
III. To consider properly the third proposition (that the early
testimony that St. Mark did not write these verses is confirmed
by existing monuments), the evidence of the MSS. and versions
must be stated in full.
The passage is wholly omitted in Codex B.,* in the Latin Codex
Bobbiensis (4), in old MSS. of the Armenian, and in an Arabic
version in the Vatican (Cod. Arab. Vat. 13).f Of these versions,
the Codex Bobbiensis adds a different brief conclusion, ‘* Omnia
autem quecunque precepta erant et qui cum puero [1]. cum Petro]
erant breviter exposuerunt. Posthzc et ipse jhesus adparuit. et
ab orientem usque. usque in orientem. misit per illos sanctam et
incorruptam (** add. predicationis, *-nem ?) salutis eterna. Amen.”
And the Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the con-
cluding twelve verses from the rest of the Gospel. Mr. Rieu thus
notices the Armenian MSS.; ‘ époBotvto yap’ Some of the
oldest MSS. end here: many put after these words the final
Evayyédwov kata Mdpxov, and then give the additional verses
with a new superscription, evayy. cata M. Oscan goes on without
* Of course no man who apprehends the facts of the case will be surprised that this
most ancient MS. should accord in this with the documents whose readings we know
from the testimony of Eusebius and others. It is marvellous that any could have such
unintelligent temerity as to write that “this circumstance appears to us sufficient to
stamp the character of this highly-lauded codex as unworthy of trust, although the
most ancient, it is thought, in existence.” At this rate, readings and documents are
only to be valued according to some subjective estimate of unintelligent traditionists.
+ This Vatican MS. version must not be confounded with “the Roman edition of
the Arabic.” This mistake has been made by Mr. Alford, for instance, Gr. Test. i. 299.
The Roman edition of the Gospels contains the whole passage.
254 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
any break.” The Arabic MS. in the Vatican is that described
by Scholz in his ‘ Biblisch-Kritische Reise” (pp. 117—126) ; and
though the Arabic versions are of too recent a date to possess
much critical value, this MS., so far as may be judged from the
few extracts made, seems to be based on an ancient Greek text.
Besides the MS. which omits the verses,* they are marked with
an asterisk in two cursive copies.f
In L, after éboSotbvro yap, there is added ~xw STN NED EAS
----- “ héperé [i.€. -rat|] mov nat tavra” »~-----*%
mavTa Sé TA Tapnyyeréeva Tots Tepl TOV TéTpOV TUVTOMwS EENYYL-
Dav’ peta 5€ tadta Kal avtos 6 "Inoovs amo avatorns Kal axpt
Svcews eEatréctirev 8’ av’T@v TO lepov Kal dpOapTov KHpuvypa Tis
aiwviov cwrnpias ~ - - - - - - ~, Thus far L is supported by
the cursive cod. 274, by the marg. of the Harclean Syriac, and by
the Latin Codex Bobbiensis (see above). I then continues:
‘“eornv [i.e. -Tw] 5€ Kal Tadra hepopeva peta To ’EdoRodvtat
yap. wa eS ~ avaotas dé xT. (and then follow the
twelve verses).
In Cod. 1, ver. 8 ends on folio 220 A, and at the top of the
next page is written in vermillion, év tice wev THY avTUypaddov
Ews MOE TANpOUTAL 6 evayyedLaTHs Ews ov Kal EvaéBuos 6 Trapdi-
Aov éxavovicev. ev ToAXOIs O€ Kal TavTa Péperas (and then follow
ver. 9—20). A similar note or a scholion stating the absence of
the following verses from many, from most, or from the most
correct copies (often from Victor or Severus), is found in twenty-
five other cursive codices ; sometimes with tédos interposed after
ver. 8. The absence of Ammonian divisions in A L and other
good copies after ver. 8 should here be remembered.
Such is the testimony of existing monuments confirming the
ancient witnesses against this passage.
On the other hand, the passage is found in the uncial codd.
* The MS. at Moscow denoted “g” in the Gospels, by Matthei, perhaps omitted
this section: there is a break at ver. 8, andall after that is at least defective, even if
the MS. ever possessed it. (See Matthei’s larger Greek Test. vol. ii. p. 260, and vol.
x. p. 228.)
+ Probably other MSS. also distinguish these verses with an asterisk besides the
two which have been specified ; for it is singular that these two MSS. are two con-
secutive codices in the Vatican Library (756 and 757), examined by Birch, (187 and
138 of Griesbach’s notation).
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 255
ACD, XA, EGHKMSU V (F is defective); as well as
in 33, 69, and the rest of the cursive copies which have been col-
lated. It is in copies of the Old Latin; in the Vulg. in the
Curetonian Syriac, as well as the Peshito and the Harclean (with
the marginal note given above), and the Jerusalem Syriac; in
the Memphitic, Gothic, and Aithiopic; besides those which have
been previously mentioned as characterised by some peculiarity.
The Thebaic is here defective, but it is supposed that a citation in
that language may be a paraphrase of ver. 20. The Gothic is
defective in the concluding verses, but enough is extant to show
that it recognised the passage ; and of the Curetonian Syriac no
part of this Gospel is found except a fragment containing ver. 17
to the end of this chapter.
The Old Latin is here defective in the best copies; for the
Codex Vercellensis is imperfect from ch. xv. 15, and Cod. Vero-
nensis from xiii. 24. Also the Cod. Brixianus is defective from
xiv. 70. The mode in which Cod. Bobbiensis concludes has been
noticed already. The Codices Colbertinus, Corbiensis, and others,
are those which may be quoted as showing that the Old Latin
contains this section.*
It has been suggested that this portion of St. Mark was omitted
by those who found a difficulty in reconciling what it contains
with the other Evangelists. But so far from there being any
proof of this, which would have required a far less change, we
find that the same writers who mention the non-existence of the
passage in many copies, do themselves show how it may be har-
monised with what is contained in the other Gospels ; we have no
* Hug says (Fosdick’s translation, p. 480), “ The splendid, but much injured, MS. at
Verona, wants all after chap. xvi. ver. 7; and the neater and less injured MS. at
Brescia, which contains a mixed text, has met with a still greater loss, viz., all of the
book after xv. 66; but the better preserved MSS. of Vercelli and Corvey .... are evi-
dences in favour of the passage in question.” This statement is replete with errors;
but as the whole section is omitted in the last German edition (posthumous), of
Hug’s Einleitung, [ am unable to say whether they belong wholly to him, or in part
(as is often the case throughout) to the translation. As these errors, however, have
been copied by others, it is of some consequence to point them out.
(i.) Cod. Veronensis does not end at xvi.7, but at xiii.24. (ii.) Cod. Brixianus does
not end at xv. 66, but at xiv. 70. (iii.) Cod. Vercellensis can give no evidence in the
matter, as it is imperfect from xv. 15. <A later writer has added to this MS. xvi. 7—20
from the Vulgate, and this probably misled Hug as to this MS.: how the mis-state-
ments as to the other MSS. arose it is difficult to conjecture. Also Cod. Corbeiensis
takes its name not from Corvey on the Weser, but from Cordie in Picardy.
256 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
reason for entertaining the supposition that such a Marcion-like
excision had been here adopted.
In opposing the authenticity of this section, some have argued
on the nature of the contents ;—that the appearance of our Lord
to Mary Magdalene jirst, is not (it is said) in accordance with
what we learn elsewhere; that the supposition of miraculous
powers to be received (ver. 17, 18) is carried too far ;—that (in
ver. 16) Baptism is too highly exalted. I mention these objec-
tions, though I do not think any one of them separately, nor yet
the whole combined, to be of real weight. There is no historical
difficulty which would be regarded as of real force, if, on other
grounds, doubt had not been cast on the passage ; for else we
might object to many Scripture narrations, because we cannot
harmonise them, owing to our not being acquainted with all the
circumstances. As to the doctrinal points specified, it is hard to
imagine what difficulty 1s supposed to exist; I see nothing that
would involve the feelings and opinions of an age subsequent to
the apostolic.
The style of these twelve verses has been relied on as though it
were an argument that they were not written by Mark himself.
I am well aware that arguments on style are often very fallacious,
and that by themselves they prove very little ; but when there
does exist external evidence, and when internal proofs as to style,
manner, verbal expression, and connection, are in accordance with
such independent grounds of forming a judgment, then these
internal considerations possess very great weight.
A difference has been remarked, and truly remarked, between
the phraseology of this section and the rest of this Gospel. This
difference is in part negative and in part positive. The phrase-
ology of St. Mark possesses characteristics which do not appear in
these verses. And besides these negative features, this section
has its own peculiarities ; amongst which may be specified mparn
caBBarov (ver. 9), instead of which 77 pid TOv caBRBatov would
have been expected: in ver. 10 and 14 sentences are conjoined
without a copulative, contrary to the common usage in St. Mark.
éxeivos is used four times in a manner different from what is found
in the rest of the Gospel. The periodic structure of verses 19 and
20 is such as only occurs once elsewhere in this Gospel (xiv. 38).
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 257i
Many words, expressions, and constructions occur in this section,
and not in any other part of St. Mark: e.g. aropevouas (thrice),
Oedopas (twice), amriatew (twice), érepos, Tapaxorovbéw, BrAdTTH,
érraxorovbéw, cuvepyéw, BeSaiow, Tavtayod, peta TadtTa, év TO
ovomaTt, 6 KUpLos, as applied absolutely to Christ (twice).* Now,
while each of these peculiarities (except the first) may possess
singly no weight, yet their combination, and that in so short a
portion, has a force which can rather be felé than stated. And if
any parallel be attempted, as to these peculiarities, by a comparison
of other portions of St. Mark, it will be found that many chapters
must be taken together before we shall find any list of examples as
numerous or as striking as those which are crowded together here
in these few verses.
These considerations must be borne in mind as additional to the
direct evidence stated before.
It has been asked, as an argument that the section before us
was actually written by St. Mark, whether it is credible that he
could have ended his Gospel with . . . éboSodvTo yap. Now, how-
ever improbable, such a difficulty must not be taken as sufficient,
per se, to invalidate testimony to a fact as such. We often do not
know what may have caused the abrupt conclusion of many works.
The last book of Thucydides has no proper termination at all ;
and in the Scripture some books conclude with extraordinary
abruptness: Ezra and Jonah are instances of this. Perhaps we do
not know enough of the circumstances of St. Mark when he wrote
his Gospel to say whether he did or did not leave it with a com-
plete termination. And if there is difficulty in supposing that the
work ever ended abruptly at ver. 8, would this have been transmit-
ted as a fact by good witnesses, if there had not been real grounds
for regarding it to be true? And further, irrespective of recorded
evidence, we could not doubt that copies in ancient times did so end,
for B, the oldest that we have, actually does so. Also the copies
which add the concluding twelve verses as something separate, and
those (as L) which give another brief termination, show that this
* Peculiarities in addition to these are given by Dr. Davidson. Introd. i. 169, 70.
+ The change (as noticed above) of zpwry caBBarov into rH ma 7. ooBB. by Eusebius
and Victor of Antioch in their citations, may show how unexpected the phraseology
is which is found in ver. 9.
18
258 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
fact is not incredible. Such a peculiarity would not have been
invented.
It has also been urged with great force that the contents of this
section are such as preclude its having been added at a post-apo-
stolic period, and that the very difficulties which it contains afford
a strong presumption that it is an authentic history: the force of
this argument is such that I do not see how it can be avoided ;
for even if a writer went out of his way to make difficulties in
a supplement to St. Mark’s Gospel, it is but little likely that his
contemporaries would have accepted and transmitted such an
addition, except on grounds of known and certain truth as to the
facts recorded. If there are points not easy to be reconciled with
the other Gospels, it is all the less probable that any writer
should have put forth, and that others should have received, the
narrative, unless it were really authentic history. As such it is
confirmed by the real or supposed points of difficulty.
As, then, the facts of the case, and the early reception and
transmission of this section, uphold its authenticity, and as it has
been placed from the second century, at least, at the close of our
second canonical Gospel ;—and as, likewise, its transmission has
been accompanied by a continuous testimony that it was not a
part of the book as originally written by St. Mark ;—and as both
these points are confirmed by internal considerations—
The following corollaries flow from the propositions already
established :-—
I. That the book of Mark himself extends no farther than
epoBodvtTo yap, xvi. 8. |
II. That the remaining twelve verses, by whomsoever written,
have a full claim to be received as an authentic part of the second
Gospel, and that the full reception of early testimony on this
question does not in the least involve their rejection as not being
a part of Canonical Scripture.*
It may, indeed, be said that they might have been written by St.
Mark at a later period; but, even on this supposition, the attested
* The conclusions at which Mr. Alford arrives in the note in his Greek Testament
are very similar to these.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 259
fact that the book once ended at ver. 8 would remain the same,
and the assumption that the same Evangelist had added the con-
clusion would involve new difficulties, instead of removing any.
There is in some minds a kind of timidity with regard to Holy
Scripture, as if all our notions of its authority depended on our
knowing who was the writer of each particular portion; instead
of simply seeing and owning that it was given forth from God,
and that it is as much his as were the commandments of the Law
written by his own finger on the tables of stone. As to many
books of Scripture, we know not who the writers may have been ;
and yet this is no reason for questioning their authority in the
slightest degree. If we try to be certain as to points of which there
is no proof, we really shall find ourselves to be substituting con-
jecture in the place of evidence. Thus some of the early Church
received the Epistle to the Hebrews as Holy Scripture ; who,
instead of absolutely dogmatising that it was written by St. Paul—a
point of which they had no proof—were content to say that ‘‘ God
only knoweth the real writer”: and yet to many in the present
day, though they have not one whit more evidence on the subject,
it seems, that to doubt or disbelieve that Epistle to have been
written by St. Paul himself, and to doubt or disbelieve its cano-
nical authority, is one and the same thing. But this mode of
treating Scripture is very different from what ought to be found
amongst those who own it as the word of God.
I thus look on this section as an authentic anonymous addi-
tion to what Mark himself wrote down from the narration of St.
Peter (as we learn from the testimony of their contemporary,
John the Presbyter); and that it ought as much to be received as
part of our second Gospel, as the last chapter of Deuteronomy
(unknown as the writer is) is received as the right and proper
conclusion of the books of Moses.
I cannot but believe that many upholders of orthodox and
evangelical truth practically narrow their field of vision as to
Scripture by treating it (perhaps unconsciously) as though we had
to consider the thoughts, mind, and measure of apprehension pos-
sessed personally by each individual writer through whom the
Holy Ghost gave it forth. This is a practical hindrance to our
receiving it, in the full sense, as from God ; that is, as being really
’
260 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
enspired: for, if inspired, the true and potential author was God,
and not the individual writer, known or anonymous.*
We know from John the Presbyter just enough of the origin of
St. Mark’s Gospel to be aware that it sprang from the oral narra-
tions of the Apostle Peter; and we have the testimony of that
long-surviving immediate disciple of Christ when on earth (in
recording this fact) that Mark erred in nothing. But even with
this information, if we thought of mere human authorship, how
many questions might be started : but if we receive inspiration as
a fact, then inquiries as to the relation of human authors become
a matter of secondary importance. It has its value to know that
Apostles bore testimony to what they had seen of Christ’s actions,
and that they were inspired to write as eye and ear witnesses of
his deeds and teaching. So it is of importance to know that in
this Gospel we have the testimony of Peter confirmed by John the
Presbyter ; but the real essential value of the record for the con-
tinuous instruction of believers, is that inspiration of the Holy
Ghost which constitutes certain writings to be Holy Scripture.t
* “Tfone knew a person to have compiled a book out of memoirs, which he received
from another, of vastly superior knowledge in the subject of it, especially if it were a
book of great intricacies and difficulties ; it would in no wise follow, that one knew the
whole meaning of the book, from knowing the whole meaning of the compiler: for the
original memoirs, i.e. the author of them, might have, and there would be no degree
of presumption, in many cases, against supposing him to have, some further meaning
than the compiler saw. To say, then, that the Scriptures, and the things contained in
them, can have no other or further meaning than those persons thought or had, who
first recited or wrote them, is evidently saying, that those persons were the original,
proper, and sole authors of those books, i.e. that they are not inspired.” Butler’s
Analogy, pt. II. ch. vii. § 3. (Dr. Fitzgerald’s edition, p. 267.)
*“ On the allowance of a real inspiration, it was God, and not the writer, who was the
proper author of the Prophecy.” Warburton’s Divine Legation, book vi. sect. vi.
(cited by Dr. Fitzgerald.)
+ Kai rov@’ 6 mpeaBitepos EAeye: Madpkos pév epunvevtns Térpov yevopuevos, daa éurmudvevoer,
axptBas eypaev. ov pév ror Taker TA UTD TOU xptoTOU H AEXOevTa H TpaxOévTa* ovTE yap HKovTE TOD
Kuptov ovTe mapyKoAovOnoev alta: vorepov Sé, ws Edynv, Tlétpw, bs mpods Tas xpelas EroteiTo Tas
SiSackarias, GAN ovx Borep oivTatw Tay KupraKdy Tovovmevus Adywv, BaTE OVdéeV HuapTe
Mapkos, ovtTws eva ypdaas ws amepynudvevoev. Evos yap EeTOLMTaTO TpdvoLtay, Tod pydey dv
Kove Tapaduretv, WevoacGai te év avtois. (Euseb. H. E. iij. 39).
We can hardly over-estimate the importance of this testimony of John the Pres-
byter—a witness who had seen the actions of Christ when He was on earth, and had
heard his teaching; and who lived thus to attest the work of one who had not written
from personal knowledge. Much has been said on the meaning of ¢pynvevtys Meérpov,
but it seems to be here used as indicating that Mark wrote for others the narrations
which Peter had orally declared. The Presbyter says that Mark wrote od réfer and
ovx Sotep cvvtakiw TaY KUpLaKdy ToLOVmeEVOS Adywr ; this may mean that he did not compose
a history, but only wrote down the separate narrations given by the Apostle Peter; or
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 261
Those which were originally received on good grounds as such,
and which have been authentically transmitted to us, we may
confidently and reverently receive, even though we may not
know by what pen they were recorded.
CONCLUSION.
THE generation of EpwarD LEE and DANIEL WHITBY (see
pp. 21 and 47), is yet flourishing amongst us. Many still sym-
pathise with those feelings which aroused against Erasmus, on
account of his meddling with sacred criticism, the indignation of
a certain bishop, who wished the secular arm to hinder the bold-
ness of biblical scholars.* It was then deemed to be unbearable
that theologians should have to learn from grammarians what the
word of God actually contains; now, however, both theologians
and grammarians of certain classes are united in contemning and
condemning those critical studies which they have never taken the
pains rightly to understand for themselves. And thus it is that
those who labour in the collation of MSS., or in seeking to render
the results of such collation available for others, are misrepre-
sented, not on the ground of what they have done, but because of
what some choose to say that they have done or attempted. And
such sweeping condemnations find their admirers amongst those
who wish to take what may be called a popular theological stand.
it may mean that he did not give a digest of our Lord’s teaching, as speaking more of
his actions; or it may include both. If the former explanation be true, then another
must have arranged the narrations in order, and then the supplement may have been
added. Be this as it may, the book of Mark was received as authoritative by the
Apostolic Church, and transmitted, with the narrations in their present order, so that
the point need occasion no difficulty.
* See above, p. 25,note. Erasmus, in his “Apologia de In principio erat sermo”
(Opera ix. 111, 112), does not give the name of this bishop: but in a letter to Herman
Busch, dated July 31, 1520 (Ep. DXIV. tom. iij. 561, seq.), he mentions that it was
Standish, Bishop of St. Asaph, whose unintelligent zeal thus carried him away.
262 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
These things are not very encouraging to those who, with
solemn and heartfelt reverence for God’s Holy Word, desire to
serve Him, and to serve his people, by using intelligent criticism
in connection with the text of the New Testament. Assailants
often say much of the “‘ temerity” of critics, and they speak of
the ‘‘ sweeping alterations” which they have made on “slight or
insufficient grounds.” This involves the question not simply of
principles, but also of facts. It may not sound quite courteous to
say of such opposers, Don’t believe them too readily; but however
it may be phrased, in whatever gentle circumlocution it may be
clothed, or with what soft epithets of any kind it may be accom-
panied, still those homely words express what has to be said, and
that plainly and distinctly. There are good and suflicient reasons
for speaking plainly ; and though we should, if possible, maintain
courtesy, in the place in which it ought to be found; yet it is
better to be considered open to a charge on this head, than to be
misunderstood as to important facts relative to the text of God’s
word. But indeed the defenders of that traditional modern Greek
text of the later copyists, and of the early editors who followed
them, often seem to think that no courtesy of any kind is due to
those scholars who recur to ancient authority at all. To say
nothing of earlier assailants, Mattheei and his followers have shown
with great skill what can be done by imputing evil motives, and
misrepresenting principles, and that, too, in language most studi-
ously offensive. I desire to adhere to all courtesy of expression
and statement; but if it shows a want of urbanity plainly to say,
that those who maintain the traditional text often invent or dream
their facts, and then draw their inferences, then I must be obno-
xious to the charge.*
* In proof of what has been stated above, I refer the reader to Dr. Bloomfield’s
“Additional Annotations on the New Testament” (1851), who, as well as other writers
devoted to the advocacy of similar principles, habitually overlooks the real facts in
the statement of evidence: and thus he accuses critics of having made false allega-
tions which really are not so,—of inserting or cancelling readings which they have
not inserted or cancelled,—and of being actuated by evil motives, such as no one
ought to think of imputing without sure knowledge and definite proof.
I now add examples of these misstatements of fact used as the basis of argument:
the passages in Dr. Bloomfield have been taken just as they may be found throughout.
Luke x.11. “I can by no means approve of the cancelling of 颒 iuas by Griesb.,
Lachm., and Tisch., on the authority, they allege, of MSS. B D L, 1, 33,” ete......
“But MS. B (the most ancient of all MSS.) Aas the words.” Thus Griesbach, Lach-
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 263
They do thus advance allegations as facts, which are not such;
and by such invented premises, they draw conclusions of the most
mann, and Tischendorf are charged in plain terms with an incorrect allegation of
evidence, and in reply it is peremptorily asserted that “B has the words.” But, in
opposition to Dr. B.’s charge of error, be it known that the separate collations of
both Bentley and Bartolocci attest that B Has Not the words.
James i. 3. Here Dr. B. charges Tischendorf with erroneously quoting Cod. B for
the omission of rs ricrews—adding, “nor is there any proof extant that the MS. has
not the words, for none of the collators attest their absence.” Did it never occur to
Dr. B. to examine published collations before thus making assertions about them?
Bentley’s collation of B does attest the omission of the words in question.
2 Tim. ii. 3. Dr. B. says, “ Here, instead of ov ob caxom., six uncial and five cursive
MSS.,... have ovyxax.” These six uncial MSS. are A C* D* E* F G; and of them
he says immediately after, “‘ Moreover, what weakens our confidence in those uncial
MSS. in this case is that they all of them have the manifest blunder of the scribes in
reading ovorparusrms for orpar.;” he adds, that od ody caxor. “is found in the Vat. B.”
What Dr. B., in referring to six MSS., says of “all of them,’ is true only of two,
D* E*; and to quote a reading in 2 Timothy from the Vatican MS. is futile, for that
MS. does not contain the Epistle: yet Dr. B., drawing, as before, his facts from his
imagination, says that a certain reading “is found” in it! Just so, on 2 Cor. vy. 12, he
quotes A!
1 Pet. iv.1. “The é before capxi, not found in very many MSS., has been cancelled
by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., and Tisch.” This assertion, as far as Scholz and Tischen-
dorf are concerned, is utterly incorrect ; and Griesbach does not cancel év, but only
marks it as a probable omission.
Rom. ix. 11. “For xaxov Lachm. and Tisch. edit datrov, from MSS. A B and eight
others, confirmed by several fathers; perhaps rightly,” .... “The same diversity
of reading exists at 2 Cor. v. 10,... where Tisch., on slender external authority,
though with strong support from internal evidence, edits datAov; while Lachmann,
by a glaring inconsistency, retains xaxdv.” This “inconsistency” is that he in each
case follows EVIDENCE.
So on 1 Peter i. 20, after noticing that ‘“ Lachm. and Tisch. adopt the reading
éoxdé7ov” instead of the common écxdérwv; he says that the former derives support
from Heb. i. 2, “and 2 Pet. iii. 3, én’ éoxydrov rv quépwv, which has place in Text. Rec.;
though there Lachm. and Tisch. think proper to read, inconsistently enough, from
several MSS. én écxdérwv. Surely the reading, whether écxérwv or écxdrov, ought to
be made the same in the same writer.’ And so, no doubt, the copyists thought,
and so they made it the same. But might not St. Peter use difference of language
when he speaks of different things? and why should critics be charged with tncon-
sistency in cases in which they consistently follow evidence, and not preconceived
imaginations ?
On Rom. vy. 18, Dr. B. says, “It is remarkable that in this passage, and that of Phi-
lemon 18, above noticed, Lachm. and Tisch. should read, from a few uncial MSS.,
edAsya, and Lachm. should place in the margin here éddcyarac; for there is not
the slightest vestige of such a verb as éAAoydw.” But there is just as little trace
of éd\Aoyéw, for if it be not the true reading of these passages, Dr. B. himself states
that it is only found in one inscription. It is not therefore remarkable that in such
cases critics should follow their MSS.: and so they have done; and thus it is no¢ tr-we
that either Lachmann or Tischendorf has in the text in Rom. v.13 departed from the
common reading éAAoyetra: it is also incorrect to state that Lachmann’s margin has
éddoyarat, for it has eAdoyaro. [On
264 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
unfavourable kind against the ancient documents of every sort and
region,— against the text which rests on such documents; and
they speak against the critics who value them and bring them
forward, as if they were both devoid of all acumen, and had no
moral conscience with regard to Holy Scripture. This renders
discussion almost impossible; for it is not a question of principles,
but often simply of facts; and there are those who are sure to
regard confidence of assertion as carrying with it a great (if not
convincing) force in a question of argument.
Of late such assertions have been put forth as to the grounds on
which the common Greek text rests, as would (if they were re-
ceived) cause all critical labours to be regarded as needless, if not
mischievous. An endeavour has been made to cast doubt upon
the simplest and most elementary facts connected with the original
editions, and to make it appear that early editors possessed almost
all that could be desired in the way of critical aids.
Facts which critics have successfully laboured in establishing
have been ignored; while some separate portions of their argu-
ments have been taken as a groundwork on which to establish the
strangest paradoxes;—such, for instance, as that the Compluten-
sian MSS. were really ancient; that Erasmus “‘ possessed a collation
of the Vatican MS. (B) itself” (see above, page 22, as to what he
really had from that MS.); that Erasmus’s copy of the Apocalypse,
in which he says that the commentary was intermixed with the
text, might have been of the extremest antiquity, and that the
On Rom. xiv. 10, Dr. B. ascribes such motives to critics as ought not to be hinted
without distinct proof. “Lachm. and Tisch. edit @cod [instead of xpicrod} on the
authority of seven uncial and one other MS., with the Coptic and some later ver-
sions—grounds these so slender, as can hardly satisfy any but those who (like the
Socinians) would bring in cod here, in order to weaken (though vain is the endeavour)
the strong evidence for the Divinity of our Lord, supplied in the next verse.” Did,
then, the copyists of AB C D E F G introduce 6cod in this place to oppose the
proper Godhead of Christ? Or are the ancient MSS. of zo value as witnesses? or
are we to put words in or out of the text, just as may be dogmatically convenient ?
But in 2 Cor. v. 10 we read, that we must all be manifested eumpocdev rod Biaros Tov
xptorod, and hence, on the usual principle of harmonising, has arisen xpicrod instead
of écod in Rom. xiv. 10: “for we must all appear before ro Byjyare rod Oe0d.” Compare
the two passages, and then say whether reading 6cod here has a tendency to oppose
our Lord’s true Divinity.
These are samples of the mode in which facts are misstated, and grounds of criti-
cism are misrepresented; and that, by some persons, repeatedly and habitually.
These remarks apply to none who repudiate and condemn advocacy of such a kind.
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 265
commentary was afterwards added; that ‘‘ Griesbach, Davidson,
and Tregelles” were all guilty of making a false charge against
Erasmus, in asserting ‘“ that the MSS. which he employed were
very few, and those modern;” that the collations of certam MSS.
‘‘ were doubtless of immense value in the formation of Beza’s first
edition” (an edition which only in the most trifling points differs
from those of Stephens, and for which, in fact, MSS. were scarcely
used at all):—these and the like statements, gravely propounded
as facts, have their parallel in the enunciation of principles which
succeeds: ‘‘ we think that the uncial or ancient MSS., as a whole,
are of less value than the great body of cursive or modern ones,
and that the consent of the later uncials, and a majority of the
cursive MSS., ought to decide a reading, in opposition to the
more ancient uncials and a small minority of modern MSS.”
This is intelligible, and it presents a ground on which discussion
is possible, which is not the case when all that is presented is
assertion in opposition to known and proved facts,—facts familiar
to all those who have studied the subject. I quite believe that
those who enunciate such principles are thoroughly sincere, and
that the more recent any copies may be, the more they would
value them.
It may be thought that such opinions might pass unnoticed,
and that those who value critical studies might regard them as
very harmless: but, observe, the evil lies in this, not that opinions
of a peculiar kind are held and maintained, not that critical prin-
ciples are stated which would lead to conclusions which others
believe to be wrong; but that facts are misrepresented ,-— facts,
which are the true basis of all argument, and which, if appre-
hended untruly, would affect all conclusions. This it is that requires
that plain words should be spoken; for the uninformed are actu-
ally misled, even though it may be to the instructed quite sufficient
refutation of these allegations for them to be stated plainly.
Be this, then, my excuse for saying definitely, that all such
representations of facts are utterly and absolutely untrue: I have
no doubt that those who advance them fully believe them;* just
* The statements just given, with much more in the same strain, may be found in
a paper “On the Sources of the Received Text of the Greek Testament,” in the
* Journal of Sacred Literature,” Jan. 1854. The reader who wishes, will find more of
266 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
so does the uninstructed traveller in the parched desert hasten
onward, in the confidence that water is before him, and just so
does he encourage others, when all that he really beholds is a
delusive mirage. The text of God’s holy word is in question, and
is it better smoothly and courteously to receive the assertions by
which others are guided astray, or to be obnoxious to the charge
of rude dogmatism for stating plainly how facts really stand, and
for endeavouring to direct to true sources of criticism?
Holy Scripture is too precious a deposit for there to be any real
question, when its value is intelligently known and felt; and thus
there must be a willingness to meet, and, by God’s grace, to bear
the obloquy attached to those who seek to oppose the traditional
inertia which has fallen on so many of those who profess warm
regard for the word of God. Would that their zeal had been
more accompanied by knowledge! For had it been so, they would
not have canonised the very dust and the vulgar accretions which
the same kind of thing in an article “on the Greek Vulgate” (by this term the writer
means, the common Greek text of the New Testament) in the same Journal, Oct. 1852,
signed “ W. E. T.” Dr. Kitto, then the editor of that journal, inserted the last-men-
tioned article to call forth a reply fvom me: I was, however, little inclined to answer
twelve pages of assertions, which any knowledge of facts would serve to correct;
nor would readers of common courtesy and ingenuousness expect me to discuss ques-
tions with any one who departs from the limits of such inquiries, not only in being
the inventor of his so-called facts, but also in endeavouring to obtain a vantage-
ground by imputing evil motives. A man who lays down as a preliminary, that his
opponent is “greatly wanting in due reverence for the word of God,” and has been
“ suilty of a capriciousness and inconsistency most reprehensible,” is one who need
himself expect no answer. As to facts and imputations alike, Neh. vi. 8 is a sufficient
reply to W. E. T., a writer with whom I am not acquainted, and whose reasons for
diligently contradicting whatever I state are wholly unknown and unguessed by me.
In the same Journai for July, 1853, W. E. T. (“on the Samaritan Pentateucb”) enun-
ciates his critical canon, “ Zranscribers are more liable to omit than to add”: this
opinion is one which (according to Porson) “omnes indocti” maintain. This might
be enough; but W. E. T. illustrates his position by citing the long addition of the
Samaritan text at Exod. xx. 17, saying, “ This very important addition to our present
Hebrew text possesses, we certainly think, very strong claims to be received as
authentic.” Now this said addition represents God as speaking, at Mount SINat,
of Mount Gerizim as being “ beyond Jordan towards the west,” NX JIVA Wysa
wow 8121977. ‘This is plain proof that these words could not have been spoken
by God at Mount Sinai, but that they have been interpolated in the Samaritan copy
in Exod. xx. from Deut. xi. 30, where all is right as spoken in the plains of Moab.
Such writers deserve no serious refutation, even if, for the sake of others, the charac-
ter of their assertions is shown. Whatever differences of opinion there may be,
discussion is very practicable so long as facts are adhered to, and there is no imputing
improper motives; for this introduces into a region in which fair discussion is
impossible. :
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 267
the carelessness of past ages has allowed to adhere to the sword of
the Spirit, and partly to hide its brightness.
How much has been done of late to put the word of God into
circulation, and to translate it into the tongues of pagan nations!
Would that this could be carried out tenfold more! But is it not
at least remarkable that, as far as modern translations in general
are concerned, all the labours of critics have been in vain? If
scholars had been engaged in giving to the nations of India trans-
lations of Homer or /Kschylus, it would not have been so; for
they would instinctively have embodied the results of criticism :
is it not then strange that Christian scholars should have so gene-
rally acted with less intelligence in translating into the tongues of
such nations that infinitely more precious book, the New Testa-
ment? Are there many modern translations in which any results
of criticism have been introduced? What is the number of those
in which 1 John v. 7 does not appear, and from which converts to
Christianity would not think that verse to be a special ground for
believing the infinitely precious doctrine of the Holy Trinity?
It is a cause for thankfulness that the common Greek text is no
worse than it is; but it is cause for humiliation (and with sober
sadness do I write the word) that Christian translators have not
acted with a more large-souled and intelligent honesty. There
has, indeed, been honesty of purpose and deep devotedness; and
hence the feeling of sadness is the deeper that there was not a
fuller intelligence. A while ago this could not have been ex-
pected,* but of late years it might reasonably have been de-
manded; and zow it is not too much to ask for this from all
engaged in publishing translations of Holy Scripture for the na-
tions to whom the gospel is carried forth.t It is futile to plead,
* Because for a long time critical studies, in connection with the text of the New
Testament, were as much neglected amongst us, as the Passover often was of old, in
the times of the kings of Judah. Bishop Marsh, by his translation of Michaelis,
directed attention in some measure to the subject, and this was done far more exten-
sively through the appearance of the Rev. T. H. Horne’s Introduction, thirty-six
years ago. There was, however, a continuous want of pains-taking, personal study,
as if Biblical Criticism had deserted the shores on which it had formerly been
specially cherished.
+ In connection with this subject, may I remark on the unhappy practice of pub-
lishing and circulating dishonestly perverted versions in the languages of Roman
Catholic countries,—versions which are, here and there, intentionally corrupted,
268 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
that our English authorised version is based on a different text,
and that translations for newly-evangelised nations ought not to
differ from it: our English version was honestly executed before
critical studies had properly begun; and to make it the standard of
criticism shows as little intelligence as if it were made the standard
of translation. But indeed the latter error, puerile as it is, has
been committed; and good, well-meaning men, of limited mental
horizon, have constituted themselves judges of new versions, cri-
ticising, through the medium of what others report, words or
sentences which are not in precise accordance with our English
translation ; and that, too, even when the idiom of language de-
manded a different collocation of clauses from what we use in
English. Translators, no doubt, have felt the inconvenience of
such censorship, and of being subjected, tacitly or avowedly, to
such trammels.
But we need not be surprised that, with regard to translations,
facts are such; for in this country there has been a timidity about
the whole matter,—the truths of God’s word have been valued,
and yet there has been seemingly a fear lest too close a scrutiny of
the text of that word would invalidate those truths, or render
them doubtful; as if the doctrines which God has revealed might
rest just as well on a basis of dim uncertainty, perchance of tran-
scriptural error, that is (if deliberately maintained) of falsehood,
as on the ground of absolute and ascertained ¢ruth. This kind of
caution is exactly the same as if any would sanction and perpe-
tuate errata found in a printed edition of the Bible.
And thus texts are quoted in discussion, as proving doctrines,
which rightly have no bearing on them at all. Are there none
who still bring forward 1 John v. 7 in proof of the Trinity? In
this, there has been indeed a retrogression from Luther and from
Cranmer. The doctrine is most true, as resting on indubitable
warrants of Holy Scripture; but it is not to be proved by citing
as Scripture that which, if there be any truth in evidence, is no
part of Scripture at all. In discussions on baptism, we still some-
especially in opposition to the doctrine of the finished sacrifice of Christ. This
practice of circulating such versions has been, in spite of remonstrance, defended on
various grounds ; and those who have so remonstrated have been blamed for inter-
fering. “Is there not a cause?”
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 269
times find those who cite Acts viii. 37: ‘“‘ And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered
and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” This is
done* apparently in entire unconsciousness that no part of this
verse is recognised in critical texts, or indeed (what would weigh
more with some) in the first printed edition.
In questions on church order, it is often said that éxxAnoia, in
the singular, is not applied to many assemblies, or to that portion
of the Church universal which may be diffused through any parti-
cular country or countries; and, amongst other proofs, Acts ix. 31
is still relied on (‘‘ then had the churches, éxxdXnoiat, rest through-
out all Judea and Galilee and Samaria,” etc.), though critical
texts, relying on united ancient authority, have here the whole
passage in the singular, 1) pev obv éxxdnola Kad’ Orns Ths Iov-
Salas kat Tadiralas xal Sapapelas ciyev eipjvnv, oixodopoupevn
Kal Tropevopévn TO POBW TOU Kupiov, Kai TH TapaKAHoeL Tod dylou
mvevpatos, émdnOuveto.t
Pains have often been taken to explain difficulties occasioned
wholly by readings of later copies: thus, in Acts xii. 19, 20, in
our version, St. Paul says, ‘‘ And when he had destroyed seven
nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by
lot: and after that he gave unto them judges, about the space of
four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.” Endea-
vours of various kinds have been made to reconcile this term of
four hundred and fifty years, from the rise of the judges till
Samuel, with other Scripture dates; and this passage, as thus read,
has furnished materials for whole volumes.t But the most ancient
copies put this period of four hundred and fifty years in quite a
* Tt may be denied that this verse is stz/2 thus quoted: I therefore explicitly state
that it has been so done, even while these sheets were passing through the press. I
subjoin a remark from the North British Review, No. xxxviil., August, 1853, on the
doctrine which this verse is used to establish. “Though the words in Acts viii. 37,
containing the reply of Philip to the eunuch, when he asked to be baptized, ‘If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest, are now allowed on all hands to be an
interpolation, we should refuse nevertheless to admit an adult to baptism, save on
the personal profession of his faith.” (Review of Dr. Davidson’s Biblical Criticism,
page 435.)
+ I only state the fact; I build no theories on it.
t In the title of Sir Henry Ellis’s new edition of Blair’s Chronological and Histo-
rical Tables, this period is still called “the computation of St. Paul.”
270 AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
different connection: “‘. ... he divided to them their land by
lot, @s éreow TeTpakociows Kal TevTnKOVTA, Kal peTa TadTA BaKev
Kpitas, about four hundred and fifty years; AND AFTERWARDS
he gave unto them judges.” This is the reading to which atten-
tion should have been drawn, and which should have received
explanation.
A later reading may cause an expositor needless labour: thus,
in 1 Johny. 13, the common text has tadta éypavva tyiv Tots mruc-
Tevoval eis TO OvOM“A TOD Viod TOU Deod, iva EidHTE OTL Cwiy ExeTE
aioviov, Kat iva muotevnte eis TO dvowa TOU viod Tod Beod. But
this reduplicate reading of the modern copies has sprung, by
addition and transposition, from two varieties found in the older
copies, Tadra éyp. tu. Wa eidfre OTL Sw. Ey. aiwv. ol TLoTEvoVTES
(or Tots TucTevovat) eis T. BV. T. UL. T. Deod.
In discussions on prophecy how much has been said about ‘ the
beast that was and is not, AND YET Is!” Rey. xvii. 8, To Onpiov
56 Te Hv Kal ovx ott, Kaimep éotiv, as it stands in the common
text. But this phraseology would not have been used if the older
text had been known or remembered, 76 Onpiov tu Hv Kal ovK
éotw Kal tapecta; “*... the beast, because it was and is not,
AND SHALL BE PRESENT.” Expositors of the Apocalypse have
in general followed readings of little or no authority, and that to
a degree that has of necessity vitiated much of their explanation.*
How easily might a more intelligent course have been pursued !
Those who profess to be competently informed on any science,
or on any branch of similar knowledge, would, as a matter of
unquestioned certainty, be very differently grounded in their ac-
quaintance with elementary facts. They would not go on per-
petually drawing conclusions irrespective of really knowing and
ascertaining the data which they use as their premises.
Few things are more to be deprecated than that there should
* T ought here to except two who, though differing widely in their expositions, have
used the revised Greek Text which I published in 1844. This was done by B. W.
Newton, in his “ Thoughts on the Apocalypse,” 1st edition, 1844, 2nd edition, 1853; and
by the Rev. E. B. Elliott in his “ Hore Apocalyptic,” in the second and subsequent
editions. The Rey. Chr. Wordsworth, D.D., has also himself adopted an ancient text
as the basis of explanation.
The English translation of the Revelation from ancient authorities, after it had
been again closely revised, was published without the Greek Text in the end of 1848,
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, 271
be any divorce of the vital godliness of the Church from its intel-
ligence and knowledge; and yet can it be denied that there is
a danger of this? Is it not evident that real spiritual Christianity
is often found in those whose measure of biblical knowledge is
very limited ? and also that they make the narrow boundary of
their own apprehension the limit within which they wish to con-
fine others, condemning as wrong and dangerous all that is more
intelligent and comprehensive? And on the other hand has there
not been too often an extent of biblical knowledge in those whose
minds have been cold, dead, and lifeless as to all its spiritual value
and efficacy ? and has not this caused others to shrink from critical
studies, as though they must be, of necessity, soul-deadening and
delusive?
These things cannot be doubted by any who are informed on
the subject; and thus it becomes a thing of deep importance to
press on the attention of those whose hearts know and love the
truths of Scripture, that they should make fundamental biblical
studies their own field; that they should combine intelligence
with grace, and that on no account should they leave criticism in
the hands of those who do not apprehend the true value of that
revelation which Holy Scripture contains.
Tam persuaded that very much of the biblical study amongst
us in the present day is superficial in the extreme. Holy Serip-
ture is examined for particular purposes, and is valued so far as it
seems to answer such objects. It is very right that those who,
with awakened consciences, are inquiring what the will of God is,
should specially seek to know what the Holy Ghost has taught as
to sin, and God’s judgment against it, and our condition as sin-
ners; and what is set before us as to God’s mercy to us sinners, in
sending his eternal Son to be the Saviour for evermore of all who
believe in his name; whose blessing then is to know Him as their
sacrifice, substitute, and surety, and now their forerunner in glory.
But this is not all: if peace is preached by Jesus Christ, let him
who has relied on his blood know of a certainty that he has that
peace, and let him go on to learn all the extent of God’s revealed
will as set forth in Holy Scripture. If ‘all Scripture is given by
inspiration of God,” .... ‘that the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works,” it behoves that the
oT AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINTED TEXT
believer should look at Scripture comprehensively, seeking light
and guidance from above; and not merely at portions or passages
of such a character as may suit some real or supposed personal
feeling or want.
But if it be asked by any if I think that textual criticism is that
which will furnish this more comprehensive and thorough-going
understanding of Holy Scripture, I answer, Certainly not: criti-
- cism is a means tending to an end, and nothing more. And thus
let it be remembered that in the sanctuary of Israel, there were
those who had to attend to the external services; and the hewers
of wood and drawers of water had their place; so that without
them the priests could not have ministered within as to their
sacred functions. In erecting the temple, not only was it needful
to build the visible and glorious edifice, but it was essentially
necessary that there should be the deeply-laid and firmly-built
substructions—unseen indeed by most ; unthought-of, perhaps, by
the casual observer; but indispensable to the edifice whose glory
should be visible to all.
The student of Scripture, who seeks to use it for the spiritual
edification of others, takes a high stand, and engages in a blessed
work: to this I make no claim in these textual studies; but one
thing I do claim, to labour in the work of that substructure on
which alone the building of God’s truth can rest unshaken;* and
this claim, by the help of God, I will vindicate for the true set-
ting forth of his word as He wills it for the instruction of his
Church.
A partial and imperfect acquaintance with Scripture; a neglect
of fundamental biblical study ; the holding of true doctrines more
traditionally than intelligently; a meagre theology which does
much in excluding the Lord Jesus Christ from a great part of
Scripture ; a superficial habit of exposition, which causes a
slender and partial apprehension of the word of God to be held,
to the exclusion of all that is more deep and substantial ;—are
amongst the weaknesses of Christian people in this day. And
those who most require to be told that this is the case, are those
* “Fix elementis constant, ex principiis oriuntur omnia: et ex judicii consuetudine
in rebus minutis adhibita, pendet ssepissime etiam in maximis vera atque accurata
scientia.” (Clark, cited by Blomfield: Prom. Vinct., p 135.)
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 273
who are least willing to hear that it is so. Close, accurate, and -
pains-taking study is needed, as well as personal godliness ; for
most assuredly the Scripture, when looked at in the limited
manner so common, is treated not as if it were God’s objective
revelation, but as if it were to be measured by man’s subjective
apprehension. It is true that it addresses to us those things which
we have to know for our personal well-being and salvation ; but
there we must not stop ; for the Scripture reveals God,—his act-
ings for his own glory,—his purposes as resting on Jesus Christ
the Lord of glory. And unless Scripture is apprehended as this
objective revelation, its full force and significance are unnoticed
and unfelt.
Those who uphold evangelical truth, are well aware that doc-
trinal error in many forms, and those, too, at times, both plau-
sible and attractive, is widely disseminated. It is useless to
ignore this as a fact ; and it cannot be met by mere re-assertions
of orthodox truth. These statements may be felt to be very
satisfactory to those who, through God’s mercy, already believe
them ; but they do not suffice for guarding TRUTH against oppo-
sers ; and it is no mercy to those who are in danger of being led
astray to meet questions and objections by assertions of dogmatic
orthodoxy. If anything can be done, Scripture and the truths
taught there must be apprehended spiritually, morally, and
MENTALLY. And thus, while the whole basis of evangelic belief
remains the same as to the ground of personal salvation, through
the atonement of Christ, there will be a fuller apprehension of
divine truth, and (through the blessing of God) a greater ability
to use aright the things so taught. The glory of Christ in his
believing people will be more known, and the Church will be
apprehended as a reality, in contrast, on the one hand, to a body
constituted by forms or ordinances, and, on the other, to that
agglomeration of orders (to use the monastic term) in which it
seems, in the apprehension of many, to consist.
The subject of biblical study in its lower elements, namely,
textual criticism, has led to these remarks; the meagre and super-
ficial manner in which this is treated is only a symptom of the
partial character of all biblical learning, and of the need that there
is, if possible, to revive it in its widest extent amongst those who
19
274 PRINTED TEXT OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.
know in their own souls the value of divine truth, and wish to use
it for God as applicable to themselves and others.
I trust that in this department of sacred learning some among
us will be found desirous of not being mere perfunctionary stu-
dents; for thus, and thus only, can sacred criticism flourish again
in this its former abode. I have long laboured with this object in
view ; and, whatever the actual results may be, I have the fullest
confidence that my efforts have been made in the right direction.
This Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
is, of course, primarily intended for biblical students: let me
then, in conclusion, request any such, into whose hands this
volume may come, to remember, that the Scripture has been
given us, not as that on which our minds are to rest with any
mere intellectual interest, but as being the revelation granted in
mercy by God to us sinful men. How easy is it for us to misuse
God’s best and holiest gifts! How often is Holy Scripture regarded
only intellectually, without its value or purport being apprehended
by the heart and conscience! To what can this lead but a deeper
spiritual blindness, a twofold veil over the heart? But let the
Scripture be known as the written testimony of the Holy Ghost,—
a testimony that the Son of God has come to save the lost, and
that now forgiveness and reconciliation to God through faith in
his blood are set forth,—then will the word of God be felt as
speaking with life-giving power to the heart and conscience, and
then will there be the ability to seek for spiritual light and guid-
ance to know and apprehend it aright for the purposes for which
it was bestowed. We have to remember the solemn position in
which we stand as sinners against God, whose wrath has been
revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness, and that the
record of his mercy, as shown in the cross of Christ, is contained
in Holy Scripture: the privilege of possessing it and using it will
either be the greater condemnation of those who do not rest on
the message of the Gospel thus declared, or else it will be for the
eternal welfare of those who, through the mercy of God, thus
receive into their hearts by faith the knowledge of Jesus Christ as
the Saviour.
A COLLATION OF
THE CRIVICAL FEXTS
OF
GRIESBACH, SCHOLZ, LACHMANN, AND TISCHENDORF,
WITH THAT IN COMMON USE.
—ittnn i
COLLATION OF
THE CRITICAL TEXTS
OF
GRIESBACH, SCHOLZ, LACHMANN, AND TISCHENDORF,
WITH THAT IN COMMON USE.
Tue following Collation exhibits to the reader, at one view, a com-
parison of the common Text with those which have been formed by
critical editors, in accordance with the principles adopted by them.
The Text of Griespacn has been taken from his manual edition,
Leipsic, 1805; in which his matured judgment is most fully expressed :
for although the second volume of his large edition, with critical
authorities, was not published till the following year, the greater part
of it had been printed some years previously; and the former volume
of that edition had appeared in 1796. The points of variation are but
few between the two editions, and they relate more often than not to
questions of the degree of probability attaching to different readings.
In Griesbach’s Manual, as well as in his larger edition, besides the
Text actually adopted, the probability of readings being true or not is
indicated according to the value which he set on different classes of
evidence. These designations of that critic have been retained; for
they are as essentially parts of his system as are the readings in his
text: he also placed certain readings at the foot of the page of his
ll
manual edition, simply as being such as students might perhaps hear
discussed by their instructors, and which they might therefore find
convenient to see in the edition which they used, although Griesbach
himself rejected them: these readings have been, of course, altogether
omitted in this Collation.
The Text of SoHoxz has been taken from his edition, 1880-36,
but with due regard not to follow typographical errors, as if they had
been the variations advisedly adopted by that editor. The readings
which Scholz subjoins to his Text, and which he designates as
Alexandrian or Constantinopolitan (i.e. according to his system and
nomenclature), have been also introduced into this collation. In this
part of Scholz’s edition, as well as in the text, etc., the errata are
numerous, and the needful designations are not unfrequently omitted
or confused: hence it has been needful to exercise some judgment in
correcting such errors of notation: occasionally, however, this was
almost, or quite, impossible; and then it was necessary to pass by the
reading in Scholz’s margin without inserting it.
It must be remembered that Scholz professedly follows the Con-
stantinopolitan family of authorities; so that when a reading not in his
text is thus designated, it points out a place in which he advisedly
departs from that class of witnesses. Sometimes the reading adopted
by Scholz is itself marked as pertaining to one of these families; in
such cases the object of the designation is to contrast the readings
found in the two classes of authorities.
LAcHMANN’s Text has, of course, been taken from his larger edition,
1842-50. In this Collation, besides the variations of his text, the
readings of his margin have been given; these are the places in which,
in the opinion of that critic, the authorities are so divided as to cause
the preferable reading to be a matter of uncertainty. Similarly the
readings which he enclosed within brackets as being questionable,
have been distinguished in this Collation.
The readings adopted by TiscHENDOoRF have been taken from his
second Leipsic edition, 1849: as he only gives a ¢ext, without indicating
doubts or degrees of probability, there was nothing to insert in this
Collation, except a conspectus of the readings actually adopted by him.
lil
Besides these four critical texts, the variations have been noticed
of that of Srrpnens, 1550, from the Elzevir text, 1624 (second and
more correct edition, 1633): this comparison will be of some value,
though the variations are neither great nor very important, as the
editions in common use fluctuate between these two texts. Mill
followed the edition of Stephens without intentional variation (except
in the correction of errata), and from Mill’s edition (as if he had
formed a critical text, which he did not) reprints have been made
habitually in this country.
Explanation of the Abbreviations, etc., used in the Collation.
Gb., Sch., Ln., Tf., St., Elz., stand, of course, as the contractions
for Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Stephens, Elzevir.
The mark )( is placed between the word or words of the common
text and the variation noticed: if it is an addition, omission, or trans-
position, this mark is not inserted.
Precedence is given to the readings adopted in the TZext by the
critical editors: to these are subjoined, with some mark of distinction,
those readings which Griesbach designates as falling under one of the
heads in his list as to degree of probability, those which Scholz de-
notes as Alexandrian or Constantinopolitan, and those which Lachmann
places in his margin, or which he encloses between brackets as being
doubtful.
The following is the list of Griesbach’s signs : —
indicates a probable omission.
indicates a less probable omission.
(rarely found) signifies an addition of some slight probability.
marks a reading of great value, which, however, Griesbach
did not prefer placing in his text.
marks a reading of somewhat less authority, considered by
Griesbach to be inferior to the text.
2 tun
2
When these two latter signs are affixed to the reading of the common text,
for which Griesbach substitutes another, then they mark readings which that
critic considered to be inferior, indeed, to that which he adopted, but still
supported by much authority.
iv
Alz. and Cst. are, of course, the abbreviations denoting Scholz’s so-
called Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan readings.
Ln. txt. signifies that Lachmann has the reading in his text, with
that of the common text (if no other is specified), in his margin.
Ln. mg. implies the same with regard to Lachmann’s margin.
Readings enclosed between brackets are those which Lachmann has
thus marked as being doubtful; but if such readings have also been
cited as connected with other critical texts, then the readings them-
selves have not been bracketed, which might occasion confusion, but
the reference to Lachmann is given thus [Ln].
It is believed that this will be found a sufficient explanation of the
following Collation to make it useful, as presenting a concise conspectus
of the results of critical studies hitherto carried on.
Cuap. I.
1. AaBid X Aavid Gb. Sch. Tf. ;
Aaveid Ln. semper.
Boo¢ X Bods bis Ln.
"0875 X *l@ByS bis Ln. Tf.
6 BaotAevds, om. Ln. Tf.
Sodopavra X ToAopava Gb.
Sch. Tf.
8.’Aca \ "Acad Ln.
’Ottav X ’O¢eiay Ln.
’Otias X ’O¢eias Ln.
’E¢exiav \ "E¢exeiay Ln.
’E¢exias X ’E¢exeias Ln.
’"Apa@v XY *Apuos bis Ln. TE.
—"Iwciav { *Ilwoeiav Ln.
. Iwaoias X "Iwoetas Ln.
. MarOav X Ma€6ap bis Ln.
. Inood, om. Tf. (Gb. >].
— years Cst. X yéveois Gb.
Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Rec. Gb. x].
yap, om. Ln.
mapaderyparioat X Sevypa-
tioat Ln. Tf. [(Gb.].
. Mapa X Mapiay Tf.
. TOV Kupiov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. LAlz.]
. 6 Beds, om. 6 Ln.
. Oveyepbéis\ eyepOeis Ln.( lz]
. Tov vidv auTns Tov mpwTd-
tokov \ viov Ln. Tf. [om. avr.
Tov Tpwt. Alx.]
Cuap. II.
: drones X ‘Iepovoradrp
bk ce
i
: ‘Hpatysd 6 Bacwrevs X 6 Bac.
“Hpdns Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
8. axkpiBas e&eracare \ e€er.
axpiBas Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
9. €aTn X €oraOn Lu.Tf.[Gb.9].
[Ale ]
. evpov YX eidov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. paiverat kat dvap X kar’
évap aiv. Tf.; Kar’ dvap
epavn Ln.
w
I
al
is]
w&
Nn
oOo sw
Lal
lanl
. Opjvos kat,
MATTHEW.
Tov Kupiov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. Alx.
. uo X da Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.].
Alz.
om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3]. Alz.
HOere X 70€Anoev Ln.
. Kar’ dvap aiverar X pair.
kar ov. Ln. Tf. Alz.
; mrOev X elondAOev Ln. Tf.
; emt, om. Ln. [Gb. ~1.
“Hpadou TOU marpos avTov X
ToU jarp. aut. “Hpod. Ln.
. Na¢apér \ Na¢apeO Ln. Tf.
[Ale.]
Cuap. ITI.
. 0€ Gb... [om. Alx.]
N
kal héywv, om. kat Ln. Tf.
. umd ¥ dia Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~w]. Ale.
A > a
. avrod Av X Av adrov Lx. TF.
eBarricovro, add. [mavres]
Ln.
"IopSdvn, add. rorape@ Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
. QUTOv, om. Ln. Tf.
Kaprovs agiovs X Kapmov
a&vov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. On b€ Kal, om. kal Ln. TE.
(Gb. >]. [Alz.]
. Barrife tipas X tpas Bar-
ti¢w Ln. Tf.
kal trupi Gb. >. [om. Cst.]
. avTov Gb. >.
, “~
arroOnkny, add. avrov Ln.
: "lodvns, om. Ln. Tf.
- ™pos avrov X aire Ln. Tf.
_ kai Barrio bels \ Barrio bers
dé Ln. Tf.
aveBn evOds X evOds advéBn
Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
dve@xOnoav X nvedxOnoav
Ln. 3 avT@ {Ln.].
kal EpXopmevov, om. kal Ln.Tf.
Cuar. IV.
10 Ingots, om. 6 Tf.
3. auto, om. Tf. [Ale]
— eizrev, add. avT@ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
4. dvOpwmos \ 6 dvOpwmos Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
— emt mwavti \ év wavte Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
3. tatnow X éornoev Ln. (Gb.
~]. Alx.
6. Aeyer ¢ elrrev Ln.
9. deyet \ etrrev Ln, [4/z.]
— mavta cou couravT. Tf. Alz.]
10."Ymaye, add. dricw pov
Gb. > Sch. [Ln.] Tf.
12. 6 Incovs, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
13. Na¢aper\Nagaped TfL Alx.];
Naapaé Ln.
— Karepvaotp X Kadapvaovp
Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9] sic semper. Aln.
16. oxdTe cide as X oKoria
pas eioev Ln. Tf.
18. 6 Inaovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
19. avTois, add. 6 "Inoovs [Ln.].
23. OAnv THY TadwAaiay 6 "In-
govs X 6 “Inaotds OAn TH
TadtAaia Ln.; ev OAn TH
TadcAaia Tf. [om.6’Incods).
24. Kat SarpovCouevous, om. kat
Ln. Tf.
Cuar. V.
1. aUT@, om. Ln.
4 & 5. Trans. Ln. (text) Tf.
9. avrot [Ln.].
11. pa, om. Ln. Tf.
— ka@ ipav, ante wav Tov. TE.
— Wevddpevor, om.Ln.T£.[Gb.3).
13. BAnOnvar €Ew Kal X BAnOev
Ln. Tf.
ar. eppeOn YX éppnOn Ln. Tf. (et
sic deinceps).
22, etki}, om. Ln. Tf.
25. ev mH 63 per’ avrov X per
avrov ev Tp 66@ Ln. Tf.
20
30.
31.
-
>
unr
an
10.
. apiepev \ adnkapev Ln. TF.
13.
.o€ Trapase, om. Ln.
. Tos apxaios, om. Gb. Sch.
in. Te
.avtns X abrny Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
avrov X €avrov Ln.
BAnOy eis yéevvay X eis yé-
evvay améAOn Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
Ort, om. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
a ? - >
. Os dv amrodvon X was 6 aro-
Avy Lu. [Gb. x]. [Alx.]
porxao Ga X poryevOnvat Ln.
wit [Ale.]
ds é€ay amron. yannon X 6
drrohen. yapnoas Ln.
7) peAauvay troujoat X mroun-
oat 7) peAauvay Ln. Tf.
.€oT@ \ éorat Ln. Tf.
e , 3. N . , >
. pamives emt \ pami¢er ets Ln.
gov ovaydva X oraydva cou
Ln. Tf.
. Sidov X dds Ln. Tf.
. eUVAOYELTE TOUS KATAPwpEVoUS
tpas, KaA@s Toveire Tos
pucovrvras vas, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3] [rots prcovow Gb.
Sch.].
ernpea(ovray bas, Kal, om.
Lawff, (Gb. 1.
oa
. TO avTo X ovTws Ln. Tf.
. eros YX didovs Gb. ».
Ter@vat \ €Ovixol Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.] [Rec. Gb. »].
ore \ ro avro Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
: eomep Ya as Ln, Tf. [Ale]
ev ToIs oupavois X oupavos
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
Crips Vi:
TMPOEXETE, add. Se Tf. [Alz.]
eennootvny \ Sixacoovvny
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. auTos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
[Alx.]
ev T@ avep@, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. =]. Alz.
mpooevxn X mpocedynobe
ovk éoecbe Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
aomep X os Ln. Tf.
dv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
Ort, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. ™] ev, TO Gb: =.
ev T@ pavepd, om. Ln. Tf.
[Ate]
THs ys, on. THs Ln. Tf.
e a 2 € , ‘
OTL Gov eoTiy Nn Bactdela Kal
¢ , me , >
n Svvapts Kai 7 dd€a eis
34.
i>]
>
ur
fon)
© ©
Le,
16.
MATTHEW.
ToUs ai@vas. anv Cst.; om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
TA TapAanToLATA avT@Y, om.
rt. [Gb].
. @omrep X ws Ln. Tf.
attav X¥ éavre@y Ln.
Qo > 4 a
OTL aTrexouct, om. OTt Ln. Tf.
. Tos avOparos vnorevor \
yor. Tois avOp. Ln.
kpunt@ X xpupaia bis Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~].
ev TS haveps, om. Gb. Sch.
dad be
. bev X cov bis Ln. Tf. [Gb.»).
kal, om. Lu.
: opbarpos: add. cov Ln.
6 opbarpds cou amAovs 7 X
7 © OPO. cov amd. Ln.
.pappova X paywva Gb. Sch.
Hine be
© vA A , ,
.kat X 7} Ln.; om. Kal ti winre
Tf. (Gb. 3].
> ‘ > a OA ¢
.avgdver: ov Koma, ovd€ vn-
> , >
Bet X av&avovaow: ov Komt-
aow ovde vydovow Ln. Tf.
. eme(nret \ emi(nrovow Ln. TE.
. Tv Bagiwrelav Tod Ceod Kal
Thy Sukacoovyny \ thy Si-
Kaloo. kal tv Bao. Ln. Tf.
Ta éautns X éavtns Ln. TF.
(Gb. s].
Cuap. VII.
. avtipetpnOnoerar X perpn-
Ono. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
2 AY >
. aTrO i ek Ln.
.THy Boxy €k TOU dpOarpov
gov X €k Tov 6p. cov Ti
Soko Ln. Te
.kataratnowow \X Katarra-
Tnoovow Ln. Tf.
> , > ,
. avorynoerat \ avoryerat Ln.
€oTw, om. Ln. Tf.
€ay, om. Ln. Tf.
aitnon \ aitnoes Ln. Tf.
\ PAY , ‘ > i x x
kal eay ixOvv airnon X 7) Kal
ix9. airnoet Ln. Tf. [i) Kal,
Alx.j
€av, Alx. om.
.ovtos { ovr Gb. ».
.elaedOere X eicedOare Ln.
at;
1) mUAN, om. Ln.
. Ort oTEVT) X Ti OTE Gb. Sch.
Ln. [Rec. Gb. »].
7 mvAn [Ln.]
IIpooexere Se, om. de Ln.
arapvany \ orapvAds Ln.
2
is]
Leal
2
2.
2
2
=
1S)
>
tn
[2]
1)
>
oo
\o
. wav, add. [ody] Ln.
20.
. oupavois X Trois ovp. Ln. TF.
: mpoehytevoapey X émpodn-
dro lain
Tevo. 1 vad tre
. TOVTOUS [Ln.]}
Gpo@ow advrov X dpowwby-
werat Ln. [Alx.]
THY olkiay avrov X avrov Thy
oixtay Ln. Tf.
: Tpooenerov X mpooémaoav
Lu. i Tpoo erecay Tf. Aln.
: THY oikiay avrov X avrov rip
oix. Ln. Tf.
. mporexoway \ mpooéppnEav
Ln. mg.
. ouveTedecev X eréAeoev Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. ypappareis, add. avtav kai
ot daptcaio: Ln. ; add. av-
Tov Tf. Alx.
Cuap. VIII.
, ‘ > ~ 5)
.KaraBavri S€ atta X kai
, > -~
karaBaytos avTov Ln.; [ka-
taBavros avtov Alz.]
. AOav X mpooedOay Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
.6 Incovs, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Mpoweveyke X mpoowéveyKov
1 hike be
Moons \ Maivons Ln.
(semper) [Gb. 8].
Tf.
.EicedOdvre Se rH “Inood X
eioeX. O€ adT@ Gb. Sch, Tf. ;
eloeAGovtros S€ avtov Ln.
[Alz.]
. Kai heyet att@ 6 "Inaods X
Aéyet avT@ Ln. 40
. Kat drroxpibets X drroxpid.
Oé Ln.
— Adyov \ Ady@ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. e£ovciav,add. Tago dpevos Ln.
Io.
13.
&
dxodovOotow, add. avT@ Ln.
ovde ev TO “Toparn | Tocav-
Ty miorw X wap ovderi
Too. miotw ev TH “Ioparr
Ln. Tf.
e , ¢ ,
ExaTovTapx@ X ExatrovTapyn
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Kal 2°, om. Ln. Tf.
auTov, om. Lu. Tf.
> a a > , > \ a
év TH Opa ekeivy X amd ths
&pas exeivns Ln. ; Lad: fin. add.
kal imoorpapas 6 éxarov=
TapXOs eis roy oikov ) avTov,
ev avrh TH Spa, evpe TOV
maida vyvavorra Ala].
.avrois { a’rd Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~].
. ToAAOds Gxdovus X SxAov Ln.
. AUTOV, om. Ln. Tf.
. elev X Ayer Ln. TE.
. TO TAOtoy, om. TO Ln. Tf. Ala]
. ob paOnral, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— avtov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- npas, om. Ln. Tf.
; ore kal, om. Kat Ln. if.
traxovovaw ait@ X atta
vrrak. Ln. rt
. AOdvrt aita@ X EAOdvros ad
Tov Ln. [Alz.]
— Tepyeonvav\Tepacnvéy Ln.
[Gb. ©]; Tadapnvay Sch. Tf.
[Gb. »].
. Inaod, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Ale.
gi. exitpeov nyiv amedOeiv YX
drroarevAov nuas Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.] Rec. Gb. ~
. avtots, add. [6 "Invods] Ln.
= dren Oov X aan Oav La,
~ cis ry adyéAny Tav xoipav \
eis Tous xolpous Gb. Ln. Alz.
— TOV Xolpar, om. Gb. Lu. [4lz.]
34. cuvavTnow \ omdvrnow Ln.
— drws X va Ln.
Cuap. IX.
. TO, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >]. Alz.
mpooepepov \X mpoodépov-
ov Ln.
— apéwvra X adievrar Ln.
— oor ai dpapria cov X cov
ai duap. Ia. Tf. [(Gb.~]. Alx.
eizrov \ etray Ln.
idov \ etdas Ln. [Gb.%}.
tpeis, om. Ln. Tf.
.apéewvrar ¥ adievtar Ln.
aot { cov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €yerpar { &yetpe Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
6. éyepOeis eyerpe Ln.
8. avpacavy épo8nOnoay Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
.6 Inoots éxeiOev X éxeid. 6
"Ino. Tf.
— MarOaiovt MaO@. Ln. semper.
: avrou dvaxeysevov X avak.
aur. Ln.
. el7rov \ €Aeyov Ln. Tf.
: "Ingods, om. Ln. Tf.
avtots, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb.-). Alz.
— aA J adda Ln.
13. €Aeov \ €Aeos Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
Alz.
- addr’ ¥ adda Tf.
wm
.
©
MATTHEW.
13. els peTavotay, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
14. TOAAG, om. Ln.
14. amroAouvrat \ aroAAvyrat Ln.
— BadXovarvr, post daoKxovs Ln.
— duddrepa X duddrepor Gb.
Soh. Ln. Tf.
18. dpyeov \ add. eis Gb. Sch. Ln.
- éO adv \mpored Bav Ln.; €io-
eA\Oay Tf. [Gb. 0].
— "Ort, om. Tf.
19. NKOAOVONnG ED X nKoAOVOEL Ln.
22. exvotpageis \ otpadeis Ln.
af,
24. Neyer avdtois X €Aeyey Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Ala.
24. avTa, om. Ln.
— vie X vidos Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
28. mpoondOov \ mpoondGav Ln.
— TovTO Toinaat X TONAL TOU-
To Ln.
30. dve@yOnoar X nvedy Ono. Ln.
af,
— eveBptpnoaro X éveBpuanOn
In. Tf.
32. dvOpwrrov, om. Ln.
33. A€yovres, add. Ott St. Elz. ;
om. Mill, Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
38. €¥T@ Aa@ [Cst.] om. Gb. Sch.
16) el a
36. ekNeAvpevor YX eoKvApevor
Gb. Sch. 1h ae b a
- €pprprpevor X peptppévor Ln. ;
epipevor TE.
Cuap. X.
2. "IdxwBos \ Kat "Idk. Ln.
3. AeBBatos 6 emxAnbels, om.
Ln. [Gb. >].
— 6 émixdrnbels GaddSaios, om.
Tf. [Gb. ~].
4. Kavavirns X Kavavaios Ln.
Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
- "Iovdas, add. 6 Elz. Ln. [Alz.]
- “Toxaptorns X *Iokapiod Ln.
4."Ort, om. Tf.
8. vexpovs eyeipere, ante herp.
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]; om. Sch.
[Gb. -].
10. paBdov X paBdous Sch. TF.
(Gb. s]. [Ln. mg.]
— €oTw, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
12, ad jin. add. heyorres, Elpnyn
TO olk@ TOUT@ Alz.
13. edbéren " éhOdre Tf.
14. eav \ dy Ln. Tf.
— eepxdpevor, add.é& Ln. TE.
— Kovicproy, add. é« Ln.
3
ae
1g. Toudppwv \X Toudppas Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Ala.
19. rapadivaow \ mapadéow
Ln. Tf.; mapadacovaw Alx.
- dobijererae yap bpiy €v exeivy
Th ®pa ti Aadnoere, Gb. >.
{Ln.]
23. aXAnv J érépav Gb. Ln. ; add.
[xdy ev TH érépg dudkoow
bpas, gevyete eis tiv ah-
Any] In.; add. eadem, sed
éx ravTns Gb. =.
- yap Gb. 3 om. [Alz.]
— TOU, om. Ln. Tf.
— dv, om. Tf.
23. Tov oikodeamréTHnY X TO olkO=
deordty Ln.
— €xddeoav { émexddecay Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tovs oiktaxovs X Tots oikia=
kots Ln.
28. PoBnOnre X hoBeiabe Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dmoktewvovrwy \ amoKrev=
vovrwv Ln. Tf.; amoKtevov-
tov Gb. Sch.
- kal Puxny, [kat] Ln.
29. Ent THY vir Gb. =.
31. poBynOnre X poBeiobe Ln.
Tf. (Alx.]
32. ovpavois X Trois ovp. Ln. Tf.
33. Say X be Ln. Tf.
—avtoy Kaya X Kady adrov
Ln. Tf.
— ovpavois X rots oup. Ln. Tf.
38. és ov AapBaver X Os dy py
apy Ln. mg.
- eee X dkorXovbjon Ln.
Be iy ay Ln.
Cuap. XI.
2. Ovo X Sud Ln. Tf. (Gb. x]. Alz.
§. Kat x@Xol, [kal] Ln.
— kal kool, [kal] Ln.
— vekpol, prem. kal Tf.[Ln.] Alx.
— Kai mrwyxol, [kai] Ln.
6. €ayv \ dy Ln.
7, 8,9. €EndOere \ €&nOare Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
8. iuariows, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— Baoirtéwy X Baowrelor Sch.
(Gb. x].
9. ety ; mpopyrny X mpod.
ideiv TE.
10. yap [Ln.]
- eyo {Ln.]
— ds X cal Ln. Tf.
42.
II. QUTOU eoTLY \ EoTL avTod TE.
13. mpoepyntrevoay \ empodyr.
Ln. Tf.
1g. aKovewv, om. TE.
16. matdapiots \mradiots Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— €v dyopais Ka@npevors \ Kad.
ev d-yopa Ln. (Gb. =]. Alz. ;
KaO. €v ayopats Tf.
— kal mporpavovor Tots érai-
pos avTav, 14. kal éeyou-
ow \ & mpoodevovrra Tots
Eraipois (éTrépots) Aeyovow
Ln. (Tf.) Gb. ». [Alz.]
— tpty, om. Ln. Tf. EAla.]
a1. Xopativ \ Xopa¢eiv Tf.
— BnOcaiday X ByOcaida Ln.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
23.1) €ws \ pr ews Ln. [Alz.]
— TOV, om. Ln. Tf.
— tWobcioa f tWoOns Tf. [Gb.
e]. Alx.; bpoOnon Ln. [Cst.]
—xataBiBacOnon X KaraBn-
on Ln. Tf.
— éeyevovro \ éyernOnoav Lu.TF.
— yevopevar ev cot, epervay
ev col yev. enewvev Ln. Tf.
23. dméxpuvvas X &xpupas Ln.Tf.
26. éyevero evdoxia X edd. eyev.
Ln.
24. e€av BovAnrat 6 vids dmroka-
Aviat \ dv 6 vids amoKa-
Avy Ln. mg.
29. mpads X mpavs Ln. Tf.
Cuap. XII.
ts oaBBacr X oaSBaros Ln.
3. etarov \ etxrav Ln. Tf.
3. autos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
me epayev X €payov Ln.
—ovs X 6 Ln. (txt.) TF.
6. peiCwv X petCov Sch. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. x].
9.”EXeov \ €Aeos Ln. Tf.
8. kal, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
10. 7 THY, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >].
11. €oTal, om. Tf.
— eyepet X eyeipes Ln.
12. caB8acr ¥ caSBaros Lu.
13. THY Xeipad gov X cov thy
xetpa Ln. Tf.
— dmoxatreoTa@n \ amekateaT.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. Oi dé Papicaior ovpBoudtoy
é\aBov kar avtou eed Odv-
tes { e&XO. Sé of Papic.
oupB. €daBov kar avTov
Ln. Tf. [Ake.]
MATTHEW.
. 6xXoL, om. Ln.
. ras \ iva Ln. TE.
. eis, om. Ln. Tf.
. €v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. mpoonvexOn \ mpoonveyKay
Ln.
— Sapo tdpevos tupdds kal
kads \ Saypoutdpevoy rv-
prov kai kapdy Ln.
— Tov TudAdy, om. Ln. Tf.
— kal AaXetv, om. Kai Ln. Tf.
; é "Ingods, om. Ln. Tf.
bpav €covrat kperal \ Kpir.
oor. pov Ln.
.e€y@ ev Tvevpare Ocou X év
IIv. Geod eyo Gb. Sch.La.Tf.
. Staprrdcoat \ dpracat Ln. TF.
— dtapracer \ dpmdce: Ln. TE.
. Tois avOparrots 2°, om. Ln.
. ay X éav Ln. Tf.
—ovk adeOnoera t ov py
apebp Ln.
—TovT® TO \ TO viv Sch.
(Gb. x].
38. THS KapOlas, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
af
— Ta, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
36. eav, om. Ln. TF.
— Aadnowow X AaAnocovew TE.
38. amekptOnody, add. att Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— kai apicaiwy, om. Ln.
42. SoAopavros \ ToAopavos bis
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.Emotpé wo eis tov oikdv
poov X eis Tov otk. pou emer.
a Wied by &
~ oxodd{ovra, add. [kat] Ln.
48. €nta erepa) €rep.enr. Ln. mg.
46. O€, om. Ln. Tf.
- adedpot avTov, [avrov] Ln.
48. eimovTt X eyorre Tne Te
s0. moinon \ mou TF.
Cuap. XIII.
. Oe, om. Ln. TE.
— amo X ék Ln.
TO, om. Ln. Tf.
- omeipety x omeipat Alx.
4.7\Oe YX ArAOov Ln. [Alz.];
édOdvra Tt
— kal karepayey, om. Kal Tf.
8. ys X ris yas Ln.
9. aKOvEL, om. Tf.
.paOnrai, add. avrov Ln.
— elroy X eirav Tf.
TX T@v ovpaver, Gb. >.
14. e7 , om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4
Lal
P
18. oot, add. [atTdy] Ln.
— guvdo. { cumdow Sch. Tf.
(Gb. »].
—idowpa XY ldcopar Ln. TE.
(Gb. x]. LAlz.]
. Dav, om. Lu.
— dkovet \ akovovow Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
.e€lOov \ etday Ln.
. orreipovtos \ omeipayros Ln.
TT:
22. TOUTOU, om. Ln. Tf.
23. ynv THY KaAjY X KadHY yhy
ImnsTf:
— cumay X cuveis Ln. TE.
.omreipovte X ometpavre Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. €ometpe \ €réomretpav Ln. TE.
. Ta, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. SovAoL, om. Tf.
— elroy ait X ait@ éyovow
Ln. Tf.
.&€pn X pyow Ln. TE.
30. wexpt X €ws Ln. Tf.
—T@ Kalp@, om. T@ Gb. Sch.
one
— eis déopas, om.els Tf. [Gb.=
- ouvayayere X ocuvayere oe
32. KaTaoKnvovy \ KaTacKnvoi
Ln. Tf.
33. avTots, add. Néyov Alex.
— evexpuwev \ expuwev Gb. x.
34. oUK \ ovdev Ln. Tf.
35. Koo pov, om. Ln. Tf.
36. 6 "Inaovs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3].
— mpoondOov \ mpoondOay Ln.
— Spacoy \ S:acadpnoor Ln.
34. AUTOLS, om. Ln. Tf.
39. 6 omeipas atta €or X €a-
Tw 6 omeip. avTa Ln.
— TOU ai@vos, om. Tod Ln. TF.
40. Karakalerat XY kalerar Gh.
Sch. Tf.
— TovTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. —].
Alz.
43. aKoveLy, om. Tf. [Ln.]
44. IIldAuv, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— maya Goa éxet ToXdEt YX TOK.
may. doa €xeu Ln. Tf.
46. Os evpav { evpay dé Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.] [Rec. Gb. ~].
48. avaBiBdoavtes, add. avtiy
La. Tf.
émt TOV alyaroy, | kal Kabi~
cavres \ Kat emt Tov aly.
xa. Ln. [Rec.mg. Ln.]; om.
Kat Tf.
— dyycia \ dyyn Tf.
gr. Aéyer adrois 6 "Incovs, om
Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
_ KUpte, om. Lu.Tf. [Gb. >]. Alx.
g2. 6 dé etmev X Aeyet Ln.
— eis tv Baowreiav X tH Ba-
otreia Gb. TE. (sic pram. ev
Ln.) Alz.
exmAntrecOa X éxmd\nooe-
oOa Ln. Tf.
. ovxt { ody Ln. TE.
Mapiap X Mapia Tf.
"Iwons X Iwonp Ln. TE.
. marpidt avTov, om.avTov Ln.
ct
Cuap. XIV.
3. Kat €Oero, om. Tf. ; améGero,
post kal ev TH bud. Ln.
pvdakn X tH pvdaky Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
@iAimrrov, om. Tf.
.avT@ 6 "Iwavns X 6 "Iaav.
avr. Ln.
6. yeveriov dé ayopevav X ye-
veoiows dé yevopevors Ln.Tf.;
yev. Se yevopévay Gb. ~.
54-
4. eav \ dy Ln. Tf.
9. Edun 6 Bacrreds, dua dé
tous X Aumnbeis 6 Bac. dia
Tous Ln. Tf.
10. TOV, om. Ln. Tf.
12. 7@pa \ mr@pa Ln. (Gb. x].
— avro avroy Tf. (Ln. mg.]
13. Kat axovoas X axovoas be
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— me(n X meCol Ln. mg.
14. 0 Inoovs, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alz.
— avrovs X avrois Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf:
18. mpoondOor X mpoondGay Ln.
— avtov, om. Ln. Tf.
— aréAvoov, add. obv TE.
18. avtous be \ &de avr. Ln. TE.
19. TOUS xdprous \ Tod xopToU
Ln.
— kal AaBov, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— eiAdynoe \ nvAdynoey Ln. TE.
21. yuvatk@v kal trawWior \ mat.
kat ‘yuv. Ln.
22. 6 Incovs [Cst.], om. Gb. Sch.
Ensver,
— avrov [Cst.], om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
— 70 TrAotoy, om. TO TE.
25. ane X 7AOev Ln. TE. [Gb. ©]
— 6 Ingods, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
— ths Oardaoons \ thy Oadac-
oav Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
|
MATTHEW.
26. Kal iddvres avrov of padnrat
X of b€ pad. iddvres adrov
La.
— thy Oadaccayr X THs badde-
ons Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
evbews \ edvOds Ln.
avrois 6 Inaovs X 6 Incods
abrois Ln.
; avT@ 6 Heérpos etme \ 6 Ile-
Tpos elev avT@ Ln.
mpds oe éOciv { €dO. mpéds
ge Lu. Tf. {Alz.]
.6 Iletpos, om. Ln. Tf.
edOciv X kal HAOev TE.
.euBdavrav X avaBavrov Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. €AOdvtes, om. Ala.
. Tevrnoapér\Tevnoapeé Ln.
Cap. XV.
I. O£ ard, om. of Ln. [Alx.]
ypappareis kal Papioaion X
ap. kal ypap. Alx.
. €vereihato, éywv \ elev
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx.
matépa ov, om. cov Gb.Sch.
Lal Tt.
. Kal ov, om. Kal Ln.Gb. >. (Alz.]
Tinon X Tyanoes Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alex.
i) THY pNTEpa avtod, om. Ln.
6. THY EvToAHY \ TOV Adyoy Ln. ;
Toy vopov TF.
. mpoepnrevae X empodpyrev-
oev Ln. Tf.
: "Eyyi¢er poe 6 ads ovTOs TO
ordpare abrav, kai { 6 Aads
ovros Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
. avTOv, om. Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
eimov X Aéyovow Ln. TE. Alz.
. dOnyol etre TupArot X rupAoi
eit 6Onyol Ln. Tf.
. TAUTHY, om, Ln. TE.
. Inaous, om, Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
.ovme@ \ ov Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
.€kpavyacevy X €xpatey Ln.
(txt.) 5 expa&ev Lu. mg.
auTe, om. Ln. Tf.
vie s( vidos Ln. Ef:
NP@ToV X npwrovy Ln. TE.
2 _ mpocexdvet X mpocexvynoer
Gb. x. Ln. mg.
.€ote Kadov X é€eoriv Ln. TE.
. tup rods, kapovs \ kapovs,
Tudors Tf.
Tov "Incov X avrov Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
31. TOUS BxAovs X Tov GyAov TE.
5
24.
ao
2
aN
ur
~T
oo
if
31. X@AoUs, prem. kal Ln. Tf.’
[Alzx.]
32. Nuepas X nuepat Gb. Sch. Ln.
the
avTov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
e€xéXevoe \ mapayyetvas Ln.
[Alz.]
Tois bxAots \ TH BxA@ Ln.
(txt.) [Rec. mg.] Alz.
; kal AaBav X €AaBev Ln. [Ala]
evxapioTneas, prem. kai Ln.
edaxe YX edidou Alz.
avTov, om. Tf. {Ln.] Alz.
7 bxA@ X Tois 6yAots TE.
: pay, post khaopdrov Lu. Tf.
. eveBn X avéBn Gh. TE.
Maydada X Mayaddy Lu. Tf.
Cuap. XVI.
. Urrokptral, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =].
Alzx.
TO pev, prem. kal Ln.
.ToU mpopnrov, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. -].
8. AUTOD, om. Ln. Tf.
8. avTois, om. Gb. Sch. Ln, Tf.
eddBere \ éxere Ln. [Alz.]
omupibas x opupisas Ln.
.adptov \ dprev Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
mpoa€xewvmpoaexere dé Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]; mpooéxete
Gb, ~
. TOU dprou \rév dprev Lu.TE.
avn X adda TE.
. Pe, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. >].
. €rov \ eirav Ln.
adda X of La.
. avrots, add. [6 "Incovds] Ln.
. Kat dzroxpiOeis Y dzroxp. dé
Ln. Tf. [Adz]
Tots OUpavots, om.Tots Ln. TE.
. Kes X KAeidas Ln. Tf.
5 eay XY O dy Ln. (txt.) Tf. ;
daa dy Ln. mg.
dedepevov if Sedepeva Ln. mg.
. SueareiXarto \ emetipnoevLn.
(Gb. s].
avTov, om. Ln. Tf.
*Inaods, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.6 Inoovs, om. 6 Ln.
dmebeiv eis ‘IepordAvpa X
eis ‘Iep. aed. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
.emityay avt@ X avr. émr.
gh a
pov et X ef €uov Ln.;
Tf.
yap av X yap éay Ln. TF.
33-
35.
we
7
23. €l lou
26. opedeirae ( apeAnOnoeras |
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
28. bpiv, add. ore Ln.
—Tav ode éotnkédtav X Taev
be €orwtav Gb. Ln. [Alw.];
abe éorares Sch. Tf. [Cst.]
Cuap. XVII.
3. dPOnoav X Spy Ln. TE.
~ Maojjs \ Meovojs Ln. TE.
— per avtod ovddadovrres X
ovAA. per avrou Ln.
4. Tonowpey \ wojow Ln. Tf.
— Moon \ Movoet Ln. Tf.
— pilav “Hiia X ‘HXia piav Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
5. Pores \ Poros Gb. [Rec.s].
— evddxnoa \ nvdox. Ln. Tf.
— avrov dakxovere \ axov. avt.
In: T rT.
6. €recov \ €meoay Ln. Tf.
7. mporehOay 6 Inaods Haro
avT@y, kat \ mpoondOev 6
Inc. kal dvdapevos adraev
Ln.
9. amd X ék Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avaotn X eyepOn Ln. TE.
10. AUTOU, om. Ln.
11. Ingovs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— avrois, om. Ln. Tf.
— mpa@rov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
12. GAN’ X-dAXa Tf.
14. €AOdvrwv avtav YX €AOdv-
Tov Ln. ; ed dav Te
- aire \ adrov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. TAT XE Xe éxet Ln,
14. egopat ped’ tpavy\ ped” bp.
Eo OM. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
20. "Inaovs, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— elev \ dEyet Ln. TE.
— dmoriay \ dAvyomoriay Ln.
[Alz.]
— MeraBnbr evredbev X peraBa
evOev Ln. Tf.
2a, avaotpehouevar \ cvoTpeP.
Ln.
23. eyepOnoerar \ dvaorncerat
Ln.
24. elroy if eiray Ln. Tf.
2s. OTe elonAOev X eioeAOdvra
Ln.; ehdvra 1b
26. Aéyet avT@ 6 Ilérpos t ¢-
mévros O€ Ln.; om.é Ilérpos
TMa(Gp. Si:
27.TY Oddaccay, om. THY Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
MATTHEW.
Cuap. XVIII.
. Opa X huépa Ln. (Gb. ].
. 6 "Inoovs, om. Tf.
. Tarewaoon \ Tarewaoet Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. s].
. ds eav X Os dy Ln. TE.
qratOiov Tovovroy év \ év mrat-
Slov roovr. Ln. Tf.
. emt X rept Ln. [Alx.); ets Sch.
Tf. (Gb. x). Csé.
€oTtv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
— é€xeiva, om. Ln. [Alzx.]
8. avra \{ avroy Ln. Tf. [Gb. s].
a 1“ Pw
ant
Ala.
— xoddv 7 KuAAOV X KVAXrOY 7}
Xohov Ln.
ey ovpavois, om. Tf.; [ev TO
_ovpave] Ln.
11. 7AGe yap 6 vids Tod avOpe-
jov C@oat TO amroAwNds,
om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
adels \ adpnoes Ln. Tf.
— mopevbeis X kat mop. Ln. Tf.
. bua@y XY pou Ln. Tf.
— cis X & Ln. Tf. [Gb. x]. Alz.
1g. els oe, om. Ln. TE.
— kai €deyEov, om. kal Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. META GOV, post Svo Ln.
. €av Snonre X av Snonre Ln.
fbi
— TO oupare, om. T@ bis Ln. Tf.
mddw \ dpi Ln.; add. auny
Gb. &. [Alzx. & Cst.]
— tpev cuppornowor \ oUp-
hor. e& bpavLn.Tf.; (cup-
povncovaw Tf)
: avT@ 6 Herpos etre \ 6 Tle-
Tpos elzrev avT@ Ln. Tf.
GAN X adda Ln. Tf.
. mpoonvexOn X mpoonx On Lu.
TT,
. KUpLOS AUTON, om. avr. TF.
- cixe J exet Ln. Tf.
. Kupte, om. Ln. Tf.
— cot, post aToboow Ln. [Alz.);
om. Tf.
24. ekelvou, om. Ln.
28. eketvos, om. Ln.
— HOt, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3]. Alz.
— 6 re X et 71 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
2g. €ig TOUS TOOas AUTOV, om. Gb.
nate pales
— €uot X eve Ln. Tf.
— mavta, om. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] Gb.
>].
30. GAN’ YX adda Ln. TF.
— ov, om. Ln. Tf.
6
31. b€ of avvSovAa adrod X ody
avrov of atvd. Ln.
- abray X éauTev Ln. Tf.
33. kal ey® X kayo Ln. Tf.
34. ob, om. Ln.
- auT@, om. Ln. Tf.
35. €moupavios X ovpdmes Ln,
Tf. (Gb. x]. Alz.
— Td TapanT@pata avTaey, om.
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
Cuar. XIX.
i. THs TadcXaias, om. ms Elz.
3. ob Papicaior, om. of Ln. Tf.
- avTa, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Ala.
- dvopaore, om. Ln. Tf.
4 airois, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
s."Evexev \ evexa Ln. Tf.
~ mpooKorAdnOnoerat X KoAAn-
Ono. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. <).
4. Moons X Mavons Ln. TF. (et
sic deinceps).
— avTny, om. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
g. OTL, om. Ln. Tf.
— ei pa emt mopveia X py emt
mopveia Gb. Tf. [€st.]; map-
exTos Adyou Topveias Lu.
[Ale].
10. AUTOU, om. Tf.
11. TOUTOY, om. Tf. [Ln.]
13. mpoonvexOn \ mpoonvéxOn~
oav Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
14. elev, add. avtois Alx.
1g. avToIs Tas xEipas \ Tas xEtp.
aut. Ln. Tf.
16. elev AUT@ \ avT@ et. Ln.
Ts,
— dyabe, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Ale.
— exo J oXo Ln. Tf. [Cony aio.
KAnpovopnoe Ln. mg.]
14. Ti pe eyes dyabor ; ; ovdels
ayabds, el By ets, 6 eds x
Tl pe eparas mept Tov aya-
Oov ; «is €orw 6 ayabds
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. s]. Alz.
— cioedOciv eis thy Cary X eis
Thy Cony eioed. Ln. Tf.
- THpTOY X type Ln. TE.
18, Aeyet X ey Ln.
— ov povevoets: ov potxevoress
X od porx. od ov. Ln. mg.
19. TATEpa Tov, om. cov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
20. mavra ravra X Tavr. wavT.
Ln. [Alz.]
— epurakdpny X epvddéa Ln.
Tf. [Alx.]
20. €k vEdTNTOS pov, om. Ln. TE.
Gb. >.
21.€pn \ Aeyee Ln.
— 1T@xXOLsS, prem. Tots Lu. TE.
— ovpave X ovpavois Tf. Ln.
mg.
22. Tov Adyov, om.TE.; add. {rov-
tov] Ln.
23. OvakdAws mAOvcLOS X mov.
dvox. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
24. OeAGeiv X ceived. Gb. Sch.
TT:
- Tpumyparos ye -rpupaduas Alx.
— Tov Gcod X rev odpavay Ln.
4 ba
eioed Oeiv, post mAOvGtOY Lu. ;
om. Tf. [Alx.]
. avTOU, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. TF.
. Suvara €or, om. éate Gb.Sch.
aby Be
. Os X doris Ln. Tf. (Gb. 4]. Alz.
- oikias, 7 jy om. TE.
-i marepa, i) pnrépa X 7) yo-
eis Ln. mg.
— i} yuvaika, om. TF.
— i) dypods, add. } oixias TE.
— €xatovram\aciova X moAAa-
mao. Ln. Tf.
Cuarp. XX.
-cuppornras dé \ Kat oup-
povnras Cst.
3. THY TpiTnY, om. THY Gb. Sch.
ne Tt
s. maduy, add. dé Tf. Alx.
6. Spay, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alw.
dpyovs, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
dumek@va, add. pov [Ln.]
[Alz.]
— kal 6 eay 7 Sixaov AnWeabe,
om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
g. kat €AOdvres X eAOdvres Se
Ln.
€AGovres be X Kat €dXO. TF.
[Alzx.]
- tetova (metov Ln. Tf. LAlz. j
- kal avrol ava Snvdprov X 76
ava Snvap. kal avr. Tf.
12."Ort, om. Ln.
— piv abrodvs X adrovs hiv
ia. (txt.)
13.7) ovk, Os. 7 Ln. Tf.
—mounoa 5 bdo X 6 Odo
monoa Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
— i X et St. Tf. Gb. »,
16. ToAAot yap eiot KANTOL, OAL-
you dé exNexKTol, om. TE.
17. paOnras, om. Tf.
wv
a
Io.
MATTHEW.
17.€v TH 60@, Kal X Kal &v TR
680 Ln. Tf. [Ale.]
19. dyagrnoerae X eyepOno. Te.
- map" X am’ Ln. Tf.
21. ovToe [Ln.]
— deEta@v cov, om. cov Ln.
— evwvipor, add. cou Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
22, 0€ 6 X 6 6 O€ St.
— kai 76 Barticpa, 6 eyo Ba-
mricopuat, Barra Ojvat, om.
Gb.Ln.Tf. [Alx.]; [7 To Baz.
Sch.]
23. Kat deyet, om. kat Ln. Tf.
— kai ro Barricpa, 5 eyo aa
mriCopat, Barra Oncea be,
om. Gb. Ln. Tf.; [9 TO Baz.
Sch.]
— EVMVUU@Y pov, om. pov Ln.
Tf. (Gb. 3). Alz.
— €u0v, add. Tovro Tf.
24. kal axovoavtes \ dkovcay-
tes Oe Tf. Alx.
26, O€, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— éora \ éotiv Ln. (Alx.]
— ds é€av X ds dv Ln.
— ev div \ bpev Tf.
— €otw \ éorat Ln. [Gb.s). Alz.
ay. és €ay X, és dy Ln.
— €atw \ gécrae Ln. [Gb. 8].
30. "EAENOor 1 nas, Kvpte {Kvo.,
eee. Tp Ln. Tf.
— vids { vie Ln. [Alz.]
31. expacov \ ékpagay Ln. Tf.
[ Alz.]
—’EXenoor 7 nas, Kvpte\Kup.,
ehena. Te Lu. Tf. [4lx.]
— vids X vie Ln.
32. Oédere, add. [iva] Ln.
33. avotxOaowy X dvovryoowy Ln.
Jf. [dir]
- Huey oi 6pOarpoi X of 6d.
ne. Ln. Tf. (Ale. J
34. opOadpav X duparoy Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— avtav of dpOaXdpol, om. Ln.
Pi eAte}
Cuap. XXI.
1. BnOpayn X BynOodayy TE.
[.A tae]
— mpds i els Ln. Tf.
2. TlopevOnre X mopeverGe Ln.
Tf. [Adz]
- drévayre \ Karévay. Ln. [Alz.]
- dydyere X 4 ayere Ln.
3. GmroaTeAel { amoareAXet Gb.
Sch.
4. OAov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alex.
5. Kat emtBeBnkas, om. Kat Tf.
— m@Xov, prem. émt Ln. TE.
6. mpooéeragev X ovvéraéey Ln.
ie
4. emave 1° \ ew Lu. TE.
— ivatia aira@v, om. adtay TE.
{Ln.]
— emexabioer \ érexa@ioay Elz.
8. €oTpavvvoy \ géotpwcay Ln.
9. mpoayovres, add. avroy Ln.
TY. [Ale]
1. 'Inoods 6 6 mpopytns X 6 mpo-
pir. "Inc. Ln. Tf.
12. 6 ‘Incovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— Tov Geov, om. Ln. [Gb. -].
Alzx.
13. €mouoatre \ wovetre Ln. Tf.
1g. Kpagovras, prem. tovs Ln.
ibe
16. elroy x elmay ions ht.
18. €ravayov X € eravayayav Dr.
19. Mnkert, prem. od Ln. Tf.
22. dy \ éay Tf.
23.eAOdvre att@ X edOdvTos
avrov Ln. [Alx.]
24. O€, om. Ln.
25. Iwavvovu, prem. TO Ln. TF.
- map’ y ev Ln. Tf.
26. Exovee TOV "loavny é @S TpO~
pyrny X @s mpo. ey. rov
*Iway. Ln. TE.
28. avOpwrros, add. Tis Ln.
— réxva dvo X Svo rexva Ln. TE.
— pov, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
—ov Oédw X eye kvpte, Kat
00K amndOev Alz.
29. Uorrepov dé, [Oe] Ln.
30. Kat mpocehOav X mpocen.
dé Ln. Tf.
— devtép \ érép@ Gb. Sch. TF.
(Ree. Gb. x].
si. avTe, om. Ln. Tf.
—‘O mparos { 6 vorepos Ln.
(Tf. 1841).
32. mpos tas "Iwdvyns X lwav.
mpos vp. Ln. Tf.
— ov X ovd€ Ln. Tf. Alz.
33. TLS, Om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— e€éSoro X e&€éSero TF.
38. kaTacxwpev \ ox@pev Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Ala.
41. exddaetat X éxdw@oerae Gb.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~].
44. kal 6 TWeo@y emt tov Aibov
ToUTov y cvvOag Onoerae: eg’
by & ay réon, Aukunoe: av-
Toye ver. 44, om. Tf. [Ln.]
(Gb. —].
46. TOUS dxAovs \ Tov 6xAov Ln.
mg.
— éretdy X eet Tf. Alz.
— ws X eis Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
Cuap. XXII.
1.avtois ev mapaBodais X ev
mapa. avTois Ln. Tf.
4.Tolwaca \ 7roiwaka Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
5.6 pev \ ds pev Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— 6 O€ X ds S€ Ln. TE. [Alz.]
—eis thy X ent rip Ln. TE.
(Gb. ~]. Ala.
5. Axovaoas d€ 6 Bacireds X 6
dé Baowd. ak. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. Alxz.; Kal dk. 6 Bac. Sch.;
add. éxeivos Sch. [Gb. »].
9. av X éay Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
13. elev 6 Baotrevs \ 6 Baot-
evs elzrev Ln. Tf.
= dpare avroy Kal, om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. x]. Alz.
— &€kBarere, add. avrov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 9].
13. €AaBov, add. kata Tov Incov,
s. kaT avtov Alz.
16. Aéyovtes \ A€yovras Ln.
20. auTots, add. 6 "Incods Ln.
[Alz.]
- arr Oov Ns drm Bay Ln. Tf.
23. ol Aeyorres, om. ot Ln. [Alz.]
- emvyauSpevoet, prem. iva Ln.
23, yapnoas y 4 yipas Ln. Tf.
28. ovv avacraces \ avaoT. ovv
Ln. Tf.
30. exyapigovras X yapigovrar
Ln. Tf.; (Ala. s. yapioxov-
tat] [Gb. »].
_ TOU Ocov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
- ovpare, prem. T® Ln. Tf.
32. Oeds vexp@v, om. Oeds Ln.
[Alz.]
38. Kal N€ywv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
37. .O é Inaods eimev X 6 be
€pn Ln. Tf. [dix]; 6 de
Inc. &pn Gb. Sch.
— dyn TH Kapdia X 6An Kapd.
Gb. s, (Cst.]
38. mparn Kal peyddn \ 7 Bey:
Kal mpatn Ln. Tf. (sic sine 7)
Gb. ~). Alzx.
39. weauToy \ €auroy [Gb. x].
40. kat of i mpopirat Kpépavrat X
Kpéuara Kal of mpod. Ln.
Tf. [Ale]
MATTHEW.
43. Kuptov avrov Kader XY Kadet
avrov Kup. Ln. TF.
— avtois, add. 6 "Inaods Alz.
44.6 Kvptos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— Urorddtov X trokar@ Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~). Alz.
46.avT@ amoKptOnvat X daroKp.
avT@ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. XXIII.
3. Tnpelv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
— tnpeire Kal rrovetre \ moun-
care kal Tnpetre Lu.Tf. [Alz.
sic 8. motetre].
4. yap X dé Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ale.
—kai dvaBdoraxra, om. Tf.
[Gb. >].
— T@ d€ X abroi dé TO Ln. [Ale]
s. mAartvovor 5¢ X mar. yap
Ln. Tf. (Gb. wl]. Alzx.
— Tay ivatiwv a’Tay, om. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. =].
6. re X d€ Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
7. paBBi, paBBi X paBBi Ln.
Tf. (Gb. -]. Ala.
8.6 KaOnyntns X 6 didacKddos
Ln. Tf. [Gb. x].
- 6 Xpiords, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
9.6 maTnp bpav \ tay 6 ma-
Tp Ln.
— €v Tois ovpavois { otpdmos
Ln, Tf.
10, €S yap bpav ect 6 Kabn-
yirns X dre KaOnyntns tpav
eoTw eis Lu. Tf. [Gb. J.
Als.
13. Oval tuiv, ypapparteis Kal
@apicaior, vrokpiral, Ore
KateoOiere Tas oikias TeV
XNpOy, kal mpopdcet pakpa
mpooevxopevor* Sia TovTO
Anrea Ge repiradrepov kpi-
pa, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3] Alz.;
ver.13 post ver.14 Elz.; (con-
tra Sch. Cst.)
14. tis X ré Ln.
— peiCov YX peiCov Ln.
- dyvaCoov X dyidoas Ln. Tf.
18. €ay X 4 av Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
19. #wpol kal, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. >.
21. KaTotKouvTe \ KaTouKnoayTe
Gb. Sch. Tf.
23. TOV €Aeov \ TO anece Ln. Tf.
(Ale. ]
— ravra, add. d€ Ln. Te. [Gb. >].
Alz.
8
. aduevat X adeivae Ln. Tf.
. ol, om. Ln.
. €&, om. Ln.
— dkpacias (Alz.] X ddixias Gb.
Sch. [Rec. Gb.x]. Csé.
. kal Ths mapovidos, om. TE.
[Gb. 3].
— av’rav X avrov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
oe]. Ala.
mapopoud¢ere Hf dpoudtere Ln.
peotol e€ore \ eoTe peorol
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. huey bis X He8a Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt
— Kolv@vot avTtaey { avt. Kou.
Lu. Tf.
. kat €& 1°, om. kal Ln. Tf.
38. ekxuvopevoy X ekxuvydpevov
Ln. Tf.
36. Eel, prem. Ott Gb. > & Sch.
~ ravta mavta \ mavra Travta
dW ad
. GToKreivovea \ amroKTevovca
Gb. 8,
— emovvayer Spys X Spy. éme~
ovy. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €avTis, om. Ln. TF.
mrépvyas, add. avrns [Ln.]
Ae
38. Epnjos, om. Ln.
Cuar. XXIV.
1. €7opeveTo amd Tov tepov X
amd Tov ‘ep. émropevero Tf.
(sic, sed €k Ln.) [Alz.]
2. Inoovds X dmoxptOeis Ln. TE.
[Alx.]
— Ov 1°, Gb. 3; om. Ala.
— mavta taita X Tavra mavTa
En TT.
— pn KatadvOnoerat, om. py
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. waOnral, add. [avtov] Ln.
— THs cuvTedeias, om. THS Ln.
Tf. [Ale]
6. mavta, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
4. Kal Notpol, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
9. Tov €Ovay, om. TaY Elz.
1s.€0T@s \ é€oros St. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. »].
16. €mt X ets Ln.
17. KataBawvero X KataB8arw Ln.
[Alax.]
— 7. X ra Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. Ta iudria X Td idreoy Ln.
[Gb. s]. Alz.
20. ev caBBdra, om. ev Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
24.
28.
MATTHEW.
3. muaTevonte \ muotevere Ln.| 3. aitwes X ai dé Ln.; ai yap pacey 6 matnp pou Gb. ».
4. TAavnoat X wAavaoOa Lu. [4Alzx.J 44. aUT@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
mg. — éavtav { adray Gb. Sch. Ln.
24. kal, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Tf. Cuap. XXVI.
28. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alw.| 4. dyyeiows avtay, om. avtay| 3.-kal of ypaupareis, om. Ln.
30. TO oupava, om. T® Ln. be ino, Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
2. exiy 7 expuy Ln. [Gb. «]. | — adray 2° \ €avrév Ln. 4. Kpatnowat Odd@ X SOX. Kpar.
34. OU Bs prem. ore Ln. [Ala] 6. €pxeTat, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— wavra Tatra \ radra mavra [Ale.] 7. aaBacrpoy pupou éxovoay
Alz. — avrov, om. Tf. éx. dAaB. pupou Ln. [Alz.]
38. TapeAevoovrat \ mapedev-| 4. adtaev \ éavraey Ln. Tf. — Baputipov \ moAvripov Ln.
oerat Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.] 8. elroy X etrav TF. [Alx.]
36. THs pas, om. THs Gb. Sch.| 9. ovK X ov pj Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.| — THY Keparny X tis Kepadjs
En. Tf, ~]. Ln. [Alz.]
— ovpavar, add. ovdé 6 vids Lu. | — Sé paddAov, om. Sé Gb. Sch.| 8. avTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =I.
[Alz.] ants, Alz.
— pov, om. Gb. Ln. [Alz.] 11, Kal, om. Ln, 9. TO pvpov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
37. kal 1 mapovcia, om. kal Ln.|13.é€v 7 6 vids Tod avOpwmov| — ToIs, om. St. Elz. Gb.; habent
Tf. epxetat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. Mill, Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
38. dorep \ as Ln. Tf. 16. 6€ [Ln.] 17. avT@, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb, 3].
— npepas, add. éxeivats Ln. — éroincev X éxépdnoev Ln. Alzx.
— Tais mpd, om. Tf. [Gb.-]. [Gb. x]. 20. Owdexa, add. pabnrav Ln.
— exyapicovres \ yapioxovres| — tddavra, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. [Ala.]
Ln. 17,.@cavTws Kat Y wo. [kal] | 22. €kaotos avray \ eis Exaaros
39. Kal 9 mrapovala, om. Kal Ln. Ene In. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ale.
Te — kai adds, om. Ln. TE. [Gb.| 23.€v TO TpuBhie thy xeipa X
o. dUo écovrat X éxov. dvo Ln. >]. Alx. THY xElpa ev TO TpuB. Ln.
— 6,0m. bis Ln. Tf. [Gb]. Ala. | 18. €v, add. raddavrov Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
I. purave X pure Lu. Tf. — €v tn yn \ ynv TE. 26. TOV GpTov, om. Tov Ln. [Gb.
42. dpa XY 7 TuEPG Ln. Tf. [Ale] | — amekpuwe \ expuev Ln. Tf. ~). Alx.
44. @pa ov Ooxetre X ov Sox. Spa [Ala] - evhoynoas [dix] X edxapi-
Ln. Tf. 19. xpdvov mrodvv \ mrodkdy xp6- otnaas Sch. [Gb. 0]. Cst..
48. KUptos avTov, om. avTOU Ln. voy In. Tf. [Ala] — edidov trois pabnrais Kai X
Tf. [Alzx.] - per’ avrey Adyov X Adyov dovs Trois pad. Ln. [Alz.]
- Oeparreias yf oikereias Ln. Tf. per aur. Ln. Tf. [4lz.] 24. TO TOTN PLOY, om. TO Tf. LAlx.]
— diddvat X Sovvar Gb. Ln. Tf. | 20. ém adrois, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.| — Kat edy., om. kal Ln.
[Rec. Gb. ]. Ala. ~]. Alz. 28. TO THS, om. TO Ln. Tf.
46. Totovvta oUTas \ oUT@s ot. | 21.”Edn O€, om. dé Gb. Sch. Ln.| — Kawvys, om. Tf. [Alz.]
Ln. Tf. [4/z.] Tf. exxuvdpevov \ exxuvydpevov
.6 KUptos pov \ pov 6 KUptos | 22. \aBav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Ln. Tf. [Alz.] Ala. . OTL, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— €Oeiv, om. Ln. — én avrois, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.| — yervnparos \ yevnuaros Ln.
49. cuvdovXous, add. avTov Sch. =]. Tf. [Alz.]
Ln. Tf. (Gb. s]. 26. movnpe SovA€e X SovA€e mov.| — ped” dtuav Kady X Kawdy
— éobiew dé kal trivewy \ €oOin Ln. peO” bev Alex.
dé kal mrivn Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. | 27. obv oe X oe ovv TE. 31. OvaokopmicOnoerat X dia-
29. amd S€ tov pn X Tou O€ py oxopmicOnoovrat Ln. Tf.
Cuar. XXV. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ©]. [Ala]
.avtav { éavréy Ln. Tf. 30. exBdaddrere YX exBdadere Gb. | 33. Kal mavres, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
aravrtnow X vray. Ln. TF. Sch. Ln. Tf. Ln. Tf.
2.noav e€ avrav X €€ avrav | 31. dytot, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.] | — ey@, add. S€ Gb. &.
joav Ln. Tf. [Ale] 32. cuvaxOnoerat YX cuvayOn- | 33. amapynoopa X dmapyncw-
— ppdvipor X popal Ln. Tf. covrat Ln. Tf. [Alz.] peat Cst.
[Alw.] 36. HAOerEe \ HAOare Lu. Tf. [Alx.]| — “Opoiws, add. S€ Sch. Gb. +.
— ai rrevre, om. ai Elz. Gb. Ln. | 39. doOevn X doGevotvra Ln.|36.eOonuavn YX TeOonuavei
Tf. ; habent Sch. [Gb. ».] (txt. Tf. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
—popal X dpdvpor Ln. Tf | 40. rev adeNpay prov [Ln.] — paOnrais, add. avrod Ln,
Ala.) 41.70 Hrotuacpevov X 6 Hrol- [Ala]
9
-
36. ov \ ov dy, Ln.; dy TE; om.
[Alx.]
— mpocevEapar exet X exer
mpooevé. Lu. Tf. [Alzx.]
38. avtois, add. 6 "Inaovs Sch.
[Gb. &].
39. mpoeAOwy \ mpowed Oy Sch.
[Gb. x].
— pov, om. Tf.
— mapedbere@ X rapedOato Ln.
Tf. [Alx.]
42. TO ToTHpLoy, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb.
3]. [Alz.]
— ar épov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
+]. [Ala.]
edpioxer adrovs mah \ wa-
Aw evpev advtovs Ln. Tf.
(Gb. s]. Alz.
amedOav madu YX wdadw ar
eXO. Ln. Tf. [Ala]
— €k Tpirov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
=).
. avTOD, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— TO Aourdy, om. TO Tf. [Alzx.]
.ep @ X ed’ 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Rec. Gb. »].
cov THVv paxatpav X THY pd-
Xatpay gov Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— paxaipa X paxatpn Ln. Tf.
(Alx.]
amoAovvtrat \ amoOavovvrat
Gb. x. [Cst.]
53. WAetous \ mAet@ Ln. Tf.
— i) dwdexa, om. 7) Tf. [Ln.]
3s. e€ndOere \ €&ndOare Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— pos pas, om. Tf. [Gb. ].
Alxz.
exabe (Suny diddoKav €v TO
icp@ X ev T@ iep. exad. du-
Sack. Th; exad. év T@ iep.
O.daoK. Ln.; [SiSdoKev Gb.
>).
56. waOnral, add. [avrov] Ln.
59. Oi dé dpxtepets X 6 S€ dpx-
Lepevs Ln. mg.
— kal of mpeoBurepot, om. Ln.
TE [Gps]. -4ia.
43.
44.
g2.
—avtov Oavaracwot X Gav.
avrov Sch.
— davatwowow YX Oavat@aov-
ow Ln. Tf.
60. Kat 7oAA@Y, om. Kat Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— Wevdopapripav mpoced Oov-
tov X mpooedO. Yrevdopap.
Ln. Tf. Alx. [Gb. > woddA.
Wevd. mpoced8.]
MATTE BW,
60. ovx €vpor, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
- evdopaprupes, om. Tf. [Alz.]
61. avrdv, om. Tf.; ante oikod.
Ln. mg.
63. drroxpibeis, om. Alzx.
65. “Ort, | om. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— avrov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. >].
Alzx.
67. €ppamioav XY €pdmiav Ln.
Th LAGE I
69. €£@ éxaOnro X éxad. ¢&w Ln.
Ube
yo. €umrpoabev, add. avtav (Gb.
=]: Sch;
a1. e&eNOdvra S€ adtov X é&ed-
Odvra Se, s. €&eAOdvros Se
avrov Alx.
— avtov, 1° [Ln.]
— Trois exei { avrots éx. Sch. Tf.
(Gb. s].
42. weO” \ pera Ln. TF.
.karavabepaticew \ Karabe-
pari¢ew Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
tou "Inaov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
(Gb.3)]. Alx.
~ avuT@, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
Cnar. X XVII.
. mapedwxkay adtov, om. avrov
ins Pie lA
— Ilovti@, om. Tf. [Alz.]
3. mapaddovs \ mapadovs Ln.
— dméotpewWe \ eotpeer TE.
— Tols mpecBurepots, om. ToIs
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
4. ne Ocxatoyv Gb. ~.
- ower J own Sch. Ln. Tf.
s.€¥ TH va@ X eis Tov vady
Alz.
6. etzrov X etzray Ln. TF.
- kopBavav X xopBav Ln. mg.
.€oTn \ €oraGn Ln. Tf.
. BapaBBay, prem. “Ingoty sya
; BapafBar, prem. Inoovy Tf.
.avT@, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3).
Ula. J
- NYEHOY, om. Tf.
. amrévavtt { Katévavte Ln.
— Tov dtxaiov, om. Tf. [Gb. -].
[Ln.] post rovtov.
. exdvaartes \ evdvoayres Ln.
- mepteOnkay avuT@ xAapvda
koxkivny \ xraptda KOKKi-
ynv mepteOnk. avT@ Ln. Tf.
[Alw.]
: ne TEEN
75.
is)
THs Keparrns
is}
\o
10
a9. emt thy Sekvav X év rH Sea
Lo. Tf. [Alz.] [Gb.].
— évéerratvov X évérraéay Alx.
— 6 Baowred’s X Bactred Ln.
33. os \ & Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— Aeydpevos Kpaviov téros i
kpay. Tom. Aey. Ln. Tf [Alz.]
[Gb. > Aeydpevos]. s. om.
Aeyopevos Alz.
d£0s X otvoy Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~].
Alx. [Rec. Ln. mg.]
— 70erde X nO€Anoev Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
pens X Baddvres Ln.
34.
35.
— iva zee TO pn dev tnd
Tov mpopnrov, Atepepioay-
TO Ta ipaTid pov EavTots,
kal émt Tov iwatiopoy prov
€Badov KAnpov, om. Gb. Sch.
ia. 1 f,
.€t TOU Geov \ Ceod ef Ln.
— KaraBnO., prem. Kat Ln.
. 0€ kat [Ln.]
— mpecButépwr, add. kai Papt-
caiwy Alz.
.€i Bacireds, om. ei TE. Gb. -.
[Ala.]
— mortevoopey X morevouey
Ln.
~ avTe X é avrov Tf; én
avT@ Sch. [Gb. x].
43. Tov Ocdv (7G Geo Ln. txt.
aa avT@ i oy avr Ln. Tf.
— ait@ X adrdv Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
.aveBonoev \ €Bdnoev In.
mg.
— Aaya X Anya Ln. ; Aepa TE.
— caBaxOavi X caBaxavi
Ln.
.€aTatav \ éornkdtoy Tf.
. €Xeyov X etrav Ln.
.ad fin. add. &dXos be haBov
Aoyxny, evugev avuTou TI
mhevpay, kal e&nOev vdap
kal atpa Ala.
eis vo amd dvabev €ws Kato
\ ets dvo, post karw Tf.
. nyepOn X nyépOnoav Lx. TE.
[Ala.]
34. yevopeva \ yevdpeva Ln. TE.
— cod vids X vids Ceov Ln.
txt.
34. euabnrevoe YX epabnrevOn
Ln.
64. vuKTos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
63. O€, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
51.
is)
5
Cuar. XXVIII.
2.amd ths Ovpas, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. Ala. s. ad ths Ov-
pas TOU pvnpeiov.
3. idéa X eidea TE.
— woel ¥ os Ln. Tf. Alex.
4. €yévovro X éyevnOncay Ln.
Tf
MARK.
4. @oeu \ ws Ln. Tf.
6. 6 Ktpuos, om. Tf. Alx.
8. €€eAPovaae X admreAbovoa
TE.
9. as Oe émopevovro dmayyet-
Aat tots pabnrais avrod,
om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alzx.
— annvrnoev X Umnvrnoey TF.
14. emi X td Ln.
15. onuEpor, add. 7<pas Ln. Tf.
14. avTe, om. Ln. Tf. Ala.
18. ys, pram. THs Ln. Tf.
19. ovV, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.j
— Bantigovres \ Bamrricavtes
Tr.
20. "Aunv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
Cuap. I.
% TOV, om. Ln. Tf.
2. os X xabas Tf. Alz.
—e Tois mpopyras X &v “Ho-
aia T@ mpopnty. Gb. Sch.
(Ln. (txt.) Tf. T@ *H.] [Ree.
Gb. ~, Ln. mg.]
~ eyo, om. Ln. Tf.
— €umpoober cov, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
4. BanriCov, prem. 6 TE.
kal, om. Tf.
3. e€erropeveto \ e&erropevovto
Gb. x». Cst.
—kat €BantiCovro mavtes X
mavtes: Kal €Bamrivovro Gb.
Ln. Di Alz:
— ey 7 "Topddvy ToTaR@ or
avrov \ tr avr. év TO Top.
wor. Tf. Ln. mg. Alz.
6. jv Se X kat Av Ln, (txt.) Tf.
Alx.
—"Iwdy., prem. 6 Tf. Alx.
— €cbiwv X écOwy TF.
8 pev, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— ev vOaTt, om. ev TF.
— ev IIvevuart, om. év Tf. [Ln.]
9. Kat eyévero, [Kal] Ln.
_ Na¢aper X Na¢aped Pe
— vo loavvou els TOV "Topda-
yy X ets tov “Iopd. tn.
"Iwav. Ln. (txt.) Th Alz.
10. evbéws X evOvs TF.
— ano X ék Lu. Tf. [Gb. 9].
Alz.
—awoet { ws Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
p Ee
— én avtov X eis avrdv Ln.
(txt.) Tf.
II. €V @ X é€v cot Ln. (txt.) Tr.
[Gb. ~], Alz.
12. evOvs { evOéws Ln.
13. €kel, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
€ ,
— nuEépas Teaoapdkovra X Teo.
M.A Ke
npep. Ln. mg. Alz.; add. kat
teoo. vuxtas Alx.
14. Mera S€ \ kat pera Ln. Tf.
— Tov, om. Alx.
— ths Bacwdelas,.om. Tf. [Ln.]
(Gb. 3]. Alex.
1. Kat Néy@r, om. kal Tf. [Gb. 3].
Cst.
16. Ilepurarav dé \ Kal mapd-
yov Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
— avrov \ Tov Sipwvos Ln. [Gb.
©]. Alz.; avTov Tov Dipwvos
Sch. Cst.; Zipwvos Tf.
— BadXovras X audiBaddov-
tas Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Ree.
Gb. x].
— apiPrnoTpoy, om. Tf.
18, aUT@Y, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
19. exetOev, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 3
Alz.
— Sixrva, add. adtév Alx.
20. evews YX evOvs Tf. Alzx.
21. etoeAOwy, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
—eis Thy cuvaywyny, €dida-
axe X eis tTHv ouvay. edi-
Sackey Tf. ; om. TH Elz.
22. ypaypareis, add. [avT@v] Ln.
23. Kal, add. evOvs Tf. Alz.
24.” Ea, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >]. Alz.
— oda X otdapev TE.
26. kpafay X povncay Tf.
— e€ ar Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx.
27. mayres X 4 dmavres Tf.
- avtovs X € éautous Ln. Tf.
- Aéyovras, Ti €ore ToUTO ;
Tis 9 Sidax7) 7 Kaw) ae
ore X Aeyovtes: tis
Saxn 9 ) Kaun ; 3 Gb. x.
~ ris n dwdayn 7 Kaw) avrn,
dre X Sdax7) Karvy Ln. Tf.
Alz.
28. EEmjAbe Sé YX Kai e&dOev
Ln. Tf. Ala.
11
28. vOUs, mavraxov, s. evdus
mayTaxov Ala.
29. ev0ews X evOds Ln. Tf. Alz.
— e£eOdvres, HAOov YX e&ed-
Gav nrAOev Ln. [Gb. ~].
30. evOews X evOds Ln. Tf. Alz.
31. aUTNS, om. Ln. Tf.
— evGews, om. Alzx.
32. edu X ducer Ln. Tf.
33. 7, modus 6An erreovrnypevy
nv \ qv 6An 7 wd Emo.
Toneeht
34.avTov, add. Xpiorov eivat
Alz.
38. €vvuxov \ evyvxa Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
— Kaket { Kat éxet Ln.
36. 6 Siuwy, om. 6 Tf.
37. €UpdvTes adrov X ebpov avrov
kal Tf.
— (ytovai ce X oé Cyrodvat
Sch. Ln.
38. Aywpev, add. addayod TF.
Alzx.
— kakei X Kat éxet Gb. Sch.
— é£eAndva \ eAnrvOa Gb. »;
e&n\Ooy Tf.
39. €v Tals cvvaywyais \ eis Tas
cuvaywyas Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
40. Kal yovuTreT@v avroy, om. Ln.
Tf.
— kal Aéywv, om. Kal Tf.
—"Ore X Kupre Ln. mg. Alz.; s.
om. Ort Alzx.
41. ‘O d€ Incots X Kat Ln. (txt.)
TT:
— Haro avtod ¥ adrod Haro
Ln. Tf.
42. Elm@OvTOS avTov, om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. >]. Alx.
— evbéws X evods TE.
43. evbews X evOvs Ln. TE.
44. pndev, om. Ln. Alx.
— adn ¥ adda Ln. Tf.
44. M@ons X Movons Ln. Tf.
45. GAN’ X adAda Ln. TE.
—ev \ éw Tf.
— jv [Ln]
— mavraxdbev X mdvrobev Sch.
i By ype be
Cuap. II.
1.mdAw eionrOev X eionrdOev
mdAw Sch. Ln.; e’oeAGov
manu Tf.
— kal novo On, om. kat Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
— els otkov X €v otke Ln.
2, evOéws [Ln.] om. Alx.
3. mapadutikoy peportes \ Pép.
mapan. Ln.
4.ep © X dov Ln. (txt.) TF.
[Gb. »].
g. lo@y b€ X cat iSav Tf. Alz.
— afpéwvrai adievrat Ln.
(txt.)
— got ai dpaptiat aov XY cov
at duap. Gb. Tf. Alx. [Ree.
Gb. ~]. [cov] Ln.
y. Nadet BAaohnpias X Aadet;
Braodpnpet Ln. TE.
8. evbéws \ evOvs Ln. TE.
— oUTwS, om. Ln.; add.avTot Gb.
Sch. Tf. [Gb. >].
— cimev X Eyes TE. [Gb. >.
9. Adewvraa X adievrar Lu.
txt.
— vot \ cov Gb. Sch. Tf.
- "Eyetpat X €yeupe Gb. Sch.
Ln. ; eyetpou 4Ue
— Kal, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
— gov tov KpaBBarov \ tov
KpaB. wou Ln. Tf. Alz.
19. acpeevar emt Ths yns X ent
ms yns adtevat Gb. Sch. Ln.
11. €yepat \ éyepe Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
— kat 1°, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
12. evbews Kal \ Kal evOds TF.
- eyovras [Ln.]
— ovdérote ovTws X ovr. ov-
Oém. TE.
~ etSopev yt etSapev Ln.
15. eyevero X yiverat see
— év T@, om. Alx.
—Korovdnoav X iKodovGour
Als:
16. Kat of Paptoaton X Tov Pa-
ptoaiwy Ln. mg. Alx.; add.
[kat] Ln. Alz.
— adtov écOlovra X dre €o ier
In. Alz.
MARK.
16. TEA@VaY Kal dpaproray
duap. kal reX. Ln. Tf.
— Ti, om. Tf.
— teX@vay Kal _Gpaptohav 2°
X dpap. kal rdv red. Ln.
(txt.) Tf.
— kat miver; [Ln.]
17. ovk HAOov X od yap HAO. Ln.
mg.
— els perdavotay, om. Gb. Sch.
ine Tf:
18. 01 T@v Papicaiwv \ of Ba-
ptoatot Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec.
Gb. s].
— kat ol, add. paOnrat Tf.
19. d00v xpdvoy pe” éavTdv
exovat Tov vuudioy, od bv-
vavrat vnorevewv, Gb. >.
— pcb” Eavtdv exodor Tov vup=
giov X &x. Tov vupp. peO
€aut. Ln. ; sic, sed pet ad-
Tey Tf,
20. ékeivaus Tais npepats \ éxel=
vn TH Nuepa Gb. Sch. ed
21. Kal ovdels, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
in. TE.
— pakous \ paxkous Ln.
— emippante \ emipanrec Tf.
— iwatio mada X iwatiov a-
Aaiov Ln. Tf. Alz.
—avrov X adm avrovd Ln. Tf.
[ante TO TA.)
22. pnooer) py&e Ln. (txt.) Alz.
— 6 véos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =
Alzx.
— exxettat kal of dokol aro-
Aovvrat XY dwdAdAvrat kal of
aoKol Tf.
— GAG oivoy véov eis aoKovs
Katvovs BAntéov, om. TF.
. TapamopevecOar avToyv ey
tois caBBaot X avr. ev Tt.
caf. dtarop. Ln.
— ApEavro of pabnrai adtod X
of wad. abr. Ap. Ln. Tf. Ala.
- 6d0v Tovey \ ddozrocety Ln.
24. movovaw, add. of paOnrai
cou Alz.
— ev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alzx.
23. avTos [Ln.] Gb. >.
- eheyev X A€yes Ln.
26. TOU aPX- +) om. Tov Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3]. Alzx.
27. OUX, ret kal Tf.
Cuap. ITI.
‘ Ty 1°, om. TT,
— Hv, om. Ln. Tf.
12
2
we
-
2. TapeTnpovy \ mapeTnpodto
Ln.
— katnyopnowow \ Katryopn-
govow Ln.
3. eEnpappevny €xovre Ti xel-
pa X tiv xeipa €xovre Enpay
in. Ti
—"Eyeipar X eyeipe Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
5. Tov, om. Tf.
— dmoxateatdOn X dmexar. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. Rec. x].
— vyus Os 7 GAN, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
6. evOews \ evOvs TF.
— erroiouy X édidouy Tf. Alzx.
4. aveXwpNoE peTa TOY pabn-
Tay avtov X pera Tov pad.
avT. avex. Gb. Ln. (txt.) Tf.
Alz.
—apos X els Gb. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
Rec. ~].
— nkodovOnaav \ nKodovOnoev
Ln; Tf (Gb); (Gb: 71:
~ aur, om. Tf [Ea (Gp).
8. ol mepl, [oi] Ln.
— dkovoavtes \ dkovovres Ln.
he
— dca X a& Ln. mg.
— roles X rrovet Tf.
11. €Gewper X eOewpovr Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— mpooeminrev \ mpooemimrrov
Ln. Tf. Alz.
- expate X expagov Ln.Te. Al.
12. avTov pavepov X dav. avr.
Gb. Sch. Cst.
- moujr@ar\ woeow Tf. Alz.;
add. [re mSeurav Tov Xpt-
orov adrov etvat] In.
14. 6@dexa, add. ovs Kal dzro-
orddous @vépacev Alzx.
13. Oeparrevew Tas vdcous, Kal,
om. Tf.
16. Kal, prem. Tp@Tov Sipova
Gb. &
-— TO Sieone dvopa \ dvoya Ta
Sip. Tf. Ln. mg. Alz.
17. Boavepyés \ Boavynpyés Ln.
Abe
18. Kavavitny { Kavavaioy Ln.
TE ALE:
19. Ioxapi@rny X Ioxapio6 Ln.
Tf. Alz.
20. OyAOS, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
— pyre X pydé Ln. Tf.
23. Ouvarat \ Suynoerat Tf. Lu.
mg.
23. crabnvat 1) olkia éxeivn X 7
oik. exeivn orad. Ln. (txt.)
Tf.
— orabnva { ornva Tf. Alz.
26. cTaOnvar \ ornvat Tf.
24.00 Svvarar ovdels YX ovdels
Svvarat Gb. Sch. Ln.; dA’
ov Svvar. ovd. Tf.
~ Staprrdcet xX Svapracn Cst.
28. Ta dpaprnpara Tots viois
trav avOparearv \ rots viots
t. avOp. Ta duapr. Gb. Ln.
Bt, Alo:
— Praodnpia doas X ai BXa-
odnpia, doa Ln. Tf.; prem.
ai Gb. >. Sch.
— dy \ édy Tf.
29. eis TOV ai@va Gb. >.
— adn YX adda Lon. TE.
— Kpicews \ daprnparos Ln.
Tf. [(Gb.s]. Alz. (s. dpaprias)
31. Epyovrat ovv \ Kat €pxov-
rat Ln. Tf. Aln.
— oi adedot kal 7 BNTNP av-
rou X 7 pnt. avt. Kal oi
dSeX. adr. Gb. Sch. Ln. [Ree.
Tf. sed ddeAd. avr.)
— éota@tes \ ornxores Tf.
— dowvoirvtes { Kadovvres Ln.
Tf. Alz. (Gb. > pov. avr.)
32. 0xAos mepl avrov X mepl
avr. OxA. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— eimoy bé \ Kai Neyovowy Ln.
Tf. Alz.
— ddedpoi gov, add. kai ai
adeApai gov Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. +].
33. amexplOn avrois, éeyov \
amoxpiOels avr. eye TE.
(Ln. mg.)
— 7) X Kai Ln. (txt.)
_ adedpot pov, om. pov Tf.
34. KUKA® Tovs X Tovs KUKA®
Gb. ».
- KuKh Tous sept avrov YX
Tous mept avTov KUKA@ Ln.
= mept avtov, Gb. >.
— ie X idod Ln. Alz.
35. yap, om. Ln. Tf.
— 70 OédAnpa X ta Ocdknpara
ie
— adeAGn pov, om. wou Ln. Alz.
CHAP, LV:
1.0uyOn \ ouvayerae Ln.
Tf. Ala.
— modus X mXetoTos Tf.
— éuBavra eis TO motor Y eis
MARK.
TO TrAotov €u8. Ln. Alxz.; om.
TO Tf. [Alx.]
1. X Hoay Tf.
3. TOV, om. Ln. Tf.
4. TOD OUpavow, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf:
3. GAXo Oe X kat GAO Ln. (txt.)
Tf:
— metp@des, add. kai [Ln.] Tf.
— evOéws YX evOvs Ln. TF.
— ys, prem. THs Ln.
6. nAtov d5€ avareiNavros \ Kai
Ore avéreibevy 6 HALOS Ln.
txt. Tf. Alz.
— exavpario On X éxavpaticOn-
oay Ln. mg.
4. TAS, om. Gb.
8. dAXo X dAda Tf. Alex.
— avéavoyta X av€avdpevoy Ln.
Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
— €év, ter eis Tf. [ter év Gb. x].
9. avTois, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—‘O éyav X ds eyes Ln. Tf.
1o."Ore dé X Kat Ore Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— npetnoay \ nporov Ln. Tf. ;
sic, 8. €mnpotnoay Alx.
— Thy mapaBodny X tas mapa-
Bodds Tf. Alz.
I1. yy@vat, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
— 7d pvotnpioy, ante Sédora
anes
12. Ta duaptnpara, om. Tf. [Ln.]
GbE Ale:
13. evOEews \ evOds Tf. Alx.
— ev rais kapdias aitay X év
avtois Ln. mg. Tf. [Gb. ~].
16. evbews Y evOds Ln. TF. Alz.
17. evbews X evOvs Tf. Alzx.
18. ovToL 1° X GAAoe Gb. Ln. Tf.
Alx. [Gb. =3 ob rol eiow Cst.]
— ovTol elt, om. Elz. Gb. 3.
— dxovovres \ dkovoarres Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
19. TOUTOU, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
20. ouToL \ éketvor Tf. Alzx.
— ev X év Tf. ter (Gb. x].
aq. abrois, add. Ore Tf.
-—6 AvXvos epxerar X epx. 6
Avxv. Ln. Tf.
— émiteOn X reOy Ln. Tf. Alz.
22. Tt, om <2 - (En), Gb. =. Ale.
— 6, orn. In. Tf. Alx. [Gb.%, s. €7
pn iva].
— pavepwO7, prem. iva Ln.
— eis pavepov EXOn X ENO. eis
cbavepov Tf.
13
24. kal mpooreOnoerat byiy, om.
Gb.
— Tois akovovaty, om. Gb. Ln.
Tf:
23. dv €xn \ exec Ln. Tf
26. €av, om. Tf. Alz.
27. kabevdn Kal eyeipnrat X Kab-
evdee kal eyetperat Cst.
_ Praoravy X Braora Ln. Tf.
28. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. x].
— mAnpn ciroy \ wAnpys oiros
ine ot. Ale:
29. mapad@ \ mapadot Ln. Tf
— eibéas X evdvs Tf. Alzx.
30. Tin X ws Tf. Ln. mg. (Gb.
w]. Alz.
— €v roia tapaBodkn mapaBa-
Aopev adryy X év rim adryny
mapaBor7n Odpev Ln. txt. TE.
Alz:
31. KOKK@ \ KdéKkoy Gb. Sch. Ln.
— puxporepos puxpdrepoy Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]; add. ov Ln. Tf.
— €oTl, om. Ln. Tf.
— Ta em THS ys [Ln.]
32. peiCwv, ante mavT@v Ln. TF.
Alx. [wetCov Ln. mg. Gb. »J.
33. WoAAats, Gb. >.
— ndvvavto X édvvarvto Ln. Tf.
34. paOnrais avrov X idiots pad.
Tf:
36. O€, om. Ln.
— mdowdpua X rota Gb. Ln. TF.
Alz.
37. avejou peyadn \ peyadn ave-
pou Ln. Tf.
— ra d€ X cat ra Ln. Tf. Ale.
—aird Hon yepiCerOa X dn
yep. TO TAotoy Ly. Tf. [Gb.
ew]. Alz.
38. emt 1° X ev Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
(Rec. Gb. s].
— dveyeipovow X éyeipovory TE.
40. OUTW; T@s OUK ExeTE \ ov-
Te eXeTE Ln. [Gb. ~] Alz. ;
otras ovTw Gb. x,
yee traxovovow ait@ X aite
tmaxovet Tf. Ale. ]
Cuap. V.
1. 7AOov { HAGev Gb. ».
— Tadapnver \ Teparnvay Ln.
Tf. [Gb. x].
2. ee Odyre aire \ é£eAOdvros
avrod Ln, Alx.
— evéws, om. Ln. ; evOds TT.
— amnvtnoev X vrnvrncev Ln.
Alx.
3. pynuetors X pynpacw Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ovre \ ovde Ln. TF.
— ddiceow YX ddvoes Ln. txt.
Tf. Alz.
— ovdels ndvvaro \ ovKért ov-
dels edvy. Ln. Tf. Ala.
. avrov ioxve X toxvev avrov
Ln. Tf.
ey Tois dpect Kal ev Tots
pynpacw X ev Tots pynpa-
ow kal év Tots dpect Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. °Idav dé X cat day Tf. Alz.
ard, Gb. >.
. eime X heyet Ln. Tf. [Gb.].
Alz.
8. €k X do Ln. mg.
9. emnpota X emnpwrnoev Ln.
mg.
— oot dvona X 6vopa cot Ln.
Tf. Alz.
drrexpiOn, Aéeywv \ A€yer ad-
T@ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
Ree. %}.
Aeyeay \ Aeyov Ln. Tf. Ala.
— pot, add. eat Ln.
mapekdAet X mapekddovy Ln.
mg.
- avrous aroaTeiAn \ aroor.
avr. Ln. ae
I. €kel Mpos TA Opy ayéeAn xot-
pov peyadn Bookopern:
12 Kal mapexdecay X &xet
ayehn Xotpov peydady Boo-
KOLevaV pos TO Cpe Kal
mapekd\ouy Ln. mg.; [pe=
yarn Gb. 1.
- ra dpn (TO dpet Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. > mpos T. 6p.]
. Tavtes, om. Gb. Sch. {Ln.] Tf.
Alz.
— of daipoves, om.Tf. [Gb.3].Alz.
13. evGews 6 Inaovs [Ln.]; om.
Alx.; 6°In. Gb. 3.
— joay Sé, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 3
Alz.
. Of bé YX Kat of Ln. Tf. Alz.
—Tovds xoipovs X avrovs Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avnyyevdar X amipyyetay Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
eEnAOov \ 7AOov Ln.TF. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
kal iatirpevoy, om. Kal | Ln.
Tf. (Gb. >]. Alz.
— Tov €oynkdra Tov heyedva
Gb. 3; Aeysova Ln. Tf.
&
un
I
~T
ro.
bo
I
1g.
MARK.
18. euBavros X €4Baivovros Ln.
Tf. (Gb. s]. Ala.
—7 per avrov X per avr. 7
Ln. Tf. Alz.
19. 6 d€ "Inaovs X Kat Gb. Sch.
(Ln.) Tf.; Ln. PIncods).
— avayyevdov X dmayyetdov Ln.
txt. Tf.
— cot 6 Kuiptos X 6 Kup. coe TE.
— eroinge \ memoinkev Gb. Sch.
ont
22. iSov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 3. Alz.
— dvdpuatt Ideupos Gb. >.
23. mapekdder X mapakadel TF.
Alz.
— airy Tas xetpas \ Tas xel-
pas avrn Ln. Tf.
— Orws owby Kai (noera X
iva owOn Kat (non Ln. Tf.
Alx.; [kat (noerat Ln. mg.)
— dros \ iva Gb. x,
wrts, om. Ln (Gb, SI. Ala.
26. €autns \ a’Tns Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
kay Tov ipatioy adrod dyvo-
par \ éay GYopa Kay rev
inat. avrov Tf.
. evbEws YX evOvs TE. Alx.
. evbéws X evOds TF.
. em, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
.6 O€, add. Inootvs Ln. Alx.
— Ovyarep \ Ovyarnp Ln. Tf.
. evbEéws, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-].
Alz.
— dxovoas \ mapakovcas Tf.
.avt@ X per adrod Tf. Alz.
— guvaxodovOnoat \ dkodovd.
Ln.
— Ilérpov, prem. rov Tf.
— IaxwBov X avtrov Gb. ~
.&pxerar X epyxovrat Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— OépuBov, add. Kat Gb. Sch.
nett.
6 O€ X adros S€ Ln. Alzx.
admavras X wavras Gb. Sch.
In: Tf:
— dvakeipevoy, om. Gb. [Ln.] Tf.
Alx.
. Kovpe X Kovp Tf.
— €yerpar \ eyetpe Gb. Sch. Ln.
if be
40.
. evbews X evOds TF.
— e&€arnoay, add. edvs TF.
We X yvot Ln. Tf. Alz.
Cuap. VI.
. WAGev X Epxerat TE.
14
-
2. €v TH ouvaywyy diddoxew J
61d. €v TH ouvay. Tf.
- mroNhol, prem. ot Tf. [Gb. +].
- ait X rovre@ Tf.
— dT, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— duvdpers rovadras X ai Suv.
ai rovavr. Tf.
3. Mapias, prem. rns Tf. Alx.
— ddehpis dé X nai aderAdos
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
-"Iwon X *Iwojros Ln. Tf.
Alzx.
4.€deye Se YX kal edeyev Ln.
txt. Tf. Alz.
—ovyyevéot, add. adrod [Ln.]
Tf. Alz.
Se ndvvato X edvv. TE.
— ovdepiay Siva mojoa ¥
TOL. ovd. Suv. Ln. Tf.
8. mpay, py prov X aprov pr)
mpav Avis
9. GAN’ X adda Ln. Tf.
— evdtonabe X évdicacba Elz.
Ln. mg.
10. Kai €heyev X kat Aéyee Ln.
mg.
— é€av \¥ dp Ln. Tf.
11. dgot ay py SeEwvra X os dv
Toros pty SeEnrat Tf. Alw.
— apn eyo bpiv, dvextre-
pov eora Soddpots 7 7 To-
pdppors ev Hepa Kplioews,
7) Th mode €keivyn, om. Gd.
{Ln.] Tf. Alz.
12. exnpuvacov \ exnpvéay Tf.
Alz.
— peravontwot \ peravdwow
fk 2
14. €Aeyey X edeyov Ln. txt.
[Gb. w].
— €k vexpav myEpOn X eymyep-
Tal €kK vekpaov Ln. Alz.
= mryepOn X avéorn Tf. Alz.
15.”AAXot, add. S€ Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. +].
— €otily, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— 7}, om. Gb. Sch. Ln Tf.
16. elev \ €Aeyev TE. Ala.
—"Ort, om. Ln. Tf. Gb. >. Ala.
— I@avyny, Gb. 3.
— otros X avrés Gb. x.
—é€oTw avTos, om. Gb. Sch.
fine Te
— €k vexp@v, om. Tf. Alz.
14.7 pvdaxy, om. TH Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
19. #Ochev X eCnret Ln.
21. Ore X 6 Te Ln.
ar. emotet \ eroinoev Ln. Tf. Alz.
22. avTHS THS \ avTov s. THS Ala.
— kal dpecdons X ipecev Ln.
txt. Tf. Alz.
- etmrev 6 Baoireds \ etrrev be
6 Bac. Ln.; 6 dé Eee. €i-
tev Tf. Alz.
. pe Gb. >.
.H &€ X «at Tf.
—aitnoopa: X aitnowpat Ln.
Tf. Alx.
— Bartiorod { Bartifovtos TE.
as. evOews \ evOvs Ln. Tf. (Alex.
s. om.) [Gb. —].
— pot Sas e& airns X eEavris
das pot Ln. Tf.
. Tuvavakerpevous \ dvakerp.
ibe
avi adernoa \ aber. avr.
Ae
.evdews YX evOus TE. ;
om. Alz.)
— omexovAdtwpa \ omexovAd-
Topa Ln. Tf.
— evexOnvat Le éveyKat Tf.
— kehadiy adrod, add. én ri-
vakt [Ln.]
.6 0€ dmedOav YX Kal awed.
Ln. txt. Tf. Alz.
. MABov X nrAOay TE.
— TO pynpeio, om. T@ Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Kat 6aa, om. kat Ln. Tf. [Gb.
2]. Alz.
. elev J Aéyes Tf.
— avarravecbe \ avarratcacbe
Tt Ale:
— nixaipovy \ evKaipouy Ln.
Tf. Cst.
. amnrOov X amndOev Cst.
els pnuov Témoy TO TAI
X & r@ mr. eis Epyp. Tor.
In. Alz.
. of ByXot, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— éréyvwcav X éyvwoay Ln.
d by
— avtov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ; (om.
s. avtous Alzx.)
— exe kal mpondOov adrovs
Kat 7AOov éexet Gb. ©; om.
Gb. Alz. s. kK. mpoond#. avr.
kal ouvndOov mpos adror,
om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
6 Inaoovs, om. Gb. Tf. Alz.;
ante etdev [Ln.]
ex avtois \ é@ avrovs Ln.
Tf:
38. avTou [Ln.]
ima)
2
2 (sic 8.
~r
vs
wo
ow
~
i]
3
3
we
34.
MARK.
36. dprovs, om. Tf. Alx. [Gb. »].
(Ln.]
- yap, om. Tf. Alz. [Ln] [Gb.
es].
— ovK €xovol,
[Ln.] [Gb. s].
37. Svaxociwy Synvapiav X dnv.
Ocak. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dapev X Sooopev Ln. Tf. Alex.
s. doo@per.
38. Umayere Kal, om. kat Tf. Ala.
[Ln.] Gb. 5.
— Aéyovar, add. [adr@] Ln.
39. avakNivar { dvakAcOnvat Ln.
40. Gverrecov ) averrecay Tf.
— ava--ava, bis kata Ln. Tf.
. AUTOU, om. Tf.
—rapabacw X raparibdow
Tf.
om. Tf. Alz.
43. kopivous mAnpets \ Kopiver
mAnpopara Tf.
44. @oel, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
43. etOews \ evOvs TF.
— drodvon \ aodver Ln. Tf.
48. etoev \ iOay Ln. TE.
— Kai mrepl, om. kat Ln. Tf.
go. Kat evOews \ Kal evOds Ln.
txt. Tf.; 6 d€ evOds Ln. mg.
g1. Atay Gb. >.
— kal eOaipagoy, om. Tf. [Ln.]
Gb. + . Alex.
: ny yap X GAN’ nv Ale.
— 1 Kapdia a’tav X atrav 7
kap. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. evOEws X evOds Tf. Alz.
- emt yvovres, add. [oi avdpes
TOU TOrov ékeivou] Ln.
. weptOpapdyres OX. T. Tepi-
X@pov €x._ Xx TepteOpapov
OX. T. yopay ex. kal Alex.
— mepixwpov { x@pay Tf. Ln.
mg.
— €kei, om. Ln.
86. 7oNets, prem. eis Tf. [Ln.]
— dypovs, prem. eis Tf. [Ln.]
— éridovy \ éridecay Tf.
—imrovro X HYvavro Ln. txt.
Alz.
5
un
Cuar. VII.
.dptovs X rovs apt. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— euepwavro, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
a did Yar Ln. Tf. Alz.
.emetta \ Kat Ln. Tf. (Gb. x].
Alz.
— oi pabnrai cou ov Trepura-
15
is)
wm
rovat X ov mepim. of pad.
cov Tf.
sg. avimrots X Kowats Gb. Ln.
txt. Tf. Alz. [Rec. Gb. x].
6. doxpwOeis, om. Tf. Ale.
—"Ort, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— mpoepnrevoev \ empodrr.
Ln. Tf. Alz.
— Otros 6 Nads X 6 Aabs oor.
Ln.
8. yap, om. Ln. Tf.
- Barrio povs Eeota@y Kai To
Tnplov, kal ada Trapdpora
TOLAUTA TOAAG TrOLEtTE, Om.
Tf, Als:
9. THPHONTE X oTnonre Gb. x.
12. Kal ovKért, om. kal Ln. Alzx.
- 7 marpt avroo 4 TH pntpt
avTov, om. avrov bis Ln. Tf.
Ale.
14. wavra \ maAw Ln. TE. [Gb.].
Alz.
- "Akovere Y axovoare Ln. Tf.
- ouviere X ouverte Ja. Tf.
15. €krropevdpeva amr " abrov J € ek
Tov avOpamov ekmopevdp.
in, Tf; Az:
16. €lris Exel Ta akoveElv, Akov=
€Tw, om. Tf. Alz.
17. epi THs mapaBorns X THY
mapaBoAny Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alz.
19. kaOapiCov X Kaapifor Ln.
Ut. Ala.
21. fotxelal, Topvetat, dvot,
kNorrat \ Tmopvetat, KAorral,
pdvor, potxetae TE.
24, Kal exeiBev \ éxeiOev Se TE.
— peOdpia X pia Ln. Alz.
— kat StOavos, om. Tf. [Gb. —].
— TH oikiav, om. THY Sch. Ln.
Tf, (Gb. =).
23. dkovoaca yap X GAN’ evéds
axovo. Tf. Ala.
26. Av Se » yurn X 4 Se yurn Av
Ln. Tf.
— Zupopoincaca X Zupoporvi-
Kira Sch. Ln. ; Dvpa Po-
vixiooa Tf. [Gb.]
— €kBarrAn X exBady Gb. Sch.
Tin: Ut.
— ex Gb.3; om. Alz.
27. 6 S€ Incovs X cal Ln. Tf.
— eimev J €Xeyev Ln. Tf.
—Kadov éote X é€oriw Kadov
Ln. Tf. Ale.
— Barely rois xuvapiots X rots
kuv. Bade Tf.
8. yap [Ln.] om. Alz.
—eobier X éoOiovow Ln. Tf.
Alz.
9. 7d Sayzdmov ex ths Ovya-
tpds aou X €k THs Ovy. wou
To Oa. Tf.
. 70 Saipdrov e€eAnAvObs, kat
tv Ovyarépa BeBAnpevny
emi THs KAuns X TO traidiov
BeBAnpevov emt Thy Krivny
kal TO Saidvov e€eAndv-
Ods Ln. txt. Tf. Ala.
.kal Siddvos, HAGe YX HAGE
Ova Sidavos Ln. Tf. (Gb. 9].
Alz.
— mpos \ eis Gb. Ln. Tf. Ala.
32. Kooy, add. kal Ln. [Gb. x].
— poytddov X poyytAadop Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
. ev0ews, om. Tf. Alx. [Ln.]
SinvoixOnaoay YX nvotynoay
gas bo
36. elwow \ A€ywow TE.
— avtos, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— paddov, prem. avrot Ln. Tf.
Alz.
. TOUS AAdAovs, om. Tovs Tt.
Cuap. VIII.
. mapmddAou \ madw rood
Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
— 6 "Inoovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE. Ate.
— avrov, om. Tf. Alz.
2. nuepas X Nuepar Gb. Sch. Ln.
ite
vv
°o
3
~
3
un
3
3
~w
=
— pot, om. Ln. Tf.
3. Ties yap \ Kai tives Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— paxpdber, prem. ard Tf.
—jkaow X AKovot Elz. ; eioiv
Tf. Alz. s. HKact.
. 1d6ev, prem. ore Tf.
. €mnpata X npera Tf.
ei7rov X eirray Tf.
. mapnyyeire \ mapayye eu
Tm Ff,
— dptovs, add. [kat] Ln.
— wapabacr \ maparOaow TE.
Alz.
.eixov X efyay Ln. TF.
— evAoynoas, prem. radra Ln.
prem. s. add. avta Alz.
— mapabeiva X mapareOnvat
Ln.
— kai adra Gb. >.
8. payor dé X kat €hayov Ln.
Alz.
a art
~T
MARK.
8. omvpidas X opupidas Ln.
9. of haydvres, om. Tf. [Gb.].
Alz.
10. ev0ews X evdvs Ln. Tf.
— é€uBas, add. [adrds] Ln.; ante
€v0. Alx.
12. onetov emitnret X Cnret on-
peiov Ln. Tf. Alz.
13. e4Pas madw \ mdduw éuBas
Ln. Tf. Alz.
— els TO mAotoy, om. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alx.; om. Td Ln.
15. BA€mere, prem. [kat] Ln.
16. N€yovres, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— €xomev \ €xovew Ln. Tf.
17.06 Inoovs, om. Tf.
— €rt, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
19. TANpets KAaopdTwv X KAaC.
mAnp. Ln. Tf. Alz.
20."Ore O€ X kat Ore Ln. mg.
— énta, add. [aprovs] Ln.
— Oi dé etrov X Kal Aéyovow
avT@ Tf. Alz.
21. las, om. Tf.
— ov X ova Ln. txt. Tf. Alz. s.
TOS ova, s. Tas obv OvT@
22. €pxerat \ epxovrae Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s]. Alz.
— BnOcaidav { BnOduayv Gb. ».
23. esnyayev \ eEnveyxey Tf.
— Brgéreu X Brerrecs TF.
24. €Aeye \ edmev Ln. mg.
— drt as Sévdpa bpG X ws Sev-
dpa Elz. Gb. Sch. [St. Gb. ».
Alzx. et Cst.]
as. emeOnke \ €Onxev TF.
— kat éroinoev avtév avaBheé-
war X xal Sv€BreWev TF.
[Gb. >]. Alw. s. kat évéBre-
Wer.
— dmoxateotabn \ azmexare-
ordaOn Ln.; amexaréotn Tf.
— eveBre we YX evéBrerev Ln.
TE.
— dmavras X arava Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. s].
26. TOY OLKOV, om. TOY Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf,
— pydé eirns Twi ev TH Kopn,
om. Tf.
24. avTOLs, om. Alx.
28. dmrekpiOnoay \ eiray Tf. Alx.;
add, avT@ héyovres Ln. Tf.
Alzx.
—"Iwavyny, prem. ote TF.
— éva \ 6tt eis Ln. Tf.; Alz. s.
@s €va.
29. Aeyet avrois \ éemnpwra av-
16
rovs Ln. txt. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alz.
a9. Azroxptbels Se Kat dzoxp.
Ln.; azoxp. Tf.
30. A€ywou \ etr@ow Ln.
31.amo0 \ vad Ln. Tf. [Gb. ©].
Alzx.
— dpxepéwv, prem. tav Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ypapparéwyv, prem. Tav Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
32.aurov 6 Ilerpos X 6 Iler.
aut. Ln. Tf.
33. T@ Ilerp@, om. T@ Ln. Tf.
— heyor X kat héyes TE.
34.°OaTis X et tes Ln. [Gb. ~}.
Alz.
— eddciv { dxodovbeiv Gb. Sch.
Tf. Cst. (Rec. Alz.]
35. ay \ eap TE.
— amodéon \ dmodeves TE.
— thy Woxny avrod \ tH éav-
Tov Wuxny Gb. Sch. Tf. [Gb.
>).
— otros, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Alzx.
36. mpeAnoer \ pees Ln. mg.
ae:
— avOpwrov, prem.tov Ln. Tf.;
avOparos Gb. x. Ala. et Cst.
s. Alx. Tov dvOpwrov.
— éav xepdnon X kepdjoa TE.
— Cypiwby X Cyurw@nvar TE.
37-7) TL Owoer avOpwmos X ri
ap Tf.
38. av X éay Ln. Tf.
Cuar. IX.
1. T@V be \ &de rev Tf.
2. ped’ X pera Ln. Tf.
— Tov “Iwdvynv, om. tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. Cst.
3. eyeveto X eyévovro Ln. Tf.
— as xLav, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala,
— ddvarat, add. ovTw Tf. Gb.»
Alz.
§. oKnvas Tpeis \ TpEls oKNVaS
Ln. Tf. Alz.
6.AaAnon X AaAnwet Gb. ».
Cst.; dmokptOn Tf. Alz.
— hoav yap expoBor X excbo=
Bo. yap eyevovro Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alx.
4. MAGE X eyevero Alz.
— éyouea, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. Al.
— advrou dxovere \ akov. aut.
Ln. txt. Tf.
8. d\Ad \ ef put) Ln. Alz.
8, eidov, GANG Tov Ingooy pd- | 2
vov ped éaurev X 8. pera
€aut. ef py Tov "Ino. pdvoy
Ln. mg.
9. KaraBaivovrev 8€ X cal xa-
raB. Ln. Alz.
— amo X é« Ln.
— dinynowrra a cidov X a €id.
Suny. Lu. txt. Tf. Ale.
to. Td, ék veKkpov dyaorivat X
Oray €k vexp@v dvaoth Gb.
N,
Il. €MNPOT@V \ emnpwTnoay Ln.
mg.
— heyovowy, add, oi Papicaior
kat [Ln.]
12. amoxpiOels, eiev X edn TE.
[Gb. s].
— pev, om. Tf.
— droxabiora YX droxabiora-
Vel a Tf. Alx. s. admoKa-
eEovderat JX e£ovdernOy Ln.
13. seins 3 Oedov TE:
14. avTois \ mpos avtovs Alz.
13. evOews \ evOds TE. Alz.
~ idav X iddvres Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
Alz.
efeOaynOn X eEebayhnOn-
oay Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
. TOUS ypapparets X adrovs
Gb. Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. [Rec.
Gb. x].
dmokpileis X amexpiOn ata
Ln. Tf.
— €ime, om. Ln. Tf. (Ale. amre-
KpiOn eis eK Tou Bou s.
drokpileig ex Tod dxAov
cis elmrev avT@.]
14.
18. dy \ éay Ln. TF.
avrov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
19.avT@ \ avrois Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf (Ghai.
20. evOéws Td mVvEevpa X TO TrVED-
pa evOds Ln. Tf. [Gb. x].
Alx.
— €omdpagev \ cuveomdpakev
Ln.
. madudbev, prem. ek Ln. Tf.
.avroy Kal eis mip X kal els
mvp avrov Tf.; (add. rd ante
mvp Sch. Gb. %).
— dvvaca X ddvy Lu. Tf. Alz.
23. Suvacat { Svvy Ln. Tf.
morTevoal, om. Tf. [Gb. -].
2
2
nb
MARK.
24. Kat ev0éws, om. kat Tf. [Ln.]
[edOvs Tf.]
— pera Saxpdov, om. Ln. Tf.
Alx.
— Kupue, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
23. mvedpa TO GaXov kal Ko-
ov X ad. Kal kopov mved-
pa Ln. Tf. Alz. 2
-— co. émitacow X énitacow
oo. Tf.
e& \ ar’ Ln.
Kpagéay, Kal mona oTrapd-=
Eav \ xpa€as kal ron. orra-
pagas Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— avtov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Ale.
— moAXovs \ Tovs mroAAovs Ln.
Tf.
abrov THs xeupos \ ris Xet-
pos avrod Ln. Ale.
eloeAOdvra avtov YX eiced-
O6vros adrov Ln. Alz. -
— emnpeteav avtoy kar idiav X
kar diay émnp. adrov Ln.
TE Ae:
— ort X dua ri Alz.
29. Kal ynoreia, om. TF.
30. Kal éxeiOev \ Kaxeibev Ln.
Tf.
— mapeTropevovro \ emopevovTo
Ln. txt.
— iva Tis X tis wa Elz.
- ye X yvot Ln, Tf.
26.
24.
28.
31. 7H Tpitn nuepa \ pera Tpeis
npéEpas Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
33. prev X md Oov Ln. Tf.
—mpos éavTovs, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. =3].. Alz.
: év TH 60@ [Ln.]
. éay X ap bis Ln. Tf. Ala.
— O€Enras X Séynrac Tf. Ln.
mg.
. AmexpiOn Se X en TE. Alz.;
[Se] Ln.
— 6 Iwdvvns, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
— T@ dvépari, prem. év Elz. Ln.
WEA ls
— ds ovK dkodovbel Hpiv, om.
Gb. Ala.
éxodborapey Hf eka vopev Tf.
Ort OVK akoAovOet Hyiv, om.
Tf. [Gb. 3].
tpav, Urép tuav X yar,
Umrep nuav Elz. Tf.
. €Y T@ Ovdpati prov X ev dvd~
pate Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tpiv, add. Ste Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— amohéon X adrodéoe: Ln. Tf.
. MiKp@y, add. TovT@Y Ln. Alx.
17
40.
42. muorevdvrav eis cue \ mi=
ot €xdvrev Tf.
— Aidos pvdixds X pros dvi~
Kos Ln. Tf. (Gb. »]. Alz.
43. ckavdadif{n X oxavdarion
Ln. mg.
— oot eott \ éoriv ve Ln. TE.
Alx.
— kvddov eis THY Cay eioeh-
Oeiv X Kur. eloedOeiv eis rt.
Conv Lu. Tf. Alx.
— «is TO Tip TO GoBeorov Gb.
44. ver. 44, om. Tf. Gb.-. Alz.
48. Kaov, add. [yap] Ln.
— €ori cot X éoriv oe Sch. Ln.
Tf.
— cis TO Tp TO AoBearor, om.
Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3]. Ala.
46. ver. 46, om. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
47. 70l €oTl \ €oriv oe TF.
— THY yeevvay, om. THY TE.
— TOU mupos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.~].
Alz.
go. GAas X GAa Ln. Tf. Ale.
Cuap. X.
1. KaxetOev X Kat exetOev Ln.
Tf. Als.
— dia Tod mépay X Kal mépay
Laeirt, Ale.
2. 06 Papicaiot, om. ot Gb. Sch.
Ja. Tf.
— emnpetnoay \ émnpotov Ln.
Tf. Alz.
4. elroy \ eiray Ln. Tf.
— Moons emerpevre X emérpe-
ev M. Ln. Tf. Alx. s. M.
evereiharo.
s. kal admroxpiBels 6 “Inaois X
6 dé "Inaods Tf. Alx.
— vpir, om. Ala.
6.6 Oeds, om. Tf. [Ln.]
7. kal mpooKorhnOnrerar mpos
THY yovaika avrov, om. Tf.
— mpos Thy yuvaika X TH yu=
varkt Ln. Alz.
8. pia oapé J aps pla Ale.
10. €v TH olKia X els THY OlKiay
Lu. Tf. [Gb. ~].
— avrov, om. Tf. [Ln.J
- Tov abrou\rovrou Ln.Tf. Ale.
~ emmparnoay X émnporer Tf.
II, €ay Xa av Ln.
12, yun adrokvon \ adri arro-
Avoaca Tf.
— yapnO7 Dro X yapnon ar-
Aov Ln. TE Al.
21
13. dW. avr. X adr. dy. Alz.
—émeripwv Tois mporpépov-~
ow \ éemetipwv avrots Ln.
mg.
14. Kal py) K@AVETE, om. Kal Gb.
Sch. Tf.
13. €av \ Gy Ln. Alz.
16. ndddyet X evhdyet Sch. Ln. ;
avra kal evn. ante TiBels Tf.
19. My) powxevons* pt) povev-
ons X pn pov. py potx. Ln.
txt. (un pov. Gb. >).
- pytépa, add. gov Ln.
= py droorepnons, om. Alx.
20, TavTa mrdvra X may. Tav. Ln.
txt.
— épudrakdpny X épira€éa Ln.
— vedr. pov, add. Ti €tt vaTe-
po; Al.
21, €lmrev ait@, add. ei Oédeus
Tédetos eivat Ala.
— oo X oe Tf.
—Tois mTw@xots, om. Tots Ln.
Tf. Gb. 3. Alz.
— dpas tov oravpdv [Ln.] [Gb.
3]; om. Alzx.
24. Texva X texvia Ln.
— Trois xpnuacw, om. Tois Ln.
Tf. [Gb. 3]. Cot.
28. TS Tpuuadtas THs, om. THs
bis Ln. [Gb. >]. Cst.
= eioedOeiv 1° Cst. X Sued Oeiv
Gb. Sch. Elz. Ln. txt. Tf.
[eioeNOeiv Gb. s].
a4. Oe, om. TE.
- avOparots, add. {rovto] Ln.
— TO Geo, om. T@ Tf. [Gb. >].
— mavra yap Suvard éore Tapa
T@ Oe@ Gb. >.
28, Kal ipéaro, om. kal Gb, Sch.
Ln. Tf.
~ every, ante 6 Ilér. Tf.
- nKoovOncapey X nxodovbn-
kapev Ln. Tf.
a9. Azroxpibeis dé 6 6 Inaovs ei-
mev \ en 6 6 ‘Inc. Tf. ; om.
be Gb. Ln. 3 Kal droxp. Sch.
- up marépa, i) pytépa XH) pyr.
i gar. Ln. txt. Tf.
— i) yuvaika, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~). Alx.
— éuod Kal, add. évexev Gb. Sch.
[Ln.] Tf.
— pnrépas \ pnrépa Ln. Alx.
31.01 €oxaror, om. of Gb. Ln.
Alz.
33. TOlS ypapparevor, om. Tois
Ln. [Gb. 3].
MARK,
34. Kat paoreyooovow avroy,
kal eumTUTOUTW atta \
kal eumrio. avT® kal pa-
oTLyao. | avrov Ln. Tf. Alz.
— aroKTevovow autor, Lavrov]
Ln.
Te tpitn Tépa X pera Tpeis
npéepas Lu. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
38. Of viol, om. of TF.
— Aéyovres, add. aiT@ Tf. [Ln].
Alx.
— airnowper, add. oe Ly. Tf.
Alz.
36. mowjoae pe \ pe mounoae TE. ;
Tomo Ln. [Gb. 9]. Alx.
34. €lrov \ etzray Ln. Tf.
— ex de£tav ou X cou é&k de&.
Tf;
— evovipav cou \ dpirtepav
Tf.; [cov] Ln.
38. Kal TO Bdmrica X 7 TO Bar.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
39. elroy X etrray Ln. Tf.
— pev, om. Tf.
40. Kal €& evovipov X 7) && ed-
ov. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— pov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
42.6 O€ “Incovs mpocKadeoa-
pevos avrovs \ kal mpoo-
kad. avr. 6 "Incodvs Ln. Tf.
Alz.
43. €oTae \ eorw Ln. Tf. Alz.
— eav X ay Ln.
— yever Oar péyas X péyas ye-
verOat Ln. mg. Alz.
— Sidkovos tyay X tyav dia-
kovos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
44. dy YX éav Gb. TF.
— tpav \ év bpiv Ln. Ale.
— yeveo Oa X eivar Ln. Alz.
46. €pxovrat \ épxerat Ln. txt.
— am “leptya X exeiOev Gb. ~
— vids \ 6 vids Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8].
Alz.
— 6 tupAds, om. 6 Ln. Tf. Alz.
— mpocaitav X mpocairns, post
tup ros Tf.
47. Nafwpaios X Nafapnvds Ln.
Tf. Als:
—‘O vids X vie Ln.
49. QUTOV pavnOjvac X porn-
care avrov Tf. Alz.
— eyerpar €yetpe Gb. Ln. TE.
Alzx.
go. avacras X avamndnoas Ln.
ft Ales
gr. A€yet adT@ 6 "Inaovs \ avr.
6 Ino. eirev Tf. Ala.
18
gx. ti Oédets Trounow gor XY r.
co O€X. rounc@ Alx.
—‘PaBBovi X ‘PaBBovri Gr.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
32. evbews X evOds TF.
-— 7 “Inood X aire Gb. Ln.
Tf. Alz.
Car. XI.
1. ‘IepovoaAnp X ‘IepoodAupa
Ln. Tf. Alz.
— eis BnOpayy Kai BnOaviav ¥
kat eis BnOav. Ln. [Gb. +}.
— amootedXet arreorei\ev Ln.
2. evbews X evOds TE.
— ovdels, add. ovrw Ln. Alu.
—dvoavtes avtov X Avoate
avTov kat Ln. Tf. [Gb. J].
Alzx.
— aydyete X hépere Tf. [Gb.
ws]. Ale.
3. Ti mrovetre TovUTO X TL AveTE
TOY m7@Aoy Ln. mg.
— "Ort, om. Ln. Tf.
— evdéws X evOds Ln. Tf.
— amooteNet X arooreAXet Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
4.’ AmndOov dé X kal darndOov
Ln. Tf.
— TOV TXOV, om. TOY Gb. Sch.
In. Abe
— rHv Ovpay, om. Ty Tf.
6. €vereiharo \ eimev Lu. txt.
TE Gb: ~]:
4. ia sd X Pépovor Tf. [Gb.
~ es YX. éaBaddXovow
Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— avT@ \ avrdy Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~}.
Alz:
8. moAAot Se X Kal modo TF.
— eis TH 60dv X ev TH 6O@ Ln.
mg. Alz.
- oroaBddas X oriBadas Ln.
Tf. Ale.
-- €xomrov \ kdyparres Tf.
- devdpev Xa aypav fb &
— Kal €otpavvvop eis THY Oddy
om. Tf.
9. Aéyovres, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
—]. Ala.
10. €v dvduatt Kupiov, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
11.6 ‘Inoovs, Kal, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb..3]. Ale.
— kat eis, om. kat Ln. Tf. Al.
13. pakpdbey, prem. amd Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
13. eUpnoes TL YX Te evp. Ln. Ti.
Alzx.
~ pudra, add. [pdva] Ln.
- Kaipos, prem. 6 Ln.; [6 yap
Kaupos ouK HY Tf]
14.6 "Incovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
— &k coo eis Tov aidéva X eis
Tov ai@va €k gov Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— pndels X oddels Elz.
13.6 Incovs, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— dyopagovras, prem. Tovs Ln.
Tf.
14. Neyer X Kal eheyey Tf. Ala.
— avtois, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— "Ort, om. Ln.
—énomoate avtov X avrov
éroimoate Ln. mg.; mezot-
nkare avr. Tf.
18. ypaypareis Kal of apxtepets
X dpx. kai oi ypap. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— dro\écovow YX arokeowow
Ln. Tf. [Gb.s]. Ale.
- avrov 2° [Ln.]
— dru mas \ mas yap TE. Aln.
19. Ore \ Grav Tf. Alzx.
— e&erropevero \ e&emopevovro
Ln. Ale.
20. mat maparropevdpevor a
maparropevdpevor mpwt Ln.
Tf. Alz.
22.6 "Inaovs, om. 6 St. & Elz.
(Gb. ~].
23. yap, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
- morevon X murrevy Tf.
—-aXorTe
- Aeyer YY dade? TF.
- 6 éay etry, om. Tf. (Gb. 3].
24. av, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— mpocevxduevoe X mpocev=
xeoOe kai Ln. txt. Tf. Alz.
— ANapBavere X eAdBere Ln. TE.
[Gb. x].
23. oTNKNTE \ oTNKeTE Ln. TE.
26. om. ver. Tf.
— Tots ovpavois, om. Tots Ln.
28. heyouow X €Aeyor Tf. Alex.
— kat tis X 4 Tis Tf. Alz.
— thy e€ovciav TavTny edwKev
X Saxev thy eLovoiay tav-
Thy Ln. Alz.
29. amrokp.Geis, om. Tf. Ala.
— tpas Kaye \ kay@ bpas Ln.;
om. Kay@ Tf.
30. Iwdvvov, prem. To Ln. Tf.
Alz.
MARK.
31. edoyifovro X SdueAoyi¢ovro
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alzx.
— ovv, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
32. GAN eav \ aAAa Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
— epoBorvro \ poBovpeba Alx.
— dmayres X mavtes Ln.
— Ott dvrws X dvTws OTe TE.
Alx. (s. om. OvTwS).
33. eyovae T® “Inood X tO “In-
ou rey ‘Ln. mg. Tf. Alze.
— 6 Incots drroxpubeis X [azro-
KptOeis] 6 “Ino. Ln. Alz. ;
om. amokp. Tf. Alz.
Cuap. XII.
ie déyew J Aadeiv Ln. Tf. Alz.
— epurevoey avOpwros \ av6.
eur. Tf.
— e&edoro X e&édero TF.
2.TOU Kapmrov \ Tay KapTav
THe:
. of O€ X kat Ln. txt. Tf.
ALGoBornaavtes, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. Ale.
- dméorethay nty.@pevov YX
ntiunoay Ln. Tf. Alz.
8. TaAW, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
tous, bis ods Ln. Tf. Alz.
amokteivovres \ amoxrev=
vovres Gb. Ln. Tf.
6. ob, om. Tf. (in)
— vidy eXov X €xe@v vidy Ln. ;
cixey vioy Tf.
— avTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ].
Alzx.
— kal avrov, om. kat Tf. [Ln.]
— mpos avrovs €xxarov \ ery.
mpos avr. Ln. Tf.
4. elmrov \ etray Ln. Tf.; post
mpos €avtovs Tf.
8.avTov amekrewav \ amekt.
aut. Tf.
— e£€Badov, add. adrov Ln. TE.
Ale.
9. ovv, om. TF.
14. 08 b€ X Kat Ln. txt. Tf.
— Ovddokets, add. etre ody nity
Ln.
— Knvoov Kaicapt Sovvar X
Sodvat knvoov Kaicapt Ln.
1g. elo@s \ dav Gb. ~.
16. Oi dé X [ot dé] Ln.
—eizov X etmray Ln. txt. Tf. ;
Aéeyovow Ln. mg.
14. Kat amoxpiels 6 X 6 S€ Ln.
Tf.
— avTois, om. Tf.
19
-& &
14. Amddore Ta Kaicapos X ta
Kaio. amddore Tf.
— €Bavpacay X €Oadvpatov Ln.
Tr.
18, emnpwtnaay X emnpetov Ln.
txt. Tf.
19. Texva \ TEKVOY, post apy TE.
— yuvaika avrov, om. avrod Tf.
Alz.
20. enTa, add. obv Elz.
— joay, add. wap’ jpiv Alex.
ar.Kat ovde avtos apne X pr)
Kata\ureov Tf. Ln. mg.
22, €AaBov avtTny, om. Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
— kal, om. Tf. Alzx.
— €cxatn Tavrev amébave Kai
9 yuvn \ eoxarov mavroy
kat 1) ‘yuvn améOavev Ln. TE.
[Gb. ~]. Alx.
23. ouv, om. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
— drav dvaoréot [Ln.] [Gb.3).
Alz.
24. Kal drroxpiOeis 6 ‘Ingots
elmrev avrois X en adr. 6
‘Ing. Tf. ; dzoxp. 8€, s. om.
kat amoxptGeis Alx.
25. yapioxovrat \ yapuicoyrar
Lane rs,
— of €v Tots, om. of Gb. Sch. Ln.
26. Ts Bdrouv \ rod Barov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— os X ras TF.
— 6 cds "Ioadk, Kat 6 Qeds,
om. 6 bis Ln. Tf.
27.6 Geds, om. 6 Ln. TF.
— Gcds CavTwv, om. Oeds Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tpeis ody, om. TE.
28. lows X doy Ln. Alx. s. Kai
iar,
- avrois dmexpiOn \ drrexp.
avr. Tf. Alx.
—tracav X wavrav Gb. Sch.
Lu.Tf.; (€vToAr mpoTn mav-
tov Tf. Ln. mg.)
29. ‘O dé "Ingovs amekpiOn \X
darexp. 6 Ino. Tf. Ln. mg.
= auT@, om. Tf.
— macav \ mavrwv Gb. Sch. Ln.
Cst.
— T@Y, om. Gb.
— evToda@v) [évroAn éeorw)] Ln.;
(Te mpatn éotiv, ”Akove)
Tf. [Gb.~]; [ravreyv mpory
Gb. x].
30.kat e& Odns ths Sravolas
wou, om. Tf.
30. AUTN MpaTN EvTOAr, om. TF.
31. kal Oevrépa, om. kai Tf.[Ln.]
— dpoia, om. Tf.
32. Geds, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
33. kal €& OAns ths Wuxns, om.
Tf. [Ln.] Ale.
— Tav volta, om. TOV Gb. Sch.
1d Big
3s.e0Tt AaBid X A. éore Alz.
36. yap, om. Tf. [Ln.]
—7@ Ilvevpart TQ, om. T@ bis
Gb. Sch.
— elev 2° \ Neyer Gb. Sch. [Ree.
Gb. x].
— 6 Kuptos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— KaOov X xa@icoy TF.
— uromdd.oy X vroKxdTe TF.
. ov”, om. TE. [Ln.] Gb.-. Alx.
— vids adrov éott X avtov éo-
tw vids Tf.
. eheyev advtois ev TH Sidax7
avrov X év t. 610. avr. €Xe-
yev Tf.
. katecOiovres X KatéoOovtes
ibe
41.6 Inaous, om. Tf. [Ln.]
42. TTWX] Gb. -.
43. Aéyes X elev Gb. Ln. Alz.
[Rec. Gb. x].
— BeBrAnke X &Barev Ln.
— Baddvrev X Baddéytov Ln.
Tf. Alz.
Cuap. XIII.
1. TaV pabnTaey, prem. ek Tf.
2.6 "Inoovs amoxpibels X dzrok.
6 Ino. Ln.; om. azroxp. Tf.
— oikodopuds, add. dpnv éyo
oot (8. piv) Ore Ala.
— apeOn, add. Se Ln. [Gb.%].
Alz.
— Nidw X AiBov Alx.
.emnpateav \ émnpeta TE.
Eizre \ edzrov Ln. Tf. Ala.
qwavta Tavra \ ravra mavra
Ln.; Tavta ovyt. wavr. Tf.
. arroxpiOeis, om. Tf. Ala. (s.
kal amokp. 6 Ino.)
— avrois ipEaro héyew X ipE.
dey. adr. Ln. TE.
6. yap, om. Tf.
4. dkovonre \ dkovere Tf.
— yap, om. TE.
8. Kal €vovrat, om. Kal Tf. Alz.
— Kal €vovrat, om. kal Tf.
— kal Tapaxai, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
>]. Ala.
9. apxat \ dpx7 Sch. Ln. [Gb.%].
[Seo
oun
MARK.
9. yap, om. TE.
10. det mp@rov \ mperov Set Ln.
Tf,
11, 6ray O€ X Kal Gray Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— ayayoow \ a&ywow Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— pnde pederare, om. Tf. [Ln.]
Alz. (Gb. 3].
— 6 éav { 6 dy Ln.
. mapad@oe: Oe X Kat mapad.
Ln. Tf. Alz.
TO pnGev td Aamir rod
mpopryrov, om. Gb. [Ln.] Tf.
Alz.
—éoris X éornkds Ln. Tf. ;
éoTa@s Elz.
. Oe, om. Ln.
— eis THY oikiay [Ln.]
— eloeAOerw { eloeAGatw Ln.
in Ale,
— dpa te X te dpae TF.
. OY, om. Ln. Tf.
.4 guy) tyav, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3].
hs €xricev \ hy €xr. Ln. TE.
. Kuptos éxoddBaoe X exons.
6 Kup. Ln. mg. Tf.
. vpiy ein \ etry tpi TE.
— Idd 1° X ie Te.
— 7, om. Tf. [Gb. >].
— idov 2° X ie Ln. Tf.
— murrevonte \ muorevere Gb.
Sch. Ln. txt. Tf.
. Wevddxpiorot Kal, om. Tf.
— kal dacover \ rounvover Tf.
— kal tovs ékAeKToUs, om. Kal
Ae,
Lal
i>)
14,
23. (Sov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
24. GAN’ X adda Ln. TF.
23. TOU ovpavou e€aovTat exrrim-
Tovtes \ €oovrat €K TOU Ov-
pavod mimrovres Ln. TE. Alz.
(s. extn.)
26. moAAns Kal SdEns \ Kat O6E.
moAX. Ln.
24. avTov 1°, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
[Gb. >].
— avTod 2°, om. Tf.
28. avTns On 6 KAddos X #5 6
KX. avr. Ln. Alz.
— ywookere X ywooxerar Tf.
29. Tadta ldonre \ tdnTe Tatra
Ln. Alz.
30. wavra Tavta \ TavTa wayra
Di Ala.
31. mapeAevoovrat \ mapedev-
oetat Gb. Sch. Ln. mg.
20
. wape\baow \ mapedevoor=
Tat Tf.
.kal ths X i Tis Gb. Sch. Ln.
We
— of dyyedot of X &yyedos TE.
. kat mpowevxeoGe, om. Ln. Tf.
kat €xdoT@, om. kal Ln. Tf.
. OWe, prem. 7) TE.
— pecovextiou \ pecoviKrioy
ibe
.a@ 6€ X 6 dé Ln. Tf. Ale.
Cuap. XIV.
dé X yap Ln. Tf. Alx.
O@dpuBos gora. X €or. Odp.
rr
3. Kal ovyTpivvaca, om. Kat TE.
~— TO ddaBaotpoy X roy adaB.
Ln. ; rHy dda. TF.
— Kata, om. Ln. Tf.
. kal Néyovres, om. TE.
. TOUTO, add. TO pvpov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. —].
— Tptakociay Snvapiav X Syv.
Tptak. Ln. Tf.
.els ene X ev enol Gb. Sch.
i Oh Ba
avtovs X avrois Ln. Tf. Alx.
.etxev X €oxev Gb. Sch. Ln.
A i
»
wnt
fon
oor
— avrn, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— pov To capa X TO cGpd pov
Ln. Alz.
9. aunv, add. Sé Tf. [Ln.] Alex.
— ay X éay Ale.
— TovTO, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alzx.
.6 Iovdas 6, om. 6 bis Ln. TF.
Alz.
— eis, prem. 6 TE.
— rapade X mapadot Ln. ; (sic
Tf. post avrov [Alx.])
11. eUKaipws avTov \ adroy ev-
kaip@s Ln. Tf. Alz.
— wapad@ X mapadot Ln. Tf.
.€av \ av Ln. Tf.
— katddvpa, add. pou Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
1§. av@yeov X dvayatoy Gb. Sch.
Ln. ; dv@yacoy Tf.
— €rowoy [Ln.]; om. Ala. (s.
add. kat).
— €kel, prem. kat Tf.
19. Oi dé, om. TF.
— kad” Y xara Tf.
— Kal adAos, My tt ey@ ; Gb.
=, Alx.
20. amroxptOeis, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
-]. Alz.
20. per’ €u.0v, add. . THY xetpa Ln.
21. 6 Bev, prem. Ore TE.
— Hv, om. Tf. [Ln.]
22.6 Incovs, om. Tf. [Ln.]
ayete, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
23. TO ToTnplov, om. TO Ln. Tf.
(Gb. >]. Ala.
24. TO THS, om. TO Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
-].
— Kawns, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— wept X breép Ln. Tf. Alx.
— exxuvdpevov \ exyuvydpevoy
Ln. Tf.; Td exyuvy. drep
moAd@y Tf.
25. iw \ mpocOa muetv Gb. ~.
— yervnatos \ yevnwatos Tf.
{Gb. 9].
27. €v enol, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
— €v Th vuKtl ravTn, om. Tf.
{Ln.] (Gb. 3]. Alx.
— SvacxopmiaOjcerar Ta mpd-
Bara X StarKxopmic Onc ov-
Ta. Ta mpoB. Ln. Alx.; Ta
mpo8. SiacxopmicOncovrat
by
29. Kat et X ei kai Tf. Alz.
30. OTL, add. ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €y Th vuxti tabvrn X TavTyn
7H vukrl Ln. txt. Tf. Adz.
= Tpis amapynoy pe X tpis pe
arapynon 1 by ad We
31. 6 Oe, add. Térpos Alx.
— €k Tepiacod \ ex mEeptooas
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]; Alz. 8. me-
pioves.
— €heye X Addex Ln. txt. Te.
— padXoy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— pe dén yi bey pe Ln.
32. 00 TO X @ Ln.
— Pebonpara \ PeOonpavet Lu.
ot Ales
33. TOV “IakwBov, om. Tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
—peO” éavrov X per adtod
Ln. Tf.
38. mpoeAOwy \ mpooehOav Gb.
~, Alz.
— érecev \ émurtev Tf.
36.dm €4ovu Todro \ TOUT. aw
ép. Ln. Tf. Alz.
38. elaeAOnre X EAOnTeE TE.
40. Uroatpeas X mau ebay
Ln. Tf.
— maduv, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
— BeBapnpevoe. X KkataBapvu-
vopevot Lu. Tf. [Gb. ].
Alz.
40.
Leal
4
4
w
44.
46.
47.
49.
go.
Lan!
5
Ny
5
5
ve
64.
68.
MARK.
avT@ drokpiOaot X dzoKp.
avT@ Ln. Tf. Alz.
.TO dowry, om. TO Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. Alz.
. evbews X evOds Ln. Tf.
*Iovdas X 6 Iovd. 6 Ln. Tf.
(6 "Ioxapiorns, s. Iokape-
OTs, s. Exapi@rns Alz.)
dv, om. Ln. (Gb. 3). Alx.
qoAvs, om. Tf. [Ln.] Ala.
mapadidovs X mapadovs Ln.
mg.
dmaydyete \ amdyere Ln. Tf.
Alzx.
. EvbEws YX eUds 1 OFT ey
Aéyet, add. avt@ Ala.
papi, om. Ln. (Gb. +]. Alx.
(s. xatpe)
em avroy Tas x€ipas avTaey
X ras xeip. én’ adrov Ln.;
Tas xElp. a’T@ Tf. Alx.
Tis, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
atiov X etdptov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~].
eines X e€ndOare Ln. Tf.
aarti X expareire Tf.
maytes ebuyov X &pvyov
qmavres Tf.
. €lg TLS Veaviokos \ veaviokos
Tis Ln. Alz.
nkodovber { cuvnkor. Ln.TF.
[Gb. ~] ; nKodovOnaev Sch.
(Gb. x].
of veaviokot, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
SA,
amr avréy [Ln.] [Gb. +]; om
Alzx.
; dpxtepéa, add. Kaiadav Alz.
adT@, om. Alz.
ot mpeaBurepou Kat of Ypap~
pareis X of ypap. kal oi
mpeaB. Ln.
. 70 Pas, om. 70 Elz.
- evpuokov J nUpLokov La. Tf.
.TO pecov, om. TO Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
> ‘ > , > >
. ovdév amrekpivato X ovK arre-
kpiv. ovdev Tf. Alx.
KaOnpevov ex SeEvav \ ek
de&. xa. Gb. Sch. Ln. txt.
at:
tis Bracdnpias X rv Bda-
odnpiay Ln.
eivat €voxov \ évoxov eivar Tf.
€BaddXov X €AaBov Ln. TF.
[Gb. ©]; Ala. s. eAauBavoy, |
s. €Badov.
21
66. €v-T7 avAW KaTw X KadT@ ey
TH avAry TE.
67. Incot jnoba X Aaba row
"Ino. Ln. Tf.
68. OUK oda, ovdé X ovre ofda
oure Ln. txt. Tf.
— ti ov X ov Ti Ln. Tf.
— kai adéxtap epeovnoe [Ln.]
69. waAwy, om. Tf.
— mapeotnkoow \ maperta@ouv
Tf.
yo. Kat 7 Nadiad Gov poder,
om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
qt. Ouvvew \ duvvvat Gb. Ln. Tf.
{Rec. Gb. »].
42. ek OeuTépov, prem. evOvs Ln.;
prem. evbews Sch. (Gb. ).
Tod pnyaros ob X ro Piva
@s Ln. Tf.; TO pyya & Sch.
(Gb. »].
peovnca dis X dis pov. Ln.
Ff.
dmapynon pe tpis X tpis pe
dmrapv. i Dake d be
Car. XV.
. evbEws X evOus TE.
emt TO, om. Ln.
T@ IliAdt@, om. r@ Lu. Tf.
Ales
emnpotnoeyv \ éemnpwra Ln.
mg. |
eirev adta YX atvT@ héyes
Tf.
4. emnpatnoev \ emnpera TE.
KaTapaptupovow \ Katnyo-
povow Ln. Tf. Alz.
.ovotaciactayv \ oraciac-
Toy Ln. Tf. Alz.
. avaBonoas \ avaBas Ln. TF.
10. mapadedaxeraay \ mapédw-
kav Alz.
drroxptOels madtw \ madu
diroKp. ens:
elev \ Edeyev TE.
Oé dere, om. Alx.
ov Aéyere, om. Ln. Alz.
Baowéa, prem. Tov Ln. Tf.
Alzx.
. kpagayv, add. héyovtes Ln.
Alz.
kKakov emroinoev X émol. Ka=
kop Tf.
— mepioootépws X mepicoas
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
~ éxpa£ay ye expacov Ln. Alx.
-14, evdvovow Y eévdsdvoKovowy
Lu. Tf. Alz.
Lal
bo
~
[o/e)
12,
14.
18,
20.
28.
29.
che
32.
un
Hie
Backed X 6 Bacireds Gb.
Sch. Tf.
Ta tdva X avtrovd Ln. [Gb.
=]
e&dyova 124 a ayovo ty Ln.
oravpocwctw X cravpocou-
ow Ln. Tf. Alz.
.amw \ azo Ln. Tf.
. emt, add. tov Alz.
. Wlelv, om. TE.
. oTavpdoarres avdrov \ orav-
povow avrov kal Tf.
SienepiCov StapepiCovrar
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
kat emrypobn 4 ypapy 7
Aéyouea, Kal pera avo-
pov edoyicOn, om. Tf. [Gb.
3].
Ovai X Ova St. Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
év Tpiolw nuepats oiKodopav
X otkod. rpiotv nyeép. Ln. Tf.
(om. ev Alx.)
.kat karaBa XY xaraBas Ln.
Tf.
dé, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
a > i 1 A
tov “IopanA, om. Tov Ln.
Alz.
muoTevowper, add. adT@ Ln.
Cst.
LUKE.
32. auTa, prem. ov La.
. Tevouevns Se X Kat yev. Ln.
Tf. Alz.
rh pg rh embry \ xf ee.
pa Ln. Tf. Alx.
A€eyor, om. Tf. Alx.
— appa X Areva Ln.; Aaya
Tf.; Aya Cst.
pe éyxaréXumes X eykar. pe
Ln. txt. Tf.
. dod X ie TE.
eis X tus TE.
Kal yepioas,
TS.
mepieis Te, om. Te Ln. Tf.
. amo \ am Ln. Tf.
Kpagas, om. Tf.
-— 6 avOpwros otros X ott. 6
av6p. in. Te
.T00 “IaxwBov, om. Tov Ln.
Tf. Alz. (s. om. 7) TOU.)
"Iwon X "Iwojros Lu. Tf.
[Gb. »]. Ala.
at Kal, om. kat Ln.; (om. at
Alz.)
. tpoodBBaroy X mpos oaB-
Baroy Ln.
nrAGev X e€AOoy Ln. TF. (Gb.
e]. Alx.
IliAdrov, prem. rov TE.
34.
om. Kat Ln.
41.
43.
44. waAat YX #8n Ln.
48. 7@pa X mropa Ln. TE.
46. kat KaGeA@v, om, kal Ln. Tf.
— xatéOnxev X €Onxev Ln. Alex.
47. loon \ 7 lwonros Ln. Tf.
riderar X réOevrac Ln. Tf.
[Gb. »]. Ala.
Cuar. XVI.
1. Tov laxwBov, Gb. > Tov
2.THS puas \ pud tev Ln.
3. €k X azo Ln. Alz.
4. aTrokekvAoTat \ avakekvX\L-
ora Tf.
elceAOovoa X eAOovoar TE.
avn’ X adda Ln. Tf.
. TAXV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
dé X yap Ln.
ovdev, om. Ln. (? erratum.)
g. ver. 9 ad fin. om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
ap’ X map’ Ln.
. exelyn, add. d€ Ln.
. vorepov, add. dé Ln.
eynyeppevoy, add. €k vekpav
Ln.
. TavTa mapaxohovOncet Xra-
paxodovOnoe Tatra Ln.
- Braver J Bhayn Gb. Sch. Ln.
- Kipuwos, add. ’Incovs Ln, Alz.
*Auny, om. Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.
I
2
7S
Cuap. I.
A \ > “ .Y \
kal 4 yur adrod X Kal yun
avTe Ln. txt. Tf. Alz.
: evamrLov bes evavTov Tf.
7 Educ daBer iy X4 nv °EXt-
eve Ln,; 7 7) Edu. TF.
Alz.
.evaytt \ evavriov Gb. . Alz.
a a > > a A
. Tod Aaod Hv X Hv Tod Aaovd
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
-yevrnoes \ yevéoret Gb. Sch.
in. Tf.
. Tov Kupiov, om. rov Gb. Alz.
.TANpeOjcovra X mAnTOn-
covrat Gb. ».
> , QF
. ndvvaro X édvvaro Ln. Tf.
id , ¢€
. 0 Kuptos, om. o Ln.
¢ A > A
. umd X amo Tf.
Nafaper X Na¢apéé Ln. Tf.
. HEpynorevpermy \ €uynarev-
pevnv Ln. Tf.
6 dyyedos, om. TE.
book Es.
28,
om. Tf. [Gb. >].
idovca, om. Gb. Tf. Alz.
dierapaxOn emi TO Adyo@ ad-
TOU i emt T@ Adyq@ Overap.
Gb. Tf. Ala; dverapaxOn
Gb. ©; [idovca dterapayOn
Gb. ~].
avrf X mpos adrjy Ln. mg.
- €orat, add. [Lot Alz.
. yevy@pevoy, add. €k gov [Ln.]
(Gb. +].
. ovyyerns a ovyyevis Ln. Tf.
ynpa X ynpet | Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.T@ Oe@ \ Tov Gcod Ln. mg.
29.
; Mapidys X Mapia Ln. mg.
a) "Edo dBer Tov doTrac pov
THs Mapias YX rév dow. t.
Map. 9 ‘Educ. Ln. Tf. Ala.
davh J xpavyf Te
ev ayaddidoe Td Bpedos X
22
42.
44.
evaoynpern ov ev yuvakiv,
To Bpep. ev ayadr. Gb.
Sch.
- peyaheia ik peyaha Ln.
yeveav X Kal ryeveds: Tf. [Gb.
~] ; [els yevedy kal yevedy |
Gb. s].
.els Tov alava YX €ws aidvos
Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. x].
.@oet { os Ln.
. dyddn pepe X Hp. TH dyd.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
. elroy \ etrap TE.
ev TH ovyyeveia X €k THs
ovyyeveias Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alz.
avrov X avuTo Ln. Tf.
Kal xelp X kal yap xelp Ln.
Tf Als:
. mpoednrevae X empopnrev-
oev ja. Tf.
69. TO OK, om. T@ Ln. Tf. Alz.
~ 700 maids, om. Tou Ln. Tf.
50.
62.
66.
6
~w
40. T@V Gm al@vos, om. Tov Tf.
Alzx.
74. TOV €xOpav, om. THY Ln. TE.
- nav (Ln.] om. Tf.
45. 7aoas Tas nuépas \ macats
Tais nuepats Ln. mg.
— THs Cans, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
76. Kai ov, add. dé Tf. Alex.
Cuap. II.
2.) amoypadn, om. 7 Ln.
— Kupnviov X Kupivov Ln.
3. Otay X éavrod Ln.
4. Nafaper X Naapad Ln. ;
Nagapeé Tf.
dmoypavacba YX dmoypda-
peoOa Ln.
— pepynorevpery X euynorevp.
init Ala:
— yuvatki, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
4.7 atvn, om. TH Ln. TF.
(Gb. >]. Alz.
9. Kupiov 2° Gb. >,
12, €EOTApPYAavopLEevor,
{Ln.] Alz.
—7 patvy, om. Ty Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
14. evOokia \ evdokias Ln.
13. kat of GvOpwrrot [Ln.]; om
Alx.
— eizrov X éXadAouv Ln. mg.
16. avedpov oy dvedpay Tf.; €d-
pov s. evpay Alz.
14. Seyvopioay \ eyv@pioay Ln.
Alz.
19. Mapiap X Mapia Ln.
20. ereaTpewav \ vmeotpeyay
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
21.70 matdtov \ avtov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— kal éxdnOn, om. kai Alz.
22,avT@v \ avTns Elz.; avTov
Gb. ~
23. vope, prem. T@ Ln.
24. VOLO, prem. TO In. Jae
— veooaovs X vooaovs Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alex.
23.v avOpwmos X avOp. jv Ln.
mg.
—dywv nv X nv aywov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
28. avTOU, om. Tf. [Ln.]
33. loonp \ 6 "Iwonp Ln.; 6
qwatnp avTov Gb. Tf. Alz.
(Rec. Gb. »].
3s. d€ (Ln.]
36. €rn pera dyOpos € entra X pera
avdpos é€rn émra Ln. Tf.
add. kat
LUKE.
Alz.; (8. @ty €mta pera
av8pbs)
34. os dé Zws Lu. Tf. Alex.
— amd, om. Tf.
38. avTN, om. Ln. Tf. Alx.
—Kvupig X Ged Ln. txt. Tf.
Alz.
— ev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. x}.
39. TY wow avttav YX modAw
€auTov Ln. Tf.
— Na¢aper X Nafapé6 Tf. ; et
sic deinceps.
. TvEvpatt, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3).
Alz.
—- cohias X codia Tf. Ln. mg.
.avaBavrav XY avaBavovrey
Ln. Tf. Als.
eis ‘Iepood\upa, om. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alx.
.€yva "laondh Kai 4 pntnp X
€yvacay oi yoveis Ln. txt.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
€v TH ouvodia eivat X etvat
ev TH ovvodia Lu. Tf. Alz.
— kal év, om. ev Gb. Ln. Tf.
Alx:
avrov 1°, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.]
Alzx.
(yrodytes \ avatnrovyres Ln.
TY LGD; ~]. Alx.
ped X pera Tf.
. €l7re, ante m™pos avr. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
. kal irOev Gb. >.
— mdvra ra popara \r. pnp.
mavra Ln. txt. Tf.
— tavta [Ln.]
Cuap. III.
ew \ émt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
apxvepéwy X dpxtepéws Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tov Zaxapiov, om. Tod Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. THY TEpixwpov, om. THY Ln.
Tf. Ala.
4. Néyovros, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3].
Alzx.
sg. evOeiav \ evbeias Ln. TE.
4. ovv \ O€ Ala.
g. KaAov [Ln.]
. Tomnoopev X mouowpey Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
2 Aéyet X éheyev Ln. Tf. Alz.
: elrov \ etrav Ln.
— roucopev \ momowpey Ln.
Tf,
4
&
44.
45.
Weeks “ , U ,
14. Kat npets ti rounoopev X ti
23
mojo. Kat ny. Lu. txt. Tf.;
[Alx.] (rounowpev TE.)
14. Wpos avrovs \ avrois Lu. TE.
Alz.
16. pas, add. els perdvoray Ln.
14. kal OtaxaOapict \ diaxada-
pac Ln. mg.
19. Pidimmov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
ipe
20. mpooéeOnke Kal, [kat] Ln.
— €v TH, om. TH Ln. Tf. Alx.
22.@0¢€l { ws Ln. Tf. Alz.
— éyovray, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3). Ale.
— nvddxnoa X evddxnoa Ln. TE.
23.6 ‘Incots woel €Tav Tpid-
kovra apxopevos X 6 Inc.
apxou. @oet eT@v Tpiak. TE.
Ln. mg. Alz.
— dy, as evopiteto, vids X dv
vids @s evop. Ln. Tf. Alz.
—"Iwond, prem. rod Tf.
24. MatOar X MarOay Alx.
—Javva X Iavvat Ln. TE.
26. TOU Zepel, TOU loon ir.
Depelv, T. Iwonx Tf. Ln.
mg. Alx.
— Iovda X "Iwda TE.
24. Iwavva \ "Iwavay Ln. Tf.
28. "EApoddap X “EApaddp Ln.
Tt.
29. loon ' ae Inoov Ln. Tf. Alz.
31.ToU Maivay X tov Mevva
Enders.
— Nadav X NaOap Ln. mg.
32. OBO \ *Ia87d Ln. Tf.
— Boo¢ X Bods Ln. Tf. Alx.
33. TOU ‘Apap \ rod /Abpeiy,
TOU Apvi Tf.; Tov "Apap,
TOU “Topap Alz.
~ ats X ’Eopov Ln. txt.
35. See X Zepody Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Bddex ¥ Badey Tf. Ln. mg.
Alzx.
36. Kaivay { Kaivap Tf.
34. Iaped X "IdpeO Ln.
Cuap. IV.
I. Tlvevparos “Ayiou mAnpns X
m. Tly. dy. Ln. Tf. Ala.
— eis tH epnuov X ev Th €pn-
pe Ln. txt. Tf. (Gb. »]. Ala.
a: UOTEpOY, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
3. Kal etmev X eirev O€ Ln Tf.
Alz.
4. Ingovs mpos adrov déyav X
ampos avr. 6 “Ina. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— 6 avOpewros, 6 Gb. >. Cst.
— GN ent ravti pnyate Ocod,
om. Tf.
5.6 OudBodos, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Ala.
_~ eis dpos trynrov, om. TE, (Ln.]
6. €ayv \ dv Ln. Tf.
5. pou X €uod Ln. TE.
— zavra X maca Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
8, aUT@ elev J elev adT@ Ln.
- "Yrraye oricw pov, Sarava,
om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- Tpooxurncets Kvpvoy Tov
Gcdv cou \ Kup. r. Gedy
o. mpooKuy. Ln. txt. Alz.
9. Kai ryayev X Hyayev Oe Tf.
Alz.
— avrov 2°, om. Tf.
— 6 vids, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
11. OTt Gb. 3
12. elev a’t@ 6 “Inaovs, om.
Cst.
16.77 Na¢aper, om. tiv Ln.
Alz.
17. ‘Hoaiov tod rpodnrov X Tov
apo. ‘Ho. Ln. txt. Tf.
— avarrvas X avoi~as Ln. Alz.
18. evekev \ elvekev Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE.
— evayyehifer Oar \ edvayyedi-
cao Oa Ln. Tf.
— idcac Oa Todvs cvvrerpippe-
vous Thy Kapdiay, om. Gb.
Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
20. of opOarpol joa X Aoav oi
opOahpoi Ln. Tf.
23. OVX ovTos €oTLY 6 vids ‘lw-
onp X ovxt 6 vids éaotuy
*Iwonp ovros Tf. Ln. mg.
Alz.; (ovxi Ln. txt.)
ev th Kamepvaodp X eis K.
Gb. Ln, Tf. Ala. (s. €v). [Ree.
Gb. »].
. emt ETH, om. emt Ln.
. Sdperra \ SapepOa TE. Alex.
— Sidavos X Sudwvias Ln. Tf.
[Gb. »]. Alx.
. emt "EXtocaiou TOU mpopn~
TOU ev @ *Iopanr Xe ev TO
"Iop. emi ’Edio. rod mpoo.
Ln. Tf. Alx.; CEAtcaiov
Ln.) ©
23;
LUKE,
24. Neepay \ Natpav Ln. Tf. Alz.
29. wip oppvos, om.tHs Gb. Sch.
— avray @xoddunto X @koddp.
abrav Tf.
— els TO \ Sorte Gb.Ln. Tf. Ale.
34. A€ywv, om. TE.
38. €& X\ aw Ln. Tf. (Gb. 9s]. Alz.
— 7d pecov, om. TO Gb. Cst.
38. €k X amo TF. [Gb. x]. Alz.
mevOepa, om. 9 Gb. Sch.
n. Tf.
39. wapaxpnya Se X cal mapa-
xpypa Ln. mg.
40. emGels \ émeriOels Ln. txt.
Tf. Alz.
41. Kpdovra X kpavydgovra Ln.
Tf. Alz.
-— 6 Xptoros, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
Alx.
42. e(nrouy X eme(nrouv Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
43. pe Set X Set pe Ln.
— eis trovto X émt rovro Ln.
Tf. Alo. |
-dméoradpar X admeordadny
Ln. Tf. Alx.
44.€V Tais ovvaywyais X els
Tas ovvaywyas Tf. Alz.
-— rns Tadsdaias X rs "Iov-
daias Alz.
Cuap. V.
1.TOU akoveww \ Kat akov. TF.
Lu. mg. Alz.
2.dvo mAoia X mAoudpia Svo
Ln. mg.; vo mAocdpia TF.
— amoSavres am avtav X ar
avr. amo. Tf. Alz.
— anrémAvvay YX émAvvov Ln.
Tf.; émAvvay Gb. ». Alz.
3. TOU Diuwvos, om. Tod Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— kal kabicas X kabicas de TE.
Ln. mg.
8.6 Sipe, om. 6 TE.
— THs vuKTos, om. THs Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— 7d Sixrvoyv X ra Sixrva Ln.
mg.
6.tyOvav mAnbos YX wAnOos
ixQvev Gb. Sch.
— dueppnyvuro dé rd Sixrvov X
Sueppnoero Se ra dixrva
Ln. mg.; dvepnoero O€ TO
Oixrvoy Tf.
4. TOIS €v, om. Tots Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
24
8. TOU "Incov, om. rod Ln. Tf.
, 6 "Ingots, om. 6 Tf.
: dravra \ wdvra Lu.
elroy X Aéyov Ln. Ale.
ur avTou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alx.
. Bapicatot, prem. oi Ln.
— ekndrvOdres X orvedndrvOd-
Tes Ln. txt. Alz.
. Ova trotas, om. dia Gb. Sch.
in. TY,
; auT@, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
(s. T@ TapahuTiK@).
apievar dpaprias X dyap-
tias apeivat Lu. txt.Tf. Alz.
— povos X eis Ala.
. GtrokpwOels, om. Ln.
"Eyeupar \ €yepe Gb. Sch.
in, Tf,
. e€ovalay yet 6 vids Tov ay-
O@pewrov X 6 vids tov avOp.
efovoiay éxes Tf. Ln. mg.
Tmapadedvpev@ \ mapadvti-
k@ Ln. [Gb. 9s]. Ala.
hae yf ae Gb. Sch. Ln.
6 wire
. kal ékoraois €AaBev arav-
tas kat €dd£aCoy Tov Geor,
om. Alz.
24. €Oeaoaro \ eidev Ln. mg.
28. dravta \ mavra Ln. Ala.
— nkodovOnaev \ nkodovber Ln.
txt. Tf.
.6 Aevis, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. Alz.
— TeAk@vav Trodvs \ odds Te-
A@vay Ln. Alz.
0b ypappareis ad’rav Kal oi
Papicaio X of Pap. kai oi
ypap. avr@y Ln. Tf. Alw.
~ pera, add. tv Gb. Sch. Ln.TF.
— kal dpapTohav, om. Tf.
‘ ahha a ahr’ Ln. Tf.
. elroy X etay Ln. Tf.
— Atari, om. Tf. Alz.
. 6 O€, add. "Inoots Alz.
— mortevev, om. Alx.
38. Kat Gray X [kat] Ln.
36. eriBAnpa, add. amo [Ln.] Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
— kawov, add. oxicas Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alzx.
— oxi¢e X oxioe: Ln. txt. TF.
Alz.
~ cuppavei X cvppavncer Ln.
Tf, Ala.
25. o Tf. [Gb.s
an
2
36. émiBAnua, om. TE. [Gb. 3].
Cst. ; prem. TO Alz.
37. big hep paocer Ln. mg.
— 6 véos oivos X 6 oivos 6 véos
Ln. Tf. Ala.
38. Kal duddrepot ouvtTnpovy-
Tat, om. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alx.
— evOéws, om. Tf. Ala.
Cuap. VI.
1. devtepopoT@, om. Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
— TY oTropipey, om. TOV Ln.
dhe
— xepol, add. adrév [Ln.]
2. avTots, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ~].
Alz.
- Touely € €V, Om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
3. mpos. avrous eirev 6 "Ingovs
X 6 Ino. eirev mpos adrovs
Ln. Alz.
— dmore X 6re Ln. Alz.
— dvTes, om. Ln. Alex.
4.@8, om. Tf. [Alx.]; m@s Ln.
txt. [Alz.]
— €daBe, kal Gb.-, [om. Alx.] ;
AaBoyv Ln. [Alz.]
— Kal Tots, om. kal Ln. Tf. Alz.
6. Kal ev, om. Kal Ln. Alz.
— éxei GvOpwros X avOp. exer
Tf. Alz.
4. Tapetnpovy \ mapeTnpovvTo
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
— avTov, om. Sch. Ln. (Gb. 3].
— Oepareioer X Oeparrever ad-
Tov Alx.
8. kal etre X etmev O€ Tf. Ln.
mg. Alz.
-— 7 avOpare \ Te avdpt TF.
(Gb. »]. Alz.
- Ethie X eyetpe Gb. Ln. Tf.
~ % "32 kal Ln. Tf. Alz.
g. ouv ¥ dé Ln. Tf. Alzx.
—’Enepotnow X emrepwre Tf.
Alz.
— i \ ei Ln. Tf.
-—tois cdBBaow X ro oaB-
Bate Lu. txt. Tf
~ drodéoa \ amroxretvae Gb.
Sch. [Rec. Gb. s].
10.T@ avOpar@ X ait@ Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
— éroinoey X e&erewe Gb. x.
Alz.
— ovT@, om. Gb. Cst.
— admoxatectdbn X dmexate-
ord@n Gb. Ln. Tf. Ala.
LUKE.
0. Dytnsy om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— as 7 GAN, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
). Alz.
.momoevay X momoaey Ln.
Alx.
een bev XY e&ehOciv adrov
Tf. (Gb. »]. Alz.
. Idxk@Bov, prem. kat Ln. Tf.
Alz.
Pidurroy, prem. kat Ln. Tf.
Alz.
. MarOaiov, prem. cai Ln. Tf.
Alz.
TOV TOV, om. Tf. Alz.
. Lovday, prem. kat Ln.Tf. Alz.
*Ioxaptorny X Ioxapiod Ln.
Abe
ds Kal, om. kat Ln. Tf.
. 0xAovpevor X evoydovpevot
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Ala.
— td X amo Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
kal €Oepamevoyto, om. kal
Ln. Tf. Alz.
e(nres \ e(nrovy Tf. Ln. mg.
puonowot \ pronoovoty Ln.
mg.
évecxa \ evexev Ln.
23. xaipere \ xdpnre Gb. Sch.
ian. Tf,
— tadra X ra avra Ln. txt. Tf.
Alz.; TavTa Ln. mg. [Gb. »].
eumremAno pevot, add. viv Ala.
Dpiv, of yeh@vres \ bpiv, om
Tf. (Gb. >]. Alz.
. bly, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
mavres, om. Gb. Sch.
ravra \ ra avra Ln. txt. Tf.
Alz.; rata Ln.mg. [Gb. 9].
. AAN X ddAa Ln. Tf.
. bp { tas Gb. Sch. Ln. txt.
kal mpocevyerOe, om. Kal
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— trép \ epi Tf.
30. O€ 7 [Ln.]; om. 6€ Alx.
a kal opts (Ln. J
3. xapis €ori \ €or xapis Ln.
ao Oavei(nte X Saveionre Ln.
txt.; SaveiCere Tf. Ln. mg.
[Gb. S.
— dmokaBelv X AaBety TE.
— yap, om. Tf.
— ol, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
38. ameAmiCovres \ adeAmigov-
Tes Ln.
— trodvs, add. év Tots ovpavois
[Ln.]
— Tov tiorov, om. Tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
25
19.
22.
25.
36. ovv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— kabds kal, om. Kat Tf. [Ln.]
Alx.
31. kal ov pn X tva jut) Ln. txt.
— pn Karaducdgere, prem. kal
Tf. Ala.
38. Kal oeoadevpevoy Kal om.
kat bis Ln. Tf.
~ drrepekxuvopevov X tmepex-
Xvvvdpevov Ln. Tf.
-79 yap avT@ peéTp@ o Xo
yap BETPO Ln. txt. Ale.
- dyriperpnOnoerat X petpn-
O@noera Ln. mg.
39. Euzre Oe, add. kat Ln. Tf. Ala.
— mecovvrat \ €umecodyrat Ln.
txt. Tf. Alx.
40. OuddoKadoy avTov, om. avTOU
Ln. Tf. Alz.
42.7) Tas, om. 7) TE.
— exBareiv, post rod adeApovd
cov Tf.
43. ovde, add. maAw [Ln.] Tf.
Alz.
44. Tpuya@ot oradvaAny \ crap.
Tpvy. Tf. Alzx.
48. avOpwrros 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.]
(Gb. 3]. Alzx.
— Onoavpod ths Kapdias av-
Tov 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3).
Alz.
— Tov TEepiroevpaTos THS, om.
Tov et THs Ln. Tf. Alz.
— Aare 7O ordépa adrov X 7d
ordpa avr. Aadet Ln. [av-
Tov Gb. ~].
48. TeOepeNi@to yap él thy
métpay X dua TO Kada@s oi-
Kodopeta Oa adrny Tf. Alx.
49. olkoOounoavtt \ oikodopody-
Te Ln.
— evdéws X evOvs TF.
— énece \ cvverecer Tf. Alx.
Cuapr. VII.
1.’Ezrel 5€ X éresd7) Ln. Tf.
4. mapekadovv pf nporov Alx.
= Aéyorres, add. avt@ Alzx.
— rapeéer { mapéEn Ln. TE.
Alz.
6. 6 Exarévrapxos pirous X pi-
Aous 6 €xarovt. Tf. Ln. mg.
Alz.
— eit ixavds X ixavds eiue Tf.
fait mg.
- ond THY oTeyny pov \ pov
to T. orey. Alz.
7. ta@noerae Video Tf.
.ovde X ovre Cst.
. ob meppevres els TOV olkoy
X eds ray edxov of meu. Ln.
Alz.
— dabevovyra, om. Lm. [Alz.]
.7H €&ns X ta e&ns Ln. mg.
[Gb. »]. Ost.
— ixavot [Ln.] [Gb. 7]; om. Alz.
. TeOUnK@s [Ln.]
— vids povoyerns X povoy. vids
Tf. Ln. mg.
— avtn, add. hv St. Ln. Alz.
— ixavos Hv, om. hv St. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. Si. st.
.avexabioev YX éxabioev Ln.
mg.
— €Owxev \ amedwxey Ln. mg.
. dmavras X mavras Gb. Sch.
— eynyeptar \ nyépOn Ln. TE.
Alz.
.€v maon X ev [Ln.]
; "Ingovy X Kupwoy Tf. Ln. mg.
. elrrov X eiray Ln. Tf.
— Gov ¥ erepoy Alz.
. Ev avrn X €v éxeivn TE. Ln.
mg. Alz.
— d€,-om. Ln. Tf.
— 70 Bdérew, om. TO Ln. TE.
[Gb. 3]. Csé.
.6 Ingods, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— Ort TUpAot, om. 6tt Ln. Ala.
. pos TOVvs OxAovs X Tois dy-
Aas Cst.
— e€ehndvOare X e&nAOare Ln.
(Gb. s].
. EeAndvOare J €&nAOare Ln.
(Gb. x}. Alz.
. eEeAnrvOare X €&nAOare Ln.
(Gb. s]. Ala.
- €Y@, om. Ln. Tf. Ala.
. Aéyo yap, om. yap Tf.; anv
Neyo, s. Aéyw Oe, 8. AEyo
Alz.
— mpopnrns, om. Ln. (Gb. >].
Alz.
— Tov Bantictov, om. Tf. [Gb.
~). Alz.
.eime 5€ 6 Kupios, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. kat héyovow \ A€yovres TE.
Alz.
- Diy 2° 2°, om. Ala.
33. dptov ecbiwv X écOwv dp-
Tov Ln. Tf.; [aprov Gb. >;
om. Alz.]
olvoy mivev \X mivev oivoy
Ln. Tf.; [oivoyv Gb. >; om.
Alz.]
=)
I
°
UAC.
34. eobiov X €oOwv TE.
— tehavav piros X pidros te=
Awvev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
38. TOV TéKYoY a’TnS TavTeV
TaVT@V T. TEK. aT. Ln. TE. ;
[rdavrev Gb. >; om. Alzx.]
36.77 oikiay X Tov oikoy Ln.
Tf. Alx.
— avekdiOn X karexAin Ln. TE.
Alz.
31. ev TH TORE, I} qris Hv \ Hrs
iv ev ™ moAet Ln. txt. Tf.
- emvyvovaa, prem. kat Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x]. Ala.
— avaxeirat X Katakerrar Ln.
Ti. Ala;
38. mapa Tovs 7ddas avtod dri-
ow \ éricw mapa Tovs 16-
das avrov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tots Odkpvot, ante ipEaro
Ln. Tf. Alz.
— e&euaooe \ e&€uake Alzx.
40.not, Avddoxare, eirée YX
Aud, eire, pyoiv TF.
41. xpewperderat \ xpeoperdre-
Tat lin. ‘Ti.
42. be, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 3. Alz.
- cle, om. Ln. [Gb. >). Ale.
- avroy ayamnoet dyanjces
adr sv Ln. Tf. Alz.
43. O€ 1°, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
44. emt Tovs mddas pou \ pot
emt mddas Tf.
— THs Kepadiys, om. Gb. Sch.
gO Bed bs
48. elonAOov \ elondOev- Gb. ».
— pov rovs 1ddas X rovs 708.
prov Gb. Ln. [Gb. >].
46. wou Tovs mddas X Tovs 108.
pov Ln. Tf.
47. ai dpaptia: adrns \ adr ai
dap. Ln.
49. ourds eoTrw \ €or ovTos
Ln. Alz.
Cuapr. VIII.
3. avT@ \ avrois Sch. Tf. [Gb.
~],
— do \ éx Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Alz.
s.auTov \ €avTov Cst.
6. €rreoev \ KaTerecey TE.
8. emt X eis Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. A€yovres, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
1s.ad jin. add. tadra, eyo
epavet, “O €xov ra akov-
ew, akoveTo Cst.
16. Auxvias X Tv Avxviay Ale
26
16, emtriOnow \ tiOnow Ln. TE.
Alx.
17.00 yvooOnoerat X ov py
yorbh Ln.
18. yap av \ av yap Tf.
20. Kal amnyyéAn X amnyyéAn
dé Ln. Tf. Ala.
— AeydvT@v, om. Ln. Ala.
21. mpos avrovs X avrois Ln.
txt.
— avtov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Al.
22.Kal éyévero \ éyevero de
Ln. Tf. Alz.
— éveBn X aveBn Tf.
23. GVE{L0U, post Aiuyny Ln. mg.
24. eyepOeis \ SueyepOels TE. Alz.
23. €oTW, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
26. Ladapnvav \ Teparnver Ln.
Tf. [Gb.s]. Alx. (s. Tepye-
onva@y).
— dyrimépay \ avtimepa Ln. TE.
[Gb. x].
24. €K xpdveov ixavav \ Kal ypo-
Vo ixav@ Alz.
28. Kal dvaxpdéas, om. Kat Ln.
TteAla:
—Inood Gb. >
— Tov Geov Gb. -.
29. ILapnyyewde X mapryyeAXev
Ln. Tf. Alz.
— eSeopeiro { edeapevero Tf.
— duappnooer \ Svapno. Ln. TE.
— daipovos X Satpoviov Ln. txt.
30. Aéy@v, om. Ln.
—€oTl bvopa \ dvoud éeorw
Ln. Alz.
— daiudua toda eiondOev X
eionO. Sai. mod. Ln. Tf.
31. mapekaNer \ mapekddovy Ln.
[Gb. s]. Ala.
32. Bookopevav \ Bookopevn
Ln. txt. Alz.
— mapekddouy X mapexddecay
Ln. Tf. Alz.
33. elonAOev X elandOov Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. s].
34. yeyernpevoy X yeyovos Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— armed Odvres, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
35. kaOjpevov tov avOpermov \
Tov avOpwrrov kaOnpevoy Lu.
mg.
36. kat oi iddvres, om. kal Ln.
(Gb. 3]. Alx.
— 6 daipouobeis Gb. 3
37. npeatncay \ npetnoev Ln.
o ;
37. Vadapnvar \ Tepaonvav Ln.
Tf. Alx. (s. Tepyeonvar).
— Td TAoLov, om. TO Ln. Tf. Alz.
38. e0¢eTo \ edeeiro Ln.
— eEednrvder ra Saipdua X ra
daip. eed. Ln. mg. Ala.
— 6 "Inoods, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
3]. Alx.
39. eroinoev aot \ wot ero. Ln.
Tf. Ala.
4o. eyévero Oe ev TO \ ev O€ TH
Alzx.
— irootpéa X troorpépey
Ln. mg.
4I. airos X otros Ln. txt. Alz.
42. @8 { @oet Alx.
— Ep b¢ 7 omdyew X kal éyé-
VETO EV TO mropeveo Bau Ln.
Abe Alu.
—cuveruyov YX ovveOdrBov
Alzx.
43.€is iarpods X iarpois Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Biov, add. adtns Ln.
— tn \ aw Ln. Tf.
48. eT avrov \ ody a’T@ Gb.
Ln. Tf. Ale:
— kal Aéyets, Tis 6 dyapevds
pou; Gb.>; om. Alz.
46. Incovs Gb. 3.
— e£ehOovoay X e£eAndvOviav
Abe
47.avT@, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alzx.
48. Odpoet, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >].
Alz.
~ Ovyarep x Buyarnp Th
49. Tapa \ aro Ln.
- aura, om. Tf. Alz.
— py X pnkere Ln.
50. Aeywv, om. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— mioTteve y§ miortevooy Tf.
1. EloeAOav X €AOov Gb. Sch.
Ln.
— ovdéva X riva ody adr@ Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— "IdxkwBov kal lwavyny ¥ Io-
av. kat lak. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
82. OOK \ ov yap Ln. txt. Tf. Alz.
— dréBavev, add. Td Kopdotoy
Ala.
34. ekBadov Ew mavras, Kal,
om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. —]. Alz.
— éyeipou X éyerpe Ln. Tf. Alz.
Cuar. IX.
1. waOntas avtov, om. Gb. Tf.
Alz. (8. amroaTdXovus).
LUKE.
2, aoGevouvras \ acbeveis Ln.
Tf. (Gb. 8]. Alz.
.paBdovs X paBdov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
s. O€avrae X Séxovrar Ln. TE.
[Gb. s]. Alx.
Kal Tov, om. kat Tf. [Ln.] Ale.
7. ywopeva \ yevdpeva Ln. mg.
— Um avTov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
3]. Alzx.
eynyepta X nyepOn Ln. TF.
Alz.
vw
eis \ rus TE. Alx.; (s. om. eis).
. Kat eizrev X etirev S€ Ln. Tf.
Alz.
-— 6 “Hpadys, om. 6 Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
TOTov Epnuov TOAEws KaXov=
pens X modu kahouperny
Tt [Gb. ~] [Alex]; [els T6-
tov €p. Gb. s]. [Alz.]
11. de€duevos \ drodeEduevos
Ln. Tf. Alz.
12. dmehOdvres YX mopevbeévres
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x]. Alz.
— Tovs adypovs, om. Tovs Alz.
13. pets ayetv X day. tyeis
ine Te,
— eirov \ eirav Ln. TF.
— dv0 ixOves X ixOves dt0 Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. kAtolas,add. [@oet] Ln. [Alz.]
. avexAvay X KaréxAway Alz.
16. maparideva. X mapabcivar
TT:
- pabnrai, add. avrov Alx.
. €rov \ e€tray Ln. Tf.
: "AroxpiOeis de 6 Tlérpos ye
II. d€ drrok. Tf. Alx.; dzrok.
Oé I. Ost.
.elmeiv X Néyew Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.] [Rec. Gb. x].
.eyepOnvar X dvacrivat Ln.
Tf. (Gb. x]. LAlz.]
ehOciv X €pyerOar Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— drapynodc be X dpynoacbo
Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
— kal dpdtw Tov otavpoy ad-
Tou Gb. >.
— kad” npépay, om. Sch. Ln.
(Gb. 3].
24. dy \ éav Cst.
24. @O€ \ avrov Tf.
—éoTnkétav \ éotatov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— yevoovrar X yevowvrat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
27
‘© 9%
Io,
2
Ln
2
bo
33.
28. kal mapadaBey X [kai] Ln.
— Tov Ilerpov, om. rov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Iwavynv kat "IdkwBovr X "Idk.
kal Iwayv. Tf. [Alx.]
3I. éeyor, add. [d€] Ln.
33. 0 Tlerpos, om. 6 Cst.
— oxnvas tpeis \ tpeis oKnvas
Alzx.
— Moce? piav X piayv Movoei
[Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf.
. emeckiacey \ érreckiatey TF.
Ln. mg.
— éxeivous eiaedbeiv X eioedd.
avrovs Tf.
. dyamnroés X éxedeypevos TE.
[Ln. mg.] [Gb. x]. [Alz.]
.6 Ingovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3). [Alx.]
— éwpdkaow X éopaxay Tf.
.€V TH, om. ev TE.
. aveBonoe X EBdnoev Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— ériBdewor \ ériBAeyra Gb.
Sch. Tf.
— é€oti pot X pol éorw Ln. Tf.
[Alex]
39. Kpacet, add. Kal pnooet Alx.
40.ekBadAwow YX éxBdroow
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
41. kal dveEouar \ Ews more ave€.
Alz.
— &d¢ Tov vidv cov X Tov vidv
cou &de Gb. Sch.; [de Gb.
=i;
. €roinoev X emotes Gb. Ln.TF.
(Alz.]
—6 "Inoots, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
[Alx.]
. €petnoat X émepwotnoat Ln.
[Alx.]
. dav X etdas Cst.
.eayv \ dy Ln.
— €orat X €orw Ln. txt.Tf. [Gb.
ws]. Alz.
.6 Iwavyns, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— én \ ev Al.
— Ta Sadia, om. Ta Sch. Ln.
TE iGbps):
—éxodvcapev YL exwAvopev
Ln. mg.
so. Kai etme X etzrey S€ Ln. txt.
fale:
— xwdvere, add. avtov Alx.
— nav, trép nev YX tyav
brep vey Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
81. avuTov [Ln.]; €avrov Cst.
— eornpige { eornpicey TE.
~
is)
>
. ote { os Ln. mg.
. elroy \ etzray Tf.
amo X éx Ln.
as Kat ’HXias éroinge, om.
Tf. (Gb. —]. Alz.
‘ > > E a
. Kal eimev, OvK otdate otov
mvevpatos €oTe Upeis; 56.6
ap vids TOU avOpwrovu ovK
ndOe Wuxas avOparrwv aro-
Aéoat, aAAa coal, om.
Ln.Tf.; [56.6 yap... 0@-
oat, om. Gb. Sch., cetera Gb.
3; om. Alx. et Cst.]
.’Eyevero S€ X Kai Tf. [Gb.
w]. Alx.
av ¥ éeay Ln. Th [Alx.]
Kupte, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.>]. Ala.
. are Odvrt mp@rov X mperov
ameNOeiv Ln.
.6 Ingovs, om. Tf. [Ln.] (Gb.
==]
—P Je
. Tpos avTov, om. Tf.; post o
Ino. Ln. [Cst.]
emiBarov \ émBaddd\ov Ln.
eis THY Bacwdelay \ ty Ba-
ovNeia Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cap. X.
. €Bdounkovra, add. [Sv0] Ln.
[Alz.]
ewehAev \ uedrev Ln. Tf.
epxeoOa \ eivépxeo Oar Ln.
mg.
ou X d€ Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
[Alz.]
exBdadAn épydras \ epyaras
exBaddn Tf.; €xBddn epy.
Gb. Sch. Ln.
. €y@, om. Ln. Tf.
. Badavrioy X Baddavrioy Ln.
‘es
> ad ’ 4 See,
. oixiay eioepxnaGe X oikiay
eloé AOnte Lu. [Gb.~]. Alex. ;
eioé AOnre oikiav Tf.
. pev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
7 eket \ exe? 7) Ln. mg.
6 vids, om. 6 St. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
ea Oiovres X €oOovres Ln. Tf.
€ott, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
ny & av X hv ay Ln. (Gb. 8].
elaépxnade \ eioedOnre Ln.
Tf. [Gb. x]. LAlzx.]
. Upav, add. eis tols médas
Ln. [Alx.]; [sic, add. quay
TE
ep vas, om. Gb. Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
12.
13.
15.
20.
2
Leal
2
is)
24.
25.
24.
is]
Oo
LUKE.
Aéyw Se, om. S€ Gb. Sch. Tf.
[Ln.]
Xopatv X Xopageiy Tf. [Alx.]
BnOcaida X Bydcaida Ln.
mg.
eyevovto X éyernOnoay Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
KaOnpevat { KaOnpevor Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
7) €ws \ py ews Ln. txt. Tf.
[Alz.]
tyobcioa X iroOnon ; Ln.
txt. Tf. [dlx.]
TOU oupavod, om. Tov Ln.
ddov, prem. Tov Tf.
é ¢ >
. O akovay tay X 6 bp. ak.
Ln. mg.
. €BdSounkovta, add. [S00] Ln.
[Alz.]
. Sidwpu X SéSaxa Tf. Ln. mg.
[Ale]
aducnon X adixnoes Elz. Ln.
ae
mvevpara \ Saysdma Alx.
padAor, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
eypagn X eyyéypanrat Tf.
[Aix]
. mvevpatt, add. TO ayio Ln.
[Alw.]; [prem. ev Alz.]
6 "Inaots, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
eyévero evdokia X eddok. €ye-
vero Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Kal orpageis mpos tovs pa-
Onras eime, om. Elz. Gb.
[Alz.]
mapeddOn prot X pot mapedd-
On Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
eav X dy Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
etdov X eiday TF. [Ala]
Kal Aeyor, om. Kal Tf.
€§ éhns THs Wuxis cov, Kal
dAns ths loxvos gov,
kal e€ dys THs Stavoias
mou Xe ey dn TH bexn cov,
kat ev d\n ™ isxvi cov,
Kat év 6An TH Savoia cou
Ln. txt.
. Oexacovy YX duxarc@oae Ln. TF.
[Alzx.]
. edvaarvtes \ e&educay Cst.
Tvyxavovta, om. Ln. Alx.
. yevopevos, om. Ala.
ehOav Gb. . [Alz.]
idov, add. a’rov Ln.
.avurov 2° om. Tf. [Ln.]
. eT BuBacas dé X kai é7u3.Ln.
. e&eAOav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
[Alz.]
28
35.
36.
37-
38.
39-
40.
AX
42.
vv
ee.
6.
ies)
‘oO
Io.
-
Ne
13:
are, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alz.]
oov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Ala.
doxet oot mAnoiov X mAn-
ciov Soxet wot Gb. Sch. Tf.
ovv X dé Gb. La. Tf. [Alzx.]
[Gb. >].
eyeveto Oe ev TO \ ev Se TH
Alz.
Kat avtos \ [kat] Ln.
mapakabicaca X mapakabe-
obcioa TF. [Alzx.]
mapa X mpos Tf. Ln. mg. Alex.
"Inco X kvpiov Ln. txt. Tf.
Alzx.
ceive X elrrov Tf.
"Inoous X Kuptos Thins mg. ;
[6 Ingovs elev avTn, 8. €b=
TEV AUTH Kuptos Alz.j
TupBacn a GopuBatn Ln.
€vos be € €OTL Xpela I oi yov
d€ €ort xpeta 7 Evds Alz.
an’ avtns X [dm] Ln.; [om.
aw Alz.)
Cuar, XI.
.mpooevxnabe X mpooevyxe-
oe Alx.
Nua 6 Ev TOIs Ovpavois, om.
Gb. Tf. [Alz.]
7 Bacwreia cov cov 7 Bac.
AD:
ye nro TO _G€Anpa ou,
@s ev ovpave, Kat emt TS
YAS) om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Alz.];
[ws ev oup. Kal emt ys] Tens
.apiewev X adiouey Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ]. [Alz.]
GAA pdaar Nas amd Tod
jovnpov, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
. elm X épet Ln. Ala.
pov [Gb. >].
.avrov didov X piroy avrod
Alxz
6owv YX cov Cst.
> , > ,
. dvorynoerat X avorxOnoerat
Tf. [Cst.]
dvorynoerar X avoxOnoerar
Ln. Tf. [Csé.]
. twa YX tis Alz.
tpav \ é& bpav Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
ei Kal X ) Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
emidaoe aiT@ \ ad’t@ em-
dager AVE Ln. mg.
airnon yf airnoet Tf. [Alz.]
tmdpxovres X dvres Alz.
dyada Sdpatra X Sopara
ayaOa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. TaTnp, add. bpav Ln.
— 6 €& om. 6 Alz.
14. kal avTo HY, om. Alz.
— eEehOdvros X éxBAnOevros
Ln. [Alz.]
15.dpxovte \ Te px. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x]. Alx.
— ad. fin. add. 6 dé dmoxpibels
eimre, Ids Svvarat Saravas
Zaravay exBdddew Alz.
16. Tap avTou e¢nrowy eg ou-
pavov ) €& ovp. e¢. map’ abr.
Ln. Tf. Alz.
1y.avTav Ta Siavonuata X Ta
Svav. adr. Ln.
19. Of viol, om. of Ln.
—kpitat tuav adroit X adroit
tpaev kpirat Ln. Tf. Alz.
20. exBddro, prem. eye Alz.
22. é ioxupérepos, om. 6 Ln.
24. OTav, add. dé Alx.
~ heyet, prem. [rore] Ln. [Alz.]
23. eupioket, add. oxoddgovta
Alz.
26. €mTa eTEpa mVEvpaTa TrOVN-
pérepa é€avrov X e€r. mv.
jTovnp. €avt. émra TE.
— eigeAOovra YX €dOdvtTa Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Cst.
24. yur, Povny X pavyv yur7n
Ln. Tf.
28. auTov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
29. avTH, add. yeved Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— émi(nret \ cyret TF.
— Tov mpopnrov, om. Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
30. onpetov tois Nuveviras X
tots Nuv. on. Tf. [Alz.]
31. SoAop@vtos bis \ Todopwa-
vos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
32. Nevevit X Nevevirat Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. »].
33. Kpumrov X KpumTyy Elz. Gb.
ince
— héeyyos X pas Ln. [Alz.]
34. opOadpds, add. cov Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ].
— ovv, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. ]. Alz.
— Kal dXov, om. kal Ln.
— €or \ éora Alz.
— oKorewvoy, add. €orat Alz.
36. TL pepos X pépos te Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
37. AaAjoa, add. adroy Ln.
— npwra X épwra Ln. Tf.
— Tis, om. Tf. [Alx.]
40. CEwOev kal 76 €cwber \ érw-
Gev kai ro €E@Oev Ln. mg.
LUKE.
41. ear X €orat Ala.
42.GAN X ada TE.
— tadra, add. [dé] Ln. [Gb. »}.
Alx.
— der X Sef Ln. mg.
- acprévar x mapetvat Ln. Tf
43. dyopais, add. [kal Tas Tpo@-
TokA\uctas €v Tois Seimvots]
Ln.
44. ypappatets Kai Papicaior,
Umokptral, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
— of mepirarovrtes, om. oi Ln.
Tf. [Gb. -].
. papTupetre \ paprupes eoTe
Tt:
—alrav Ta pynpeta, om. Tf.
{Ln.] (Gb. 3]. Alz.
exxuvdpevov \ exxvvydpevoy
Ln. Tf.
$1. TOU aiparos 1°, om. Tov Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— Tov aipartos 2°, om. Tov Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
—ciondOete X eiondOare Gb.
Ln. Tf. [Alv.]
53. A€yovros be avrov Tavta
mpos avrovs X kaxeiBev e&-
eA O6vros avrov Tf.; Kai Gb.
&,
34. evedpevovtes avTov Gb. 3
— kat (nrovvres, om. Tf.; om.
kal Gb. Sch. Ln. ; [CyTovvres
Gb. 3].
—iva xatnyopyowow avrod,
om. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Cuar. XII.
.amoKTewovt@y \ amoKtev-
vovrwv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—mepisadrepov \ mepioody
Ln.
s.e€ovaiay €xovra ) e¢xovra
e£ovo. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
6. w@Aeirat \ ww@Aovvrae TF.
4. ov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— Svapépere, add. pets Alz.
9. evamtov 1° X umpoo bev Ln.
10. BAaodhynpnoavre Gb. —.
11. mporpepocw \ dépaow
Tf
50.
es
— pepiuvare X peptuynonre TE.
Ln. Mee [Alz.]
- i) rt i , wad Bis
13. QUT@ €K Tov dxAou X €k TOU
3xdou avT@ Alz.
14. duxaoriy \ perv Ln. Te.
[Ala.]
29
15. TS \ maons Ln. TE. [Gb. s].
Alz.
— avrod 2° X a’r@ Ln, txt. Tf.
Alz.
16. ad X nidspyncer Ln.
18, peat aa X yevnuara St.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Cst.]; tov
oirov Alx.
20. Oeds \ KUptos Ln. mg.
—"Adpor X appov Elz.Gb. Sch.
22. avToU [Ln.]
— bpiv Neyo X A€yo piv Te.
— tp@v, om. Ln. Tf. [(Gb.3]. Ale.
— copari, add. [ipov] Ln.
23.) WuxH X 9 [yap] puxn La.
[Gb. ~]. Alx.
24. 0U \ ovre Tf.
— ovde X ove TF.
25. MEPLULVO@V, om. Tf.
- mpooGeivat ent Ty mruxiav
avtov \ emt thy mrt. adr.
mpooeivat TE.
— eva, om. Tf.
26. ovre X ovde Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
24. av&dver ov Koma, ovdE v7-
eu X ovre vnOer ovTe Upat-
vet Tf.
- ovde, prem. [ore] Ln. [Ale]
28, TOV xoprov €v TO dypo. X ev
adyp@ Tov Xéprov onpepov
Ti. 3. Ts XOp. onp. ev aypo
Ln.
— dudievvvor X apdrecer TE. ;
augiager Ln.
29.7) Ti X Kal ri Tf.
30. emu(nret \ emicntovow Tf.
[Ala.]
31. TOV Geovd X avrovd Ln. (txt.)
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— mavra, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3].
33. Badavria Y BadAdytia Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
35. Dwav ai doves X al daves
tpov Ln.
36. avadvaet { avadvon Ln. Tf.
38. of SovAoLt, om. Tf. (Gb. >].
39. ay 2°, om. Tf.
— dsopuynvar X Sopvy Ojvar TE.
40. oby, | om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
41. avTe, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
42. elie de \ Kat eizrev Alx.
— kali dpdvipos X 6 ppov. Ln.
txt. Tf. [Gb. s].
— tov didovat, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Ala.]
— TO olToperpLoyv, om. TO Tf.
44 avtov \ avT@ Ln. mg.
. €avrov X adrod Ln. Tf. (Alz.]
-els X emt Ln. (Gb. 8]. [4lz.]
é ob XY 6 orou Ln. Tf. [Gb. s].
. O1K® evi Xé évi olK@ Ln. txt.
- Tpiol. 83. StapepirOinrerar Bf
Tpiolv 53. SiapepraOnoovrat
Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
ep \ emi Tf.
— Ovyarpi X Ovyarépa Ln.; sic
prem. thy Tf. [Ala.]
— pnytpi X tiv pytépa La. Tf.
[Alz. ]
~ abrns 2°, om. Tf.
84. THY et om. THY Ln.
[Alz.]
— éyere, add. Ott Tf. [Ln]
[Alw. if
56. THs ys Kal TOU ovpavod | yf
Tov ovpavod Kal THs yns
Alx.
— ov Soxuydtere X ove oidate
Soxipacew Alx.
58. mapad@ \ mapadacet Ln. Tf.
Alz.
— BadrAn X Barei Ln. Tf. ; Ba-
An Gb. Sch.
39. TO \ Tov Tf.
Cnap. XIII.
2.6 "Inaovs, om. Tf. (Ln.]
. peravonrte X peravononre Ln.
txt. Tf. [Alz.]
— aaavtos X 6polws Ln. [Alz.]
.kat oxT@ \ [kal] Ln.; om.
Alz.
ovrot X avrot Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avOparous, prem. Tovs Ln.
Tf. [Alzx.]
— év, om. Tf. [Alzx.]
g. peravorre \ peravononre Ln.
anf Ale]
dpolos X @oavTés TE. [Ala]
ev TO apmehove avrov Te-
purevpérny X mehur. ev TO
arr. avr. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
- Kaprrov (ntav X (nrav Kap-
mov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. érn, add. ap ou Alz.
_ exko[ov, add. obv Ln. [Alx.]
8. kompiay X Kémpia Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf
9. €t be BYE eis TO pEARoy J
els TO pedAov, ei Oe pnye
Alz.
11. mv 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— kat oxr® X [kat] Ln.
12 THs av Oeveias, prem. aro Ln.
13. avwpOwOn X avop6a6n Ln. Tf.
3
za
>
LUE &,
14. 6xA@, add. Ste TE.
- rabras \ abrais Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
1s. obv \ O€ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
—‘Ymoxpira X toxperal Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
18. d€ { ovv Tf. (Ln. mg.] Alz.
19. wéya [Ln.] Gb. >; om. Alz.
20. Kal, om. Sch. Tf. [Gb. 3).
at. evexpuev X expuev TE.
[Alx.]
22. Iepovoadnp \ ‘lepoodAvpa
Ln. mg
24. 7UANS X Ovpas Gb. Ln. (txt.)
Tf. [Alx.] [Rec. Gb. ~].
23. Kupte 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Ala]
26. ap&eabe X apénobe Alz.
24. Uwas, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— of epydrat, om. oi Tf. [Gb.
>).
— rns adikias, om. THs Ln. TE.
.a7r0 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 3.
. nepa X apa Gb. ~. [Alz.]
: emireh@ \ drroreA@ Ln. TE.
- Tpitn, add. [nepal Ln.
: THY éauriis vooo.y \ Ta
€avT. voooia Ln. txt.
. €pnpuos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
dpuny dé Aéyw X A€yw Se Gb.
Scloins 0,
— 6re [Ln.]
— pe tonre X inte pe Lu. Tf.
— dy, om. Tf.
— &n X pee Ln.
Cuap. XIV.
. N€yor [Ln.]
El, om. Tf. [Alx.]
Oeparrevew \ Oeparredoat Ln.
Tf. [dix]; add. % ov Tf.
[Ln.]
$. kal drroxpibels mpos adrovs
ete X Kal eimev mpds av-
Tous Ln.; [azmoxpiGeis Gb.
3; om. Alz.]
— dvos \ vids Sch. Ln.Tf. [Gb.s].
— é€umeoetrat \ meoetrat Lu. Tf.
— ev [Ln.]; om. Alz.
6. avT@, om. TE.
g. pet \ pera Ln. Tf.
10. avamregov \ avamrece Sch. Ln.
Tf.; avarrecat Gb.
— eimn X epet TE.
— évoriov, add. tavrov Ln.
[Alz.]
12. pnde Tos avyyevets Tou Gb.
| ios)
— ge avtikadécwot X avtikan.
oe Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.]
30
12. 00t avramdSopa X aytani~=
Sopa oot Tf.
13: dvann ous X a avatreipous Ln.
18. bs X doris Alex.
— dprov X apirrov Gb.~. [Cst.]
16. eroinae \ erroier TF.
— péya X péyay Ln. Tf.
14. wavra [Ln.]
18. maparteto Oat mravres \ mav-
Tes mrapaiteto Oat Ln. [Alz:.]
— 6 mpa@ros, prem. [kat] Ln.
— €x@ avayknyy avayk. €x@ Ln.
— kal ideiv, om. kal Tf.
21. €kelvos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =].
Alz.
— dvarnpous X avameipous Ln.
— x@dovs kal tuddods X rud.
kat x@A. Ln. Tf.
22. os x o Alx.
23. 6 olkos jrov \ pou 6 oikos TE;
24. ad fin. add. rodXot yap elow
kAnrol, dAlyot dé ékAeKTol.
Cst.
26. €avTov \ avrov Ln. Tf.
— ere Oe X Ere re Ln. txt. Tf.
— pov paOnrys eivar X etvae
prov pad. TF.
24. avTou \ éavrov Ln. Tf.
— pou eivac padntns X eiva
pou pad. Tf. Ln. mg.
28. O€Xwv, prem. 6 Cst.
-— 7a mpos \ ra els Ln. [Gb.
~]; els Gb. Sch. Tf.
29. eurraife ait@ \ avT@ eur.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
31. oupBareiv Erép@ Bacwrei X
érep@ Bao. cupBareiv Ln.
Ti [Ate]
— Bovreverar X Bovdevoerat
Ln. mg.
— anavrnoa X bravtnjca Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
32. aUTOU TOppw \ méppw adTod
Cst.
33. wou eivat pabntns X eivat
prov pad. Ln
34. Kadov, add. obv Tf.
— eay O€, add. kat Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuar. XV.
x. eyyi€ovres adt@ X aii@ ey=
yigovres Ln. Tf.
2. of Papiaaiot \ of Te Bap. Ln.
Tf:
4. €v €& arta \ €& adrav ev
Tit Aton
4. Cora év TO ovpave X ev TA
ovp. €orat Tf.
9. ovykahetrat y ovykahet Tf.
— Tas yetrovas, om. Tas Ln. Tf.
10. xapa yiverat X yiverat xapa
12. kal Qaes X 6 dé ScetA. Ln.
Tf.
13. dmavta \ mayra Ln.
14.laxupds \ loxupd Lu. Tf.
(Gb. s]. Alz.
18. yepioat THY KowNiay abrov
ard : xopracOnvat €x Alz.
14. €lTre X €pn vgs
— mepiooevovow X mepiocev-
ovrat Tf.
— ey Se, add. &d€e Gb. Sch. Tf.
[post Aipe@ Ln.]
19. Kal ovKETL, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
En. Tt
20. €avTov \ avrov Ln. [Alz.]
a1. avT@ 6 vids \ 6 vids aire
Tf.
— Kal ovKert, om. Kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]; ad fin. add. roin-
ody pe ws eva Trav poOiov
gov Alz.
a2. E&evéykare, prem. Taxv Ln.
[Alx.]
— THY CTOAnY, om. THY Ln. TF.
[Gb. >]. [Alx.]
- 7ddas, add. avrov Alz.
23. evéyKavtes ye pépere ' Tf.
24. Kal dmodkwAws Hv \ 7 iv amro-
A@Aws Ln. Tf.; [kal Gb. 3;
om. Alx.; Av Crs
23. Hyyeoe X HyyeCev Ln. mg.
26. aUTOU, om. Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf:
— ri, add. [av] Ln. [Alz.]
28, #Oedev X nOeAnoev Ln. mg.
— ov X dé Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
29. marpl, add. avrov Ln. [Alz.]
30. TOpVaY, prem. T@V Ln. Tf.
— pdoxov Tov atrevtdy \ Tov
or. poox. TE.
32. ave(noe \ eCnoev TF.
— kal dmo\wAws, Kal Gb. >;
om. Alz.
— jv 2°, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
[Alx.]
Cuap. XVI.
1. aUTOU, om. Tf. [Alzx.]
2. olkovopias gov, cov Gb. = ;
om. Alx.
— duvnon X divn Alx.
4. THs olkovoylas, prem.
Ln. [Alz.]
— avrav \ éavray Tf.
(éx]
LUKE.
s. xpewperrerav X xpeoerde-
toy Ln. Tf.
— é€avrov X avrov Alx.
6. Kai X 6 dé Ln. Tf.
- 7d ypdppa X ra ypdppara
Ln. txt. Tf. [Alz.]
4. Kal Aéyet, om. kal Ln. Tf. ;
Reyer | dé Alz.
— 7d ypdupa \ ra ypdupara
Ln. txt. Tf.
9. Kayo X Kat L ey@ ' Tf. [Ale.]
— Tlouoare éavtois \ éavrois
trot. Tf.
— €kNimnte \ éxXirn Sch. Ln.
(txt.) [Gb. ~] ; éxAelzrn TF.
— oxnvas, add. [adtrév] Ln.
13. €OTW, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
16. €ws X péxpe Tf. [Alz.]
18. 7as, om. Ln.Tf. (Gb. 3]. [Alz.]
— amd avdpos, Gb. >.
20. nV, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.]
— ds, om. Tf. [Ln.} Alz.
— nrAk@pevos X eiAkwpevos Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
21. Wixl@v Tov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— dméetxov \ éméderxov Ln.
Abe
22.Tov “ABpadp, om. Tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
23. Tov “ABpadp, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Ala]
25. 7V, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
— d0¢ X Sd¢ Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
se].
26. emt \ ev Ln. mg.
— évredbev \ &vOev Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
— ot exeiOev, om. of Ln.
24. obv oe \ oe ovv Ln. TE.
29. eye X Ayer S€ Ln. TE. [Ala]
- avTa, om. Awe,
31. ovde, edy \ ov” edv Ln. TE.
Cuap. XVII.
1. paOnras, add. avrod Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— €oTt, add. Tov St. Ln. Tf.
— py édOeiv ra oKavdadra X Ta
okay. put) €AOetv TE.
—ovai d€ X mAjv oval Ln.
[Alx.]
2. pvdos dvKds \ AiBos purt-
kos Ln. Tf. (Gb. »]. [Alz.]
— va T&v pukpav TovTav XT.
puikp. TOUT. éva Tf.
3. O€, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. [Alx.]
— eis oé€, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
[Alx.]
31
4. dpaptn X duaptnon Ln. TE.
(Gb. »]. [4Alz.]
_ émrdkis, prem. [éav] Ln.
- THs npepas, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
—eéml oé, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. ;
mpos oe rm.
: elroy \ etray Ln. Tf.
cixere X exere Ale. .
4. Epel, add. avT@ Tf. (fin
[Alex]
dvarecat X avarece Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
8. €ws, add. av Alx.
xdapw exer X exer xdpw Ln.
txt. Tf. [Aix]
— exeiv@, om. Ln. TE. [Alz.]
— avT@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ov Soka, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alz.]
. Aéyere Ort, om. te Ln. [Gb.
~]. [Alz.]
— Ort 6, om. Ore Ln. Tf.
II. pécou X pécov Ln.
- avT@, om. Ln.
; ovxt X ody Ln.
— ot dé, om. dé Ln.
4 Gb: 3:
— idov 2°, om. Tf.
. padnras, add. avrov Ln.
. [Sov &be, 7, Sov exet X Sod
I aun
=
23
exet, (Sov Oe Tf.; [om. 7
Alz.
24. Um 1° \ vd Tov Ln. Tf.
— Kal 6 vids, om. kat Gb. Sch.
Tf. [Ln.]
— €y TH NEepa avrod, om. Ln.
.ToU N@e, om. Tou Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. e€eyapiCovro \ eyapifovro
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— dmavtas X wavras Ln.
. dmavras \ mavras Ln.
. Tavra { ra avTa Gb.TF. [Alz.];
Tava Ln.
; TO aype, om. TO Aue
Goa yf mepurounoac Oat rf
= avriy 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.]
. plas [Ln.]
— 6 eis, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
: Sto écovra \ €o. Svo Ln.
-7 pia, om. 7 St. Tf. (Gb. 31.
— kai 7 X 7 Se TF.
- apeOnoerat, add. 8vo €oovrat
ev TO adyp@, eis mapahn-
poncerat, kat 6 €repos adb-
eOnoerat (v. 36, Elz. & Sch. ),
om. St. Gb. Ln. Tf.
cvvax Onoovrat oi deroi X of
deTol emiavvaxOnoovrat TE;
36.
cvvax9, [kat] of detroit Ln.
[Alx.]
Cuar. XVIII.
. 0€ Kal, om. Kal Ln. [Alz.]
mpoaevxer Oat, add. avrovs
ha be
exkaketv \ éykakeiv Ln. Tf.
3- xnpa Oe, add. Tis Elz.
.nOédrnoev XY fOcdev Lu. Tf.
(Gb. x]. [Alz.]
kal GvOpwrov ovk X ovde av.
Ln.
. oramacyn \ tromaty Gb.».
.Tonoes \ momon Ln. Tf.
(Ale. ]
mpos avrov X avT@ 1Ne
paxpobvpav paxpoOupet
Ta, TE TA)
9. Eire d€ kat X [kat] Ln. (Gb.
i; 3 [om. Cst.]
6 els, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
mpos éavtov Tadra X TavTa
mpos éavroy Ln. mg. [Alz.]
donep Xe @s Ln.
ovTos 6 Teh@vns X 6 Ted.
ovr. Ln. mg.
Kal 6 redavns \ 6 Oe TeX.
Ln. mg.
els Tov ovpavoy emrGpat X er-
apa eis Tov ovpavoy Tf.
[Ln. mg.]
els TO oT O08, om. eis Ln. TE.
{Gb. 3). [Alz.]
. Upiv, add. [drt] Ln.
i) éxetvos \ map’ exetvoy Ln.;
7) yap éxeivos Gb. Sch. Tf.
6 S€ X kat 6 Ln.
.emetipnoay \ emetipwy Ln.
Tf. [Alzx.]
mpookaAdeoapevos avTa e-
mev \ mpooekadécaro hé-
yov Ln. mg.; [mpooeka-
Aeiro (s. mpookadécaro)
air heyou Alz.]
eav \ dy Ln. TE.
gov, 2°, om. Ln. [Gb.
[Alx.]
. epuragapnv
TT:
Leal
bh
aT UL
Io.
II.
13;
16.
14.
20.
=i
2
L aa}
X épvAaga Ln.
— prov, om. Tf.
22. Tavta, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— dados X dds Ln. [Alz.]
— ovpavd X rots ovpavois Ln.
txt. Tf.
23. eyeveTo \ eyevnOn Tf.
24. TepiAvmov yevopevoy, om. TE.
(Alz.]
LUE:
24. eloehevoovrat eis THY Bact-
delay Tov Gecod a els t. Bac.
TOU Qeov elorropevovrat Tf.
23. Tpupadias \ Tpnwatos Ln.
Tf.
— papidos X Beddvns Lu. TE.
(Gb. »]. [Alx.]
—eloehOciv X SueAOciv Ln.
[Ale. ]
24. €OTL mapa TO Oca I mapa
TO Gc@ ear Ti Lom. T®
Ln. txt. J; eoru Tapa Gc
Ln. mg.
28. 6 Ilérpos, om. 6 Tf. [Cst.]
~ dpnxapey mavra, kat \ ap-
eves Ta tea in. Tf [Gb. ws].
29. 7) yoveis, u) ddehpors, 7 ibe
vaika X 7 yuv. 7 ddedd. 7}
yoveis db
30. ov ovxt Tf.
— amoAdBn X AaB Ln. txt.
31. IepoodAvpa X ‘Iepovradnp
die
38. Mpooaitay \ emaitay Ln.
DE:
36. Tl, add. [ay] Ln. [Alz.]
39. mpoayovres X mapdyovres
Ln. mg.
— siomnon X orynon Ln. TE.
41. Neywr, om. Tf. [Ala.]
Cuap. XIX.
2. oUTos \ avTos Ln.
— jv 2° [Ln.]
3. mpodpauoy \ mpoodpapey
Cst.
4. TUKope@paiay X cvKopwpeay
Ln. Tf.; ovKopopéay Gb.
[Rec. Gb. s].
— dv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
y. dmavres \ mavres Ln. Tf.
8. npion \ nutoea Ln.; 7pi-
oeva Tf.
— tev trrapxdvray jou X pov
TOV vmapx. af
— didwpe Tois TT@xots \ THX.
bis. Tf.; [rots wr. O18. Alz.]
11. avrov elvat ‘TepovoaAny pt
eivat avrov ‘Tep. Ln.; elvat
ilep. avrov Tt.
13. €as ( ev @ Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8).
[Alx.]
1g. edaxe | dedcxer Ln. txt.LAlz.]
- ye 58 yvot En, Tf:
—Tis Tt Sverpayparevoaro y
Tl Suerpayparetoavto Alz.
16, mporeipydoaro déxa pas \
d€ka slate pvas Ln. Tf.
4
fee)
Leal
> x
. Ed { edye Ln. TE.
.yivou erdve X érava yivou
Tf.
. €repos, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
6€, om. Tf. [Gb. =].
Td dpyvpiy pov X pov to
dpy. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
THY Tpameay, om. THY Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 5].
Kal éya X Kayo Ln. Tf.
empaga avté X avd émpaéa
a os Be
. elroy X €tray Ln. Tf.
. yap, om. Tf. [Ln.]
a7 avtov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
. €xelvous X TovTous Tf. [Alx.]
katacpagate, add, avtovs
TE
: avrov, om. Tf.
.elrrav \ Aéyoy Ln. [dla]
hvcarres, prem. Kat Tf.
; avT@ CLn.] ; 3; Com. Alx.]
: etrrov if etmray in. Tt.
elroy \ eimav Ln. Tf.; add.
Ore Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. emippivaytes X emipixvayres
in. Tf,
e n LY “
€autav \ a’téy Ln.
. Tagav X mavTov Ln.
elpnyn ev ovpav@ X ev ovp.
eipnyn Tf.
: elroy X etrav Ln. Tf.
. aUTOIS, om. Tf.
clonnowow \ cvomjcovow
hh oad bs
kexpagovrat Ns Kpaovow TE,
.€9 avthn \ én’ adrny Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
. kai ye (Ln.]
gov 1°, om. Ln. [Alz.]
cov 2°, [Ln.] Gb. >.
.twepiBarovow X mapepa-
Aovow Ln. mg.
.€v Got Aidov emi iO { Ai-
Gov emt AiO@ ev cor Ln. Tf.
> > wn Nite: (f
. €Y QUT@ Kal ayopagovtas, om.
Tf. [Gb.3]; [om. ev att. Alz.]
. Teypamrat, add. re Ln. txt.
[Ale]
‘O otkds pov oikos Tm pooev=
Xs €oriv {Kat €ora 6 otk.
piou otk. mpoo. Tf. Ln. mg.
[Alz.]
A 7
. eUptokoy X nvptoKoy Ln.
Cuarp. XX.
. €Keivov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
[Alz.]
1. apxeepeis X iepets TE [Gb.~.]
[Cst.]
2. elroy \ etray TE.
— mpos avror, héeyovres \ Ae-
youres mpos avréy Ln.; om.
Aéyovres qf.
- Eire X etzov Tf.
3. Eva, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. [Alz.]
5. ovvehoyicavto XY cuvedoyi-
¢ovro Ln.
— €pet, add. npiy Ln.
— obv, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. >].
6. was 6 Aads X 6 Aads amas
Tf. Ln. mg.
9. mpos Tov adv Aéyewv X rey.
mp. T. Aady Ln. Tf.
- “AvOpards TLS epurevoev
dumedava X dpsed. por.
avOp. In.
— Tis, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €&éSoro X é&Sero Tf.
10. €v, om. Ln. Tf.
—ddaow XY dSoocovow Lu. TF.
[Alx.]
11. mépwat erepov X €repoy mép-
ya Ln. Tf.
12. meuat tpirov \ Tpirov méep-
Wat Ln. Tf.
— Kat Tovrov X Kaketvoy Ln.
— idovres, om. Ln. (Gb. 3]. [Alz.]
14. dteAoyiCovro \ Suehoyicavro
Ln.
— éavtovs { dAAnAovus Tf. [Alx.]
— dedre, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
(Ale. ]
a yernrat X €orat Ln. mg.
16. Axovoavres O€ X of dé akov.
In. txt.
— eizrov ae eivray Ln. Tf.
19. eCnrnoay X e¢irouy Ln. txt.
— of dpxtepeis kal ot ypappa-
Tels \ of ypap. Kai oi apy.
La. Tf. [Ala@.]
- Tov adv, om. Cst.
— THY mapaBodny TavuTny cime
einev THY TapaB. Tavr.
Lu. Tf. [Al]
20, eis TO ( Hote Ln. Tf.
22. piv \ nuas Tf. [Alx.]
23. Ti pe metpacere, om. Tf. [Gb.
=): [Ale]
24. emudeiéare \ SeiEaré Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
~ Snvdpiov, add. {ot 6€ ee-
gay: Kal eter] Ln. [Alz.]
— €i7rov af eimray Tf. -
as.avTois \ mpos avrovs Tf.
[Alx.]
LUKE
23.’"Amddore toivuy X rToivuy
amddore Tf.
— Kaicapt, prem. ro TE.
ay. dvrideyovres { Néyovres Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
28. dmoGdavn X 7 Ln. txt. [Ala]
30. €AaBev, om. Tf. [Gb. x].
— Thy yuvaika, Kal ovTos dmeé=
Oavey arexvos, om. Tf. [Gb.
~],
31.auTnv, add. [woavTws] Ln.
[Cst.]
— kal ov, om. kal, St. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
32. O€, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. LAlz.]
— Tavrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
[Alzx.]
~ drréBave kal 9 yuvty X kal 7
yn anéOavev Tf. [Alx.]
— yiverau JX €orae Ala.
33. €V TH OvY X_N yun obY EV TH
if by
34. Gmoxptels, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €kyapioxovrat X yapuioKov-
Tat Ln. Tf.
38. exyapioKovrar X yapigovrar
Ene0er.
36. ovre X ovde Ln. Tf.
— TOU Geov, om. Tov Tf.
37. TOV Qeov 2°, om. rov Ln. Tf.
— Tov Gedy 3°, om. Tov Ln. TF.
39. €u7rov X eirrav Ln. Tf.
4o. O€ X yap Tf.
41. viov AaBid eivar X etvar A.
vidv Tf.; [eivat Gb. -].
42. kal avros X adros yap Alz.
— Pahpar, prem. Tov Ln.
— 6 Kupuos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
44. KUptov avtoy \ adrov Kupioy
Tt. [Alea
— vids avrov X avrov vids Tf.
48. Tols paOnrais avrov X mpos
avrovs Tf.
46. mepimarety ev orodais \ ev
groAais mepirare Alz.
47.0t KatecOiovow YX of Kare-
oGiovres Ln.
— mpocedxovrar \ mpowevxd-
pevot Ln.
Cuar. XXI.
1.Ta S@pa avrav eis 70 yagto-
pudaxcov X eis TO yao.
Ta Opa avr. Tf. [Alz.]
2. kal twa \ Twa Kat Tf. [Cst.];
kat [Ln.] (Gb. >]. [Ala]
— Ovo Aewra X Aewra Svo Lu.
mg. [Alz.]
83
3.7) TXT avrn \ avn 9 1re-
x7) Ln. txt. [Ala.]
— maAeiov X helo Ln. Tf.
4. awavTes y mavres Ln.
— Tov Qeceov, om. Tf. [Alz.]
— dravra \ mavra Ln.
— Bade, add. ravta eyo
epavet, ° O éxwv eta akov-
ely, aKovEeT@ Cst.
g. avabnpace X dvabéuacty Ln.
6. apeOnoerat, add. Bde Alx.
— hide, add. de Ln. [Alz.]
8.”Ore [Ln.]
- ovy, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
9. Tatra yever Oa X yev. Taira
Ln.
10. emt €Ovos X éx €Ovos Ln. Tf.
11. KaTa TOrrouvs Kal { Kal KaTa
Torovs Tf.
—Aipot Kat Aopol XK Aowpot
Kal see Ln. Tf.
- poBnrpa X PdBn Apa Ln.
- onpeta an ovpavov XY anv
ovpavov onpeia Ln.
12. dm@avrav \ mavrev Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— dyopévous { arayopevous TE.
14. b€oOe X Oére Ln. Tf.
—els ras kapdias X ev rats
kapdias Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
Ig, dyrerety ovde dyrugrivat Bt
avriatnvat ovdé dayretmreiv
Ln. ; dvriot. i) avreim. TE.
[Alx.]; [ovde, Gb. 7].
— mavtes X adravtes Tf.
19. kTnoaabe \ krnoeoOe Lu.TF.
[Gb. »]. [Alzx.]
20. THY ‘lepovaaAnp, om. Tv Ln.
22. wAnpwOnvat \ mAnoOnvat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
23.ovat Oe, om. Oé€ Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— €v TH hag, om. ev Gb. Sch.
Lu. Tf.
24. maya ta €Ovn X ta €Om
mavra Ln. txt. Tf.
— axpt X axpis od Ln. [TE]
[Alx.]
23. €oTat \ €oovrat Ln. Tf.
— nxovons X #xous Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. x]. [Alz.]
24. vebéAn \ vesbéAats Ln. mg.
33. wapeNevoovrat \ mapedev=
oeTat Ln. mg.
~ mapéOwor X mapehevoovrat
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
34. BapyvOaow X BapnOdow
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
22
34-
35-
36.
~r
3
Ww
>
20.
22.
. ApXLEpEvot,
LUKE.
€. # rt , € 1 , \ Ve ,
tyav ai xapdiat X ai Kapo. | 22. mopeverat KaTa TO @pPLo"E~
tp. Ln. [Alz.]
aipvidios ef tpas émuarn X
aid. emo. ep’ tp. Ln. txt. ;
exio. ep bp. aid. Tf. Ln.
mg.
yp, ante émt mavras Ln. txt.
emeAevoerat \ emeroedevoe-
tac Ln. Tf.
ovv X S€ Ln. txt. Tf.
kata&twOnre X\ Katerxvonte
Alzx.
ravta tavra \ mayta TravTa
Ln. mg.; fom. Tavra Cst.]
.ev T@ tep@ Siddokav X 616. |,
€v T® lep@ Tf. Ln. mg.
Cuap. XXII.
. 6 Saravas, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
‘ET,
emikadovpevoy \ KaoupeEvoy
Tf. (Alz.]
add. Kat Tots
ypapparevow Ln.
ToOls OTpaTnyots, om. Tots TF.
avtov trapad@ abrots \ av-
Trois mapad@ avrov Ln. txt.
fui
dpyvptoy X dpyvpia Ala.
kat eLopoddynoev, om. Ln.
Tov mapadovvat X iva mapa-
do Ln. mg.
avrois, post 6xXou Ln. txt.
TE.
ev 7 om. ev Tf.
elrrov X etzray Ln. Tf.
Erourdowper, add. [ou] Ln.
5 ob Leis 7 nv Ln. Ale. s. els Hv).
. averyeov X avayatoy Gb. Sch.
a RB
, elpnKev X eipnKet Ln. txt.
. O@dexa, om. Ln. Tf.
. ouxere [Ln.] ; om. Alx.
e& avrov \ adr Ln. Tf.
: TOTTpLoy, prem. 76 Ln. [Alz.]
€autois X eis €avtovs Ln.
[Alzx.]
> ~
. Ort, om. Tf.; [Alx. s. ado TOU
vor].
yevnpatos \ yevnpatos Ln.
Abe
€ 3 , \ \ Lf
Qeavras Kai TO ToTnptoy \
kal 70 ToTnp. @aavTws TF.
exxuvopevoy \ ekxuvydpevoy
Ln. Tf.
X e ‘ e\ < e ev
kat 6 pev vids X Kat 6 vids
pev Ln. mg.; Ore 6 vids pev
Tf. [Ala]
vov \ Kara Td wpiop. To-
peverat Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
30. ex Oinre X €oOnre Ln. Tf.
— €v tH Bactreia pov, om. Alz.
— kaionobe X kabioeaOe Gb.
on. Tf.
31. Eire € 6 Kupuos, om. Tf.
32. exAelrn X exAimn Ln. [Alx.]
— otnpgov X otnpicov Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
34. O O€ etzre X eirev O€ Ln. mg.
— ov pr, om. pr TE.
— mpl 7 X €ws Ln. Tf. [Alz. s.
Ews ov).
—dmapynon pr eidevar pe X
pe amapynon eidevar Ln.
[Alz.]
38. Padavriov X BadXarrtiov Ln.
Tf.; ef sic ver. 36.
— eizrov \ etray Ln. TF.
- Obdevds \ ov@evds TE.
36. ouv X dé Ala.
- modnoare Kforce adyopacare
X modnoe ... . adyopa-
oe Cst.
37. €TL, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. LAlz.]
- 70 YX ore Ln. txt.
— yap (Ln. 9
38. elmrov \ etzray Ln. Tf.
39. aUTOV, om. Tf. [Alz.]
42. Mapeveykew X mapéveyKe Ln.
[Alz.]
— 10 motnpioy tovto X TovTo
TO mroTnptoy Tf. [Alz.]
43. ver. 43, 44 [Ln.]
— amo tov X aw Ln.
48. UTOU, om. St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—avtovs Koipwpévous \ Kou.
avtovs Tf.
47. Ere dé, om. d€ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avtav X av’tovs Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf:
6 O€ “Inaotds X "Ingots de
at.
49. elroy \ etrav Ln. TE.
- aire, om. Tf.
50. TOV doddov Tov dpxepews X
Tov apx. Tov Sovv. Tf.
— avtov Td ods { Td ods adTou
Ln. Tf.
g1. QUTOU, om. TE.
32.6 Inoovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— eEeAndrvOare X eEndOare Ln.
[Alx.]
33. GAN X adda TE.
— tpev €orw X €or bpaov Ln.
[Alz.]
34
$4. avrov 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =].
[Alx.]
— ov oikov X tH oikiay Tf.
[Ale.]
33. darter \ meptayyavroy Tf.
— avykabicavreyv X mepixabi-
oavrwy Ln. txt.
— a’tav 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— ev peow X pecos Tf.
84. avuTov 1°, om. Ln. [Gb. =].
[Alx.]
— Tuva, ovK oida avrov X ovK
oida avroy, yuvar TF.
— eimev X edn Tf. [le]
60.6 ddexTwp, om. 6 Gb. Sch.
barf,
— Aédyou \ prparos Alu.
— povnca, add. onpepov TF.
(Alz.]
62. 6 Ilérpos, om. Gb. [Alz.]
63. Tov "Inaovv X avrov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Ala.
64.€TUNTOY avTOvD TO Tpdcw-
TOV, kal, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alz.]
- avroy 2° 2°, om. TE.
66. avyyyayov Xd amiyayov Alx.
- éavrav avt@v Sch. [Gb. »].
— else \ etzrov TE.
68. Kal, om. Ln. Tf.
— pot, 7) dmoAvonTe, om. TE.
69. vov, add. dé Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
40. Eizrov \ etray Tf.
41. eurrov \ etray Ln. TF.
— xpelav €youev paptupias X
EXOmey papt. xpetay Tf.
Cuar. XXIII.
1. Hyayev X Hyayov Gb. Sch. Ln.
rf
2.70 €Ovos, add. nay Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— Kaicapt dédpovs X Pdpovs
Kaioape Ln. Tf.
= A€yorra, prem. [kat] Ln.
3. emnpoTnoev Xs nparnoey Tf.
». Hpwdny, prem. Tov Ln.
8. behwv €& ixavod ¥ €& ixavev
xpovev OéAev Ln. [Alaz.]
— 7oAAG, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. LAlx.]
11. aUTOV 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— 6 re IliAdros kai 6 “Hpwdns
X 6 re “Hp. kal 6 TiN. Ln. mg.
18. dverepyya yap bpas mpos
avrov K dverrey. € yap av-
TOV Tpos npas Gb. x. [Ala.]
14. *Avayxny be cixev drrohvew
avtois KaTa €opTHy Eva, om.
ver. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.3]. L4lx.]J
&
un
39.
40.
wv
4
a \
.al Kal,
.6 Ingovs, om. 6 Tf.
. KotAlat, prem. ai Tf.
. dvéxpagay \ dvéxpayoy Tf.
tov BapaBBay, rov Gb. ~.
[Alz.]
. BeBAnpévos X BAnOGeis TE.
eis budakny \ ev ty pudaky
Tf.
.ouv X dé Ln. (Alx.]
mpocepavnoe, add. avrois
Ln.
,
.Sravpwcov, otatipacov \
oTavpov, oTavpou Ln DE,
.kal TOY adpxtepewy [Ln.]
. O.0e \xat- In, TE
. avTots, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
Thy pudakyy, om. Thy Ln. TE.
. Sipwvds Twos Kupynvaiov rov
epxopevov \ Sivwva tiva
Kupnvatov €pxopevoy Ln. TE.
[Alx.]; [rov, om. Gb. Sch.]
aw X amo Ln.
om. Kat Ln. [Gb. -].
eOndacay \ €Opeway Ln. Tf.
. weoeTe \ méeoare Tf.
dnrOov_ i( nhOov Ln. [Alx.]
dpiorepav X evovipay Alz.
.6 O€° Ingovs é deve, Ildrep,
aes avrois ov yap otdact
Ti motovet [Ln.]
kAnpov X KAnpovus Tf. Ln. mg.
[Alz.]
A
. kal of Gpyovres, om. kat Ln.;
prem. avrov Alz.
avy avtois, om. Tf.
[Gb. >]. Alz.
6 TOU Geov exdexTOs \ 6 €k-
AexTos TOU Geod Ln. mg. ;
Tov Qeov 6 ekAexTOs TE.
[Ln.]
. EverarCov \ évérarEay Tf.
kal 6€0s, om. kal Tf. [Ln.]
Alzx.
. Ei ov X fei] Ln.
-yeypappern \ emvyeypap~
perm Ln. [Ale]; Tf.
(Alx.]
yedppacw ‘EAAnveKots kat
“‘Popaikois Kal ‘EBpaixois,
om. Tf. [Ln.] (4Alz.]
Odrds éorw 6 Bacideds Tav
*Iovdalwv X 6 Bac. tT. Iovd.
[odros] Ln. txt. Tf.; [odrds
€oTwv] Ln. mg.
Aéeyor, om. Tf.
Ei ov i ovxt ov Tf. Ln. mg.
émeripa aiT@, heyou X em-
TLLOV avT@ epy Tf. [Alz.]
om.
.T@ Inavov, om. T@ TE.
LUKE,
42. MvnoOnri pov, post [Kupe]
Ln. mg.
- Kupte, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Abe]
—év ti Bacireia X eis thy
Baouhetay Ln. mg.
43. 6 Inaovs, om. Tf.
~ eyo oo. X ou eyo TE.
44. Hy O€ X xat nv Sn Ln. txt.
Tf. [Ala]
46. mapadnoopat X mapatidepa
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. [4lz.]
— Kal ratra X kat rodro Ln.
txt.; totro dé Tf. Ln. mg.
44. e0d€aoe \ eddEaev Ln. txt.
Tr.
48. Oewpodvres \ Oewpnoavres
Ln. txt. Tf. [4lz.]
- éauTav, om. Tf. [Gb. 3). LAlz.]
49. AUTOU a, aire Ln. Tf. [Ale.];
add. amo Ln.
$1. ovyKkarareOerpevos X ovy-
karariBépevos Ln. mg. [Ala]
— ds kal mpoaedéxeTo kal av-
Tos THY \ Os mpooedéxeTo
Thy Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. [Alz.]
83. AUTO 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
—avto 3° X avrov Ln. txt. Tf.
— ovd€rrw ovdets X ovdels ov-
mw Ln. Tf. [Alz. s. ovdets
ovdérra).
$4. Kal nuepa, kal Gb. >
— mapackevun | mapackeuns Ln.
— kal aaS8Barov, om. kal Tf.
[Ala]
33. Kal yuvaikes, om. kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. [ai yuvaixes Ln.
Alzx.]
Cuap. XXIV.
1. Babéos ¥ Babéws Ln. Tf.
— Kal Ties ovv avrats, om. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. >]. L4lz.]
3. Kat eloeAOovoa X etoeAOov-
oat O€ Ln. Tf. [Ala]
— Tov Kuptov "Inaov, om. Tf.
4. Otarropeto Aan \ arropeia Oat
Ln. Tf. [4lzx.]
— dvo avdpes X avdpes dbo Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
- eOnoeow dorparrovaats \
evOnre a dorparrovcn Ln.
§. 70 Tpdcwrov \ Ta mpdcwra
Tf. [Alz.]
— elzrov \ eizav Ln. Tf.
6. adr’ X adAq TE.
— os J éoa In. mg.
7. Ot Tov vidv TOU dvOpearrou i
Tov vidv Tov avd. Ore Set TE.
35
10. Hoav Oe X Av S€ Sch. (Gb. ~];
[om. jnoav dé Gb. s).
~Iaxk@Bov, prem. 7 Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— al, om. Ln. [Gb. 3].
11. pnyata avrav \ pu. tadra
Ln. [Alz.]
12. ver. 12, om. Tf. [Ln.]
1510 "Ingods, om. 6 Tf.
14. kal | OTE, om. Tf.
18. 6 €is, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.]; add.
leg avTa@y] Ln.
-@o dvopa Le ovdpatt Ln. mg.
— ev, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Gb. »,
cis].
19. Na¢wpaiov \ Na¢apnvod Ln.
mg.
— Ady, prem. [ev] Ln.
20. TapeOwkay avTov X avrov
mrapédwKay Ln.
1. GAAa ye, add. kal Ln. Tf.
22, ees X dpOpiwai Ln. Tf.
[Ala]
24. KaOws Kal, om. kat Ln.
24. Oiunppnvevev \ Sveppnvevev
ns T ft.
— éavtov X av’tod Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
28, mpowerotetro X. mpooero-
noaro Ln. txt. [Gb. »].
[Alx:]
— Toppatépw \ moppwrepov
Ln. Tf.
29. kekAukev, add. #On Tf. [Ln.]
[Alz.]
30. evhoynoe X nddAoynoev Ln.
32. etirov X etzray ‘Tr.
— kal @s, om. kal Ln. Tf.
33. cunOpocpevovs nOpoi-
opEvOUS Ln. Tf.
34. nyepOn 6 Kupuos bvtas X
avtws nyepOn 6 Kuptos Ln.
(Gb. x]. [Alz.]
36.6 “Incovs, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
(Ale. ]
- kal Aéyet avrois, Eipny
bpiv, om. Tf.; add. [éya ips
pn) poBeia be) Ln.
38. Sear X re TF.
— ais kapdiats X tH Kapdia
Ln. txt. Tf.
39. abros eyo eipe \ eym eipe
avros Ln. txt. Tf.
40. ver. 40, om. Tf.
_- emederEev X eOerEev Ln. [Alx.]
41. a0 THS xapas Kai Gavpa-
(dvrwy \ Kai Oavp, dd Tis
xapas Ln.
42. kal amd peAtooiov Knpiov,
om. Ln. [Gb. >]. [Alz.]
44.avTois \ mpds avrovs Ln.
mg. Tf.
o Adyot, add. pov Tf. [Ln.][4lz.]
46. Kat ovTws €det, om. Tf. [Ln.]
(Gb. >]. [Alz.]
47. ap&dapevoy X ap&dyevor Te.
JOHN.
[Ale] ; ap&apevev Ln. mg.
48. O€ €ore, om. TF.
49. GTOOTEANW \ efamooréhiw
“Df;
—‘Iepovoadrp, om. Gb. Ln.
TS;
— Sdvapw €§ trwpous \ e& dyyous
Svvapuy TE.
g0.€ eo [Ln.] Gb. -. [Ale.]
~ cis BynOaviav X mpos BnOa-
viay Ln. txt.
kal dvepépero eis Toy ovpa~
vov, om. Tf. [Gb. >).
Mpookvynoavres avTov, om.
Tf. (Gb. -].
"Auny, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
ae.
52.
53.
Cuap. I.
4. Con qv \ Con éorw Ln. txt.
16. Kat 1° X dre Gb. Ln. txt. Tf.
[Alz.]
vids [Gb. >]; Oeds Ln. mg.
arréareiday, add. mpos adrov
Ln. [Alz.]
OvK ell eyo \ eye ovK eipl
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Eirov X etrav Ln. Tf.
= our, om. Ln.
- Oly om. Tf. [Alz.]
. elroy \ etrav Ln. Tf.
— ovre bis X ovde Ln. TE. [Alz.]
. péoos Oe, om. dé Tf. [Alx.]
— €otnkev X ornxer Tf. Ln. mg.
. autos ear, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.]
[Alz.]
— Os umpoobev pov yéyover,
om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] [Alz.]
— eyo, post eiul Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.
3]. Lom. Alz.]
.BnOaBapa X ByOavia Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. s].
—"Iwdvyns, prem. 6 Ln.
18,
19g.
20.
29.6 Iwdvyns, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
AWG
30. mept Ya omep En, AME
nhOov eyo \ é eyo ANG. Ln. mg.
— T@ Udart, om.T@ Ln. [Gb. >].
[Aln. J
.@oel \ ws Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.ovTds eotw X adrés éorw
Ln. mg.
.6 I@avyns, om. 6 Ln. TF.
. TOU Qeod, add. [6 aipwv Thy
dpaptiay Tod Kécpov] Ln.
; orpaels de, om. S€ Cst.
; elirov \ etrav Lyn. Tf.
- Eppnvevdpevov X peOeppn-
ved mevov Ln. [Alz.]
Were X dipecbe TE. (Gb. 9].
[Alz.]
J Ore,
40. HAOov X 7AGav TF. ;
ovy Tf. [Ln.] [Alz.]
— eldov X eiday Ln. TF.
— dpa be, om. d€ Gb. Sch. Ln.
ste
41. Hy, add. [dé] Ln.
42. Mp@tos \ mpatoy Ln. [Alz.]
— Meooiay X Meoiay [Gb. «].
— 6 Xptords, om. 6 Gb. Sch.
1S iad ip
kal #yayev, om. kal Tf. [Ln.]
— €uBrewWas Se, om. d€ Gb.Seh.
Tf.
—"Iwva { Iwavou Ln. txt.
.6 "Inoovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe.
— Neyer atta, add. 6 "Ingots
Sche imy Tt.
. TOV vLOV, om. TOY Ln.
— Tov "Iwandh, om. rod Ala.
— Naapér \ Na¢apé@ Gb. Sch.
[Ree. x].
. Bikurros, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
.6 Incotvs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
.6 Inaods, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Aue
.AmexpiOn, add. avt@ Tf.
[Ln.]
- kal Aeyet, om. Tf. [Ln.]
- ave, om. Ln. Tf.
—ei 6 Baciwrevs X 6 Bac. ef
in, te
add.
yb fF
gi. EiSdv, pram. Ore Ln. Tf.
— dWer X OWn Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
32.am apt, om. Lu. Tf. (Gb. 3).
[Alx.]
Cuap. II.
1.7] nie pa TH Tpitn X TH Tpi-
77 NpEpa Ln. mg.
4. Aeyet, prem. [kat] Ln, [Alz.]
6. VSpiat AiOivar X ALOvat DSp.
ine txts it
36
6. Keipwevat, post "IovSaiwy Tf.
8. Kal rveyxav X of S€ veyxav
Ln. mg. [Alz.]
; Tore Ln. ]
TH apxny, om. THY Ens Tf.
; adedgot avrov X avtov [Ln.]
— ueway X euevev Ln. mg.
.7Td kKéppa X Ta Képpara Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
. pq) Trovetre, prem. [kat] Ln.
.’Epryno@Onoay Se, [de] Ln.
— xareaye X katrapayerat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. elroy \ eimay Ln. Tf.
.6 Inaotvs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. [Alz.]J
. Eizov X eiray Ln. Tf.
; adrois, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— @ eimev \ bv eimev Ln.
: “lepouoAvj0L8, prem.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €v TH €optn, [ev] Ln.
.6 Inoovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— €avrov \ avrov Ln. Tf.
. ToD avOpe@rrov, om. Tov Ln
Cuap. ITI.
. Tov Incovv X avrov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Taira Ta onpeta Sivara. X
Svvatat tavta Ta onpeta
Ln, Tf. [Alz.]
.6 Inoods, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. [Alw.]
.6 Inaovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf.;
(add. kal eimev adT@ Ale.)
.6 Ingovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
=
.6 Oy ev T@ ovpav@ Gh:
, iabivat Sei \ bei tWedn-
vat Ln. mg.
els avrov \ €r avrov Ln. txt. 3
ev avt@ Tf. Ln. mg.
‘
ToL
Nv
ue
un
13. 1) GmdAnTat, GAN’, om. TE.
[Lu.] (Gb. 3]. LAlz.]
auTov, om. Alz.
6 Oe, [de] Ln.
Tovnpa av’rav \ ad’ra@y tro-
vnpa Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
*Iovdaiwy YX “Iovdaiov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
pot, om. Cst.
Odk eipl eye X éya odk epi
Ln. txt.
. €TaVO TAVTOY €OTI, 32. Kal
Gb. 3; [om. Alzx.]
. kal & é@pake, [kai] Ln,
tovto Gb. 3. [Alz.]
. 6 Geds, om. Tf, [Ln.] [Gb.3].
[Alz.]
. peeve \ pevet Gb. ~
Cuap. IV.
. Kdptos X "Incods Alz.
. Iovdaiav, add. ynv Alz.
.wadw Gb. >. [Cst.]
: Zuxap x 2ixap Elz.
& axev XY od COwkey Gb.
Sch. Ln, Tf.
.@oet { ws Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. mueiv X iv TE.
’ met X wiv Ln. TF.
ovons ‘yuvatkos Zapapeire~
dos X yur. Sapap. ovens
nT. [Ale
. mew X iv TE.
.6 "Ingods, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
ibe
ov pun Swnon els TOV aidva:
adda 7 Vdwp 6 doc ad-
T@ (Ln. J5 ; Oupyoer La. Tf.
(Ale. et 6 eyo Alzx.))
. 6 Incovs, om. Tf.; om. 6 Ln.;
C Ingovs] Ln.
14.
18.
Ig.
25.
328.
]
dySpa TE,
; eirev, add. [atrei Ln. [Cst.]
ovK exo avdpa \ avOpa ovK
EX® Alz.
exo he EXELS Ln. mg.
TOUT TO Sper X TO Spe
TOUT® Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. AN
det mpookuveiv \ mpookureiv
det Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
.Tvva, post por Tf. Ln. mg.
[Gb. ~]. [Alzx.]
miotevoov \ mioreve Ln.
Tf. [Gb. x]. [Alz.]
. GAN YX dda Ln. TF.
27. €Oavpacav \ eOavpatoy Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
tov avdpa gov X cou tov
45.
Lan
5
52.
53-
Ll
we bv
JOHN.
. dca X a Tf.
. End Gov, prem. [kal] Ln.
ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Ev 8€, om. dé Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
(Gb. Sl.
. To X mounow Ln. (Gb. ].
Alz.
.é€tt Gb. >. [Alex]
TeTpaunvov \ TeTpaynvds Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. kat 6 Oepi¢av, om. Kal Gb.
Tf. [Ln.] Alx.
kal 6 omeip@y, om. Kal TE.
[Alz.]
.6 GAnOivos, 6 Gb. >. [Alz.]
. dca \ a Tf. [Alz.]
."Ore [Ln.]
6 Xpiords, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3). [Alz.]
.kal amndOev, om. Tf. [Ln.]
[Gb. >]. Alx.
.6 "Ingods, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
ube
a X éca Ln. TE. [Alz.]
6 “Incovs, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]; (post maXw Sch.)
. avrov 2°, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
o \ Ov Ln. [Alz.]
‘ ‘
. Kat émiorevoev, om. kat Tf.
[Ln.] [Gb. >].
6 “Incovs 2°, om. 6 Elz. St.
Gb. (Gb. »]. [Alzx.]
.amnvrnoay \ tmnvrncay Ln.
Tf. (Alz.]
mais gov \ mais avrov Ln.;
vids avTovd Ale.
map" avray Thy @pay X tiv
dp. map’ aut. Ln, Tf. [Alz.]
Kal eizrov \ eimov ovv TE.
xGes X exO€s Ln. Tf. [Gb.9].
Alx.
“Ort, om. Ln. [Alz.]
Cuar. Vi;
EopT, prem. 1 Tf.
6 Inoods, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alz.
. Bnbeoda \ BnOcaida Ln. mg.
.TOAV, om. Tf. [Ln.] (Gb. 3].
Alz.
> 4 \ A vd.
exOeXopevav THY TOU VOaTOS
Kivnot. 4. dyyedos yap kata
katpov KatéBatvev ev Th Ko-
AupBnOpa, Kal erdpacce
TO vdep- 6 ouy Mp@Tos €j.-
Bas pera THY Tapaxyy TOU
5
vdaros, byujs éyivero, ®
Snore KareixeTo voonpart,
37
ad fin. ver. 4, om. Tf. (Gb. 3].
4. @yyedos yap, add. [Kupiov]
in. [Ala]
- erdpacce To \ érapdocerto
TO Ln. mg. (Cst.]
§. TplakovTaokT@® \ TpidKovTa
kai Oxt® Gb. Sch. Tf. (Ln.
[kat] ).
— dodeveia, add. adrod TE. [Ln.]
Alz.
4. BadAn X Barn Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf,
8.”"Eyepar \ yetpe Sch. Ln.
Tf. ; add. [kai] Ln.
10. oux @£eoTi, prem. [kat] Ln.
[Ala.J
— kpaBBarov, add. cov Ln.
11. AmexpiOn, prem. ds dé Ln.
[Ala.]
12. ovv, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. >].
— tiv KpaBBardyv cov, om. TE.
13. ladels X aoOevay TE. [Gb. x].
14. Tl oot X oot te St. Gb. Sch.
iin. Tf.
13. AmndOev, prem. (kat] Ln.
— avnyyee X eimev Tf. Ln.
mg.; [sie s. annyyetre Alz.]
16, TOV Ingoty oi "Iovdaior X of
*Iovd. rov "Incody Ln. txt.
Tf. [Alz.]
— kai é(nrovy adroyv drokrei-
pat, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] [Ala.]
19. a yap av éxeivos moun X a
yap exeivos movet Ln. mg.
20. pret X ayaa Ln. mg.
28, dxovoovrat YX dxovowor s.
dkovoovet Ala.
— (noovra X Cnoovow Lyn. TE.
[Alx.]
26. €0@Ke Kal TO vid X Kal TO
vig edeKev ‘Ln. mg.
24. Kal Kpiow, om. Kat Ln. [Alz.]
29. ot be, om. 6€ Tf. [Ln.]
30. marpos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
38. dyadNac Ojvar\ dyadd\rab7-
vat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.; [post
mpos @pav Ln. mg.]
36. pelo X pelCov Ln.
— dake \ dedaxev TF.
—€y® T01@, om. eyo Ln.
[Alz.]
37. avTos \ éxeivos Tf. Ln. mg.
— aknxéate memore { remote
dknkdare Ln. [4lz.]
38. pevovra ev tpiv X ev div
pevovra Tf. Ln. mg. [Alz.]
42.GAN YX dAda Lan. Tf.
44. Geov [Ln.]
Cuap. VI.
a. kal mkodovber X nkodovder
dé Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— éwpwv X eOempovy Ln. [Alz.]
— avTov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3.6 Inoovs, om. 6 Ln. TF.
5.6 Inaods rovs dpOadpovs X
tovs 6p6. 6 "Inaovs Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— Tov Pidurmov, om. Tov Ln.
Tf.
— dyopdcopev \ ayopacwper
Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. €wedre X Hpedre Ala.
4. aUT@Y, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— Tt [Ln.]
g. €v, om. Tf. [Ln.] (Gb. ]. [Alx.]
— 6 \ ds Lu. Tf. [Gb. 9]. [Alz.]
10. O€, om. Tf. [Ln.] (Gb. 3].
— xdpros modvs \ modus xdp-
Tos Ln. mg.
— avérecov \ avérecay Ln. TE.
(Alzx.]
— ovy [Gb. 3]. (Cst.]
— of avdpes, om. oi Alx.
11. 6€ X ovy Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
— Tots pabnrais, ot dé pabn-
Tal, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
13. €mepiaaevoe \ erepiooev-
oay Ln. Tf.
14. 5 éroinoe onpetov \ a érol-
noev onpeia Ln. mg.
— 6 Ingots, om. Tf.
13. avToV 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Cst.]
— manu, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. [Cst.]
17. oUK X ove Ln. txt. [Alz.]
18. dunyelpero \ Sueyetpero Tf.
19. as \ ooet Ln.
21.70 mAotov eyévero \ eyevero
TO mAotov Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
22. iOav X eiOov Ln. [Alz.]
— éxeivo eis 6 éveBnoay of pa-
O@nrai avrov, om. Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— mAodptov X mAotov Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
23. wAotapta X mAota Ln.
— evyapioTtnoavtos Tov Ku-
plov Gb. >.
24. Kat avTot, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
ns FF,
— mAota X mAoudpia Ln. [Alz.]
28. olobpev \ mwow@pev Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln, Tf.
29.6 Ingovs, om. 6 Tf. [Gb. 3].
Cst.
— miotevonte | muoreunte Ala.
32. oov Gb. 3.
JOHN.
32. OeOwxev X €Sw@xev Ln.
33. Cany Sidovs X didovs Conv
Ln. mg.
3. O€, om. Tf. [Ln.] (Gb. 3].
— mewdon X mewdoet Ln.
— dubnon X Supjoe Ln.
36. we [Ln.]
38. ek X avo Ln. TF. [Alzx.]
39. TaTpos, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avto év X avrov Cst.
40. O€ ( ydp Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— méppartds pe X matpds pov
in. txt. Tf. [Gb. =]. Aly,
— eyo [Ln.]
— TH eax aT, prem. év Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
42. ouv \ vov Tf.
— ovtos 2° [Ln.] [Gb. >]. Alz.
43. ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
44. mpos pe \ mpos eye TE.
— kal ey@ X Kay@ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— TH €axaTn, prem. ev Gb. Sch.
iin. Ef.
48. TOU Oecov, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
on tt
— ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dxovaas X adkovev Sch. [Gb.
~].
46. Tis Ewpakev { Empakey Tis
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
44. els Ee, om. Tf.
49.70 pdavva ev TH épynpe \X ev
TH €pnuw To pavva Ln. txt.
Tf. [Alz}
si. qv eyo Sdow, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. [Alz.]
$2. pos aAAnAous of "lovato
X of "Iovd. mpos aAX. Ln.
txt.
— THY oapka, add. avTov Ln.
kat €y@ \ kay® Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
—1H exxdatn, prem. ev Sch.
Tf. [Ln.]
. dAnOas X adn O7s bis Ln. TE.
[Gb. »]. Ala.
. Cnoera X Cnoer Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
.€k TOU X €& Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
— vpov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alx.
— TO pavva, om. Gb. Tf.
— (noera X Cnoee Tf. (Gb. &].
60. obros 6 Adyos X 6 Adyos
obvros Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
63. AaA@® X AeAGAnKa Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. s].
64. GAN \ adda Tf.
65. pov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Ala.
38
66. amndOov, post avrod Ln.
[Alx.]
— Tav pabnrav, prem. ék [Ln.]
68. odv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
69.6 Xpioros 6 vids X 6 dytos
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. J.
[Ala]
— Tov (@vTos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE.
70.6 “Ingots, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Cst.
71. Ioxapi@rny X "Ioxapiorov
Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— jpedrev X euedAev Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— avrov mrapadiddvar X mapa-
Ouddvat avtov Alex.
— dy, om. Ln. [Gb. 3].
Cuap. VII.
1. Kal, om. Alx.
— pera Tadvra, ante mepierares
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. Oewpnowor \ Oewpnoovow
cE
— Ta €pya gov X cov Ta epya
Ln.
4.€Y KpUTT@ Tt move X Te ev
KpumT@ trovet Ln.
— avros X adré Ln.
6. ovv, Gb. 3.
8. TavTny, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
— ova 1° YX ovk Gb. Sch. Tf.
— 6 kaipos 6 epos X 6 euds Kat-
pos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
9. dé, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
— avtois \ avrés Tf. [Gb. x].
10. els THY EopTHY, ante TOTE Ln.
[Alz.]
— ddN X adda Ln. Tf.
12. WoAVs mept avrou Hv X mept
avTov nv moNvs Ln. Tf.
— dé, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
14.6 "Ingots, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
13. kal €Oatpatov \ &Oavpatoy
ovv Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
16. AzrexpiOn, add. obv Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. x].
19. d€dm@xev { eSwxev Ln.
20. Kal elie, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
21.6 Inoovs, om. 6 Tf. [Gb. --].
Cst.
22. ev caBBaTe, [ev] Ln.
24. Kpivate X Kpivere Ln.
26. kat 1°, Gb. -.
— ddnbées, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
29. ey@ Oe, om. Oe Gb. Sch. Lu. Tf.
30. eeBadev X €Badev Ln. mg.
31. TloAAot S€ ex Tod dxAov X
€x TOU 6yNovu S€ rrodAot Ln.
Tf. [Alx.]
— "Ort, om. Ln. [Alx.]
—pyte X py Ln. Tf. (Gb. 9].
{Alz.]
— TovT@Y, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
32.06 Papioaion Kal of dpxee-
pets { of apx. Kat ot Pap.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— innpéras, post améoreday
sue
33. avTois, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— puxpov xpdvov X xpdvoy jat-
Kpov Ln. Tf.
34. eupnaere, add. pe Ln.
36. obTos 6 Adyos X 6 Adyos ov-
TOS: on. TE.
— etpnoere, add. pe Ln.
39. €ueAAov X iuedAov Cst.
— murtevovres \ muatevoavres
Ln.
—"Ay.ov, om. Tf. (Gb. -]; de-
Sopevoy Ln.
— 6 Incots, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
= Jb. th
— ovdéaw X ovr Ln.
40. TOAXOL, om. Ln. Tf.
— odv é€x Tov bxAovu X €k TOU
8xAovu ovv Ln. TE. [Alz.]
— rov Néyov X Trav Aéyav Tov-
Tey Ln. [Ale.]; Tév Adywv
Tf. [Alx.}
41.” AdAaL, add. S€ [Ln.]
—”Adndor de X of S€ Ln. [Alz.];
om. S€ Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
42. ovxl X ody Ln. Tf.
—6 Xpworos épyerar X epxe-
Tat 6 Xptoros Ln. TF.
43. €V TH OXAM eyéveTo \ eye-
veto €v T@ OXA® Lu. TE.
[Alx.]
44. eweBarev X €Badev Ln. TE.
46. oUTws eAdAnoev X eAdAnoev
ovrws Ln. Tf. Alz.
— as ovTos 6 tvOpwmos, om.
Ln. Tf. (Gb. -]. Ala.
47. ob, om. Tf.
49. GAN’ X adAAa Ln. Tf.
— émixaraparot X émrdparot Ln.
THE
so. vuKTOs mpos avTov X mpos
avtoyv mporepov Ln. [Alz.];
mpos avroy Tf.
$1. Tap avtov mporepoy \ mpa-
Tov map avrov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
x]. [Alz.]
JOHN.
s2. etrov \ eizray Ln. Tf.
— mpopyrns éx ths TadiAaias
X €k rns Tad. rpod. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
— éynyeprat X eyeiperat Lu.
Tf. [Alx.]
.. Vili. 11, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3).
Cuap. VIII.
3. Mpos avTov, om. Sch.
— év ¥ ent Sch.
g.ABoBoreicbac YX AcOaley
Sch.
— heyets, add. wept avtns Sch.
6. Katnyopeiy YX Karnyopiar
kar’ Sch.
9. €otTaoa X obva Sch.
.“H yuvt X yovat Sch.
6 “Inoods oe eAdAnoe YX
avtois €AdAnoev 6 "Inoods
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €uol X poe Ln.
— mepiratnoes X mepumarnon
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
53-
14.aAnOns_ €atiw 1 paptupia
prov \ 9) paptupia pou GAn-
Ons é€orw Ln. mg.
— kal mov X 7 mod Gb. Sch. Tf.
16.aAnOns X ddnOwn Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
19.6 Inaovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
— noevre atv X dy pSecre Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
20.6 Inoods, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
FT.
21.6 “Inoovs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]. [Alz.]
23. elev X €Aeyev Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— TOU Kéopov ToUTOU \ TovTOU
Tov Koopov Ln. Tf.
2g. Kat eimev, om. Kat Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3]. Alz.
26. Aéyw X AaA@ Lu. Tf. [Gb.].
Aix.
28. AUTOIS, om. Ln.
— pov, om. Ln. [Alz.]J
29.0 maTnp, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
33.avT@ \ mpos avroy Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
34. 6 Inaovs, om. 6 Ln.
— THs dpaptias Gb. 3.
38. €y@ ola ey@ nas ey@ a TE.
— pov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— ctv 0 X obv a Ln. TE. [Alz.]
— é€wpdkare \ neovoare Ln. Tf.
(Gb. »].
39
38. T@ matpt X rod marpds Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— tev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
Ale:
. elrrov X eirav Ln. Tf.
— re \ €ore Gb. Ln. [Alx.]
— dv, om. Gb. Sch. Ff.
. obv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. Alz.
— ov yeyevynpeOa X ovdK eyev-
ynOnpev Ln.
. ouv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 6 Incots, om. 6 Ln.
— matTnp, prem. 6 Ln.
.TaTpos, prem. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. A€ya, add. bpiv [Ln.]
. O€, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— etzrov X etxray Ln. Tf.
. Tov Adyov Tov euov YL Tov
enov Adyov Ln. Tf. [Ala]
. ovv, om. Ln. Tf.
— yevoerat X yevontat Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— els rov aidva Gb. >.
$3. OV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. So€afw X doEdow Ln. txt.
Ab
— tpav \ nudy Sch. Tf. (Gb. s].
. kal eav X Kav Ln.
— tpav X tpiv Ln.
— adN X adda Ln. TF.
58. 6 Inoovs, om. 6 TF.
39. OteAOoy Oia pécov aitrar:
kal trapiyyev ovTwS, om. Gb.
Ln. Tf.
Cuap. IX.
3.6 Incovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
4. ee X nas Alx.
6. emexpioe, add. avrod Ln. TS.
[Alz.]
— Tov tupdov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
[Gb. -].
y. vinyas [Ln.]
8. rupdds X mpoaaitns Gb. Sch.
Ens
9. O€, om. Tf. [Ln.]; add. €de-
yov [odx1,aAN’] Ln. Tf. Ale.) ;
€Aeyov [dre] Ln. mg. [Alz.]
—’Exeivos, add. Sé Ln.
. Ilés, add. obv Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— avedxOnoav \ nvedxOnoav
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— gov X oo Elz. Ln. mg.
11. Aeydpevos, prem. 6 Alx.
— kal elev, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
41. HOt, add. ott Tf.
- Unaye, add. vinpar Alz.
— THY KoAupBnOpay Tov X Tov
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— O€ X ovv Ln. Tf. [Al.]
— kal viypdpevos, om. Kal Tf.
12. Eimroy \ etrray Ln. Tf.
— odv, om. Ln. Tf.; [Alz. s. Kal
eizrov.]
14. Ore \ ev 7 Nepa Ln. TE. [Alz.]
13. emt Tovs oPOarpovs pov
pov emt Tous 6pé. Gb. Sch.
in. Tt.
16. Odros 6 GvOpwrros ovK EoTt
mapa Tov Geov \ ovK eoTw
ovTos mapa Ocov 6 avOpa-
gros Ln. txt. Tf.; [Ln. mg.
et Alx. om. TOv.]
~ adRot, add. S€ Ale.
17, Aé€yovat, add. ovv Ln. [Alz.]
— jvorke X nvewev, s. avewke
Alz.
18. TUpAds Hv X Hv tuprds TE.
ee mg
19. GpTt Bdéret X Breet apre
Lu. txt. Tf. [Alz.]
20. AmexplOnaav, add. odv Ln.;
add. Se Cst.
— avtots, om. Tf. [Ln.] Ala.
— elzrov \ eiray Tf.
21.avuTos HAiKiay exe avToY
epwtnaate X avrov epar.
avr. Auk. exer Ln. Tf. [Ala.]
23. €lov \ etzray Lu. TF.
24. ek Oeurépov Tov avOpwmor X
Tov avOp. ex Sevr. Lu. txt.
Tf. [Alz.]
— elzov X etray Ln. Tf.
— 6 GyOpwros otros { otros 6
avOp. Ln.
25. ouv Gb. 3
— kal eizev, om. Ln. Tf.
— dy X funy Kai Alex.
26. Oe \ ovv Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— mad, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
28. our, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—eéi emda si penne ef Ln.
30. ne TouT@ \ TouT® yap TF.
— dvéwée J “vouké Ln.
31. Oe, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Ala.
— dpapToday 6 Geds {6 Geds
dpaptahav Ln. txt.
34. elroy \ etray Ln. Tf.
33. Qeov Xx avOparov Gb. ~.
36. Kal elie, om. Ln. ; add. kat
Gb. Sch. Tf.
34. O€, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
JOHN.
.Kat ixovcayv, om. kat Tf.
[Gb. 3]. Ala.
— dvres per adrod X per’ ad-
Tov évres In. Tf. [Ala]
. av, om. Alx.
ou, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3].
= 7) oUY ayapria pay peel x
ai [ovv] dpapriat bpev peé-
vovot Alx.
Cuap. X.
3. kadet X hovet Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. [Alz.]
4. kal Gtav, om. kal Tf. [Gb.3].
—mpoBara X mavra Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
. dkodovOncwoww \ dxodovbn-
aoovot Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
4. Wad avtois \ avTois madw
Ln. ; om. avrots Tf.
— 6tt, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
8. mpo Eov HAOov \ AAOov mpd
euov Gb. Ln. Tf. [Ala.]; om.
mpo epov Cst.
. elo \ éorw Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
—ta mpdBara, om. Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
13.6 O€ picOwris hevyet, om.
TE Tin.) (Gb: s); Ale.
.ywookopat trd Tay enav \
ywooKovot pe Ta €ud La,
Tf. [Alz.]
- pe Set X det pe La. Tf. [Ala]
- yernoerar x yernorovrar Ale.
.6 matTnp pe \ pe 6 Tatip
Ln. Tf. [Ala]
. ovv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
a1. avoiyew \ avoigat Tf. [Alz.]
. Tots ‘lepooodvpois, Tois Gb.
3 [Alz.]
— kal xetpov, om. kal Tf. [Gb.
=) Ala:
Tov SoAou@vros X\ Tooua-
vos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
26.aAN’ X adda Ln. Tf.
— ov ydp éore X Ort ovK éoTe
Ln. mg. [Alz.]
— kabas eizov byiv [Ln.J [Gb.
>]; om. Alx.
.akovet { axovovow Alz.
28, 00x dpmdoe X ov pr ap-
maon Ala.
.peiCav mdavrav XY mavrev
peiCoy Tf.
— prov 2°, om. Tf.
31. WaALW, om. Alz. ,
32. Kada épya X épya Kaha Ln.
[Alz.]
1
an
23.
40
32. pov, om. Tf. [Ln.]
—Odgeré pe X pe AOalere
Tf. Ln. mg.
33. A€yorres, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
"Eyo elma X 6 Ore eya elmov
Ln.; ort eyo eimra Tf. [Alz.]
murtevoare \ murrevere Ln.
[Alz.]
~ martevonre \ ywooknte Ln.
TF Ale]
— avT@ \ 7 warpi Ln. txt. TE.
(Gb. ~]. Alx.
madw avtov X avrov mad
TT:
. Guewev X ewevev Ln.
.onpetov eroinoev \ ézroin-
oev onpetov Alax.
. €miotevoav Todo X oA-
Aol émiorevoay Ln. [Alz.]
— €xel eis avtov YX els avrov
exet Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. XI.
.pa@nrais, add. abrov [Ln.]
Alz.
9. 6 Inaods, om.6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
f tig
— iow &pa X Spai eiow Lu.
Tf. [4lz.]
0b padnrat adrod X aiT@ ot
pabyrat Lu.[Ala.]; avT@ Tf.
. ovy [Ln.]
1s.GAN \ dAAa Ln. TF.
17. EdAOav mrOev Ln.
- etpev, prem. kal Ln.
—pépas fn X Hn Hpépas
Ln. mg.; om. #6n Tf.
. Kat penne YX modAot dé Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— Tas trept X THY Ln.
— Mapiav X Mapidp Ln. TF.
— avTayv, om. Tf. [Alx.]
.6 Ingods, om.6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf,
21.7 MapOa, om. 7 Gb. Ln.
[Cst.]
6 ddekds pov ovK Gy ere-
Ovnxer X ovk Gy améOavev 6
adehpds pov Ln. [Aix] ;
ovK ay 6 added. pou erebyij-
KeuTf.; [ereOvnxer X ameOa-
vey Gb. s].
aAXa [Ln.]; om. Ala.
Mdp6a, prem. 7 Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
28. tavta \ rovTo Tf.
— Mapiay X Mapidp. Ln. Tf.
34.
38.
~T
22.
24.
29.
30.
31.
iS]
3
53.
$4.
. Owes X
exeiv, add. 8€ Alx.
éyelperar X Tren Ln.
épxerau X9 HpxeTo Ln. mg.
Hv, add, €tt Ln. [Alz.]
Mapiay i Mapiap In; TE.
héyovres \ dd€avres Gh. ».
[Alz.]
. Mapia X Maprap TF.
6 “Ingots, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
3 A / > Aa >
els TOUS Tddas avTov X av-
TOU eis Tous qoodas Gb. Tf. ;
> ~ A /
avrod mpos Tovs 7d0as Alz.
auto, om. Alx.
dméBavey pov \ pov dmréOa-
vev Tf. [Alz.]
.nOvvato < édvvaro Ln.
. uBpiyr@pevos \ euBpimnod-
pevos Ln. mg.
.6 "Inoods, om. 6 Ln.
reOynxdtos X redevtTnKdTos
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ]. Alzx.
dn Ln. Tf. (Gb. ].
Alz.
BAP sae 6 \ ,
.OU VY O TEUVHKWS KELMEVOS,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
opOarpovs, add. avrod, s.
é€autov Alzx.
. Kai &&m\Oev, om. kat Gb. TE.
[Alz.]
avtois 6 "Inaovs X *Incois
avtois Tf.
aere, add. avrov Tf. [Alz.]
. Mapiav ¥ Mapiap Ln. Tf.
a? , Ayn? ,
a érroinoev X 6 erroing. Alz.
6 “Inaovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
an
3
.@ erroinaev \ 6 eroingey Ln.
txt. LAlz.]
6 ‘Incots, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
. Onpeta trovet \ mrovet onpeta
Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
.mioTevcovow \ muorevow-
ow Alz.
‘ \ , ‘
Kat TOV ToTroY, om. Kat Alz.
. OradoyiferOe YX Aoyilerbe
Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8]. Alz.
.mpoepnrevaey YX émpodn-
tevoev Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
euedrev X iuedAev Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
6 "Inoovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
ovveBovrevoarTo \ eBovAev-
oavro Ln. [Alz.]
"Ingots ovv \ 6 ovv "Incovs
Alzx.
SuérpiBe X euewev Ala.
JOHN.
abrod, om. TE. [Alx.]
év TO lep@ éornndres X €o-
THKOTEs ev T@ iep@ Alz.
84. Kal 1°, om. Ln. Tf.
— evroAnv X evrodas TF.
Cuap. XII.
1.6 TEOynKos, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— ek vexp@v, add. 6 Inaots Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
2. Av, add. ex Tf.
- cuvavaKerpevov X dvaxepé-
vov avy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
: ody X dé Tf.
eis €k TOY pabnrav avrov,
Iovdas Sipwvos “Iokapia-
Ts X 6 Iokapiorns eis €k
TOV padnray avrood Tf.
: eixe, kal X ¢ éxov TE. [Ala]
avtny. add. iva Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
TeTnpyKev \ tnpnon Ln. Tf.
[Gb. xs]. Alz.
. €pxerat, post Incovs Lu.mg.
[Alz.]
6 “Incovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf.
expatov \ expavyagoy Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]; add. Neyovres [Ln.]
Alz.
— 6 €pxdpevos, 6 Gb. 3
—6 Baowreds, om. 6 Tf. [Gb.
3]. Cst.; [prem. kat Alz.]
54.
56.
aN
TO
al
NS
al
&
13. Oyyarep X Ovydtnp Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
16. Oe, om. Tf. [Ln]. [Alz.]
— 6 Inoots, om. 6 Tf. [Alx.]
17.6T€ \ Ore Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[dre Gb. x}. Cst.
18.7kovo€e \ Hkovcav Gb. Sch.
in. Tr,
19. Kdopos, add. Odos Alz.
20. Ties “ENAnves \ “EAAnves
tues Ln. txt. Tf. [Alz.]
— mpocxuynowow \ mpooxe-
vnoovow Ln. Tf.
22. Bidurmros, prem. 6 Tf.
— kal mddw X €pxerae Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— Aéyovort, prem. kat Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
26. Ovaxovn Tis X Tis Stakov7 Ln.
TAle
— kal éay TLs, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
28, TO dvoua \ Tov vidy Alx.
29. ovv [Ln.]
— éotas \ Eornkas Ln. [Alz.]
30. 6 Ingots, om. 6 Tf. [Alx.]
41
20. airy} hor} X 5 hav) abry
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
31. TovTou Gb. =. [Alw.]
34. drrexpi6n, add. obv Tf.
— ov héyers \ A€yers ov TE.
— "Ort Gb. =< (Cst.]
35. pe” Duav We ev dpi Gb. Sch.
in, Tf:
€ws X os Ln. Tf.
. €os \ os Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
6 Inaods, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. TeTopokev X era@pacer TE.
[Alz.]
exiatpapaat \ orpapaow
Ln. Tf.
idowpat X idoopac Ln. txt.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
. Ore X Ore Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
GAN Y adda Ln. TF.
. pq TuoTevVon X pn pvddén
Ln. Tf. [Gb.~] Alx. ; [om. pur)
Gb. x].
e& X aw Alzx.
edwxe \ bedmxev Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
Aad@ eyo \ eyo AaAG Ln.
[Alzx.]
Cuap. XIII.
.eAndvGev X 7ndOev Ln. Te.
[Gb. =I. Alx.
: yevouevou X yevopevov st 3
"Iovda Sipwvos’ Iokapirou,
om. us aes post mapadot av-
Tov, jeer *Iovdas Sipwvos
"Ioxapi@rns Tf. [Ln. mg.]
Ala. (Gb. sv].
abrov mapaoe \ mapadot ab-
Tov Ln. TE. 3 [kapSiay iva
mapadot avrov "Iovdas Si-
Bavos *Iokapi@rns Ln. mg.]
.6 “Tyrobs, om. Tt, [in] “Gb:
>. [4i@.]
: Bader vdwp X AaBav Vdap
Barrer Alx.
6. Kal A€yet, om.kal Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— é€xeivos, om. Ln. Tf.
8. Tovs mddas pou X pou Tovs
médas Ln. txt. Tf. [Alz.]
ave, post "Incovds Lu.
6 Inoois, om. Tf. ;
Ln. [Alz.]
g. ov, om. Cst.
10.6 Ingovs, om. 6 Tf.
— ov xpelav exer X ovk exer
Xpeiay Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— i X ef pty Ln. [Ala]; [7 Tovs
moddas Gb. >).
49.
50.
al
is)
uw
un
if
om. O
11. Odx}, prem. dre Ln. TE.
12. kal €AaBe, om. Kal Ln.
— avarec@yv, prem. Kat Ln.
[Ala]; kat avérecey Tf.
.6 OtOacKddos Kal 6 Kuptos X
6 Kup. Kat 6 &6. Cst.
.€daxa X d€daxa Alzx.
.€y@, add. yap (Ln.] Alz.
ovs x tivas Alzx.
per” €p0v X pov Alz.
. Ora yernrat, MoTEVONTE yi
mioTevontre OTay yevntar
AMD Dro sites
.€av { ay Ln. Tf. CAlz.]
.6 Ingovs, om. 6 Tf.
; ovr, om. TE (Gbes):
. 0, om. Tf.
eis, add. €k Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.muOerOa tis dy ein X kal
Aéyet adT@, ele Tis EoTLW
un, TE, LAtz.]
.emumeca@yv \ davarécwy Ln.
Tf. [Gb, »]. [Alz.]
dé, om. Tf.; odv Alx.
ekeivos, add. ovtws Tf. [Cst.]
. Amoxpiverat, add. ovy [Ln.]
Tf.; sic s. add. avT@ Alzx.
Baas \ éuBaas Ln. [Alz.};
Bao Tf. [Alx.]
eriooow \ kal Ooow ate
Tf: [Ale
Kal euBaas \ Baas ody
Tf. Ln. mg. (Alz.]
didwouwv, prem. \aBaver Kal
Tf [Ala]
‘Ioxaptotn Y *loxapi@rov
Tf. [Alz]
. TOTE, om. Alx.
0 Inaods, om. o Tf.
. 6 Iovdas, om.6 Ln. TE. [Alx.]
6 "Incous, om. 6 TF.
.evdews e&nOev YX e&ndOev
evOvs Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.]
ovv, om. St. Gb. Sch. Tf.
.6 "Inaovs, om. Tf.
.€1 6 Geds edo$daOn ev aire
{Ln.]; om. Alzx.
. OTL, om. Ala.
trayo eyo \ éyo trayo
Gb. ons Te Alay
avrg, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
é *Inaovs, om. 6 Lu.Tf. [Alz.]
Grou, add. €y@ Alzx.
Uorepoy de axohovOncets pot
\ dxor. Se UoTEpoy Ente
[Alz.]
6 Ilérpos, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
fe
I
|
37:
JOHN.
39. wot, add. viv Ala.
38. AmrexpiOn av’t@ \ dmroxpive-
tat Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— 6 Ingods, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— homnoe X phavncn Ln. TE.
[Alax.]
— drapynon X dpyjon Ln. txt.
Tf. (Alv.]
Cuap. XIV.
2. Topevopat, prem. Tt Ln. Tf.
[Alzx.]
3. Kat €Towdaw, om. kal Ln.
[Ale ]
~ tpi TOmrov \ Térrov Dpiv Alx.
4. eye [Ln.]; om. Alz.
— oldare, kal thy 6ddv otdaTe
X otdare ryv 666y Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
3. Kal T@s, om. Kat Ln. txt.
— Ovvapeba thy dddv etdevar X
oldapev THY OOdy Ln. txt.TE,
[Gb. x].
6. €yvaxerre Gv X dy nOderte
Alz.
4. kal dm’ dprt, [kat] Ln.
~ éwpakare airy, [avrov] Ln.
9. TorovToy xpdvoy X tocotrTe
xpove Ln. [Alx.]
— kal m@s, om. kal Ln.
10. AKaA@ L Aeyo TE. [Ale]
— 6 ev €p0l, om. 6 Tf. [Ln.]
— avdros post Ta epya ube
-—Ta €pya, add. [adrov] Ln.
[Alzx.]
11. €v épol, add éorw Elz.
— pot, om. Tf. (Gb. >]. Ala.
12. TOV TaTépa j10v, om. pou Ln.
Tf. (Gb. 3). Alz.
14. alrnonte, add. [we] Ln.
— €y® roinow \ TodTo moInTw
Ln. mg. [Alz.]
16. Kal €y@ X Kayo Lu. Tf. [Alx.]
— péevyn peO” tpav els Tov ai-
ava X pe” tev eis tov
ai@va 7 Ln.; [7 weO” dpav
Tf. Alz.]
14. yweoket avtd, [ad’ro] Ln.
— vpets dé, om. O€ Tf. [Ln.]
— éorat X €or Ln.
19. (noeabe Choere TE,
20. yrooerOe tpeis \ [vpets]
yrorer Ge Ln. [4lz.]
ax. Kal ey@ X kay@ Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
22. Kvpte, add. xal Gb. Sch. Tf.
[Gb. =],
23.0 "Incods, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ab &
42
wv
~T
[o’e)
©
Io.
14.
Tse
oO
I
2
Lal
2
bo
2
on
wT &
. Tornoopev X mromadueba Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. elrov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
TaTNp pov, om. pov Tf.[Ln.];
om. Alx. [Gb. >.]
. TOUTOV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. kal Kaos, [kat] Ln.
evereiAaté X évroAjy eOwker
Ln.
CHAP. XY.
. WA€iova Kaprrov af KapTrov
meiova Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
. pelvn X pevn Ln. mg.
peivnte X pévnre Lu.
. pelvy \ pevn Ln.
avra X avro Gb. ». [Alz.]
mup, prem. TO Sch. Tf. [Gb.
~].
aN
.eav \ dy Ln.
aitnoeabe X airnoacbe Ln
Tf. (Gb. x]. Alzx.
-yenoesbe YX yernoOe Ln
Alz. [Gb. x].
.nyannoa tpas X tpas 1ya-
awnoa Ln. txt. Tf. Alz.
Tas évtodds Tod marpds X
Tov marpos Tas évrodas Tf.
Ln. mg.
pov, om. Ln.
. pen X 7 Ln. TE. (Gb. I].
Alzx.
doa X &Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
vpas héyw \ A€yo das Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
: 86 i den TE. [Cst.]
. vpiv X eis duas Ln. txt. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alx.
; elyov \ elyooav Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
24.
merroinxey X emoinoey Ln.
[Ala]
eixov \ elxooay Ln. Tf.
Yeypappevos ev TO vou
avtav X € EV TO vow@ avTaev
Vyeypappevos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. XVI.
. Upiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Opa, add. adr@v Ln. [Alz.]
.€av yap, add. €y® Sch. Ln.
[Gb. ~].
. pou Gb. 3; om. Alx.
. Neyer byiy \ bpty Neyer TE.
Ln. mg.
els macav THY adnOevay J eis
Thy aAnOeav macav Ln.
[Alu]; €v Th adneia rdon
TT: [Gb. x]. Alz.
13. av, om. Ln. [Alz.]
15. AnWerat \ AapBaver Gb. Sch.
Ln. txt. Tf.
16. ov \ odxére Ln. txt. Alz.
— Gre eyo Umdyw mpos TOV Tra-
Tépa, om. Tf. {[Ln.] [Gb. -]
Ale. ; ; Lom. ey@ Gb. Sch. Ln.]
14. eye, om. Ln. [Alz.]
18.Tovto ti eotw X ti éotw
TovTo Ln.
19. ov, om. Gb. Tf. [Alz.]
20. vpeis Se, om. dé Ln. (Gb. 3).
Alz.
— adr X adda TF.
22. Avan pev viv X viv pev v=
mv Ln. Alz.
— éxere \ efere Ln. txt. [Alz.]
- aipet Xa apet Ln. txt.
23. ért, Gite Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— doa dy \ ay 7 Ln. txt, TE.
[dle]; [6 TL dy Ln. mg.]
- ev TO ovdpati pou, dave
bpiv X doce: tpiv ev TO
évopati pou Tf. [Alzx.]
2g. GAN’, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
— dvayyedk@ X amayyed@ Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
24. TOV Qeov, om. TOU Lu. ; TOU
matpos Tf. (Alz.]
28. mapa ex in: txt: Th (Aled
29. aure, om. Tf. (Ln.]
- mappnoia, prem. ev Ln. Tf.
31.6 Incovs, om. o Tf.
32. vov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alx.
— kat eye X Kape TE.
33. ekere \ €xere St. Tf. Gb. Sch.
Alz.
Cuar. XVII.
1.emjpe X emdpas Ln. txt.
[Alx.]
— kal eime, om. Kat Ln. txt.
[Alx.]
— kat 6 vids, om. kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. [Alz.]
- gov, om. Tf.
3. ywaorkoot X yweokovot Tf:
4. ereNelwoa X TeAet@oas Ln.
[Alz.]
6. déS@xds \ eSwxds Ln. [Alz.]
— kai €uol X Kdpot TE.
— déSwxas X €Swxas Ln.
— rernpykace \ tetnpnkay Ln.
AV
y. S€Sa@xas X eSwxds Ln.
— éotw X elow Tf. [Alz.]
8. déSaxds \ eSwxds Ln. Tf.
— kal €yvacay [Ln] ©
JOHN.
II. kal eye Y kayo Lon. Tf. [Alz.]
- obs Xo ® Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
~ npets, prem. kal Tf.
12,€V T@ KOT, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. [Alz.]
— ovs Xo @ Tf.
éptraka, prem. kat Tf. [Ln.]
Alz.
16,€K TOU KdgpOU OUK epi
OUK €il EK TOD KOcpoV Ln.
DLacAlen
17. 7ov, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
19. €y@ [Ln.]; om. Alx.
— Kal avtot dow X dow Kai
avtot Ln. Tf. Alz.
20. miaTevaodvT@y \ mLoTEUdY-
Tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ar.év, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3).
Ale.
22. Kal ey@ V4 Kayo Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
=. dedaxds Y €8a@xas Ln. (Alz.]
— €opev, om. Tf. [Alzx.]
23. Kat wa, om. kat Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
[Gb. >].
24. Tlarep | X marnp Ln.
— ovs X 6 Tf.
— dedaxas X Swxds Ln.
— &axds X dédmxKds Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
23. Llarep X marnp Ln.
Cuap. XVIII.
.6 Ingods, om. 6 Tf.
tav Kedpev X rod Kedpav
Gb. Sch. Ln.
. 6 Inoovs, om. 6 Tf.; [prem.
Kal Cst.]
Ly Papioaior, prem. Tov Ln.
. Ee Oav eimev X €&nAOev Kat
Aéyet Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
3.6 “Inaods, Eyo eis X eyo
eiut 6 Inoovs Ln. mg. ; om.
6 Inoods Tf.
Ort, om. Ln. [Alx.]
anndOov X andar Ln. TF.
émeooyv \ érecav Ln. Tf.
avtovs emnpetnoe X emnp.
avrovs Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
8. dmexpiOn, add. abrois Alz.
6 "Ingots, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf.
(Alx.]
@tiov X erapioy Tf. [Alz.]
. gov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. amnyayov X Hyayov Ln.
avtov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
.aroAeo Oat X amobaveiv Ln.
([Gb. s]. Alz.
. 6 GAAOs, om. 6 Ln. (Gb. 3).
43
~
Nv
>
=
~T
15.qv yvootis X yvwords Fv
Ln. mg.
16. Os HV \ Oo TE.
— TO apxtepet X Tov dpyxtepéws
Tf. [Alz.]
17.1) maidioKy -) Gupopds TO
Tlérp@ X r@ er. 9 ward. 7
dup. Ln, txt. Tf. [Alx.]
18. per avr@v 6 Ilérpos X kal 6
Ter. per avr. Ln. txt. LAlz.]
20. avT@ [Ln.]
— édddnaa J AeAdAnka Lyn. TF.
[Alz.]
— TH avvaywyn, om. TH Gb. Sch.
nO Pad
— mavrote X mavtes Gb. Ln.
[Alx.]; mavroOev Elz.; [rdv-
tote Gb. s Cst.]
21. emepw7as \ épwras Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— €mep@tnooy \ éparncoy Ln.
TE: Ate
22. TOV UINpET@Y TapEecTHKas \
Tapectynk@s TaVv UmNpEeT@v
Ln. txt. ; TOV TAPETT@T@V
imnperev Ln. mg.
23.0 "Incovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
24. Améoreiiev, add. ovv Elz.
Ln.
25. npynoaro, add. obv Cst.
24.0 Ilérpos, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alz.
28. ovy Gb. 3
—mpwia \ mpwi Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
— adAW iva X adda Ln. [Alz.]
29. Tpos avrovs, prem. €&@ Ln.
(Ale. ]
- etme y 8 pyow Tf. (Alx.]
30. elroy \ etzray Ln. Tf.
— Kakozrowos X Kakov rrov@y TE.
Ln. mg.
31. ovv [Ln.J
6 IluAdros, om. 6 Tf.
ovv, om. Ln. Tf.
eis TO mpaiT@pioy marw YX
maAuy eis TO mpatt. Ln. TE.
[Alx.]
. avT@ 6, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
"Ad éavtod X dd ceavtod
Ln.
6 Incovs, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Ala. J
dv of epot myovigorro X of
ep. nyov. ay Alx.
6 ‘Ingods, om. 6 Tf.
€yw 2° [Ln.] Alz.
33.
37-
—_
: ey ¢ , > > , \
|38. airlay etpiokw év atte X
\
ef > Led >
€UpLOK@ EY QUT@ aiTiay Ln.
Lf:
r ,
tpiv amodtow X drodvce
tpiv Ln. [Alx.]
Ca >? , > ,
—tpiv droktvaw X amodvow
vp Ln. [Alx.]
mavTes, om. Alx.
Cuap. XIX.
.7H Kepadn X emi thy Kepa-
Ajy Ln. mg.
- mepeéPahov abrov, add. kat
Hpxovro mpos avrdv Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
edidovv X ediSocav Ln. Tf.
39-
40.
N
3.
4. E&nd\Oev ody X ‘kal eEnhOev
Ln. [Alz.]; om. otv Gb.
(Ale. ]
— ev ait@ ovdepiay airiav ev-
pioxe X ovdepiay airiay
etpioke ev ate Jon: air.
ev avr. ovdep. Eup. TE.
.oTavpaaov, add. aitoyv Gb.
Sch. Ln. [Alz.]
.4@V, om. Ln.
— é€avTov vidv Tov Geod X vidv
©cov €avroy Ln. Tf.; [om.
Tov St.]
.ovv, om. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alx.
— otavpacai ce, Kal e€ovciay
€xw@ dmodvaai oe X a7zon.
oe kK. €€oue. EXW OTAUP. TE
iin Et.
11.’AmexpiOn, add. adr@ [Ln.]
Alz.
— 6 Ingots, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alzx.]
— ovdeuiay Kar éuod Y Kar
€uov ovdepiay Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— aot dSedopevoy X dedop. oor
Ln.
— mapadiots X mapadovs Ln.
.e(nree 6 Uddros X 6 Ila.
e(nret Ln.
expagov X expavyagoy Ln.
Tf. [Alz.)
avrov X é€avtov Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ef.
. TOUTOV TOV Adyov \ TeV déd-
yov rovrey Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8].
Alz.
— Tov Bnyaros, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
Gb, =), Ale.
apa b€ woel \ Spa jy ws
In. CE: [Gb. ew]. Alz.
— extn X Tpirn Gb. ».
13. Oi de expabyacay X expav-
ya. ovy ékeivot Tf. Ln. mg.
lo
wT
z
°
Lal
N
!
|
&e
rt
JOHN.
16. TlapéaBov dé tov “Inoody
kai annyayov, Gb. >.
— de X ouy Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— kal dmnyayov, om. Ln. Tf. ;
kat #yayov Gb. Sch. [Alz.]
14. TOV OTaupoy avTod \ a’T@
Tov oTavpoy Ln. Tf.
— ds X 6 Ln. TE.
20. TS MOAEws 6 TOmos X 6 T6-
mos ths méAews Gb. Sch.
1D Pies bs
— ‘EAquiotl, ‘Pepatori \'Po-
paioti, EXAnuoti Tf. [Alz.]
appagos } K apados Tf.
: elrrov X eizay Tf.
— 7 Aéyouca, om. Ln.
.avrov [Ln.]
— iSov X te Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
[Rec. Gb. »].
.1dov X te Ln. TF. [Alz.]
—airnv 6 pabnrns X 6 pad.
avt. Gb. Sch.
.eldas 6 “Incods X iar 6
"Ino. Gb. ~ [Alx.]; "Incots
elda@s Ln. mg.
— mavra Sn X #dn wavra Ln.
eDt a EAda)
29. our, om. Ln.
—ot de, mhyoavres ombyyov
dgous, Kat \ ommdyyov ovv
peoroy TOU dfous Ln. (Ale. ]
emel mapackevt AV, ante iva
pn peivn Ala.
exeivou \ exeivn Elz.
.avurov 76n \ 4Sn adroy TE.
. evOvs e&nrOev X &&nOev ed-
Obs Tf. Ln. mg.
. kakeivos \ Kat é€ketvos Ln.
— iva, add. kat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. =].
.avtov X am avrov Gb. ~.
: O€501.. TL. [Gb.S)x Ost:
— 6 Iwond, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3). Alz.
— 6 dm, om. 6 Ln. [Gb.~]. [Alz.]
— Tov Incod 2° \ avrov Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
tov "Incovy X adrov Ln. Tf.
[Alex]
— woe { ws Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
40. 0Goviots, prem. é€v Gb. Sch.
TT (abs),
Cuap. XX.
- kal 6 aos 6 be aX. bn
; keiweva. ra obdma X Ta 666-
via keipeva Ln. txt.
. €avtovs \ adrovs Tf.
44
ee)
2
31.
3
3
~ Ww
39.
nm»
11.70 pnpetov X TO Pallet
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Ale]
— €£@, om. Ln.; ante iaiakes
Tf. (Alx.]
Kai raivta, om. kat Gb. Sch.
Lan, TE.
— 6 "Incots, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
.6 Inaovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
—avrov €Onxas X €Onkas ad-
Tov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.6 Incods, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
- Mapia X Maprap Tf.
—avt@, add. EBpaioti Sch.
Thelin 1Gp: ~l.
.6 Incots, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— Tatépa pou 1°, om. pou Ln.
Ae
: Mapia i Mapa Tf.
—dmayyeddovca YX ayyéd-
Aovoa Ln. Tf.
— éwpaxe X éwpaka Ln. mg.
[Alx.]
.TaV caBBaTer, om. Tov Ln.
TE:
— oumypevot, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
>).
avTois Tas xElpas Kal THY
mAevpav avtov X Kat Tas
xelpas Kal T. mAEvpay av-
rots Ln. Tf.
.6 Inaovs, om. Tf. [Ala.]
. ay 1° X éay Ln.
— Tivev 1° X twos Ln. mg.
— apievtra \ apéwvrar Ln. txt.
[Alz.]
— dy 2° ¥ éay Ln.
— tTiev 2° ¥ twos Ln. mg.
.6 Inaods, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
. TUmov \ té7ov Ln.
— Tv xeipd pov XY pov ty
xelpa Tf.
14.
col
Co
20.
28. Kal dmexpiOn, om. kal Gb.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— 6 Cwpas, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
cf:
29. Qwapa, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
30. AUTO, om. Ln. Tf.
31.6 Inaods, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
8
— Cony, add. aidviov [Ln.] Ale.
Cuap. XXI.
1.6 Incous, om. Tf.
— pabnrais, add. avrov Alx.
3. E&ndOov, prem. kat [Ln.]
— aveBnoay X eévéBnoay Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. evOvs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
4. yevonerns X yuvopevns TE.
— 6 Incods, om.6 Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— eis \ emt Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9]. Alz.
3.6 Inaoovs [Ln.]
6.tcxvoav X toxvoy Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
8. GAN’ X adda Tf.
9. BAérrovow X eiday Ln. mg.
11. AvéBn, add. ody Tf.
—ént ths yns X eis THY yqy
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— ixdvov peydrov X peyddov
ixOvov Ln. txt. [Alz.]
12, O€, om. Tf.
13. OU, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [4lz.]
ACTS.
13.6 Inaovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf:
14. 6 Ingovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
1g. lava X "I@davov Ln. [Alx.];
"Iwavvov Tf. [Alz.]
— m\etov { mA€ov Ln. TE.
16. Aéyet atT@ mad \X madw
Aeyet ad’T@ Ln. mg.
= Iwva XY Iadvou Ln.; lady-
vou Tf.
14. lwva X*Iwdvouv Ln.; "ledv-
vou Tf,
— kal eimev, [kal] Ln.; Aéyet
Ln. mg.
— ov wavra X wavra ov Ln.
Ti.
— 6 "Inaods, om. 6 Ln. TE.
14. mpoBara X mpoBaria Tf.
18, otet, add. oe [Ln.]
20. "Emotpadels dé, om. S€ Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
21, Tovtov, add. obv Ln.
22. GkoAovGer prot X por dkoAov=
Oec Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
23. 0 Adyos ovTos \ obros 6 A6-
yes 1a
— kal ovK elmrev X ovx elmer Se
Ln. mg.
24. ypawas, prem. 6 Ln.
- eorw a paprupia avtoo ye
avTov 7 paptupla éotuy Tf.
25. 00a X a Ln.
— ovde avrov X ovS adroy Ln.
—Apny, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuar. I.
6 “Inaois, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
4. Pas avtots X avrots
mapnyyerev TE.
ce Barris Onoeo Ge ev Tlvev-
pare X ev mvevp. Barr. Ln.
6. emnpatar \ nperev Ln.
8. pou X pou Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €y raon, om. ev Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
10. €oOnTe Aevkn \ eoOnoect
Aevkais Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
11. elroy \ eimav Ln. Tf.
13. avéBnoav eis TO Urep@ov
els TO Umep@ov aveSnoay
Ln. Tf.
—IdkwBos kal Iwavyns X lo-
avyns Kal "Idkw/3os Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
14. kal TH Senoet, om. Gb. Ln.
Tf. (Alz.]
— Mapia X Mapiap Tf.
— avy Tois addeddois, om. dv
in. Th. (Gb. 3). [4a]
1g. paOnrav X ddeApov Ln. Tf.
(Gb. »]. Ala.
16. TaUTHV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
— tov Incody, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
17. uv \ ev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— np X vp Tf.
18. TOD pura Oov, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln Tf.
19. AxeAdapa \’AxeAdapay Ln.
ES;
Use Oe batho
20. haBor \AaBero Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
21. €V ®, om. €v Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
22. yever Oat avy nyiv X ovy
nui yeveo Oa Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
23. BapoaBav X BapoaBBayv Ln.
Ave
24. ei7rov a etray Ln. Tf.
—ék Tovreav tav dvo éva bv
efeheEw YX dv eEehé~w ek
ToUT@y Tav Svo eva Gb. Sch.
in. Tf,
23. KAnpov X Témrov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
x]. [Alz.]
— €& fs X af’ fis Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
26. avT@y \ avrois Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Caap. IT.
1. dmavtes \ mavres Ln.
— 6pobvpaddy X 600 Ln. [Alx.]
2. kaOnpevor \ Kade Copevot Ln.
fe
3. exabioe Te X Kal exadioey
Ln.
4. dmavres X wavres Ln.
— adtois aropbeyyeo Gary arro-
pbeyyeo Oa avrois Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
4. TavTes, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ES
— mpds aAdjAovs, om. Ln, TF.
[Alz.]
— ovk X odx Ln.; ovyt TF.
— wavres \ dravres Ln. Tf.
12. Sunmdpouv X Siuntropovvro Tf.
45
12. av Gedo X O€det Ln.
13. xAevatovtes X Staxdevagov-
Tes Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. Iléerpos, prem. 6 Ln.
— dmavtes X wavres Ln.
16. I@7A, om. Tf.
17. Kal €orat, om. kat Tf.
— évorrvia \ évurrviows Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
20. ply 7}, om. 7) Ln. [Gb. ~].
— THY Nepay, om. THY Ln. Tf.
a1. av \ éeay Tf.
22. dro TOU Ocovd drodedevype-
vov \ damodedevy. dvd Tov
©eov Tf. Ln. mg. [Alz.]
— kaOas Kal, om. Kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. [Alx.]
23.€xOorov AaBdvres, Sid yee-
pav \ exdorov dia xeupds
Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
— aveidete \ aveiiate Gb. Sch.
inert.
24. Oavarov X adou Gb. x.
23. Tpowpapny \ mpoopapny Ln.
fhe
26. evppavOn YX noippav6n Ln.
Jf. [Alz.]
— 17 kapdia pou X pou 7 Kap-
dia Tf.
—eén édrids ep éAride
Ln.
24. aoov X adnv Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
Alz.
\ \
30.70 KaTa OdpKa avacTnoeLy
rov Xpiordv, om. Gb. Ln.Tf.
[Alz.]
30. €mt tod Opdvov X emt tov
Opovoy Tan eh
31.00 KatedcipOn X ovre ey-
karedeipOn Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~].
Alzx.
— 7 Wvy7 adrov, om. Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— adov \ adnv TE.
— ovdé X ovre Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8].
Alz.
33. TOD ‘Ayiov IIvevparos X tov
IIv. rod dyiov Ln. Tf.
— vuv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
- Pherere, prem. kal Tf.
36. OLKOS, prem. 6 Im.
as KUpLOY, prem. kal St. Ln. ue
— kal Xpiorcyv adrov \ avrov
kat Xpiorov Ln. Tf.
—6 Gcds emoince X emo. 6
Geos Tf.
37. ud ane X thy Kapdiay Lu.
= em \ roujcopey Tf.
38. epn, om. Ln. Tf.
— ri r@ dvdpate X €v TO dvd-
pate Ean:
—dpapriav X trOv dwaptioy
voy Ln.
39. OooUsS i ovs Ln.
40. Sueuaptupero \ Svepaprupa-
To Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8]. Alzx.
— mapekdAdet, add. avtovs Ln.
[Alz.]
41. dopeves, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=. Ales
— TH neepa, prem. ev Ln. Tf.
42.77 OiWayn, prem. ev [Ln.]
—kal tH KAdoel, om. Kal Ln.
Tf.
43. eyévero Xé eyivero iin. Tf,
47. kao” mpepav mH exxhyoig.
Ii. 1. Et ro auro be Tle-
tpos \ Ka” nucpay emi rd
avTd. 1.1. Ilerpos de Ln.
Cuap. III.
3. AaBeww Gb. >
6. eyetpat t eyepe Ln.; om.
eyerpat Kal Tf.
9. YEWpe, add. avrév Ln. [Alx.]
- avTou ai Baces X ai Bacers
avrov Ln.
8. kal aivav, om. kat Tf. [Ln.]
9. avTov mas 6 Aads X mas 6
Aads avrov Ln. Tf.
10. Te X O€ Ln. [Alz.]
ACLS:
. ouros X avros Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
11. TOD iaOevros xwAov X adrov
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- “Todvyny, prem. roy Ln.
—mpos avrovs mas 6 dads J
mas 6 Kads mpos avrovs Ln.
Tf.
— Dodopavros \ Sodouavos Tf.
. [lérpos, prem. 6 Lu. Tf.
13. Igaak Kat “lakaB XY Ceds
"Ioadk, Kat Gcds “lakaB
Ln. [Alz.]
— tpeis, add. wev Gb. Sch. Ln.
ae:
— abrov, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
.avtov mabeiv Tov Xpiorov X
mabeiv Tov Xpiordv avrov
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alzx.
. Tpokexnpvypevoy \ mpoKe-
Xetpto pevov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- "Inovy Xpioroy \ Xpiorov
Inooby Ln. txt. Tf.
. wavt@y 2° ¥ rév Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.; (wavrev Toy Gb. x].
— avtod mpodytrav dm aiavos
am ai@vos avrov mpod.
Ln. Tf.; [aw aidvos Gb. 3).
yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— mpbs Tovs matépas, om. Ln.
TE iGbs =). Aix:
23. ay \ éeav Tf.
— e£ooOpevOnoera X eEore-
Opev8. Ln. TF.
mpokarnyyeday \ KaTIyyel-
Aav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
viol, prem. ot Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. >]
— duebero 6 Ceds X 6 Ceds
OveOero Ln.
— nev X bper TE.
—T® oméppati, prem. ev Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
2
~
2
iS]
&
24.
25.
26.6 Oeds avaornoas \ ava-
oTnoas 6 Geos Tf.
—Inoodv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tpeav X atrav Ln.
Cuap. IV.
2. THY ek \ TaV Gb. x. [Cst.]
3. €Gevro, add. avtovs Alzx.
4.6 aptOpos, om. 6 Ln.
@oet \ ws [Ln.] Tf.
3. mpeaButepous, prem. Tovs
un Ef.
— ypappareis, prem. Tovs Ln.
i WS i :
— eis { é&v Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8]. Alz.
6.” Avvay Tov apxtepéa Kat Ka-
46
iapay kal ‘Todyyny kal "AXe-
Eavdpov D Avyas 6 apx. kal
Kaiagas kat “Iwdvyns Kal
“Ade£avdpos Ln.
1. TO HET, om. T@ Gb. Sch.
PT,
Tov IapanaA, om. Ln.
. oikoOopovvray \ oixoddépar
Ln. Tf. (Gb. we]. Alz.
Kat ovK EOTW Ev GAA® Ov-
devi ) cwrnpia Gb. >.
ovre { ovdé Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
. Tov O€ X tov re Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w]. Alz.
I
=
12.
13. cuveBarov X ovveBaddov
Lav Tf.
16. Trolnoopev X TOIT @pLEV Be
[Alzx.]
~ dpynoac bat X apveto Oa Ln.
dre, om. Ln. [Alz.]
.avTots TO, om. Ln.; om. a=
trois Tf. (Gb. 3]. [Aix]
.mpos adtovs elroy \ eimy
™pos avrovs Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. elOopev X eidayev Ln. Tf.
; Kodo @vrat \ koXdoorr. Cst.
; eveydver J x yeyovet a Op obaied th &
4 elroy x eirav in. Tf,
2 elrov 1 eirrav Ln. Tf.
— 6 Geds, om. Ln. Tf.
.6 Ova ordparos X 6 Tod Tra-
tpos npev dia Ivevparos
‘Ayiov oréparos Ln.
TOU mraLOds, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
24. em adnOeias, add. év TH 16-
ew TavtTy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.] [Gb. =].
28. aou 2°, om. Ln.
29. emude \ epide Ln. Tf.
30. YElpa Gov, om. gov Ln.
— oe, om. Tf.
: I1vevparos “Ayiou \ rod 4 dyi-
ov TVEVMATOS | inet,
9) Kapdid, om. 7 Ln.
— 7 Wuyx7, om. 7 Ln.
— dravra \ wavra Ln.
.peyadn Suvdper X Suvdpee
peyadn Ln. TE.
— THs advactdcews, ante xapts
Te Ln.
-—"Incod, add. Xpiorod [Ln.]
Alz.
umnpxev X Av Ln.
dedidoro X dredidero Ln. Tf.
"Iwons X *loonp Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alx.
— v1 X azo Ln. Tf.
34.
35.
36.
Cnap. V.
.’Avavias dvopate X dvdpate
*Avavias Ln.
Sangeipyn X Samrpeipa Lu.
. cuverdvias X ovverdvins Ln.
fb
avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alx.
3. Ilérpos, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
voopicacba, add. ce Tf.
. Avavias, prem. 6 Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
tavta, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
8. dé, om. Tf.
avrh \ mpos adrny Ln. Tf.
6 Ilerpos, om. 6 Ln.
g. €lrre, om. Ln. Tf.
. mapa X mpos Ln. Tf.
. €yeveto \ éyivero Elz. Ln. Tf.
év T@ a@ moda X Toda
ev T@ Aa@ Ln.
dmavres \ mavres Ln.
Soropavtos \ Todopavos Tf.
_ kata \ kat eis Ln. [Alz.]
kAwav X KAwapiov Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
. eis ‘IepovoaAnp, om. eis Ln.
Tf. (Gb. -].
. aur@v, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
. THS vUKTOS, om. THS Ln.
#vorke \ dvoigas Tf.
. Umnpéra Tapayevopevor \
mapayevop. umnperat Ln.TE.
. pev, om. Ln. Tf.
€&, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
mpo X et Ln. Tf.
iepevs kal 6, om. Ln. [Alx.]
. Aeyov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
: iva, om. Ln.
. OV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
. 6 Ilerpos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
etrov \ eiray Ln. Tf.
.€opev avTov pdptupes \ ev
auT@ paptupes eopev Ln. ;
[avrov Gb. 3; om. Alz.]
dé, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Ala.
.€Bovrevovtro YX €Bovdovro
Ln. [Alz.]
.Bpaxv Te Tovs drogrd\ous
X Bpaxd rovs dvOparrovs
Ln. Tf. (Gb. »]. [Alz.]
mpooekodAnOn \ mpowexAtOn
Ln. Tf. (Gb. »]. Alz.
— apiOpyos avdpav X avdpav
apiOpuos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— woet X as Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
39. ikavov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. —].
~
i>)
um
36.
ACTS.
. €acate X dere Ln. (Gb. ~].
4
autn Gb. >.
. Suva be X SuvrnovecGe Ln. TE.
(Gb. »]. Alz.
avto X avrovs Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. ~]. Alz.
> i)
. auTous, om. Tf.
. QUTOD, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
aria Onvat, ante vrEep TOU
évou. Ln. Tf.
"Incody tov Xprordy X tov
Xpioroy “Incody Ln. Tf.
Cuap. VI.
. €trov \ eiray Ln. Tf.
.ovv \ 6) Ln.
adehqol, om. Ln.
“Ayiov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
kataotngopev \ KataoTn-
owpev Elz. [Alz.]
. wAnpyn X mAnpns Ln. [Alz.]
. miarews X xapiros Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
9. Kat Agias, om. Ln.
13. BAdopnpa, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE.
42.
wo nn
CO uN
— TovTov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. dmavres \ mavtes Ln. [Alz.]
Cuap. VII.
1. pa, om. Ln. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
3. €K THs ouyyevelas, om. €K
Tf. [Ln.]
— ynv X thy ynv Ln. TE. [Gb. s].
Alz.
s.atT@ Sovvat X dovvae ait@
Ln. Tf.; [Sotvar adtyy eis
KaTacx. avT@ Ala.
5. eav \ ay Ln.
— Sovrevowow YX SovdAevcov-
ow Ln. [Alz.]
s ¢ , ¢ A 3
— elev 6 Geds X 6 eds eElzrev
Ln.
8.6 Ioadk, om. 6 Ln.
— 6 IaxwB, om. 6 Ln.
10. e€eideTo X e€eiAaro Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— Odor, prem. ep’ Alz.
aA > if ”
11. ynv Alytrrov \ Atyumroy
Ln. [Gb. s]. Alz.
9 o a
— evpiokov X nupicKoy Tf.
12, 0tTa \ oiria Ln.Tf. [Gb. 9].
Alz.
— ev Aiytrt@ X eis Atyvrtov
Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
13. TOV Iwond, om. Tod Ln. Tf.;
{avrov Alzx.]
A cd \g a? A
14. TOY TraTépa avTov "laxwB \
47
*IakoB tov marépa adtod
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]; PlaxwB Gb.
>]. :
avrov, om. Gb. Sch, Ln. Tf.
kateBn dé X kat katéBn Ln,
Tf. (Alz.]
els Atyurror, om. Tf.
.6 X @ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
"Eppop \ ’Eppop Ln. Tf.
[Ala]
Tou Suxep X Tov ev Suyxep
Ln.
. dporev \ w@poddynoev Ln.
Tf. [Gb. x]. Alz.
.€repos, add. em’ Atyvmrov
Ln. [4lz.]
. TATEpAS Hav, om. Nuay Ln.
it
exOera ta Bpedn X Ta Bpe-
gn &kOera Ln. Tf.
avtov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.exteOevta dé avrov X éxte-
Oevros 5€ at’trov Ln. [Alzx.]
aveideto X aveiAato Gb. Ln.
TH Ales]
.mwaon copia, prem. ev Tf.
[Alz.]
kal €v, om. ev Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
€pyos, add. avrod Gb. Sch.
I Pikes Be
. AUTOU, om. Tf.
avtois gwtnpiav \ cwtnpiav
avtots Ln. Tf.
.te \ 6€ Elz. Gb. Sch.; [re
Gb. x. Alz.]
auynrkacev X ouvnrAdagoev
En: TEh.AGD< es], Ala.
tpets, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. =I.
Alz.
npas \ nov Ln. Tf. Alex.
xGes YX éxOes Ln. TE.
. kupiov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alz.
roy mupos X wupt proyos
Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
. bavpace YX eOavpagev Gb.
Sch. Tf.
mpos avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]. Alz.
6 Q€ds, bis, ante "Ioadk et
ante “laxkw3, om. Ln. Tf.
33.€v © \ ef @ Ln. TE.
34. avT@y \ avTov Ln.
— admooTeA® X amooteiio Ln.
LE.
38. OukagrHy, add. ép nas s.
ep npav Alz.
14.
1g;
wo
ca
32.
Le.5
3
37.
UL
i)
38,
60.
Iwzwon es
CO
Io.
. pxovra, prem. kat Ln. Tf.
ameoretkev \ améoradkev
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
ev xept X ov xetpt Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x]. Alz.
Yn Alytmrov X tH Alyirr@
Lu.; y7] AiyunrT@ Gb. Sch.
she
elroy X elas Ln. Tf.
Kuptos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
tpav, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
avrov dkovoecGe, om. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. >].
GAN X adda Ln. TE.
n , >
Tais KapOias, prem. ev Lu.;
Th Kapoia Tf.
4 > s
. yeyovev X eyevero Ln.
. Dav, om. Ln. Tf.
‘Peupay X “Pepay Ln. Tf.
(Gb. x]. Alz.
.€v TOs, om. ev Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alx.
: Oca \ olkw Ln.
. BKoddspinrer X oixkodéuno. TE.
. vaois, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.Tavra mavta X waytTa radra
1.
.T Kapdia X kapdias Ln.
[Alz.]
@s \ kabos Ln.
. yeyernabe X éyéver Oe Ln. TE.
[Alzx.]
> 4 Ef re) 4
. ave@ypevous \ Olnvorypevous
Ln. [Alz.]
avT@v, om. TF.
Thy dpaptiay ravTnyv X Tav=
Thy THY Gpaptiay Ln. Tf.
Cuap. VIII.
re d€ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
eronoavto \ é€roingay Ln.
Tod, prem. Tv Ln.
re \ O€ Ln. Tf. [Aix]
mo\A@y X woAAot Ln. [Alz.]
peyady Gori \ Gorh pe-
yarn Ln te
eEnpxeto X eEnpxovro Ln.
Vt [Ate]
kal éyévero X éyevero Se Ln.
itie [Ale]
Xapa peyadn X modAn Xapa
uns TE
. e&vota@y \ e€votdvev Ln. Tf.
mavtes, om. Tf. [Gb. >].
cov 7, add. kadoupeyn Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
ACTS.
13. Ta Tepl, om. Ta Lu. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alz.
— tov "Incod, om. Tod Gb. Sch.
Lin. TE.
13. opeia Kal Suvdpers peyd-
Aas yeopevas X Suvdpers
kal onpeia ywopeva TF. ;
duv. kal onp. peydada yuvo-
péeva Gb. Sch.; [weydAa Gb.
3).
14. Tov Ilé€rpov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Ala.]
16. oUm@ \ ovdém@ Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. Alz.
17. exeriOouv \ émeridecay Ln.
Tf, [Atz.]
18, Geandpevos X idav Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— 70 ay.ov, om. Tf.
19.av \ éav Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.
f
21. evomoy \ évavre Gb. Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
22. @eov X Kupiov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alx.
23. Umeotpeay \ tmearpedoy
a Vad Bt
—‘Iepovoadnp X ‘Tepooddvpa
neki Ato
— einyyedicavto X evnyyedi-
Covro Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
26. mopevou \ mopevOnrt Ln.
24. Ts BactXicons, om. THs Ln.
Tf. (Gb. >]. Alz.
Os eAmrvdet, om. os Ln.
. kal kaOnpevos, om. Kal Tf.
Kat jdveyivooKe y aveyivea-
oKev Te Ln.; avaywvaokov
Abe,
. Tov Tpodntny Hoaiay \Ho.
Tov mpod. Ln. Tf.
.keipovtos X Keipavros Tf.
{Alzx.]
33. avToU 1°, om. Ln.
— tv dé, om. O€ Ln.
34. Eure O€ 6 Pikurmos, Ei m-
areveis €& OAns THS Kap-
dias, Eeorw. *Amoxptbeis
d€ eire, Ttorevw tov vidv
Tov Geovd elvat Tov Inoody
Xptordv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Aig
oo
2
°
3
is]
3
Cuap. IX.
3. Kal e€aidyns X Seae TE
Ln. Tf.
- mepunorpawyey avtov X ad-
Toy TepieoT. Ln.
48
3. amd X ék Ln. Tf. [Ale]
. kUptos elzrev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]. Alz.
"Inoovs, add. [6 Nawpaios]
Ln.
okAnpdv cot mpos KévTpa
Aakrigew, 6 Tpépov Te kal
OapBav cire, Kupue, ti pe
O€ News mounoae ; 3; Kai 6
KUplos mpos avroyv, *Avd-
ont X adda avaorn& Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. Ti X 6 Te Ln. Tf. [Gb.%]. Alz.
.€vveot X é€veot Ln. Tf. (Gb.
©]. Alz.
8.6 ZavAos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
dvewypévav X nvewypevav
Ln. Tf.
ovdeva X ovdey 15 Tas
6 KU ptos ev Opapuati X €v
Opay. 6 Kup. Ln. Tf Ate]
; ‘Avaoras \ dvdora Ln.
ey opapart, om. Ln. Tf.
dvépate ’Avaviay X ’Avaviay
ovopuate Ln. Tf.
xetpa \ ras xetpas Ln. [Alz.]
.6 ’Avavias, om. 6 Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
axnkoa \ ikovea Ln. Tf.
erroinae Tots dyiows cou \ T.
dy. cov emoinoey in. Th
- Hou eotlv ovTos X €otiv pot
ovros Ln. Tf.
eOvar, prem. Tov In.; add.
ve Ln, Tf. (Alz.]
. ’Inoovs Gb. 3.
.amemecov \ anemeoay Ln.
Tf.
avTov, ante amo Ln. Tf.
@oelt \ ws Ln.
mapaxpnya, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
.6 Savdos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
. tov Xpiordv X tov "Inco
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ax. eAnAvOer \ eAnAvOer TF.
24. TapeTnpouy \ mapeTnpovyTo
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— te \ d€ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— Tus mUAas, prem. kal Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
23. avTov of paOnral X of paby-
ral avrov Ln. [Alz.]
—kaOnxay dia Tod teixous {
dia Tov Telyous KaOjKav
avrov Ln. [Alz.]; [sie om.
avroy Tf.]
om
~wT
_
26. 6 SavAos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— eis X év Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
—émeparo \ emeipagey Ln.
[Alz.]
27. Tov Incod, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
28. ev \ eis Ln. Tf. (Gb. 8]. Alz.
— kal mappnoiadpevos, om.
kai Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
— Inaoov, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
.avrov avedeiv X avedeiv ad-
roy Ln. Tf.
avrov 2°, om. Ln. Tf.
Ai peév obv exkAnoia....
eiyov eipnynv, oikodopov-
pevas Kal Tropevopevat ...
emAnOvvovto \ m pev ovr
exkAnola.... elyev eipn-
nv, oikodopoupern Kat Tro-
pevouevn . . . emAnOuvero
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Avddav YX Avéda Ln. Tf.
_Aivéav dvopate \ évdpare
Aivéay Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
kpaBBare X kpaBarrov Ln.
dba
30.
3I.
WwW w
WB ww
.6 Xptatés, om. 6 Ln.
.eidov \ etday Ln. Tf.
— Avddav X Avdda Ln. Tf.
. ayabay epyav X Epywv aya-
Gav Ln. Tf.
37. UTEPO®, prem. TO Ln.
. duo avdpas Gb. >.
Rie oe) “a CL & 3
— pi oxvicat SiedOeiv Ews av-
Trav \ pr oxvnons SvedOetv
€ws nav Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Geis, prem. kat Ln. [Alz.]
42. woAAol émiorevoay \ émi-
orevo. ToAAOl Ln. TE. [Alz.]
juépas ixavas peivat avrov \
avrov npepas ikavas petvae
Lu.
43.
Cuap. X.
hv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
[Rec. Gb. x].
re, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
dpay, prem. mept Ln. [Alz.]
éverov \ €mporGer Ln. TE.
els "Idan avopas X avdpas
eis “Idm7ny Ln. TE.
— Sipeva, add.riwva Ln. Tf. Ala]
— ds émixadetrat [érpos \ rov
émikadovpevoy Ilérpov Gb.
~, (Cst.]
ovros Aadnoet woe Ti oe Set
qrovetv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
7& Kopyrdig \ avT@ Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
La)
.
wurh WY WN
i=)
—
~T
ios)
X=)
33-
A OF &.
.avrov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alz.
> “A ee ee >
.avutois drravra \ drravta av-
Tots Ln. Tf.
. exetvav \ avtav Gb. x. [Alz.]
Io.
éxeivov { avtaey Ln. Tf. [Gb.
x]. Alx.
emémecev \ eyevero Ln. Tf.
(Gb. s]. Alx.
2.
.€7 auTov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
ABE
dedepevoy kal, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alex.
.THS yns Gb. >.
kat ta Onpia, om. Ln. TE.
[Gb. =]. Al.
kat Ta €preta, ante THs yns
[om. ra] Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Ta werTewva, om. Ta Ln. Tf.
7) axdOaprov X Kal axa. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
.madw X evOds Ln. Tf. (Gb.
3]. Alz.
. kat iSov, om. kat Ln. [Alz.]
Zipwvos, prem. Tov Ln. Tf.
.evOvpoupevov X drevOvpov-
pevou Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ait@ TO IIvedpa X 70 rv.
avT@ Ln. Tf.
Tpets, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
. Score X dre Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec.
Gb. ~]. Alz.
Nees) , ot a
. Tovs amreoTa\pevous amro TOV
Kopyndiov mpds adrév, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. €irov \ eimrav Ln. Tf.
. 6 Ilérpos X dvaoras Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
ths ‘Ids, om. THs Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
.kal 7m X tH Sé Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
eiondOov X elondOev Ln. TF.
. eloeNOety, prem. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
.avrov ifyeipe \ ifyetpev avd-
Tov Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. kal éuwot X Kdyot Ln. Tf.
6 Gcds ederke X eSerEev 6
Océs Tf.
,
. NOTEVOY, Kal, om. Ln. [Alz.]
@pav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
.0s mapayevopmevos adjnoet
got, om. Ln. [Gb. >].
tov Geov X gov Gb. x.
— vmod X aod Ln. Tf.
— Gcod X xupiov Ln. [Gb. 9].
Alx.
49
34. oTOua, add. avrovd Alz.
36. év, om. Ln. [Alz.]
37. ap&dpuevov \ apédpevos Ln.
mg. [Alx.]; add. [yap] Ln.
38. Na¢aper \ Nafaped Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
39. €ojiev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— év ‘Iepovoadnp, om. ev TE.
[Ln.]
— aveihov { Kat dveiday [Gb.
Sch.] Ln. Tf. LAlz.]}
42. auTds \ otros Ln. txt. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
44. ememece \ errecev Ln.
48. oot X ot Ln.
— Tod ‘Ayiov IIvetparos X rod
mv. TOU dy. Ln.
46. 6 Ilérpos, om. 6 Ln.
44. KoAvoa: Suvarai X dvvarat
K@Avoai Ln.
— xabas X as Ln.
48. Barrio O7vat, post ev T. dvdp.
Tov Xp. Ln,
- Tov Kupiov X “Inootd Xpi-
orov Ln. [Gb. x]. Alz.
Cuap. XI.
2. Kat Ore \ ore O€ Ln. TE. LAlx.]
— ‘Iepooddupa YX ‘TepovadAnp
in. Tf.
3. elondOes, ante mpos avdpas
Ln. Tf.; [Alx. s. elondOe
kal ovvedaye).
4.6 Ilérpos, om. 6 Ln.
4.qkovoa Oé, add. kal, s. Kat
7kovoa
— dwvins, prem. kal Ln. Tf.
8. av, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
g. fol, om. Ln. Tf.
10. TaAw avermaaOn X aveond-
on madtv Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
11. Aunv \ jue Ln.
12, ol TO TVEdpa \ TO mvedpa
pot Ln. Tf.
— pndev Siaxpivdpevoy X pndev
Siaxpivavra Ln.; om. Tf.
(Gb. -].
13. Te \ O€ Ln. (Alz.]
— dvdpas, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
16. Kupiov, prem. rov Gb. Sch.
En. Tf.
17. d€, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Ala.
18, €0d£a¢ov X édd£acay Lu.
— ye, om. Ln.
— edaxev eis Conv X eis Conv
eO@xev Ln.
19. Stepava X Srehdvov Ln.
[Gb. s].
23
20, eloedOovres X EAOovTes Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €Addovr, add. Kqi Ln.
— ‘EAAnuioras \"EdAnvas Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Alzx.]
21, mloTEvoas, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
22. ‘lepocoAvpors \ ‘IepovcaAdnp
Lay. Tf.
— dveAOeiv, om. Ln. [Alz.]
23. xapwv, add. Tv Ln.
23.6 BapvaBas, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb.
ea (on
— avroy 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
— avtov 2°, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >].
Alz.
26. avrovs \ avrots Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— émavrov, prem. Kal Ln. Tf.
28. €onuave X éonpavev Ln.
— péyay X peydAny Ln. Tf. (Gb.
we]. Alz.
— doris X Aris Ln. Tf. (Gb. 8].
Alz.
—kal éyévero, om. Kat Ln.
[Ale]
— Kaicapos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
29. nUmopetto \ evmopetro Ln.
Awe
Cuar. XII.
3. kat lov X doy dé Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
— npepat, prem. ai Gb. Sch. Ln.
(Gb. >].
s. exrevns \ exTeves Ln.
— vnép X mept Lu. Tf. [Gb. 8}.
Alz.
6. wedAev X FuedXev Tf.
—avroyv mpodyew \ mpoaya-
yetv avrov Ln. Tf.
5. ekerecov \ e&emecav Ln.
Tf.; [émemecay Alzx.]
8. TE ie dé Lu.
—Tlepifooa X (Goat Ln. Tf.
(Gb. »]. Alz.
9. avT@, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— dua X dro TE.
10. nAOov X AAOay Ln. TE.
— nvolxOn X nvoiyn Ln. TE.
11. yevopevos ev EauT@ X €v Eav-
T@ yevou. Ln. TE.
— é&eidero \ eEeiXaro Gb. Sch.
tue Te
12. Mapias, prem. tns Ln. Tf.
13. ToU II¢rpov \ avrov Gb. Sch.
Das®£.
1g. e7rov \ eixay Lu. TF.
— & eyo X dé etmav Ln.
ACLS:
1g.avTou eorw X éotw avrov
Ln. Tf.
16. ecOov \ eidav Ln. Tf.
17. aUTOts, om. TF.
— dé X re Ln. Tf.
19. THY Kaodpevay, om. THY Ln.
[Alz.]
6 “Hpwdns, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
sue
Kat kabioas, [kat] Ln.
thy Sd€av, om. tiv Gb. Sch.
20,
ae.
a5.
ED:
€& ‘Iepovoadnp X ao ‘Te-
povo. s. €& ‘Iepovc. Alz.
kat "Iwdvynv, om. Kal Ln.
[Alz.]
Cuap. XIII.
. Ties, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
3. TE, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Tov SavAov, om. Ln. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
ovrot X avrot Ln. TE.
— IIvedparos rod ‘Ayiov X dyi-
ov mvevparos Ln. Tf.
THY Sedevxevay, om. THY Ln.
[Alz.]
— tv Kumpov, om. thy Ln.
[4lz.]
SeeAOdvres Se, add. GAnv Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— etpdv, add. avdpa Ln. TF.
[Alx.}
. Kal arevioas, om. kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. =]. Ala.
. TOU Kupiov, om. TOU Gb. Sch.
ne Ts
— emerecey \ emecey Ln.
. Tov TladXov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Ala]
. THs Tleowdias X ryv Tvodiav
Ln.
.€ott Adyos ev tpiv X ris
éotuy ev vpily Ady. Ln. [Alz.]
. Iapand, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
— Aiy’rr@ \ Alyvrrov Ln.
. €rporropépnaev X erpoo-
Podpnoev Gb. Sch. Ln. [Ree.
Gb. »}.
— katexAnpoddrnaev YX Kate-
KAnpovdunoev Gb. Sch. Ln.
Bie
26.
Lol
iis
=
oO
.kal pera Tabra, os erect
TeTpakociows Kal mevTHKoV-
Ta\ os €rect TeTpako. Kal
TevTHk. Kal pera TadTa Ln.
[Gb. »]. [Alz.]
50
21. Kis X Kets Ln.
— Bemapiv X Bemapeiv Ln.
22.avTois Tov AaBid X rov A.
avrois Ln. Tf.
avdpa Gb. >.
. Hyeipe X yaye Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe
.6 Iwavyns, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
— Tid pe X Ti eve Ln.
.amectaAn \ éSameordAn Ln.
Tt, CAles
— tp X npiy Ale.
.dravra ¥ mdvra Ln. Tf.
. otrives, add. vov Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
.avtaey nuty X nev Ln. [Alx.]
— devrépe X rper@ Gb. Ln. TE. ;
[T@ mpwoTw Ln. post yéypa-
mTat]. Rec. Gb. »; [id. post
yeyp- Alz.]
. 610 X dcdte Ln.
Tovs TraTEpas, om. Tos Elz.
. Kat aro, om. Kat Ln.
—T@ vop@, om. TO Ln. Tf.
ep’ bpas, om. Ln.
.€y@ epyagouar X épydgopas
ey® Ln. Tf.
~ epyov 2° Gb. —.
-@ X 6 Sch. Ln. Tf [Gb.
x].
E£ubvrov b€ ex THs ouva-
yoyns tTav “lovbaiav, tap-
exddouv Ta €Ovn X eEvdytav
d€ avTa@yv mapexadouy Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TavTa Gb. >.
. AVTOIs, om. Sch. Tf. [Gb. -].
— eruyevery X mpocpevery Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. 0€ X re Gb. Sch. Tf.
— épxopeva X €xouev@ Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
— Geod X xupiov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~].
48. TOU IlavAov, om. Tod Ln.
— Aeyopevors YX Aadovpévors
Ln. [Alz.]
— avridéyovtes Kat, om. Ln.
(Gb. >]. Alz.
. Oe X re Ln. Tf, [4lz.]
— etzrov \ etmav Ln. Tf.
— O€, om. Ln.
kal Tas evoxnpovas, om. Kat
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— roy BapvaBay, om. Tov Ln.
TiaiGbasi. Alex:
31. aUT@Y, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
ga. O€ ¥ re Lm. Tf.
CHarp. XIV.
arevOodytes \ drevOnoavtes
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Kat Stddvtt, om. Kal Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
6. Avotpay, prem. eis Ln.
.joav evayyedr(opevoe X €d-
ayy- noav Ln.
8. Umapxev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Pf.
— Teptememarnkes \ meptemd-
thoev Lu. Tf.; mepirema-
Tyee St.
.jkove \ Akovoey Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
— wiotw éxery exet wiorw Ln.
Tf.
.TH povi), om. TH Ln. add. coi
eyo €v TH OvOpatTL TOU
Kupiou "Inood Xpicrov Ln.
[Alx.]
— AXerOo X 7AaTO Gb. Sch. Ln.
ike
. de J re Ln. TE.
— 6 IlavXos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
. pev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
.0 0€ \ 6 Te Ln. Tf.
— avtay, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 7Oere X HOedov Alz.
cer ghiaee X e&enndnoayv
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. €opev viv X bpiv eopev Ln.
mg.
— Tov Gedy tov Cavta X Gedy
€@vra Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8]. Al.
- ye, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— €avrov X avdrov Ln. [Gb. 3].
— dyaboraay X dayaboupyav
Ln. Tf. (Gb. »]. Alz.
—npiv X tpiv Gb. Sch. Ln.;
om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
— jpav \ tpav Gb. Sch. Ln.
rf;
’EnndOov X exndOav Ln. TE. ;
[Alz. Starpi8dvrav avraev
kat didacKkev ér7ndOov az).
€xupoy \ €ovpar Tf.
vopicavtes \ vowi¢ovres Ln.
teOvava. X reOvnxevat Ln.
[Alzx.]
avtoy Tav pabnrav X trav
pad, avroy Ln. Tf.
. edayyehirdpevol X evayye-
Aucopevot Ln. Tf.
—Ikdvov, prem. eis Ln. [Alz.]
—Avridxerav, prem. eis Ln.
[Alz.]
23. mpegBurepovs Kat exKAn-
i
oo
wT
Ks)
oe
ee
20.
2
~
ACTS.
ciav X kar ékkd. mpeoB.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
24. laudvAiav, prem. thy TE.
24. avnyyecday \ dvnyyeddov Ln.
Ube
28. €kel, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. XV.
1. mepirépynobe \ meperpnOn-
ve Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
- 7 ee, add. T® Ln.
2. ouv X Oe TF. [Ale]
— ov(ntncews X (ntnoews Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; [kal (yTnoews
Gb. 3].
3. Bowixny, prem. Te Ln. Tf.
4. amed€xOnoayv \ mapedéxOn-
cay Ln.
— tro X amo Tf.
6. de X re Tf.
4. 6 Geos, post efeheEaro Lu. Tf.
= ev np Ke ev viv Ln. Tf.
8. avTots 2°, om. Tf.
9. ovdev X ovOev TE.
11. Kupiov, prem. tov Gb. Sch.
En, Ts,
— Xptotov, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
14. €7l, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Ala.
14. 0 TOL@V, om. 6 Ln.
— mayra, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. Tywora i | yrooroy In.
- €oTt T@ Oe@ mavra ra Epya
avrov, om. Gb. Sch. fs TO
Kupip TO €pyov avrov Ln.
20. amr, om. Ln. Gb. >.
— kal TOU TYLKTOV, om. TOV Ln.
22. emlKadovpevoy \ Kadovpevor
int eles]
— BapoaBayv X BapoaBBay Ln.
Tf (Ale
23. TAOE, om. Ln. Tf.
— kal oi, om. Ln. (Gb. >]. Alz.
24. N€yovres tmrepitépver Oat Kat
TNpEW TOV YopoY, om. Ln.
ES, [Gb.2], Ale:
as. ekdeEapevous \ exde~ape-
vous Ln. [Gb. x]. Alx.
28. TOV endvaykes ToUT@Y \ Tov-
TOV TeV emavayK. Ln. (4/z.];
om. TouTwy Tf. [Gb. =]. Alz.
29. Kal MVLKTOV, Gb. >; Kal TML-
kr@v Ln. Tf.
— mpakere ¥ mpakare Alx.
30. MAOov \ KarndOov Ln. [Gb.
s]. Alz.
32. Oe X re St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ereotnpiéay X emeotnpicay
at. ;
51
33. aootéAous \ dmrocreiAav-
Tas avtovs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. Rec. x].
34. COoe S€ TH Tia eripeivar
avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
36. Iavkos mpos BapvaBay
mpos Bapy. IlavAos Ln. Tf.
- Tar, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Twacay woAw \ modu racap
ins Ut.
34. eBovAevaaro \ €SovAero Ln.
(Gb. s]. Alz.
— Tov “l@avyny { Kat "Iwdvyny
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.; Pladvynv
Gb. x).
38. oupmapadaBeiv { cupmapa-
AapPavew Ln. Tf.
39. ovv X Sé Ln. Tf.
40. Oeod X Kupiov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~). Alz.
41. Kidtkiay, prem. tiv Ln.
Cuap. XVI.
1.els AepBnv, prem. kat Ln.
[Alz.]
— Avotpay, prem. eis Ln.
—IRLVOSs On. Gro, Sch. dans Lt.
3. dravtes \ mavres In.
— TOY marépa avTov, OTL "EQ-
Any X 6 Ore "EAAnv 6 tathp
avtov Ln. [Alz.]
4. mapedidouy X mapedidocav
Ln. Tf.
—Tav mpecBuTépayv, om. TOV
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— ‘Iepovaadnp X ‘TepocoAvpors
Ln. Tf.
6. AveAOovtes YX SiupAOov Ln.
[Alx.]
— tv Tadarixny, om. thy Ln.
Tt. (Ale)
7. eMOovtes, add. b€ Ln. [Alz.]
— kata 2° X els Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave
— mropever Oat \ mopevOjvat Ln.
she
— mvevpa, add. Inood Gb. Sch.
Ea TE
9. THS vuKTos, om. THs Ln.
- ohOy T@ IlavA@ Xr. Tathe@
apn TE.
— Tis nv Maxedov { Mak. tis
nv Ln.; Mak. tes Tf.
— mapakadoy, pram. kat Ln.;
(Ale. s. prem. kata Tpdcw-
Tov avrov].
10. THY Makedoviay, om. tiv Ln.
Io.
II.
Kuptos \ beds Ln. (Gb. ~].
Alz.
oov YX S€ TF.
— THs Tpwddos, om. tis Ln.
12.
14.
is}
N
Ty Te \ tH O€ Ln.
exetOev te \ kaxeiOey Ln.
Alx.
THs peplOos Gb. >.
THs, om. Ln. (Gb. =]. Ala.
Kotw@via { Kod@vera Tf.
tavTn \ at’rn TE.
moAews \ mvAns Ln. Tf. [Gb.
©]. Alz.
evopiCero X évouitopev Ln.
[Alzx.]
mpocevx) X mpooevx7y Ln.
[Alz.]
. Hkovev X iKovoev Alz.
. peivate \ pevere Ln.
. T pOoevX TY, prem. TH Sch.
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
Tvdwvos { TvGwva Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Ala.
adravrnoa \ vravrnoae TF.
. nyiv X dpiv Elz. Ln. Tf.
.T@ Ovopart, om. TS Ln. Tf.
. Tov Siray, om. rov Tf.
. elroy \ etzray Ln. Tf.
. mepippnéavres \ mepipnéav-
Tes Ln. Tf.
.eiAndas X AaBav Ln. [Gb.
©]. Alz.
avrav noparicaro X nod.
avta@y Ln. Tf.
.avedxOnoav X nvewdxOnodv
in. Te
re { dé Ln. Tf. CAlz.]
. paxatpay, prem. THY Ln.
€wedAev \ ryedXev Ln. Tf.
.povn peyadry 6 Ilatdos X
IlavAos pov peyarn Ln.
.TO ZiXG, | om. T@ Ln. f.
. €lrov \ etmay Ln. Tf.
Xptoroy, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Kat mace \ ov mace Gb. Ln.
Tf fAlas)
. avToU, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
nya\Xdoato Y nyad\aro
Abe
a
. TOUTOVS, om. Ln.
A 3 /
ameordAKkacw \ aréotadkav
Ln. Tf.
. €Badov X €Barav Ln. TF.
— nas, om. Cst.
38.
’Avnyyevay \ amnyyeay
Ln. Tf. [Alw.]
— kat epoBnOnaav X époB. de
Ln: Tf.
39-
40.
~
1s)
aN
tn
18,
ACES:
e&en Oeiv X ame Oetv awd Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
eis \ mpos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. Ree, »].
Tovs ddehpors, mapeKde-
gay avtovs ; mapeKaX. Tovs
adedg. Lu
Cuap. XVII.
?
. Aro\Aviay, prem. THY Ln.
1) Tvvay@y, om. 7 Ln. [Alz.]
. Ouedeyero \ dueA€Earo Ln. ;
[Alx. s. dueA€x On).
.6 Xpioros, om. 6 Ln.
€ Zz \
. EAAnvev, prem. kai Ln.
TOAV TANOOS X wANOos TOrAV
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Cnrooartes Se of drretOotv-
> ~ AY
tes Iovdator, Kai mpooda-
Bopevot trav ayopaiwy J
, ‘ es
mpoohaBopevot O€ of “Iov-
Oatot of ameOovrres tev
> , x
ayopat@y Sch. Tf.; mpoc-
AaBdpevot S€ of “Iovdaior
Gb.
aretOovvtes, om. Gb. Ln.
‘ yw
Tivas avdpas, om. Gb. ;
Spas twas Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
emioravres Te \ kal enor.
Ln. [Alz.]
dyayely X mpoayayew La.
>
aye-
: eoupov X €ovpav TY.
tov Idcova, om. tov Ln.
mpatrover \ mpacoovow Ln.
Tf {Aled
heyovtes Erepoy X Erepov he-
yovres Ln.
. TNS VUKTOS, om. THS Ln.
a > la > ‘
tTav “lovdaiwy amyjecay X
? , cal >
amnecav T&v ‘lovd. TF.
.T0 kad’, om. TO Ln. [Alx.]
. gadevorres, add. kal Tapac-
aovTes Ln. [Alz.]
.@s \ €ws Ln.; [Alx. s. om.
os).
Umrepevoy \ brepecvev Ln. TF. ;
[Alx. s. Urepecvay].
dé X re Ln. Tf.
.kabtate@vtes ¥ Kabtoravoy-
tes Ln. Tf.
avtov 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Ala.
. Oewporvvrt \ Oewpodvros Ln.
Tf. (Gb. »]. Alz.
tives O€, add. kai Sch. Ln.Tf.
[Gb. s].
— TV ZTwiKeY, om. TeV Ln.
Tf. (Srotx@y Ln. Tf.)
52
24.
2.
3.
wu
7
. ALMATOS,
ga R= 9, a ‘ | eee A
. ort Tov Ingovy Kai THY ava-
oracw avtois evnyyediCero
Gb. =y
abrois ednyyehivero Xer eunyy-
avrois Lu. ; 3 om. avtois If.
7) Ure, om. 7 Ln.
.ti dv Odor X riva Oberoi
Gb. ~ [Alx.]; riva OéXeu Ln.
> / > ,
.evkaipouv X niKaipovy Ln.
Die cAloa
kal akovew \ 7 dkoveww Ln.
Tf.; add. tt Ln.
. 6 Ilavdos, om. 6 La,
. Ov X o Ln. Tr.
TOUTOY K TovTo Ln. Tf.
: Kuptos vmdpxev X trdpxer
Kv ptos Ln. Tf.
. avOparey \ avOperiver Ln.
Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
Kata \ kat Ta Elz. Gb. Sch.
in, Tr.
om. Ln. [Gb. —].
Alz.
mav To mpdcwmov \ mdvtos
mpoowrrou In. Tf. [Alz.]
mporetaypevous XK mpoore-
ites Gb. Sch. (Ln.)
fees [wpos TeTay. Ln.] [Gb.
fe x].
Kuptov \ Oedy Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. ; [Rec. Gb. »].
kal evporev \ 7) evporev Ln.
[Ale.]
katrovye X kaiye Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. Alz.
. ToinT@v Gb. >.
.7aot X wavras Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ws]. Alz.
. Oudre X xadore Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w). Alz.
. elroy X etray Tf.
mah mept rouvtov \ mepr
ToUTou Kal mdAw Ln. Tr. ;
[Alz. s. om. Kat).
. Kal ovrws, om. kat Ln. Tf.
> ,
6 Apeorayitns, om. 6 Ln.
Caap. XVIII.
. O€, om. Ln.
6 IlavAos, om. Ln. Tf. [Alix]
€K yf avo Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
eipyatero X npyagero Ln. Tf.
noav yap oKxnvorrowt THY
Texynv Gb. >.
THY TéxVnV \ TH TEXYN Ln.
Tf. [Al@.]
. Trvevpate \ Ady@ Gb. Sch. Ln.
i
. Iovdatois, add. elvat Ln.
[Gb. ~]. Alzx.
. mrOev X elondGev Ln. [Alz.]
9. 00 dpduatos év vuxri X ev
vuxti dv épdpyaros Ln.
.te \ O€ Ln. [Alz.]
.avOurratevovros XY avOumra-
tov 6vtos Ln. [Gb. x]. Alx.
13. ovTos avarreiOee X avarreiOet
ovTos Ln. Tf.
14. our, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alx.
— nvecxouny \ dverxopuny Ln.
13. (ytTnpa \ Cyrnpara Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alzx.
— yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Ala.
17. of "EXAnves, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]. Alz.
TH keadny ev Keyxpeais X
ev Keyx. thy Kepadny Ln.
Jie
katnvTnoe \ KatnvTnoay Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— avrov YX éxet Ln. [Alz.]
— dtehéxOn X SceA€EaTo Ln.
20. Tap’ avtois, om. Ln. Tf.
21.aAN \ adda Ln. Tf.
— ameraéato avtois X drora-
Eduevos kal Ln. Tf. [Gb.»].
Alz.
- Aci pe TAVTOS THY éopTiy
THY €pXopevny moijoat eis
‘IepoodAvpa, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gp 3).. Ale:
- be, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
— kat avnxOn, om. kat Ln. Tf.
: emeaTnpiCav X otnpigov Ln.
; Kupiov 1 e Inoov Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. AxvAas kat IIpioxchha 5
TIpiox. kat "Akvd. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— Tov Geov dddv X 6ddv Tod
Geov Ln.[Alx.]; om. rov Geod
Tf. (Gb. 3].
Cuap. XIX.
éddeiv x kareOeiv Alzx.
- ebpov X edpety Ln. TE. [Ala.]
. €lmre, add. te Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
elzrov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3).
Alz.
— ovde { ov Ln.
mpos avtovs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=p] Ala:
— elroy X etray Ln. Tf.
4. pev, om. Gb. Ln. [Alz.]
—Xpicrdv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
6. Tas X€tpas, om. Tas Ln. Tf.
wm
~T
I
Lal
18.
19.
-
1 &
=
mo bo.
6. mpoepyrevov X empodpnrevoy
Ln. Tf.
. Sexadvo X S@dexa Ln. [Alx.]
.Ta Trepl, om. Ta Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. TLWOS, om. Ln. TE.
. Inoov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Alzx.]
. eroiet 6 Geds X 6 Oeds ezroiet
Ln. [Alz.]
. emupeper Oar \ aropéper Oar
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
— ekepxec Oar X exropever Oar
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— am aitéy, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
13.am0 X Kal Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
Alz.
— ‘OpxiCopev X dpxi€w Gb. Sch.
an. TK.
— 6 LTlavAos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
14. Teves \ twos Ln.
— viol, post émTad Ln. Tf.
— ol, om. Ln. [Ala.]
18. ele, add. avtots Ln. [Alz.]
16, epadAdpevos X eaddpevos
Ln.
-— én adtovs 6 avOpwros X 6
avOp. én’ avr. Ln. Tf.
— kal, om. Ln. Tf. Gb. 3. [Alz.]
— katakuplevoas X KaTakupt-
evoay Gb. ». Ala.
— avrav \ dydorépwy Ln. Tf.
(Gb. »]. Alz.
17. ememrece \ Emecev Ln.
.6 Adyos Tov Kupiov X Tov
Kupiov 6 Adyos Ln. Tf.
21. SteAOav X SveAOeiv Ln.
—’Axaiay, prem. Thy Ln.
— ‘Iepovoadnp X ‘lepooddvpa
Ln. Tf.
. mapelxeto X mapetxe Ln.
- epyaciay ovk dAdtyny X ovk
ony. epy: Ln.
23. npav X nui Ln. Tf.; tua
Gb. », [Alz.]
- oxe60r, prem, kal Ln. [Ale]
: "Apréus6os iepov \ iepov
"Aprép. Tf. [Alx.]
— ovdev X ovGev Ln. TE.
— Royo Onvar X AoytoOnoerar
Ln. [Alz.J
— pedrew X pédrec Ln.
— TH peyadedtynta X THs pe-
yadevorntos Ln. [Alz.]
. An, om. Ln. TF.
— ovyxtcews, pram. tis Gb.
Sch. Tf. [Gb. -).
53
o Os
Lal
lanl
I
N
2
\o
. TOU IlavXov, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. Tov Sé IlavAov X IavaAov Se
Ln.
. evexev \ evexa Ln.
. TpoBadddvrwv X mpoBaddv-
Tov Alzx.
— mpoeBiBacav X oavveBiBa-
oav Ln. [Alz.]
. emcyvovtey \ emvyvovres Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
.@wOpwros \ dvOparev Ln.
Tt, [Ate]
— beads, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.mpatrew \ mpdooery Ln. TE.
. THY Ocdv X tiv Oedv Gb. Sch.
Ene we
—tpav X nuev Ln. [Gb. 9].
Als:
. pds twa Adyov Exovow X
Exoug. mpds Twa Adyov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf,
: mept érépov X TrEpaiTEepo Ln.
. ov, add. ov Gb. ». [Alz.]
— drodovvat X Sovvai Tf. (Gb.
~]. Cst.
— Adyor, add. mepi Ln. [Alz.]
Car. XX.
. Tpookadeodpevos \ peta-
meprydpevos Alz.
— Tovs pa@nras, add. mapaxa-
Aéoas Lu. [Alz.]
- mopevOnvat y mropever Gat Ln.
- THY Makedoviar, om. THY Ln.
3. QUT@ emtBouhijs X. émtBov-
his avT@ Ln.
4. Samarpos, add. Tluppov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
g. ovrot, add. Sé€ Lu. [Alx.]
. TOV paOnrav rod X nua Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Hoav X juev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. kaOnpevos \ kabeCopevos Ln.
Ut. [Ale
11. dpTov, prem. Tov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alx.
13. eis X éxt Ln. Tf.
- ny duereraypevos YX diater.
nv Ln.
14: oveBarer J ove Baddev Ln.
15. Kal petvayres ev Tpwyvr-
Aig, TH exonern \ tH Oe
exopevy Ln. (Gb. 8] Alz. ;
[Teoyprie Tf. ]
expive \ Kexpiker Gb. Ln. Tf.
(Rec. Gb. x]. Alx.
— nv X ety Lo. [Alz.]
=
~w
[o-e)
16.
. Tpos avroy, add. éuod dvraev
avT@y Ln.
. TOAA@Y, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. THY Els TOY, om.THY Lu. [Ala.] ;
om. Tov Tf.
— Xptorov, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
eyo Sedepevos X dedep. eyo
Gb. Ln. Tf.
— cuvavtnoovra YX ovvaytn-
cavta s. cupBnodpeva Ale.
. Stapapriperat, add. ot Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— pe kai Odes X Kal Odi.
pe Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. Towovpa, ovde €x@ X Exo
ov 7rorodpat Ln. Alx.; om.
ovde exw TE.
— Wuyny pov, om. pov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 4];
— pera xapas, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Ala.
.ToU Qeov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]. Ale.
eyo \ eye Ln. [Ala.]
. Upiv, post Oeod Ln. txt.
ovv [Ln.]; om. Ala.
— Gcod \ Kupiov Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. ~]; Kupiov kat
Geov Cst. [Ale.]
— idiov aiparos X aiparos Tov
idiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Ree.
Gb. x].
a9. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
— Touro, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
adedpol, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~).
Alz.
— érorxodopjoa YX olxodopi-
oa Ln. (Gb. 8]. Alx.
— vyiv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
. ovdevos X ovGevds Tf.
. dé, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. HaAXoy, ante S.ddvat Gb. Sch.
En; Tt
. eyévero KAavOpos XY Krav,
eyev. Lu. Tf.
Cuar. XXI.
1. Kev X K@ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. dvapavavtes \ dvaavevtes
Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
katnyOnpev X Karnd\Oopev
Ln. [Alz.]
— yap hv TO mAotov \ yap TO
mAotoy nv Ln.
.kal dvevpdyres \ dveup. dé
ins Tt. Ate
avtov X avrots Ln.
32.
Lo)
~~
oo
>
ACTS:
4. avaBaivery X émtBaivew Ln.
dh 2
— ‘Iepovoadnp X ‘IlepoodAvpa
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. nas eEaprioa X éEapr. np.
Ln. Tf.
— mpoonv&apueba \ mpocevéd-
pevot Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
6. Kal domracdpevot \ aanoma-
oapueOa Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— éréBnpev X Kat évéBnpev Ln.
[Ale]; Kat aveBnuev Tf.
[Alzx.]
8. of rept Tov IlatXov, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 7AOov X #AOopev Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tov dvTos, om. Tod Gb. Sch.
in. Tf.
9. mapbevar teroapes X téoc.
map. Ln.
10. OY, om. Ln. Tf.
11.7€,. Om, EM. TE. “[Gb; 3):
Alz.
— avtov X éavrov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. Alx.
— Tas xelpas Kal Tovs mddas X
Tovs 760. Kal Tas xetp. Ln.
Ws a PA
— ev X els Tf.
13. amekpiOn Se X rére amexpiOn
Ln. [4lv.]; amexp. Te Tf.
14. TO O€Anyua Tov Kuptov X Tov
kupiov TO O€Anpa Lyn. Tf.
[Alz.]
— yeverOo YX ywéobw Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
15. dm@ooKevacapevot \ eriokev=
agdpevot Ln. Tf. [Gb. J.
[Alzx.]
—‘Iepovoarnu X ‘TepoodAvpa
Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9]. [Alz.]
17. ed¢Eavto Y amedéEavro Ln.
Tf. (Gb. »]. [Alz.]
20. kuptov X Oedv Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— eimdv Te X etawovres Ln.
— Iovdaiwv X év rots Iovdatots
Ln. Tf. [Gb. 8]. [Alz.]
21. wavras, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
22, Oet mAnOos ouvehOeiv, om.
Tf. [Gb. >].; Sef cuvedOciv
mAnOos Ln.
— yap, om. Tf. [Gb. >].
24. yvaot X yvooorrat Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~].
— rov vopov prrddooewr X pra.
Tov vopoy Ln. Tf.
54
23. emeoteiAapev \ drreorerAa-
pev Ln.
— pndev Towovroyv tnpeiv ad-
Tovs, ei py, om. Ln. TF. (Gb.
3). Alx.
— 76 aiva, om. 7d Ln. Tf.
— kal mvixroy Gb. >.
24. uvexeov X cvvéxeay Ln.
— Tas xelpas én avtov { er
avtoy Tas xetpas Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
28. TavTaxov \ mavrax7 Ln. Tf.
[Gb. »]. Ala.
31. O€ X re Ln. Tf.
— ovykexutar X ovyxvvverar
Ln.
32. €kaTovTapxous \ ExaTovTap-
xas Ln. Tf.
33. TOTe eyyioas X éyy. dé Cst.
— ay, om. Ln.
34. €Bdav X érepavovy Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]. [Alzx.]
— Suvdpevos dé X Suvapéevov
d€ avrov Ln. Tf.
36. kpdgov \ xpagovres Ln. Tf.
(Gb. s]. [Alz.]
34. Tl, om. Tf. [Gb. —). LAlzx.]
Cuap. XXII.
1. vov X vevt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
2.mpooepaver XY mpordavet
act.
3. ev, om. Ln. [Gb. =]. Alz.
4. €mecov \ errecad Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
8. we X eve Ln.
9. kal éudoBor eyévovto, om.
Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3). [Alz.]
12, evoeBNS,om.Tf.; evAaB7s Ln.
13. pe X ewe Ln.
16. TOU Kupiov X av’Tov Gb. Sch.
ian. Cf,
18. THY papTupiay, om. THY Ln.
20. e&exeiro \ e&exvvvero Ln. Tf.
— Srehdvov Gb. >.
— TH avaipévet adrov, om. Gb.
Sens iin. Tf,
22. KaOnKov \ KaOnKxev Gb. Sch.
Tanee bt:
23. O€ X re Ln. Tf.
— dépa X ovpavoy Gb. ~.
24.avTov 6 xtAlapxos ayer Oat
X 6 xr. eicayerOa avrov
Gb. Ln. Tf.; adrov 6 xUA.
eiody. Sch.
— elzav \ elras Ln. Tf.
25. mpoerewvev X mpoeretvay Gd.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 6 IlavXos, om. Tf.
26. €kaTovrapxos \ éxatovrap=
xns Lu. Tf.
—amnyyeike TH xidudpx@
TO XA. arny. Lu. Tf. [Ala]
—"Opa, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
24. €l, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
28. re X S€ Ln.; om. Tf.
29. Hv avrov X avtoy ny Ln.
30. mapa X td Ln. (Gb. o].
[Alx.]
—and tav Secpav, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— edOciv XY cuvedOciv Gb. Sch.
in. Tt,
— ddov X wav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- avTa@v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. XXIII.
.6 Ilatdos 76 ovvedpio \ To
ovvedp. 6 Ilabddos Ln. [Alz.]
. Papivaioy X Papicaiwy Lu.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alx.
4. AaAnaavros X eimdvros Ln.
— tay Taddovkaiwv, om. Tov
Ln. Tf. ; [ante Bap. Alz.]
8. pnde X pte Ln. [Alx.]
9. of ypazpatets ToD pepous X
tives Ln.3 om. of Tf.; ([Te-
ves TOV Ypapatew@y TOU
pepous Gb. x. Alz.]
py Ccopax@pev, om. Gb. Sch.
1 a by
yevoperns otdcews X ord-
mews yevouevns Ln.
- evAaBnbcis X poBnOeis Ln.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
—karaBav X KaraBnvac Kal
Cst.
rr. LadAe, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
12. TwWes TOY Iovdalwy cvaTpo-
gynv X cvarpodyy vt “Iov-
Oatot Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. TemounKdTes X Toimodpevot
Ln. [Gb. ©]. Alz.
. €lrov ) etray Ln. Tf.
— pndevos X pnOevos TE.
15. aUpLov, on. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avtov Kataydyn X Katay. av-
Tov Ln. Tf. [Ala]
— mpos X ets Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
0 éveOpov X THyv evedpay Elz.
Gb. Ln.; [ro évedpoy Gb.
x].
17. Tt amrayyeidae \ dmayyetAai
Te Ln.
.veaviay { veavioxoy Ln.
.els TO guvedpioy KaTayayns
roy IlavAov ¥ rov HavAoyv
-
nN
ro.
oo
I
2
co)
ACTS,
Kataydyns eis ro ovvedptov.
Ln. Tf.
20. peAAovtrés X peAA@y Lu. Tf.
[Alz.]
ar. €Troupot efor \ elow rotpot
Ln. Tf.
22. veaviav X veavioxov Ln. [Alz.]
23. Mepiexovoay X €xoveay Ln.
24. e€echouny \ e€etkauny Ln. TE.
— adrov, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
28. O€ X re Ln. Tf.
— yavat X ervyv@vat Lu. Tf.
29. €ykAnua exovra \ exovra
eykA. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
30. we AAewv, om. Ln. [Alz.]
=— U0 Tav Iovdalwy, om. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— e£autis \ e& ad’ra@y Ln. [Alz.]
— Ta mpos avrov X abrods Ln.
at:
—"Eppoco, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ro}, Ale:
31. THS VUKTOS, om. THs Ln.
32. mopeverOar X dmépxecOar
Ln. Tf. [Gb. x].
34.0 Wye“av, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave
3g. ExéAXevore re \ keAevoas Ln.
Tf. [Ala]
— ‘“Hpadov, prem. rod Ln.
— abroy, post pudacoer Gat Ln.
Tf. (Alz.]
Cuap. XXIV.
1. Tay mpecBurépav X mpecB.
Twe@y Ln. [Alz.]
3. kaTropbaparay X StopPwpa-
Tov Lun. (Gb. »]. Alz.
8.0Taulv } oracets Ln. [Gb.
w]. Alx.
6. kal Kara TOY NUEeTEpoY Vdpov
nOeAnoapey Kpivew. 4. map-
eAOav Oe Avoias 6 xtXNiap-
xXos peta moAAns Bias ek
TOY XELPaV Hav annyaye,
8. KeAevoas Tovs KaTryd-
pous avtod epxecOa emt
aé, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
9. SuveGevro \ ouveréOevro Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
ro, O€ { re Ln. Tf. [Alex]
— evdupdrepov X edOtpws Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
11. yvavat X émyv@vat Ln. Tf.
{Alz.]
—i) dexadvo, om. 7) Gb. Sch.
Tf. ; Swdexa Ln. [Alzx.]
— ev X els Ln. Tf. [Ale.]
55
.emicvetacw X emioracw
Ln. [Gb. x]. LAlz.]
13. ovre \ ovde Ln.
— pe, om. Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dvvayrat, add. cot Ln. [Alzx.]
— vov X vuvi Ln. Tf.
14.T0is mpopyrais, pram. év
Elz. Ln. ; prem. tots év Gb.
Sch.
— vexp@v, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alz.
16.d6€ X kat Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
Alzx.
— exew X e€xyav Gb. ~. Alx.
17. Tapeyevouny, post €Ovos prov
Ln. Tf.
ois X ais Sch. Ln. [Gb. 9).
Alz.
— 6, om. Elz.
. Oe@ X eee Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.; [Gb. det ~. Cst.]
— pe X eué Ln. Tf.
.el Tt \ tt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ev €uol, om. Ln.
a1. expaga \ exexpaga Tf.
— €gTws ev avTots X €v avTois
é€oTos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
—ip \ ep’ Ln. TF.
. Axovoas S€ radra 6 @nNE
aveBdadero avtovs \ dveBa-
Aero O€ adrovs 6 OnE Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
— eimav \ elas Ln. Tf.
. TE, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alzx.
tov IlavAoy X avrov Gb. Sch.
cone:
— 7) mpooepxea Oat, om. Ln. TE.
(Gb. 3]. Alzx.
npepas Twas \ Twas nuépas
Ln.
— yuvatkt abrod X idia yuvarkt
Ln. ; yuvatxt Gb. Sch. Tf.
— Xpiarov, add. *Inocdv Sch.
Ln.
25. Kpipiatos Tov péeAAovTos
peAXovros Kpipatos Gb. «.
Alz.
— €ceoOat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
26. dua Oe, om. dé Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf
dws AVon avrdy, om. Sch.
mn. Tf [Gbps].
-xapitas X xapira Ln. [Alz.]
Cuap. XXY.
2. O¢ X re Ln. Tf.
—6 apxiepeds X of apxtepeis
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. [Alz.]
18.
2
w&
24,
2
~w
ev Katoapeia X eis Katoa-
petay Ln. Tf. [Gb. ws]. Alz.
. Ouvarot ev ipiv, pyot X év
vpiv, pnow, Suvarot Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— TovT@ X drorov Ln. [Alz.] ;
om. Gb.
mAetous XY ov mAetous OxT@
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [4/x.]; mei-
ous OKT® Gb. ~].
. Tepleotnaay, add. avroy Ln.
[Gb. »]. Ala.
— airiduara X airwpara Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— deportes kara Tod Iavdov
X xarafépovres Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3). Ala.
. drohoyoupevov avrov X Tov
Ilavdov drrokoyoupevov Ln.
Tf. [Alz.}
9. Tots "Iovdalors OédXwv YX Oé-
Awv Tots Iovd. Ln.TF. LAlz.]
— xpiverOa X kpiOnvae Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
11. yap X ody Ln. Tf. [Gb. «.
Alz.
13. Oixny X xaradiny Ln. (Gb.
w]. Alz.
. twa X runt Gb. ». Alz.
>
wm
Ge
~T
ioe)
— eis dm@Aetav, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
Alz.
14. AUT@Y, om. TF.
. emepepov X ehepoy Ln. TE.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
— Urevdouy éya \ ey timevd-
ovv Ln.; add. movnpay Ln.
(Gb. x]. Alzx.
. ToUTOU \ rovrwy Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ew]. Alz.
— ‘Iepovoadnp \ “IepordAvpa
ian, Tr
ar. méeppo \ dvamepyyo Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
- En, om. Ln. Tf.
-‘O Oe, om. Ln. Tf.
23. TOs ytALapxots, om. Tots Ln.
i bs ah
— oval, om.
Alx.
24. mav \ day Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
emtBoavtes { Bodvres Ln.
— Gv adrov X adrov qv Ln.
[Alx.]
. KatahaBdopevos X KkatedaBo-
pny Ln. [Alz.]
— Oavarov avtrov X aitév ba-
vatov Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
~— kal adrod, om. kat Ln. [Alz.]
Nv
is)
ha. TE (Gb: 1
SJ
ur
A OT eS.
25. auTév, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3).
Alz.
26. ypavat 2° \ ypayrow Ln. TF.
(Gb. ~]. Alx.
Cuap. XXVI.
1. omep \ mept Ln. Tf. [Gb. «J.
Alzx,
— amedoyeito, post xeipa Ln.
[Alz.]
- pedov drrohoyeia au emt
ov onpepov J € emt oov per.
orp. drrohoy. Gb. Sch. Ln. ;
emt wou ped. arrodoy. on.
bse
$.70u, om: im. Tf, (Gb, 31;
Ala.
4. THY €k vedTnTOS, om. THY TE.
— ‘Iepowodvpors, prem. te Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— of "Iovdaior, om. of Ln. Tf.
6.mpos X els Ln. Tf. [Gb. «].
Alz.
— matépas, add. huey Sch. Ln.
(Gb. s].
y. Bacired *Aypimma, om. TE.
(Ln.); [Baowrev post "Iov-
Saiwy Ln.]; [Aypimma Gb.
3; om. Alz.]
— Tay "Jovdalwyv, om. tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
10. 7oAAOvs, add. re Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w~]. Alx.
— dvAdakais, prem. év Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
12, €V ois Kal, om. kal Ln. [Gb.
3]. Ala.
— THs Tapa, om. Ln. [Gb. ~].
14. O€ \ re Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
—aroioav X Aéyovcay Lu.
Gb. =>. [Alz.]
- kal Aéyoueay, om. Ln.
18. elroy \ eima Ln. Tf.
-‘O 6€, add. Kipios Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
14. TaY EOvar, prem. ek Ln.
— viv eye Gb. Ln. Tf. Alz.
[Rec. Gb. »].
— o€ amoaté\Aw \ droot. oe
Ln.
20. Tp@Tov, add. te Ln. Tf.
— ‘Tepocohvpors, prem. év Ln.
— eis macay, om. eis Ln.
— arayyéd\Nwv X amnyyedov
Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
22. mapa X amo Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— paprupovpevos \ paprupd-
pevos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]J
56
23.7@ Aa@ X tO re aw Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
; ep X hnow Ln. Tf. [Al]
.‘O €, add. MadXos Ln. [Alz.]
— addX X ddda Ln. TF.
. ovdev, om. Ln. ; ovGéy TF.
. €fn, om. Ln. Tf. Ale. [Gb. 3].
~ yever Oat X moujoat Ln. Ale.
. elev, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] [Gb.
3).
— ToAAG X peydr@ Ln. TF.
[Alx.] [Gb. »].
Kai ravra eimdvtos avrov,
dveotn \ avéatn te Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. d&vov 7 Seopav X 4 Seopav
a&vov Ln.
. eOvvato X ndvvaro Ln.
— emekekAnrto \ émuxexAnro Ln.
at
Cuar. XXVILI.
. péANovres X péAAovtTe Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ]. Alz.
~ meiv, add. eis Ln. [Ala]
3. pidous, prem. Tovs Gb. Sch.
Eni.
— mopevbévra \ ropevOévre Ln.
[Ala]
. Mipa X Mvppa Ln.
. €xatdvrapxos \ éxatovtap-
xns Ln. Tf.
. Aacaia X”AXaooa Ln.
10. Pdptov \ popriov Gb. Sch.
ian. Tf,
. €kardvtapxos X éxatovtdp-
xns Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— emeiOero padAov X paddoy
erreiOero Ln.
— Tod IlavAov, om. tov Ln.
12. wAelous X mAeioves Ln. TF.
— xaxeiOev \ éxeiOev Sch. Ln.
. EtpoxAvsoy XY EtpaxvdAwv
Ln.; Evpuxdvdev Gb.
: Knavdny X Kavéa Ln.
— podus ioxdoaper X lox. pd-
Aus Ln. Tf.
18. O¢ { re Ln.
19. eppiiyapev X eppipay Gb.
Ln. Alz. [Rec. Gb. x].
.maoa €Anis X éAnis waca
Ln. Tf.
ar. Oe X re Ln. Tf.
.T vuxtt tavtn X ravtTn TH
vuxtt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dyyedos, post Natpevo Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— elu, add. éy@ Lu. [Alx.]
30.
w
al
w
~)
1s)
fos.
co
I
Leal
a7. eyevero X € emeyeveTo Tf.
29. pies X payrrou Tf. [Gb. 8].
— eis { kara Lu. Tf. Alx. (Gb:
se].
— ekréowow \ éxméoapev Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— nbxovro sf edxovro Tf.
30. mpapas \ mpgpys Ln.
— peddovrav ayKkupas X ayk.
ped. Ln.
32.01 oTpati@rat amexoway
améxoiay of orpati@rat
in: Tf:
33. meAAev nucpa X med. nue-
pa Tf.; Nuepa fueddey Ln.
— pndev X pnOev Ln. TE.
— mpoodaBdpevor \ mpoodap-
Bavopevoe Ln.
34. tpooAaBew \ peradaBeiv
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ovdevds X ovfevds Ln.
— €k { azo Ln. Tf.
—meceirat X amodetrat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
38. Eimey \ eizras Ln. Tf.
37. je X HpeOa Ln. TE.
— €v TO TAoig, post Wuxal Ln.
1% [Ala]
39. eBovAevcavro \X €BovAdev-
ovtTo'Ln. [Alz.] Gb. ».
— dvvawro X Suvarév Tf. Alz.
[Gb. x].
40o.aptépova \ dptéuova Ln.
Tf:
41. em@ketAay \ éméxeckay Ln.
at:
— Ta KUpaT@V, om. Ln. TE.
ROMANS.
42. Siadyor { Siaddyn Gb. Sch.
Lu. Tf.
43. €karovrapxos X ékaTovrap-
xns Lu. Tf.
Cuarp. XXVIII.
1. emeyvooay | eméyvopev Ln.
Tf. [Ale]
2. € X re Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— mapeixoy X mapetyay Ln. TE.
— avavvavtes { Gwavres Ln.
3. Ppvydvav, add. te Ln. Tf.
Alx. [Gb. »].
— éx \ do Ln. Tf. Alx. [Gb.
~],
—éEeAOoica YX deEeAotoa
Sch. Tf. [Gb. x].
— xkabn we X xanWaro Gb. x.
[Cst.]
4.€Aeyov, post addAndovs Ln.
LS;
3. amrotwaéas \ amoriwakdpe-
vos Sch. Tf.
6. Gedy avrov eivat { avroy ei-
vat Oedv Ln.
8. ducevrepia \ Sucevrepio Ln.
tbe
g. ovv X d€ Ln. Tf. [Ale]
— éxovres aa beveias, post rno@
ibn, TE.
10. THY xpelay \ Tas xpeias Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
12. Tpépas Tpeis \ npépas rpt-
ow Ln.
14. en a map’ Ln.
~ eis THY ‘Popny ArAOopev X
eis THY “Popunv ArAOapey
Tf.; 7A@apev els ‘Popnr
Ln.
13. €€jOov { HAOov Ln.
16. fAOopev X elon Bopev Ln.
— eis “Payny, 6 _ Exar dvrapxos
TrapedwKe TOS deopious TO
orparomedapxy ™@ p Oe Ilav-
Ao emeT parm X ets ‘Popny,
enetpann T@ IlavA@ Ln.
[Alx.] [Gb. x].
17. Tov IlavAov X avrov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— ey, ante dvdpes Lu. Tf. [Ala.]
19. KaTnyopnaat \ Katryopety
Ln
21. €i7rov \ etray Ln. Tf.
— epi cod edeEdueba X ede-
EdpeOa trepi cov Ln.
22,.€0TW nul \ nw €otw Ln.
[Alz.]
23. nKoV \ 7AOov Ln. [Alx.] [Gb.
ws].
— Ta Tept, om. Ta Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3].
23. nav \ duov Ln. Tf.
26. Aéyov \ Aéyev Tf.
— eine X eiadv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
24. ldowpa X idoopat Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
28.TO TWTNPLOY,
Ln. Tf.
29. Kat tavta avtov eimdvros,
amnAOov of lovdatot, moA-
Any Exovres Ev EavTois cu=
(ntnowv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
30. 6 LlavAos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
prem. TOUTO
Cuap. I.
1. Ingov Xpicrov X Xp. "Ino.
ihe
8. brép \ mept Ln. Tf. [Gb. ].
Alz.
12. Touro O€ €or X Toureotiy
Ln. mg.
13. 0U OéAw YX ovK otpat Alx.
— kaproéy tiva X Twa Kaproy
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
16, TOU Xptotov, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Ree. Cst.]
— mpe@tov [Ln.]
RR: OM AON 3:
19. 6 gee Geds X 6 Ocds yap Ln.
ai. sins X nbxapiorn-
oav Ln. Tf.
24. 040 Kal, om. kal Ln. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— éavtois X avrois Ln.Tf. [Alz.]
ay. Te X O€ Ln. [Gb. ©]. Alex.
— appeves X dpoeves Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
29. Topvela,
[Alx.]
— kakia, ante movnpia Ln.
57
om. Gb... Ln: “Ff,
31. domovdous, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=), Ala:
32. ToLtovaty \ qotouvres Ln. mg.
— cuvevdoxovat YX auvevdo-
kovvtes Ln. mg.
Cuap. II.
2. oldapev Se X otSapev yap Ln.
mg.
5. arokadvw eas, add. kal Gb.~,
8. fev, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— Ovpos Kai dpyn X épyy Kat
Oupds Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
13. TOU vdpou 1°, om. Tod Ln.
Tf (Gb. 3]. Ale.
— 7 Ge, [TO] Ln.
— Tov vopouv 2°, om. Tov Ln.
TE
14. moun \ mowdow Ln. Tf. (Ale.
$. TroLovatr).
— ovrot { of rovodror Ln. mg.
16. OTE X n Ln.
17." Ide X e@ dé Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— T@ voum, om. TO Ln. TE. [Gb.
=e), Ale
ovxl X obx Ln.
GAN 6 X ddda 6 Tf. (Ln.
mg.]
26.
29.
Cuap. III.
yap, om. Ln. [Gb. +]. Alex.
.vuknons X vixnoess Im. mg.
yap X de Ala.
.wpontiacapeba YX ntiaca-
peda Alx.
11.6 TUML@Y, om. 6 Ln. [Gb. >].
Alx.
— 6 éx¢nray, [6] Ln.
ow - WN
12. nxpeL@Onoay \ nxpewOnaay
Ln. mg.
14.70 oTdpma, add. [adT@y] Ln.
22. Kal emt mavtas, om. Ln. [Gb.
=|, Ale.
23. TS TlaTews, om. THS Ln. TE.
{Gb. 3). Alz.
26, €vOerEwv, prem. THY Ln. TE.
[Ala.]
—Ingod, om. Tf. [Gb. >].
28. ouv \ yap Gb. Sch. Ln.
— rioret Stxatova ba { dixa-
ova Oa micre: Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe
29. pdvov \ povey Tf.
— odxi dé, om. dé Gb. Sch. Ln.
bie
30. emreimep X et wep Ln. TE. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
31. lor@pev X iatavopey Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
Cuap. IV.
. ABpadp tov marépa nuaov
evpnkevat \ evpnkevar ABp.
TOY mpomdtopa nuay Ln.
(Gb. s]. Alz.
. TOY Gedy, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
4.70 OpeiAnua, om. TO Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
8. ov py X ov ov py Ln. mg.
. OTe eXoyia On, [O71] Ln.
.Tepiropns X mepirouny Alex.
i>)
mw OO
ROMANS.
11. 00 dkpoBvarias \ Sia dxpo-
Bvorias Ln. txt. Tf.
— thy Sixacoovynv X eis Sixato-
curvny Lun. mg.
12.77 akpoBvotia, om. tH Gb.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— ristews { ths mio. ante THs
ev TH axp. Sch. (Gb. s]. Csé.
13. TOU KOO {LOV, om. TOU Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
13. yap X dé Ln. [Gb. «].
17. emloTevoe \ eriorevoas Alx.
18. en X éf Ln.
. Tiotel, prem. ev Alx.
— ov, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— 745n, om. Tf. [Ln.] Ale.
21. Kat 1°, om. Tf. [Alz.]
22, Oto Kat X kal [Ln.] Gb. >;
om. Alx.
Cuap. V.
1.€xopev X €xopev Sch. Ln.
mg. (Tf. ed. 1.]
2.79 WiaTel, om. Tf. [Lu.] [Gb.
>]. Alx.
6. KaTad KaLpov, prem. étt Ln.
[Gb. >. Alz.
8. els Nuas 6 Qeds X 6 Oeds els
nuas Tf. Alx.
9. OUY, om. Alzx.
11. 0€, add. Tovto Alz.
. 6 Oavatos 2°, om. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
. €ANoyetrat X €AXoyaro Ln.
mg.
GAN X adda TE.
— py Gb. >.
. dpaptnocavros X duaprnpa-
tos Gb. x. [Alz.]
= yap, om. Alz.
.T@ TOU évds X ev Evi Tf. Ln.
mg. [Gb. «]. Alz.
— ths Owpeas [Ln.] Gb. >.
Cuar. VI.
.emievodpey \ emrtprev@pev
Gb. Ln. Tf. L4lx.] [Rec. Gb.
~].
é OlTWWeEs, add. yap Alz.
(noopev (yo@pev Lu. mg.
a)
is)
> ~
3. Incovy, om. Alz.
8. avT@ \ TH XptoT@ Alz.
11. €ival, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TO Kupio npev, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
12. aUTH €v, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.
—tais émOvpias avtov, om.
Gb. Sch.
58
13. o¢ \ @oet Ln. [Alzx.]
14. GAN’ bd X GAA bd Ln. TE.
13. duaptnoopev \ duaptioe-
pev Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
— adn bd X adda bro Lu. TE.
16. els Oavaroy Gb. 3.
21.70 yap \ TO pev yap Ln.
Cuap. VII.
2. TOU vépou, om. Elz.
3. avnp, add. autns Alz.
6. dro@avdvtes X damobavovros
Elz.
— npas (Ln.] Alx.
10. avTn { adtn Gb. [Ree. Gb. ~].
13. yeyove X é€yévero Ln. [Gb.
x]. Alx.
— adda X GAN Ln.
14. yap \ dé Ln. mg. [4lz.]
— capkikds ¥ odpkivds Gb. Sch.
nn. Tf.
1s. Touro 1°, om. Tf. [Gb. —].
[Alzx.]
17. GAN X dda Ln. TF.
18. ayaOov, prem. TO Alz.
— ovx evpicxw X ov La.
[Gb. ~]. Alzx.
20.€y®, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =].
Alzx.
23.T@ vOu@ 2°, prem. ev Alx.
23. evxaptoT® \ xdpis Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s]. Ala.
Cuap. VIII.
I. pq) KATA OdpKa TepiTrarTov=
ow, ad\a Kara tvevpa, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
2. pe X oe Ln. mg.
10. O¢ dwapriay X dia dpapriav
nt.
— Con X Gj Alx.
11. TOY Xpigrov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]; add. PIncody] Ln.
— TO evoixody adrod mredpa X
TOU €VOLKOUVYTOS ALT. TYEU=
patos Elz. Tf.
13. TOU G@patos \ THs TapKds
Gb. ~. [Alz.]
14. €lowv viot Ceov YX viot Geod
elow Ln. mg. [Alz.]; viol
eiow Oeod Ln. txt. Tf. [Alex]
1g. GAN’ X dAda Ln. TE.
ar. OTL \ Oudre Ala.
22. cuvwdiver \ @diver Alx.
23. €xovtes, add. [nets] Ln. Ala.
— nets, om. Ln. Tf.
24. Kal, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— viobeciayv, om.~Alx.
ae
tats doGeveias X ry aoGe-
veia Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Ala.
— mporevE@peba { mpooevéd-
peOa TE. (Gb. ~]. Cet.
— ad X adda TF.
— Umép Nay, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb.
—). Ala.
. cuvepyel, add. 6 Oeds Ln.
.daye Tov idiov viod ovk X
ds ovde viovd idiov Alx.
— adN X dAda Ln. Tf.
— Ta TavTa, om. Ta Alz.
.Xptords, add. (Invovs] Ln.
[Alz.]
— kal eyepOeis, om. kal Ln. [Gb.
3]; add, €x vexp@v Alex.
— Os kal, [kat] Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
. vera \ €vexey Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave
. Tod dyannoavros X roy aya-
mnoayra Alx.
. dyyedot X ayyeXos Alz.
— ove Suvdpets, post wéMovra
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. tls, om. Ala.
— 7 Kupi@ X rod kupiov Ln.
mg.
26.
Cuap. IX.
. nuxouny X edyopnv Gb. ~.
avros eyo avabepa eiva
avdGepa eivar attos eyo
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— kata odpka, prem. Tov Alz.
. até SiaOjKat Xn StaOnkn Ln.
txt. [Alz.]
— ai émayyeNiat X [9] emayye-
Ala Alex.
6. Iopand X "IopanXeirat Alz.
pnde XY i Alz.
— kaxdv X paddoy Ln. TF. [Gb.
ww]. Alx.
Tov cov mpdbears \ mpdbe-
ots TOU Geov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
12. eppnOn X eppeOn Ln. TE.
13. yap, post Moon Ln. Tf.
— Moon X Maoet Tf. Ln. mg.
. €eAeouvTos \ €Aew@vros Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
18, €heet X €dea TF.
. ovv prow \ poe ovv Ln. Tf.
—Ti ére X ri ov Ere Lu. Tf.
[Alz.]
— yap, om. Elz.
20, Mevoivye, ® dvOpame X ®
dvOpwre pevorv ye In. ;
[wevovye Gb. > Alz.]
26. eppnOn X eppeOn Lu. Tf.
wo
>
Lal
=
J
~
oO
ROMANS.
26. avrois [Ln.]
24. kardetppa \ brdAetpupa Ln.
af
28. ev Okaoo vn: Tt Adyov ovv-
TeTpNLEVOV, om. Ln. [Alx.]
29. opoLwOnpevy duormOnjrev TE.
Ln. mg.
31. Ouxacogvvns, om. Ln. [Gb. >].
Alz.
32. vopov, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— yap, om. Ln. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
33. Was, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
Cuap. X.
1.1) mpos, om. 7 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Ala.
— Tov “Iopand éorw X adtaev
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. Ockatoovynyv,om.Gb. Ln. [Alz.]
gs." Ort, post ypadet Ln. mg.
— avra [Ln.] Alz.
— adtois \ adrn Ln. [Alx.]
8. Aéyet, add. 7) ypapn Alz.
9. Kuptov “Incody X dre Kupios
"Incovs Ln. mg.
14. €mikadeoovrat \ emtkane-
oovrat Ln. [Alz.]
— muotevoovow \ morevow-
ow Ln. txt. [Alz.]
— dxovoovat X dkovowoty Ln.
[Alx. s. akovoovrat].
15. Knpvgovow X knpvéoow Ln.
[Alz. s. Knpvooovow).
— Tay evayyediCopever eipn-
yvnv, om. Ln. [Alz.]
—Ta ayaéd, om. Ta Ln. [Gb.
=]. Ala.
17. Geod X Xpiorod Ln.; [Alz.
s. om. Oeov}.
19. OUK €yvo Iopand \ lop. odk
éyva Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
20. dm@oToApa Kal, om. Alz.
— EtpeOnv, add. [ev] Ln.
— éyevopuny, add. [ev] Ln.
Cuap. XI.
1. Tov Nady avrod, add. [Ov mpo-
éyva] Ln. [Alz.]
— Beviapiv X Benapeiy Ln.
2. Kyou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. Kal TA Ovotagrnpia, om. kal
in. Tf (Gb. s; Ala:
6. ei O€ €& Epywv, ovK ert earl
xdpis: eel TO Epyov ovK
ert €oTtly Epyov, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln.
4. TovTov X TovTO Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
59
13. yap \ dé Ln. L4lx.]
— pev, add. viv Ln. [Alzx.]
16. el, om. Alz.
19. of KAGOoL, om. of Gb. Sch. Ln.
20. ekekAdoOnoav X éexddabn-
oav Ln.
— py onrodpdver X pay tWn-
Aa dpodver Ln. mg.
aI. BY T@S, om. Ln. [Gb. 3].
Alx.
— hetonrat \ peioera Gb. Sch.
im. Ct;
droropiay \ amoropia Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
—xpynordérnra X xpnordrns
Geov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alex.
- entpelyns X emripevns Ln. mg.
23. Kat ekeivot \{ KdKeivor Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
23. map, om. Tf. [Alx. s. ev].
. Kat amrootpéwet, om. Kal Ln.
Tf. [diz]
.kal tpets more, om. kal Gb.
Ln. Tf.; wore duets Ln. mg.
.ovTot \ avrot Alzx.
— €henOdor, prem. [vor] Ln.
.ToUs mavras \ Ta wavra s.
mavta Alx.
Cuar. XII.
.ovoxnpatiferOe XK ovoxn-
pari¢erOa Ln. [Gb.~]. Alx.
— perapoppovabe X petapop-
dovaoGat Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx.
— vey, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
.kabarep X Sorep Alzx.
PéAn modAa X wodAa péAn
Ln.
g.6 O€ X ro Sé Ln. TE. [Ala.]
8. etre Gb. >. Alx.
11. katp@® X kupi@ Elz. Sch. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. s].
13. xpeiats \ pveias Alx.
14. Umas, om. Tf.
1g. Kal KAaletvy, om. Kat Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
17. KaA, add. [€evwrtoy Tov Geod
kai] Ln.
—mavtwyv X trav Ln. [Alz. s.
om. TavT@v]).
.Eav odv XY adda édy Ln.
[Alw.]; €av Gb. ~. [Ale]
Cuarp. XIII.
1.maca Wuyx1 \ wdoas Ale.
— amd \ td Ln. [Gb. <]. Alz.
— efovaiat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
22.
N
-
.Tov Qeov, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln.
. Tav ayabav épyav,adha TOV
kaxov \ TO ayabo epy®,
ahAa T@ kak@ Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Als.
eis (opyiy Gb. ~. [Alx.]
. dvaykn broragoed Oa \trro-
racoeo be Gb.~ [Ala]; avay-
Kn mpotacoed Oat Elz.
ou, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
ayaray addjovs X aAn-
ous ayarayv Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe
9.00 wWevdopaptupyaets, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- TOUT TO Adyo X TO Adyo
ToUT@ Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.]
— ev TO {Ln.]
—éavtov X ceavtdy Ln. Tf.
{Alz.]
— ovv X d€ Alz.
r1.npas Hon YX dn nas Ln.
[Ala.]
.kat evdvoopeda X evdvto-
peda Se Ln. Tf.; [om. kat
Alzx.]
— Onda X epya Ln. mg. [4la.]
.&pide X gpioe Ln. mg.
14.QAN X adda TE.
— Kal, om. Alx.
—eis émtOvpias X ev emOupi-
ats s. eis emtOvpiay Alx.
Cuar. XIV.
2.ecbiet \ éoOierw Alz.
3. kat 6 X 6 O€ Ln. Tf. (Alx.]
4. Ouvaros yap €or X duvaret
yap Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx.
- Gcds X KUptos La. Tf. [Alz.]
Bs HEY, add. Lyap] Ln. [Ate]
6. kat 6 ju) ppovav THY TpLE~
pav, Kupi@ ov dpovet, om
Ln. (Gb. >]. Alz.
- 6 eobiwy, prem. kat Gb. Sch.
Lau; Tf.
.aTroOyvnokopev \ amrobvn-
okopev Ln. [Alz.]
—amobvnokopev YX amobvn-
oKopev Ln. [Alz.]
g. Kal améOave, om. Kal Ln. Tf.
(Gb: S)..-Alz:
— avéotn kal avetnoev X &Cy-
oev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
adedpdv cov, add. €v TO ja7)
eo biew Alz.
~ Xptorod X Geov Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ow]. Alz.
~
es &
mn
at
Leal
I
[s]
ios)
10,a
ROM A Nes.
11.7aca yA@ooa, post eEouo-
oynoerat Lu. [Alz.]
. o0v, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— dace X drodooe: Ln. txt.
(Ale. ]
— TO Gee [Ln.]; om. Alz.
14. Ot éavrod X 8 adrod Gb.
Sch. Ln. txt. Tf.
13. Oe X yap Ln. Tf. (Gb. 0]. Ala.
16. Yuov X nev Alx.
18. Tovrots \ ToUT@ Gb. Ln. Tf.
[Ale.] {Rec. Gb. =I:
— T@ XpioT@, om. T@ Ln.
~ ddxipos \ Soxipors Ln. mg.
19. dpa \ dpa Ln. mg.
— Otaxopev X SOvdkoprey Ln.
mg.
— adddndovs, add. prdrdkopev
Alzx.
21.7) oxavdanriCerar 7) aoGevei,
om. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
TioTW, add. iy Ln. (Alz.]
— gavutov X ceavrov Ln. Tf.
23. duaptia éotiv, add. cap. xvi.
25-27. Gb. Cst.
Cuap. XV.
2. yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. ememecoy \ émémecay Ln. Tf.
[Alex]
. mpoeypagn 1° X éypady Lu.
mg.; [Alx. mpooeypagdn s.
eypadn mayra).
— mpoeypadn 2° X éypadn Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— Ths mapaxAnoews, prem. dia
Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
7.npas X tas Gb. Sch. Ln.
txt. Tf.
— Gcov, prem. tov Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
8. Neyo dé, "Incody Xpiorov X
eyo yap Xpicrov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alzx.
— yeyernoOa X yéver Oar Ln.
[Alz.]
11. waAwy, add. Aێyet Ln. [Ala]
— Tov Kvpuov, post €Ovn Lu. txt.
Tt Ate
— é€maweocate \ emaweodto-
cay Ln. Tf.
13. mAnpocat ipas maons Xa-
pas kal elpqyuns X aAnpo-
popnoa tpas ev Tacn
Xap4 Kal elpnyn Ln. mg.
— €v TO MoTevEy, om. Alz.
— €v TH eAmiOt, om. Ev Alex.
14. Kal avTol, om. Alx.
60
22.
-
14. G\AnAous X GAAous Gb. ~
[Cst.]
Ig. aded got, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
16. "Inood Xpiorov X Xpeorov
“Inood Ln. Tf.
17. KaUXNTW, prem. THY Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— Gedv, prem. Tov Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt.
18. TOAUNO@ \ TOAH@ Ln. mg.
— Aadewv te X re NaXewy Ln. Tf.
[Ala. s. Te eizrety).
—katetpydcato \ Katnpya-
oaro Tf.
19. Ouvdpet, add. avrovd Alz.
— Geov X dyiov Gb. Sch. Ln.
[Alz.]; om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
—@ote pe amd ‘lepovoadnp
Kat KUKA@ péxpt Tod “IA-
AuptKov memAnpokevat TO
evayyé roy X é OoTE memAn)~
pecba a amo ‘Iepovo. pexpe
Too "TAAup. kal KvKA@ 7d
evayy. Ala.
20. pidoripovpevoy \ didori-
povpat Ln. [Alz.]
22.Ta To\Aa X méAAakts Ln.
[Alz.]
23. TOU €AGeiv, [rov] Ln.
— mwo\Ov I ikavav af:
24. WS €ay \ @s dy Ln. TE. LAlz.]
- mopeveopat se Tropevopat Alx.
— €hevoouar mpds vpas, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln.
— yap, om. Gb. Sch.
— up’ X ad’ Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
24. evddKnoay yap Kat, om. Alz.
— atta eicow X eiow atav
Ton. Efe, [Ales]
28. THY Zraviay, om. THY Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
29
.wAnp@patt YX mAnpodopia
Alz.
— Tov evayyeXiou Tov, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. dedgol, om. Tf.
= PCG EUNatEs add. tyay Alex.
.tva 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
Alzx.
— diaxovia X Swpopopia Ln.
[Alzx.]
— eis X ev Ln.
— yevnta Tois dyiots X Tots
dyious yevnrat Ln. [Alz.}
32. Geov X Kupiov *Incovd Lu.
[Xpeorov "Inaod Alz.]
— kal cuvavaravoopat bpiy,
om. Ln. [Gb. -].
1 CORINTHIANS.
33. Elpnyns, add. #tw Alz.
‘— duny [Ln.] Gb. >.
Cuar. XVI.
1. 0€ Gb. >. [Ala]
— npav X buaev Ln. mg. [Alz.]
2. autny mpoabesnaGe X mpoc-
d€&. adr. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avrovd éeuov X éuod adrod Ln.
Awe
3. IIpioxidAAav X Ipiocxay Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
s. Ayaias \ ’Acias Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
—eis Xpuctov { ev Xprora
‘Alz.
6. Mapiap X Mapiav Ln.
— nas { tuas Ln. [Gb. =];
(Ala. s. ev vpiv).
7.0t Kal mpd €“ov yeydvacwy
X rots mpd euov [Alz.]
—yeysvaow X yéyovay Ln.
Tf.
— Xpiord, add. "Incod Alz.
8.’AumAiav X *Aumdarov Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
9. Xptor@ \ xupio Ln. [Alz.]
12.d0mdacacGe Ilepcida thy
dyannriy, i res TOAAG €ko-=
mlacey ev Kupio {Ln.]
14. ‘Eppav f° Eppny Lu.Tf. [Alz.]
—‘Eppnv X ‘Eppay Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
15. "IovAlavy, Nypea X "Iovviar,
Nypeay Ln. mg.
16. €kkAnoiat, add. macat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; [Alz.? om. ao.
Uy. ai exkA. T. Xptorov Alz.]
14. oKoTreivy \ adopad@s oKo-
meite Alz.
- euddere, add. éyovras i) Alz.
18. Inaov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- Xp, ante Nav Gb. ~.
— kal evhoytas, om. Alx.
- Gere be | kal dédo Alz.
19. xaipo oby 70 ep tyiv J ef
Diy ovv xXaipw Ln. Tf.; [7d
Gb. >]. Alz.
19. pev, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 33].
Alz.
20. 7) PSs . .» ped” dpav, om
a = peo" DUO, add. duny. Elz.
1. Aomdovrar X >Aomaterat
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avyyevets pov, add. Kat ai
exkAngiat maga Tod Xpt-
orou Alzx.
23.THS ekkAnoias 6Ans X dAns
TS exkAnoias Ln. Tf. [Ala]
24. °H xdpts rod Kupiov HaY
Ingov Xpuorrov peTa Tav=
Tov tay. aunv, om. Ln.
25. ad fin. Gb. trs. post xiv. 23.
— TE, om. Alzx.
24. alavas, add. Tov alwvev Ln.
IIpds ‘Pwpaious eypagy ard
Kopivéov dia , PoiBns TS
Suaxdvou THs ev Keyypeais
exkAnotas, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
rf
POO RANE Tk Nes:
Cuap. I.
1. KAnTos [Ln.] Gb. >. [Alz.]
—Inoot Xpicrod YX Xpiorod
Ingod ‘Ln. Tf.
a.7H oon ev KopivOe, post
Xpt. "Inood Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— Te, om. Ln.
8. nuepa X mapovola Alx.
13. Ureép \ mept Ln. txt. Tf.
14.T@ Oc@, om. Alx. 8. TO Oe
pov.
— €Banrica \ éBarricOnre Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
17. Xpurros X [6] Xpiords Ln.
—arN X adda Tf.
20. TOUTOU, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.=). Alz.
22. onpetov X onpeta Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
23. EdAnoe X €Oveot Gb. Sch.
Ln. Ef
26. yap X. ovy Alz.
29. wa Tous copovs kata yy
X a karay. tr. copods
[Ln.} Tf. [Alz.]
— kai ta doGevn Tov Kéopou
efee£ato 6 Geds [Ln.]
28. kal Ta p27), om. kal Sch. Ln.
TE, (Gp. =3).
29.avTou \ tov Oeov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
30. nutv copia X copia ni
Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. II.
1. paptuptoy \ puaTnptoy Gb.~.
[Alzx.]
2.Tov eldevar Te X Te eidevat
Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf.; efdevar
Tue Ln. mg.
3. Kal €y@ Y Kaye Ln. [Alz.]
— ev PoBa, om. év Alz.
4. weOois \ metOot Gb. ~.
— avOpwrivns, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
4. copiav Geod X Geov codiay
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. a { doa Ln.
10.6 Oeds amexadvive X arrek.
6 Geos Ln. Tf.
— avTov, om. Ln. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
11. olOev X éyva@xev Ln. Tf. (Gb.
w]. Alx.
61
12, KOopov, add. Tovtou Alzx.
13. Aytov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
15. pev X Ta Tf. [Ln.] Gb. >. Alz.
16. Xptorov X kupiov Ln. txt.
[Alz.]
Cuap. III.
1.Kal éeya X Kady Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
—Aadnjoa wpiv X tpiv Aadj-
oat Cst.
— gapkixois X capkivos Gb.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
2. Kat ov, om.kal Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
— novvacbe X Suv. Ln. Tf.
— ovre { ovd€ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ére (Ln.]
3. TapKikoi €ore \ €ore wapk.
Tf.; oapkivot é€ote Gb. x,
[Alz.]
— kal OTE e om. Ln. Tf.
~ héyn TLS s tis héeyn Alzx.
4. ovxt X ovK Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— capkikoi \ dvOpwro Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
PCO. NT LAN e
g. Tis X ti bis Ln. txt. [Alz.]
— Ilavdos, trs. TladAos et A-
ToAA@s Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Alz.
— O€, add. éotw Ln. [Alz.]
— ad 7), om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
6.dAN YX ddA Ln. txt. Th.
10. TEGetKa X €Onka Ln.
11. Incovs 6 Xpiords X Xpi-
aros “Inoovs Ln. Tf. [Alz.];
"Ino. Xp. Gb. Sch.
12. TOUTOYV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. —].
Ala. .
13. Up, add. avTo Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
14. em@Koodunae X emrorkoddp.
die
17. TOUTOY \ avrov Ln. [GDb. ~].
Alz.
19.7T@ Oe@, om. TH Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
22,€0TW, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
Cuap. LV.
1.Qcov. 2.6 b€ X Oeod Ode.
Ln. [Alz.]
6.6 X & Ln. Tf. [Alex]
- ppover, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
g. OTL, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Aly.
II. aa X yupuer. Ln.
eee X dvedn-
povpevot Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
14. vouGer® YX vovberav Gb. ~.
[Alz.]
14. TeKvoy jou \ ou TEKVvo Ln.
fb ee 1 |
— XpioTo, add. Inood Ens
[dlx. s. Kupi@ s. Kupi@ In-
gov].
a1. mpadtnros \ mpavtnros Ln.
Abe
Cuap. V.
1. ovowagerat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
PT.
2. bap 6h X dp6q Gb. Sch. Ln.
- sels X mpagas Tf. [Gb.
w]. Alz.
3. @S, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alx.
4. nue@y 1° [Ln.]
— Xpuorov 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— npev 2° [Ln.]
— Xporov 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
s. Inoovd, om. Tf.; [nev In-
gov Xptorov] Ln. [Alz.]
6. Cupot X Sodot Gb.w.
4. o0V, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. Omép Npav, om. Ln. TE. [GD.
3]. Ala.
— érvOn X e600 Elz.
8. €opratwpevy €opragopev Ln.
mg.
10. Kal ov mdavT@s, om. Kat Ln.
TE -TGp. =). sale:
— i dprakwy X kal dpm. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
— dpeirere \ aeirere Ln. txt.
Tf. CA]
11. vuvi { voy Ln. txt.
12. Kal TOUS, om. Kal Lm. [Alz.]
13. Kal, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec.
Gb. x].
~ eEapeire X eEapare Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. Alx.
Cuap. VI.
2. 0UK \ 7 ovK Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
5. Ayo J AGAS Ln.
— gor X €v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— copds ovbé eis { oddels co-
dos Ln. Alz.; [ovde Gb. >].
Alz.
y. ev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
8.Travta YX rovto Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w]. Ala.
9. BactArclav Geod X beod Bac.
Gb..Sch. In, Tf
10. oUre péOvoror X od ped. TF.
— ov, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
11. GAN’ X adda Ln. Tf.
~ Kupiov, add. (nav) Ln.
—Inood, add. Xpiorov Ln.
14. nas X tpas Elz.
— e&eyepet X eSeyeiper Ln. txt.
16. if, om. Tf. [Alz.]
— dyol [Ln.]
19.TO COpa X Ta Gwpara TF.
[Gb. x]. Cst.
20. kal €v TO TvevpaTL Tpay,
dtwda é€ote Tov Ocov, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. VII.
I. Lol, om. Tf.
3. operdoperny evvoray X dpet-
Any Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— d€ [Ln.]
4. GAN bis X dAdAa Ln. Tf.
3. cxoAacnte X oxoAdonTE Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TH morela kal, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— ovvépynOae \ Are Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
4. yap X Sé Ln. Tf. (Gb. <]. Ala.
62
4. GAN X adda TE.
— xdpiopa exer X exer xdpu-
opa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
05. 20S 0 «soc ED. Te:
[Alx.]
8. €oTLW, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €av, add. [ovrws] Ln.
— Kpetoooy \ Kpetrroy Ln. txt.
—yapnoa X yapeiy Gb. ~.
[Alzx.]
10. GAN’ X ddAa Ln. TF.
—xapicOnvar X xapifer Ou
Lu. [4]
12.€y@ Aeyw X Aeyw ey Ln.
lg
13. avUTOs { ovros Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. Alzx.
—avrov X Tov
(Gb. 8], Alz.
14. yuvatkl, add. tT mMLoTH Alz.
—avdpi X ddekp@ Ln. TF.
[Alx.]
13. Npas \ bas Tf.
4.6 Oeds,... 6 Kuptos, trs.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Svardooopar X bidaoKw Alz.
18. Tus exANOn YX KexANTai Tis
Ln. Tf.
22. Kal, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
24.T@ Oe, om. TO Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
28. ynuns X ‘yapnons Ln. Tf. ;
Ale. Ss. AaBys ‘yuvatka].
— 7 mapbévos, 7] Ln.
29. adeAot, add. drt Elz.
— 70 dourdv €or \ €otw, Td
Aowrrov Sch. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— oi EXOUTES, om. 0b Elz.
31.T@ KOOL@ TOUTE X TOUT TO
KOT L@ Gb. Sch.; Tov Kd-
opoyv Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
32. dpeces bis X dpéon Ln. [Alz.]
34. Mepepiotar \ Kat pepepi-
otra Kal Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w]. Alx.; pepep. Kat Cst.
— yurn, add. 7 c@yapos Ln.
— ayia kat, [kai] Ln.; add.7@
Ln.
- mvevpart, pre cem. TO Ln.
= dperet Xa ye Ln.
38. cunpepov X cupdopoyv Ln.
TE [Ales]
— eimpdaedpov X evarapedpov
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
37. €Opatos év rn Kapdia X ev TH
kapd, avrov é€dpaios Ln.
[Ala]; om. édpatos Tf. [Gb.
>].
avSpa Ln. Tf.
1 CORINTHIANS.
37. KapOia avTov, om. avrov Ln. ;
idia kapSia TF.
— TOU Type, om. Tov Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
— movet X mromoet Ln. [Alz.]
38. exyapiCov \ yapig¢ev Ln.
[Alz] [Gb. ~]; add. thy mrap-
Oévov éavrov Ln. [Alz.]
— 6 d€ X cal 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— éexyapi¢wr X yapifor Gb. Sch.
Ln.
— rowel \ roujoet Ln. [Alz.]
VOLO, om. Gb. Sch. dB bs
- Edy 6e, add. kat Tf. [Alz.]
- avrns a,.om.-Lm, ‘Tf. {Gb. 3];
Alz.
.0€ 2° X yap Ale.
Cuar. VIII.
él O€, om. S€ Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— cidévar { eyv@xevar Ln. Tf.
[Ala.]
— ovdérw YX ovrm Ln. [Alz.]
— ovdev, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— éyvexe \ éyvw Ln. [Ala]
4. €repos, om. Ln. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
5. TS Ys, om. THs Gb. Sch. Ln.
Awe
6. GAN’ [Ln.]
7. cuvetOnoer X cuvnOeia Ln.
(Gb. »]. Alz.
- Tou elS@Aov ews Apt { ews
apre tov €i0. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
8. maplotynot \ mapaornces Lu.
PE [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— ovre yap ec payaper, me~
plooevopev: ore eay py
payoper, borepotpeba XK
ouvTE €ay BN payoper, Tre
piooevopev, ovre eay a-
yopev vorepotpeba Ln.
[Alx.]; ovre edv py pay.
torepotvpcba, ovre eay cba-
YopEV, mepiooevopev 2s.
9. acbevovow X doGeveow Ln.
Tf. (Gb. »]. Alz.
ro. oe [Ln.] Alz.
rr. Kal amoNeirar \ amdAAvTat
yap Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— ddedpos, om. hic Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
— émt \ év Ln. TE. (Gb. 9]. Alz.
— yore, add. 6 adeAos Ln.
Th (Ale35
13. ov, om. Alx.
N
CHAP. Ls:
> her > P,
I. GMVOTONOS ; OUK Eipl EdEev-
©
_
Lal
I
Nv
I
&
_
unr
16.
18,
20.
21.
nN
be
.en edrids deiner f
Gepos; trs. améar. et €Aevd.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
. Xpirrov, om. Ln. Tf.
.THS €uns aroaToAns X pov
THs amooToAns Ln. Tf.
A > , > LA
.autn €oti X €or avtn Ln.
. TOU pi7), Om. TOU Ln. [Alz.]
. €K TOU Kapmrod X Tov Kaprroy
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
eo Oiler, add. Kal rivee Alx.
i) Tis, om. 7) Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
.Aar@ YX A€yw Alz.
ovxt Kal 6 vopos Tadra\ Kal
6 vopos tavra ov Ln. TF.
[Gb. w], Alz.
ev yap TO Macéws VOU@ YE-
yparrat X yéyparra yap
Alz.
Ppipacers 4 KnPOTers Alzx.
TOY Boy, prem. ie Ale.
op. en
€Am. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
THs EAmiOos avTov peTexety
em €Amide X em emride Tov
peréxe Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Ocpicopev X Ocpicwmper TF.
[Ln. mg.] Alz.
. e€ovolas tuay X dp. &&. Gb.
Sch. En. Tr.
e€yxomny twa X tia éyk. Ln.
sue
. epyatopevot, add. ta Alx.
Tpooedpevovtes \ mapedpev-
ovres Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
.ovdevl expnoduny X ov Ké-
Kpnpat ovdevt Gb. Sch. Ln.
ive
iva tis X ovdets Ln.
Kevoon X kevooet Ln. (txt.)
DS:
Kavxnpa X xdpis Alz.
oval dé X oval yap Gb. Sch.
Em Ty,
evayyeriCopar 2° X evayye-
Aigwpat Ln. txt. Tf.
prot X pov Tf.
Tov XptoTov, om.
(Gb. 3]. Alz.
vopov 2°, add. py y avros
td vdépov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Gc@ X Ocod Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alz.
Xpior@ X Xpiorod Lyn. Tf.
[Gb. x]. Ala.
KepOnow X Kkepddvw Tovs Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alzx.
dvdpuous, prem. Tovs Ln. Tf.
ink. Lf
.@S, om. Tf. [Ln.]
63
22. Ta, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Ala.
— wavTws tivas X ravras Alx.
23. TovTo \ madvra Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w]. Alx.
. vramialeo \ tromate Gb. ~.
[Alz.]
— dovdaywy& X SovrAayaye St.
Cuap. X.
.6€ { yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. €Banricavto X ¢BanticOn-
oay Ln. [Alz.]
3. Bp@pa mvevpatixov epayov
X TVEULL. ED. Bp. Ln.
4.76ua Tvevpatikoy émiov X
wy. er. woua Ln. Tf.
— de rérpa X wérpa dé Ln. txt.
Tt:
3. evOdKnoev { nvddx. Lu. TE.
. os { Somep Ln. Tf. [Gb. ].
erdpvevoay X e&emdpvevocav
Alz.
émecov \ émecay Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
.Xpeorov X Kvptov Ln. [Gb.
©]. Alex.
— kal Ties, om. Kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. Alz.
— eneipacav X e&erreipacav Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
yoyyotere Lyoyyifoper Alz.
— kal TwWes, om. Kat Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3]. Alz.
. Wavra, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— ouvéBatvov X cvvéBatvev Ala.
— turot X rumikos Ln. [Alzx.]
— Katnvrnoev X KatnvtnKev Ln.
fie
.€doet X adpnoes Alex.
— wtpas, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
.TOU aipatos tov Xpiotov
eat \ €oTw TOU aip. TOU
Xp. LE,
- TOU Teparos TOU Xpiorou
€otw \ eat TOU Top. TOU
Xp. Tf.
. ovxt \ ody Ln. TE.
.€l0@Aov { eid@AdOvToy Ln.
Tf. LAlz.]
— eidwrdGutrov X elS@doyv Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
20. Over { Ovovow Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ww], Alzx.
— Ta €Oyn, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— Over X Ovovow Tf. (Gb. <];
[sic post Oe@ Ln.]
2
~T
N Ow
I ed
Ko)
Ln oe
NO*'GO
LT CORTINTHIANS
23. MOL, om. bis Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
24. exagros, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
26. yap Kuptov \ Kupiov yap
Ln. Tf.
24. S€, om. Ln. [Gb. >].
—aniorev, add. eis Setmvov
Alz.
23. elOwddOuTov X iepdOurdv Ln.
txt. TE [Gb.-«). 4lz.
— Tov yap Kupiov 7 yn Kal TO
TANpapLa avTs, om.Gb.Sch.
Lae it:
30. O€, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
32. yiverde Kat "Iovdatos X Kat
‘Iovd. yiv. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
~ fos se X wvppopoy Ln.
Cuap. XI.
2. adeApol, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— mapaddcets, add. pou Alx.
3. Xptorov, prem.tov Tf. [Ln.]
5. €auTns { avtns Ln. [Alz.]
4. Yrs prem. a Ln. Tf. [Ale.]
Ir. dyip. Xepis yuvatkds, oure
yur» Xwpis avSpos X yun
xop. avdp. odre avnp xwp.
yer Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. i) ovde avr y gpuors X ovde
7 vars avry Ln. Tf. [Alz.];
(7) Gb. 3, om. Alx.; avrn Gb.
>i.
13, auth, om. Sch. Tf. [Gb. =].
17. mapayyé ov ovK erawve yf
mapayyéAAw OvK €TraLvaey
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~). Alex.
— Kpetrroy \ Kpetocoy Ln. Tf.
—dadWN X dra TE.
— hrrov \ foooy Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
18. 7H exkAnala, om. tH Gb. Sch.
La tt
19. €v Upiv, om. Alz.
_ iva, add. (kat] Ln. [Alz.]
20. ovr, om. Alx.
21, mpoapBavei{mpoohap. Alz.
—_ év TO fe emt TO Alz.
22. Upiy elmo X elmw@ vpiv Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
— eraiweow \ éraive Ln. txt.
[Alz.]
23. mapedidoro \ mapadidero Ln.
at
24. AdBere, bayere, om.Gb. Sch.
Ena
— KA@pevoy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=. Al.
25. eno aipart X afp. poou Alz.
— dy \ ély La. Tr.
26, ay \ éay Ln. Tf.
— TOUTO, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3).
— dv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
24. TOUTOY, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— i) X kat Ln. mg. [Alz.]
— aipatos, prem. Tov Gb. Sch.
in. TT:
28. avOpwmos €avrov X éavt.
ap. Tf. Ln. mg.
29. ava&iws, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— tov Kupiov, om. Ln.Tf. [Alz.]
31. yap X dé Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
32. UO \ Urd TOU, 8. amo Ala.
34. O€, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dtaraSopar \ Svard€wpar Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
Cuap. XII.
2. 6Tt, add. Ore Sch. [Ln.] Tf.
[Gb. s].
. Aad@y, om. Alz.
"Inoovy X’Inaovs Ln.Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
- Kuptov *Incovv YX Kuptos
"Inoovs Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx.
6.6 d€ X Kat 6 Tf. [Alz.]
— €o7t, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. €rép@ Se, [5€] Ln.; om. Ala.
—ait@ X évi Ln. Tf.
uo
— O€ 2°, om. Alz.
10. O€ mpod., om. de Ln.
— de dtaxp., om. dé Ln.
— b€ yévn, om. dé Ln.
— Eppnveia YX Sepunveia Ln.
txt.
. iia, om. Alz.
.kal pédn YX perAn Se Alz.
— €xet modkda X moddAa exer
Ln. Alz.
— Tov €vds, om. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3].
. eis 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alx.
.vuvt X vov Ln. [Alzx.]
.ta [Ln.]
. pev [Ln]
. 6€, om. Gb. Sch. [Ln.]
— dpOahpos, prem. 6 Gb. Sch.
[Pim ve
. elvat, add. wédn Alx.
. GAN X adda Ln. TE.
— €xet, add. Tins Ala.
—votepovrvts X vuaTepoupeva
Ln. [4lz.]
.oxlopa X oxicpata Alz.
— peptvaot \ pepysva Ala.
64
etre X et re Ln. txt.
.eira \ érecra Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Oo
2
3t. Kpetrrova X peifova Lu. Tf.
[Alz.]
Cuap. XIII.
1.dAaddfov { dAaddfov Ln.
mg.
. kal éav 1° X Kay Ln.
peOoraver \ peOroravat Ln.
[Alz.]
— ovd€v X ovbéy St. ony FF.
3. Kal eay bis { kay Ln.
- popicw \ popito Elz.
~ kavdnoopat X KxavOnoopae
Jf. ; kauxno@pat Alz.
4.1) aydmn ov tepr., (1) dyd=
7) Ln. ; om. Alz.
8. exmrimret \ wimret Ln. [Alz.]
— d€, om. Alex.
-— yvaa.s, katapynOnoera X
yrooes, KatapynOnoovras
Ln. mg. [Alz.]
9. yap X de Tf. [Gb. x]. Cet.
i Tore, om. In, Tf. [Gb. Sl.
Alz.
@s vnmios €Addovy, ws Vi}-
mos eppdvouv, ws vnirios
edoyiCounv X €d. ws vyT.,
edp. @s vnT., oy. os vnT.
Ln. Tf.
dé, om. Ln. Tf. [Ala]
yap Gb. >. [Ale]
aptt, add. as Alx.
Cuap. XIV.
1. ~aoon X yoooats Ale.
a: ™@ Ge@, om. TO Lu. [Alz.]
ie yap X de Ln. Tf.
6. Nuvi X viv Ln.
7. Tos POdyyas X rod Pboy-
you Ln. txt.
— 66 \ d:d6 TE. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
.e€oti X elotv Ln. Tf. [Air]
— a’T@v, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
; eid X Be s. yivecke Ale.
— €v, om. Alx.
. Ovdrrep X Oud Ln. [Ale]
. yap [Ln.]
mpocevgona bis X mpooev=
pat Ln. mg. [Alz.}
~ mpooedEopat be, om. O€ Tf.
= TO vot 2° » OM. T® Elz.
- aha dé, om. dé Lu. Tf. [Gb.
=),
16. evAoynons se evAoyns Ln.
(Al@.]
wv
Lal
wv
15.
1. CORINTHIANS.
TO Tvevpatt, om. TO Lu. Tf.
[Alx.]
18, ov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— yoooas X yAooon Lu. Tf.
{Gb. x]. Alz.
— Aada@y { AaAG Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
19. GAN’ X adda Ln. TF.
— dia rod vods X TH voi Ln.
[Gb. ~]. Ala.
a1. €répois \ érépwv Ln. [Ala.]
23. cuveAOn YX EAOy Ln. txt.
—mavtes yoooaus Aakoow
X mavr. Aad. yhoo. Ln.;
Aad. yAoo. wavr. Tf.
Kat oUT@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE.
6 Geds vrws X dvTws 6 Beds
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
26. UU@Y, om. Ln.
- yOocay €, EXEls drrokdhuyyy
éxet X drox. €xet, yao.
ex. in Df. (Aled
— yevér Ow \ yer Ow Gb. Sch.
Loy (ie
16.
25.
28. Suepunveutis\éppnvevtysLn.
29. ol, om. Alz.
30. O€, om. Alzx.
3. mavtes, add. kad” éva Alz.
32. mvevpata X mvedua Gb. s.
[Alz.]
33. GAN’ X adAXa Ln. TE.
— dyiwy, add. didacKw Alz.
— vss. 34, 35 post vs. 40 Alz.
. Upa@v, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alx.
— emirérparrat \ emurpémerat
Ln. Tf. (Gb. x]. Alz.
— adv\N YX adda Ln. TE.
— vroraccea Oa X vrotacce-
c8wcay Ln. [Alx.]
-yuvargiv \ yvvaixi Ln. Tf.
(Gb. .]. Alz.
— év éexx\naoia Aadeiv { Aadety
ev exxAnoia Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. TOU Kupiov, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
ine,
— eiolv \ éoriy Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
— évtodai X evroAn Ln. [Alz.] ;
om. Tf. [Alzx.]
38. ayvoeirw \ dyvoeirat Ln.
39. adeAGot, add. [wou] Ln. [Alz.]
- yA@ooats pr KodveTE X pur)
KoA. ev yA@ooats Ln. TE. ;
[ev] Ln.
3
unr
3
~~
40. mavra, add. 5é€ Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. >]. Ala.
Cuarp. XV.
,
1. €yTHKaTe \ ornKeTe Alx.
a.el Karéxere \ opeidere KarT-
exelv Alz.
— de kat, om. kal Ln.
47H Tpitn twépa X Nuépa th
tpitn Ln. Tf.
s.elra \ émeira s. kal pera
Tavta Alz.
— dadexa { evdexa Ala.
. WAetous X mAeloves Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— xal, om. Alz.
.€ira tos \ émecra Tf. (Ln.
mg.] Ala.
: 7 eis, om. Ala.
— adn YX adda Ln. Tf.
-7 ow, om. 9 Ln. [Alz.}
: ouv X dé Alz.
ore ek vexpav eynyeprat X
€K VEKp. Ort eyiryeptau Tf.
— Tives ev tpiv \ ev byw tives
Ln. Tf.
.T0, prem. kal Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
Gb. x.
— dé kal, om. dé Ln. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
fon
wT
_
°
1g. €lTEp pa veKpol ovK eyei=
povrat, om. Alz.
14. tpan, add. leorw] Ln. [Ala]
19. nAmixdres eoper ev Xpior@
X &v Xp. nrmik. éopev Lu.
Tf. [Alx.]
20. eyevero, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
ive
21. 6 Gavaros, om. 6 Ln. [Alz.]
23. Xpltorov, prem. Tov Gb. Sch.
nO) Fae) bs
24. mapad@ \ mapad.doi Ln. txt.
Tf.; mapadid@ Ln. mg. [Gb.
w]. Alx.
25. av, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
— €xOpovs, add. [adrov] Ln.
[Ala.]
27. OTe [Ln.]
28. kat [Ln.] [Alz.]
— Geds Ta, om. Ta Ln.
. TOY veKpa@v 2° YX avTaey Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Uperépav \ nuerépay St. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
— kavxnow, add. adedpot Ln.
( Ala.)
33- Apice X xpnora Gb. Sch.
34. Nea XY AaAG Ln. txt. TE.
[Alz.]
36. appov \ appev Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
38. avT@ didwor X Od. adr. Ln.
TE:
65
38. Td Lovov, om. TO Ln. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
39. cap& avOparav, om. cap
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— oapé xtnvdv, capé Gb. >;
om. Alx.
— An be ixOvav, cAAn be
TTNVOV. X @An S€ capé
mTnvav, adrn b€ ixOvov Ln.
Tf. Alx.; (oap& [Ln.]).
arn X GdAG Ln. TE.
. €oTt, prem. et Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
— kal €otr { €ore kal Ln. Tf.
— c@pa 4°, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb].
Alz.
: avOpeamos find
. 6 Kuptos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3].
Alz.
. popecoper \ popéowpev Ln.
[Alx.]
. KAnpovopet X KAnpovopnces
Ln. [Alz.]
. pev, om. Tf. [Ln.]
— ov KowunOnodpeba: raves
kowunO. ov mavres Ln. [Gb.
~]; Alzx. s. mares bev ava-
ornodpeba, ov mavres Oe.
; purn ip pom Ln. mg. [Ale]
— eyepOnoovra \ dvacrncov-
tat Ln. [Alz.]
.T0 Kévtpov X 7d vikos Ln.
‘txt. [Ale]
— dn X Oavare Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— 70 vikos \ Td Kevrpoy Ln.
txt. [4iz.]
Cuar. XVI.
.caBBatrev X caBBarov Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
— evoddrat { ev0daO7 Alx.
3. eay \ av Ln.
4.9 a&vov \ &&cov 7 Ln.
7. O€ X yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— emitpern X emirpée yn Lu. Te.
(Gb. ~]. Ala.
kal €y@ \ Kaye Ln. Tf.; [Alz.
8. om. Kal).
1G ou, om. Alz.
— pe J € eue Ln.
. eAHod, add. SyrG tyiv ore
Alz.
. Kkpatatova be, prem. [kat] Ln.
[Alzx.]
. Zrehava, add. boprovvdrov
8. Kal Poprovvarov kat ’A-
Xatkov Alzx.
. Bovptovvarov X Poprovyd-
tov Ln. Tf.
24
>
Oo
we
Io.
2CORINTHIANS:.
14, bay XY tyerepov Ln. Tf.
[Ala]
— otro. X avrot Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
18, TO ELOY, prem. Kal Ala.
> , ro) 2 ’
19. aomatovra 2° { aacmdatera
Tf. [Ln. mg.]
19. ekkKAnola, add. map’ cis Kal
Eevitouar Alex.
22. "Inoovv Xpiorov, om. Ln. TE.
(Gb. 3]. Alz.
23. Xptorov, om. Tf.
24. Kuptov, add. nav Ale.
24. aunv. om. Tf. [In.] [Gb. 3].
IIpos KopivOious mpatn éypa-
gn ard Pitinmev dia Sre-
ava, kat ®ovprovvarov,
kal Ayaixod, kat Tiobéov,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
25 OLIN Het ACN Ss.
Cuap. I.
1.’Invov Xpiorod X Xpiwrrov
"Inood Tf.
8. 0UTw, add. Kal Alz.
— da Xprorod YX dia rov Xp.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. THs Evepyouperns Ev DTroLovn
TaY aTtav TrabnpaTey oy
kal nuets maoxoper, post
elre TapakaX., UTep THs bp.
mapakX. Gb. [Alzx.]
— etre tmapaxadovpeba, imep
Ths bpov TapakAnoews Kal
caTnpias: Kal 7 €Amis nud
BeBaia vrép bpav X Kat 7
éAnis nuav BeBaia trép
bpev, etre Tapakadovpeba
tmép THs bua mapakdn-
gews kat cwtnpias Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. »).
aomep \ ws Lu. Tf. (Alz.]
.tmép X wept Ln. [Gb. a].
Alz.
nutv, om. Ln. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
€BapnOnuev brép Svvamw X
trep Suvayiw €Bapnd. Ln.
[Alzx.]
. GAG YX aX Ln.
oo
9
10. Kal pverat \ Kal pvoerae Tf.
[Alz.]; (sic [Ln.])
— dre [Ln.J; (dre Kal pyoera
Ln. mg.)
12. dAdrnte X ayidrnte Ln. TF.
[Alz.]
— Gcov 1°, prem. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
13. GAN [Ln]
— 7) d, om. i) Alx.
— i Kat emvywaokere, Alz. s.
om. Kal.
— Kat €ws, om. kal Ln. Gb. 3.
[Alz.]
14. Kupiov, add. [nev] Ln. [Alz.]
—Ingod, add. Xpiorod Alz.
‘Ig. pos tuas edOeiv mpdrepov |
| \ mpérepov mpos ty. €rO.
Ln. [4lx.]; mpér. €AO. mpos
tas Tf. [Alz.]
— eyntre X oxnre TE.
16. SteAOetv X arreAOeiy Ln. txt.
(Gb. x]. Alzx.
17. Bouevdpevos X BovdAdpevos
Sch. Ln. [Gb. 9].
18. €yévero X éotw Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. sv].
19. 6 yap TOU Geod {6 Tov Oeod
yap Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
—Inoovs Xpioros \ Xp. "Inc.
Abe
20. Kat ev avT@ \ 10 Kal Ov ad-
tov Ln. [Gb. 9]. Alz.
e x ¢€
22.0 Kal, om. O Alzx.
Sut. A rol
— appaBdva X apaBava Ln.
Cuapr. II.
1. €hOeiv ev Avr pos tpas YX
ev umn mpos tuas €dOeiv
Gb. Sch. Ln.; év Avi edd.
mpos op. TE.
2.€0TWY, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -].
Alz.
3. iv, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alz.
— dvmny, add. éri hbmny Alz.
— ¢éyw \ oye TF.
s. adn’ X dda In. TE.
10. Kal ey@ \ Kayo Ln. Tf.
— et Te Kexdpiopal, @ Kexdpt-
opat \ 6 Key. ef TL Key. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
16. Oavarov, prem. €k Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
— Cans, prem. €k Ln. Tf.
14. woAXot YX Aourrot Gb.w. [Alex]
— Kkarevor.oy X Karévavtt Ln.
[Gb. sv]. Ala. .
— Tov GeEov, om. Tov Ln, [Gb.
3}. Aly.
66
Cuap. ITI.
. cunuatavew { cumoray Ln.
ei X 7 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec.
Gb. x].
@s, add. [rep] Ln.
avotatik@y, om. Ln.Tf. (Gb.
>). Alz.
3. GAAa X GAN Lon. TE.
kapdias \ KapSiats Ln.
gs. ap’ éavrav AoyicacGai tr X
hoyiferOai te ad Eavtav
Ln. [Alx.]; AoyicacOai re
ag’ éavr. TF.
é€auta@v 2° Y at’réy Ln. Tf.
drroxreivet X amroxraivet Ln.;
amokrevver Tf. 3 amoxrevet
[Gb. x].
-ypdppaow X ypdappare Ln.
txt. Th [Ate]
ev iOors, om. év Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=I ALG:
4 Swaxovia \ ry Staxovia Ln.
txt. [.Alz.]
Od&a, add. éotw Alzx.
ev Sd&n, om. év Ln. Tf.
.ovdé X ov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. «].
évexev X etvexev Ln. txt. Tf.
. €avrov X avrovd Ln. Tf.
.onpepov, add. nuépas Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. x}.
. qvika, add. dv Ln. [Alz.]
avaywookerar \ davaytva-
oxyntar Ln. [Alz.]
. €két, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Ale.
Cuap. IV.
. €kkakoupev \ éykakodpev Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. adn X¥ ddA Ln. Tf.
— cumotavtes X cumorartes
Ln. Tf. [Alz.J
4.avyaca \ Katavydoa Ln.
mg.; (Ale. s. Ocavydoat).
Ln
Se
~wT
o
-
un
-_
~—wT
Ln!
2 CORINTHIANS.
4. avTots, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
5. Xptorov "Incody X “Inoowy
Xpeorov Ln.
- ed Inoodv X ba *“Inood Ln.
6. xvas X Adpyer Ln. txt.
[Alx.]
— 6s, om. Ala.
— Tov Gcov { avrovd Ln. [Gb.
w)]. Alz.
- "Ingo, om. Ln. Tf. (Alz.]
10. Kupiov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
oe oopart, add. nav Alx.
12, pev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. 1a “Incov \ avy Inco Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
16, €kkakodpev \ €yKakodpev Ln.
Ti CAlc.)
—écwbev \ Ero yay Ln.
[Alz.]
— mapavtika, add. mpooKatpov
kat Alz.
Cuap. V.
t, otkoOopiy, add. Ott Alz.
3. Y€ ¥( mep Lu. [Alz.]
— evdvodpevor \ exdvodpevot
Gb. ~, [Alz.]
4. oKNVEL, add. TouT® Alz.
— ered) X ef’ @ © Elz. Gb. Sch.
iin. Tf,
‘5: kaly om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
6. kuplou 1 Beow Alz.
8. dé Gb. >; ovv Ala.
10. Ova X ida Ln. mg.
— kaxdv X dadvdov Tf. [Gb. »].
Alz.
12. yap, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Ale.
— nav \ dpev Ln. mg.
— ov X pr ev Ln. [Alx.]
14. Xpiatov \ Oeov Alz.
— ei, om. Lu. [Gb. >]. Ala.
16. 6€, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— ywookopev, add. kata oap-
ka Alz.
17. Ta mwavtTa, om. Ln. [Gb. -].
Alz.
18. "Ingov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
19. nuiv, add. Tov evayyediou
Alx.
20. Umép Xptarov ouv \ ov vrep
Xp. Alz.
— katadddynre X karadAayi-
vat Alz.
a1. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -+]. Alz.
— ywopeba \ yevopueda Lu. TE.
[Al@.]
Cuar. VI.
.japakadovpev \ mapaxa-
Aovvres Alz.
. Staxovia, add. nav Ala.
4. cunoTt@vtTes \ wumoravtTes
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. mawWevdpevor \ mecpatopevor
Alz.
. tis b€ XH ris Ln. Tf. (Gb. ).
Alz.
. Xpior@ X Xprorov Ln. Tf.
- Behiap pt BeAiaA Elz. Ln.
bpeis X pets Ln. txt. [Alz.]
— €ote X €opev Ln. txt. [Ala]
— pot X pov Ln.
—kabws eimev X eyes yap
Alz.
. e€AOere X e&€AOare Ln. TE.
Alz.
al
w
\o
I
~~
Cuap. Vit
3. OU mpos kardkpiow Xm mpos
ikarakp. ov Ln.
8: Eo XNKev X €oxev Ln. txt.
8. yap {Ln.]
. Katrepyacerat \ épyaterat Ln.
[Alz.]
. buas, om. Ln. [Gb. >}. Ala.
— bptv, prem. [ev] Ln. [Alx.]
— ddWX X adda Ln. TF.
— év, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. >. [Alz.]
. evekev ter \ evexey Ln.
— tporv [Ala] X judy Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. mg.
npav [Alx.] \ buav Elz. Gb.
Sch.
emt, add. Sé Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
— tuav \ nudy Ln. TE.
— d€, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.j
. wavra ev adnbeia €hadnoa-
pev bpiv \ mavrore vp. ev
adn. €dad. Ln. mg.
_ npaev X bpey Ln. Tf.
- emt X mpos Ale.
16. xailpo, add. obv Elz.
Cuap. VIII.
. Tov mAovTov XY TO wAOdTOS
Ln. Tf.
3. Umep X wapa Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
4. d€EawOat nuas, om. Gb. Sch.
iin, TE
8. bpetepas X nuerepas Elz.
. Tis, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3). CAlx.]
. O€, om. Ln.
. Ocddvre X Sdvre Sch. [Gb. ~].
.ouv \ év Ln. Tf. (Gb. 9.
Alz.
Lal
be
is}
67
19. aUTOU, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alx.
— tpav \ hav Gb. Sch. ‘Ln.
Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
21. Mpovoovpevor \ mpovootpev
Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~]; add. yap
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
24. evoeigaobe \ evOerxvipevor
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
~- Kal, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cnar. IX.
2. €€, om. Ln. [Alz.]
re heyopev X héeyw Alzx.
— Ths Kavxnoews, om. Gd. Sch.
tae Tt
g. eis \ mpos Ln. [Alz.]
— mpoxatnyyeApevny \ mpoer=
nyyeAperny Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
Ale
— domep X es Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. er evAoyiats 1° \ €v evdo-=
yia Alz.
4. Mpoarpetrat \ mponpyrat Ln.
[Alz.]
8. Suvatos \ Suvaret Ln.
Io. o7meppa X omdpov Ln. [Alz.]
— xopnynoat Kal my Ovvat .
avénoa X Xopnyneet, kat
mAnOovet . . . avénoer Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— yerrnpata YX yernpata Gb.
Seh. in: 3f:
11. Nu@Y X tev Alx.
— 7@ [Ln.]
1g. O€, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
Cuap. X.
1. mpadtnros \ mpavrnros Ln.
Ave
sg. Xptorou, add. dyovres Alx.
7. Xptotod 1°, add. SodAos Alx.
— Xptorod 3°, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
8. Te [Ln.]; om. Alz.
— Kat, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— nuav, om. Alx.
— npiv, om. Ln, Tf. Ala.
9. Od&w X SdEwpev Ala.
10. ev emloroAal X emir. pev
Ln.
— dno \ paow Ln.
— e£ovbevnpevos \ eEovdernpeé-
vos Ln.
12. cuMovow \ ouvaow Ln. ;
[Alx. 8. om. ov GuMOvoW:
nets de].
13. O€ Gb. 3.
13. oUXL \ ovK Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— Kavxnodpueba Gb. >.
14.00 yap ws \ ws yap Ln.
18. cuucTe@y \ cumordavey Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
— GAN X adda Ln. TE.
Cuap. XI.
. Spehov X @pedov Alex.
dveixea OE X jveiyer Oe Elz.
— 17 appootvy \ Te adppoou-
vns Ln. Tf. [Alx.]; Te TIS
app. Elz. [Gb. x].
. Evay é&nmdrnoev \ é€nrar.
Evav Ln. Tf. ,
ouT@, om. Ln. [Gb. >]. Alz.
- dmhédrnros, add. Kat THs a-
yvornros Ln. [Alz.]
.nvelyerbe XY avéxerOe Ln. ;
aveiyeoOe Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ree.
Gb. «].
"Invovy X Xpiorév Alz.
yap 54 be Ln.
vaorepynkevat, add. ev vpiv Ale.
pavepwhertes \ paveparar-
tes Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €v Tact, om. Alx.
8. ovdevds \ ovbevds Ln. Tf.
9. Upiy epaurov \ eavTov vpiv
Ln.
.odhpayicerar ¥ ppaynoerat
Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Oavpacrdy X Oatpa Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ]. Ala.
.pikpoyv Te Kayo \ Kayo p-
Kpov Tt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- aro kata Kupiov X xara
Kup. Aara Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
. TY wupKa, om. THY Alx.
: bpas eis mpocwrov X «is
mpoawrrov bpas Ln. Tf.
. noOevnoapev \ nobernkapev
Ln.
ww
>
GALATIANS.
23. €V mAnyais trepBadddvras,
post €v bud. weptoo. Ln.
23. eppaBdiaOny X épaBdioOnv
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
a4. €v KOm@, om. ev Ln. Tf. Ala.
(Gb. >].
a8, emiovaoracts \ érioracis Ln.
[Alz.]
— pov \ pot Ln. [Alz.]
31. Kupiou nav “Incod Xpi-
orov \ kupiov “Incod Ln.
Tf [Ales]
32. Aapacknvey modw X mor.
Aapacx. Ln.
— OéXwv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
Cuar. XII.
1.67 Set Sch. Ln.
—ouppeper por: eAevoopar
yap X oupepor pev, €ev-
gopat O€, Kat Ln. [Alx.]
2. TOU Taparos, om. Tov Ln.
2 exros X xwpis Ln. Tf. [Ale.]
— ovk oda, om. Ln.
§. Mov, om. Ln. [Alzx.]
6. Tt, om. Ln. [Alzx.]
5. va, prem. 80 Ln. [Alz.]
— Sarav ¥ Satava Ln.
—tva pa trepaipwpat [Ln]
Gb. >; om. Alz.
8. UTep, prem. [Kat] Ln.
9. pov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
— redevovrat \ reAetrate Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
11, KavY@pevos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Bi
12. €v onpetous, om. ev Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
13. TTHOnTe \ noowOnre Ln. ;
(Ala. s. eXatT@Onre).
14. Tpitov, add. rovto Gb. Sch.
1 Pd We
14. Uptov 1°, om. Ln. TE.; [Alx. s.
vpas).
— ddN X adda Ln. Tf.
162 kal, om. Ln. [Alx.]
- irrov nagov Ln.
16. GAN’ ¥ adda Ln. TE.
19. IlaAuv { wadat Ln. Tf. [Alz.)
— katever.ov Y Katévaytt Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— TOU, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
20. pets, (nro \ epes, (pros Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
ax. eAOdvra pe X €AOdvTos pov
Ene Tr. [Ala]
— Tarewoon \ tarewooe: Ln.
(txt.) Th; add. pe Sch.
Cuar. XIII.
I. TpiTov, prem. tov Ala.
2. mpoetpynka, add. yap Alx.
— ypapw, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. el [Ln.]; om. Ale.
— nets, prem. kat Elz.
— ev ¥ ovv Ln. mg. [Alx.]
— (nocpeba X Cyoopev Ly. Tf.
[Alz.]
s. Inoovs Xpioris X Xpe. Ino.
Tf. Ln. mg.
— €o7w, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
7. Byopat X evyduea Lu. Tf.
(Gb. s]. Alz.
8. GAN X adda TE.
9. ToUTO Se, om. b€ Ln. Tf. [Gb.
>]. Alz.
10. €O@ke prot 6 Kupios X 6 KUPs
66. prot Ln.
12. dyio prnpare X Pirnpare
ayio Ln. mg. [Alz.]
13. apny. IIpos Kopw6ious Oev-
Tépa eypadn amo Bidinrev
Tis Makedovias, dia Titov
kat Aovka, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt
Cuar. I.
4: treép X meph Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tov everT@ros aiavos X row
ai@vos Tov éveat@tos Ln.
6. Xptarov Gb. —.
8. evayyeAi(nrar X evayyeXi-
onra Ln. mg.
10. yap, om. Tn. Tf. [Gb. 2]. Ala.
GALATIANS
11, 0€ X yap Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
12. ovre \ ovdé Ln. [Alx.]
13. 0 Geds, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 3
[Alz.]
14. avnAOovy amnA8.Ln. TE. Ale.)
— ddd’ X ada Ln. Tf.
18. Ilérpov \ Knpav Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~].
¢8
Cuap. II.
1. mdduy aveBnv X [aveBnv] rie
Au Alz.
4. KatadovA@owrvra Y kara-
SovAwaovet Sch. Ln. Tf.
s. ols ovde Gb. 5
— Stapeivn XY Scapévn Ln. mg.
6. Ocds, prem. 6 Alx.
© oo
18,
20.
~~
al
©
. kal éwot X Kapol Ln. Tf.
*ldxwBos Kat Kndas X Ie-
Tpos kal “IdxkwBos Gb. ».
[Alz.]
Nets, add. pev Gb. Sch. [Ln.]
. Ilérpos X Knas Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
. WAOov X AAOev Ln. [Alz.]
. Tlérp@ \ Knpa Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
(ns Kal ov« "Jouvdaixés X Kat
ovx “Iovd. Cys Ln. [Alzx.];
[ovx’ Tf.]
ti \ mas Gb. Sch. Ln.
. elddtes, add. b€ Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
Xpiorov “Incody X "Incovy
Xptorov Ln. mg.
Xptorov, om. Tf.
dure X Ott Ln. Gb. ~. Ala.
ov OixarwOnoerar €€ epyov
dpou J e& €pywy vdpou ov
OtxarwOnoerar Gb. Sch. Ln.
af.
cuviotne \ cumotave Gd.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
viod Tod Geod X Oeov kat
Xptorov Ln. [Alx.]
Cuap. III.
.7 GdnOcia py meiOecOa ;
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ev vpiv, om. Ln. (Gb. 3].
Alz.
’ CER. (oe 4 >
.€iow viol X viol elow Ln.
txt.
: evevhoyn Onoovrat X eddoyn-
Onoovrae Elz.
yap, add, 6Tt Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ute
.TO GQ, om. TO Alzx.
. dvOpwrros, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
rf:
. yéyparrat yap \ ére yéypa-
arat Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alx.
. emayyediay \ evdoytay Ala.
. O€, om. Alx.
eppnOnaav X éppeOnoay Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
TpoKeKup@perny X Kexupo-
pevny Alzx.
eis Xpiorov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
st). Ate
éT™ TeTpakdola Kat Tpid-
kovTa \ TeTpak. Kat TpLdak.
€rn Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. mpooeteOn YX eréOn Gb. Sch.
[Rec. Gb. »].
GALATIANS.
ax. TOU Oeovd [Ln.]
— dy éx vépou X ék véwou av
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
a2. vm0 \ vd’ Ln.
23. TvyKekAetopevot | TvyKeEt-
dpevot Sch. Ln.
29. Kal, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >]. Alz.
Cuap. IV.
6. viol, add. Oeod Alzx.
— tpav { nudy Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
[Rec. Gb. ~].
». GAN X adda Ln. TF.
—CGcod dia Xpiotou YX da
Geod Lu. Tf. [Gb. 3]; Alz. s.
dua Gedv.
8. pn pioe X pioet py Sch.
iin Df (Gb): Ace,
13. O€, om. Alzx.
14. 0d Tov \ tudy Ln. [Gb. «].
Alz.; om. pou Gb. ~.
— adrN X adda Ln. Tf.
18. Tis \ qrov Ln. [Alz.]
— Av, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3
— dv, om. Ln. Tf.; [Alzx. s. Kat).
16. (ndoire, add. fnrovre dé Ta
Kpeitr@ Xapiopara Alz.
ry. bpas X npas Elz.
18. TO, om. Ln. [Alzx.]
19. Texvia \ Téxva Ln. txt.
a1. akovere \ dvaywaoxere Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
23. wey [Ln.]
— dia ts X b0 Alz.
24. al, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ap \ dé Ln. mg. [Alz.]
— Ayap, om. Ln. txt. [Gb. ~].
Ala.
— d€ X yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ovotoixet dé X 9 avorot-
xouga Alzx.
26. TavT@v, om, Gb, Sch. Tf.
[Ln.]
28. “Hyeis X tpeis Ln. Tf. [Ale]
— eopev \ €oré Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
30. KAnpovopnon X KAnpovoun=
oee Ln. txt.
— ths edevOepas X pov Ioadk
Alz.
31." Apa X did Ln. Tf. [Gb. 31.
Alx. s. npeis d€ s. dpa ovdv.
Cuar. V.
1.T7 X (om. mox ) Gb. x.
[Alz.]
— odv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
se 15 om. Ln. (Gb. 3). Alz.
69
1.Xpioros qpas \ jpas Xpe-
ards Gb. Ln. Tf
— oTnkete, add. odv Sch. Ln.
[Gb. ~].
.wadw, om. Alx.
TOU XpltoTov, om. Tov Ln.
[Gb. 3]. Alz.
7. avexowfe X evéxowev Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
ap
10. ey@, add. (S€] Ln, [Alz.]
11. TL, om. Alex.
— oTavpov, add. Tov Xpiorov
Alz.
13. Oud Ts ayanns X tH ayary
TOU myevparos Alz.
14. VOp“os, add. év tiv Ala.
mAnpovrat \ memAnporat
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
€v T@, om. Alz.
~ €avrév XY ceavrdv Gb. Sch.
Ln.
1g. umd YX bn’ Ln.
14. be I yap Ln. [Alz.]
- dvtixetrat adAnrots \ ddA7n-
Aots avrixetrat Gb. Sch. Ln.
{i
— dy X [éav] Ln..
19. wolyeia, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
be
20. €pets, Cnror X pis, CHAos
bn. Ff,
21. Pdvot, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
— kal [Ln.]; om. Ale.
= Tpoeimrov X mpoetpnka Alz.
a3. mpgorns X mpavrns Ln. Tf.
= eykpareta, add. dyveia Alz.
24. Xprotov, add. “Inoov [Ln.]
Tf. [Alzx.]
.@ Andros XY dAAnAovs Ln.
txt,
Cuar. VI.
1. mpadtnros \ mpavtnros TF.
. avarAnpoaate \ dvamAnpo-
goete Ln. txt. [Alz.]
. €avtov ppevarrara X ppeva-
mara €autov Ln. Tf.
4. €av { ay Ln.
8. gapkos, add. avtod Alz.
9. €kkak@pev \ eykak@pev Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
. py, ante Si@k. Ln. Tf. (Alz.]
— St@kwvrar ¥ Stoxovrat Ln.
mg. Tf.
. Tepirepvopevoe \ mepireTp-
nuevor Sch. Ln. txt. [Gb.
a].
— Gédovow X Bovrovrat Aix.
w
w&
14. kavyacGar X xavynoacOa
Ln. mg.
—T@ KOTLe, om. TO Ln. [Gb.
=]. Alz.
1s. €v yap XptoT@ "Incod ovre
EPHESIANS.
Xx obre yup Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
15. lover \ €or Gb. Seh. Ln.
Tf. [Rec. Gb. s].
16. oTOLXxnTOVaW \ oToLxYovaW
Ln. mg. [Gb. ~]. Al.
16. Qeovd X Kupiov Ala. :
17. Kupiov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3).
Alzx.
IIpds Taddras éypadn and
“‘Popuns, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. I.
1. Ingod Xptorod XY Xpiorrod
*Inoov Ln. txt. Tf.
— ev Edéo® [Tf]
3. Ev, om. St.
6.€v 7 \ As Ln. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
— nyamnpev@, add. vig avtou
Alz.
4. Tov mAovToy \ TO TAOdTOS
Ln. Tf.
10. Te, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €v tois ovpavois { emt rots
oupavots Ln. txt. [Alz.]
11. exAnp@Onpev YX exdnOnpev
Ln. [Gb. »]. Alz.
— mpdbecwy, add. Tod Oeov Alz.
12. Ts Od&ns, om. THs Sch. Lu.
A; (Gps)
— avrov, om. Alz.
13. Kal 2°, om. Alz.
14. ds X 0 Ln. [Alz.]
18. THY ayamny, om. Ln. [Alx.]
16. Unav, om. Ln. [Ala.]
18. Osavoias X Kapdias Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Kal ris, om. kal La. [Alz.]
[Gb. 31:
19. nuas X tpas Alx.
20. evnpynoev X evnpynkev Ln.
— exabicev \ Kabioas Lu. [Alz.]
— €rovpaviots \ ovpavois Ln.
txt.
23. Tavra, prem. Ta Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
Cuap. II.
1. dpaptiats, add. tpev Ln.
[Alz.]
3. Texva vo \ proee TEKva
Ln. [Alz.]
4. avrov, om. Alz.
s. cuveCworroinge, add. [év] Ln.
— xapitt, prem. s. ob s. ob TH
Alz.
7. TOV UTEepBdddAovta mAOUTOY
X 1d trepBaddAov modros
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
EP HE St ANS.
8. xdpitt €ore \ adrov xapuTe
eopev Alz.
—THs mioTews, om. THs Ln.
(Gb. -]. Alx.
. Upets more X more tpets Ln.
TE
.€Y T@ Kalp@, om. ev Ln. Tf.
[Gb. =]. Ale.
13. eyyos eyevnOnre X eyev. €y-
yes Ln.
vate €aUuT@ Xx adT@ Ln.
17. Tois eyyvs, prem. elpnyny
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
19.d\Aa X GAN é€ore Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~], Alx.
20. dkpoyaviaion, add. XiOov Alz.
~ "Inoov Xpiorovd X Xpirrov
*Incod Ln. Tf.
21.7, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Ala.
Cuap. III.
3. Ore [Ln.]
— éyvapicé XY eyvwpioOn Gb.
Sch; Lin. Tf.
5. €v €Tépais, om. €v Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
6. avTov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. ]. Alz.
ev T@ XpiaTt@ X ev Xp. In-
oov Ln. Tf.
eyevounv X éyevnOnv Lu. TE.
Thy Sobeiody X ths Sobeians
Gb. Ln. Alx. [Rec. Gb. ~].
TOV dyiwv, om. TV Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.; dyi@y Gb. >.
év, om. Ln.
Tov... mAovTov J TO. .
aAovros Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
. mavras [Ln.]
Kowwvia X oikovopia Gb. Sch.
Lu. Tf,
dia "Incov Xpicrov, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. XpuoTe, prem. T@ Ln.
d THY mporayayiy, ¢ om.tnv Ln.
. exkakew X é€ eykakely In: Tr
bdga tpav I bdga 7 Tpav Ale.
.Tov Kupiov nuav “Incod
wT
ie
So
70
Xptorov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alz.
doy X 6@ Ln. [Alx.]
Tov mAovrov X17 mAodtos
iin. Tf. (Ale.
. Babos kai dios X dos Kal
dos Ln. [Alz.]
. UTE, om. Alx.
. exKAnoia, add. Kat Ln. [Alx.]
TOU al@vos Gb. —.
Cuap. IV.
2. mpadtnros \ mpavtnros Tf.
vpiv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.J; (qpty
Sch. Gb. 3).
1 Xapus, om. 7) Ln.; (Alex. s.
7 Xapes avr).
8. XHaA@revoeD X aixyparo-
Tevoas Gb. x».
kal €O@ke, om. Kal Ln. ‘Tf.
(Gb. 3]. Alz.
9. Tp@Tov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
pepn, om. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
. OL qavres, om. ob Alz.
16.
>
ce
13
13.6 Xpioros, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. Alz.
16. pepous X pedous Gb.~. [Ale]
14. Aoura, om. Ln. (Gb. 3). Alz.
18. €OKOTLOPEVOL \ ETKOTMpEVOE
Ln.
23. avaveovobac X avaveoiobe
Ln. mg.
— d€ [Ln.]
a4. evdvoac bat \ evdvcacbe Ln.
mg.
— hs adnOeias \ cai ddnbeia
Alz.
26.7@ Trapopytop@, om.T@ Ln.
27. pITe X pyde Sch. Ln. TE.
28. TO ayaOov Tats xepoiv rats
idiais xepolv TO ayaOdy Lu.
[Alx.]
29. GAN’ X adda Ln. txt.
—xpelas X miorews Gb. ».
[Alz.]
32. O€, om. Ln.
— tui X npiy Ln. (Gb. ~.) [Ale]
Cuapr. V.
2. nuas \ tuas TF.
— nav \ tpov Tf.
3. aca axabapoia X axabap.
maoa Ln. Tf.
4. kat X i) Ln.
— kai \ 7 Ln.
— Tad ovK aynxovra XY a ovK
dyjkev Ln. [Alx.]
s. €ote \ tore Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 6s X 6 Ln. (Alzx.]
9. mvevpatos \ dwrds Gb. Sch.
I ey be
10. Kupi@ X Oe@ Alz.
14."Eyeupar \ éyetpe Gb. Sch.
red Be
17. ouvlevres \ ouviere Ln. [Alx.]
— Kupiou X @eod Ln. mg. [Alz.]
19. €avTots, add. [év] Ln. [Alz.]
— mvevpartikais [Ln.]
—ty Kapdia X tats Kxapdias
Ln. (Gb. »]. Alzx.
21. eov \ Xprorov Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ake
22. urotdaoerOe, om. Tf. [Gb.
3]; troraccécOwoapv Ln.
23. 6 avnp, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— kal avtdés €aTt, om. Kal Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; om. €ote Ln.
TisiGbssis Aix:
24. GAN’ X adda Ln. txt.
— domep \ as Ln. Tf.
— idiots, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alzx.
P
Crap. I.
1. Incov Xpiotod \ Xpirrov
*Inoov Ln. txt. Tf.
3. prem. eyw pev Alz.
— Gc pov \ kupi@ nav Alz.
3. amd, add. ths Ln.
6.’Inood Xpurtod X Xpiorov
*Invod Ln. txt. Tf.
4.7H GmoNoyia, prem. ev Sch.
{Ln.] Tf. [Gb. s].
8. wou \ po Alx.
— é€ativ, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. >].
Alz.
- "Incod Xpicrod X Xpiorod
*Ingov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
PHILIPPIANS.
2s.
24.
éavTay, om. Ln. Tf. Alx.
avtiy X atros Gb. Sch. Ln.
AB
dpeidovow of advdpes X kal
ot avdp. opeinr. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
avn X adda Ln. TF.
Kupios X Xptotds Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
€K TS TAPKOS AUTOV, Kal €K
TOY OOTEWY AUTOV, om. Lu.
Tf. [Gbps }, Als.
. TOY TaTépa avrov Kal THY
pntépa \ marépa Kal pn-
tepa Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
mpos Thy yuvaika \ TH yu-
vatkt Ln. [Alzx.]
. els THY, [ets] Ln.
Cuap. VI.
.€v Kupi@, om. Ln. [Gb. >].
Alzx.
GAN YX ddd Ln. Tf.
Kupiows Kata odpka \ Kata
oapka kuptots Ln.
— Xptore@ YX kupio Alz.
6. ToU XptoTou, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3). Alz.
7. SovAevovTeEs, add. ws Gb. Sch.
inert
8.0 é€av Te exacTos \ exacros
5 éay Ln. txt. [Gb. x]. Alz.;
éxaoTos éay Tt Ln. mg.
— kopuetrat X Kouioerat Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
28.
29.
30.
i)
3
-
nt
g. TOU Kupiov, om. Tod Gb. Sch.
Lu. Tf.
—tyav airav XY aitayv kat
vpev Ln. Tf. [Gb. x]. Alz.
— map ait@ \ mapa (Td) Oeo
Alz.
10. TO Aowrov YX Tov Aotrod Ln.
— adekpoi pov, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]. Alz.
11. mpos \ eis Alz.
12, nuiv \ piv Ln. txt. [Ale]
— Tov al@vos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
16. €mt X ev Ln. txt.
— Ta TeTUpwpEeva, om. Ta Ln.
[Alzx.]
17. de€aoGe Gb. >; [om. Alx. s.
d¢£ac Gat).
18. ToUTO, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
— aypumvotrres, add. mavTore
Alz.
— mpooKaptepnoet kal, om. Alx.
— meplt \ vmep Alz.
19. Oo6ein X 5007 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tov evayyediou [Ln.}
ar. elOnre Kal duets { Kal bets
eiOnre Ln. [Alzx.]; (idnte Ln.
mg.]
— tylv yvopioe XY yrop. ty.
Ln. [A/z.]
24. dunv. Ipos’Edecious éypa
gn dé ‘Popns dia Tuxe-
KovU, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Boe. Pb AGN
9. Tepiroevn \ mepiawevon Ln.
txt.
11.kaprrav Sikaoovvns trav
kaprrov Oukacoovvns Tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; (Tov [Ln.))
> cod ,
13.€v Xpior@ yevéerOa X yev.
ev Xp. Alz.
14.Adyov, add. Tov Oeod Ln.
[Alx.j
16, 17. €& epiOeias . .. . Ketpat
X e& aydmns. . . . Ketpar
ot Oe €& epieias . . . Tois
decpois jou Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
16. Tov [Ln.]
71
16. emuepe \ éyeipe Ln. Tf.
[Gb. »]. Alz.
18. 7ANVY, add. Ott Ln. [Alx.]
21. Xptotos { xpnorov Gb. ~.
23. yap X dé Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TOAA@, add. yap Elz. Gb.
Sch: Las: (Gbs2i-
24.€Y TH GapKl, ev Gb.=. [Alzx.]
25. CuuTapaper@ \ mapapevo
Ln. (Gb. x]. Alzx.
24. axovow \ adkovw Ln. txt.
28. avTols pev €otuy \ early av-
Tois Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—tpiv X tuav Ln. [Gb. «].
Alx.
go. ere X etdere Sch. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]; prem. Kat Alz.
Cuap. II.
1.Tt { Tis Gb. x.
~ tiva X ris Gb. Sch. Ln. [Ree.
Gb. «].
a. €v X avro Alz.
7) X pydé xara Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
€xactos 1° \ €xacrou Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— oxorretre X oKorravvres Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— aa Kal, om. Kai Ale.
€xagtos 2° \ eéxaorTot
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
s.yap, om. Im. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— ppoveicOw \ ppoveire
(Gbowl: Al
4. GAN X dAda Ln. txt. Tf.
9. dvopa, prem. TO Ln. [Gb. «].
Alz,
II. eLopohoynonrat X eEopodo-
yioerae Ln. mg. Tf. [Alz.]
13.6 Oeds, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Ala.
1g. yerna Be XA nTE Ln. [Alz.]
- dpapnra Ya apopa Ln. [Alz.]
— ev peom X pecoy Ln. [Gb.
w], Alz.
17. AAN YX adAa Ln. Tf.
19. Kupi@ X Xpiot@ Ln. [Alz.]
21. TOV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—Xpiorod “Inood YX "Inaod
Xptorov Gb. Sch. Ln.
23. amide X apidw Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
> Ww
Gb.
COLOSSIANS.
a4. €Xevoouat, add. mpods ms
Ala.
26. bpas, add. (dei) Ln. [Alzx.]
— dre noOemnoe X adrov node-
vnkévat Alz.
24.GAN XY adda Ln. TE.
—atrov nrénoev X nr€énoev
avrov Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— Advrn X Avmyv Gb. Sch. Ln.
dh f
— ox X ¢yw Alz.
30.Tou Xpisrov, om. Tf. [Gb.
>]; om. Tov Ln. [Alz.]
— mapaBovdevodpevos X rrapa-
Bodevodpevos Gb. Sch. Ln.
[Rec. Gb. «].
Cuap. III.
3. Ge@ X Geod Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~],
4. Kat, om. Alx.
5. Bemaplv X Bevtapety Ln.
6. (irov X Gyros Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
4. "AMY i [adda] Ln.; om. Alzx.
— hv pot X poe nv Ln. txt.
8. pevovrye \ ev ovv Gb. Sch.
ian. if.
— Xptorov, prem. Tov Lu.
— pou \ nuey Ln. mg. [Alz.]
— eivat, om. Ln. [Alx.]
10. THY KoLv@viay, om. THY Ln.
— cuppoppovpevos \ cvppop-
giCopuevos Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
Alz.
11, Tov \ THY €k Sch. Ln. Tf.
12. €AaBov, add. s. 7 Hdn Sedi-
kaiw@pat s. Sikai@pat Alex.
12. kat bis, om. Ala.
- ind Tov Xpiorod “Incov
tnd Xpiorov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. ov X ovw@ Ln. mg. [Alz.]
14. emt \ eis Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
16. Kavovt 70 avTo poveiy, om.
Gb. Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
ar. eis TO yever Oar ado, om. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €avt@ \ avira Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. IV,
2. Evwdiay { Evodiay Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln Tf.
3. Kal €pwT@ \ val €p. Gb. Sch.
in. Tf.
— ablvye yunote \-yynore otv-
Cuye Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— kal KAnpevtos, om. kat Ale.
12. 6€ \ kal Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. XptoT@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
1g. ovdeLia, add. Ott Alzx.
16. eg ELn.]; om. Alz.
17. GAN’ X adda Ln. TF.
19. TAnpooes \ mAnp@car Gd.
x, [Alz.]
— Tov mAovTov \ TO mAOvTOS
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
23. @v, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =).
— mavrev \ Tov mvevparos Lu.
Ti. [Ae]
— dunv, om.
[Alz.]
Tf. [Ln.)] Gb. =.
IIpés Piummnotovs eypagn amd
‘Pouns d¢ ’Enadpodirov,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
OO Sse ay 5;
Cuap. I,
1. Incov Xpiorov X Xpiorad
*Inoov Ln. Tf.
2. KoAaocats ¥ KoAoocats Elz.
Gb. Sch.; [KoAac. Gb. »].
— Xpiorod, add.’Ino. Ln. [Alz.]
— kat Kupiov "Incov Xpicrod,
om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
3. Kat tratpl, om. kal Ln. Tf.
[Gb. -]; Alz. [s. TO).
- mept J bmép Ln. [Gb. x]. Alz.
4. THY XY 7 nv eXETE Ln. Th. (Gb.
~]. Alzx.
6. Kat €ort, om. kat Ln. [Gb.3).
Alz.
— kaprropopotpevov, add. Kal
avéavdpevoy Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
7. kaOws Kal, om. Kal Sch. Ln.
TiEAGD. =):
— bpoev \ nev Elz. Ln. txt.
(Gb. x]. Alz,
ro. Upas, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
— eis THY eniyvwow X TH em-
yvaoer Gb. Seh. Ln. [Rec.
Gb. x].
.matpt To, (prem. TO be@
72
Kat Alxz.J; add. KaXéoarytt
kat Ln. [Alz.]
14. 1d TOU aipatos avrod, on.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
16. TA ev, om. TA Ln. [Alz.]
— Ta én, [ra] Ln.; om. Al.
19. evOdKnoe YX nvddéKnoev Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
20. O¢ avTou, om. Ln. [Gb]. Alex.
a1. dmokatnAAakev \ drokatn\-
Adynre Ln.; [Alx. 8. aro-
katadayevres].
22. Oavatouv, add. [avrov] Ln.
1 THESSALONIANS.
23.7, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
24. VU, preem. ds Ala.
— pov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 6 \ és Ln. mg. [Alz.]
26. vuvi \ vov Ln. txt.
24. Tis 6 \ ti TO Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— ds { 6 Ln. txt. [4lx.]
28. ravra avOpwrov 2° Gb. >;
om. Alz.
—Inaod, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. II.
1. wept \ dmép Ln. [Alz.]
— €wpdkace X éopaxay Ln. Tf.
[Ala.]
2.cupBiBacbevtav \ cupSi-
Bacbévres Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—mavta mAovTov \ may To
mAovutos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— kal warpds Kal Tov Xprorod,
om. Gb. Sch. Tf.; Xptorou
tantum Ln.
3. TS yvooews, om. THS Ln.
[Alx.]
4. py tes X pndels Ln. TE. [Alz.]
7. €y TH TioTeL, om. ev Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
ev avr i}, om. Tf. [Gb. +]; Alz.
8. €V AUTO.
. upas €orat X €orat Dyas Ln.
TM.
. 0s { 6 Ln. txt. [Alx.]
.T@V apapTiov, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. Barriopare X Barricpe Ln.
mg. [Alz.]
auynyepOnte XY ovrmyép6n-
pev Lu. mg.
TOY veKp@v, om. T@V Gb.Sch.
.ev Tos \ ev Gb. >. [Alz.]
cuve(woroinge, add.
Sch. Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~].
py He bpiy Elz. Ln. mg.
- TpKev e npev Alx.
iy ev moet X cai év ado. TE.
voupnvias \ veopnv. Ln. txt.
.a@ \ 6 Ln, txt. [Ala]
co
vpas |
Tov Xptorov, om. Tov Gb.
Sch. Tf.
. py [Ln.] Gb. 3; (om. Alz.]
. oUY, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
T@ XptoT@, om. TO Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. kat apedia, [kat] Ln.
Cuar. III.
4. Nav \ tuav Ln. mg. (Gb.
ws]. Alx.
had om. Tf. [Alx.]
a X 616 Ln. mg. [Alz.]
opyns (7) Ln.
emt Tovs viovs THs amrecOeias,
om. Tf. [Ln.]
4. avrois X rovrots Ln, Tf. [Gb.
~], Alz.
. &u, add. dpoev kat Ondrv Alx.
SKvOns, prem. kal Alex.
eXevOepos, prem. Kat Ln.
[Alz.]
Ta Gb. >; om. Ala.
14.
nm
12. TOU Qeov, om. Tov Ln. [Alz.]
— oixrippav X olkrippod Gb.
sch in, if:
— mpadrnra \ mpavryra Ln. Tf.
13. Xpioros X Kuptos Ln. [Alz.]
— tpets, add. moueite Alx.
14. Ts X 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. s]. Alz.
15. Geod X Xpicrod Gb. Sch. Lu.
abe
16. Kal Upvots Kal, om. Kal bis Ln.
Tf. Alx. [1° Gb. Sch.]
—xapirt, prem. th Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
—1H Kapdia X tais xapdias
Gb. Sch. Ln.
— Kupio XY 6e@ Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Rec. Gb. «].
17.0 Tt, om. Alz.
— dv ¥ éay Ln. txt. Tf.
— Kupiov "Inaov XIncov Xpi-
atou Ln.; [kupiov Gb. 3];
om. Alz.
— kal matpt, om. kat Ln. Tf.
(Gb. —]. Alx.
. lots, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
‘ yevaixas, add. Dav Ln. (Ale.]
; €or evapeotov \ evapertdov
€or Ln. [dle]
T@ Kupio X €v kupio Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
. epeicere \ mapopyitere Sch.
Ln. (Gb. «J.
. dpOarpodovrcias X dpOar-
podovAeia Sch. Ln. [Gb. ~].
Ocdv X Kvpiov Gb. Sch. Lu.
rt.
. kat wav 6 rt €av X 6 eay Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
Alz.
.O€ \ yap Ln. Tf. [Gb.
Ale.
Kopuetrae XY Kopioerat
txt. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. IV.
. ovpavois X ovpav@ Ln, Tf.
[Alzx.]
3.0 is ov In. txt.
8. yp Ta nepl vtuav { yrwre
Ta TEpt Nnu@y Sch. Ln. [Gb.
x].
9.TO TLOT@ Kal dyannt@ X ro
ayaT. kat TLoT@ Ala.
yvwprodort X yywpicovowy Lu.
[Ale.]
. TUVEpyol,
Als.
. Xptorov, add. Inoov Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
memAnpw@pevor \X temAnpo-
opnpevor Lu. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alzx.
. (prov odvy X woddty mévov
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.avtov X adrns Ln.; (Ala. s.
avt av).
.aunv. IIpds KoXacoaeis
eypahn dé ‘Popns dia Tu-
xLKov Kal ’Ovngipov, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
NS
Lal
i)
add, pov etow
~
or
-
co
1
Cuap. I.
. amd G€o0d maToos Hyav Kal
Kupiov Invov Xpiorov, om.
Tf. (Ln.] (Gb. >]. Alz.
. tay 2°, om. Ln. [Alz.]
. bpaov, post miatews Alx.
-_
w &
!
{
|
4. Geov, prem. Tov Alz.
s.eis Y mpos Ln. [Gb. a].
Alzx.
— ev tpiv, om. év Alex.
4. Tumous \ TU7ov Ln. txt. TF.
(Gb. »]. Alzx.
73
Te Ee AON TANS:
7. MakeSovia kal, add. év Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. x].
8. Axaia, prem. év Th Sch. Ln.
(Gb. s].
— adda kat X dA Ln. TE. [Gb.
ws], Alx.
2
. npas exe J éxew nuas Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. €xouev \ eoyxopuev Gb. Sch.
En,-5f.
. VeKp@V, prem. TOV Sch. Ln.
rf,
~w
-_
Oo
Cuap. II.
.GAAa Kat, om. kat Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
3. ovre ev \ ovde ev Ln. [Alz.]
.7T@ Geo, om. TO Tf. [Ln.]
Alzx.
. Hartoe X vytreoe Ln. [Alzx.]
av X éav Ln. Tf.
. tuerpdpevor \ dperpdpeevot Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
yeyernabe X eyernOnre Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
9. yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.mepiratnoa. \ mepirarety
Sch. Ln. Tf. Alz.
. Ova, prem. Kal Ln. Tf.
.Tavta \ ta av’ta Gb. Sch.
Lnetxt. 0.
. tous, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
iuds X jas Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
.&bOace X &pOaxev Ln. txt.
opyn, add. Tov Oeod Alx.
. O00 X dude Ln. (Gb. ~]. Alzx.
. Xptorov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
we
~~
wo
Cuap. III.
. Staxovoy X cuvepydv Gb. Ln.
txt. Tf.
\ \ e -
Kal GuvEepyov nuwv, om. Gb.
Sch... “Tf,
we
THESSALONIANS.
2. Upas, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. Alz.
— wept X bmep Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Ala,
3-T@ \ ro Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— pyndéva caiverOar X pndev
doaiveo Oa Ln.
y- Odivver Kal avdykn X avay.
kat Odivvet Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Xptoros, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
6 Kuptos Gb. +; [6 Oeds s.
6 Kuptos “Inoots Alz.]
Xpicrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3). Alx.
avtod, add. [anv] Lu. [Alx.]
Cuap. IV.
1. Td, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ovr, om. Alzx.
Ka@os, prem. va Ln. (GD.
~]. Alz.
Ged, add. kaOas Kal rept-
mareite Ln. [Gb. x]. Ala.
O€Anpa, prem. [7d] Ln.
éxaotov \ €xacros Ln. mg.
6 Kuptos, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
Tpoetrrapev\ mpoeizropey Gb.
Sch. [Rec. Gb. x].
GAN X adda Tf.
. Kal, om. Ln. [Alz.]
Odvra X Siddvra Ln. txt.
[Ala.]
TO IIvetpa avrov X air. rd
mvevpa Ln.
nuas X tyas Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
. €xere \ €xyopev Ln. (Gb. 9].
Alz.
. Wedpors Tos, om. Tovs Ln.
. (Slats, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3). Alex.
I
12.
Lal
13.
oss
No)
~~
[ae AS)
13. OéXw X O€Xopev Gb. Sch. Ln.
ae
— kekotunpevoy Y Koiuopevov
Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
— AumnoGe X AuTeio Ge Ln. mg.
16. mp@tov X mp@rou Ale.
17. am@avtTnow X vravrnow Alz.
— Tov Kupiov X to Xpiota
Alz,
Cuapr. V.
2.1) nuepa, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.)
3: yap, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.; [6€]
Ln.
4.1) nuepa tpas \ bas f ppe-
pa Ln.; [Alx. s. buas 7 Ny.
exeivn).
— Kemtns \ KAentas Ln.
s.wavtes, add. yap Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
6. @S Kal, om. Kat Ln. [Alz.]
9. GAN X adda TE.
13. UTEP EK TEpiagoU \ UTep=
exmrepicoa@s Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €avtois X adrois Gb.~. [Alv.]
1s. OuwkeTe Kal, om. kat Sch. Ln.
[Gb. 3].
18. yap, add. éotw Ln. [Alz.]
a1. mavta, add. dé Gb. Sch. Ln.
[Gb. ~].
23. mpooevyerbe, add. [kat] Ln.
[Alz.]
24. dpki{a X évopkxitw Ln.
[Alx.]
— dyiows, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
Alz.
28. dun. Ipods Oecoadovikeis
mpatn eypapn amd ’AG;-
vav, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Tf.
=
—Je
2 1 Eek ON LA NS:
Cuap. I.
nuav, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. >.
[Alz.]
.Kavyacba YX eyxavxacba
Ln. Tf. [4lz.]
8. mupt proyos X PAoyt mupos
Sch. Ln. txt. [Gb. ~].
Xptorov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Ale.
. DeOpov YX ddA€Optov Ln. txt.
.Totevovew X miorevoacty
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Xptorov, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alz.
wv
~
i]
oo
od
w
Cuap. II.
2. voos, add. tpav Alz.
— pyre OpocicOa X pndé Op.
Bn. Tf
— Xpicrod X kupiov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
dpaptias \ dvopias Alx.
@s Ocdv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
dmodetkvovta \ aodevyvi-
ovra Ln. mg. .
8. Kuptos, add. Incovs Gb. Sch.
Ln. [Gb. >].
74
3.
Ve
8. avakwoet X aveAet Ln. [Gb.
~). Ala.
10. THS adtkias, om. THs Ln. Tf.
(Gb. -]. Alz. :
— €v Tots, om. év Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. -].
11. mepwee X méumet Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
12. wavtes \ dmavres Tf. Ln. mg.
— ev [Ln.] Gb. >; [om. Alz.]
13. eLAeTO \ ecAaTo Ln.TF. LAlz.]
Rec. Gb. &].
13am dpxns X dmapxnv Ln.
[Alz.]
14. Upas \ nuas Ln.
16. Xptoros, prem. 6 Ln.
-—6 Oecds, [6] Ln. Gb. >.
[Alz.]
~— kai watip X 6 mar. Ln. txt.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
17. Yas, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=],
— Ady Kal épy@ X epy@ kat
Ady@ Sch. Ln. Tf. (Gb. +].
L TIMOTHY.
Cuap. III.
3. Kvpuos X Geos Ln. [Alz.]
4. Uplv, om. Tf. [Ln]
— Kal Trovetre, prem. (kat e7rot-
noate kal) Ln.
3. THY, om. Elz.
6. HL@V; om. Tf. [Ln.}
tape AaBe\mapeddBooavGb.
Tf. (Ln. mg.]; wapeAaBere
Ln. txt.; mapéAaBov Sch.
.vuKTa Kal nuepav X vuKros
kat juépas Ln. txt.
co
12. 6a Tov Kupiov nuav "Inco
Xpiorrod Ye kupio “Inood
Xptor@ Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
13. ekkaknonre (eykakno. Ln.Tf.
14. Kal pn cvvavapiyvuo be X xr)
ovvavapiyvve Oat Ln. ; [kat
Gb. 3; om. Alz.]
16. TpdT@\Td7@ Ln. [Gb.~]. Alz.
18. dunv, om. Tf. (Gb. 3).
IIpos Cecoadoueis devrépa
eypadn amd *A@nvar, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. I.
1. Ingo Xpiorod \ Xpicrov
*Inoovu TE.
—Kvupio. "Inaov Xpiatov X
Xptorod Inco Gb. Sch. Ln.
at:
2.nuav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
Alz.
4. olkovopiay X oikodopiay Elz. ;
oikodopny Gb. ~.
8. xpntat \ xpnontat Ln.
9. Tatpad@as \ marpod@ats
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
—pntpareas \ pntpodr@ais
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
12, Kal xapuv, om. Kal Ln. [Alz.]
(Gb. >].
13. TOV { TO Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
— ovta, add. pve Ln.
— ddN Y adda Ln. Tf.
16. Inoovs Xpiords \ Xpioros
"Ingots Ln, Tf.
— nacav \ dracav Ln. Tf.
17. TOP@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf
Cuap. II.
3. yap, om. Ln.
6. TO papTupLoy, om. Ln.
7. €v XptoT@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe
8. dadoyopov \ dvadoyopaev
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
9. @TAUTWS Kal, om. Kat Ln.
— Tas yuvaikas, om. Tas Lu. Tf.
— Koopi@ X koopias Ala.
— i} xpvo@ X Kat xp. Ln. Tf.
— xpvo@ \ xpvoiw Ln.
he ok MO A
yovatki S€ diddoxery X dida-
okey O€ yuvatkt Ln. [Alz.]
— adW X dddG Lau.
. anatnGecioa X éEararnOeioa
Ly. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. III.
.unpareov X mpddcov Elz.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Py alo xpokepOn, om. Gb. Sch.
ener.
— aN X adda Ln.
4. avTov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
11. ynpadeous \ vnpdduovs Elz.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. TaxLov \ ev Taxet Ln. [Alz.]
. Gcds dos Gb. Ln. TE. [Gb.
60]; Oeds Cst.
Cuap. IV.
.wAavos X mAavis Gb. ».
[Cst.]
.'Inoov Xpirrov X Xpiorod
*Inood Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— mapnkodovOnkas X mapyko-
Aovdnoas Ln. mg.
erayyediay X enayyedias
Alz.
. kal KoTrL@pev, om. Kat Ln.
(Gb. >]. Alx.
dvediCopeba X dyautoueda
Ln. (Gb. ¥]. Alz.
_€v Tvevpatt, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
ie
. €v TAT, om. ev Ln. TF. [Alz.]
(Gb, 3).
ol
LS]
I
a
bs
Los)
—]
Oo
2
ol
we
Lan
un
75
Cuap. V.
4. KaAov kat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Le,
Tov Gedr, [rov] Ln.
. TOY 2°, om. Ln.
.kKataotpnuidcw@ot \ Kara-
oTpnvdcovo. Tf. Ln. mg.
. Twes eLeTrparnaap \ eéeTpa-
mnoav Tives Ln. txt.
. motos 7}, om. Ln. [Gb. -].
Alz.
— erapkeitw \ émapKeicOw Ln.
txt.
. Body ddodrvra ov hipacers
X ob hipwces Bodv ddo-
@vra Ln. [Alz.]
. Tous, add. S€ Ln.
. Kupiov, om. Sch. Ln.Tf. [Gb.
=
—"Inoov Xpiorod X Xpiarod
*Inoov Sch. Ln. Tf.
— mpockruow X mpdoxrAnow
Ln. [Alz.]
.GXN YX adda Ln. TE.
— oTdpaxdy gov, om. gov Ln.
[Alx.]
.@aaitos, add. Sé Ln. Tf.
— 7a kaha épya \ ra épya Ta
kaAa Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— €o7l, om. Ln. Tf.
— dvvarae X Svvavrat Ln. Tf.
( Ala.)
al
- COM™m
2
2
La} Ao}
Cuar. VI.
s. mapadtarpiBat YX Sdvamrapa-
tpiBat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. LAlz.]
- adictaco amd T&v rovot-
Tov, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx#.] [Gb.
3).
7. SnAov, om. Ln. [Alx.] (Gb. ~].
11. TOU Geov, om. Tov Ln.
— mpadrnra \mpavmabecay Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »].
12. Kat €kANOns, om. kal Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
13. Cworrotodvros \ Cwoyovour-
tos Ln. Tf. [Alz.] (Gb. ~].
2 LiM Orr iy.
17. €V T@ vov aia { tov voy
aldvos Ala.
— ev 2° ¥ ént Ln. [Alz.]
—7T@ (vt, om. Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
[Gb. >].
—mAovgiws mavra XY navra
qmAovoiws Gb. Sch. Tf.; Ta
qmavra mA. Ln.
19. aiwviou X dvTws Gb. Sch. Ln.
Le
a0. mapaxataOnkny \ mapabn-
knv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec.
Gb. s].
ar. peta Gov \ pcb” dpa Ln.
—apnv. Tpéds Tipddeor Tpa-
™ eypagn amo Aaodiketas,
res €oTl pntpdorodis Bpv-
yias tHs Ilaxariavns, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. I.
1." Incov Xpicrod \ Xpicrov
*Inood Tf. LAlz.]
5. Nap Bavev \ X\aBoy Ln. [Alz.]
[Gb. x].
— Evveikn \ Evvixn Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. kat ) Kata Ln.
10. Inaod Xpiorov XY Xpiorov
"Incod Ln. txt.
12. mapaOnkny \ mapaxara6n-
Knv Elz.
14. TapaxataOnkny \ mapabn-
Knv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
1s. BvyedAos ¥ bvyeAos Lu. Tf.
[Alz.]
16.ennaxuvOn YX émacoyvvOn
Lue Th [Aw]
17. orouvdatdrepov \ amovdaiws
Ln. [Alx.]
Cuar. IT.
3. OU ovv KakorrdOnoor } avy-
Kaxorra@naoy Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
[Gb. s].
—"Inoov Xpiotov XY Xptorov
"Incod Sch. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
ya \ & Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
— den X docee Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s].
9. QAN X adda Ln. Tf.
12. apvotpeba \ dpvnodpeba Ln.
Tf.
13. dpynoadOa, add. yap Sch.
Ln. Tf. (Gb. «}.
14. Kupiouv ¥ Geov Ln. mg. [Alz.]
2° Et Oo ae
14. Aoyopayety X Noyouaxet Ln.
[Alzx.]
— els ovdev XY em ovdev Ln. ;
[Alx. s. em’ ovdevi yap).
19. Xpiorou X Kupiou Gb. Sch.
in cTt.
ar.kal eUypnorov, om. kat Ln.
Tf. [Alz.] (Gb. 3].
22, peTa, add. mavtwv Ln. [Alz.]
24. GAN \ adda Ln. TE.
as. mpadrnre \ mpavrnte Ln. Tf.
{Alzx.]
— 56 X d@n Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. ITI.
I: yivooke X yuv@oKere Ln. txt.
6. aixpadwrevovtes X aiypa-
AwrtiCovtes Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Ta yuvatkdpia, om. Ta Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
10. TapynkoAovOnkas X mapnko-
Aovdnoas Ln. [Alz.]
11. eppvaato \ €pvaato Ln. txt.
14. Tivos X tTivov Ln. [Alzx.]
15. Ta iepa, [ra] Ln.; [om. Alz.]
16. €Xeyyxov \ eAeypodv Ln.
Cuapr. IV.
1. ovv ey@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tov Kupiov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Seis
—"Incov Xpiorod X Xpuorov
*Incov Ln. Tf.
— kpivewy \ xptvac Ala.
— kata \ Kat Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
[Rec. Gb. x].
76
3. emOupias tas idias X ius
emtOvpias Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €avtois emis@petcovort émt-
owpevaovow €avTois Ale.
> aA 2 , 2 ,
.e€uns avadtvaews \ dvadv-
oews pov Ln. [Alz.]
7. a@ya@va tov Kadov X Kadov
ayava Ln.
8.7aot.Gb.>. |
. AaApariav ¥ AeAp. Ln.
> a
. aye X ayaye Tf.
an
13. pawddvnv \ pedovny Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. a7roSan \ amodaoet Sch. Ln.
(Gb. s].
1s. avOeatnke X avtéctn Ln.
[.Alz.]
16. TUpTapeyEevero \ mapeyeveTo
Ln. [Alz.]
17. dkovon \ adkovowow Ln. Tf.
[Alx.] [Gb. «].
= éppvo Onv se epta Onv Ln.
18. Kal puoerai, om. Kat Ln. Tf.
[Alxz.] [Gb. -].
22. Inmovs Xpiorros, om. TF. ;
om. Xproros Ln.
— 7 xapis peO” Day Gd. ~.
dunv. TIpds Tiysdbeov bev-
Tépa, THs "Eqeciov éxkdn-
clas TMp@Tov emioKoroy XeEt-
porornbevra, eypadn azo
‘Popns, OTe ek Seurépou
mapéoTn IlavAos TO Kai-
capt Népar, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
Cuap. I.
1. Ingod Xpiorod X Xptorod
*Inaod Tf.
4. €Aeos JX Kal Sch. Tf. (Gb. 8].
— Kupiov "Incod Xpiorov J
Xpirrod “Inood Ln. TE.
8. kaTéAurov \ ameXurov Ln.
Tf. [Alx.] (Gb. x].
— éridiopOaon X emdiopba-
ons Sch. Ln.
10. Kal dvum6TakrTot, om. kat Ln.
[Alx.] (Gb. —].
— paduora, add. [de] Ln. [Alz.]
15. pev, om. Ln. Tf. [dlz.] Gb. 3
— pepracpevors \ peptappe-
vots Ln. Tf.
Cuap. II.
3. lepompemets YX lepompemet
Ln. mg.
4. coppovitart Y awdpovi-
Covow Tf. Ln. mg.
HEBREWS.
fae ES Nya
§. olkovpovs X oikoupyovs Ln.
[Alx.] [Gb. «].
. adtapOopiav X apOopiay Ln.
Tf. Alx. [Gb. x].
— ap@apciay, om. Elz. Gb. Sch.
nar
Tepe tuav eye { Eyer
Tept nay Ln. Tf.
— tpav \ nudy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.iiows Seandras YX Seomd-
rats idious Ln. txt. [Al2.]
10. TloTW macay \ macay Ti-
ot Ln. [Alz.]
— diWackadiay, add. THY Sch.
Ln. [Gb. s].
~ Hpav X tpav St.
7] TWTNPLOS, Om. 7 Li. TA:
8. TOU TWTNPOS pv).
Cuap. IIT.
. kat €€ovaias, om. kal Ln. Tf.
(Gb. >]. Alz.
~—wT
eo
\o
I
~
“
2.mpadtnta \ mpavtyta Ln.
Mt:
s. oy X & Ln. [Ale]
— Tov avtov €deov X TO av’rov
€AXeos Ln. Tf. [Alex]
6. mvevpatos, prem. Sia Alz.
7. yevopeba X yern@Gpev Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
8.T@ Ge@, om. TO Ln. Tf. [Gb.
>). Ala.
— Ta kaha, om. Ta Ln.Tf. [Alz.]
(Gb..3).
1o.kal Sevrépav vovbeciay X
voveciay kat Sevt. Tf.
15. anv, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
IIpos Tirov, Ts Kpntav €k=
KAnolas mp@tov emicKorov
Xetporovnbevra,eypadn ard
Nexoméhews THs Make-
Sovias, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
at:
a. dyanntn \ adedp7 Ln. [Gb.
w]. Alz.
iy mpos YX efs Ln. [Alz.J
6. TOV, om. Ln.
— tpiv X nyiv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. x].
— "Inaovv, om. Ln. [Alz.]
7. xdpww XY xapay Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln.; [yap Gb. ~].
— €xopuev X €oyov Ln. [Gb. 9]
Alz.; (rodAnv €xxov Ln.]
Pea Lb RoW ON:
9. Inood Xpistov \ Xpiorod
"Inood Ln. Tf.
Io, j40U, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Ale.
12,dvereuras ov dé \ ave-
mepw a vot Ln.[ Alx.]; €rep-
a oot Gb. x, [Alz.]
— mpocdaBov, om. Ln. Tf.
13. Otakovy por X pot Siaxov7n
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
17. eue X re Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
io)
- EAA yet X €AAdya Ln. TE. ;
okie Alz.)
Kupi@ B Xpta7@ Gb. Sch. Ln.
ABE
21.a@ X 6 Ln. [Alz.]
. Aomdovrai {dordgerat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
dpny. IIpds DAnuova € eypa-
gn a ard ‘Paopns dia ’Ovnci-
prov oikérov, om. Gb. Sch.
Lan. Tf.
20.
fe)
tb
we
we
un
Cuap. I.
1. €gxdTav X €axarou Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
‘ oA 2 , > ,
2. TOUS ai@vas emoincey X e7roi-
noev tovs ai@vas Ln. Tf.
[ Alz.]
3. O¢ €avtov, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.j
HEBREWS.
3. TONG dpevos T@Y dyapTi@v
TOV GpapTiay Tromodpe-
vos Ln. [Alz.]
— near, om. Ln. Tf. [(Gb.3]. Alz.
8, paBdos X kal paBdos ths Ln.
[Alzx.]
- 7 paBdos, om. 7 Ln.
77
©
. avopiayv \ adixiay Alz.
.avtovs, add. ws ipariov Ln,
(Alz.]
a)
»
Cuar. FI.
- Nas mpoo€xew \ mpooéxeu
npas Ln. Tf.
~
1. Tapappv@pev \ mapapvOpev
inet
6. Ti €or YX ris €or Ln. mg.
4. Kal Katéatnoas avroy ent
Ta Epya TOV XELPaY GOV,
om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.]
8. "Ev yap to \ &v r@ yap Ln.
— avT@ [Ln. J
14. CapKos Kai aiparos X aipa-
Tos Kat capkos Sch. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ©]. Alz.
Cuap. IIT.
1. Xpiorov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
af.
2. Oa, om. Tf.
3: SdEns ovros \ otros dSdEns
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. TQ TayTa, om. Ta Ln. Tf. [Gb.
—]. Alz.
6.00 \ Os Gb.~.
— €avrep X eay Tf. [Alz.]; éay
[mep] Ln.
— péxpt Tédovs BeBaiav, om.
A bow
9. pe, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >]. Alx.
— édoxipacdy pe X ev Soxipa-
cia Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
ro. €keivn X TavTn Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alx.
— elroy X etra Ln. [Alz.]
13. Ts e& tpav \ €& tpav Tis
Gb. Sch. Ln. (txt.) Tf.
— yeyovapev rod Xpiotod {rod
Xptorov yeyovapev Gb. Sch.
yO ae Wi
ry. O€, add. [kat] Ln.
— éxecev \ émecay Alz.
19. Oe X Sua TE.
Cuap. IV.
2. ovyKEKxpapevos YX ouykexe-
pao pevos Ln. [Gb. »]. Alz.
3. yap X ovv Alz.
6. d¢ X Sua TE.
y. Elpntat X mpoeipnrat Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 9]. Alz.
12, Wux7s TE, om. Te Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Alx.
— évOupnoeav X gubuiiachs
Ln. mg.
15. Temetpapevoy \ TremrEetpacpe-
vov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. [St.
Gb. ~. Alz.]
16, €Aeov \ €Aeos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
Cap. V.
1. TE, om. Ln.
HEBREWS.
3. Oca ravrnv { de adriy Ln.
i RAL
— €avtov X av’tovd Ln.
— treép X wept Ln. Tf. |Gb. ~].
Alz.
4. 6 KaNovpevos, om. 6 Gb. Sch.
Ln. Ff.
—xabarep XY kabworep TF. ;
Kaas Ln.
~ 6 Aap@y, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt,
9. Tao, ante Tols Umax. Ln.
[Alz.]
12, Kal OU, om. Kal Tf. [Al]
Cuar. VI.
2. didayns \ didaxynv Ln. txt.
3. Fomnoopmev \ trommowpev Ln.
mg. [Gb. x]. Alz.
7. wohAaKts epydpevov \ epxop.
moAXakes Ln. Tf.
9. Kpeitrova \ kpeiogova Ln.
Tf. [ae]
10. TOU KO7rov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. |
ET.
14.°H Y ef Ln. (4lz.]
1s. HED, om. Ln. [Alz.]
19.a0pakn YX dopadny Ln.
[Alx.]
Cuap. VIL.
1. TOU UYlarov, om. Tov Elz.
— 6 ovvavtnoas X 6s cuvarr.
Ln. [Alz.]
3. apwporwpevos X afou. TE.
4. Kal, om. Ln.
5. Vi@V, om. Ln.
— amodexatovv X amodexaroty
4 hi
6. Tov "ABpadp, om. tov Ln.
[Alz.]
- evhdynke X nvAdsynkev Ln.
9. elretv X etzrev Ln. mg.
— Aevi X Aevis Ln. Tf.
— dua X &0 Ln.
10.6 MeAxeoedex, om. 6 Ln.
[Alz.]
11. aUTH \ auths Ln. Tf. [Gb. 9].
Ar:
— vevopobérnto X vevopnobern-
Tat Ln. Tt. [Ale]
13. TpoweaxykE X mporweayxe Gb.
~, [Alz.]
14. ovdEV Tept Lepwavyns ) Trept
iepewy ovdev Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~].
Alzx. :
16. apKikns \ capKkivns Gb. Ln.
Tf. [Alz.] (Rec. Gb. x].
78
17. paptupet \ paptupetrae Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alzx.
ar. peta \ ped” Ln.
— kata thy tTa&w Medyice-
d€k, om. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
. ToxouTov X ro~ovTo Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
. yeyovares iepeis X iepets ye-
yovores Ln. [Ala.]
. npiv, add. kat Sch. Tf. [Lu.]
Gb. x.
Cuap. VIII.
Kal ovx, om. Kat Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]. Alx.
yap X obv Sch. Ln.
— T@Y iepewy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=e Ala.
— TOV vopLoV, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
. moons X moujoets Sch. Ln.
ait:
.vuvi X viv Ln.
- TETEVXE 4 TETUXEV ine, nk.
[Alz.]
8. avtois X avrovs Ln. [Alz.]
. Stabnxn, add. [ov] Ln.
. wAnatov X moXitnyv Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— PLKpov avTay, om. av’Tey Ln.
[Alx.] [Gb. -].
. Kal TOY dvopi@y ad’T@y, om.
Tf. [Alz.]
Cuap. IX.
om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
7
iS)
be
2
w
iS]
lo)
we
>
un
ima)
i
ce)
I
Lal
I
ww
. oKNYN,
Ate
. dyia X ayia. dyer. (sic) Ln. ;
[Alx. s. ra dyta].
. XepovBip \ xepouBely Ln. ;
add. Ths Sch.
9. Ov X fv Sch. Ln. [Gb. «J.
Alz.
10. BamrTic pois, Kal, om. Kal Gb.
Sch. Ln.
— dikaropact X dixaropara
Sch. Ln. [Gb. 8].
ree peddovtov nf yevopeveav Ln.
13. TAUP@V kal Tpayov X tpa-
yov Kat Tavpwv a Fh oe & 2
[Alzx.]
. Uney \ nev Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~].
Alz.
— (ovr, add. kat adynOive Ln.
18. 00d X ovde Ln. Tf:
19. voor, prem. Tov Ln. [Alr.]
= Tpayov, prem. T@v Ln. Tf.
— €ppavtice X épayticey Ln.
Tf. [Alz.]
ris =
Ls, ©
ar. eppavtice \ épavricev Ln. TE.
24.6 Xpioros, om. 6 Ln. [Alz.]
26. voy X vuvt Ln. Tf.
— duaprtias, prem. tis Ln.
28. oUTws, add. kat Gb. Sch. Lu.
Jb¢
Cuap. X.
1.as X als Tf.
— dvvarat \ Svvayra Ln. [Alz.]
2. OUK, om. Elz.
— kexaBappévous \ kexaOnpi-
opevous Ln. [Alz.]
6. evddKnaoas X nvddxnoas Ln.
Tf.
8. Ouciay kal mpooopar \ Ov-
gias Kat rpoodopas Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
— evddxnoas X nvdéxnaoas Ln.
she
— Tov vdopuov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. =].
9. 6 Geds, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
10. of Sia, om. of Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Tov "Incod, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
dA Ps
11. lepevs \ dpyvepevds Ln. [Alz.]
12. at’ros \ otros Sch. Ln. [Gb.
w],
18. Mpoetpnkevat \ elpnkevat Ln.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
16, Tav Ovavor@y X thy Siudvorav
Ln. [Alz.]
17. pynoO@ X pono Onoopar Lu.
Tf. [Alz.]
92. €ppavticpevot X pepayticpée-
vot Ln. Tf.
30. Aeyet Kuvptos, om. Tf. (Gb. 33].
Alzx.
— Kuptos xpwet YX xpwet Kv-
ptos Lu. Tf.
34. Oecpois pov X Seapious Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Kpeirrova X xpeiooova Ln.
— €v ovpavots, om. Ln. Tf. [GD.
>). Alz.
38. ptoOarrodociav peyddny YX
peyaAny pic Parrodogiav Ln.
38. Sikatos, add. pov Ln. Tf.
Cuap. XI.
3.Ta Preropeva X Td Brerd-
pevov Ln. Tf. (Gb. x]. Alz.
4. TOV Ocov (To Ged Ln. [Ale]
—dareira X Radel Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~].
HEBREWS,
.eupiakero \ nupioxero Ln.
at.
— avTov, om.
Alz.
eUnpeotykevat { evapeo. Ln.
Tf.
Kadovupevos, prem. 6 Ln.
TOV, om. Ln.
— redre X euedrev Ln. TE.
9. THY nv, om. THY Ln. TF.
. €rexeyv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. x].
.eyerrnOnaav \ éyevn@noay
Ln.
— wcel { as 7 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.AaBdvres X mpoadeEdpuevor
an
La. Tf. (Gb. —].
Se
13
Ln.
— kal meio Gevtes, om. Gb. Sch.
Ens.
13. €€nAOov X €&€Bnoay Lu. Tf.
[Alx.]
16. yuri X viv Ln. Tf.
19. eyetpew Suvards X eyeipae
Svvarae Ln
20. Tepl, prem. kat Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— evAdynoey \ niAdynoev Ln.
Tf:
.evddynoe YX ndddynoev Ln.
ait
23. Oudraypa X Sdypya Ln.
26. ev Alytrt@ X Aiytarov Gb.
Sch. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]; &y
Aiytrrov Ln.
28. dAoOpevoyv Y dAcOpevar Ln.
ibe
29. Enpas, add. yns Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
30. emece Yé émegav Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
32. yap pe X pe yap Ln.
— Bapak Te, om. te Ln.
— kal "IepOde, om. kal Ln.
. paxaipas \ payaipns Ln.
— evedvvapwOnoay J eduvapo-
O@noav Ln.
38. yuvatkes \ yuvatkas Ln.
37. paxaipas { paxaipns Ln.
38. év epnpias X emi epnye. Ln.
. THY emayyehiay X rds éray-
yeAtas Ln.
Cuar. XII.
ere , a
exaOuoev X kexdOtkev Gb. Sch.
none
avroyv X €avroy Ln.
? , >
avtikatéotnre X avrex. Tf.
Ei X els Ln. ([Alz.]
erry, om. Ln. Tf.
éore kal ovx vioi X Kat odx
viot éore Ln.
79
~
ee tee
9. TOAA® A qwoAv Ln. Tf.
3. Ova tavrns X dC adrijs Ln.
Abe
— modo, prem. oi Ln. TF.
16. ameOoto \ amédero Ln. Tf.
— avtov X €avtovd Ln. Tf.
. Ope, om. Ln. [Alz.]
—axdt@ \ (opm Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ws). Alz.
7 Bodidt Katatroevénocerat,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
eV ovpavois dmroyeypappe~
voov X_ amoyeypappeve ev
ovpavois Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Kpeitrova \ Kpetrrov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— tov { Td Gb. ».
: epuyov ye eLépuyov Ln. Tf.
— Tov ent ths ys X ent yijs
Ln. Tf. ; om. THs Gb. Sch.
- xpnariCovra, prem. Tov Ln.
at
— ToAN@ X roAv Ln. TF.
.oelo \ oelow Sch. Ln. TE.
[Gb. «].
.T@V Tadevopevay THY X Tv
Tay oad. Ln.
. Natpevwpev \ Narevopev Gb.
~, ([Cst.]
— peta aidovs kal evAaBeias X
peta evAaBelas kai déous
Lu. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Aix.
Cuap. XIII.
dé X yap Ln. [Gb. «]. Alz.
kal ov, [kat] Ln.
xG€s X éyOes Ln. TE.
mrepepeperOe X mapadépe-
ae Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— mepimatnoayres \ mepira-
Touvtes Ln.
. eSovalay, om. TE.
. Tept duaptias, om. Tf.; post
dy.a Ln.
. weTroiWapev X mrevOdueOa Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alzx.
N
un
2
~wT
ioe)
2
ne (00) SON
2, a
20. Invovy, add. Xpuorov Alzx.
aI. TOLOY, prem. avT@ Ln.
— Tov aiayvwy, om. Tf. (Gb.
3].
. avéxer be X dvexeo at Ln.
.adehporv, add. pov Ln.
[Alzx.]
. duny Gb. >.
TIpos | ‘EBpaious €ypady amd
ms ‘Iradias dia Tipobéov,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. I,
3. THS TioTEws, om. TE.
12.6 Kuptos, om. Ln. Tf. [(Gb.—].
13. TOU Oeov, om. Tou Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
19. "Qote \ tore Ln. Tf. [Gb. «].
Alz.
— €oto, add. dé Ln. Tf.
20. ov katepya¢erar \ ovK épyd-
¢erar Ln. Alz.
a2. pdvoy akpoarat \ akpoarat
povoy Ln. Tf.
2s. ouTos, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb. >].
Alz.
26. el, add. d€ Ln.
— €v bpiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
(Rec. Gb. ].
— adn X adda Ln. TE.
— kapSiav avrov X kapd. €av-
Tov Ln.
a7. Opnoxeia, add. yap s. 8€ Alx.
— T@ Oe@, om. TO Tf. [Gb. 3].
Cuap. II.
2. THY TUvaywyny, om. THY Ln.
3. kal emBreynre X emiBre-
Wyre Oe Tf. [Alzx.]
— avT@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— de, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
4. Kat ov, om. kai Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=) Ale:
s. TOU Kdopou X TO Kdop@ Ln.
Tf.
— Tovrov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. ovx \ ovxt Ln.
10. THpnoet X tTHPHON Ln. Tf.
—mtaice X mraion Ln. Tf.
11, potxevorets, Povevorets \ proe-
xevers, povevers Ln. Tf.
13. avitews \ avédeos Ln. TE.
[Gh Si. Ale:
— kal kKaTakavxatat, om. Kat
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. TO, om. Ln.
~— héyn tis X Tus A€yy Ln.
1s. eav O€, O€ Gb. 3; om. Ala.
— dat, om. Tf.
16. T0, om. Ln.
17. €pya exn X xn Epya Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
18. €k X ywpls Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— gov, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alx.
— riot pov, om. pov Tf. [Gb.
=).
\ * > tc
19.60 eds eis eore \ els eotiy
J AME HS 3
6 beds Ln.; ets 6 Oeds eotiv
af.
.vekpa \ dpyn Ln. Tf.
. ToivuY, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. dpotws Oé, om. Se Alu.
Cuap. III.
3. ldov \ ef S€ Ln. Tf. [Gb.];
ide Gb. Sch.
— mpos X els Ln. Tf.
— avtovs nw X qui adrovs
Tf. Alz.
4. 7KAnp@Y avéuov \ avéuov
okAnp@v Ln. Tf. Alz.
. peyadavyet \ peydda avyet
Ln.
— dXlyev X AAcKov Ln. Tf.
. OUT@S, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alx.
. dtvatat avOparrav Sapacat
X dapdoa Svvara avOpeo-
mov Ln.
— dxardcyeroy \ axatacraroy
ion. ‘Tf.
. Gedy \ Kvptov Ln. Tf. (Gb.
wo]. Alx.
.OUTWS, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
— ovdepia myn ddvKoy kal
yAukd J ovre GduKOv yAvKU
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alzx.]
. Kal avuTroxpttos, om. kat Ln.
2 MEO TG: Seales
18. THs Sukacoavrns, om. THs Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. IV.
. kal, add. wéOev Sch. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. «].
2. oUK €xeTe Se, om. Oé Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.; kal ov €yere Gb.
ur
loa)
oo
©
~
NX,
Movyoi kat, om. Ln. Tf.
— dy \ édy Ln.
.kataknoey X Kkat@xicev Ln.
. avriotnte, add. 6€ Ln. [Alz.]
. TOU Kupiov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 3]. Alzx.
11. kal \ 7 Ln. Tf. (Gb. s]. Alx.
12. vowoberns, add. Kat KpiTns
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—av, add. d€ Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. ig
— ds Kpivers { 6 Kpivey Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alzx.
80
*
wT iw
12. €repov \ mAnoiov Ln. Tf.
{[Gb. ~]. Alzx.
13. kal 1° # Elz. Ln.
— mropevawpeba Xrropevodpcba
Elz. Ln. Tf.
— Tomnowpev X romoopey Elz.
Ln. Tf.
— é€va, om. Ln.
— eumopevoa@peba X eurropeu-
odpueOa Gb. Ln. Tf.
— kepdnowpev X Kepdnroper
Elz. Ln. Tf.
14.70 THS \ Ta THS Ln.
— yap, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— €otw X €ore Ln. Th; orate
Gb. x. [Cst.]
— 6€ X cat Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
13. (jo@pev \ Cnoopev Ln. Tf.
— Troinowpev { mroujoopey Elz.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. V.
4. eioeAnAvOaow YX eiaedAndu-=
Oday Ln. Tf.
§. MS, om. Ln. Tf.
7. av, om. Tf.
— verov, om. Ln. Tf.; [Alz. 8.
om. KapTrov].
9. kar’ adAndroyv, adeAgot \ d=
SeAdoi kar’ ad\Anrov Ln. Tf.
—karakxpiOnre X xpiOnre Gb.
pen. an. if.
— 6 Kpitns, om. 6 St. Elz.
10. TS KakotraGeias, adedpot
pou \ adeAol, THs Kako7ra-
Geias Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—7T® ovdpatt, prem. ev Ln.
[Alz.]
11. Umopevovras \ Uropeivayras
Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— eldere \ iere TF.
— modvomAayxvos X moAdvev=
om\ayxos Gb. ». [Ala]
— 6 Kupuos, om. Tf. [Gb. 3). Cst.
12, els UmoKptowy [sic Cst.] \ vmd
Kptow Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. ToU Kupiov, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
16. E€opodoyeia be, add. ody Ln,
[Alz.]
— Ta Taparr@pata \ras dpap-
tias Ln. [Alx.]
— evyeabe \ mpocetyerbe Ln.
18. veTOV EOwke \ EOwke Ver. Ln.
19. ddeAqbot, add. pov Ln. [Alz.]
20. puyny, add. avtov Ln. [Alz.]
Cuap. I.
3. Nas \ vpas Elz.
4. nuas X tuds Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. €uTl, om. TF.
—)umnbevres X AvumnOévras
Cst.
q.TOAV Tiyu@Tepov \ moAvTL~
porepoy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
tinny Kal Sdfav X dd€ay kal
Tiny Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
elddres \ iSdvres Ln.Tf. [Alx.]
. UU@Y, om. TF.
12. Nulv \ jpiv Gb. Sch. Ln. [Ree.
Gb. x].
év, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alz.
16. yeverOe YX €oecOe Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x]. Alz.
— eit, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
.€oxaTav \ eoxdrou Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Ala.
— tpas X npas Ale.
21. WLOTEVOVTAS X muotous Ln.
TT:
. Oud TIvetdparos, om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3]. Al.
— xaGapas, om. Ln. Tf.
. eis TOV ai@va, om. Gb. Sch.
in. Tf.
. @S XdpTos, om. as Ln.
— avOparov X avtns Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. »].
— avTov, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
. Tov Kupiov, om. Tov Ln.
Cuap. II.
. av&nOnre, add. eis owrnpiay
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
: elmrep X e@ Ln.
xpnotos \ Xpuorrds Cst.
3. leparevpa, prem.eis Ln.[ Alz).
— T@ Ge@, om. TH Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
6. Avo Kat X Sudre Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf:
— ev rH ypahi X 7 ypady Ln.
[Alx.]; ev ypapy Tf. [Alz.]
y. AiBov XY AiBos Ln.
11. awexecOar X améxeoOe TF. ;
add. bpas Ln.
12, emomTevoavres \ emomrev-
ovtes Ln. Tf.
13. ovv, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
14. fev, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
16. SovAoL Geov X Geod SovAox
ie
17. ayanare X dyannoate Cst.
© %
iS)
w
be PE
20. TOUTO, add. yap Ln. Tf.
21. Hav \ duov Elz. Gb. Ln. ;
[quay Gb. ~).
— npiv X dpiv Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.
wf,
.aUTOU, om. Ln.
Alzx.
. TKav@peva \ rAav@pevot Ln.
af,
EoD sath:
2
>
2
tn
Cuap. ITI.
ai, om. Ln.
kepdnOnowrvrar X KepdnOn-
covrat Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
Tpty@v, om. Ln.
kat mrepiOecews Xt) mepiOec.
Ln.
.mpaeos Kal novyxiov X naov-
xlov Kal mpaéos Ln.
. €mt tov Oeov X eis Gedy Ln.
af (GD. 3}.
tmnkovoev X Umnkovey Ln.
. TUykKAnpov6joe \ ovyKAnpo-
vopots Tf. [Gb.~]; add. mrot-
KiAns Alx.
exkdrter Oat X éykdrrec Oat
Gb. Sch. Ln.
. prrdoppoves \ rarrewddpoves
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
elOdtes, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
.avrov 1°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avrov 2°, om. Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
11. ekkAwvdT@, add. dé Ln, Tf.
[Alzx.]
— ayabév: (nrycdra, om. St.
per sphalma.
12. Ol, om. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. wuuntat \ (yrwral Ln. [Gb.
w]. Alx.
13. Qedv X Xptoroy Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Ala.
— d€, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— €Amidos, add. d\da Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
16. KaraAaA@aow { Karadadov-
ow Ln. [Alx.]; Katadadei-
oe Tf.; kataXaXovow Gb.
— Ua ws KakoTrOLaY, om. TF.
17. Oé€det X O€Xoe Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
18. érrabe XY ameOavey Ln. [Gb.
~]. [Alz.]
— T@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
81
Lal
.
wo
>_>
tun
Ses
ioe)
oy
20. dma& e&edéyero \ ameEcde-
xeto Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ddiyat X ddLyoe Ln. TF.
a1.@ \ 6 St. Gb. Sch. Ln. TF.
— nuas X tuas Ln. Tf.
Cuap. IV.
. Umép nav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
>). Alz.
— év, om. Ln. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
3. Neiv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alx.
tov Biov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alz.
70 Oédnpa X BovAnpa Ln. TF.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
— katrepyacacOa X Kateipyd-
oOa Ln. Tf.
4. Tas mpogevxas, om. Tas Lu.
ue
.1) ayamn, om. 7 St. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3].
kadvwee X kadvmrer Ln. Tf.
(Gb. »]. Alx.
. yoyyvopaer X yoyyvo pov Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx.
13. KaOO X Kabas Elz.
14. Od&ns, add. kat Suvdpews Sch.
Ln. [Gb. »}].
— kata pevavtovs BAaodnpei-
tat, kara be tpas dok€ate-
Tat, om. Lu. Tf. (Gb. 3]. Alz.
13. G\Aorpioemiokorros \ d\do-=
Tplemtokorros Ln.
16. peper { dvduate Ln. Tf. [Gb.
s]. Alz.
19. @S, om. Ln. [Alz.]
— €avtay \ avray Ln. Tf. [Gb.
w]. Cst.
—dyaboraia X dyaborotiats
Ln. Tf.
Leal
ioe)
oO
Cuap. V.
1. Tovs X ov Ln. [Alz.]
. EMLOKOTOUYTES, om. TE.
éxovolws, add. kata Gedy Ln.
[Alz.]
— pnde X py TE.
5. UroTagobpevol, om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. ~]. Alz.
.kaip@, add. émurkomjs Ln.
[Alx.]
. emippivavres X émipiyy. Ln.
8. Ort, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— xatarin \ Katamceiy Ln. txt.
[Cst.]
i=]
fon)
~wT
25
10. nas X\ tas Ln. Tf. (GD. «].
Alx.
— Katapticat X Karapticet Ln.
Jf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
— tpas, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. >].
— ornpita, cOevaca, X otn-
id OF WN.
piget, oOevacet Gb. Ln. TE.
[Rec. Gb. »].
10. Oewedi@oat, om. Ln.; Oepe-
At@oet Tf.; sic Gb. 3.
11.7 Od&a kal, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
5
~ 7
Il. TOV Alw@yvay, om. Tf.
12. TOU miaToV, om. TOU Ln.
, n~
— €atnkate X ornre Ln.
14. Incov, om. Ln. Tf.
=,
> ,
— apnv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb.
Cuap. I.
1, Supewv \ Siuwv Ln.
— npady 2°, om. Ln,
3. dua OdEns Kal aperns X idia
d6&n Kat dpern Ln. Tf. (Gb.
~]. Alz.
- peytora ppv Kal Tha i
peyora Kal Tipea np Ln. ;
Tia kal peyiota nuiv
Tf. ; Tipia Hp. Kal péeylora
Cst.
— Kdope@, prem. T@ Ln. [Alz.]
. aUTO TOUTO \ avrot Ln. [Alz.]
. Umdpxovra X mapéyra Ln.
. dpaptiav) dpaptnpatev Gb.
Sch. Tf. [Rec. Gb. «].
10. o7rovdagate, add. iva bia
TaY Kaha@v tpav Eepyay
Ln.
— roveia Oar X rroveto be Ln.
. OUK dpednow X weAANTO@ Ln.
TL. EGR.) Ae,
— vas del X del Yas Gb. Sch.
Tt.
Tore mpodnreta X mpodn-
Tela Tote Tf.
— of dyior) dé TE; Gyroe TOU
Ln. ; om. ot Gb. Sch.
Cuap. II.
. am@deiaus X doeyeias Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
: yuorager X vuora&er Cst.
- cetpais X otpois Ln.
— Tetnpynpevous X Kodalope-
>
Oo DHwM
]
b
2
_
Nv
> Ww
2 es ee ive
vous Tnpetv Ln.; Typovpe-
vous Gb. Sch. Tf.
GAN YX adda TE.
Kataotpopy, om. Alzx.
6 Oikatos, om. 6 Ln.
. mapa Kupi@, om. Lu. TE. [Gb.
3].
12, Puoika yeyevnpeva \ ‘ye
yevnpeva puoixa Ln. Tf. ;
uotka yeyevnueva St. Sch.
katapOapnoortra \ kat pOa-
pnoovra Ln. Tf. [Ala]
.amarats X ayarats Ln. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
14. akatamavotous \ akarama-
orovs Ln.; dkaTratravoTtou
Gb. ~. Cst.
mreoveEiaus X mAeove&ias
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. +].
13. THY EvOELaY, om. THY Gb. Sch.
BO Wie bs
14. veeAar X Kal dulydat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— els al@va, om.
=i):
18. doeAyelas X év doedyeiats
Elz.; doeAyeias Tf. [Ala];
doeAyeiats Gb. ~.
évtws X 6Atyws Gb. Sch. Ln.
Aue
dropuydvras \ droevyov-
tas Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~]. Alz.
20. Kupiov, add. nuay Ln.
21, euyvovow, add. eis Ta Orri-
ow Ln.
WAM
-_
w
Ln. Tf. [Gb.
_
2
~
: enor pear ex X troorpe-
Yat a6 Ln.
. cupBEBnKe Se, om. dé Ln. Tf.
— KvAiopa X KuAvopoy TF.
2
[S)
Cuap. ITI.
2. nuav X tuev Ln. Tf. [Alx.]
3. exaTov \ exxdtev Ln. Tf.
[Alx.]
— Néepov, add. €v éumavypov7
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—atrav emOupias X émibv-
plas at’t@y Gb. Sch. Ln.
.avtov \ T@ adt@ Elz. Ln. ;
T@ avrov Gb. Sch. Tf.
6 Kupuos, om.6 Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
eis nuas X Ov tyas Ln. [Gb.
«] Alx.; els Dyas Tf. (Gb.
w]. Alz.
10. 7) NMEpa, om. 7 Lu. Tf.
— €v vukri, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
RE:
— AvOncovrat \ AvOnoera Ln.
11. ov \ ovTas TF.
12. THKETAL X raxnoerat Ln.
13. KaTa TO émdyyeApa X Kat Ta
émayyehpara Ln.
14. Gu@pntor X dwpol Gb. »;
[Alx.]
1s.avT@ Sobcioav X Sobcioay
avr@ Ln. Tf. [Ala]
. Tals ETMLOTOAALS, Om. Tats Ln.
Tf.
— ois \ ais Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alex.
18. dunv, om. Tf. [Gb. >].
~T
2
fos)
I
Cuap. I.
. arayyédopev, add. kat Ln.
[Alx.]
_ Kowevia be, om. S€ Al.
4. opiv XY jpets (Gb. ~]. Ale.
— tpav X nev St. Ln.
w
hide O aN
.avtn earw X é€orw avrn Tf.
[Alz.]
— émayyedia X ayyedia Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. «].
. Xpiorov, om. Ln. Uf,
.0ux oti ev nuw X ev n-
82
tn
oO =~
piv ovk éotiv Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. IT.
2. iAaopes eote \ €orw ira-
opos Ln.
4.6 héyor, add. [6rt] Lu. [Alz.]
f-a)
. oUTwS, om. Ln. [Alx.]
. edgot X ayamnrot Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— dm’ dpxis, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
31. Alz.
. byy X 9 npiy Gb. ~.
10. ev aiT@ ovK €or X ovK
€oTLV eV avT@ Ln.
ypape X éypawa Ln.TF. [Gb.
~]. Ala.
marpos X beod Alx.
Gdn’ X adda TE.
17. aUTOU Gb. >.
18. 6 avTixpioTos, om. 6 Ln. TF.
19. €€nAOov \ e&jAOav Ln. TE.
joav €& nav X é€& nya
noav Tf.
.€xel, add. 6 épodoyay Tov
vidv Kal tov marépa €xet
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
24. ovv, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Ala.
— Kal év, om. év Ln.
27. €v tpiv pever \ pever ev vp
Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
— avro { avrov Tf. [Gb. ~].
— pevetre \ pevere Ln. (Gb. 9).
Alz.
28. drayv \ €av Ln. [Alx.]
— €xopev \ oxapev Ln. TE.
29. 7as, prem. kat Alx.
Cuap. III.
-kKAnOGpev, add. Kal éopev
Ln. [Alz.]
.oldapev Se, om. S€ Ln. Tf.
[Gb.33). Ale.
7) Gpaptia, om. 7 Ln.
.npav, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
Alz.
~wT
co
I
&
e
18.
16.
1.
2
w&
>
wT
=
wv
wma
2 JOHN.
moay Stxacoovyny X dv di-
kaos Ln.
. ayyedia X emayyeXia Alz.
. Pov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3). Ala.
. Tov adeAddy, om. Ln. Tf.
[Ale J
atr@ X éavré Ln.
16. rubévar ¥ Ocivar Lu. Tf. [Alz.]
18. pov, om. Lu. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alz.
— yhooon, prem. Ty Gb. Sch.
cB Ps
— €py@, prem. ev Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
19. Kat €v Tovt@, om. kal Ln.
{Alzx.]
— ywaokoper \ yvoodueba Ln.
[Gb. ~]. Alx.
21. 7U@V, om. Ln.
22.map \ am Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
23. TloTEvowpEV \ mITTEVMpLEV
Ln. [Gb. »]. Alz.
— npiv, om. TE.
Cuap. IV.
2. yiw@okete | yuv@oKerat Gb.
Io.
15.
~,
3. TOV "Inoovy, Tov Gb. —.
— Xpiordy €v capki é€dndv-
Odra, om. Gb. Ln. Tf.; om.
Xptorov Sch.
12. TETENEL@UEIN EOTl ev Hiv
ev np Terederopern
ect Ln.
16.€v avt@, add. [ever] Ln.
[Alz.]
19. Muets, add. obv Ln.
— avtos X 6 Oeds Ln. (Alx.]
— avrov, om. Ln. Tf.
20. T@s \ ov Ln. [Alzx.]
Cuap. V.
dyar@ kal, [kal] Ln.
.Tnp@pev \ mro@pev Ln. Tf.
(Gb. x]. Alz.
aiparos, add. Kal mvevpatos
Ala.
-—6 Xpuoros, 6 Gb. 3. [Cst.]
= ™@ aipart, prem. ev Ln. Tf.
ev TO ovpave, 6 Ilarnp, 6
Adyos, kal TO “Aytov Tvev-
pa: kal ovrot of Tpeis ev éi-
ol. 8. Kal Tpeis elow ot
PapTupourtes Ev TH YN, OM.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
nv YX ore Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
10. paprupiay, add. Tov Oeod Lu.
= éavT@ ‘ ait TT:
— Oe@ \ vid Ln. (Gb. ~l. Alx.
13. TOls MLaTEvVoVELY eis TO dVO=
fia TOU viov Tov Oeov, om.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €xere aimvovy ai@mov éyere
Gb. Sch.
kal i iva morevnte {of m-
orevovres Gb. cen. Ene re,
.OTu eav TLY O Te dy Ln.
1g. eay X dv Ln.
— dv » X éay Tf.
— map X an’ Ln. Tf.
On X €f67 Ln.
.GvAN X adda TE.
. oOaper dé \ kal otSapev Gb.
Sch. Ln.
~ adn Owvov, add. Oedv Alz.
_ "Inoov X pore Gb. >.
- 1 Sam om. 7 Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
"te
. €avTOUS XY é €auvta Ln.
— dpnv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
| S|
=
~wT
Se
2
=
3. wav \ vpov Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Kupiov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
Alzx.
. €vToAY ypapav cou Kany
evroAny Kany ypapev
oot Ln. ; [ypape St.]
.€orly 1) €vToAn X 1) €vTOAn
éotiv Ln. Tf.
. elamrOov X e&nAOov TF. [Gb.
~) Alx.; €&\Oay Ln.
tn
nN
~wT
275): O ELAN:
8. drrohér@pev a a fpyardpeba
X arodéonre a cipydoacbe
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
— drokaBopev X amodaByre
Ln. Tf. [Gb. »]. Alz.
9. mapaBaivey \ mpodyev Ln.
Pt tAle.|
— Tov Xptorov, om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. >]. Alz.
— matépa Kal tov vidv X vidv
kal Tov trarépa Tf.
83
II. yap Aéeyov X A€ywv yap Ln.
- avTa, om. Tf,
12. ovhion X €BovdnOnv Ln.
- ana eArif@ X edit yap
Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. Gb. x].
— eddciv X yevéoOa Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
— Nav 7 y TemAnpapern \ t UP@V
mem. q Ln. [Gb. <]. Ale.
13. Gunv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. dAnbeia, prem. Th Ln. Tf.
. epyaon X épydatn Ln.
— els Tovs \ Touro Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
. Ovdparos, add. avTov Elz.
e&mrOov X €&jAOav Ln.
on
1 vz
hon v EAL EON.
eer Oe OB o Ba
5. €Ovav X eOvixdv Ln. TE. [Gb.
w]. Alx.
8. droAapBdvew \ trokapBa-
vey Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
9. Eypawa, add. tt Ln. Tf.
11. O€ Kakorr.om.0€ Gb.Sch.Ln. Tf.
12. odare XY oidas Ln. [Gb. «].
Alz.
13. ypadew \ ypawat vou Ln. Tf.
— ypaya X ypapew Tf. ; id.
ante got Ln. [Alz.]
14. ety oe X oe iSeiv Ln. Tf.
~
.Incov Xptorov X Xpiorod
"Inood Tf.
— nytacpévors X nyamnpevors
in. (Gb), Ale,
. kowns, add. nav Lu. [Alz.]
-xapw X xapira Ln. TE.
Oecd, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. bas, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.3]. Alz.
Tovto \ wavra Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
[Gh.' S34,
— Kuvpios X "Incods Ln. [Gb.
we]. Alz.
. TOUTOLS Tpdrrov \ Tpdroy TOv-
Tos Ln. Tf. [Alz.]
9. 6 O€ X Ore Ln.
— Ore \ rére Ln.
— adn X adda Ln. TE.
12. elo, add. of Ln. Tf. (Gb. %).
Alz.
— mrepipepopevar X mapapeps-
Pevat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. TOY ai@va, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
Tn fF & &
wT
a Ud Es
14. Ipoepnrevae \ empopyrev-
oev Tf.
— pupiaow dyiats X ayiats pev-
pidow Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
13. e€eheyEar X eheyEae Ln. TF.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
—avTav, om. Ln.
Alz.
— aoeBeias Gb. >.
14. PNUAT@Y TOV TpoOELPNMEVOY
X mpoeipnpevoy pnuatoy
Ln.
18. OTL 2°, om. Ln.
— &v eaxdt@ xpdv@ X én’ éo-
xarov Tod xpdvou Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
— €govrat { €AXevoovrat Gb. x.
[Alz.]
19. amoduopiCovres, add. Eavtovs
Elz. Gb. Sch. [Gb. 3]; [Cst.
om.]
20.77) dylwTaTn tov ioe
eroukodopouvtes Eaurovs X
(Gb. 22)
erolKod. EauT. TH GyLor. Up.
mioret Ln. Tf.
22. eheetre Suaxpivdpevot’ 23. 00s
dé ev PoB@ ca€ere, Ek TOU
mupos apmacovres \ edey-
xere Sraxpwopevors, ods d€
ca ete ex TUpos dpmagoy-
Tes, ods b€ eheate ev POB@
Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~] Alz.; €k mv-
pos dpmagere, Staxpivope-
vous b€ édeeitTe Gb. ».
24.avTous \ vuas Elz. Gb. Sch.
Ln. ; [avrovs Gb. x). Alex.
23. 70p@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt:
— nav, add. dia “Incod Xpi-
oTov Tov Kupiov Nay Gb.
Sehy. bn. Pr
— dd€a kal, om. kai Ln. Tf.
[Gba<tictla,
— e€ovcia, add. mpd mavrtos
tov ai@vos Sch. Ln. Tf. (Gb.
~],
hey Ek Lown,
Cuap. I.
2. Te, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.@%0 TOV, om. TOU Gb. Sch.
iin. Df.
— é€oTw, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
. €k, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dyarnoavre X ayarevte Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ANovoavtt\ AdcavtTi Ln. [Ale]
— amo X ék Ln. [Alz.]
>
un
6.nuas X nuev Lu.; nw
Alz.
— Baowreis kat YX Bactdrelav
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TOY aiwver, om. TF.
8. A X adda Ln. Tf.
— apx7 Kai TéXos, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. %
— 6 Kupuos X Kupios 6 beds Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
84
9. kat adeAdds, om. Kai Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ovyxowavos { Kowvards Gb.
~. ([Csé.]
— év tn Baowrela, om. ev 77
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—"Inoovd Xpiorod X év Invod
Ln. [Alx.]; €v Xptor@ 1)-
cov Tf. [Gb.«]; &y Xpiot@
Gb. x. [Alz.]
9. dua THY, om. Sia Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=]; Ala.
Xpiorov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
3]. Ale,
.dricw pov maviy \ povny
oriow pov Tf.
11. Eyo eis Td A kal Td Q, 6
Tp@Tos Kat 6 €a-xarTos* Kal,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— énta, om. Rec.
—tais ev Agia, om. Gb. Sch.
La. Tf.
— Ovdretpa \ Ovdretpay Ln.
Ape
12. €AdAnoe X eAdAet Sch. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. s].
13. €7Td, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3].
— pactois X patois Ln.
— xpvonv X xpuvoav Ln.
14. @o€L \ ws Gb. Sch. Ln.
15. TeTUp@pevor \ TETUP@pE-
vns Ln.
16.auTod xeipt X yep avdrov
Ln. Tf.
17. e@€Onxe X €Onkev Gb. Sch.
| 0 Ped bs
— xelpa, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— pot, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. dunv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— adSov kal Tov Oavatov X Oa-
varov Kal Tov ddov Gb. Sch.
1 os b A
19. payor, add. ody Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. oy { ods Ln.
— ent ths Seksas X ev tH Sefa
Ln.
—ai é€mra dvxviat { ai Avy.
al €mTa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ds eides, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt,
~
°
Cuap. II.
.THS \ TO Ln. [Gb. a].
"Edeoimns X ev Edéow Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ypvaav X xpvcéwy Ln.
2. KOTOV GOV, om. Tov Ln. TF.
[Gbist):
— éereipaow X emeipacas Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
dackovras eivat amootd-
Aovs X Aeyovras éavtovs
dtrooréXous etvat Gb. Sch.
Tf.; [sic sed om. eivat Ln.
{Gpb.-=);
.kal €8daaracas Kal tropo-
vay €xets, Kat X kal drop.
-_
w
REVELATION.
éx. kat €Bdor. Gb. Sch. Ln.
{bie
. Kekorriakas kal ov Kékunkas
YX Kat ovK exorriacas Gb.
Sch. Tf.; Kal ov Kekomlakes
&
eS
Ln.
ANN X adda TE.
. exneéntokas \ mémtoxas Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Taxv, om. Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3];
Tayet St.
. €kkAnoias, prem. érta Ln.
vuk@vte \ vekovvte Ln.
— péa@ TOU mapadeioou X TO
mapadeiow Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Geo, add. pov Gb. Sch. Tf.
ayyéo Tis X dyyéA@TO Ln,
exkAnolas Spupvaiov X ev
Suvpyyn exkAnoias Gb. Sch.
1 BY by gl
9. Ta epya kal, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ates
— mAovawos S€ { adda TAOv-
ovtos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Pr\aodnpiar, add. €x Gb. Sch.
ba by
10. Mndev X py) Ln. [Gb. x]. Ala.
— idov, add. 87 Tf.
— Bade X Baddew Sch. Ln.
—€& tpav 6 SiaBoros X 6
didB. e& ty. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
— e£ere X exnre Ln.
—npepav \ nuépas Gb. «.
[Alx.]
.Ta €pya cov kal, om. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. —].
— kal év Tats, om. kal Tf. [Gb.
3].
— év ais, om. Ln.; om. év Tf.
[Gb. 3].
— moros, add. pov Ln.
— 0s, om. Tf.
— karo.kel 6 Satavas Y¥ 6 oar.
kat. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. AAN YX dAda TE.
— ort, om. Ln. Tf.
— edidackev X edidakée Gb. ~.
[Cst.]
TO Badak YX rov Bad. Elz. ;
ev T® Bad. St.
— dhayetv, prem. kal Tf.
18. T@v NekoAatra@y, om. T@v Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— 5 pice X époiws Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave,
tn
~wT
2
a
w&
16. Meravénoov, add. ovv Gb.
sch. in. Tf.
17. wuK@VTL \ viKoovTe Ln.
85
17. payey amd, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave
— éyvw \ oidev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. TS X TO Ln.
— avTov, om. Ln.
19. Ta Epya kal Gb. -.
— Ovaxoviay, Kat thy tiotw X
miotw Kat thy diax. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TH bropoyny, om. Ty Ln.
— kal Ta €oxaTa, om. Kal Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
20. AAN’ X adda Tf.
— oALya, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— eas X adeis Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— yuvaixa, add. gov Gb. Sch.
dav, TE Gb. =");
— TeCaBnar X *leCaBer Gb. Sch.
Tf. ; tTHv leCaBer Ln.
— Thy héyovaay X 7 A€yovoa
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— OiddoKxew Kat wAavacbae X
kal Siddaoket kal rAava Tos
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
~ elOwddéuta hayeiv X pay.
elOwA. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec.
Gb. x].
.€K THS Topvelas avrns, Kat
ov petevonaev X Kal ov Oe=
het peravonoat ek THs Trop-
velas avtns Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ;
[ovk nO€Anoev Ln. mg.)
22. €y@, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avrav \ adrns Gb. Sch. Ln.
(txt.] Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
23. epeuvav \ épavvay Ln.
24. Kal Aourrois X Tots Nour. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— kal oirtves, om. Kat Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— BaOn X Babéa Gb. Sch. Ln.
TT,
-
2
— Bare X BaddAw Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. x].
24. ouvrpiBerar X ouvrpiBnoe-
tat Gb. », [Cst.]
Cuap. III.
(ean S
I. €7TA, Om. St.
— 70 dvopa, om. TO Gb. Sch.
Ion; Tf,
2. oTnpiEov X ornpicov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
pe A
— Ta epya, om. Ta Ln.
2. Geov, add. pov Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
3. Kal #Kovcas, Kal THPEL Gb. >.
— emt oe, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
a "Exets ddiya X dda oXdiya
exes Tf.; add Exets OALya
Gb. Sch. Ln.
— Kal ev Sapdecty, om. kai Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
@ X ot Tf.
. ovTos X ovTws Ln.
eEoporoynoopar X 6uodoyy-
ow Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
». KAetOa \ KAety Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
tov AaBid, om. rov Ln.
KNelee X KAeioes Ln. Tf.
kal KAelet X [kat] KAeiwy Ln.
txt.
dyotye X dvoigee Pe
. Kat ovdels X nv ovd. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. SiSape X Od Ln.
néooe \ WEovow Lu. Tf. (Gb.
w]. Alz.
— mpookuynowow \ mpooKuyn-
covow Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— ey Gb. 3.
ae ‘1600, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
12. va@ X Aa@ Elz.
-7 kataBaivoura X 9 Kara-
Baives Elz.
exkAnoias Aaodicéwy X €v
Aaobtkeia exkAnoias Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. eins \ As Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.Wuypos otre Ceords \ Ce-
ards ove Wuxpos Gb. Sch.
i TE
."Ore wAovatOs, OTt Gb. >.
ovdevos { ovdeyv Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Alz.
eeetvos, prem. 6 Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
Tap €od Xpuatov X xpv-
oiov map’ euou Tf.
KoANovptov x KoANUptoy Tf
€yxpioov \ eyxpioat Gb. Sch.
in. 0s.
tun
fe.)
14.
.(prwoov YX cyreve Ln. Tf.
[Gb. »]. Alzx.
. eloeAcvoopat, prem. Kal Sch.
Tf. [Gb. ~].
Cuap. IV.
1. nveaypern \ advewypevn Gh.
Sch. Ln.
— eyovaa X A€ywr Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
REVELATION:
1. "AvaBa X avdBnO Ln.
— a X éca Ln.
2. Kat ev0éws, om. kat Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3].
Tov Opdvov X rév Opévoy Ln.
Tf. [diz]
3. Kal 6 KaOnpevos [Gb. 3).
nv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
capdivo X capdio Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
dpotos \ Guowa Elz.; dpoiws
Gb. ~.
. Opdvot X Opdvovs Ln.
kat Téeooapes, om. kal Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
eiOov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Kal Téooapas, om. kal Gb.
Sch:eibne at.
€v, om. Ln.
exxov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
s. Bpovrat kat pwvai X peoval
Kat Bpovrai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Opdvov, add. avtod Sch. [Gb.
~],
at eiot X & eat Ln.
Ta Gb. >.
. Qddacaa, prem. as Gb. Sch.
Lu. Tf.
. @S, om. Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. x].
wOparos \ avOparov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
TeT@pnEeUM \ meToMEv@ GD.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Téooapa, prem. Ta Gb. Sch.
i ae bb &
éavto XY év atvtayv Gb. Sch.
_ Ln. Tf.; [atray Gb. >].
etyov \ éxov Gb. Sch. Ln. ;
exov Tf.
yepovra X yéuovow Gb. Sch.
En. Te.
Aéyovra X Aéyorres Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
. Sacovot X dou Gb. ~. [Cst.]
Tov Opdvov X ta Opdve Ln.
Kal Téeooapes, om. kat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— mpookuvotat X mpookuyny-
oovow Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Baddovor X Badrotow Elz.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Kupte X 6 Kupios Kal 6 Beds
nav Ln. Tf.
— thy Svvayy, om. THv Ln.
eiot X Hoav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
~T
oO
10.
II.
_
Cuar. V.
. omiabev \ €EwOev Sch.[Gb..].
86
_
|
|
|
|
|
2. povn, prem. €v Gb. Sch. Ln.
TH:
— €oTw, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
3. oupav@, add. dyw Sch. [Gb.
ow].
— ovdé Brérewv X ore BA. Ln.
4.70AAG X woAv Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es]. Cst.
— kat dvayvevat, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
s. @Y, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avoiga X 6 dvoiyer Tf. [Gb.
w). Cst.
— Avoat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. kat idov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €xov X €xywy Tf.
—ot X a Tf. (Gb. a]. Cst.
— €mTa, om. Ln.
— Tov Oeod mvevpara YX mvev-
pata Tov Oeov Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE:
— Ta dmeotadpeva X drooreh=
Adpeva Tf. [Gb.~] Cst.; amre-
ora\pevot Ln.
4.70 BiBXiov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=).
8. €mecov \ émecay Ln. Tf.
— kiOdpas X xOdpay Ln. Tf.
9. Mas, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. >].
10. was \ avrovs Gb. Sch. Ln.
te
— 7H Oe@ nuay, om. TE.
— Baowreis \ Bactdeiav Lu. TE.
[Gb. »]. Alx.
— Bacidrevoopev X Bacidevou-
ow Ln. Tf.; Bacievoovow
Gb. Sch.
11. Pavnv, prem. as Cst.
— kuxddbev X KvKAX@ Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— mpecButépav: add. kai hy 6
aptOpos avta@y pupiades juv-
ptadov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave
12. TAOUTOV, prem. TOV Cst.
13. €oTW, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
—ev tn yn X ent ths ys Gb.
Scien et.
— d, om. Ln. Tf.
— mavta X mavtas Tf. [Gb.~).
Cst.
— Aéyovras X A€eyorra Ln. [Gb.
~]. Cst.
— tod Opdvov X tH Opdve Ln.
TT.
14. “Aun, prem. To Tf.
— eikooiréaaapes, om. Gb. Sch.
Bi be
14. (@vTt eis Tovs ai@vas Tay
ai@vey, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuap. VI.
1. 0T€ \ Ore Cst.
— Tov, add. émta Gb. Sch. Ln.
‘Tf:
— povns \ povi Gb. Sch. Ln.
ef.
— kai Bere, om. Ln. Tf.; Kal
ide Gb. Sch. [Gb. >].
2. Kat efSov Gb. 3. Cst.
— avr \ adrov Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
3- Seurépay oppayida t oppa-
-yida thy Sevrépay Gb. Sch.
ion. Lf:
— kal Bdére, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Te
4.€0 avt@y én abrov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
- aiT@ [Ln.]
—dmrd X &k Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
HGD. ti.
— kal iva, kal Gb. +
- eee X opafovow Ln.
ib aie oppayida X odppa-
yida thy Tpitny Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe
— kal Br€re, om. Ln. TF. ;
ide Gb. Sch. [Gb. ~].
— Kat eidov [Gb. 3].
— en ait@ \ én’ avroy Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
6. hovny, prem. ws Ln.
— xptOns X kpiOav Ln. Tf.
7. poviyv, om. Gb. Tf. [Cst.]
— héyovaav X héyovTos Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— Kal Bere, om. Ln. Tf.; kal
ide Gb. Sch. [Gb. >].
8. Kat efSov [Gb. 3].
— dxodovbet X neodovder Gb.
Sch. Ln.
— per avtov \ ad’r@ Gb. ~.
[Cst.]
—avrots X ad’r@ Gb. Sch. Tf.
[Ree. Gb. “].
— diroKteivat emt 70 Téraproy
THs yns X ent TO TérapTov
THS Yyns amoxr. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tt:
9. Ova THY, om. Oia Ln.
1a. €xpagov \ ékpagay Gb. Sch.
ne Le:
— 5 adnOivos, om. 6 Gb. Sch.
Opal Be
— dio X éx Ln. Tf. (Gb. ~). Alz.
i
Kal
REVELATION.
11. €0dOncav X €566n Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— €xdotots X avrois Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.; add. éxaoT@ Ln.
[Gb. s]. [Cst.]
- orohat NevKat X wrod Aev-
Ky) Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dvaravowvra \ avarratvcov-
Tab Ld
— rt xpdvoy X ypévoy ert Ln.
— puxpoy, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
— ov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— mAnpooorra \ rAnpocw@ow
Gb. Sch. Tf.; mAnpwbdcuw
Ln. (Gb. »]. [Cst.]
— amoxteiveo Oat \ amoKtevve-
oOat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. lov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— peyas éyévero X éyévero pe-
yas Tf.
— éyevero pédas \ peédas eye-
veto Gb. Sch.
oeAnyn, add. 6An Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf,
Lal
is]
13. Bader X Badovoa TE. (Gb.
w]. [Cst.]
—peyddov dveuov X dvémou
peyddou Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14.6 oUpavos, om. 6 St. Elz.
— eihicodpevor \ EXvrodpevov
jh ae ip
1g. TAovaGLoL Kal of yiAlapyou X
xiAlapxor Kat of mAovCLOL
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— duvaroi X taxvpot Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— mas, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
16. Iléoere ¥ wéoare Ln. Tf.
— Tov Opdvov X 7d Opdv@ TE.
Cuap. VII.
1. Kal, om. Ln.
— tavta X rodto Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
— wav \ rt Ln. Tf. [Gb. x]. Ala.
2. dvaBavta YX dvaBaivoyta Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avarodjs \ avarod@y Ln.
— &xpakev \ expacev Tf.
3. OU, om. Ln. Tf.
— oppayifopev ¥ oppayice-
pev Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. pp© \ éxaroy reaoapdKovta
Téooapes Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
5.8 \ dwodexa Ln. TE; et sic
deinceps.
— ad 8. erppayiorpevot, om. de-
cies Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3
87
9. kat iSod dxNos odds X by-
ov moNvv Ln.
— avrov Gb. -.
— novvato \ édvvaro Ln. Tf.
_ meptBeBAnpevoe X wepiBe-
BAnpevous Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
otvxes X oivixas Gb. ~.
[Cst.]
.Kpagovtes YX xpa¢ovow Gb.
Sch. In, Tf.
-- kanpeve ent TOU Opdvov
TOU Qeov nEaY X Oe 7 NL@V
T@ KaOnpév@ eri ro ) Opdvep
Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. TE.
— Tov Epdvov {7 Opdve Ln.
Tf. (Gb. x].
; éornkecay) ciornkeray Ln.;
fotnKewrav Koa
— recov \ érecay Ln. Tf.
—tpdconov X ra mpdcwra
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~].
12. any, om. Ln. Tf.
. Kupte, add. pov Gb. Sch. Tf.
{Ln.]
— ex ths Odivews rijs X ao
Ohipeos Ln.
— oTodds avTav, om. Tf.; ad-
tas Gb. Sch. Ln. [Gb. 3].
13. ToU Opdvov X To Opdvep Tf.
; Supnoovar, prem. BN Ln.
— ovd€ pay X od& od pr Tf.
17. Touzavet X rroupaives Tf. [Gb.
~). Cst.
— ddnynoes X ddnyet TE. [Gb.
~]. Cst.
— (aoas X fwns Gb. Sch. Ln.
Awe
I
°
I
~~
—amo YX ek Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Ree. Gb. »].
Cuap. VIII.
t; ore X Oray Ln. Tf.
- 7 peLcprov X npi@pov Ln. Tf.
3. TO Gvovaarn prov \ rod @v-
guactnpiou Gb. Sch. TF.
[Cst.]
— don X Sacer Ln. TE.
3.70 \ Tov Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—avtto { adrov Elz. Gb. Sch.
ine Tf:
- ovat kat Bpovrat kal dot-
parat X Bpov. kai dotp.
kat daval Ln. Tf.
EXOVTES, prem. ot Gb Sch.
In. Tf:
— €avtovs X adrovs Ln.
4. dyyedos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
ibe
a
4. aipatt, prem. €v Gb. Sch. Ln.
af,
— Hv ynv, add. Kal TO Tpitoy
THs yns Katexdn Gb. Sch.
La. Tt
8. rupt Gb. 3.
9. TOY EV TH, TOY Gb. 3.
— dvePOdpn X SuepOapynoay Ln.
Tf. [Gb. »]. Csé.
10. TOY VOaTwY, om. THY St. Elz.
11.”AyuvOos, prem. 6 Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— yiverar X éyevero Ln. TE. [Gb.
~]. Cst.
— tpltov, add. rev bOaTwy Elz.
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avOpoarev, prem. Tov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
12. paivn \ pavn Ln. Tf. [Gb.
©]; [7d Tpiroy adrijs (s. av-
TeV) py Pavn y Hnuepa Gh.
~ Cst.]
13.ayyéAov X derod Gb. Sch.
in. Tf,
— meTwpevov \ meTouevou Gb.
ech, La. Ff,
~ Tols KaToLKOUGLY \ TOUS KaT-
ouxovurtas Gb. ~. [Cst.]
Cuap. IX.
2.kat HvoEe TO peap THs
aBivooaov Gb. >.
— peyadns X Kavoperms Gb. ».
{Cst.]J
— €oxotic6n X éoxot@On Ln.
Tf,
4. aduxnowor \ dduknoovow Ln.
Tf,
— povous, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tov Oeov Gb. >.
— avT@y, om. Ln. [Gb. >].
s. avrats X\ avrots Ln.
— Bacancbdcat X BacancOn-
oovrat Ln. Tf.
6. ovx X ov pr Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—evpnoovow \ evpwow Ln.
Tf,
— pev&era X pevyer Ln. Tf.
— 6 Odavatos ar aitav X ar
avr. 6 Oay. Gb. Sch.
7. Spor xpvo@ X xpuvoot Gh.
Sch. [Rec. Gb. x].
8. elyov X efxav Ln.
10. HY €v Tals ovpais ad’T@v: Kal
Y kat €v rats obpais atraey
Sch. Ln. Tf.; €v Tats ovp.
aut. 7 Gb. x.
— adiknoat, prem. Tov Sch.
Ree A a ALT ON
11. Kal €xovow, om. Kai Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; €xovoat Gb.
Sch. Tf. [Rec. Gb. x].
-— €f atrav Baowréa X Baoi-
A€a ew atray Tf.; er at-
tov Bac. Ln.
TOV, om. Tf.
kal ev X ev O€ Tf. [Gb. ~].
Cst.
.&pxovrar X epxerat Ln. Te.
[Gb. ~]. Alz.
13. TETTAp@v, om. Ln.
14. Méyoveay \ A€eyovra Ln. TE.;
Aeyovtos Gb. ~. Alz.
— ds elxe { 6 Exwv Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abe
16. OTPATEVHAT@Y, prem. TOV
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— inmuxov ¥ immov Tf. [Gb. x].
— dvo0 pupiades X Sioprupiddes
1 Bpoked Mis
— kal, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. Uo \ amo Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tplav, add. mAny@v Gb. Sch.
bn. Tf.
— ék 1° X do Gb. [Cst.]
— kat ék bis, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
We
19. ai yap eovtia abrav év TO
ordpate avray eiot \ n yap
efovoia Tay inmav év TO
oT. avt. €ott Kal év Tails
ovpats av’taéy Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf.
20. oUTe \ ov Gb. Sch. Tf.
Tpookuvnowat \ mpooKuyn-
covow. Ln. Tf.
eiOwAa, prem. Ta Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
dvvarat X Stvavra: Ln. Tf.
Cuap. X.
. G\Xov Gb. >.
ipis, prem. 4 Gb. Sch. Ln.
De:
THs Kepadns \ thy Kepadny
Lu. Tf.; add. avtov Gb. Sch.
a i aed be
eiyev { yy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
BiBrapidioy X BuBrrdaproy
Tf.; BiBAcov Gb. ~.
— dvewypevory nvewypevov Ln.
Aue
— hv Oadacaay X ths Oadac-
ons Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— thy ynv X ths yns Gb. Sch.
Lied & .
. Tas pavas éavT@y, on. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
88
bo
I
-_
NS
>
4. €wehAov \X edo Ln. Tf.
— pot, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tavra X avta Lu. Tf. (Gb. ©].
Cst.
g.avrov, add. thy SeEvav Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. €v TH CavTt, om. év Alz.
— kal thy Oddacoay Kal Ta ev
avtn [Ln.]
— ovK €orat ett \ ovKEeTe EoTat
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. a@AAa X GAX’ Ln. TE.
— teheo On X éreAé€oOn Gb. Sch.
in. Tf.
— rots EavTov SovAots Trois mpo-
dyras { rovs éavrovd Sov-
Rous tovs mpopytas Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
8. AaAovea X AaAovoav Ln. TF.
— deyovca \ A€yovoay Ln. Tf.
— BiBrapidiov X BiBAiov Lx. ;
BiBALSdproy TE.
— ayyédou, prem. Tod Gb. Sch.
in: Tt.
9. amndOov X dandOa Ln. Tf.
— Ads X Sotvat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— BiBrapidiov X BiBAddprov
diSe
11. Aeyet \ A€yovowy Ln. Tf.
— €Ovect, prem. émt Tf.
Cuar. XI.
1. pad, add. kal 6 a&yyehos
elornker Elz.
—"Eyetpae X @yeupe Ln. Tf.
2.¢€0mbev X eEwOev Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— £m \ ¢E@bev Ln.
— Ovo, prem. Kat Ln. Tf.
4. kal, add. ai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Tov, om. Ln.
— Gcod \ Kupiouv Gb. Sch. Ln.
aE:
— éotaoa \ éotares Gb. Sch.
Im, TE.
.O€dn (bis) X OéXet Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
avtovs OédAn X OedXet adrovs
on. Tf.
6. €xovow, add. Thy Ln.
eSovolav kKNeloat TOY ovpa-
voy X Tov ovpavoy eovciay
kAetoat Gb. Sch. Tf.
— Bpéxn veros X veros Bpexn
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ev nuepas X ras nuepas Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
~ ai’tay THs mpopnteias X Tis
on
mpop. avr. Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
6. waon, prem. ev Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
~ dodkis eav OeAnowor, post
TY yiv Gb. Sch.
7. TOE BOY per avtav X per
avTa@y moAepov Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
8. Ta Mrapata {TO TTOua Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TOXEws, prem. THs Ln. TF.
— jpav X avrey Gb. Sch. Ln,
Avec
9. Br€yvovuow YX BrErovew Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Ta TToOpaTa \ TO Trdpa Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— kal fcr, om. Kat Tf.
-—apnoovor X adiovow Ln.
Tf.
— pynpata X prnpa Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
10. xapovow \ yxalpovow Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— evppavOnaovra { evppai-
vovrat Lun. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alz.
— réprpovow \ Sacovaw Gb.
~, [Cst.] 7
11.¢€@ avrovs \ ev avtots Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; avrots Gb. x.
—érecey \ emémecev Ln. Tf.
[Gb. s]. Alz.
12. #kovoav \ Hkovca Tf. [Gb.
we]. Cst.
~ AvaBnre X avaBare Ln. Tf.
13. @pa Ky nHEpa Gb. ~. [Cst.]
14. idov 7 y ovat 7 Tpitn XH ovat
7 Tpitn idov TE.
13. A€yourar \ Aéyovres Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
- "Eyévovro ai Baordeia \ eye-
vero 7) Baoweia Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
16. OL €lKOOL, Om. OF Ln.
— kal Tésoapes, om. Kat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— of €vamtov, om. of Ln.
— kabnpevor X ot KaOnvrat Alx.
17. Kal 6 epxdpevos, om. Gb. Sch.
in. Tf.
18, TOLS puxpois Kat Tots peyd-
Rows X rods puxpovs Kal rovs
peydhous Ln.
— Siafpbeipovras YX drapGei-
pavras Ln.
19. ey TO, prem. 6 Ln.
— avrov 1°\ Tov kupiou Gb. Sch.
REVELATION.
19. kal oeirpos, om. Tf. [Gb.
>].
Cuar. XII.
. €xovea, add. kat Ln.
kpa¢er X expagey Sch. Ln. ;
expagev Gb. ~,
. Béyas mruppos X muppos pe
yas Ln. Tf.; mupos peyas
Alx.
— Ocadnpara énra X era d.a-
Onuara Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ce appeva i apoev Ln.
Tov Opdvov, prem. mpos Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
exet, add. exet Gb. Sch. Tf.
tTpepwow X extpéepoow Tf.
[Cst.]
4.6, add. re Ln.
— eroheunoav X Tov modepun-
oat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Kara \ pera Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
8. tayvoay \ isxuoev Gb. Sch.
— ovre { ovdé Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avtav X adT@ Gb. ~. [Alz.]
9. 6 Zaravas, 6 Gb. >.
10. éeyoueay € €v T@ ovpava@ \ ev
T® ovpava héyouray Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— kateBrAnOn X €8AnOn Ln. TE.
[Gb. s]. Alz.
—katnyopos X katyywp Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avtav X adrovs Ln. Tf.
12, TOLS KATOLKOUGL THY ynV Kal
tiv Oadaccay \ tH yn Kal
tn Oardoon Gb. Sch. Tf. ;
THY ynv Kat THY Oddacoay
See
13. appeva X a dpoevay Ln.
TA bv0, prem. ai Ln. Tf.
— Grou tpepera X Orws Tpe-
pnrat Gb. ~. [Cst.]
13. OTig@ THs yuvarkds €k TOD
oTdpatos avrov X &k Tov
oréparos avTov orice THs
yuvarkos Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— TravtTnv X adriy Gb. Sch. Ln.
Df:
17. €mt, om. Ln.
— Tov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Xpiotov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
at;
.eatabnv X €otaOn Ln. (Gb.
w]. Alz.
Cuap. XIII.
.kepadas émra kal kepata
89
(=)
w&
a
ao
I
_
déxa \ xépara d€xa kai Ke-
adas éntd Gb. Sch. Lu.
Tf.
. dvoua X dvdpata Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. »].
dpxrou X dpkou Gb. Sch. Ln.
Te
. €LOov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— pilav, add. ék Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— os X woei TE.
— €OavpacOn év X eavpacev
Elz. Gb. Sch. Tf.
Sin Gi tn oy) oe
Sch. Tf.
4. Tov Spdxovta X T@ Spdkovte
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— ds X dre Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— eEovoiay, prem. THY Gb. Sch.
DOF Be
-— 70 @npiov X rH Onpio Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Onpio, add. kai Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. >].
dvvarat X Suvaros Gb. ~.
(Cst.]
. BrAaodnpias X Braodnpiav
Tf. [Gb. ~] Cst.; BAaodn-
pa Ln. [Gb. »].
— Toijnca Gb. 33 prem. 1o-
Aepov Elz.
— Ovo, prem. kat Ln.
. Paodnpiay X Braodnpias
in. Te
— kal tovs, om. Kat Ln. [Alz.]
Gb. 3.
.Kal &d66n ait mOepov
moujoat pera Tov dylov,
Kal vuKnoaL avrovs, om. Ln.
— médepov troujnoa X moinoat
moAepov Tf.
— dvdnv, add. Kat ady Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
8.avT@ \ adrov Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ave
— oy X ot Ln. Tf.
—Ta dvdpata \ TO dvoua Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; add. av’rov Ln.
Lf:
-— 77 BiBrw X rS BiBriw Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— exhaypevov, prem. Tod Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
10. aixpadooiay ouvayer X els
aixpahooiay Ln. Tf.; aly
dmdyet Gb. ~.
— els atxparwoiay tbrdyet, om.
Ln.
— payaipa \ paxaipn Lu. TE.
A!
id
we
un
lo)
~wT
I
Ww
_
_—
16.
=
vo
>
]
an
. TOLEL
. QUT@
_atroxrevet \ azroxraiver Lu.;
om. Tf.
paxaipa \ paxaipn Lu. Tf.
errolet Tf.
KaTotkouvras ev att X ev
auTn KaTotKodyras Gb. Sch.
sve
mpookvynowat \ mpooKkury-
govow Ln. Tf.
7 N “~ A - qa
.wa kal mip X kal mip twa
Gb. Sch.
kataBaivety €k TOD OvUpavoU
X €k Tov ovpavod KaraBai-
ve.tv [Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf.; Ka-
taBn Gb.; KataBaivn Sch.
. elkova \ eikovay Ln.
é X ds Ln. Tf.
exer X elye Gb. ». Cst.
paxaipas \ payaipns Ln.Tf.
U avtn Ln.
Toinon, add. iva Ln.
av X é€ay Ln. Tf.
Tv eikdva X TH €ikdm Gb.
Sch.
iva, om. Ln.
daon X daow Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.; S@covow Gb. ~.
xdpaypa X xapaypara Gb.
~, [Cst.]
TOV peT@Tov \ TO peTwrTOY
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
a
. kal wa, om. Kat Ln. [Gb. 3).
dvyynrar X dvvarae Tf.
7}, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
TO dvopa X Tod 6vdparos Ln.
. TOY vouv, om. TOY Gb. Sch.
un. Tf.
éaxdovon EEnKovra
kae& Ln. mg.
Caer. sb Vv.
.apviov, prem. To Gb, Sch.
Ln. Tf.
€ \ ¢ \ rer ie A
éatnkos \ €atas Tf.; eaTos
Ln.
Ld > a ‘ \
ovoua, add. avTov Kal TO
dvopa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
porn ixovoa \ 1) pavn iv
HKovoa ws Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
as, om. Gb. Sch. Tf.
iOvvato X eduvato Ln. Tf.
ed € > a
- ELOLY OL akodovbowrtes, on.
elowy Ln. Tf. [Gb. >}.
av X éay Tf.
vmayn X tmdyes Ln.
. Oddos XK Yevddos Gb. Sch. Ln.
rf.
REV BUCA TION.
8,
nN
4.
Oo
yap, om. Ln. [Gb. -].
everiov Tov Opdvov Tov
Gcov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. dAAov Gb. =.
meT@pevoy \ meTdpevoy Gd.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
evayyeAtoat, add. em Ln. TE.
[Alx.]
karoikovyras \ KaOnpévous
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
may, prem. émt Gb. Sch. Ln.
ate
héeyovra ev X N€ywv Gb. Sch.
ins Ef.
Gcdv \ KUpiov Gb. ~. [Cst.]
@ddaccar, prem. THY Gb.Sch.
Tf:
. adXos, add. Setrepos Ln. Tf.
Alz.
emecev, om. Alx.
1) TOALs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ore X 4 Ln. Tf. (Gb. 3).
Tou Ovpov Gb. —.
€6vn, prem. Ta Ln. Tf.
. Kal, add. GAXos Gb. Sch. Ln.
VM:
tpiros iyyedos \ ayyedos
Tpitos Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.; [rpi-
Tos Gb. —].
TO Onpiov mpockuve \ rpoo-
kuvet TO Onpioy Gb. Sch. Ln.
Je
. TOV, om. Ln.
dyiav, om. Tf. [Gb. >]; post
ayyed. Ln.
° la | dA ST
. avaBaives eis ai@vas aiwvev
X els alévas aiwyev ava-
Baivet Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Umropovn, prem. 1) Ln. Tf.
Oe, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. pot, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
avaravowvrat { dvarancov-
tac Ln. Tf.
dé \ yap Ln. [Gb. ~]. Ala.
. Ka@npevos Gpows \ KaOnpe-
voy Gpotov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
THs Kepadns \ Thy Kearny
Ln. Tf.
> ~ ~
. €K TOV Vaov Gb. >.
peyahyn porn \ povy peyd-
Ay Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
out, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
tov Oepicat, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
(Gb. 3].
THY vepeArny \ THs vepedAns
Ln. :
e&ndGev, om. Lu. (Gb. >].
EXaV, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
90
14.
kpavyn X povy Ln.
— Borpvas, add. THs dpmédov
ts
‘©
2
°
bo
-
Nv
&
=~
Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
nkpacay ai orapvaAal \ FK-
pacev 4 otadpvAr Tf. [Gb.
es]. Cst.
avrns X ths yns Tf. [Gb. ~].
Cst.
. THY peyadrny X rov peyav Gb.
Sch. in. Tf.
.€&a@ YX eEwbev Gb. Sch. Ln.
Ts.
Cuar. XV.
> ~ Aa
.€K TOD Xapdypatos avrod,
om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. SovAOVU, prem. TOU Ln.
dyiwv X €Ovav Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. ; almvwy Gb. x.
; Oe, 0m. Ln. Th (Gb). Ale:
Kupue Gb. >.
dogaon X So€doe: Ln. Tf.
[Alz.]
dovos X dyos ef Gb.» [Cst.]
mavra Ta €Ovn X wavtes Gb.
~. [Cst.]
. tov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.€xovTes, prem. of Gb. Sch.
in vit
€K TOU vaod, om. TF. [Gb. 3].
Aivoy X AiBov Ln.
kat Aapmpov, om. kal Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
A > “~
. KaTrvov, prem. €K Tov Tf.
nduvato X éddvato Ln. Tf.
Cuap. XVI.
.povns peyddns X peyadns
wvns Sch. Ln, Tf.
€k TOU vaov, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
kal €kx€éate, om. kat Tf. [Gb.
+]; Kal exyéere Ln.
gidXdas, prem. émta Gb. Sch.
in: Tf,
.émt X eis Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
es].
eis X emt Sch. Ln. Tf. (Gb.
cw].
TH €iKOVL QUTOU TPOTKUVOUV-
tas \ mpooxuy. TH €ikov
avtou Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. dyyeXos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3).
(aoa, om. Sch.; (wns Gb.
ins Af Gps:
améOavev, add. Ta Ln. Tf.
. dyyedos, om. Gb. Sch, Ln.
at
> »\ ’ *
els Tas, om. eis Ln.
éyevero X €y€vovro Ln.
: Kupee, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Kal 6 datos, om.kat Gb. Sch.;
om. kat 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.]; eal
6 eodpevos Elz.
.€Owxas miei X dédmxas tiv
Ln.
— yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
@\Aovu €k, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
ayyeXos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
eBraodnunoar, add. ot ay-
Opwrrot Sch. Tf. [Gb. ].
eEovolav, prem. tiv Ln. Tf.
dyyeXos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
euagcoavTo \ éuacavro Ln.
Tf.
. dyyehos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Tov Evpparny, om. tov Gb.
Sch.
avatokev \ avarodjs Gb. x.
(Cst.]
dpora Barpdxyos X as Ba-
Tpaxot Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Satdvev YX Sayoviwv Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
extropever Oar X a exrropev-
erat Gb: Sch. Tf [Gb. =];
sic sine a Ln.
— THs ys Kal, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
ibe
mO\epov, prem. Tov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
npeepas exeivns Ts peyadns
X peyddns nyépas exeivns
Gb. >; pey. THEp. Ln.
. Appayyeddov \ “Appaye-
doy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.; Ma-
yedwy Gb. x.
. dyyeos, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
eis X émt Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
[Rec. Gb. x].
peeyadn, om. Ln. [Gb. -].
amo X ék Ln. [Gb. «].
TOU ovpavov, om. Lu.Tf. [Gb.
=),
. poval Kai Bpovrat Kat dor-
paral \ dorparat kai do-
vat Kat Bpovrat Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
eyevero Gb. >.
ol avOparot eyévovto \ dy=
Sparos ¢ eyeveTo En. TE.
. €recov \ €mecay Ln. Tf.
Cuap. XVII.
1. pot, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
cai
oO
bead ised be)
bo
x
13.
T4.
-~
oO
|
— Tov vddTwv TY Tor X |
vOdT@v TOAA@Y Liz. [Gb. x].
REVELATION.
2.€K TOD olvou THs Topvetas
avrijs oi KaTOLKOUVTES THY
ya X of KATOLK. THY yy ék
TOU olvou THs Topveias av-
THs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. €LOov eda Ln. Tf.
— yenov X yéuovra (seq. dvd-
pata) Ln.
— dvoparev X Ta dvopara Tf.
¢ , —
4.1 TreptBeBAnwern X Hy mept-
BeB. Gb. Sch. Ln. TF.
— Trop pupa kat Koxkive X wop-
gupovv Kat KéKkiwwov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Kal, om. Tf.
—xpvv@ X xpuvci@ Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— xpvootv mornpiov X trorn-
plov xpvoovr Sch. Ln. Tf.
— axaOaptnros X ra axkdOapra
THs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—avris \ ths yns TE. (Gb. ~].
Cst.
elOov X efSa Ln. TF.
.oo Ep® \ €p@ cor Ln. Tf.
(Csé.]
8. Onplov, prem. Td Gb. Sch.Ln.
Jf.
mdyew Yo _Umayet in. Tf.
emt THs yns X THY ynv Cst.
Oavpacovrat X OGavpac6n-
covrat Ln. Tf.
— ov yéyparrat X ovk éyéypa-
wrTo Ln.
Ta dvdpata \ TO dvopa Sch.
Ln. Tf.
TO BiBAiov X rod PiBALov
Cst.
Bdérovres ¥ BXerdvt@v Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
—70 Onpiov dru jv X Ore hy
TO Onp. Cst.
— kaimep eotiv X Kal mdpeotat
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. opn ela émra X extra pn
eioiy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
10, Kat 6 €is, om. Kat Gb. Sch.
Dn. £f,
12, ovm@ \ ovK Ln.
— arn YX ddAda Ln.
13. yuopunv €xovor \ exovow
yv@pnv Gb. Sch. Tf.
— thy eEovoiay, om. TH Ln. TE.
— €auvtov \ ad’raév Ln. Tf. [Gb.
~]. Cst.
— dsadida@oovow YX diddacw
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
2
1g. Aeyet X etrev Ln.
91
16. emt X Kat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. kal rowuoat play yvauny, om
Ln.
— plav yvopnv X yropuny piav
Gb. Sch. Tf.
—tereo6n X redcoOnoovra
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.; reAerOG-
ow Gb. x.
_—7Ta pnuata X of Adyou Gb.
Sch. La. Tf.
Cuap. XVIII.
1, Kal pera, om. kal Ln. Tf.
— eidov, add. GAXov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
2. loxvi, Povh peyddy irxu-
pa povy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ;
ioxvi Gb. ~.
— daipdvev X datpoviev Ln.TE.
— mvevpatos axaOdprov, add.
kal peponpevov Ln.
3. TOU olvov, om. Ln.
— mWemake \ méemoxay Ln.
4. E&€edOere \ eEeAOe Ln. [Gb.
~). Cst..
—iva py AaByre €k TOV TAN-
you. avris Xe ek TOY TANYOY
a’tns iva py AaByre Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. nKoNOVOncay X exoAAnOnoav
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
6. Upiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avtn, om. Ln. Tf.; prem. Ta
Tk
7. €autny X avrny Ln. TE.
— KaOnpa, prem. ote Ln. TE.
[Alz.]
8. Kpivev \ Kpivas Gb. Sch. Ln.
ye:
9. kKAavoovrar X KAatvcovow
Sch. Tf. [Gb. »].
— avtiv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— adtn X avrny Tf.
10. €V, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
11.kKAaiovat Kat tevOovow Y
kAavoovat kal mevOnoovae
Gb. ~. [Cst.]
— avtn X avrny Tf.
12, papyapitov \ papyapiras
L
n.
— Bvacov X Bvacivov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— noppipas X moppvpou Gb.
~. [Cst.]
— onptkov X\ ouptxod Ln.
13. KLVaL@LoV X Kivydjopoy Ln.
Tf. ; add. kat Gu@pov Gd.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
14. 77s emOuplas rhs uyxns
gov X gov ths emtO. THs
Wuxns Ln. Tf.
— anndOev 2° \ dm@dXero Gb.
Seh..iin. TE é
— ov pr) evpnons aita { adra
ov pa) evpns TE.; [evpns Gb.
~ Ost.]; atta ov py evpn-
oovow Ln.
16. kal A€yovTes, om. Kat Sch.
In. Tf (Gb: S34):
— Bvoowov X Kdxkwov Ln.
— Kéxxwov X Biaowvoy Ln.
— €v, om. Ln. (Gb. 3).
— xpvo@ \ xpvoig Gb. Sch. Ln.
AWE
— papyapiras X papyapitn Ln.
17. €mt TOY TAOLwY 6 Gpiros X
6 emt Témov mA€wy Gb. Sch.
meet:
18. €xpatoy \ éxpa€ay Ln.
— dpavres XY BrA€rovres Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— woXet, add. ravTn Ln.
19. (3arov X €Baday Ln. ; éme-
Badoy Tf.
— éxpacov \ éxpaéay Ln.
— AEyovTes, prem. kat Gb. ~.
— mAota, prem. Ta Sch. Ln. Tf.
(Gb. s].
20. aUTHY \ avTH Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dyot, add. kat ot Gb. Sch.
ibn. Pt.
21. pUAov X vAcvoy Ln.
23. pavy ev, om. ev Ln.
— of Europol, om. ot Ln.
24. aiua X atyara Gb. Sch. Tf.
Cuap. XIX.
1. Kal pera, om. kal Gb. Sch.
Ean, TE,
— dovnv, prem. ws Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dyAov TrodAod peyaAdny X pe-
yad. Gyr. TWoAN. Gb. Sch.
1 Drive the
— Neyorros \ Neysvta@v Gb. Sch.
En, TF.
— kai n dda, post cai 7 dvv.
Gb. x. [Cst.]
— kat 7 TYysn, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
DE.
— Kupig r@ Ge@ X Tod Geo
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
2.epbepe X dSuepOeipe Gb. ~.
[Cst.]
THS XELPOS, Om. THS Gb. Sch.
enaLt:
Tot V Bo Aer TL OUNG
4. €recov X émecay Ln. Tf.
— of mpeaBitepor of eikoot kal
Téooapes X of elk. Téo~.
mpeoB. Ln.
— kal réooapes, om. Kat Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— tov Opdvov X T& Opdvm Lu.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Cs.
g.ek ( avo Ln. Tf. [Gb. <]. Cst.
— tov Ocdv \ ra Oe@ Ln. TE.
(Gb. ~].
— avtov kal, om. Kat Gb. Sch.
bn. Tf,
6. Kal @s, om. ws Ln.
— Aéyovtas St. Cst.; A€yovres
Gb. Sch. Tf.; Aeyovrwy Elz.
Ln.
— Gcds, add. nav Gb. Sch.
aide
. dyadXt@peba X dyad\dpev
Lu. Tf.
— ddpev X Soropey Ln. TF.
. Ka@apoy kal Naprpov X Aap-
mpov Ka@apdy Ln. Tf.; Aap-
mpov kat KkaOapév Gb. Sch.
— €oTt TOY dyiwy \ TY dyiov
eotiv Ln. Tf. [Cst.]
adnO.woi, prem. oi Ln. Tf.
— elat TOV Geov X Tov Geod ei-
ow Ln. Tf. [Cst.]
. €mecov \ éreca Ln. Tf.
— Tov Incod, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
— rov "Incod, om. Tov Ln. Tf.
. dvewypevoy X nvewypevov
Ln. Tf.
.@S, om. Tf. [Gb. 3].
— €yov, add. dvépata yeypap-
peva Kal Tf.
KaNeirae \ KexAntae Ln. Tf.
[Gb. 8]. Alz.
€v T@, prem. Ta Elz. Gb. Sch.
En. TE.
— é€p’ \ émt Tr.
— kai kaOapdy, om. kat Gb. Sch.
1B ed be
. poupaia, add. Sicropos Sch.
[Gb. vs].
matacon X maraén Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
kal THs, om. Kat Gb. Sch. Ln.
Lt:
TO Ovopa, om. TO Gb. Ln. TF.
[Cst.]
17. eva Gb. >.
— TmeT@pevors \ meTopevors Ln.
ABE ;
— kal auvayeoOe X cuvayOnre
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
92
~T
co
Ko)
13.
14.
_
un
16.
20.
Nv
~
~
tN
w&
on
|
loa)
~wT
fo)
~ , la cal
. TOD peyddou \ To péya Tod
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
.avtay X avrovs Ln.
eevOepwy, add. te Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
puxpoyv, add. re Sch. Tf. [Gb.
oj.
.avT@v X avrod Ln.
mOAEpLov, prem. Tov Sch. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. «].
peta Tovtov 6 X per advrov
6 Ln.; 6 per avrov Gb. Sch.
at,
THY KaLtonerny X THs Katope-
vns Ln.
T® Oeiw, om. TH Gb. Sch.
En: Tf,
. extropevonevn X e&eAOovan
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Cuar. XX.
. kNetOa X KAeiv Gb. Sch. Ln.
act;
cl r
. Tov Opi tov dpxaiov XY 6
ois 6 apxaios Ln. Tf.
Saravas, prem. 6 Ln. Tf.
»
. EKNELOEV AUTOY, om. avTOY GD.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
travnon { mrava TE.
ta €Ovm ere X ere ta €Ovn
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
kal peta, om. kat Ln. Tf. [GD.
Si
avrov AvOjvat X AvEnvat av--
tov Ln. Tf.
.T@ Onpio YX rd Onpiov Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
ovre X ovd€ Ln. TF.
TH eixdve X rH eikdva St. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. ~]. Cet.
HéT@TOV avTaY, om. alTav
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
Xptorov, prem. Tov Elz. Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
Ta xidta, om. Ta Ln. Tf. [Gb.
=!
. 6€, om. Ln. Tf.
avé(noav X é(noay Gb. Sch.
en:
ews \ aype Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
. Oavatros 6 Sevrepos X Set-
tepos Oavaros Gb. Sch. Ln.
ABE
pet avtou X pera Tadra Gb.
~. [Cst.]
drav TedecOn X peta Gb. ~.
[Cst.]
. TOY Mayay, om. Toy Ln.
8. @dAELov, prem. Tov Sch. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. ~].
— dpOpuds, add. abray Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
9. exvKAworay X exvKAevoay Ln.
Tf. [Gb. »]. Cst.
— dd Tov Geov, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]; post ovpavod Gb.
Sch.
10. O7rov, add. kat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
11. Aeukdv peyay péeyayv dev-
kov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— avtov X avrov Gb. Sch. Tf.
— mpoo@rov, prem. Tod Ln.
12. pkpovs Kal preyddous \ rods
peyddous Kal Tovs pKpovs
Ln. Tf.
— Geov X Opdvou Gb. Sch. Ln.
af.
— nvewxOnoay YX jvoix8naay
Gp.-Sch.. in. Tf,
— BiBAiov adXo X aAXo BiB-
Aiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- nve@xn uA nvotxOn Ln. Tf.
13. €V ary vexpous X vexpods
Tous €v avtn Gb. Sch. Ln.
Abie
— &Swxav YX eSwxev Ln.
— €v avtois vexpovs X vexpovs
Tous ev av'tois Gb. Sch. Ln.
BE
14. oT 6 Sevtepos Oavaros X
6 Oav. 6 Sevr. eotiv Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.; add. 7 Aipyy
Tov mupés Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
ow].
13.7) BiB\@ X ro BiBAl@ Gb.
x, [Cst.]
Cuap. XXI.
1. mapndGe \ aandOav Ln. TF. ;
amndOov Gb. Sch.
2,€y@ “Iwdvyns, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
- eldSov, post Kawi Gb. Sch.Ln.
Aue
— amd TOU Oeod ek TOU ovpa-
vod \ €k Tov ovpavod azo
Tov Oeov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
3. ovpavod \ Opdvov Ln. Tf.
—)aot X Aads Gb. Sch. Tf.
(Rec. Gb. x].
— oral pet adrav X per av-
Tav €otat Gb. Sch. Ln.
— Ocds avrav X attav Geds
Ln. [Gb. 3].
4.6 Gzds, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
- amo YX ex Ln.
REVELATION.
4. OTt, om. Ln.
— anndOov X aa7ndOav Ln. Tf.
gs. Tod Opdvov X TH Opdv@ Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— pot, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
—mavra Tom \ roe mdvra
im. TE.
— pot, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— adnOivoi kal muoroi X ruarol
Kal dAnOwoi Gb. Sch. Lu.
Ube
6. Téyove Xyeyovay Ln. Tf. [Gb.
s] ; yéyova Gb. ~; [om. eyo
eit]. [Cst.]
—A \”Adda Lx. TF.
— daca, add.avt@ Sch.Tf. (Gb.
~]. [Cst.J
4. wavra { ravta Gb. Sch. Ln.
Df.
— 6 vids, om. 6 Ln. Tf.
8. detdois b€ X tots be Setdots
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— amiotos, add. kat duapto-
Aots Sch. (Gb. o].
— dappaketor X pappakois Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
8. Sevrepos Oavaros \ 6 av. 6
devr. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
9. mpos PE, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— els, add. ék Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.
— Tas yepovoas, om. Tas TF. ;
Tay yeudovrev Ln.
— TeV emTa, om. Tay Tf. [Gb.
ake
— Hv voudpny Tov apviov Ty
youvatkal thy yur. THY voup,
TOU dpviov Tf: [Cst. 1; 3 Ty
vo. THY yuv. TOU dpviov
Ln. [Gb.~]; T. yuv. T. dpv.
Gb. »,
10.€n ye emt Ln.
— Hv peyddnv, om. Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— ard X ex Tf. (Cst.]
11. Kal 6, om. kal Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf.
12.€xovody Te \ €xovca Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €xovoav X €xouca Gb. Sch.
instr.
—kal él Trois mudeow ay-
yédous Sadexa, om. Ln.
— €oTt, add. Ta Gvdpara Ln. ;
add. 6vopara Tf.
— TOY VidY, om. TOY Ln. Tf.
13. "Am dvaroAns \ amd avaro-
av Tf.; add avarodjs Gb.
Sch. Ln.
93
13. a0, prem. Kat ter Sch. Ln.
Tf. [Gb. x].
14. €V avrois dvépata X em ai-
tav Owdexa dyduata Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
1g. €txe, add. péerpov Gb. Sch.
Lu. Tf.
16. TOTOUTOY eaTLV, om. Gb. Sch.
ont.
— Kal TO mAaros 1°, Kat Gb. 3.
— otabiwy { cradious Elz. Gb.
Seh. Ln. Tf.
— dadexa X Sexadvo TE.
18. 7)V, om. Ln.
— 6poia X dpotoy Ln. Tf. [Gb.
]. Cst.
19. Kal of OepédtoL, om. kat Ln.
Tf. [Gb. >].
Si ad X xapknday Gb.
: Sakis X vapdidvvé Ln.
aapdwos X odpdioy Ln. Tf.
[Gb. ~]. Cst.
— xpvodmpacos X xpuodmpa-
gov Ln.
a1. Seahavns X Siavyns Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
22. vads, prem. 6 Ln.
23. €Y AUTH, om. ev Gb. Sch. Ln.
Jf.
-7 yap x yap 7) Gb. x. [Ost]
.Ta Oy TOV TwCopevav ev
T@ ori avrns mepurari)-
govat \reperarnoovow Ta
€Ovn Sia Tov pwros adrijs
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— kal THY TYAN, om. Ln.TE.[Gb.
=).
27. KoLvoovy X Kowvoy Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf.
— trotovv \ 6 rota@y TE.; Toray
Ln. [Gb. ~]. Cst.
Cuap. XXII.
.kaOapov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.
TE;
.evtevdev \ exetOev Ln. TF.
[Gb. x].
— pnva X pnvay Ln.
- eva, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €kaoTov arodiSouy X aro-
did0vs eka Tov Tf. (Cst.) ;
amod.bovs €xkaotos Gb. «
[Cst.]; dzodidovs éxdoro
Gb. ~.
katavadena \ karabepa Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
ért \ exet Gb. ~. (Ost)
S
co)
Leal
wv
ww
sg. exet ( ert Gb. Sch. Ln.; om.
Ti. [Gb., =i.
— xpelav ovK exovor X ovx
eSovow xpeiav Ln. [Gb. x]
Alzx.; od xpeia Gb. Sch. TE.
— vxvov, prem. peords Ln.
[Gb. v].’
— nriov, om. TF.
— portifer X pati én Gb.
Sch. Tf.; Qorioes ew Ln.
[em Gb. >].
6. elmé X ever Gb. ~. [Cst.]
— Kupios, prem. 6 Ln.
— dyioy \ mvevpdtev tev Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
4. 1dov, prem. kat Gb. Sch. Ln.
Tf. (Gb. >].
8. Kal éyo X kayo Ln. Tf.
— BrXérev tatta Kal axovov
akovev kal BAérav ravta
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— €Brewa X dre eidov TE. [Gb.
w]. Cst.
— €meca \ €recoy Elz. Gb. Sch.
9. yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
10. OTL, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— katpds, add. yap Ln. [Gb.
~].
11, puT@v puT@cdre \ purapos
pumrapevOnre Gb. Sch. [Ln.]
Tf.; [pumavOntw Ln.)
REV ELA TIO N.
11. OcxaiwOntre YX Sixacocvyny
Toimoat@ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
12. Kat idov, om. kat Gb. Sch.
ince
—avtov éorar X é€otw avrov
Ln. Tf.; [€ore Gb. -].
13. elt, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
—A X”Adda Ln. Tf.
— dpxn kai tédos, 6 mparos
kal 6 €xxaros \ mperos Kal
€xxXaTOS, 17) Apx1) Kal TO Té-
os [Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf.; [6
mp. K. 6 eax, Gb. Sch.]
14. OL TOLOUVYTES TAS EVTOAUS av-
Tov \ of wAvvovTEs TUS OTO-
Ads av’r@v Ln. (Gb. ~].; TE.
ed. 1° [Alz.]
13. O€, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— 6 Pdr, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3].
16. emt, om. Tf.; é€v Ln. [Gb. >].
— rod AaBid, om. Tov Gb. Sch.
LntT.
— kal, om. Sch. Tf.
— 6pOpwés X 6 mpawds Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
17. ENO€ bis \ €pxou bis Gb. Sch.
fin,
— €hO€rw \ épyéobw Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— kal 6 2°, om. kat Gb. Sch.
Last.
94 .us:
14. N\apBaverw TO X AaBerw Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
18. Suupaptupovpat yap \ pap-
Tup® €y@ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— dkovortt, prem. T® Gb. Sch.
duis Tf.
— émiriOn X émtOn Gb. Sch. Ln.
TT.
—mpos Tavita \ em atta Gb.
Sch. Ln. Tf.
— BiBrio, prem. Te Gb. Sch.
Le. Th
19. apaipy X apéeAn Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— BiBdov 1° ¥ rod BuBXLov Gb.
Scehi- Un. elt:
— apaipnoe: \ apedet Gb. Sch.
im Tf
— BiBrov X rod EvAov Gb. Sch.
Ln. Tf.
— €k, om. Ln.
— kal TOY, om. Kai Gb. Sch. Ln.
{ue
— BiBrio, prem. T@ Gb. Sch.
Lan, TF.
20. Nal, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
21.]p@v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf.
— Xpuorov, om. Ln. Tf.
—tyov. "Apunv, om. Ln. Tf.
[Gb. >]; Tv dyiwy Gb.
Sch.
IN THE PRESS,
THE
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT,
EDITED FROM ANCIENT AUTHORITIES,
WITH
THE VARIOUS READINGS
OF ALL THE ANCIENT MSS., OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS,
AND OF THE EARLIER ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS
(TO EUSEBIUS INCLUSIVE).
TOGETHER WITH THE
LATIN VERSION OF JEROME,
From the Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century.
BY oy FP, LReGEllns, aod.
Turs edition is the result of the labour and study of many years, devoted to
the object of setting forth the Text of the Greek New Testament, in accord-
ance with the best authorities, so as to give it as exactly as possible in the
very words of the inspired writers. To this end the editor has himself
collated every accessible ancient document, and has compared every early
citation; so that he hopes, by the blessing of God, that the forthcoming
edition may possess distinctive value for the Biblical student.
One volume, quarto, price €3. 3s.
Prospectuses and Specimen Pages may be obtained on application to the Editor,
Portland Square, Plymouth ; or to
Messrs. Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row, London.
THE
CODEX MONTFORTIANUS:
A COLLATION OF THIS CELEBRATED MS., IN THE LIBRARY OF TRINITY
COLLEGE, DUBLIN, THROUGHOUT THE GOSPELS AND ACTS,
WITH THE GREEK TEXT OF WETSTEIN, AND WITH CERTAIN MSS.
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
By ORLANDO: T. DOREIN; (LI Dee Doh hee
ONE VOLUME, OCTAVO.
Tue Manuscript collated in this volume has obtained an unusual degree of notoriety, from
its being the oldest MS. containing the disputed verse of 1 John v.7: “ There are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are
one.” The history of the introduction of that verse into the third edition of the Greek
Testament by Erasmus has always awakened the liveliest interest in the critical world, as a
mere enumeration of the names of the chief writers upon it will show; and Erasmus never
pleaded any authority save that of this MS. for its insertion. Known to him as the Codex
Britannicus in the early part of the sixteenth century, it was imperfectly collated in the
middle of the seventeenth, for the magnificent Polyglot of Bishop Walton, as the Codex
Montfortii; and eventually became the property of Trinity College, Dublin, along with the
books of the learned Archbishop Ussher, where it still bears the same designation. From
the Epistle to the Romans to the end of the Apocalypse, this remarkable Codex was most
carefully and minutely collated, at the beginning of the present century, by the extraordinary
labour of the Rev. Dr. John Barrett, Vice-Provost of the Dublin University, in an Appendix
at the close of his quarto volume on the Palimpsest Gospel of Matthew, so that upon this
portion of the MS. nothing more was to be desired; but the collation of the earlier part for
the Polyglot was so defective, as to loudly call for a renewed examination of the Gospels and
Acts, to which purpose the present volume is devoted. Fifteen hundred readings more than
those communicated to Walton by Ussher are adduced in it, all tending to exhibit the pe-
culiar character of the document, and to confirm Dr. Adam Clarke’s assertion concerning
the original scribe, that he was “ by no means sparing of his own conjectural emendations.”
But a further declaration of that distinguished divine has been falsified by the investiga-
tions of the present editor.
In Dr. Clarke’s Essay on 1 John v.7, he says of the Codex Montfortii, ““how far the
writer has in any place faithfully copied the text of any ancient MS. is more than can be
determined.” Notwithstanding which, the exact amount of the writer’s debt to existing MSS.
has been ascertained in the present volume, through the discovery, at Oxford, of the original
- documents from which it was copied. The results are given in the shape of careful com-
parison in this publication, which, to those who appreciate works of textual criticism, ought
to be one of great interest and value. It goes far to consummate the controversy conducted
during the last three centuries by Erasmus, Lee, Stunica, Colinzus, Stephens, Beza, Luther,
Simon, Burnet, Smith, Kettner, Howe, Hammond, Mill, Emlyn, Martin, Le Long, Calamy,
Smallbrooke, Bentley, Mace, Bengel, Wetstein, De Missy, Newton, Benson, Gibbon, Travis,
Porson, Michaelis, the Bishop of Peterborough, Semler, Wagner, Knittel, Bowring, Bishop
of Salisbury, Bishop of Ely, Dr. J. Pye Smith, Griesbach, Nolan, Oxlee, Scholz, Black,
author of Paleoromaica, Huyshe, Horne, etc., etc.
The labours of Dr. Barrett and Dr. Dobbin together form a more full and minute colla-
tion of this particular MS., than that which any other MS. in existence perhaps has re-
ceived at the hands of its critics, and disposes for ever of the learned Semler’s wonder :—“ Mi-
rum est viros doctos ejus insule nondum in clariori luce collocasse hujus codicis historiam.”
A SELECTION OF
DEB LACAI WV OR Ks.
PUBLISHED BY
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS,
LONDON.
IN THE PRESS,
The Greek New Testament, edited from Ancient Au-
_ thorities, with the Various Readings of all the Ancient MSS., of the Ancient
Versions, and of the earlier Ecclesiastical writers (to Eusebius inclusive).
Together with the LATIN VERSION of JEROME, from the Codex Amia-
tinus of the sixth century.
One volume, quarto, price 31. 3s.
The Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Trans-
mission of the Books of the New Testament. By 8. P. Tregelles, LL.D.
“Ita ut interrogati, cujus quisque liber sit, non hesitemus, quid respondere
debeamus.”
Small octavo, price 3s. 6d.
The Revelation: translated from a new text based on the
ancient Greek Authorities and Versions. By S.P.Tregelles, LL.D. Price 2s.
Hebrew Reading Lessons: consisting of the first Four
Chapters of the Book of Genesis, and the Eighth Chapter of the Proverbs, with
a Grammatical Praxis, and Interlineary Translation. By Dr. 8S, P. Tregelles,
Post octavo, 3s, 6d,
2 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old
Testament Scriptures, translated, with additions, by Dr. 8. P. Tregelles. Third
edition, one volume, 4to., 28s. 6d.
The want of a Hebrew Lexicon, with English explanations, which should
fully meet the requirements of the student, has been long felt and often ex-
pressed, a Lexicon not unsuited to the beginner, but at the same time such as
would suffice for the advanced scholar. The present work has been executed
with the desire of satisfactorily meeting this want.
Heads of Hebrew Grammar. A series of oral Lessons
long used with success by the author, in private tuition, By Dr. 8S. P. Tregelles.
Post 8vo., 4s. 6d.
The Jansenists: their Rise, Persecutions by the Jesuits,
and Existing Remnant: a Chapter in Church History. By S. P. Tregelles, LL.D.
With Portraits and Illustrations. One volume, post 8vo., in very neat cloth, and
lettered. Price 3s. 6d.
Remarks on the Prophetic Visions of the Book of Daniel;
with Notes on Prophetic Interpretation in connection with Popery. And a
Defence of the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel. By 8. P. Tregelles, LL.D.
Small 8vo., price 5s.
A Defence of the Authenticity of the Book of Daniel.
By S. P. Tregelles, LL.D. Small 8vo., price 1s. 6d.
Gesenius’s Hebrew Grammar, from the Edition enlarged
and improved by Dr. Rédiger, Professor of Oriental Literature in the University of
Halle. Translated by Dr. Davies, and re-edited by B. Davidson. With a Hebrew
Reading Book. One volume, 4to., very large print. Price 10s.
Bythner’s Hebrew and Chaldee Grammar, edited by the
Rev. Dr. Hessey, chiefly from the author’s revision of 1650.—“ Victorini Bythneri,
Institutio Lingue Sancte, cui addita est Introductio ad Linguam Chaldeam Veteris
Testamenti, auctore eodem. Editio Nova, accurante Rev. J. A. Hessey, J. C. D.,
Scholee Mercatorum Scissorum archididascalo,” ete. Octavo, price 5s. 6d.
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 3
The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon: an
Alphabetical arrangement of the entire Hebrew language as contained in the Old
Testament Scriptures: including, not only every word, and every form of every
word, but every existing combination of these with prefixes, suffixes, etc., and
under every change of vowel points. Second edition. By B. Davidson. One
volume, 4to., 22. 2s,
This Work is intended to provide the student who has already begun to read ever
so little, with the means of making speedy and sure after progress. Its object is to
assist him in his practice of the Sacred Text, by enabling him to apply the Rules he
has learned and may be learning; and, by supplying him with the Analysis of every
single word in the entire language, under every form it can assume, it promises him
exemption from the tedium and disappointment of uncertainty in his investigations.
“Tt is the ultimatum of Hebrew Lexicography, and will leave the Theologian,
who still remains ignorant of the sacred tongue, absolutely without excuse.”
— Churchman’s Monthly Review.
The Analytical Greek Lexicon to the New Testament ;
an Alphabetical arrangement of every word found in the Greek Text, in every form
in which each appears; that is to say, every occurrent person, number, tense, or
mood of verbs, every case and number of nouns, pronouns, etc., is placed in its
alphabetical order, fully explained by a careful grammatical analysis, and referred
to its root; so that no uncertainty as to the grammatical structure of any word
can perplex the beginner; but, assured of the precise grammatical force of any word
he may desire to interpret, he is able immediately to apply his knowledge of the
English meaning of the root with accuracy and satisfaction. One volume, 4to.,
price 25s.
There are numberless persons possessed of but little leisure for study who are
desirous of acquiring a competent knowledge of the New Testament in the
original language. By means of this Lexicon they may now attain to this
with comparative ease.
It is not supposed that an acquirement so valuable and coveted as the
ability to consult the original writings of the New Testament is to be secured
without labour; but it is confidently asserted that this work gives to labour
bestowed a precision of character, and a certainty of success, most cheering
to the student; and enables him to proceed confidently, step by step, as he
may have opportunity, assured of help and guidance where he needs it, and
possessing a check upon his results of the most important kind.
Chaldee Reading Lessons, containing the whole of the
Chaldee found in the Bible, with Interlineary Translations, Analysis, etc. On
the same plan as the Hebrew Lessons above. Post octavo, 5s.
4 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
Syriac Reading Lessons, with Interlineary Translation,
Parsing, Analysis, and an Introductory Grammar. Post 8vo., price 5s.
The Syriac New Testament, the Peshito Version,
carefully printed. Post 8vo., price 8s. Crown folio, price 12s. Demy 4to., price 10s.
The Syriac New Testament, with Lexicon.
Post 8vo., price 12s.
A Pocket Syriac Lexicon, after Gutbir.
Foolscap 8vo.. price 4s.
The Syriac, Greek, and Latin Gospels, in parallel
columns, with critical apparatus. Quarto, price 14s.
Arabic Reading Lessons, with Analysis, Interlineary
Translation, and Grammar. The extracts are from various authors, and include a
variety of styles. Edited jointly by the Rev. Nathan Davis, of Tunis, and
B. Davidson. Post 8vo., price 5s.
The Interlineary Hebrew and English Psalter; in which
the grammatical construction of every Hebrew word is indicated, and the root of
each distinguished by the use of hollow and other types. Pocket volume, post and
fep., price 6s.
A Hebrew-English Lexicon may be added, 6s. extra.
A Methodisation of the Hebrew Verbs, on an original
plan, by the Rev. Tresham D. Gregg, D.D. Second edition, price 1s.
A New Greek Harmony of -the Four Gospels, by
William Stroud, M.D. One volume, 4to., price 24s.
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 5
The English Hexapla: the Greek Original of the New
Testament Scriptures, with six vernacular English Versions, arranged in parallel
columns beneath it.
The Greek text is printed in the boldest type, and accompanied with various
readings and collations of different recensions.
The six translations and the original Greek are presented to the eye at one view;
and the whole is preceded by an Introduction full of interesting memorials of the
translations and the translators.
“Sure I am, that there commeth more knowlege and vnderstondinge of
the Scripture by ther sondrie translacyons, then by all the gloses of oure
sophisticall doctours. For that one interpreteth somthynge obscurely in
one place, the same translateth another (or els he him selfe) more mani-
festly by a more playne vocable of the same meanyng in another place.”—
BisuHop COoVERDALE.
THE SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA ARE—
A.D. 1880. WucriF’s Version—the harbinger of the Reformation.
A.D. 1534, TYNDALE’S own revised edition, printed at Antwerp.
A.D. 1539. The Version printed under the care of Archbishop CRANMER.
A.D. 1557. The Translation made and printed by the ExInEes aT GENEVA, during
Queen Mary’s reign.
A.D. 1582. The Version prepared by the PorisH COLLEGE OF RHEIMS.
A.D. 1611. The present Translation, as originally published.
Extra Demy quarto, price 27. 2s.
Kept bound in calfand Turkey morocco and Russia flexible styles.
The use and value of many translations of the Scriptures into a vernacular language
may be regarded as generally admitted. As translators are merely fallible men, no
translation can be regarded as really perfect. Hence, if the reader has the oppor-
tunity of comparing many translations, he has an opportunity of having his judgment
corrected, and he is prevented from being misled by the expressions of any single
translation. This applies especially to the wnlearned reader; but with regard to those
who are really critically learned, it is often found, that elucidations which are most
important for the real understanding of Scripture have been suggested by means of a
translation. These observations will of course apply to translations in general, but
they have obviously an especial application to those which are made into our own
language.
In this work the six principal English versions have been selected.
The Pocket Critical Greek and English ‘Testament,
in parallel columns, 16mo., price 8s.
In ‘ Bagster’s flexible’ Turkey morocco, tooled, 14s. A Greek-English Lexicon
may be added, 4s. 6d. extra.
6 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
The Large-print Critical Greek New Testament. An
edition containing a Text printed in large type, with copious Various Readings from
the principal authorities, Parallel Passages, the Eusebian Canons, and an intro-
ductory History of the Text. Octavo, 12s.; in neat strong calf, 17s.
The Publishers have likewise caused to be prepared a Synopsis of all the variations
of the texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, as a useful companion
to this or to any other Greek Testament.
Prefixed to this Synopsis of Various Readings there will be a full Critical Intro-
duction, giving the history of the formation of the text in common use, and a state-
ment of the critical principles on which Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischen-
dorf have respectively carried on their revisions.
A Lexicon to the Septuagint and New Testament Greek ;
in which the Greek words of the LXX. and of the New Testament are combined
under one alphabet, and illustrated with parallel citations from various authors,
etc., etc. By the Rev. T.S. Green, M.A. (Jn preparation.)
Bishop Coverdale’s First English Bible, quarto.
Price 30s.in cloth. With a portrait and facsimile title.
This is a careful reprint of the scarce original edition of MDXXXV. in its
own orthography. It is interesting not only as the first English Bible issued
by royal authority, but on account of the homely simplicity with which the
translation is throughout made. The following extract of a well-known passage
will show the style of the rendering :—
As for vs, we go all astraye (like shepe), euery one turneth his owne
waye. But thorow him, the LORDE pardoneth all oure synnes. He
shal be payned € troubled, ad shal not opé his mouth. He shalbe led as
a shepe to be slayne, yet shal he be as still as a lambe before the shearer,
€ not open his mouth. He shal be had awaye, his cause not herde, and
without eny iudgment: Whose generacion yet no man maye nombre,
when he shalbe cut of fro the grounde of the lyvinge: Which punysh-
ment shal go vpon him, for the transgression of my people. His graue
shalbe geué him with the codemned, ¢ his crucifienge with the theues,
Where as he dyd neuer violence ner vnright, nether hath there bene eny
disceatfulnesse in his mouth.
The sale of one entire impression of this modern edition attests the abiding interest
of the work as a faithful translation.
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 7
A very elegant Edition of Coverdale’s Bible has been
printed on Royal 4to. paper, for presentation. Both editions are kept in every
variety of binding at 15, Paternoster Row. Gilt and Silver mountings also may be
selected adapted to every style of finish.
The Commentary wholly Biblical. A new Bible, in
preparation, which will contain the usual Authorised Text, illustrated by a copious
Commentary in the very words of Scripture.
It will consist of one or two volumes, and the price will be as moderate as
its costly production will allow.
The Treasury of Scripture Parallels. Price 10s., cloth.
A Pocket collection of about five hundred thousand references to parallel
passages, grouped into chapter and verse, so that it may be used with any Bible.
If it be desired to investigate the meaning of any verse in the Bible, a simple
reference to the same chapter and verse in this Treasury supplies the means
at once of consulting the other Scriptures that are illustrative. Interleaved
also with the Authorised Version.
Schmidt’s Greek Concordance to the New Testament.
A thin flat pocket edition, 5s.; a smaller pocket form, 32mo., 5s.
A Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament
Dialect ; embracing Observations on the Literal Interpretation of numerous Pas-
sages, by the Rev. Thomas Sheldon Green, M.A. One volume, 8vo., price 10s.
The Polyglot Book of Common Prayer, in eight Lan-
guages at one view.
Latin. German. Spanish. Greek.
English. Italian. French. Modern Greek.
One pocket volume, price 13s.
8 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
The Septuagint Greek Version, translated into English,
with Critical Notes.
Two volumes, royal octavo, price 21s.
It may be urged that there are many reasons for publishing the Septuagint, but
few for translating it. Let scholars, it may be said, make the most of it, and
give others the benefit of the comparison, but the unlearned who are confined
to translations may be satisfied with the translation of the Hebrew. Beyond
this, things might be left to find their own level. Let the Greek Septuagint
be published in a cheap and accessible form, and the march of mind will soon
supply readers.
But the march of intellect is not the march of literature. If the reading
population of the country promises to double itself in a few years, the thinking
part of the community increases at a still more rapid rate; and their judg-
ment of books must sometimes precede the reading of them. To inform this
judgment is one great use of translations.
It is a just remark, we believe, of Archbishop Whately, that it would be
well if a translation of the plays acted at Westminster school were put into
the hands of the boys’ mothers. If a translation of bad books is useful to
teach parents what to refuse, still more desirable is a translation of good
books to teach them what to choose. Why, then, it may be asked, is the
Septuagint so little known and so little valued? The answer is, Because it
has not been translated.
The dangerous acquirement of a Jittle Hebrew learning will be less likely
to flatter its possessor, when it is shared with many others, or improved
into a competent acquaintance with the language and its difficulties. The
Septuagint will be welcomed, not indeed as the rival, but as the handmaid of
the Hebrew Scriptures,—the pleasing tribute of Gentile literature to the
House of God ; who, from the midst of all the infidelity and error that darken
the earth, can elicit blessings for his people; who could make the inauspicious
land of Egypt at one time a shelter for “the young child” from the jealousy
of a Jewish king, at another the faithful repository of the written Word. The
Jews were thus providentially led to deposit a pledge for the truth of the
Gospel which they could never recal, and in the heart of their inspired
records had treasured up a picture of the Man of Sorrows of which it was
too late to deny the likeness to Jesus of Nazareth.
Thesaurus Greece Lingus, ab H. Stephano constructus.
Editio Nova, auctior et emendatior.
In eight Volumes folio, half bound in Russia, price 107.
Genesis Elucidated. A New Translation from the
Hebrew, compared with the Samaritan Text and the Septuagint and Syriac Ver-
sions, with copious Notes. By the Rev. John Jervis- White Jervis.
One volume, 8vo., price 12s.
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 9
Champney’s Texts of Scripture, arranged for use in
Family Worship, and for Private Meditation, on General and Special Occasions.
Second Edition, enlarged. By H.N.Champney. Price 6d.
A Family Text Book, comprising the most striking passages of precept, pro-
mise, and warning, with texts appropriate to eighteen Church Seasons, as
well as to a Christening, Confirmation, Relative Duties, IlIness, a Funeral,
and numerous other events and circumstances of a public, domestic, or per-
sonal nature. It contains a collection of all the texts on Baptism, and a
copious Index of Subjects.
Champney’s Index to Scripture Readings, containing
above 1000 References to Chapters or Paragraphs (under 128 heads, alphabetically
arranged), for the various purposes and occasions of Private and Family Reading
and for the use of District Visiters and Scripture Readers. By H. N. Champney.
Price 6d.
Champney’s Textual Commentary on the Book of
Psalms; being an Expository and Devotional Help to the Ministerial Student and
General Reader, on anew plan. By H.N.Champney. Price 3s.
Champney’s Index to the Book of Common Prayer,
designed to promote an acquaintance with its doctrinal teaching and devotional
language, and suitable for use in Sunday Schools. By H.N.Champney. Price 6d.
The Work contains above 4000 References to the contents of the Prayer Book,
and their separate clauses, under 875 heads of doctrine and practice, alpha-
betically arranged. The 39 Articles are included in the Analysis, and the
whole Index furnishes the means of illustrating from the Prayer Book many
of the subjects brought forward in instruction from the Holy Scriptures.
Geneste’s Parallel Histories of Judah and _ Israel.
The History as contained in the Sacred Text, in the words of the Authorised
Version, has been carefully separated into two distinct series, which are printed
in parallel columns; and with the Historical Narratives are combined the Pro-
phetic Writings of the respective periods. The whole is illustrated by Notes.
-A Summary of the Events embraces synchronous profane events also. Indexes, ete.
Two volumes, royal octavo, 25s.
10 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
An Introduction to the New Testament, containing an
Examination of the most important Questions relating to the Authority, Inter-
pretation, and Integrity of the Canonical Books, with reference to the latest
Tnquiries. By Samuel Davidson, D.D., and LL.D.
Three vols. 8vo., in neat cloth, price 22.
It has been for many years the anxious desire of the Publishers to continue to
bring before Biblical Scholars such works as shall combine true Christian
principle with sound learning and general utility ; and to this end they have
directed their attention, and have sought and obtained the co-operation of
not a few in whose scholarship they could confide.
It is well known, that in Germany, of late years, extensive learning and
intense diligence have been brought to bear upon almost every subject
connected with the Scriptures; and while it is true, that not a little of this
laboriousness has been spent rather in opposing than in furthering Truth
and Revelation, it must be admitted, that almost every question connected
with the New Testament writings has been presented in a new phase.
Of course, the learned Biblical Scholars of Germany are not to be con-
demned in a mass; there are amongst them illustrious names—men who
have sought to unite accurate and extensive scholarship with the maintenance
of the authority of Scripture, upon which alone all true doctrine can be
based.
It is, however, a fact, that Biblical Scholars in this country have either
known but little of recent investigations, or else they have been too much
exposed to the inconvenience of learning this department of biblical inquiry
from, at least, doubtful sources. And besides, there is not a small portion
of continental inquiry already diffused amongst us, of that kind which opposes
revelation, and which would use a certain portion of learning to contravene
the authenticity and authority of those Holy Scriptures on which the hopes
of Christians are based. How important that such cavils should be met, that
such specious objections should be shown in their true light, and that Biblical
Students should be avmed (in some measure, perhaps, by anticipation) against
the mode in which learning can be used in opposition to truth!
Dr. Davidson has considered the various subjects relative to the New
Testament Scriptures, “ with reference to the latest inquiries.” To this end
he has extensively examined the writings of modern scholars, and has shown
the futility of those objections which pass current among many on the con-
tinent, and which, in various forms, are introduced here; he has, in fact,
brought together the information with regard to the New Testament books
which a scholar needs, and which he could not obtain elsewhere without
having recourse to a vast number of volumes, many of which are of ob-
jectionable character.
There is no safety in our being ignorant of the modes in which truth is
attacked; it is only by sound and accurate learning that the authority of
Scripture and orthodoxy of belief can be maintained ; the Publishers, there-
fore, believe that this “ Introduction” has” been well-timed; and that it will
be found a valuable addition to every Biblical Student’s library.
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 11
The Chronological Atlas of Scripture Geography; a
series of Maps accompanied with copious descriptions, arranged in periods to
illustrate the various political and other aspects of the Lands of the Bible. With
complete Index and Concordance. Small 4to., bound in half morocco, gilt edges,
price 10s. 6d.
The Holy Vessels and Furniture of the Tabernacle of
Israel, on a uniform scale, executed in the most elaborate style of colour-printing,
with illumination of Gold, Silver, Brass, etc.
The size of this volume is oblong quarto, and it is bound up in halfmorocco,
with gilded side-lettering and tops. Price 35s.
“The drawings of the vessels, contained in this work, are executed on the scale
of an inch to a cubit; they are the result of a careful and protracted investi-
gation of the descriptions recorded in the Word of God. It will be perceived
at once, that they differ in many respects from all other plates of the holy
vessels hitherto published: this arises chiefly from their having been, as far
as was possible, exclusively designed from the Scripture itself,—all Jewish
tradition having been studiously avoided, and no pictorial representation
that has hitherto appeared having been resorted to as authority. The ab-
sence of all ornament, and consequent simplicity and plainness, will at once
strike the eye, in contrast with what has usually been represented. Where
the definite shape of any of the vessels is not recorded in the Word, but
only their uses, as is the case with the Laver, and minor instruments of service
attached to the Shewbread-table, Candlestick, and Brazen Altar, very ancient
patterns have been adopted, in order that there might not be any glaring ana-
chronisms in the designs. They are drawn partly covered as well as un-
covered, as it is believed much of a typical import is intended to be conveyed
in the various coverings directed to be used, in Num.iv. The vessels are
not drawn as arranged in their places in the Tabernacle, but as they may
be supposed to have appeared when finished, and separately presented to
Moses. (Ex. xxxix. 35—39.)”
The Emphatic New Testament. By John Taylor.
Price 12s. 6d.
“The Editor has found numerous doubts removed from his own mind, by the
restoration of the most ancient Text, and by observing the prominence given
to those words in English which are the exponents of equally prominent
words in Greek, when the latter are fully represented; and he trusts that
the same means will be effectual in assisting every English reader to determine
for himself what are the genuine words of Scripture, and what is the peculiar
sense in which, as regards Emphasis, they ought to be understood.”
12 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
‘The Bible of Every Land.” Dedicated by permission
to His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. A History of the Scriptures,
illustrated by Specimens of the Versions in the native character of the Languages
of the Earth, and by narratives of the circumstances under which each was pro-
duced and has been distributed. This work is not only narrative in style (and
it is full of curious incident), but it attempts to furnish a description of each family
and race of man, defining their geographical position by means of elaborate Ethno-
graphical Maps, and explaining the structure of the various Languages in their
mutual relations. _
The Illustrations of the written Languages consist of a series of portions from
the various Versions, in native character, of part of the First Chapter of
St. John’s Gospel, or other like passages, and occupy a prominent portion of
the Book throughout.
A complete collection of Native Alphabets is added, which are all accom-
panied with Roman powers, and printed with red and black inks.
The Ethnographic Maps, which are engraved in the first style of the art,
are carefully coloured to exhibit to the eye at a glance the extent of the
Languages of the earth. It is most interesting, by means of these Maps, to
trace the political boundaries and physical divisions of the World, as com-
pared with the extension of the languages of its inhabitants.
The First Map illustrates the Monosyllabic Language of China, etc.; the
Second shows the extension of the Shemitic Languages ; the Third illustrates
the Medo-Persian family of Languages; the Fourth the great Sanscrit
Family; the Fifth shows the distribution of the Celtic, Teutonic, Greco-
Latin, Thraco-Illyrian, and Sclavonic Families over Europe; the Sixth, the
Finno-Tartarian family of Languages; the Seventh is illustrative of the Poly-
nesian and Negritian Languages ; the Eighth shows the distribution of the
native Languages of Africa; a Ninth the Languages of North and South
America; and a Tenth exhibits the ancient very wide diffusion of the Hebrew
Language.
One handsome Volume, 4to., bound in half-morocco, price 2. 2s.
MULTE TERRICOLIS LINGUZ, CHLESTIBUS UNA.
“This volume may be viewed in two aspects,—a learned and a popular aspect. In
its relation to learning, the volume offers a very useful manual of philology, in the
study of which competently prepared minds may be greatly assisted to understand
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 13
the parentage and filiation of languages, and to become acquainted with not only
the laws of thought, but also national character, which portray themselves naturally,
and therefore truly, in language, the picture of the mind,—the mind made visible in
its products. No small contribution to the advancement of learning is made in this
volume, for it is well fitted to assist the general student in arriving at the conclusion
of the unity of the human race, as well as to confirm the Christian scholar in the
conviction which he entertains of that historical fact. Besides these important ser-
vices, the work is a valuable contribution to historical theology, and places within the
reach of persons and institutions of ordinary means, very various and very useful
information on many points which have to be treated of in the collegiate lecture-
room, and the biblical class.
“Regarded in its popular point of view, ‘The Bible of Every Land’ possesses a
very high interest. In one sense it is a history of Christian missions. Here the
plain Christian, whose prayer for many years has been for the conversion of the
heathen, and whose limited resources have been often taxed for the furtherance of
so desirable an end, may, with his own eyes, behold fruits of his righteous efforts.
The ancients erected trophies of their victories, made up of the spoils of the slain.
This book is a trophy of the great Christian victory achieved in the great battle-
field of the earth, consisting of specimens of the languages and dialects spoken by the
conquered nations. What an encouragement, too, is presented here to both those
who are engaged in, and those who think of entering on, the great work of evangelising
the world!
“Of less consequence is the fact, that the book is a literary curiosity. Let it not
be said absolutely that ‘there is nothing new under the sun, for unquestionably ‘ The
Bible of Every Land’ embodies a new idea. The work is generally well executed ;
no cost has been spared; the maps are good, and many of the specimens no less
beautiful than accurate."—British Quarterly Review.
The Warrant of Faith: a Hand-Book to the Canon and
Inspiration of the Scriptures. By the Rev. Robert Whytehead, M.A., Author of
a Key to the Prayer Book. Post octavo, price 6s. 6d.
The object of this work is to display the grounds which we have for believing
the Scriptures to be a Divine Revelation, by exhibiting the warrant of our
faith, the credentials of our Christianity. The freshness of originality has
been secured to the work, by adducing the actual text of the authors quoted,
in almost every instance.
It is hoped that the student will here meet with a solution of many of the
difficulties of the Bible, and find the work a key by which he can open others
for himself.
14 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
The Life and Labours of St. Augustine: a Historical
Sketch. By Philip Schaff, D.D. Small octavo, price 3s. 6d.
A faithful, clear, and popular account of such a man as St. Augustine is still
a desideratum in our literature. The piety of his tender years, the theoretical
and practical aberrations of his youth and early manhood, his painful mental
and moral conflicts in the search of truth and peace, and his striking and
thorough conversion, clothe his life with a peculiar interest to every in-
telligent Christian.
FOR PRESENTATIONS, xr.
The Polyglot Bible Cabinet: an elegantly carved Oak
Case, containing the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, French, Italian, German,
Spanish, and Portuguese Bibles, the Syriac New Testament, the Book of Common
Prayer in Eight Languages, with Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac Lexicons. Thirteen
volumes, bound in ‘ Bagster’s flexible’ Turkey morocco, tooled. Price 142. 14s.
Bagster’s Comprehensive Family, Pulpit, and Study
Bible, complete in one volume; with coloured maps, ete.
The types used for the Text, the Notes, and References, have been selected
with special reference to easy legibility.
The smallest, or Crown 4to. edition is printed with Small Pica type, and is a handy
portable volume. Price 24s. in cloth.
The medium, or Demy 4to. edition is printed with Pica type of remarkable clear-
ness. Price 32s. in cloth.
The largest, or Royal 4to. edition is printed upon extra stout paper with handsome
margins, and is particularly suitable for presentation, and Pulpit use. Price 46s. in
cloth.
are printed to bind up with the
Church of Scotland,
Comprehensive Bibles.
Cruden’s Concordance,
The Psalms and Paraphrases of the \
The Apocrypha,
The Miniature Quarto Bible. Price 21s. 6d. cloth.
Handiness and legibility are the characteristics of this Bible. It is printed
upon the finest ‘toned’ paper, and contains copious Critical Notes, Parallel
References, Coloured Maps, etc., ete. This elegant volume measures about 7
inches by 93, and is not more than 23 inches in thickness. Its portability,
completeness, and elegance adapt it for the Pulpit, as well as for Invalids,
to whom lightness and superior finish are recommendations.
Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row. 15
BAGSTER’S POLYGLOT BIBLES.
These elegant Pocket Bibles are printed of three different sizes of
exactly uniform arrangement, so that the pages of each, though
differing as to size of type, exactly correspond, line for line and word
for word.
The Miniature English Version of Bagster’s Polyglot
Bible, with its selected parallel passages, and coloured maps. Price 12s. 6d. in
plain morocco, very flexible.
Extra Turkey morocco, plain and tooled; as well as elaborate antique bind-
ings, with every variety of rich and plain mountings, are always kept ready at
15, Paternoster Row.
THE MIDDLE SIZE OF THE POCKET
POLYGLOT BIBLE.
The English Version of Bagster’s Pocket Polyglot Bible,
fep. 8vo., with its well-known selection of parallel references, fully-coloured maps
and engraved chronological chart. Price 16s.6d. in plain morocco, very flexible.
Extra Turkey morocco, plain and tooled; as well as elaborate antique and
fancy bindings, with every variety of plain and rich mountings, are always on
sale at 15, Paternoster Row.
THE FACSIMILE LARGE-PRINT EDITION OF
THE POLY GLOT BIBLE.
The Facsimile English Version of Bagster’s Polyglot
. Bible corresponds exactly with the smaller editions (except that it is printed with
large types). It may thus be used in conjunction with the small editions, for the
same texts occur in both books in the same position precisely,—an advantage of
considerable importance to those who have become familiar with the smaller pocket
editions. Price 21s. in plain morocco, very flexible.
Extra Turkey morocco, plain and tooled; and the antique morocco and russia
bindings, as well as every variety of gilt and silver ornamental clasping and
mountings, with covers and cases, may be obtained at 15, Paternoster Row.
16 Samuel Bagster and Sons, 15, Paternoster Row.
A Critical Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul the
Apostle to the Romans. By Robert Knight, Perpetual Curate of Warton. One
volume, 8vo., price 15s.
* Controversy, therefore, as it respects professed Christian believers, is but
another term for maintaining what on either side is supposed to be the true
intent and meaning of the Sacred Word. The right interpretation of Scrip-
ture is the direct object of its research.”
Results of a Method of restoring Weak Voices, cor-
recting Defective Articulation, and teaching Elocution. A series of Testimonials
to Mr. D. THompson. 12mo., sewed. Gratis, by post free.
PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION.
The Epistles of Paul the Apostle: an original Trans-
lation, with Critical Notes, and an Introduction. By Jos—EpH TURNBULL, Ph. D.,
etc., Honorary Secretary of the Anglo-Biblical Institute. One volume, 8vo.
TloAAa prev Ontos TAwrrat, pia S'AGavaroow.
LON DON =
SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS,
15, PATERNOSTER ROW,
AT THE WAREHOUSE FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER BOOKS,
LEXICONS, GRAMMARS, CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS,
IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES.
BS UaSee" Toy “oot te LN e a
Tregelles, Samuel Frideaux, Ss a
An accaunt af the printed tex oy
of the Greek New Testament «4
BS 1938 Té6é7 1854 TRIN |
Tregqelles, Samuel Frideaux, 4
An account of the printed tex
maf the Greek New Testament -&
4 "ed ane 5
bl
aw
x 7 ner = ener "y lee es TT ee ee ‘ oe Py LA a, >t ty 4 “Gai, [* ee ' J
re Sebi i Daaus F . So 1 Belle bree nia Pt fona TY Ames Vaan bey IL AN neg att Milas SORE ee riinct Rice Nickie ting emacs Mi ene ox ihe at
ihn ; ead op Pr all a aig Wale avleie, pet aman d eanite thn’ fab ean tsa tiaiisising aah a ENsaela moan Peete
fA‘) : ae MGT 2 a pa CS i 7 PMB A
stl i ; f ‘ Ve Cat f "
POMBE Soo pia at tL 2 ao oa gach | Bsa
: Mathias
eee TUSTIN ITPTEEA SPOT FRE Pike wn Seah
ydicd 4 Fy ie 4), ed EM ory Erte ttre
NT ACL ERD odd npetal i tehias Sty
woe rhalely vp hil ” 3 ,
”
; : ALU Fal
: (At PPE Cy
LPAI a aT Ee
‘i f ey Riese re 8
: LBS RIT Sct
}
- ets wa - teem mt rash 4, tp A
iY ut wetter 7 rT r \ H NG . :
; i i His ute i Mis r i HM A ; iT
ref ‘4 3 7 i ( + eGR MPR aT Penal] a), zi aya
f } { H Pies ar me) .
Mita hte predaitidatienacs comes hee htimeystetitaricyglitorh dT Ay
;
Loyal ee Pama t atte muciax PUVA) FaBGAE ROL RUA Lae De
ie eva teva hs ED Wud PO ALE Mad Le AMALIA PI on pot Maer i phe BT had ee
a ri ‘ 4 ,
vere
ovy
jsp
Pes
cee S
Sar
$3
ET Eis
se
tate
CHEE
i
te
(ei kel cabooses
ne Nils oan ~
mae i itty “an ONL
beta Ste Syoead TO, emits
ta homegget ORR Histo ide
oy
re!
nah
+
seer atenssoecae
586
as
To 723
Fe, oP
f Mba Ft voy :
eas ; ; fess i ey,
ial $5. Sopeny PY oul tone ae 8 ¢ ‘ ' , t on Fete
rug? 4 c md c . Lect Boe Pry
" Bhd
fr)
aj
ER ‘
ies
ia IF
i,
re
aizae
Wi
£
rie
s a Phd oe = nee »
“Fr
«
Pi
Li pas t
Siting ys eit i
— x
Poaceae Pir Pika
4 i byytth
oa
TET
FF ¥
rr ry
ESE
SIT IIIF
¥
=
3 7
seis ata}
SASS tyres
t Z aey ste $8
fits:
ERIE?
> :
PEEEIT ES
P Ey:
ere
: :
p fore f é ; : oy ’ i eget Time , ,
% biaisy r - Sy Fs " ' F Phe diac 7) : Jun md, ve
7" sified, x i rid : fy, vs 4 Pd 2eK,
*e
hen
iw) ney
sont] gid da as
ja es, 2 . Noto Ars
oad 6 ppg Te ui - Noel foestel Sag:
lng ae NN Tiers ‘ : Pg ie age ’
sega arte Hpreephetery rai
Lage cree esa Sh tel
Spl gta Te Elis Bo aera.
Ms of) ° aeeoeees ji pe ecnpatats mh Hh
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11