Skip to main content

Full text of "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"

See other formats

















" Ita didici, fidem rellgioncm 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. Prcef. ix. 




MAY 2 8 1993 









THIS 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 

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 


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 


which seek to establish this claim by recklessly rejecting the basis 
of all known and long-cherished truth. 

veoi yap olaKov6p.oi 

Zcvs erus Kparvvft 
TO. 7rp\i> Se TreXcopta vvv dtaroi. 

JEscli. Prom. Vinct. 153 (Blomf.) 

And even now, perhaps, that boasted cry of "progress," so often 
heard, without regard to holiness and truth, and which is reiterated 
by those who seek to conceal, even from themselves, their own 
superficial pretensions, and to hinder others from knowing their 
utter want of principle, may have raised up some yet newer 
claimant to dethrone preceding systems, in the vain thought of 
maintaining a triumphant rule. 

veov vcoL Kparetre, Kat SoKctre &} 
vaiftv aTTCvdrj Trepyap. OVK c< ra>j/5 fy<o 
diaa-ovs rvpdvvovs tWeo-o i/ray T/O-^O/XT/V ; 
rpirov 5e rov vvv KOipavovvT eTro^opat 

/cat ra^tora. JEsch. Prom. Vinct. 991. 

In one thing, and one only, have these forms of opposition been 
agreed : they have all of them re-echoed the serpent s first whisper 
of doubt and lying, "YEA, HATH GOD SAID?" 

It behoves those who value the revelation of God in his word, 
both for their own sakes and on account of others, to be really 
grounded in biblical study : that which is merely superficial will 
not suffice ; it would only be enough to enable the sharpness of 
the edge of sceptical objections to be felt, causing, perhaps, serious 
injury, without giving the ability needed to turn the weapon 
aside : while, on the other hand, fundamental acquaintance with 
the subject may, through God s grace, enable us so to hold fast the 


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. 

S. P. T. 
PLYMOUTH, 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. 



The first printed Gr. Test., 1514. Neglect of Greek at the time of the invention of 
printing, 1. The Latin Yulgate the only SS. of Western Europe, 2. Preparations 
of Card. Ximenes for his edition, 2. First printed portions of the Gr. Text t 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. 


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. 


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. 


Number of copies in Erasmus s two first editions, 25. Erasmus s Latin Version 
reprehended, 25, and note. His third edition (1522), 25. 1 John v. 7, inserted from 
the Codex Britannicus, 26, and note. The fourth edition (1527), 27. The fifth 
edition (1535), 28. Ancient testimony relied on, Acts xiii. 33, . . 28. 


MS. authorities commonly neglected ; edition of Colinus, 30. Stephens editions 
of 1546 and 49, . . 30. His large edition (1550), with various readings, 30. Censured 
by the Sorbonne, 31. Discussions on 1 Johnv. 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 Eeceptus," 35. 


Various readings in Scripture, 37. Collection in Walton s Polyglot, 38. Velezian 
readings, 38. Curcellseus s edition (1658), 39. Bp. Fell s edition (1675), 40. Bar- 
berini readings, 40. 


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. Kuster 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. 


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. Eeading of Acts xxvii. 14, . . 53. The wind JSuro-aguilo, 54. Texts 
not rendered precarious by various readings, 56. Text not preserved by miracle, 57. 


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 Eug. 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 note. 



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. 


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. Sender s re 
print of Wetstein s Prolegomena, 81. Lotze s proposed new edition, 81, 82. 


New Testament criticism as left by Wetstein, 83. Griesbach s first edition, 
(1774-7,) 83. Theory of recensions, 84. His value for ancient evidence, 85. Mat- 
thffii 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. 


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. 


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. Eeading 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 LacJtmann s edition. Unscrupulous mode in 
ivliich lie was assailed. Even-handed justice. Quotation from Rentley. Gram 
matical reviewers : subjunctive futures. Lachmantfs own claims, 115 seq. note. 



His first edition (1841), 116. Paris editions of 1812, 118. His second Leipsic 
edition, 1849, 118. Selection of various readings, 119. Adoption of ancient evi 
dence, 119. Early variations, Eev. xiii. 18, . . 120. Critical rules, 120. Examples, 
121. Mark ii. 22, . . 121. Matt. xxv. 16, . . 122. Matt, xxiii. 4, . . 123. Matt. xxiv. 
38, . . 124. Mar. viii. 26, . . 124. Alexandrian forms, 125. aurou and avroO, 126. 
Recensions, 127. Tischendorfs collations, 128. 


The Greek MSS., of which the text has been published, 129. Those prior to 
Tischendorf, 129. Those edited by Tischendorf, 130. His continued research for 
MSS., 131. 


"Comparative Criticism" defined, 132. Preliminary list of MSS., 132. Readings 
of Matt. xix. 17, . . 133. Mr. Scrivener s remarks, 134, 135. Observations on them, 
136. Source of the common reading of this passage, 137. Value of MSS. in spite 
of incorrect readings (D), 137 note. Small comparative value of the mass of MSS., 
138. Matt. xv. 8, . . 139. Matt. xx. 22, . . 140. Matt, xviii. 35, Mar. iii. 29, . . 141. 

Mar. iv. 12, 24, x. 21, xii. 4, 23, xiii. 14, Luke viii. 9, 20, 28, 54, ix. 7, 54, xi. 2, . . 142. 

Luke xi. 29 (Sis), 44, xii. 31, xiii. 24, John iv. 43, v. 16, vi. 22, . . 143. John vi. 39, 
40, 51, 69, viii. 59, ix. 8, 11 (bis), 25, 26, x. 12, 13, 14, . . 144. John x. 26, 33, xi. 41, 
Acts i. 14, 15, ii. 7, 23, 30, 31, 47, etc., iii. 22, xv. 24, 33, Rom. i. 16, . . 145. Rom. iii 
22, v. 1, vi. 12, viii. 1, x. 15, xi. 6, xiv. 6, 9, xv. 24, 29, xvi. 5, 25-27, . . 146. 1 Cor 
ii. 4, iii. 4, vi. 20, vii. 5, Gal. iii. 1, Eph. iii. 14, . . 147. Results of Comparative 
Criticism, 148. Value of the most ancient MSS., 149. 


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 Mutineusis, 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. 33 (Evv.), 161, 162. M 
(Evv.), 162. D (Epp.), 162. H (Evv.), 163. Uffenbach fragment, 163. Lach- 
mann s Latin collations, 164. Collations compared with Tischendorfs, 164. On 
readings in D (Epp.), 164 note. G (Epp.), 165. Heading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, 165 note. 
Fragments P and Q,, 165. F (Evv.), 166. Cod. Leicest., 166. Dublin palimpsest 
Z, and its chymical restoration, 166-169. MSS. recompared at Basle, Munich, and 


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 jEthiopic, 171. Ancient MSS. published and unpub 
lished, 172. Results, 173. 


Object, and opposite modes of seeking to attain it, 174. Numbers against autho 
rity, 175. Proofs that readings are ancient, 175, 176. Character of all the most 
ancient documents, 177. Analogy of ancient and modern Latin MSS., 179. Non- 
accordance of the later Greek MSS., 180. The later copyists, 182. Charges of 
innovation, 183. Porson on interpolations, 184 note. An ancient text of the 
LXX. displaces the Aldine, 185. Judgment on evidence, prayer, 186. Express 
early statements as to readings ; Matt. xix. 17, . . 187. Matt. v. 4, 5, . . 187. Matt. 
i. 18, . . 188. Matt. xxiv. 36, . . 190. 1 Cor. xv. 51, . . 191. 1 Cor. xiii. 3, . . 191. 
Matt. viii. 28, Mar. v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, . . 192. Matt, xxvii. 16, 17, . . 194. 2 Tim. 
iv. 1, . . 196. Luke xiv. 5, . . 197. Conjecture in the 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, 
4 < 205. Heb. xi. 35, . . 206. Matt, xxvii. 49, . . 206, 207. Proper names, 207. David, 
Amos, 207. Asaph, Siloam, Capharnaum, Nazareth, 208. Maflflotos, 209. vv e^>eA- 
Kv<rru(6v, 209. A.a/uj3awo, 209. Peculiar flexions, 209. Interchange of vowels, 210. 
Iota subscript, 210. Terminations -w and -01, 1 Pet. iii. 7, . ; . 211. et and -17, 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. 


1 John v. 7 : reasons for not formally discussing the passage, 226. 1 Tim. iii. 16 : 
authorities which support 0e6j, 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 os, 229. The passage altered by Macedonius, 229 and note. 

A relative the best-supported reading, 230. os supported by the Greek autho 
rities, 230. Translation of the passage, 231. Acts xx. 28, . . 231. Authorities in 
favour of 0eoO, 231. Reading of B, 231 note. Chrysostom doubtful, 232 and note. 

Cyril, 232. Authorities for wpCov, 232; for <cvpu>u *<xl 0eou, 232. Results, 233. 
Readings absolutely supported by critical research, 234. Passages of dogmatic value 
restored, 234. John i. 18 : testimonies in favour of /xovoyei/Tj? 0e6?, 234. ] 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 . . 236. 

John vii. 53-viii. 11, of well-known doubtfulness: documents in its favour, 236. 
How introduced in Cod. 1, 237 note. Augustine s conjecture, 237. Documents 


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 v. 3, 4 : authorities for and against the last clause of verse 3, . . 243. 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 
Scriptui e, even when anonymous, 259. Sutler and Warburton quoted, 260 note. 
Testimony of John the Presbyter to St. Mark s Gospel, 260 and note. 


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 
v. 13, Rev. xvii. 8, . . 270. Present state and requirements of biblical study, 271. 




i. 18 . 


v. 4,5 

viii. 28 
xv. 8 . 
xvi. 2, 3 
xix. 17 . 
xviii. 35 
xx. 22 . 
xxi. 28 - 31 
xxiii. 4 . 
xxiv. 36 

38 . 
xxv. 16 
xxvii. 16, 17 

49 . 


i. 41 

ii. 22 . 

iii. 20 

iv. 12 . 


v. 1 . 

viii. 26 

x. 21 . 
xi. 8 
xii. 4 . 


xiii. 14 . 
xvi. 9 - 20 









28 . 





7 . 





2 . 









31 . 









43, 44 . 









43 . 


3,4 . 

16 . 





39 . 




51 . 




vii. 53 -viii. 12 






8 . 








26 . 

246 seq. 



13 . 



26 . 





41 . 



85, 142 



243 scq. 


34, 236 seq. 








i. 14 .. 


vi. 20 




vii. 5 . 

. 147,222 

ii. 7 . 

xi. 29 




xiii. 3 . 


30 . 

xv. 51 



47 seq. . 



iii. 22 


iii. 1 . 


viii. 37 

. 23, 269 

ix. 5 



31 . 


iii. 14 


x. 20 


xiii. 19, 20 





ii. 18 


33 . 

. 28, 109 

xv. 22 



24 . 


iii. 16 





xx. 28 . 

231 seq. 

xxvii. 14 



iv. 1 . 



i. 16 . 



iii. 22 . 


xi. 35 . 


v. 1 . 

vi. 12 



viii. 1 


iii. 7 . 


x. 15 . . 



xi. 6 


xii. 13 


1 JOHN. 

xiv. 6 


v. 7 . 





xv. 24 . 





xvi. 5 . 

13 . 


25-27 . 




xiii. 18 


ii. 4 


xvii. 8 . 


iii. 4 . 

xviii. 3 


26 note. 
33 note. 


CODEX AMIATINUS. In p. 170, note, I have given a list of the places in which 
Tischendorf has not followed my collation of this MS., but in which I find, 
from Signer 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 mgravati. 
Luke viii. 12, hi deest, a prima manu. 
Acts viii. 17, lege ixponebant. 
xiii. 46, lege reppulistis. 
xviii. 12, lege Achaiae. 

1 Cor. iii. 12, lege superaedificat supra. 

xiv. 18, dele meo. 

2 Cor. iv. 4, lege quae est. 
Eph. iv. 25, lege in invicem. 

vi. 13, dele in (2). 
1 Pet. iii. 6, lege oboedivit. 
1 Joh. ii. 4, lege non (pro u nos"). 
Rev. viii. 5, dele magnus. 

These passages could not be inserted in the former list, as Tischendorf had 
not marked them amongst the places in which he had not followed my colla 
tion : they are simply errata in his edition. 

He also corrects in the canons and Ammonian Sections at Mat. iv. 21 
(22,2); Mat. x. 42 (100,6); Luke xiii. 14 (165,2). Also, he says, that, 
Abbate del Furia informs him, that at John xviii. 37, the MS. has (by mis 
take, he considers) the notation (180,4). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, sec 
tion 4 begins at ii. 11. 

TISCHENDORF S MSS., p. 131. The MSS. described in the letter addressed 
to me are now in the hands of Messrs. Williams and Norgate, Henrietta-street, 
Covent-garden, for sale, for Prof. Tischendorf. The Palimpsest fragments 
possess, even if it were only on account of their antiquity, a real value in 
textual criticism. The two other uncial MSS. of part of the Gospels belong 
probably to about the age assigned them by Tischendorf. I have examined 
the whole collection ; and I shall be permitted to collate them for critical pur 
poses. In one of them I found very soon four occurrences of Iota postscriked : 

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 ^Ethiopic 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 Jill up the Latin 
text which lies over the Greek." 

In p. 248, note, Ilesychius 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 Ilesychius, there are good reasons for not regarding him as the 
Bishop of Jerusalem of that name in the sixth century, but as an earlier 
Presbyter. Cave, I think, says that it would need an oracle to distinguish 
the persons bearing the name of Hesychius of Jerusalem. 

Let me request any who may wish to understand the principles of textual 
criticism which I believe to be true, to read what I have stated in the section, 
On an estimate of MS. authorities in accordance ivith " comparative criticism" ; 
so that they may not repeat the assertion that I regard the accidental age of a 
MS., irrespective of its character, and apart from the evidence of ancient 
versions and early citations. 

It ought to be needless for me to have to repeat again and again, that the 
testimony of very ancient MSS. is proved to be good on grounds of evidence 
(not mere assertion) ; and that the distinction is not between ancient MSS. 
on the one hand, and all other witnesses on the other, but between the united 
evidence of the most ancient documents MSS., versions, and early citations 
together with that of the few more recent copies that accord with them, on 
the one hand, and the mass of modern MSS. on the other. To which class 
shall we look as including within itself the reading s which have the best claim 
on our attention as those which really belong to the holy word of God? 

July "25, 1854. 






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 


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 Oonzalo : 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 

f 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 
first 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.] Eichhorrfs Mnleitung, v. 249. 


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 jiElius 
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 

As this was the first printed Greek New Testament (although 
not the first published) , it is natural that inquiry should have been 

* Cardinal Ximeues says, in his dedication to Pope Leo X., that the New Testa 
ment was finished first. " Imprimis Novum Testamentum Graeco Latinoque sermone 
exeudendum curavimus simul cum Lexico Grsecarum omnium dictionum : quae pos- 
sunt in eo legentibus occurrere : ut his quoque qui non integram linguae cognitionem 
adepti sunt pro viribus consuleremus. Deinde vero antequam Vetus Testamentum 
aggrederemur : dictionarium prsemisimus Hebraicorum Chaldaicorumque totius Ve- 
teris Instrument! vocabulorum." 

f 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. 


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 
judgment which lay beyond the horizon of their critical know 

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 qusevis exemplaria impression! huic archetypa fuisse : sed antiquissima 
cmendatissimaque : ac tantse prseterea vetustatis ut fidem eis abrogare nefas vidcatur. 
Quse sanctissimus in Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus 
huic institute favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta misit ad reverendissi- 
mum dominum Cardinalem Hispanise ; de cujus authoritate et mandate hoc opus 
imprimi fecimus." 


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 oarbarism 
I would not venture to relate, till Professor Tychsen, who accom 
panied Moldenhawer, had given me fresh assurances of its truth." 

This account was for many years repeated and 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 (including an 

* " Atque ex ipsis quidem Grseca Sanctitati tuse debemus : qui ex ista apostolica 
bibliotheca antiquissimos turn Yeteris turn Novi Testament! codices perquam humane 
ad nos misisti : qui nobis in hoc negocio maxinio 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 sunima diligentia transcriptam illustris Veneto- 
rum senatus ad nos misit," etc. 


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 Alcala 
was under the care of a really learned and careful librarian, who 
caused all the books of the library to be rebound. 

It remains, however, a fact, that a sale to a rocket-maker did 
take place at the time mentioned; but it could not have been of 
MSS. belonging to the library; so that there can be but little 
doubt, that the "useless parchments" thus disposed of, were the 
old covers of the books in the library, compacted of vellum and 
folded paper. 

Don Jose Gutierrez, the librarian at Madrid, furnished Dr. J. 
Thomson with a catalogue of the Complutensian MSS. ;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 Alcala for what that library never had possessed, and 
when he thought that the MSS. were concealed from him, the 
librarians, to remove the suspicion, and to satisfy his inquiries in 
some manner, referred to the sale of "useless parchments" in 
1749, as if it set the question at rest. Neither the Danish pro 
fessor nor yet the Spanish librarians seem to have thought of the 
previous question, " Were any such MSS. ever in the library at 

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, 
t See tho Appendix to this ecotion. 


(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, ii. 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 Wetsteiu 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, Bibliothecae Hispanicffi, 
p. 61." Wets. Proleg. inN.T., p. 118. 

f Precision is needed here, as it is a question of time. Leo was elected on the 28th 
of Feb. 1513, and croivned on the llth of March. 

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, 


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, 
iepvs et<? TO Sfc^re/ce?, ev u> 6ri KCLL rov ^Aftpaajju TrpoerifjirjBrj. 
peire K. T. X.* It also need not be questioned, that the editors 
fully intended to use their MSS. fairly ; although, from their 
reverence for the Latin, they would certainly have regarded any 
Greek reading as being defective, if it did not accord with their 

that then the Lexicons, etc., were prepared ; but the volume containing this appa 
ratus, and the four which comprise the Old Testament, were all five printed and 
finished by July 10, 1517. This leaves but little more than eight months for each 
volume, to say nothing of the time occupied in preparing the Lexicons, etc. If the 
date Jan. 10, 1514, be doubted, as being too early, it makes the expedition used in 
printing the other volumes only the greater. But, really, the fact that the other five 
parts were printed in so few months each, is an argument that the New Testament 
volume was not long in the press. 

* It may, indeed, be said that this was an oversight on 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 


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 tvord in the Greek column as two Greek words ; 
reading thus : 

/ecu o OTparrjyos 

TOV lepov 

Kat 01 ap\iepei? 

MENTE KCU SiTjjropovv, 

and in a note he reflects on the inaccuracy of Mill, who had cited the various reading 
without /xei/ re. The word really belongs to the Latin column, which precedes the 
Greek: thus, 



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 latronea, 
medium autem Jesum, hoc est Komanam sive Latinam ecclesiam collocantes. Heec 
enim sola supra firmam petram sedificata (reliquis a recta Scripturse 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 
sedificationem populi, quam ad autoritatem eccleeiasticorum dogmatum confirman- 
dum recipit : Grsecam tantum habcnt scripturam," etc. 


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, KOI ol rpet? et? TO ei> elcriv, 
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 subjoined. On the same grounds as they assign for the 
omission in the Greek, these words are left out in Latin MSS. 
subsequent to the year 1215. 

Besides this passage, however, there are very few places in 
which the charge of conforming the Greek to the Latin has been 
suggested ; although the variations of the two must have been 
prominently brought before the attention of the editors, because 
they affix a letter of reference to each word, and they use the 
same letter again in the Latin column, to connect the two texts 
verbally, where that is practicable. It should be added, that the 
Latin Vulgate is given by the 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 
" grace and majesty of the text" depended on its not being 
printed with any grammatical additions, it would be as much 

: " Sciendurn est, Grsecorum codices esse corruptos ; nostros vero ipsam veritatem 


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 

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 Plan tin 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. 


THE remarks on the Complutensian MSS. by Dr. James Thomson, and the 
catalogue furnished to him by Don Jose Gutierrez, the librarian at Madrid, 
were communicated to the Biblical 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 

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. 




(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 

The first edition of the Greek New Testament ever printed, it is well 
known, is that contained in the Complutensian Polyglot. It was printed in 
1514, but was not issued to the public till 1522. In the meantime Erasmus 
printed his edition in 1516, and reprinted it again in 1519 and 1522. The 
editions following these, and which were printed in 1527 and 1535, were in 
several places affected by the readings in the Complutensian. Stephens s 
edition afterwards, and also the Elzevir, were in like manner affected by the 
Complutensian, and hence our Textus Receptus. From these circumstances, 
and in consideration that the Complutensian Bible was the first Polyglot, and 
published by a cardinal, it became an object of no little interest to know what 
were the manuscripts used in the formation of this edition of the Bible. 

In the earlier editions of the valuable work of the Rev. T. Hartwell Home, 
in his " Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scrip 
tures," there are some notices given respecting these manuscripts, on the 
authority of 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 

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 arc indebted for the following paper to Dr. James Thomson, a highly respected agent 
of the Bible Society ; and we feel it duo to that gentleman to express our gratitude for so valu 
able a communication. 


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 Home, and inquiring of him what perio 
dical would be the most suitable for giving to the public this definite knowledge 
of these interesting manuscripts, he mentioned yours. 

It is to be understood, that the manuscripts in this catalogue are those 
which belonged to the cardinal himself. There were others used besides in 
the formation of his Polyglot, which were said to have been sent him from 
Rome, and returned after the work was completed. Of these Roman manu 
scripts nothing is yet known, as to their number or value. 

The last edition of Mr. Hartwell Home s work, published last year, came 
into my hands soon after its issue, and on looking into it in regard to this sub 
ject, I found that the common and evil report respecting these manuscripts 
had been changed, by a communication from Dr. Bowring, and I afterwards 
learned that the two preceding editions contained the same notices. I in 
formed my friend La Serna of this more favourable view, and he was greatly 
relieved by it. 

It appears to me that it would be suitable to bring forward here all that has 
been said against and for these manuscripts, that the whole subject might be 
viewed together, many perhaps being little acquainted with the particulars of 


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, 


See Marsh s Michaelis on the New Testament, vol. ii. part i. pp. 440, 441 : 
1793. After speaking of the arguments for and against the Complutensian 
Polyglot, he says 

" In this situation it was natural for every friend to criticism to wish that the 
manuscripts used in this edition, which might be supposed to have been preserved at 
Alcala, should be collated anew. But the inconceivable ignorance and stupidity of a 
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 lie had at other times experienced in that country. At 
last be 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 tbe 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 bave 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 tbe name of Toryo, and were put down in tbe libra 
rian s account como membranas inidiles* Martinez, a man of learning, and particu 
larly skilled in tbe 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 tbe library. 
Tbat tbe number of manuscripts was very considerable, appears from the following 
circumstance. One Eoclan assured Bayer, that he bad seen the receipt which was 
given to tbe purchaser, from which it appeared that tbe money was paid at two dif 
ferent payments. " 

See Monthly Repository, vol. xiv. p. 596, note. Dr. Bowring says, on 
visiting Alcala, in 1819 

" I inquired for the manuscripts of Ximenes Cisneros : they had been cut up for 
sky-rockets, to celebrate the arrival of some worthless grandee." 

* As useless parchments. 


In the Monthly Repository, vol. xvi. p. 203, Dr. Bowring writes 

"Hackney, March 29th, 1821 : Having heen 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 BOWKING." 

" Catdlogo de los Codices manuscritos que se tuvieron presentes a Information de la 
Riblia Complutense^fielmente sacado delindice de la Biblioteca de la TTniversidad 
de Alcala, hoy de esta corte, por Don Jose Gutierrez, ojicial de la misma* 

Manuscritos Latinos.^ 

Biblia Latina maximse molis charactere Gothico antiquissimo exarata, cui Complu- 
tenses in prologo ad Biblia plus octingentos annos antiquitatis tribuebant, quod 
etiam ab illis scriptum legitur ad calcem annotationum in Liram de 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 Hispanise fueruntque reperti in civitate 
Toletana et deinde in Libraria Collegii Complutensis collocati : totum Vetus et 
Novum Testamenturn 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 prcecedens prseter 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 Alcala [Complutum], now 
of Madrid, by Don Josd Gutierrez, Librarian. 

t Latin Manuscripts. 


fine caret, estque ejusdem omnino notae cum precedent!. Utrumque Vol. mem- 
branaceum. Dos tomos, en pasta. [Two volumes, lownd.~\ 

Biblia Latina duobus voluminibus maximse molis comprehensa : continentur haec et 
hoc ordine : Genesis initio carens ad cap. 12. Exodus, 4 Regum defectivus : Isaias, 
Hieremise Prophetia : Baruch : csetera Hieremise (cujus Lamentationes iterum scri- 
buntur ad marginem cum notis musicis, quod in aliis quoque libris fit,) Ezequiel, 
Prophetao minores, Job, Psalmi, Proverbia, Parabolse, Ecclesiastes, Cantica, Sapi- 
entia, Ecclesiastic! qusedam, varia particularium dierum Evangelia : totum Novum 
Testamentum suo ordine. Apocalypsis liber defectivus est a cap. 25. Codices 
membranacei quorum character crassus est, et quadratus cum frequentibus ad 
marginem notis, licet minutiore charactere et alterius recentioris nonnunquam de 
horum antiquitate sic Complutenses ad Liram ubi supra : sunt etiam ibi in Biblio- 
theca Complutensis Collegii alii codices licet non tarn antiqui, sed tamen cum illis 
antiquissimis mirum in niodum concordantes : videntur sseculi 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, boundJ] 

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.) Epistolse : cum glossa seu expositione marginali et interlineali 
characteris minutioris. Codex membranaceis foliis affabre perpolitis exaratus, 
cujus literse 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 XIX. 
inclusive. Codex papyraceus charactere cursivo veteri exaratus, in quo nihil de 
ejus Auct. et vetustate legitur. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Novum Testamentum a DD. Complutensibus annotatum, quorum annotationes post 
ilium seorsim collects reperiuntur : Codex papyraceus cujus character illius tem- 
poris est, quo Biblia Complutensia elaborabantur. Item : adjunguntur Laurentii 
Valise Adnotationes apprime utiles in Latinam Novi Testament! interpretationem, 
ex collatione Grsecorum exemplarium Parish s prselo excussse typis Ascensianis 
Anno 1505, cum prologo Desiderii Erasmi Koterdami. Item : aliud opusculum 
itidem prselo excussum sine loco et anno cui titulus ; Interpretationes Hebrseorum, 
Chaldeorum, Grsecorumque nominum Novi Testament!. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Scripturse Sacrse Vocabulorum Acceptiones, sive significationes varise, quse in diversis 
sacrse paginse locis jacent incognitse. Codex membranaceus innominati auctoris, 
charactere quadrato antiquo exaratus, in quo nil de tempore constat. Un tomo, en 

Expositio sive Commentaria Latina in Psalmos, innominati auctoris. Prsecedit 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 
prinio fol. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Sanctorale maximse molis in Iria volumina divisum, sanctorum vitas per ordinem 
dierum anni continens: Primum incipit a D. Stephano (nam acephalon est,) et 
desinit in vitam S. Pontii Martyris Y. id. Maii: Secundum a D. Marcellino, et 
Petro, die mensis Julii secuuda, et explicit in translatione S. Nicolai fine mensis 
Augusti : Tertium incipit a D. Antonio, cui prsecedit vitse alterius (forte Divi 
^Egydii Abbatis) fragmentum, et finit in trauslatione S. Isidori die 25 Decembris ; 
h tera est initialis, qualis in libris Chori, Ecclesiseque usui deservit ; litterse initiales 
qua? plane maximse sunt, auro, minioque, et aliis coloribus mirifice variegatse exor- 
nantur, quarum non paucse aviilsse sunt propter incuriam, ut nonnullse quse in ipso 


operis ordine in Codicibus deesse deprehenduntur ; nam codices imperfecti sunt 
initio, et calce, prceter tertium cui in fine nil deest. Tres tomos, en pasta. {Three 
volumes, bound.] 

Manuscritos Helreos y Griegos.* 

Bibliorum volumen Grsecum incipiens a Lib. Judicum, et expliciens lib. Macha- 
beorum : Codex membranaceus, charactere cursivo exaratus. Videtur esse unum 
ex transcriptis quoe ex Bessarionis Codice a Venetorum senatu Eni mo - Cardinali 
Ximenio ad Bibliorum editionem missso ; memoratur in Prol. ad Lectorem Biblio 
rum Complutensium. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Bibliorum volumina duo Chaldaica cum Latina interpretatione e regione apposita, 
quoi-uin primum continet Prophetas : secundum ad Esther, ad Cantica Canticorum 
cum notis manu Alplionsi do Zamora ad niarginem 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 mernbranacei anno 1517 exarati, ut videre est in notis ad calcem 
ipsorum appositis. Dos tomos, en pasta. 

Bibliorum volumen Hebraicum continens Pentateuchum a cap. 9. Geneseos cum 
Paraphrasi Chaldaica et Eabbiuica ad margines : sequuntur varia Veteris Testa- 
menti capitula cum eadem Paraphrasi : ultimum caput ex Ezechiele desumitur nee 
finitur, caret eniin fine. Codex membranaceus, charactere grandiori, elegante et 
quadrato exaratus cum Massora recensione quod ex atrarnenti diversitate colliqui- 
tur. De ejus antiquitate nil inibi legitur, est tamen valde vetus. Un tomo, en 

Biblia Hebraica charactere quadrato elegantissimo conscripta, ad cujus finem notam 
oblongam charactere itidem Hebraico, rudioris tamen formee exhibet in qua legitur 
nobilissimos E. Isaac et E. Abraham medicos, honorabilis E. Maimonidis filios, 
sacrum hoc volumen sibi pretio comparasse Toleti anno mundi 5040 (Christi 1280). 
Codex est membranaceus omnes Veteris Testament! Libros in Canone Judteorum 
receptos, continens, auro aliisque coloribus in initialibus venuste ornatus. Ad 
margines invenitur Massora parva et magna diversi, ut videtur, atramenti, literis 
minutissimis hinc inde in varias figuras et flosculos artificiosissime redactis et con- 
tortis, ut fert Juda?orum consuctudo. Id vero maxime reddit hunc codicern com- 
meudatione dignurn, antiquitatem adeo miram redolere, ut saltern cum antiquioribus 
etiam Pentateucho Dominicano Bononiensimeritocontendere possit. Un tomo, en 

Al final de esta Biblia se lee la siguicnte : l Nota: Eabbi Joseph Eriismo Moyses 
Judio convertido a nuestra santa fee catholica 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 dc 1800 
anos. Es hombre muy erudito en Hebreo y Biblias. Mui conocido en especial 
en Salamanca, donde enseilo. Estuvo aqui el ano de 1756. Tieue este libro 
trescientas trienta y ocho fojas utiles.f 

Biblia item Hebraica alia integra nitidissimo quoque charactere exarata cum Mas 
sora, et aureis literis in Librorum initiis, ad cujus calcem heec nota Hebraico idio- 

* Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts. 

t At the <nd 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 33S loaves, in good condition. 


mate legitur: Ego Jom tov* films sapientis Eabbi Isahac sat. Amarilio scripsi 

hunc librum, qui vocatur Sanctuarium Domini et perfeci ilium in mense 

Thebetk anni creationis generis nostri 242 sexti millenarii in Tarasonah. Un 
tomo, en pasta. 

Zamora (Alphonsi de) Interpretationes Chaldeorum, Hebrseorum atque Grsecorum 
nominum in tota serie Latini Canonis, tarn Veter. quam Novi Testamenti conten- 
torum. Codex autographus. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Zamora (Alphonsi de) Interpret atio Latina ex Hebraico Veteris Testamenti ad ver- 
bum interlinealis tribus codicibus, quorum primus continet Genesim, secundus 
Exodum, tertius Prophetas majores : Codices papyrac. autograph!. Tres tomos, en 

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 (Eabbi Aben Ezrse) Peruse, in Genesim et Exodum : Codex papyraceus 
cum membranis interjectis, charactere Kabbinico exaratus, antiquus, sed nil est 
certum. Un tomo, en pasta. 

lumchi (Kabbi David) Perus. Sepher Jieshaian, sive expositio libri Isaise. Codex 
papyraceus elegans, charactere Eabbinico exaratus ; ad medium ejus legitur nota 

scribse quce sic habet : Ego Salomon Ben Abraham scripsi hanc 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 Eabbinico 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 
Eabbi Chaiim Ben Samuelis, et scriptum fuisse anno mundi 5291, Christi 1241. 
Hujus notse calamus idem est, qui totum librum exarayit. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Pentateuchum Hebraicum in initio et fine ab Alphonso de Zamora suppletus in 
papyro : membranaceus codex, charactere quadrate elegant! exaratus sine temporis 
nota. Un tomo, en pasta. 

Psalterium Grsecum : Codex papyraceus incipiens ab ultimo versu primi psalmi (nam 
csetera desunt) antiquus, ut ex charactere patet, sed ibi nil certum legitur .~Un 
tomo, en pasta. 

Los trienta volumenes que espresa este catalogo se kalian todos Tioy dia de la 
fecTia en la Biblioteca de la Universidad Liter aria de esta Corte. Madrid seis 
de Mayo de mil ochocientos cuarenta y seis. El oficial de BiUioteca, 


* The two \vords (Jom tew) arc copied exactly from the manuscript. 

t The thirty volumes which this Catalogue contains, arc all at the present time in the Library 
of the University of Literature in this city. Madrid, 6th May, 1846. 


[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.] 



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 pub 
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 
ic should be immediately undertaken at his office. 

This was on April 17, 1515. It seems as if Erasmus had 
before this made some preparations for such a work, as to the 
revised Latin translation, which accompanied his Greek Testa 
ment, and the annotations which were subjoined. All these parts 
had, however, yet to be brought into a suitable form for publica 
tion. Erasmus was in England when the proposition of Froben 
was sent to him ; 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; 


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, CEcolampadius 
joined Erasmus at Basle to assist him in correcting the proof 
sheets ; for he was at this same time over-occupied in editing the 
works of Jerome, as well as other literary labours. 

In less than six months from the commencement of the print 
ing, the whole volume was completed.* The date on the back 
of the title page is " Sexto Calcndas Martias, anno M.D.XVI"; 
that at the end of the dedication to Pope Leo X. is "M.D.XVI. 
Calendis Februariis"; at the end of the whole volume, is " Mense 
Februario, anno M.D.XVI."; while at the end of the annotations 
the date is given " M.D.XVI. Kalendis Martij." 

The publication appears to have taken place immediately. 
Erasmus mentions in his letters, that copies were at once sent to 
various persons besides Pope Leo, to whom it was dedicated. As 
the first publication in print of the original text of the Christian 
Scriptures, its appearance was an event of no small importance. 
We may, indeed, regard it as a mark of the overruling of God s 
providence that just before the Reformation was about to burst 
forth, leading so many to inquire into the Scripture doctrine of 
justification through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, it was so 
ordered that the Scripture in the original language should appear, 
so as to lead inquirers to study it in the tongue in which it was 
given forth by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 

The first edition of Erasmus was thus printed and published in 
extreme haste. f The 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, cliligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et 
emendatum, noil solura ad Graccam ueritatem uerum etiam ad multorum utriusq; 
lingure codicum eorumq; ueterum simul et einendatorum fidem, postremo ad pro- 
batissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem et interpretationem, prsecipue, 
Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Yulgarij, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosij, Hilarij, 
Augustini, una cum annotationibus, quse lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione muta- 
tum sit. 

f Wetstein indeed asks, "At quomodo ipsam festinationem excusavit, aut qnis 
ipsum eo adegit ut festinaret ?" 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. 


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 Keuchlin, 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 

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 Avere 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 ;? 


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 

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 Yaticanus for 
him as to this passage; and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, 
June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory 
verses of both the 4th and the 5th chapters of St. John s 1st 

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), "qua? nunc Ecclesia sine discrimine legit;" both of 
which books were rejected at Trent. 


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 grascis codicibus id non additur 
hoc loco, cum mox sequatur, Surge; sed aliquanto inferius, cum 
narratur hoec res." And yet in his text there is the full passage, 
answering to the Latin, <TK\fjpov croi irpos icevrpa \CLKT it,ew 
TG real Oa^wv euTrev, KVpie rl //.e 0e\ei,s iroir\crai\ KOI o 
7rpo9 avTov, ava<jTt]6i, instead of the simple reading aX\a 

Again, on Acts viii. 37, the note is, " Dixit autem Philippus, 
Si credis &c.) et usque ad eum locum. Et jussit stare currum, 
non reperi in Grseco codice, quanquam arbitror omissum librariorum 
incuria. Nam et hsec in quodam codice grseco asscripta reperi sed 
in margine." And this verse, little as is its claim to be considered 
part of Holy Scripture, was inserted by Erasmus, as being sup 
posed to have been incorrectly omitted in his MSS.; and from his 
edition, this and similar passages have been perpetuated, just as 
if they were undoubtedly genuine. In such cases, we repeatedly 
find the Complutensian editors, in spite of their reverence for the 
Vulgate, give the Greek as they found it in their copies; although 
from their mode of editing they must have been very well aware 
of the difference between it and the Latin by the side; where, in 
, fact, they fill up the Greek column in such a manner as to make 
the variation conspicuous. In such places, if the Complutensian 
text had ever acquired a place in common use, the many who now 
uphold what they read, traditionally, just because they are ac 
customed to it, would have been as strenuous in repudiating words 
as spurious, as they now are in defending them as genuine. 

But let us make whatever deductions are needful, still Erasmus 
is entitled to our thanks for the labour which he undertook and 

* Some of Stunica s criticisms on Erasmus are singularly amusing. The Complu 
tensian text had spelled Spain in Rom. xv., lenravio, as it stands in a few of the later 
MSS.; Erasmus had spelled it 2nWa; 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. 


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 

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. 

f In writing from Louvain, to Pirckheimer, Erasmus says, " Novum Testameutum, 
quod pridem Basilea? prfccipitatum, verius quam editum, retexo ac recudo, et ita 
recudo, ut aliud opus sit futururn. 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. 


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 

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 Erasmus s new translation. 
It was a shameful thing for those who had been so long doctors of divinity, to have 


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 Yulgate 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 Corn- 
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 : " Verumtanien ne quid dissimulem repertus est apud Anglos 
Grsecus codex unus in quo habetur quod in Vulgatis deest. Scriptum est enim hunc 

ad modum, OTL rpets cio-lf ot /ouxprvpowres ev rta ovpavtS, Tra-rijp, \6yo?, *ai Tirev/Aa- /cal ovrot ol 
rpets eV elaty. Kal Tpets ei<Tiv juaprupoiWes zv rfj yrj nvev/jia, vStop, Kal alfjia el T^V fj.aprvpCav TWI/ 

o.v&p<aTTMv, etc. Quanquam haud scio an casu factum sit, ut hoc loco non repetatur 
quod est in Grsecis nostris, *al oi rpeZs el? TO eV ela-Lv. Ex hoc igitur codice Britannico 
reposuimus, quod in nostris dicebatur deesse : ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Tametsi 
suspicor codicem ilium ad nostros esse correctuin. Duos consului codices mirae 
vetustatis Latinos in bibliotheca quae 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 ayiov is 
added after ww^a, oi is inserted before the second (uaprvpoiWes, and KO.I before i>Swp 
(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 narnp, A6yos and nvev^a. 
(though he did not make a similar improvement in verse 8) ; and when subsequent 
editors had grammatically placed ayiov 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. 


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 

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 i^itur Basileam mitterem recognitum exemplar, scrips! amicis, ut ex edi- 
tione Aldina restituerent eum locum. Nam mihi nondum emptum erat hoc opus. 
Id ita t ut jussi, factum est" Erasmi Apologia ad Leum. 1520. This quotation is 
taken from Wetstein, Proleg., p. 126 ; for this Apologia is not included in Erasmus s 
collected works. 


censures cast upon the new translation might be shown to be 

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. 


psalmo secundo, quidam, in psalmo, omisso numero. At Hierony- 
mus palam testatur in Actis hunc psalmum qui apud nos secimdus 
est.primi titulo citari; et hinc sumit* argumentum, aut primum 
ilium, Beatus vir, praefationis additur vice, aut ilium et proxi- 
mum, Quare fremuerunt, eundem esse psalmum. f Proinde nos 
his autoribus germanam restituimus scripturam." Thus he gives 
the reading of the passage ez> T&> ^JraX^oS rat TT/DCOTW, 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 4 

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. 

f The edition of 1522 here adds, "Idem prodit ferme Hilarius, illud ingenue tea- 
tatus, hunc primum citari a Paulo. Quin et divus Augustinus in commentariis 
indicat hunc potius esse unum quam primum." 

J It is proper to add, for the reader s information, that TrpaJro) is expressly stated to 
be the reading by Origen, and that it is found in the Codex Bezoc (D). Tertullian 
also (Adv. Marc. lib. iv. 22) cites the passage as from the first psalm. 



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 Colinseus (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. Colmseus 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 his text. The various read 
ings in the margin are from the Complutensian printed edition, and 
from fifteen MSS. It was supposed by some, that in this edition, 
Robert Stephens followed MS. authority always; attention to the 
book itself would soon have shown that this could not be the case; 
for not unfrequently the margin quotes a reading differing from 
the text, in which all the cited MSS. agree. 

Critical collation was then but a new subject ; and thus we 
cannot be surprised that Stephens should have merely given a 
kind 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 


hundred and ninety-eight. 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 Yulgate, 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, " Graecum 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 Eoyal Library), and the MS. which is 
marked ft by Stephens, and which is described as having been 


collated in Italy, is either tlie Codex Bezae, 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 ev TO) 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 Complutcnsian 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 ev rfj 777, ver. 8 ; thus including in the omission all the words 
not found in the Greek MSS. The absolute ascertainment of 
some of the MSS. in question has proved this to be a fact, so 
certainly, that it is vain for any argument to be based on this 
note of reference in Stephens s edition. 

Allusions to this passage are of necessity in inquiries as to the 
history of the Greek New Testament as printed ; because con 
troversies connected with it have led to extensive examinations of 
MSS., and to a more accurate apprehension of the channels by 
which Holy Scripture, like all other ancient books, has been 
transmitted to us.* 

Robert Stephens soon after the publication of his folio edition 
made his escape from the censors at Paris, and betook himself to 
Geneva, where he published a fourth edition containing just the 

* It may here be mentioned that the only MSS. containing this text in any form, 
which 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 
Havianus 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 Yatican, 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 (anb rov ovpavov, etc.). 


same text as the third ; but with this remarkable peculiarity, that 
this is the first impression divided into our modern verses. Ste 
phens formed his plan of these divisions for convenience of refer 
ence in a Concordance which he projected.* This fourth edition 
contains two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Erasmus, one 
on each side of the Greek text. 

Theodore Beza succeeded Kobert Stephens as an editor of the 
Greek Testament: he published five editions in 1565, 1576, 
1582, 1589, and 1598. He mostly followed the text of Stephens; 
and he not unfrequently mentions various readings, and he occa 
sionally introduces changes into his text on MS. authority. 

Two ancient and valuable MSS. were for many years in Beza s 
possession; one, of the Gospels and Acts in Greek and Latin, 
which he afterwards sent to the University of Cambridge, where 
it still remains; this is commonly known as the Codex Bezas or 
Cantabrigiensis : the other contains the Epistles of St. Paul, also 
in Greek and Latin. This MS., which is called the Codex Claro- 
montanus (from Clermont, whence it is said that it was brought), 
is now in the Bibliotheque du 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 
iu the Psalterium Quincuplex which he published in 1509. That is, he affixed numbers 
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. 



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.J The editor, if any, is wholly unknown ; it is 
probable that the printers took the third edition of Eobert Ste- 

* Ad me quidem quod attinet, non dissimulo mihi merito suspecturu esse quod 

vcteres illi tanto consensu vel rejecerunt vel ignorarunt Tanta denique lectionis 

varietas facit ut do totius istius narrationis fide dubitem. 

t H KCHVTJ Ataeij/crj. Novum Tcstamentum. Ex Regijs alijsque optimis editionibus 
cum curil expressum. By the Editio Regia, the third edition of Stephens was in 
tended, printed with the types of the French Royal printing-office. 


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."! 

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 MILL in 1707 : and since that period 
Mill s text has been commonly reprinted in this country, having 
thus become our current text: in foreign countries the Elzevir 
edition has been regarded as "the received text"; although, in 
point of fact, in many of those places in which the Stephanie text 
differs from that of the Elzevirs (comparatively few as such varia 
tions are) the editions published on the Continent as " the received 
text," follow such Stephanie readings; and sometimes (as in 
1 Pet. iii. 7) they follow neither. 

After the appearance of the texts of Stephens and Beza, many 
Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on which 
the text of the Greek Testament in their hands was based; 

* On the title page is said, "Ex Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus, hac nova 
expression: cui quid accesserit, Prsefatio docebit." The Preface, however, gives no 
account of what the critical principles or authorities were, which the editors followed. 

f " Textum, ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum; in quo nihil immutatum aut 
corruptum damus." 


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 Koman 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 Komanists in their use 
of the Clementine Vulgate.* 


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 

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 Hottingcr is given by "Wetstein; "Satis- 
fecit Stephani et Bezse 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- 


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 impossible (unless human infirmity were overruled by a 
miracle) for a writing to be copied again and again without the 
introduction of some errors of transcription. Hence has arisen 
the necessity of comparing and considering the various readings 
of copies to obtain thereby a correct text. This is what is meant 
by textual criticism. This labour of comparison has to be applied 
to all ancient works, if we seek to ascertain what was actually 
written by their authors. Had the inspired autographs of the 
apostles and evangelists been in existence, there would have been 
no room, as well as no necessity, for textual criticism. 

If we compare the earliest editions of any important classic with 
those in common use in the present day, we discover a remarkable 
difference : we find other readings adopted, and many passages 
convey a much clearer sense. Whence, then, does this difference 
arise ? Simply from editors having in the succeeding centuries 
used a greater range of critical authorities, from their having 
laboriously examined MSS. so as to discover those on which most 
reliance ought to be placed, and their having used the critical 
data so obtained, as their authority for a more exact and accurate 
text. No one acquainted with the subject would have recourse 
to an early edition of a classical writer (Cicero, for instance), 
based upon slender and imperfect authority, in preference to a 
text of the same author based upon the collations of MSS., and a 
careful examination of authorities. 

Such too should be the case with regard to the New Testament. 
If God had so pleased, he could have preserved its text from all the 
casualties of transcriptural error : but the text has not been so pre 
served; it is therefore no reflection on the divine wisdom, no want of 
reverence for God s inspired word, to admit the fact. God did not 
see fit to multiply the copies of his Scripture for the use of mankind 
by miracle; and just as He left it to the hands of men to copy His 
Word in the same manner as other books, so was it left exposed 
to the same changes, from want of skill in copyists, from careless 
ness or misapprehension, as affect all other ancient writings. To 
this, however, it should be added (even though it be by anticipa- 


tion), that the providence of God has transmitted to us far more 
ample materials for the restoration of the text of the New Testament, 
than we have in the case of any other work of similar antiquity. 

The sources for textual criticism are MSS., versions, and early 
citations, all of which may be used as illustrating and confirming 
or correcting one another. Of these materials the original editors 
possessed but few. They had some recent Greek MSS. ; as to ver 
sions they had the Latin Vulgate only ; and of early citations some 
use, but only on a limited scale, was made by Erasmus. 

The various readings printed in the margin of Stephens s folio 
(mentioned in the preceding section) form the first collection of 
critical materials presented to the eye of the reader. To these 
Beza added a few more in his notes ; and a little was done from 
time to time just as MSS. or ancient versions were brought under 
the notice of scholars. The Syriac version (of which Tremellius 
had published a Latin translation) was used occasionally by Beza. 

The publication of various ancient versions, and of more correct 
editions of the fathers, increased greatly the amount of critical 
materials ready for use. 

The first important collection of various readings, drawn from 
MSS., is that contained in the sixth volume of Walton s Polyglot, 
1657. In the fifth volume the readings of the Codex Alexandri- 
nus had been given under the Greek text ; and the collection in 
the sixth volume formed a valuable Apparatus Criticus. Of this one 
of the most important parts is a collation of sixteen MSS. made 
by the direction of the learned Irish Primate, Archbishop Usher. 
Besides these, there are the Stephanie collection, and others which 
had been made by various individuals; and also a collection (the 
history of which formerly led to much discussion), which has 
been commonly called "the Velezian Readings." They were first 
printed in 1626, by De la Cerda, in his Adversaria Sacra. He 
says that the Greek Testament, in the margin of which they 
were written, had passed into his hands from Mariana, the Spanish 
historian. Mariana says that he did not know how the copy had 
come into his possession ; but he found in it the various readings 
of sixteen Greek MSS. inserted by a former owner, Don Pedro 
Faxardo, Marquis of Velez. The marquis seems to have stated 
that eight out of the sixteen MSS. which he used, had come from 


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 Curcellseus 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- 
iectures. And as these conjectures bore on points of dogmatic 
theology, this edition of Curcellaeus (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 Curcellseus 
by that which is true. It is probable that much of the alarm 
expressed in connection with the critical apparatus of Walton s 
Polyglot, arose from the almost simultaneous appearance of Cur- 
cellseus s edition. It is certain that alarm was expressed ; and 
that the appearance of the various readings collected by Usher 

* Although the Latin origin of these readings was sufficiently plain, yet still there 
were points of difficulty. These were cleared up by Bishop Marsh in his letters to 
Archdeacon Travis : he showed that the Velezian readings were fabricated to support 
not the Latin 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. 


and others was lamented, as if in some way Holy Scripture were 

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 Curcellseus 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 Yaticanus, 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 

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- 


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. 


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 

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 


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 


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 TKUTH is the great object to 
be sought, and not the maintenance of a particular opinion be 
cause it was once expressed. Evidence must always modify critical 
opinions, when that evidence affects the data on which such 
opinions were formed; it must be so, at least, on the part of those 
who really desire to be guided on any definite principles. Mill 
did not desire or attempt to form a new text; he simply used that 
of Stephens s third edition, correcting the errata, but not making 
other intentional changes. When he departs from the Stephanie 
text, it seems to have been from not being aware that the Elzevir 
editions differed from it in several places : he supposed such varia 
tions to amount to but twelve. It is singular that " Mill s text" 
has been, in this country, assumed to be a kind of standard ; and 
thus it has been imagined, that he had formed a critical text ; 
and this is what we commonly use ; and thus Mill s supposed 
authority has been sometimes quoted against what he maintained 
to be the true readings of passages. 

But though Mill laid down the plan of a critical edition, and 
showed what the sources are from which to obtain a well-supported 
text, there were many points in which the execution of his work 

* " Hie vir Cl. unus labore triginta annorura plus prsestitit, quam omnes quiipsum 
wtatc prpDCCSscrunt." 


was of necessity incomplete. These tilings 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 

In speaking of these defects of Mill s edition, it is not necessary 
to rest upon his not having classified the MSS. the readings of 
which he gave : for he had to collect the materials ; and until this 
should be done, no principles of arrangement could be laid down. 
He does however often show in his Prolegomena what his opinion 
is of MSS. which have a kind of relationship among themselves, 
or with any particular ancient version : he often showed true 
critical acumen in his estimate of readings, not in accordance with 
what might seem at first sight to be correct. Michaelis says 
(Marsh s Introd., ii. 457), " His critical judgment prevented him 
from adopting a reading as genuine, because it was smooth and 
easy; and, in this respect, he has introduced among the critics a 
taste which is perfectly just, but contrary to that which prevailed 
at the revival of learning." And this judgment was in a great 
measure formed during the progress of his work; for at first he 
valued the evidence of numbers in his MSS. more than other 
things; but as he became more alive to the value of the united 
testimony of authorities of different kinds, he ceased to be swayed 


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 Bolster 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 Bezoe, 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 Bezse in the Gospels; in the Acts, 

* " Tu vero, Milli doctissime, qui omnium mortalium maxirne in co studio versatus 
cs, non patieris hunc laudem tibi prseripi ; sed maturabis vencranda ilia pignora ct 
monumenta vetustatis a situ et iuteritu vindicare. Scimus enim te horum omnium 
cditionem instituere, quse una pagina et in uno conspectu codicem Alex, qui familiam 
ducet, et Cantabrigiensem cum versione sua, atque ubi hie deficit, Oxoniensem [i. e. 
Laudianum] atque Gallicum [i. e. Claromontanum] reprsesentet : qua? singulas literas 
atque apices exemplarium, etiam ubi a librariis peccatum est, accurate et religiose 
subsequatur. Niliil illi purpurse assuetur discolor aut diversum ; nulla? interpunc- 
tiones, nulloe notse accentuum, quorum omnis hodie ratio preepostera est atque per- 
versa: adeo ut qui tuam editiouem sibi comparaverit. ipsa ilia propemodum archetypa 
versare nianibus atque oculis usurpare videatur. Ea res, olim. ut certum est augu- 
rium, et Britannire nostrso spleudori erit, et Ecclesire pmesidio: tuos vero utique 


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. EDWARD WELLS, whose Greek 
Testament, with an English translation, notes, and paraphrase, 
appeared at Oxford, in separate parts, from 1709 to 1719. This 
edition of Wells deserves mention, as being the first attempt to 
present a critically-revised Greek text : as such, it is a very respec 
table work. Its appearance is a proof that textual criticism was 
not decried by all in this country, and that the labours of Mill 
were deemed to be of real value. 

It might have been expected that thirty years of toil which Mill 
had expended, and the means which were thus afforded to the 
biblical scholar to form his own judgment, in cases of various 
reading, would have been appreciated highly by all who professed 
to value Holy Scripture. But it was not so. " The great dili 
gence which he displayed in collecting so many thousand readings 
exposed him to the attacks of many writers, both in England and 
Germany, who formed not only an unfavourable, but unjust opi 
nion of his work. Not only the clergy in general, but even 
professors in the universities, who had no knowledge of criticism, 
considered his vast collection of various readings as a work of evil 
tendency, and inimical to the Christian religion." (Marsh s Mi- 
chaelis, ii. 458.) 

labores amplissimis prrcmiis atque iminortali 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 Novum tuum Testamentum jam 
fere ad umbilicum usque perductum." Ep. 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 
Bezae 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. 


The principal opponent of Mill s edition was Dr. Whitby, whose 
attack appeared in 1710: it may be well that Mill, who was thus 
aspersed for his long-continued labours, had been removed from 
the scenes in which such unjust and ignorant attacks can be felt. 
They worked much mischief, however, amongst the living, who 
were led to believe, through clamour, that textual criticism is 
dangerous in the extreme.* 

It is scarcely possible to conceive that Whitby could have 
attempted thus to defend the common text, had he really been 
conscious how it originated. And yet some will always be found 
to listen and applaud, when writers like Whitby charge honest 
and reverential criticism with rendering the word of God uncer 
tain, and with being hostile to Christianity. It was easy for 
Whitby to say that, in all cases of important variation, the Ste 
phanie reading may 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 eavrov 7Y//,a>/3ou//,6V09," in 
in which he attacks the changes of opinion on Mill s part, as to 
the value of various readings, which introduce a kind of contra 
diction between Mill s margin and his Prolegomena. Now this 
accusation is a manifest proof how little Whitby was capable of 
apprehending the subject on which he was writing, and how little 
he understood what it was to carry on critical labours such as 
those of Mill. No doubt that critic had changed his mind, in the 

* The title of Whitby s work was 

" Examen variantium lectionum Johannis Millii, S.T.P., ubi ostenditur, 

"1. Lectionum liarum fundamenta incerta plane esse, et ad lectionum textus hodi- 
erni convellendam protinus inidonea. 

"2. Lectiones variantes, quse sunt moment! alicujus, aut sensum textus mutant, 
paucissimos esse, atque in iis omnibus lectionem textus defend! posse. 

"3. Lectiones variantes levioris moment!, quas toties expendimus, tales esse, in 
quibus a lectione recepta rarissime recedendum est. 

"4. Millium in hisce variantibus lectionibus colligendis sscpius artc non ingenua 
usum esse, falsis citationibus abundare, et sibimet ipsi multoties contradicens." 


course of his work, as to many readings : he gives the results of 
his latest consideration in his Prolegomena; and for this he was 
thus to be blamed ! It is possible that no amount of evidence 
would have been sufficient to convince Whitby of a point to 
which he was opposed; but it was not so with Mill. Whitby 
seems to have valued the evidence of numbers as counterbalancing 
all other considerations, except when numbers preponderate against 
the common text. 

If Mill could be thus charged with making the text of Scrip 
ture precarious, by those who professed to reverence its authority, 
simply because he presented to their view thirty thousand various 
readings, it is no cause for surprise that enemies of revelation, 
who knew (what others might have known or remembered) that 
Mill did not make the variations, but only stated the previously 
existing fact, should have taken up the assertion, and declared 
that the text of Scripture is precarious on this very ground. They 
used the ignorance of those who wished to uphold Scripture and 
to condemn Mill, against themselves; so that, on their principles, 
they could hardly answer the enemies of revelation. 

And thus in 1713 Anthony Collins, in his "Discourse of Free 
Thinking," was able to use the arguments of Whitby to some 
purpose, in defence of his own rejection of the authority of Scrip 
ture. This part of Collins s book ought to be a warning to those 
who raise outcries on subjects of criticism. If Mill had not been 
blamed for his endeavours to state existing facts relative to MSS. 
of the Greek Testament, and if it had not been said that thirty 
thousand various readings are an alarming amount, this line of 
argument could not have been put into Collins s hands. 

In consequence, however, of Collins s book, Dr. BENTLEY 
published his reply, under the name of Pliileleutherus 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. 


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. 


THE 32nd section of the 1st part of Berkley s "Remarks upon a late Dis 
course of Free Thinking, in a Letter to F. H., D.D., by Phileleutherus Lip- 
siensis," is often partially quoted, when various readings are discussed ; and 
references to it are not unfrequently made. As the principles laid down in it 
are of the utmost value, and as the force of the argument can be but dimly 
apprehended from mere partial quotation, the greater part of the section is 
here appended : this forms in fact an integral part of the history of the appli 
cation of criticism to the text of the Greek New Testament. 

In the preceding section Bentley had referred to Collins s accusations of the 
English clergy ; amongst others, Dr. 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. MILL has still more to answer for ; and meets with a 
sorry recompense for his long labour of xxx. years. For, if we are to believe 



not only this wise author, but a wiser doctor* of your own, he was labouring 
all that while to prove the text of the Scripture precarious ; having scraped 
together such an immense collection of various readings, as amount in the 
whole, by a late author s computation, to above thirty thousand. Now this is 
a matter of some consequence, and will well deserve a few reflections. 

"I am forced to confess with grief, that several well-meaning priests,f of 
greater zeal than knowledge, have often, by their own false alarms and panic, 
both frighted others of their 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. MILL ; 
whose friendship (while I staid at Oxford) and memory will be ever dear to 
me. For what is it that your WHITBYUS so inveighs and exclaims at ? The 
doctor s labours, says he, make the whole text precarious, and expose both the 
Reformation to the papists, and religion itself to the atheists. God forbid ! 
we ll still hope better things. For surely those various readings existed 
before in the several exemplars ; Dr. Mill did not make and coin them, he 
only exhibited them to our view. If religion, therefore, was true before, 
though such various readings were in being, it will be as true, and conse 
quently as safe still, though everybody sees them. Depend on t, no truth, 
no matter of fact fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion. 

" The 30,000 various lections are allowed, then, and confessed : and if more 
copies yet are collated, the sum will still mount higher. And what s the 
inference from this ? Why, one Gregory, here quoted, infers that no profane 
author whatever has suffered so much by the hand of time as the New 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. 

" If 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 

"It is good, therefore, you ll allow, to have more anchors than one; and 

* Bentley of course intends Whitby by this reference. 

f Bentley frequently used Coll inn s phraseology, in his remarks. 


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 

" 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 variations would amount to above 50,000. 

" In the manuscripts of the New Testament the variations have been noted 
with a religious, not to say superstitious, exactness. Every difference, in 
spelling, in the smallest particle or article of speech, in the very order or 


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, f 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. 

f The Italic version was a phrase which Bentley afterwards thoroughly rejected. The 
"Itala" is once mentioned by Augustine, and this word Bentley considered to be a 
transcriptural 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. 

J i e. Collins, against whom Bentley was writing, although discussing at the same 
time the theories and charges of "Whitby. 


scarecrow of 30,000, be neither astonished at the sum, nor in any pain for the 

" 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 text, 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. MILL, were he alive, would confess to your doctor, that this text fixed 
by a printer is sometimes by the various readings rendered uncertain, nay, is 
proved certainly wrong. But then he would subjoin, that the real text of the 
sacred writer^ 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, avepos -nxfxovtKos, 6 KaXov/j-fvos EYPOKAYAGN ; and he is followed 
by your translators, there arose against it a tempestuous wind called EU- 
KOCLYDON". This reading, perhaps, your learned doctor would not have 
now be made precarious : but if that printer had had the use of your 
Alexandrian MS., which exhibits here EYPAKYAQN, it s very likely he would 
have given it the preference in his text ; and then the doctor, upon his own 
principle, must have stickled for this. 

" The wind euroclydon was never heard of but here ; it s compounded of 
evpos /cAvScoi/, 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 cvpaKvXuv, 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 commoiu>pmion 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, 


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, aquilo and /raiKi as. The 
Latins had no known name for KOIKLOS : Quern ab oriente solstitiali excitatum 
Greed KOIKLOV vocant, apud nos sine nomine est, says Seneca, Nat. Qucest. v. 16. 
KaLKias, 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 fvpovoros 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 w r ord 
for the Greek KaiKias, there will soon appear a just reason why St. Luke 
calls it avep-os rvtyaviKos, a tempestuous wind, vorticosus, a whirling wind ; for 
that s the peculiar character of KaiKtas in those climates ; as appears from 
several authors, and from that known proverbial verse, 

E\K6)V e^) avruv cos 6 KaiKias vf(j)rj. 

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 Vaticauus a prima 

til I ill . 


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. 1 1 .) 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 
untouched 10,000 more were faithfully collected : some of which without 
question would render the text more beautiful, just, and exact, though of no 
consequence to the main of religion ; nay, perhaps wholly synonymous in the 
view of common readers, and quite insensible in any modern version.f 

" But to return to our Discourser, and to close up this long remark : it is fact 
undeniable, that the sacred books have suffered no more alterations than com- 

* The word "critic" is used by Bentley and some of his contemporaries (e.g. 
Bp. Hare) for Ars 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 liim 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, Symlolik, 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 ivell explained, are commonly a veil for 
indefiniteness of thought and absolute mysticism. 

f 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 fi om 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 


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,* Curcellseus, 
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 laity, 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. 

** If all the old authors are abandoned by him, there is one compendious 
answer to this Discourse of Free-thinking. For what becomes of the boasted 
passages out of Cicero, Plutarch, and his long list of ancient free-thinkers, if 
the text of each is precarious ? those passages, as they came from the author s 
hands, might 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 

* . e. Patrick Young, librarian to King Charles I., the earliest collator of the Cod. 


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." Bentley s Works, Dyce s edition, iij. 347-361. 


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 


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 Bentlcy 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 Beza?; 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 Have s pamphlet is March, 1713; this may very probably mean 1714, 
according to our present reckoning; the 25ih of March was then commonly counted 
the beginning of the year in this country, until the adoption of the New Style in 


however, preferred to transfer these extracts to Bentley, who pur 
chased his services for a time, and sent him to Paris to make a 
more complete collation of the Codex Ephraemi. 

Bentley unfolded his plan of proceeding in a letter to Dr. 
Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, April 16, 1716, while Wetstein 
was still in England. 

In this letter he refers to the alarm which had been needlessly 
raised on the subject of various readings ; and he expresses his 
satisfaction that he hears that what he wrote on the subject in 
answer to Collins, had "made several good men more easy in that 
matter than they had been before." He then gives some account 
of his studies in (what may be called) comparative criticism* He 
found (he says) a wonderful resemblance and agreement between 
the oldest Latin and Greek MSS. ; and by means of this agree 
ment he was able (he believed) to restore the text of the New 
Testament to what it had been at the time of the Council of Nice 
in the best copies then current. He even says enthusiastically, 
"so that there shall not be 20 words, or even particles, difference." 

He had found (he says) in collating one or two of St. Paul s 
Epistles in the Codex Alexandrinus, that the transpositions of 
words, etc., had not been noticed by Mill and other collators; this 
led him to recollate the entire MS. He then refers to the Codex 
Ephraemi, and to the confirmation which the readings extracted 
by Wetstein often gave to the Alexandrian copy. 

He then speaks of the history of Jerome s translation ; which 
(he considers) must at first have accurately represented in Latin 
the best Greek MSS. then obtainable. But finding how different 
the modern Clementine Vulgate is from the oldest Greek readings, 
he examined the oldest MSS. which he could see of that version, 
and then was well pleased to discover that there was often a 
precise accordance between the Latin and the Greek. 

Bentley next speaks briefly of the formation of the common 

* The introduction of such a term as 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. 


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 

"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. 

"I affirm that these so placed will prove each other to a 
demonstration ; for I alter not a letter of my own head, with the 
authority of these old witnesses." 

Earnestly for a time did Bentley prosecute his design ; great 
pains were taken to procure accurate collations of the oldest Greek 
and Latin MSS. It is to be lamented that the proposed edition 
never appeared. The delays which arose from the strange conten- 


tions in which Bentley was involved, and the outcry which was 
raised by well-meaning prejudice, so far prevailed as to delay the 
work, until it was impossible for Bentley himself to superintend its 
publication. And thus all that was accomplished was the acquire 
ment of a mass of materials. 

It was very soon reported that Bentley was engaged in such an 
edition ; and before the end of the year in which he had informed 
Archbishop Wake what he had in hand, some took alarm in the 
belief that he would not insert 1 John v. 7. This was made the 
subject of a kind of an anonymous argumentative remonstrance 
to Bentley; who replied (Jan. 1, 1716-17) that the decision as to 
that verse must depend on ancient evidence, the same as all other 
passages. In the following 1st of May, Bentley, who was little 
accustomed to withhold his opinions, delivered his probationary 
lecture as candidate for the Eegius Professorship of Divinity ; in 
this lecture he gave his decided judgment for the rejection of the 
verse in question. In such a case boldness is prudence; if the 
verse is not owned as part of Holy Writ by competent authorities, 
it is needful to speak out, even though the equanimity of subjec 
tive dogmatists be ruffled, and though they may raise an antici- 
pative feeling of condemnation against the honest critic. 

Amongst other steps taken by Bentley, was that of sending 
John Walker, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, to Paris to 
collate MSS. for him. On his return, in 1720, Bentley issued 
his Proposals for his Greek and Latin New Testament, accom 
panied by the last chapter of the Revelation, as a specimen. 

The whole of Bentley s Proposals were comprised in eight 
paragraphs : the first spoke of the actual condition of the printed 
Greek Text and the Latin Vulgate, and the importance of the 
service of revising both, on the authority of MSS. of more than 
a thousand years old. The second related to the view which 
Bentley took of certain passages in St. Jerome " where he 
declares, that (without making a new version) he adjusted and 
reformed the whole Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars; 
that is to say, to those of the famous Origen," and also of the 
passage containing Jerome s statement that the order even of 
the words is important in translations of Holy Scripture. 
From these passages he concluded that the oldest Greek and 


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 ^Ethiopic, 
and of all the fathers, Greeks and Latins, within the first five 
centuries; and he gives in his notes all the various readings 
(now known) within the said five centuries. So that the 
reader has under one view what the first ages of the Church 
knew of the text; and what has crept into any copies since 
is of no value or authority." In the fifth paragraph, Bentley 
disclaims the use of conjecture altogether in the text itself of 
the sacred volume; the notes are to contain all the evidence on 
which every word rests ; and also the common readings of Ste- 
phens s Greek and Clement the Vlllth s Latin are to be plainly 
exhibited. In the 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 

* It 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 


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 both sides :* for 
the solemn reverence due to God s holy word was utterly forgot 
ten, and the question of the text of the New Testament was made 
a mere point of intellectual gladiatorship. Middleton did not in 
general understand the really weak points of Bentley s plan, and 
he spent his strength in assailing what was well-established. 
Bentley gives important information on the subject before him, 
and he well defends those true principles of criticism which Mid 
dleton had assailed. And yet the spirit of such advocacy was 
utterly unsuited to the cause. f "Non tali auxilio." 

actual existing MSS ; and thus in his Prolegomena to the Apocalypse he inserts in his 
list of MSS. 

"20 et 21, Duo Codices Gallicani^ qui citantur in epecimine Capitis ultimi Apo- 
calypseos a E. 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. 80 : 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 docs 
not appear. Bentley sometimes cites " Gallici tres" "Gallici quatuor." 

* Bentley seems to have thought that Midclleton s pamphlet had proceeded from 
Dr. John Colbatch, Professor of Casuistry at Cambridge, with whom he had at this 
time a fierce feud. Much of his reply is based on this supposition. 

t " It is painful to narrate the animosity and virulence which displayed themselves 


Bentley mentions, in reply to a remark of his opponent on the 
manner in which the citations of authorities stand in his specimen, 
what the kind of notation was that he had adopted; that of 
distinguishing the MSS. by letters, A, B, C, etc., and a, /3, y: 
this is, in fact, the system which was adopted by Wetstein, and 
which has still continued in use. 

He showed good discrimination in his use of patristic citations, 
receiving them for as much as they were worth, remembering 
that they, too, might have 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 
aggrieved party. We can easily understand how Bentley should 
conclude his answer thus : "If they will need attack an edition 
before it s begun, let them put their names to their work. If 
they do not, they shall have no answer ; and if they do, they will 
need none." However frequently the former of these sentences 
may be applied, few could be Bentleian enough to use the latter. 

Conyers Middleton replied to Bentley s answer in a much 
longer and abler pamphlet than his former; its whole character, 
in fact, was very superior to his previous attack. But still it did 
not really bear on the critical points at issue ; and one unhappy con 
sequence was, that the feeling was increased in this country that 
it is unsafe to apply criticism to the text of the New Testament ; 
that it is often better to retain readings traditionally, without 
evidence, than to revise them in accordance with good and suffi 
cient testimony. 

on such a subject as a new edition of the Gospel of Peace." Bishop Monk s Life of 
Eeutlcy, ii. 130. 


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- 


tive notions. He was a man apparently of some ingenuity, of no 
real or accurate scholar ship, 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 Yaticanus, was tran 
scribed for publication by Woide ; and after his death was edited 
by Ford, in 1799. It is the most exact and complete collation of 
that MS. which is accessible to biblical scholars. 

This proposed edition, although never published, is of no small 
importance in the history of the text of the New Testament. For 
the time had arrived when it was possible to use some discrimina 
tion in the choice and the application of Greek MSS. to purposes 

* "Tandem ipse Clar. Bentleius, futura forsitan adversa prudentcr prcesagiens, pro- 
missam Novi Testament! editionem vivus edere recusat, laborem hunc filio unico 
eique doctissimo relicturus" (p. 406). Probably, in this description of Bentley s son, 
Hofmann confounded him with his nepheiv Thomas Bentley, or with Richard Bent- 
ley, to whom he left his books. 

f Bishop Monk s Life of Bentley, ii. 415. 


of criticism. Bentley saw that the ancient MSS. are the witnesses 
to the ancient text ; and after this had been proved from the gene 
ral accordance of such documents with the ancient versions, and 
the early citations, he was ready to discard from consideration, on 
a question of evidence, the whole mass of the modern copies. 
This limited the field of inquiry, and reduced it within tangible 
and practicable bounds. 

It is on many accounts to be regretted that the edition itself 
never appeared, for it would have given the readings of all the 
ancient MSS. then known, those of many ancient versions, toge 
ther Avith 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: 


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. 


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 a labours, which was wholly 
omitted by Bishop Marsh in his translation, who inserted instead the following note, 
for the information of Bentley s countrymen: "Here follows in the German original 
a long account of Bentley s intended edition of the Greek Testament, and of the 
controversy which was conducted between him and Middleton on that occasion. 
But as the subject itself is of LITTLE IMPORTANCE, because Bentley s plan was never 
put into execution ; and as those whose curiosity may lead them to inquire into 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 1 s Prolegomena, p. 153." Marsh s Michaelis^ ii. 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 these BENGEL was the first to publish the edition which he 
had prepared: it appeared at Tubingen in 1734. 

It is always refreshing to see that critical studies, in connection 
with God s word, have been carried on by those who themselves 
knew the real spiritual value of that sacred volume on which they 
were engaged ; and this gives an especial interest to Bengel s 

John Albert Bengel was born in Wurtemberg in 1687 : during 
his period of study at Tubingen, 1703-7, the various readings in 
the Greek New Testament interested him much ; for, having 
learned to value the New Testament as being the declaration of 
God s revealed will, he was anxious to be satisfied that he could 
know the precise form and terms in which it has been given forth. 
Could it be true, that God had not guarded his own inspired 
word from material error? One cause of Bengel s difficulty was, 
that prior to the appearance of Mill s edition, there were only 
such partial collections of various readings, as raised in his mind 
the feeling of anxious doubt. At length, however, patient study 
led him to the conclusion that the various readings are less nume 
rous than might have been expected, and that they do not shake 
any article of the Evangelic doctrine. Thus Bengel was gra 
dually led to see the need of a Greek text, based on really sound 
principles of criticism applied to exact and complete collations. 
It is well that, at this time, those in Germany who maintained 
orthodox and Evangelic truth were not opposed to the application 
of criticism to the sacred text.* 

At first Bengel gathered materials wholly for his own use, but 
others encouraged him to go on and complete his work for public 
benefit.f He thus made application in many quarters for collations, 

* In 1/02 the celebrated Augustus Herman Francke, of Halle, had re-edited Bishop 
Fell s Greek Testament of 1675. 

t In Burk s Memoir of Bengel, (Walker s translation, p. 227,) it is stated that 
Whitby and Le Clerc were amongst the number of those " who sent him repeated 
exhortations to proeeed." If this be correct as to WJiitly^ he could have but little 
understood what Bengel had in hand ; for Bengel s labours were as much opposed to 
Whitby s opinions, as were those of Mill ; nay, they were more opposed ; for Bengel 
intended to revise the text itself. Le Clcrc 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 loss than nothing. 


and he met with a response so far as to issue, in 1725, his " Pro- 
dromus Novi Testament! Graeci recte cauteque adornandi," in 
which he gave a general notion of the edition which he after 
wards published. This work itself made its appearance in 1734: 
the Text, except in the Revelation, never departs from that which 
had previously been given in the same printed edition ; in the 
margin, however, he placed those readings which he accepted as 
genuine, with a mark by which he indicated their value ; he also 
gave in the same part of his page other readings, the value of 
which he considered to be sufficiently great for him to draw 
particular attention to them. 

The various readings and critical remarks upon them were 
separately given in the Apparatus Criticus at the end of the volume. 
He did not profess to give all the readings of the collated MSS., 
but only those which he judged to be of some importance ; 
but one part of his plan, which was long neglected by more 
recent editors, was of great value ; he gave the evidence FOR as 
well as AGAINST each reading, clearly stated. The great principle of 
distinction between various readings was expressed by Bengel 
according to his own judgment, in four words, Proclivi scriptioni 
prcestat ardua, a principle then little understood, and which has 
been practically opposed by many who have discussed such sub 
jects in later times. But surely in cases of equal evidence, the 
more difficult reading, the reading which a copyist would not 
be likely to introduce, stands on a higher ground, as to 
evidence, than one which presents something altogether easy. In 
the adoption of this rule, Bengel carried out an idea which is 
often to be found in Mill s Prolegomena : he likewise agreed with 
Mill in attaching a high value to the Latin versions as witnesses of 
the true text. 

It is to be regretted that Bengel was not better furnished with 
accurate collations of ancient Greek MSS; for with his critical 
principles they would have led him much further than he ever 
went towards forming a text resting simply on authority. He 
must himself have desired such aids; for it was the hope of re 
ceiving them that delayed him some years from publishing. In 
1726, Bengel wrote thus with regard to his Greek Testament. 
" It is already in such forwardness, that if other circumstances shall 


permit, I may soon send it to the press. What principally holds 
me back is the delay of Bentley s promised edition of the Greek 
Testament, a specimen of which was given many months since in 
the English * Library. Bentley possesses invaluable advantages ; 
but he has prepossessions of his own, which may prove very 
detrimental to the received Text. All danger, however, of this 
kind, I hope I have the means of obviating."* Thus there was 
some delay in waiting for Bentley s announced edition ; and when 
this was hopeless, the publication of the first edition of Wetstein s 
Prolegomena in 1730 led Bengel to see the necessity of re- 
examining both authorities and principles, before he put his 
edition to press. Thus the delay from 1725 to 1734 may be 
well accounted for. 

Bengel clearly observed the difference existing in MSS. and 
versions, so that he saw that in a general manner they belonged 
to two different families. The one embraces the most ancient 
documents whether MSS. or versions, the other comprises the 
greater part of those that are more recent. It was thus that the 
ground plan of a division into Alexandrian and Byzantine families 
was laid down: these were termed by him, African and Asiatic.f 

This critic, like his predecessors, had to pass through misrepre 
sentation on account of his work : his own orthodoxy and god* 
liness were unquestionable; but the Greek Testament, with the 
text revised in some measure, and with further corrections in the 
margin, was considered dangerous. One of his opposers, Kohlreif, 
" 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 " ! \ 

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 Martkius of Presburg. Walker s translation of Burk s Memoir of 
Bengel, p. 437. 

f The former of these would in most respects coincide with those MSS. which 
Bentley most highly valued, to the rejection of others in general. 

J Walker s translation of Burk s Memoir, p. 245. 


those which are supported by the greatest number of MS 8. 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 

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 is wearying and painful to them 
to be obliged to contend even for the truth itself." 

Bengel s text was repeatedly reprinted ; and he continued up to 
the time of his death to augment and correct his Apparatus Criti- 
cus; the enlarged edition of which was published in 1763, under 
the care of Philip David Burk.* 

It is cheering to the mind of every Christian to observe the 

* This is not the place to speak of Bengel s other works ; it should, however, be 
borne in mind, that the revision of the sacred text was only one part of the labour 
of this critic. 


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 lie looked 
to Him that the work on which he was engaged might be to the 
glory of Christ. 


THE Greek Testament edited by WETSTEIN, in 1751-2, greatly 
enlarged the boundaries of the critical horizon by the accession of 
new materials, from which more accurate judgments might be 
formed on many points. 

He commenced his critical studies when quite young. He was 
related to the senior partner in the firm of Wetstein and Smith, 
publishers and printers at Amsterdam; who, in the year 1711, 
had brought out an edition of the Greek Testament, in which a 
selection of the various readings given by Mill and 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 


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 Maastricht, 
which they had published in 1711. 

About 1724, Frey requested Wetstein to make a selection of 
those various readings which he judged the more important; he 
accordingly wrote such readings as he judged preferable to the 
common text in the margin of a Greek Testament. Frey pressed 
on him to undertake the publication of the text so revised. This 
appears to be the first time that it occurred to Wetstein to do 
more than edit the various readings which he had collected. He 
hesitated for some time; but in 1728, his brother Peter Wetstein 
being at Amsterdam, the subject was mentioned to the publishers 
there, and they pressed for a specimen of the edition, with Prole 
gomena. It was desired (Hug says) to anticipate the forthcoming 
edition of Bengel. With this request Wetstein complied; and at 
once he obtained from Frey copies of the fathers, out of which he 
gathered various readings; then he examined the early editions, 
and began to bring the mass of various readings which he had 
himself collected into some order. 

In the beginning of 1729, Wetstein says that Frey s whole con 
duct towards him was altered ; and from that time he did nothing 
but oppose both him and the work on which he was engaged. 
On the 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- 


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 aftencards 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 test 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 Keinonstrants 
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. 


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 Eevelation, 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, etc.; the other MSS. by Arabic nume 
rals. The notation recommences in each of the four parts; and 
this is an inconvenience in two ways ; for the same mark may 


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. 

"Wetstcin 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 


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 
Fcedus cum Greeds 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 


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. Pie 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- 

* "Doctrinarn ei concede, et literas, et diligentiam, ct multiplicem lectioucni: scd 
mansuetudinem, liumanitatem, candorem in Prolegomcnis cjus dcsidero." Woide, 
quoted approvingly by Bp. Marsh. Trans, of Miehaelis, ii. 873. 


ment as to accents, breathings, punctuation, and orthography ; 
that conjectural emendations are never to be hastily admitted or 
rejected; that the distinction of readings into those more and 
those less weighty is useless ; between two readings, the one 
which is better sounding, or more clear, or better Greek, is not 
to be at once chosen, but more often the contrary ; a reading 
which exhibits an unusual expression, but which is in other 
respects suitable to the matter in hand, is preferable to another, 
which, although equally suitable, has expressions such as are not 
peculiar ; of two readings the fuller and more ample is not at once 
to be accepted, but rather the contrary ; if of two readings one is 
found in the same words elsewhere, and the other is not, the former 
is by no means to be preferred to the latter ; a reading altogether 
conformable to the style of each writer, c&teris 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, cceteris paribus, must be pre 
ferred; the reading of the majority of MSS., cater is paribus, must 
be preferred; there is no reason why we should not receive a 
reading into the text, not only if it is suitably attested, but even 
when it is doubtful which reading is preferable. 

Wetstein illustrates his axioms by pretty copious remarks and 
examples : it is evident that he did not consider that any classifi 
cation of authorities could form a part of his system, and that 
thus they were all before him as one labyrinth, through which 
there was no definite guiding clue. Many of these axioms are 
such as all critics must approve, and some pretty nearly accord 
with Bengel s rule, Proclivi scriptioni pr&stat 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 


recension of the text, lie 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 


supplementary remarks on critical principles, was published at 
Eotterdam in 1831. Lotze retained the greater part of the notes 
of Semler, to which he added others of his own. 

Those parts of Wetstein s Prolegomena which relate to his own 
contentions with Frey and Iselin, or which speak severely of Ben- 
gel and his critical labours, were wholly omitted by Lotze. On 
some accounts none would regret their absence, but for one reason 
they are almost necessary; because it is only in these parts that 
the history of Wetstein s own edition can be found. This may be 
taken as a sample of the judgment exercised by Lotze in the pre 
paration for this edition : no other portion appeared, as the decease 
of the new editor hindered the text from being reprinted ; and, 
however much it may be desired that students should have access 
to Wetstein s edition at a more moderate cost, it is no cause for 
regret, from the specimen afforded by the Prolegomena, that it 
was not re-edited by Lotze. The misprints, false references from 
one part to another, oversights and errors in judgment manifest in 
the reprinted Prolegomena, fully justify this opinion.* 

Succeeding editors have selected from Wetstein : Griesbach did 
this avowedly, adding also other readings; and Scholz, following 
Griesbach, used what he had extracted as the basis of his own 
additions ; but the critical materials found in Wetstein, have 
never, as a whole, been reprinted. 

* Semler s editorial care in republishing Wetstein s Prolegomena is not to be com 
mended. He added good notes, but all the rest seems to have been left to his printer; 
hence remarkable mistakes have required correction in the preface, in which, however, 
Semler speaks as if he had revised the proof-sheets himself. This is scarcely possible. 
Some of the errata noticed by Wetstein are not corrected ; nor are they in Lotze 8 
edition, who even uses one of them as the basis of an annotation. The fact stands 
thus : Wetstein, in his account of different editions, mentions that published by his 
relatives at Amsterdam in 1711, and speaks of what was done in connection with it 
" a D. Georgia a Mastricht Syndico Bremensi" (Prol. p. 177) ; among the errata (p. 967) 
the word " Georgio " is corrected to "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. 



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 yzrstf edition. For this the critical materials were in great 
part selected from those of Wetstein ; they were not, however, 


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, Bcngcl, 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 arc 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 


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 
xi., Griesbach, in his first edition, followed the evidence of the 
distinct statements of Origen, confirmed by some of the ancient 
versions, although he could then show no ancient MS. as authority 
for some of the omissions. His judgment was remarkably con 
firmed a few years afterwards, when the readings of the most 
ancient of our MSS., the Codex Vaticanus, were published ; for 
it was found that all these omissions are confirmed by that docu 
ment. This is an illustration of the independent channels through 
which the antiquity (and often the genuineness) of a reading, may 
become a matter of demonstration. Had not Griesbach been fet 
tered by his recension-theory, he would in all his editions have 
adhered far more closely than he did to ancient evidence. As it 
is, in all his editions there is a correction of the text in many 
places ; suggested corrections in others, placed in the margin, or 
noted (in the case of omissions) in the text itself. He did not put 
forth an edition resting simply on authority. 

Soon after the appearance of Griesbach s first edition, other 
collations were instituted. C. F. MATTH^I published at Riga, 
in twelve volumes, 1782-88, the New Testament in Greek and 
Latin. The Greek was based on 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 tone 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 


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. Matthaei appears to have col 
lated the Moscow MSS. with much diligence, so that the reader 
is rarely in doubt as to the evidence of a MS. for or against any 
particular lection. The Latin Vulgate is given in this edition 
from a MS. (the Codex Demidovianus) with which Matthaei met 
in .Russia. 

All ideas of systems of recension or classification were wholly 
rejected by Matthaei ; and he never loses an opportunity of pour 
ing ridicule on Griesbach and his critical principles. In doing 
this he applies the most offensive epithets to all the most ancient 
MSS., and he endeavours to decry the citations given in the 
writings of the fathers, as if they were worth nothing. He even 
imagined that MSS. had been habitually corrupted by having 
their text altered and adapted to what was found in certain fathers. 
All MSS. which did not fall in a general way into a kind of 
accordance with those in common use in later times, were utterly 
condemned by Matthaei. All of those from which he edited 
his Greek Testament belonged to Griesbach s Constantinopolitan 

Matthaei published a second edition, without the critical autho 
rities, in three volumes, 1803-7. 

It is painful and wearisome to see so much learning and patience 
as Matthaei had, combined with so offensive a mode of speaking of 
those to whom he was opposed. This will always make his dis 
cursive notes unpleasant to the student ; and this long hindered 
scholars in general from paying much attention to his arguments 
against Griesbach s system of recensions. It should be observed 
that the tone and manner in which Griesbach speaks of Matthaei is 
always courteous, and devoid of a spirit of retaliation. 

In 1786-7, ALTER published the text of a MS. in the imperial 
library at Vienna : this was accompanied with the collations of 
other MSS. in the same depository. 

The Danish Professors BIRCH, ADLER, and MOLDENHAUER, 
for several years, were occupied in collating MSS. principally in 


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 

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 Bez^e (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 Matthsei in 
1791.f 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 
Wolfenbuttel palimpsests (P and Q), containing parts of the 
Gospels, published by Knittel in 1763, and the very ancient Greek 
and Thebaic Borgian fragments (T) of part of St. John s Gospel 
which appeared at Rome in 1789. 

And thus it was that in the twenty years which elapsed between 
the first edition of Griesbach and the first volume of his second, 

* The whole of Bentley s collation of this MS. was published at Oxford in 1799. 
f 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. 


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 

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 Q*L 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 ;| 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. 

f " Opus non crit, ut ssepe scepius repetamus, lectiones, quas in se spectatas potiores 
esse judicamus, turn demum cseteris esse prseferendas, si nonnullorum saltiin testium 
vetustorurn suffragiis commendentur." (Proleg., p. IxL note.) 

I 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- 
bally, grow in course of transmission. 


harsh, that which contains something unusual, that which is 
less emphatic (unless emphasis may be expected) ; in all these 
cases, however, and others which are laid down, such as those 
favouring " monkish piety," seeming glosses, etc., weight of evi 
dence may cause the apparently less preferable reading to be 
accepted as genuine. 

Griesbach gives many remarks on the weight of evidence to be 
attributed to different testimonies; and, as might be expected, he 
treats at considerable length on the value of his different recen 
sions, and the manner in which their evidence should be estimated. 
These considerations are such as would necessarily modify consi 
derably the critical principles of general application which he had 
before laid down, and they therefore would affect the text which 
he formed. Some of these considerations, however, apart from all 
theories of recensions, are useful in forming an estimate of any 
individual document; for if it has peculiarities, such as a tendency 
to omit, or to insert, or to bring parallel passages into close verbal 
agreement, or anything else of the kind, then, in such cases, its 
evidence is of far less weight than it would have had, if it had 
not been characterised by such peculiarities. 

In the places in which Griesbach differs from the common text, 
he generally gives a reading which is better attested, though in 
many cases not the best supported. That he improved the text is 
unquestionable ; that he led the way for the same thing to be done 
by others is equally certain ; and yet his own theoretical system had 
very little to do with the benefit which resulted from his labours. 

The concluding volume of Griesbach s second critical edition 
was published in 1806, after having been for several years in the 
press. In the preceding year he published a manual edition, con 
taining the text and the more important various readings, but 
without any statement of the authorities.* This edition contains, 

* Griesbach s manual edition 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. 

In 1827, Dr. David Schulz published a new and much-improved edition of the first 
volume of Griesbach s critical text and various readings. Its value is considerably 
greater than the original work. 


generally speaking, the most matured judgment of Griesbacli 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 Koman-Catholic Professor HUG, of Frei 
burg, was the one entitled, as a biblical scholar, to the greatest 
attention. He considered that the text was, in the early periods, 
left without revision ; and that its then state, with various corrup 
tions, is that found in the Codex Bezse : to this he gave the name 
of KOivr] GK&ocns : 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 
to us. The only basis for the supposed fact of these three revi 
sions is, that some ancient writers mention the copies of Origen, 
of Hesychius, and of Lucian: they say, however, not one word 
about systematic revision, and they do not hint (what Hug as 
sumed) that the recension of Hesychius was adopted in Egypt, 
as the text of the New Testament, and that of Lucian in Asia. 
There is some ground for supposing that they did something with 
regard to the Septuagint, which was adopted in those countries; 
but although certain MSS. of the Gospels were called after those 
two men, they seem to have been only received and used by a 
few, and they could not have been revisions of the KOIVTI e/eSooY?, 
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 

* " Prsetermitto cos codices quos a Luciano ct Hesychio nuncupates paucorum 
hominum adserit perversa contentio : quibus utique nee in veteri instrumento post 
septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit, nee in novo profuit emendasse, cum 
multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante trauslata doceat falsa esse qusc addita sunt." 
ILieron. ad Damasum. 


point of Griesbach s system, even supposing that it had some 
historic basis, was the impossibility of drawing an actual line of 
distinction between his Alexandrian and Western recensions : 
together they might be clearly seen to stand in opposition to the 
mass of Byzantine documents ; amongst themselves there are cer 
tain differences (especially in St. Paul s Epistles) ; but the precise 
distinction, so as to afford a warrant for exact classification, is not 
to be found. Indeed, Griesbach himself virtually gave up his 
system as to this point, in the last work which he lived to publish. 
In the second part of his Commentarius Criticus, in 1811 (the 
year before his death), he showed that the readings of Origen 
do not accord at all precisely with the Alexandrian recension to 
which he had attributed them, and that thus the boundary-line 
between Alexandrian and Western authority was not definable. 

Soon after Griesbach s death, Archbishop Laurence took up the 
subject in his Remarks on Griesbach s systematic classification of 
MSS. ; and he very fully demonstrated, that the final judgment of 
that critic had been the correct one. 

And yet the influence which Griesbach s labours exercised 
upon criticism was most important. There are many who, when 
they hear that his system of recensions has been thoroughly de 
molished, think that all reference to his labours may be cast aside 
as being now unworthy of attention. This procedure savours both 
of ignorance and temerity. Even though facts have been ac 
counted for wrongly, they still remain facts. Astronomical ob 
servations by a Ptolemjean 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/acfo 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 


the consideration whieh 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. 


THE late Professor J. M. A. SCHOLZ, of Bonn, who had been a 
pupil of Hug, after spending several years in the collation and 
examination of MSS., and several more in arranging his materials, 
published his critical edition in two volumes in 1830-36. He 
had formerly been the proposer of a recension-theory according 
to which all documents were divided into five families ; two 
African (Alexandrian and Western), one Asiatic, one Byzantine, 
and one Cyprian. This theory he afterwards rejected ; and, in 
its stead, he reverted to the two families, as they had been defined 


a century before by Bengel. Instead, however, of deeming the 
Alexandrian documents the more important, Scholz took exactly 
the opposite view : he maintained that the true text should be 
sought mainly amongst the Constantinopolitan documents. 

These principles were defended with a certain degree of 
ingenuity. Scholz alleged that his favourite family of MSS. 
always presented one uniform text, a text, which, having been 
preserved in general purity before Constantinople received its 
imperial supremacy, still preserved it (in spite of some Alexan 
drian intermixture in the fourth century) ; and thus, in the patri 
archate of Constantinople, this text was (he supposed) retained 
and transmitted. 

In support of this theory, he referred to the known discrepan 
cies of the MSS. and versions of the Alexandrian family from one 
another ; and in contrast he maintained the general unity of the 
Constantinopolitan MSS. as to the text which they present. It 
is true that there was a difficulty arising from the fact that none 
of the most ancient MSS. belong to the Constantinopolitan class ; 
but this Scholz sought to obviate by pointing out that MSS., 
which were approved and kept in constant use, would necessarily 
be worn out. It might, however, be asked, how it happens that 
several documents of the Alexandrian family remain, and none 
of the oldest class of any other, not even in fragments ? Scholz 
endeavoured to strengthen his cause by pressing into his service 
some of the ancient versions ; but they only serve his purpose in 
places where they happen to differ from the Alexandrian text ; 
an examination of their divergencies from the Constantinopolitan 
documents would show that they accord far less with it. The 
older fathers do Scholz but little service ; so that he is forced to 
descend to about the fifth century before he finds those who use 
the text which he prefers. 

The result of Scholz s classification is, that he calls Alexandrian 
the most ancient MSS., the old Latin version, and the Vulgate of 
Jerome, the two Egyptian versions, and the JEthiopic. This class 
of text was also used by Clement of Alexandria and Origen, as 
well as later writers. 

He considers the later MSS. in general to be Constantinopolitan, 
together with the old Syriac version (in part), the later Syriac, 


the Gothic, Georgian, and Sclavonic versions, as well as certain 
fathers from the fourth century and onward. (He cites indeed 
some earlier fathers, whose evidence really proves nothing.) 

Now taking his own classification (which as to the old Syriac 
is not very correct), it comes to this, that the witnesses against 
his favoured family of authorities are formidable both from num 
bers and character; for all the oldest MSS. extant, and most of 
the more ancient versions, are opposed to his conclusions. It is a 
rather significant fact to see the later of the versions ranging them 
selves unequivocally on the same side as the later MSS. 

One part of Scholz s labours must be definitely stated before 
further considering his principles. He examined many MSS. in 
the course of his travels, and he collated some ; he described the 
places in which many are preserved, which were previously un 
known to critics ; so that the list of MSS. which he gives is nearly 
double in number that which had accompanied the edition of 
Griesbach. He has thus been an exploring traveller; and the 
general report which he brings back of the regions in which he 
has journeyed, is one highly favourable to the Constantinopolitan 
views which he had imbibed. 

But it sometimes happens that an exploring collector is by no 
means the most competent person to classify and catalogue the 
objects which he brings home with him : his own estimate of 
their value may be far higher than that of an experienced man of 
science, whose time has been occupied rather with 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) ly 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 


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 list which he gives, but no 
readings are cited from them in his collection of various lections : 
he calls the greater number of them Constantinopolitan (as doubt 
less they are), and rests on the supposed uniformity of text as 
giving the weight of numbers in favour of what he advocated. 
And thus in many discussed passages in which Griesbach had 
varied from the common text in following ancient authorities, 
Scholz, relying on numbers, followed the more recent documents, 
and thus adhered to the received text or to readings not differing 
from it greatly. 

And hence the text of Scholz was highly valued by many who 
feared innovation : they were willing to believe that a deep truth 
lay at the basis of the system ; and they acquiesced in his estimate 
of authorities. Others, too, who were themselves dissatisfied with 
Griesbach s system of recensions, or who knew that competent 
scholars had raised objections with regard to it, were willing to 
assent to the twofold division of MSS., etc., proposed by Scholz ; 
and this was often the case without inquiry and accurate investi 
gation into the correctness of his arrangement of documents and 
authorities under the respective classes. Scholz s twofold division 
was supposed by some 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 


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 

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 doe? 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 
Gospel3. There is great want of uniformity in very many MSS., Church Lectionaries 
and others, of the Constantinopolitan class. 


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 Koman 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. 


Ix 1831 a small edition appeared with this title, " Novum Tcs- 
tamentum Gnccc. Ex recensione Caroli Lachmann." There wns 
no Preface ; and the only indication of the critical principles on 
which it was edited (besides what could be gathered from the 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 wliat 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 expositurn est (thcol. 
Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 817 845). hie satis erit dixisse, editorem nusquam 
iudicium suum, sed consuetudincm autiquissimarum oricutis ecclesiai*urn secutum esse. 
hanc quoties minus constantem fuisse animadvertit, quantum fieri potuit ea quse 
Italorum et Afrorum consensu comprobarentur prsetulit: ubi pervagatam omnium 
auctorum discrepantiam deprehendit, partim uncis partim in marginibus indicavit. 
quo factum est ut vulgatee et his proximis duobus saeculis receptce lectionis ratio 
haberi non posset, huius diversitatis hie in fine libri adiecta est, qtioniam ea res 
doctis iudicibus necessaria esse videbatur." 


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. Lacnmann 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 Origcn ; the readings of the old Latin (as 
found in unrevised MSS.) and the citations of Latin fathers were 
his subsidiary aids : and thus the text was formed ; not giving 
what he would necessarily consider to be the true text, but the 
transmitted text of about the fourth century. This he considered 
would be a basis for criticism, delivering it in fact from the read 
ings of the sixteenth century, and bringing us to a period a thou 
sand years and more nearer to the time when the sacred books were 
written. Where the principal authorities agree in an error, a 
certain unquestionable error, still 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 Lachmaim 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 reccptus, 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 Lachinann s time and labour had 
been wasted, and this was to him a cause of deep trial. 


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 suffi 
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 Buttmanii 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 lit ion. 
In 1839, Lachmann and Buttmann went together to Ful-.lii, 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 arc 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 
Diatcssaron 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 IMS. 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 text from the small edition of 
1831 are not many; and as they have sometimes been made a 
ground of unintelligent remark, it will be well in a few words to 
explain the characteristic difference between the two. The text 
of the small edition is wholly based on the sources which were (in 
Lachmann s sense of the word) oriental; and, where these differ 
among themselves, the readings were adopted " qua? 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 


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 lines, and the want of distinctness in the arrangement 
is a sore hindrance to the usefulness of the work ; it is probable 
that these notes were perfectly clear to those who arranged them, 
because they had the subject and the authorities altogether fami 
liar to their minds ; but it is not so with regard to others ; and 
thus it has been to some a study to understand how the balance of 

authorities is denoted in this edition. Lachmann s own arrano-e- 


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 
Bentlcy 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 Vatic anus he was more successful than any 
one since has been), his Latin authorities were limited to the 
ancient MSS. of Jerome s translation ; whereas, the publication of 
the texts of that Latin version, which in its various forms was in 

* The Codex Amiatinus is of the sixth century, as also is the Fuldensis. Lachmann 
was only able to use the very imperfect and inaccurate collation of the Codex Amia 
tinus which had been published by Fleck. The text of this MS. has been edited by 
Professor Tischendorf (Leipsic, 1851), from his own and S. P. Tregcllcs s transcripts 
and collations. 


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 Itala, and the one passage in Augustine in 
which it occurs, as though the one original Latin version was 
thereby denoted. 

In Lachmann s preface there is much that is valuable on the 
subject of the Latin texts, and the mode in which alterations had 
been introduced. He accedes to the opinion of Cardinal Wiseman, 
which had been held long before by Wetstein and others, that the 
old Latin was a version made in northern Africa.* He shows 
how the text had been modernised into the form in which some 
MSS. (such as the Codex Brixianus) exhibit it ; a form far more 
resembling the later Greek MSS., than that did in which this 
Latin version had previously existed. He, therefore, rejects alto 
gether from his consideration as witnesses those texts of the old 
Latin, in which the version has thus been changed. 

One class of Latin text does not come forward in Lachmann s 
consideration at all ; that in which the readings are introduced 
which agree with the Alexandrian family (in Griesbach s classi 
fication) far more than the old Latin did originally. Of this class 
there were then only fragments published ; so that Lachmann was 
unable so to take them into consideration as to form a judgment 
on their nature. 

The Latin texts, then, which have been transmitted to us con 
sist of, i. the old Latin version (as found in the Codices Vcrccllen- 
sis, Veronensis, and Colbertmus) ; ij. the same version revised with 
what may be called a Byzantine tendency ; (the Codex Brixianus, 

* Wttstein saj r s (in speaking of Mill), "Italicoc versioni, b. e. indoctis, nescio qui- 
hus Interpretibus, certc Idiotis Afris plus I rib u ere t," etc. Proley. 176. 


etc.); iij. 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 


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 

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) w^as 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 Ircnoeus 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 traditivc text of the fourth century. 

An instance of this is seen in Ephes. i. 15, where the common 
text reads, dfcovaas TTJV /cad v/jids iriaTiV ev rep Kvpiw J^croO, /cat 
TTjV dydjrrjv T^V et? TTavia^ rou? dyiovs : here Lachmann omits the 
words T?]V dyaTrrjv, 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) 


an early mistake, an hiatus, in fact, of early copyists. He says 
(Prolog., vol. ii., p. xii.) that it is manifest that ayaTrrjv 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 KOL rrjv ayaTTTjv rjv e%ere, the words rjv e^ere are not 
uniformly read in all the more ancient authorities. Now here the 
reason for not giving either orya7r??v, or else rr]v aydTryv, 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 fouriJi 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. 


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 
110 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 ive 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, 
Lachinann retains the common order of the answers and actions, 
that is, the first 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 the inquiry of Christ, " Which did the 
will of his father?" the answer in Lachmann s text is 6 vaTepo<s, 
instead of the 6 Trpwro? 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 vo-repos (or an equivalent) in the latter part, while 

* lie asks, "Was soil tier Excget mit clem blosseu Lachrnannscheu Texte aufangeu 
in Siellen, \vo or tiuulos ict, wie Matt. xxi. 23-31 ?" Eiiileituwj ias N. T^ cd. 5, p. SO. 


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.^ Now, I fully believe that 
Lachmann gives the true reading of the passage, and that in some 
documents the order of the answers has been changed so as to 
avoid a supposed difficulty, and that, in others, the word Trpwro? 
has been introduced instead of vo-repos, 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 vorepos : this, too, had been the Latin reading prior to the 
time of Jerome (as shown in the Codices Yerccllensis, Yeronen- 
sis, Corbeiensis, and the Evangelium Palatinum, published by 
Tischendorf ) ; the best copies of Jerome s translation (such as the 
Codices Amiatinus, Fuldensis, and Forojuliensis) also retain it. 
Jerome, in his Commentary, seems to have felt the difficulty, and 
he appeals to other copies which read "primus" (such as the 
revised text contained in the Codex Brixianus) : he seems, how 
ever, to have had but little confidence in the copies that read 
differently ; for he tries to explain his own reading, novissimus, by 
attributing this answer to the obstinacy of the Jews. 

But what is to be said to this seemingly contradictory reading ? 
The youngest son professed his readiness to obey, and then does not 
act according to his father s will, and yet the answer is 6 varepos. 
I believe that 6 varepo^ refers not to the order in which the two 
sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about 

* Ed. Do la Rue, iij. 770. 

t The VOrJd Of Ilippolytus are, *ai iv 7$ cOayyc,\tV TW iroifaavTa. TO Oe Aij/ia rov 

tVxaros. (Eel Fabric., turn, ij., p. 30.) t n Tos is the oiuivaieiit for u 
sonic MISS, of lliia pu.rsue. 


the elder son, va-repov e fj,erap,e\ri6el<$ cnrrfkOev, u afterwards 
he repented and went." " Which of the two did his father s 
will?" 6uo-repo9. He who afterwards [repented and went]. This 
answers the charge that the reading of Lachmann is void of 

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, \eyovcnv, ( O varepo^. Xeyet avroi? 6 I^crou? 
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, on etc rov OVJJLOV rfc iropveias avrijs 
ireTTTWKav Trdvra ra eOvrj, " because by reason of the wrath of 
her fornication all the nations have fallen " (see Jerem. li. 4 and 
49). And thus the passage stood in Lachm aim s earlier edition. 
In the larger, however, the word TreTrrctiKav is corrected into 
TreTTcoKav ; 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. TreTTTcoxav is supported bv A and C, 


while B (Cod. Basilianus) and ten others have the cognate reading 
TreTTTtofcacriv ; and this is the meaning found in the Memphitic 
and ^Ethiopic versions. The most ancient reading has been vari 
ously changed in later documents; thus the oldest copies of Je 
rome s version (c. g. the Codices Amiatinus and Fuldensis) read, 
" quia de ira fornicationis ejus biberunt omnes gentcs " (the 
modern Vulgate has " de vino irce fornicationis "), reading the 
Greek as if they had Lachmann s text before them, or as if TTC- 
TTTWKav had been misapprehended. In some documents (most 
indeed) rov owov is inserted before rov Qv^ov (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 rov 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 TreTrTwtcav for 
iriTTWKav (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 iriiTTWKav and TreTTTcoKaaiv 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 &>? teal ev Tc3 ^rak^M yeypa- 
TTTai T> TTpoorft), on which Tischendorf remarks that he has given 
this reading sine teste. The argument on the reading, however, 
divides itself into two parts ; i. the order of the words ; and ij. the 

* The following is the note of Lachmaun referring to niwtaKov iravra. TO. edvr) in his 
text : " nenruKav (sic TreVwKe <r) navra TO. tOtnj A C r, om. h." By the mark " " Lachmann 
designates the Elzevir text ; by " h" 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. 


numeral to be adopted, whether Sevrepw or TT/CXWTW. i. then, as to 
order, Lachmann follows ABC 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 is 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 Trpcorw 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 
Seure/Dco 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 early 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 liable 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 : Auo-lj/ efT-vx^es ejSpaiKois av-nypa.- 

S, ei p.ev ere pa) evpo^ev apxV Sevre pov t//aA;xoi) rauxa tf 8e TO> erepco vvv^Krero TOJ TrpcoTW. /cai 
ai? Trpd^ecri Se rioi/ a7rocrToAaji> TO, Ytos fj.ov et cru, eya> crrj/u.epoi yeyevvijKa. rrc, t Ae yero eivai TOU 
oToO ^ aAjaou. ws yap yeypanrai, <^f\cr\v, eyTrpaJToj x//aAjm,a5 KT\> Ed. CIO Icl IvUO, )J., 53/ 8. 


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 (i. e. the exercise of a critical judgment, not 
a mere adherence to authorities) for their correction ; and this 
intention (though never carried out) caused delay : but the great 
obstacle in Lachmann s mind was the want of apprehension which 
his friend De Wette showed as to his object and design : it was 
this, in fact, that hindered him from giving the second volume 
to the public so long as De Wette lived. That scholar seems, 
indeed, not to have at all apprehended zvhat 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 plaistercd," 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 


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 r^els ty-ia? evayyeXi^o- 
a rr)V Trpbs rou? Trarepa? eTrayyeXlav yevofjLevrjv, on ravrrjv 6 
6K7re7r\, )jpo)Kev rot? reKvois r)p,)v, where the common text 
has TO?? reKvois avrwv rj/Aiv, a reading which seems to have only 
sprung up as an amendment, a "skinning over and bandaging" 
of rot? re/cvois ^JJLWV 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 Bentleii) which were invented in 
order to make him appear ridiculous, then those who have com 
plained of his tone 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. 


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 simple 
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 ivholly on ancient 
authority, irrespective of modern traditions, is due to CHARLES 

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 authqri- 


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 it 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 

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 


passages in general are not ambiguous in their connection), yet 
all care should be taken so to place the pauses as to render 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. 

t " 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 
niagis quam ab hoc saeculo probentur ; qui si nos operam pie ac raodeste collocasse 
iudicabunt, tantum nobis quantum a mortalibus expectari possit nacti esse vide- 

I For two I easons 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 first 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. 
If so, 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- 



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 no ancient vouchers, but all the ancient witnesses contradict 

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 aa 
" great a passion in seeing the ill usage, as the other has in feeling it. ... Twas an 
" excellent saying of Solon s, and worthy of the wisest of the famous Seven ; who 
" when he was asked, nws rj/ctora dSi/cotei> oi av9puiro<. ; What icould rid the tvorld of in- 


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 ivith those that 
" suffer the wrong ; Ei 6ju.oiws axOowro TOIS aSiKou/aeVoi? ol HAT; afitKov/xevoi. If the reader will 
" but follow that great man s advice, and hare an equal sense of my ill-usage as if it 
* l 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 Lachinann, 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 SWOTJ (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 it 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 SCOOT? does occur in Eev. viii. 3, 
of the common text, and that Kauflrjo-oo^ai is found in 1 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 eircumspicience ? 

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 
praeeipue officio meo contineri existimavi, ut adulescentes probos et candidos, in 
quorum studiis fortuna ac spes ecclesiae et litterarum posita est, ea docerem quae 
multolabore etanxia sedulitate quacsita viderer mihiquam verissimarepperisse; non 
ut illi me tanquam ducern scctarentur aut in his quae tradidissem adquiescerent, sed 
singula ut ipsi invcstigarent, investigate perpenderent, perpensa probarent corrigerent 


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 text: 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 
described, 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 
tion 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 

* 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. Yers., 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. 


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. Tischendorf then adds, that, 
where testimonies differ, the most ancient Greek MSS. deserve 
especial reliance. Under the term, "Codices Grseci 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 


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 
Irenaeus 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 Kev. xiii. 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 

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 


documents, which seems to evince that it has originated in the 
revision of a learned in an. 

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. 

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 

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 otvo9 eV^emu KCLI ol aarcol airo- 
\ovvrai, he reads, 6 otvo? aTroXXvrat, /cal ol aaKoL 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 


(d\\a olvov veov els aaicovs KCLIVOVS jB\rjreov) 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 of 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 e/cep&^crej , though sup 
ported by A** B C D L, and other MSS., the Vulgate, copies of 
the old Latin, Syriac, later Syriac in the margin, Memphitic, 
JEthiopic, and Armenian versions.* In spite of all this evidence, 
he considers that it must be regarded as a critical emendation for 
the common reading eTrolrjo-ev. But as to this, must we not follow 
evidence? If e/cep&rjcrev be a critical correction, is it 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 eVo/^crev (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 e/cepbrjo-ev into the more familiar e 

* To these the Arabic and Persic might be added, if they possessed (which they do 
not) any critical value as authorities. 


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 

Tischendorf illustrates his third rule by Matt, xxiii. 4, where he 
omits /col Sva/Sdo-rafcra after (Bapea 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 


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 eV rais rjnepais rals irpo rov /cara- 
K\vcrfj,ov ; some MSS. insert e/celvais after rj/uepcus, while others 
(L, one Lectionary, three Latin MSS., and Origen twice) omit 
rals 7T/?o, 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 
Tafc Trpb might most easily be passed over by a transcriber ; and 
as to the citation of Origen, how often do we not find a quotation 
slightly 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 rals Trpo, 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 yu/r/Se e& TTJV KWfjLrjv etcreX0j79, 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, Proclioi scriptioni prcestat ardua. 


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 LXX. 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 modem MSS. of the LXX. (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 w r ere 
prone to transform to their own peculiarities the works which 
they received from elsewhere, it would be indeed wonderful that 
they have not changed JEschylus or Sophocles, Plato or Aris 
totle into Egyptians? * This argument is excellent ; and on two 
points very conclusive : 1st, 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 

* " Hinc quibus testibus in Yeteri Testamento fidem habemus, eosclem in Novo sequi 
tutum est. Cetcrum si grammatici alexandrini potissimum hoc egisse pntandi essent 
ut quac aliunde accepisscnt scripta ad suam ipsorum consuetudinern transformarent, 
profecto mirum esset quod non Aeschylum vel Sophoclem, Platonem vel Aristotelem 
acque ac saeros scriptores reddiderunt ao3 ptios." Proleg., xix. 


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 avrov, and those which 
flow from it ; like Bengel, Lachmann, and some other editors, he 
always gives avrov, etc., with the smooth breathing. This is a 
point on which the most ancient MSS., as having neither breath 
ings nor accents (at least a prima manu), can afford us no direct aid : 
they can, however, assist us indirectly; because we find before 
avrov the pronouns elided, not into e</> , a< , f^eO\ Ka9\ avd\ but 
eV, avr , y^er , /car , avr ; 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 

One of the subjects of which Tischendorf treats is that of Re- 


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, Tischenclorf 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 


doubt exist ; and thus there are general truths on which Tischen- 
dorf s arrangement is based. Thus, in St. Paul s Epistles, ABC 
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 
sion 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, arc 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 ; Y 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. Gallon. 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. 


Latin lie 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 it is almost impossible to exclude some 
measure of subjective feeling. 



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 
Wolfenbuttel, 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. 

Matthaei published, in 1791, the Greek and Latin Codex Boernerianus (G) 
of St. Paul s Epistles. 

In 1 793, Kipling edited the text of the Greek and Latin Codex Bezae (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.] 


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 ]STew 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 ISTew 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 P, 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 Y and F a . 

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 : 

1st. 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 


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 

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, 

* * * 

" I 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. 

" I 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 fifth 
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 rbv TOTTOV (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 B L. The other has, in John v. 1, f) eoprr) ran/ av/ia>z/: 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 ABC, 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. 

" I 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." 



As a preliminary definition of terms, I state that by u 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 B C D and the fragments Z J (with N and T) P Q T. 
The uncial MSS. from the seventh century which frequently 
accord with these, are L X A. 

The other uncial MSS. are E F G H K M S U Y, and 
the fragments ORWYOAF*. 

There are also cursive MSS. which generally support the 
most ancient documents ; amongst these may be specified 
1, 33, 69. 

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 a .) 

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. 


Uncial MSS. often agreeing with some of the above, F G. 
Other uncial MSS. J K (also the fragments F a ). 
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 

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 /ue Ae yeis ayaOov; ovSeis aya06<s et /AT) ets. 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, rt /xe epwras Trept rov 
ay a.9 oi) ; ets eariv 6 aya$os. 

The evidence respecting this passage (and also as to the words 
6 #eo? 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. 


1 . rl fJLe \eyets arya06v ; 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 Oxford fragments) ; also by the Codex 
Brixianus, one of the Latin MSS. published by Blanchini. 

TV yu-e epcoras Trepl rov ayaOov ; 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 Adlcr) ; the margin of the Harclean 
Syriac ; the Memphitic (alias Coptic), the Armenian, and the 
^Ethiopia; the MSS. BDL, 1, 22; Mat thsei s x., in addition to 
the common reading. 

2. ouSet9 aya^o?, el fjirj efc. So most MSS., three copies of the 
Old Latin, the Peshito and Harclean Syriac, and the Thebaic. 

et9 ecrnv 6 aryaOos. 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 ^Ethiopic. 
BDL, 1, 22. 

6 0eo9 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 ^Ethiopic. 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 Origcn s own words in the citation from Mr. Scrivener given just below. 


text an important variation, which, both from its extent and 
obvious bearing, cannot have originated in accidental causes. 
Instead of ri pe Xeyet? ar/aOov ; ovSels aryaQos, el pr) et? o #609, 
Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is 
God : they read, ri pe epcora? Trepl rov djaOov ; el? eorrw 6 
dya06<$, * Why askest thou me concerning what is good ? He who 
is good is One. I fear it is but too evident that this text was 
mangled by some over-zealous scribe, who was displeased with 
the doctrine of the Son s inferiority which seemed to be implied 
in it ; and who did not perceive that His subordination to the 
Father in the economy of grace, is perfectly consistent with His 
equality in respect to the Divine nature and essence. The re 
ceived text is found in Mark x. 18 ; Luke xviii. 19; with no 
variety in the manuscripts worthy of notice ; and even in this 
place Griesbach s reading is contained only in Jive copies (B D L, 
1, 22), and partially in a sixth (Matthaei s x.). Now, all these 
documents (except perhaps one) being Alexandrine, and B alone 
being of first-rate importance, every rule of sober criticism calls 
for the rejection of Griesbach s correction, especially since it is 
clear in what sources of mistaken feeling it took its rise. It is 
supported, however, by the Italic, Yulg. and the Coptic versions 
(with the slight addition of Deus), and in part by the Sahidic, 
JEthiopic, and one or two of less weight. Syr. agrees with the 
Textus Receptus ; but the language of Origen (torn. iij. p. 664) 
may show at how early a period Griesbach s variation had become 
current : o fjiev ovv MarOaios 009 Trepl dyadov epyov epcorrjOevros 
rov cra>Tr)po<$ ev r&> ri dyaObv Troi^aw ; 6 Se Map/cos teal AQVKCLS 
(fra&l rov vwrripa elprj/cevai, ri ae \eyei$ a^aOov ; ot8el? d<ya6b<; el 
fir) et9, o $eo9. The process whereby Griesbach and Lachmann 
persuaded themselves of the genuineness of their new text is 
visible enough. The Codices B D, 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 


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 

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, (ij.) the Vulgate, (iij.) the 
Curetonian Syriac, (iv.) the Jerusalem Syriac, (v.) the Memphitic, 
(vj.) the Armenian, (vij.)the ^Ethiopic. 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 it 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 


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 ; f 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 els ^TO-VQUW 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 less than if it stood in opposition to them. 

f 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 bo 
in fallible. 

Some have marvelled that the Codex Bezae (D) should have been highly valued by 


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 

Mr. Scrivener is quite right in saying that the reading of B D 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 numbers, etc., which are all wrong in the 
non-interpolated Ezra, both in the Hebrew text and the Greek version 


(ij.) Matt. xv. 8. The common text reads Eyyi /xot 6 Xaos OUTOS TO> 
oro/xcm avrcov, Kat rot? ^ec Aecrt /xe rt/xa- Other copies have 6 Xaos 
OUTOS rots xei Aecri A 16 T W without the other words. 

The common text is found in none 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 eyyl^et, JJLOI, draweth nigh 
unto me, and TO> a-ro^an avrwv, Kai, with their mouth, 
and. They are wanting in Syr., Vulg., the Italic, ^Ethiopic, 
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 LXX. 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 wlio almost 
always preferred to make passages as full and complete as pos- 


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. 

(iij.) 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. u Griesbach and Lachmann remove from 
the text /cal TO paTma/Aa, o eyco (BairTL^o^ai /3a7rri,a-0rji>ai, and 
the corresponding clause in the next verse. Their meagre array 
of witnesses is of the usual character : six decidedly Egyptian f 
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, 
^Ethiopic, 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 B D L; it transposes eyy<ei JAOI, and rejects the other words mentioned above. 

t What if the MSS. be Egyptian, the Latin versions are not; and therefore the land 
of the MSS. even if it be Egypt, proves nothing against them. 


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 

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 KapSiwv V/JLUV the common text adds ra 
TrapaTTTw/xara avrcov; 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, auwiou Kpicrew?. Vulg. has, however, 
" reus erit ceterni 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 


other MS.), read aluvtov ajao/mj/xaTos, and C* (ut videtur), D, 
69 (and two others), have atowou d/xa/cm ag, a perfectly cognate 

(vj.) Mar. iv. 12. TO, d/xa/o-nj/xara 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 aKovovcriv omitted by the Old Latin, Vulg., 
Memph., ^Eth., with B C D L A, and some other copies. 

(viij.) Mar. x. 21. apas rov aravpov omitted by the Old Latin in 
most copies, Vulg., Memph., (so too Clem. Alex, and Hil.), with 
B C D, A. 

(ix.) Mar. xii. 4. Ai^o^SoX^cravTes omitted by Old Latin, Vulg., 
Memph., Arm., with B D L A, 1, 33, and four other copies. 

(x.) Mar. xii. 23. orav awoTaxriv om. some copies of Old Latin, 
Memph., Syr., with B C D L A, 33. 

(xj.) Mar. xiii. 14. TO prjOtv VTTO Aavi^X TOU Trpo^rou om. most 
copies of Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., Arm., also Augustine ex 
pressly, with B D L. 

(xij.) Luke viii. 9. Aeyoi/re? not in Old Lat., Vulg., Curetonian and 
Peshito Syr., Memph., Arm., with B D L, 1, 33. 

(xiij.) Luke viii. 20. Aeyovrcov not in Old Lat., Vulg., Curetonian and 
Peshito Syriac, Memph., Goth., with B D L A, 1, 33 (and a few 

(xiv.) Luke viii. 38. 6 I^croSs not in some copies of Old Lat., 
Memph., Theb., Arm., JEth., with B D L, 1 (and two others). 

(xv.) Luke viii. 54. e/c/3aA(W eu> uavra? KOL om. Old Latin, Vulg., 
Curetonian Syriac. with B D L X, 1. 

(xvj.) Luke ix. 7. vrr avrov om. Old Latin (some copies), Cureto 
nian Syriac, Memph., Theb., Arm., with B C* D L, 69 (and one 

(xvij.) Luke ix. 54. o>s /cat HA/as eTrofyo-ev om. some copies of Old 
Latin, Vulg., Curetonian Syr., Memph. 1, Arm., with B L (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. 

* It 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 conies 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,noi> opinion t th&t it has been enlarged 
out of Matthew. 


Matthew. The parts in which the variations occur stand thus 


Trdrep fjfjL&v: rjpwv is omitted by the Vulg., by Origen, by Ter- 

tullian, with B, 1, 33 (ut vid.), and a few others. 

6 lv rots ovpavois. om. by the Vulg., Arm., by Origen, by Ter- 

tullian, with B L, 1, and a few others. 

yevr)Or)T(D TO 6i\-Y]^o. (rov ws Iv oupai/a> KCU CTTI rfjs yJJs- om. Vulg., 

and some other Latin copies, the Curetonian Syriac, Arm., Origen 

expressly, Tert., Jerome, Augustine expressly, with B L, 1, and a 

few other copies. 

(ver. 4.) oAAa pvcrat Ty/xas aTro TOU irovrjpov 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 

(xix.) Luke xi. 29. After 17 yei/ea corn? of the common text, yevca is 

added Toy the Old Latin, Vulg., Curetonian Syriac, Harclean Syr. 

(with *), Memph., Arm., with AB D L X, 1, 33, 69, and some 

(xx.) Luke xi. 29. TOT; Trpo^rov om. Old Lat., Vulg., Curetonian 

Syr., Memph., Arm., Jerus. Syr., with B D L. 
(xxj.) Luke xi. 44. ypa/x/xaTets KCU (f>api(rcuoL VTTOK/HTCU- 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 

(xxij.) Luke xii. 31. TT)V /feo-iXeiav rov 6eov common text; but T. /?cur. 

avTov Old Latin in some copies, Memph., Theb., JEth., with 

B D*L. 
(xxiij.) Luke xiii. 24. Sia r?)s O-TCV^S Ovpas is the reading of Origen, 

where the common text has TTV\^. The reading of Origen is 

found in B D L, 1 (and one other copy), 
(xxiv.) John iv. 43. /ecu a.7n}A$ei/ omitted by Origen ; so too in copies 

of the Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Memph., with BCD, 69 

(and one other copy), 
(xxv.) John v. 16. The words KCU CTJTOW avrov aTroKTetvat are omitted 

by the Old Latin, the Vulg., Curetonian Syriac, Memph., Arm., 

as well as by Cyril and Chrysostom, with B C D L, 1, 33, 69 

(and a very few others), 
(xxvj.) John vi. 22. e/ceu/o cts o lvt(3if]<ra.v ol fjiaO^Tal avrov om. Old 


Latin (in some copies), Vulg., Memph., Goth.,^Eth., with ABL, 

1, and a few others, 
(xxvij.) John vi. 39. Trarpos om. in copies of Old Latin, Peshito Syr. 

MS., Memph., Theb., some fathers, with A B D L T, 1, and a 

few other copies, 
(xxviij.) John vi. 40. TOV Tre/xi^avros yae common text ; but TOV irarpos 

pov, some copies of Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, as well as 

Peshito and Harclean, Memph., Theb., Arm., ^th., Clement and 

other fathers, with B C D L T U, 1, 33 (and a few other copies). 

Several other versions, etc., blend together both readings, 
(xxix.) John vi. 51. ty eyw Soxrco om. Old Latin, Vulg., Curetonian 

Syriac, Theb. JEth. ; also Origen and other fathers, with BCD 

L T, 33 (and one other), 
(xxx.) John vi. 69. TOV o>i/Tog 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. SieA$on/ Sia /xeo-ov avToov Kat Traprjyev ovra>s om. 

Old Latin, Vulg., Theb., Arm., so too Origen, with B D. 
(xxxij.) John ix. 8. ru(f>X6<s common text, but Trpocratr^s in copies of 

Old Latin, Vulg., Peshito, and Harclean Syr., Memph., Theb., 

Goth., Arm., JEth., some fathers, with A B C* D K L X, 1, 33 

(and a few other copies), 
(xxxiij.) John ix. 11. KO! TTCV om. some copies of Old Latin, Vulg., 

Theb., Arm., with B C D L, 1, 33 (and one other MS.). 
(xxxiv.) John ix. 11. rfjv KO\vfjL/3r]Opav TOV 3iA.a>a/x common text; but 

simply TOV StXcoayu, Old Latin, Peshito and Jerus. Syr., Memph., 

Theb., Arm., with B D L X, 1. 
(xxxv.) John ix. 25. Kat etTrev 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. iraXw om. Old Latin, Vulg., Memph., Theb., 

with B D. 
(xxxvij.) John x. 12. O-KOPTTL&L ra Trp6/3a.Ta common text ; but om. 

ra TrpofiaTo. here Memph., Theb., Arm., JEth., Jerus. Syr., with 

B D L, 1, 33 (and a few other copies). 

(xxxviij.) John x. 13. 6 Se /xto-0om>s <evy om. by just the same au 
(xxxix.) John x. 14. Common text ytvwo-Ko/xat VTTO TO>J/ e/taJv, but 

yivworKowi fj. ra cpa is the reading of the Old Latin, the Vulg., 

Memph., Theb., Goth., JEth.; also of Epiphanius and Cyril, 

with B D L. 


(xl.) John x. 26. Ka$ws CITTOV ifjuv om. Old Latin in some copies, 
Vulg., Memph., Theb., Arm., and some fathers, with B K LM*, 
33, and a few other copies. 

(xlj.) John x. 33. Xeyovres om. Old Latin, Vulg., Peshito and Hare- 
lean Syriac, Memph., Theb., Goth., Arm., with A B K L M X, 
1, 33, 69 (and a few other copies). 

(xlij.) John xi. 41. ov rjv 6 re0vi?Ku>s KCC/ACVOS om. Old Latin, Vulg., 
Peshito Syriac, Memph., Theb., Arm., JEth. ; also Origen re 
peatedly ; with B C* D L X, 33 (and three others). The Gothic 
and Harclean Syriac have only ov rjv ; so also A K, 1 (and one 
other copy). 

(xliij.) Acts i. 14. KOL TYJ Secret not in Vulg., Peshito and Harclean 
Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm., ^Eth., also some fathers, with A B 
C* D E, and a few others. 

(xliv.) Acts i. 15. Common text paOrfr&v ; but a8e\<j>uv Vulg., 
Memph., Theb., Arm., JEth., with A B C* 13, and two or three 

(xlv.) Acts ii. 7. Trpos aXXyXovs om. Vulg., Memph., JEth. with 

(xlvj.) Acts ii. 23. Xa/?ovres om. Vulg., Peshito Syriac, Memph., 
Theb., Arm., ^Eth., also Irenaeus, and other fathers; with 
ABC, and a few other copies. 

(xlvij.) Acts ii. 30. TO Kara o-dpKa dvao-r^crciv rov Xpiorov om. Vulg., 
Peshito Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm., JEth., also Irenseus, and 
other fathers ; with A B (sic) C D**, and one or two other 

(xlviij.) Acts ii. 31. 17 ^v\^ a ^ov om. Vulg., Pesh. Syr., Memph., 
Theb., JEtli., also Irenaeus, and other fathers ; with A B C D. 

(xlix.) Acts ii. 47 ; and iii. 1. Common text Ka9 ^jtiepav rfj eK/cA^cna. 
Evrt TO avTo Se IleVpos /cat Icoai/i/Tys. But the reading of the oldest 
authorities differs much, (" cotidie in id ipsum. Petrus autem et 
Johannes ") Vulg., Memph., Arm., JEth. ; so also Cyril, and the 
MSS. ABC, K.a(f rjjjiepav ITT! TO avro. IltTpos Se Kat TcoafF ^5. 

(1.) Acts iii. 22. Trpos TOWS TraTepa? om. Vulg., Peshito Syr., Memph., 
with ABC, and a few more. 

(Ij.) Acts XV. 24. XeyovTe? 7re/KTe/zveo-$at /ecu Trjpciv rov VO^QV om. 
Vulg., Memph., Theb., some fathers ; with A B D, 13. 

(lij.) Acts xv. 33. Common text aTroo-ToAovs but dTrocrretXavras avrovs 
Vulg., Memph., Theb., ^Eth., also some fathers; with A B C D, 
and some other copies. 

(liij.) Rom. i. 16. Common text TO euayye Aioj/ ToO Xpto-Tou* but TOV 


Xpiorov om. Vulg., Peshito and Hard. Syr., Memph., Arm., 
also Origen, and other fathers; with A B C D* E G, 17, and 

(liv.) Rom.iii. 22. KCU rl Trdvras om. some Latin copies, Hard. Syr., 
Memph., Arm., JEth., also Clement, Origen, and other fathers, 
with ABC, and a few others. 

(Iv.) Rom. v. 1. Common text lx^ v > but *X (0 /"- 0/ > Vulg., Peshito Syr., 
Memph., Arm., Chrysostom, Cyril, and other fathers ; with A B* 
(sic) D J, 17, 37, and other copies. 

(Ivj.) Rom. vi. 12. avrfj Iv rats eTritfu/Atais O.VTOV common text; but 

rats 7ri0v/xiW avrov simply, Vulg., Peshito Syr., Memph., Theb., 

Arm., JEth. ; also Origen, etc. ; with A B C* and a few others. 

(Ivij.) Rom. viii. 1. f^rj KOTO, crap/co, TrepiTraroucriv dXXa Kara Tn/ev/xa om. 

Memph., Theb., JEth., also Origen, Athanasius, etc. ; with B C 

D* F G, and a few others. [The clause dXXa, Kara TrvcC/xa is 

omitted by Vulg., Peshito Syr., Goth., Arm., with A D**]. 

(Iviij.) Rom. x. 15. rah/ evayyeXiofie>ti>v dpvjvrjv om. Memph., Theb., 

JEth. ; also Clement, Origen, etc. ; with ABC, and a few 


(lix.) Rom. xi. 6. et Se e cpycov OVKCTI eori X^P L ^> ^ 7rc ^ ro epyov ov/ceri 
eorivcpyoi/ om. Vulg., Memph., Theb., Arm., JEth. ; with A C D 
E F G, 17 (ut vid.), and one other. 

(Ix.) Rom. xiv. 6. KCU 6 /AT) ^povoiv TYJV ^/xcpav Kvpia) ov ^>povt- om. 
Vulg., Memph., ^Eth, ; with A B C* D E F G, and a few others. 
(Ixj.) Rom. xiv. 9. Common text, Xptcrros KCU aTreOave KCU dvecrr^ Kat 
but om. KOI avivrr] Vulg. MS., Hard. Syr., Memph., 
., Arm. ; also Dionysius of Alex., and other fathers ; with A 
B C. Also for avitfla-ev the reading e^crev in the same authorities, 
also the Peshito Syr., and D E J, 17, 37, and some other copies. 
(Ixij.) Rom. xv. 24. eXewcro/xai vrpos v/^as om. Vulg., Peshito Syr., 
Memph., Arm., -<Eth. ; also Chrysostom, etc. ; with A B C D 

(Ixiij.) Rom. xv. 29. rov evayyeXtov rov om. some Latin MSS., (Cod. 
Amiatinus, etc.), Memph., Arm., uEth., Clement, and other 
fathers ; with A B C D E F G, and two later copies. 
(Ixiv.) Rom. xvi. 5. A^atas common text ; but Aai ag, Vulg., Memph., 
Arm., JEth. ; Origen , etc. ; with A B C D* E F 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 


in this passage, and by the Harclean Syriac; while they are found 
in this place in Vulg., Peshito Syr., Memph., JEth. ; 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. dv^pwTriv^s aortas om. avOp. Vulg. (in the best 
copies), Pesh. Syr., Theb., Arm., ^iEth., Origen five times ; other 
fathers ; with B D E F G, 17, and a few others. 

(Ixvij.) 1 Cor. iii. 4. aapKiKot common text; but avfyxmroi, Vulg., 
Memph., JEth., Origen, Didymus, and other fathers ; with A B 
C D E F G, 17, and one or two other copies. 

(Ixviij.) 1 Cor. vi. 20. KOL Iv rw Trve^/xcm vfJL&v OLTLVO. eon TOV Oeov- om. 
Vulg., Memph., Basmuric, ^Eth. ; also Irenseus, and other 
fathers, with A B C* D* E F G, 17, and four others. 

(Ixix.) 1 Cor. vii. 5. rf) i/^areia KOL- om. Vulg., Memph., Basmuric, 
Arm., vEth. ; also Origen, and other fathers ; with A B C D E 
F G, 17, and a few others. 

(Ixx.) Gal. iii. 1. rfj aX-rjOtLa /AT) 7rei0ecr#af om. some Latin copies, 
Pesh. Syr., Memph., Theb., Arm. ; also some fathers ; with A 
B D* F G, 1 7*, and one or two others ; also the exemplars of 
Origen cited by Jerome. 

(Ixxj.) Gal. iii. 1. eV vfjuv om. Vulg., Pesh. Syr., Memph., Theb., 
Arm., JSth., Cyril, and other fathers ; with ABC, 17*, and a 
few others. 

(Ixxij.) Eph. iii. 14. TOV Kvpiov yp-wv lya-ov Xpiorov om. some Latin 
copies, Memph., ^Eth.; also Theodotus, Origen, and others; with 
ABC, 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 


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, f 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 nfew 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. 

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, on a rough estimate, between two and three thousand places 
of this kind. 

t 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. 


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 

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 is (if 
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 

* Sec Beutley s Ecply to Middleton (vol. iij. p. 523, in Dyce s edition). 


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 Sclavonic. 
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 Bezse (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 Bezas 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 ; 


the readings of the Codex Bezae 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. 



THE Textual Criticism of the New Testament had occupied my attention for 
several years, hefore 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 m yself 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 Kevelation 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 to my " 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. 


particular readings of importance needed to be habitually consulted, if I wished 
to follow evidence, and riot 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 

1st. 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 G-riesbach s critical labours 
more highly than I was then capable of doing ; although his text, as such, still must 
appear to rne to present a kind of incongruous mixture in its character. 


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. 

3rd. 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 La.chmann 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 tliem are defective, hi the same manner as they stand in my published 
specimen ; and just as they have been given (wholly independently, I believe,) by 
Mr. Alford. 


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, to 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. 


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, / 
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 CODEX AUGIENSIS (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 


Epistles) at Dresden, or vice versa, it was important to be able to compare the 
readings of this MS. in all places, with those of that Codex (published by 
Mattheei 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, e^cojuei/ is the original 
reading of the MS. (thus agreeing with the other more ancient MSS. etc.) ; a 
later hand has changed this into e^o/xej . The collations of Birch, Bentley, and 
Bartolocci, do not notice this passage. In Rom. viii. 11, the MS. reads Sia TO 
fvoiKovv avrov TTvevfjLa : 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), 8 to. TOV CVOIKOVVTOS avrov TTVCV- 

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 
Avas 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 text 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 ryv cgovcriav, the MS. really omits rrjv : in Rev. 
xvi. 12, he reads TOV /ueyai> TOV ftppa-njv^ the second TOV is not in the MS. I 

* This I copied in the Bibliotheque du Koi, iu 1849. 


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) WISE 
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 BATTELLI, and of Dr. JOSEPH NICHOLSON 
(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 
Epistles (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. GIUSEPPE PALERMO, 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 FURIA, 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: lie says (N. Test. Proleg. p. Ixxiv.), "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, eovo-(.av non n\v eoucria.v (quod 
vereor ne ipse male videret) et xvj. 12, e^panji/ non TOV e^parriv." 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. 

ju.eya 10 c/3Aa<7^/xrj(raj/ 6t emu TO ovo/aa 
TOV Gv TOV exoi>TOseov<riav ewt ra? TrXj) 
yasTavras . /cat bvjj.e-revo-qa av Sovvat, av 

The letters stand thus : the final s of exoim>s being under ju in the one line, and above 
in the other : the initial e of fgovcnav has rj above it and e below it. 


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 GALVANI, the librarian at the ducal palace, 
enabled me to use the Codex Mutinensis, 196. The ancient ivriting 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. GIUSEPPE 
VALENTINELLI, and (the late) Signor ANDREA BARETTA. Those who know 
how MONTFAUCON 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. I know by experience what Montfaucon de 
scribes, for I have met elsewhere with the same kind of exclusion."]" 

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 cursice 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 

* I 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. 

t In speaking of this MS., I may mention that it is the only uncial copy in which I 
remember to have observed a 2>os-scribed iota. In this MS. this is found once, Matt, 
xxv. 15, where wZ (i. e. w) occurs. I have not seen a swi-scribed iota in any uncial docu 
ment. Lachmann points out that in the Codex Bezae, Mar. i. 34, TjiSraj> (i. e. jjSeiaac) 
occurs ; and that in the Codex Boernerianus (Gr Epp.), Eph. vi. 6, is found lit n?, 
where the blundering copyist may have thought that >?Tts was a word in which the 
iota might or should be added. 


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 MULLER, 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 DE WETTE I am under great obligation, for the kindness with which 
he procured me the use of these MSS. out of the library. 

I returned to England in 1846, disappointed indeed as to the Vatican MS., 
but well satisfied that the time had not been wasted, which I had devoted to 
the re-collation of other documents ; for I thus learned how often I should 
merely have repeated the errors of others, if I had not re-examined the docu 
ments for myself. 

In 1847, I collated (G of the Gospels) the Codex Harleianus 5684 in the 
British Museum. Of this same MS. there exists a fragment in the library 
of Trinity College, Cambridge, which I met with in 1845, while examining 
Bentley s books and papers. In that marked B. 17, 20, there are two frag 
ments of vellum with a part of the Gospels on them, written in uncial letters, 
placed loosely in some pieces of more modern Greek MS. in cursive characters. 
The Rev. John Wordsworth (who took great pains in describing, etc., Bent- 
ley s papers) says in the catalogue, " The two loose scraps are copies of some 
other MS." It appeared, however, plain that they were really ancient frag 
ments. Accordingly, I made a facsimile of each. One of them struck me as 
certainly in the same handwriting as G, which I had inspected several years 
before. On re-examining my facsimile with G, this persuasion amounted to 
a certainty ; the writing was identical with that of the former part of G ; 
and in calculating the lines in a page, etc., this fragment would form half a 
leaf (the outer column being gone). It contains part of Matt, v., ver. 29-31 
and 39-43. This MS. was one of the two Codices Seidelii, both which after 
wards were in the possession of Wolf, of Hamburg. Wolf says, in his 
description of this MS., that it commenced at Matt. vi. 6 (as it does now), so 


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, 0eo0iAe to 6, irao-ais rai 
(the lines having all lost about ten letters at the end), and ver. 13, avrov 6 
ayyeXos, to 16, CK KoiXias (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 aetate ac conditione utriusque Codicis eo 
rectius judicium formari posset, adjeci specimina, A et B signata, quibus in 
collatiorie 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 impossible 
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. CURETON, 
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. 142, and 
from iii. 6 to vii. 37. There are also fragments of Jolmxiv. 1129. St. Luke begins 
in ii. 48 to iii. 16, then from vii. 33 to xv. 21, from xvii. 24 to xxiv. 44. 


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 Claromoritanus, 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 Yaticanus 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 

* " Der Text ist voll der vortrefflichsten uncl Ultesten Lesarten. Die Konigin 

unter den Cursiv geschriebenen Handschriften." Einleitung in N. T. v. 217. 



from the Epistles. It was his desire that some scholar who had access to the 
Bibliotheque 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 Bibliotheque du Roi are kept. He said that thirty-four leaves of 

* " Perquain negligenter codicem hunc contulit Larroquius, cujus excerptis usus est 
Millius. Equidem denuo excussi XVIII. capita Matthrei, atque ex liis collegi 300 cir- 
citer lectiones ab illo prseterinissas. Pra?terea ex epistolis decerpsi etiam nonnullas, 
. . . Utinam vir cloctus, cui aditus ad bibliothecam Regiam patet, reliquas etiam codicis 
egregii partes denuo et accurate conferat !" Griesbach. Symb. Grit. i. p.clxviii. 

f 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. 


the Codex Claromontanus, which had been cut out by Aymon, and sold to the 
Earl 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 renvoye 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. HASE, " Ancien Conservateur" of the 
library, deserve to be gratefully mentioned by me ; I have also to express my 
obligation to M. EMMANUEL MILLER, an assistant-librarian in 1849, and to 
M. LETRONNE (son of the late well-known Academician), who occupied the 
same place in 1850. 

At Hamburg, through Dr. PETERSEN S kindness, I was allowed to have 
access to the city library for twice 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.f 

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 w r ent, I saw much of Prof. LACHMANN : he dis 
cussed many points connected with New Testament criticism ; it was very 

* I am 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. I 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 
iixed into its place. 

t The Codex Seidelii of St. John s Gospel, of which Michaelis speaks (Marsh s 
translation, ii. p. 215. note), 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. 


interesting to hear /row 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 vitse seternae 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 Person (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 
TISCHENDORF. 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 M tiller, 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. All 
these Greek corrections I recompared with the MS., and they are printed from his and 
my notes ; sometimes indeed we differed as to tvhich hand had made the correction, 
and then Tischendorf has given simply his own opinion ; but as to the corrections 
themselves, I can certify that they are all in the copy. In all 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 Claromontanus, will see that many amendments have 
been introduced. 

In 1 Cor. viii. 4, 1 read the line 


as originally written; and I noted that OTIJ had afterwards been erased; (a later 
hand has changed PlJlOCetOC into BptOCCUJC). On this, however, Tischeu- 


At Dresden I examined the Codex Boernerianm (G Paul.) especially as to 
those places in which its text, as published by Matthaei, differs from that of F. 
The resemblance of this MS. to the Codex 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- 
thsei. 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 WoLrENBUTTEL : 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 
BpCOC6(UC additum incodiceesse OTII." I can only 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 
IOTAAIOIC (which in his Greek Testament he had said was omitted) on my in 
formation, saying in his Appendix, " TG : id nunc in ligatura codicis latet." I 
read the word by opening the book wide. 

* The reading of 1 Tim. iii. 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 Clerc s Epistle to Optimianus, prefixed to Kuster s edition of Mill s Greek 
Testament: "Codicemvidi qui fuit in Bibliotheca Frauciana in hac urbe, anno 
MDCCV. vendita, in quo erat O (nempe inl Tim. iii. 16), sed ab alia manu additum 
Sigma. Codex est in quo Latina interpretatio Graecse superimposita est : quse hie 
quoque habet QUOD." To this the 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 c . Dr. Gries- 
bach could hardly fail to be aware of this, yet he quotes G without any remark, as 
supporting the reading 6s 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 not a transcript of G, so that it may be left out 
of the question. To set 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 au addition ; the words are not cramped together, but 
they stand thus Oc e(J)AIJepUJeH ; 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 0eos that there is a line over the O ; 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 wo. is so marked, and Gal. iii. 28, ev : 
(where the common text reads els). It may be a mode of denoting the spiritus asper. 


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. SCHONEMANN, the librarian (become quite 
blind), and Dr. HOECK, the secretary. 

In passing through Holland, I took the opportunity of examining, at 
UTRECHT, the Codex Boreelii, F of the Gospels ; Professor ROYAARDS kindly 
introduced me to Professor YINKE (who published Heringa s collation of the 
text of this MS.), and to Mr. ADER, 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 text 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 GEORGE TOLLER, 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 


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 

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. 


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 *a/LuAoi>, 
and as it is of older date than the time when t and 77 were confused by copyists, 
it might seem like authority for that word, instead of the common Kaprfkov. 
Now, the presence of the Iota was simply a conjecture, from the blank space 
in Dr. Barrett s page ; and Lachmann cautiously cites, " Kafi:\ov 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 

* And yet it has been an accusation against Lachmann, that lie 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 


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 

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. 

Signer VELLUDO compared the list I sent with Codex U at Venice ; Dr. 
STROHL did the same with X at Munich; and E and 1, at Basle, were exa 
mined by Dr. C. L. ROTH. 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 Signer Francesco DEL 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 Ms 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 learu 
this from his note, page 261. "In verse 7 [of Matt, xxi.], Scholz asserts that the 
Codex Z reads eneKiiOia-ev. 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. 


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 VERSIONS, I use and examine myself the LATIN and the 

The LATIN consist of (i) the OLD LATIN, 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 tlie recomparison of tlie places of discrepancy made by Abbate del Furia, 
I am able to point out tlie following corrections for Tiscliendorf s edition of this Latin 

Matt, xxvii. 20, princlpes autem sacerdotum ; not, princeps. 
Mark xiv. 43, de duodecim ; not, ex duodecirn. 
Luke ix. 13, duo 3 pisces (sic). 
John vi. 54, efc bibi; not, et bibe. 
2 Tim. iii. 16, divinitus inspirata ; not inspirata divinitus. 

ir. 10, Tiscliendorf here gives Galliani in his text, 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 paficnda ; not, Dei cZ<?;wcntia. 


copies. (iij) The Harclean, published by White, under the name of the 
Philoxenian. (iv) Besides these versions, there is in the Vatican the Lec 
tion ary, 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 MEMPHITIC * 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 THEBAIC is also collated by Schwartze ; the fragments of this version 
were collected and published by Woide and Munter. 

In the GOTHIC, 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. Home kindly exerted himself for 
me, and through him I was introduced to Mr. CHARLES RIEU, 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 ^ETHIOPIC, Bode published a Latin version of it, from the text of 
Walton s Polyglot : Mr. T. P. PLATT 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. Home 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, MempMtic and TTiebaic^ are very often termed in 
critical works Coptic and Sahidic ; but these latter names, however common, aro 
objectionable : Coptic is rather a general term applying alike to the old Egyptian 
tongue as a whole ; the Memphitic is the dialect of Loiver 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 
Thcbaic, " Sahidic," for each shows a connection with Upper Egypt. But still to call 
the ancient dialect of the Thebais by a name AJkx^ Sa-id t imposed after the occupa 
tion of the Arabs, is as unsuitable as if we were to say that the Gauls in Julius Ceesar 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 Sals. 


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) P Q T J N 

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 A C D G. Fragments H F. 
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.f (and a few others) I have myself collated, 
i. of the Gospels E G H K M U X, 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 

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 Cardiual 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 Eulotta seems to be entirely lost. 

f I do not here take into account the recently-discovered MSS. of Tischendorf, to 
which I expect soon to have full access. 

X "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. 10-1-5. 


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 DE WETTE, the 
disciple of Griesbach, with whom I had much intercourse, both in Rome and 
Basle. Thus, too, I met SCHOLZ, 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 LACHMANN, the first 
who edited irrespective of traditional authorities, and with TISCHENDORF, the 
publisher of so many ancient texts. And all of these, except the last, and not 
these only, but LAUHEANI and MOLZA, the custodi of the Vatican, BARETTA 
of Venice, HARTER of Munich, Cardinal ACTON, 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, 

I may give the result of my studies in a few words : I 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 


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. 


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 
Greek 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 object 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 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 truth 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 (ii.) To determine as a fixed 
and settled principle that the only proof that a reading is 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. Grit. i. 
Praef. 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. Ixii.) 

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 is 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 


auxiliaries those whose general text accords with them, and that 
on two grounds ; 1st, 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 Symbolic 
Criticae, 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 ivhom the ancient copies were written : if there had 
been any force of argument in the remark, it would apply quite as 


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 quce habemus niliil dicer e; QILE- 
RERE QIL3E 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 


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 in the name. Now 
the fact is, that in those days Alexandria was the great centre of 
Greek literature ; and thus publisliers 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. 


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-office, 
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. 601), ed. 
Casaubon.) No doubt he does ; and he makes the same accusation against those of 
Rome ; for, in the first century, Home 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 mastei s or 
the men in a body, much less do I charge London books with general inaccuracy. 


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 hind 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 Eev. 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. 


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 33 C, or even D, into the 
stereotyped standard of the Constantinopolitan church, whereof our codices 1 in 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. Ixviij. 

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. S. refers would fully admit. If the 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 is 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 in examining 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 Yeronensis. 

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. 


fabric of revealed truth which has been in some measure dis 
figured by the modern copyists and their followers, the early 

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 centuries 
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, 1st. 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 improvement 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- 


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 maims volumen assumserit, et a saliva 
quam semel imbibit, viderit discrepare quod lectitat, lion statim 
erumpat in vocem, me FALSARIUM, me clamans esse SACRI- 
LEGUM, qui audeam in veteribus libris, addere, mutare, corri- 
gcre." (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 


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 
innovators, 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. Vult enim magnitudine rei sic 
occupare animos eorum qui audiunt, UT DimciLlS 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 

* 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: "e^ r<5 (>avepc3 openly, is found in all Eng. in Beza and 
Castalio ; but is omitted by Syr. Yulg. 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 

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 Daille) ita comparatum est, ut auctorum ytrobatorum libros 
plerique omties 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 
superjluo aliquid hodie habent complnres 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, Prceferatur lectio brevior" 


The first text of the LXX. 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 Koman edition of the LXX. was published 
(1586), based on the Codex Yaticanus ; 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 Palaeography 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 lurcher used it as the basis of his Concordance 
to the LXX. lurcher 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 Aldiue Text himself. 


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 

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 

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 


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 so, is of very great value. 

Thus the express testimony of Origen, that rt /u-e Xe^yets ayadov ; 
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 TL /ze epwra? nrepl TOV dyaOov ; (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, fJbaKapiot, ol TrevOovvres .... JMIK. ol Trpaet? KT\. But Origen 
(iv. 740) says, evvoiav Be rov TOLOVTOV \a/jL/3dva) eTrtcrr^cra? r 
Ttt^et TWV iv rut Kara Mardalov naKapio-fjiwv, eV ot? JJL e r a TO. 
fjiaicdpioi ol TTTco^ol TO) TTvev/jLaTi) OTL avrwv CCTTIV r) j3acrC\eia TCOV 
ovpavwv, er}? <ye<ypa7rrai, TO ua/cdpioi, ol Trpaet?, OTL avTol /c\7jpo- 
TJ]V yrjv Tijpei yap ev rourot? OTL irpwTOV fiev TWV aa/ca- 
TI /3aai\,eia e crrt TWV ovpavwv SevTepov 8e /c\r)povo{MJ- 
o-ovcri TTfV VTJV. Now though the only MSS. in favour of this 
reading are D, 33, (BCD 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. Euscbius so arranged these sections as to throw thcru 


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. i. 18, we know how it was read in the second century from 
Irenseus, who (after having previously cited the words " Christi 
autem generatio sic erat") continues, " Ceterum potuerat dicere 
Matthaeus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat; sed praevidens Spiritus 
Sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, 
per Matthaeum ait : Christi autem generatio sic erat" (C. H. lib. 
iij. 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 

In all such cases it may be supposed that Irenaeus 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 -^ K -j (i. e. , \ ; showing that the 

26th section (under Canon X) was something peculiar to St. Matthew, namely, poxopioi 
oi Trpaeis KT\ ; 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, ju.a/cdpio<. oi irtvQovvTes, on aurol 
Trapa/cA.Tjfljjo-oi Tai, answers to that in Luke, /owucoptot oi KXaiWes vvv, on yeAao-ere. Tran 
scribers have confused the notes of the Canons as they stand in the margin of many 
MSS. ; but the table which makes the 27th section of St. Matthew answer to the 
48th of St. Luke, corrects the confusion and supplies the ancient evidence. 


widely diffused. Let it be remembered that in this place the 
common reading is rov Se Irjcrov XptcrroO, while Irenaeus main 
tains that I^croO is not in the sentence. The Old Latin and the 
Vulgate support Irenaeus 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, jooi \3ai )**-*v> <__^ oi>\* 
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 
Bezse (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 I^croO. Thus, then, the statement of 
Irenasus is confirmed by a variety of independent testimony. 
Lachmanii marks the Irencean 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), rov e Xpio-Tov I^crou : t this 
subtracts greatly from any supposed common agreement of MSS. 
on the passage. It must be remembered that transcribers con 
tinually added I^croO? to XptoTo?, 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 Irjcrov here 
between the article and the adjective Xptcrroi), 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 not there. 

f Lachmanii refers to Origen iii. 965<* 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, " Christ! autem Jesu generatio sic 
crat." 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. 


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 I^o-oO 
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. iij. 11, 8) Irenoeus 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 Irenaaus, as preserved in the citation of Germanus, Patri 
arch of Constantinople, the words given as read in the common 
Greek copies, a reading which Irenasus repudiates as expressly 
as any one can a reading of which he never had heard. 

In Matt. xxiv. 36, after ovSe ol dyye\oi rcov ovpavwv, B D, and 
some versions, add ov$e 6 vlos (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 Thebaic. 

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 

* " In quibusdain Latinis codicibus additurn est, neque Filius : quum in Graecis, et 
maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum." Hieron. 
in loc. (cd. Vallarsii. vij. 199). 


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. vravre? ov KOL/jurjOTjcro/jLeOa^ irdvres Be dX^cvyrja-o/JLeda. 
we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. 

II. Trdvres KOifJiriO^cro^eOa^ ov Trdvre^ Se a\\aj7jo-6/ji6a. 
we shall all sleep, but we shall not all be changed. 

III. Travre? dvaarrjo-OfJieOa, ov Trdvres Se d\\uyrjcr6fj,6da. 
we shall all rise, but we shall not all be changed. 

The first of these readings is nearly the same as that of the 
common text (which however introduces /j,ev) ; it is supported 
(besides this ancient testimony) by B D*** J K 37 and most 
later MSS. The Pesh. and Hard. Syr. Memph. Goth, and some 

The second reading is that ofCFG(17) [and of A nearly], 
the Arm. and jEth., 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^zr^ of the readings then possess the best claim 
on our attention ? For the connection is such that the Apostle 
immediately speaks of the ?5yitet? 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 vravre? ov KOi^O^o-ofjueOa seems to have been mis 
apprehended, as though it meant " none of us will sleep" (just as 
Tra? in New Testament Greek, when followed by a negative, is 
sometimes equivalent to ouSet?): 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 ov 
Trdvres Koifjb. so as to connect the negative with the whole of the 

1 Cor. xiii. 3, Jerome (ed. Vail. vij. 517 e) mentions the same 


diversity of reading, KavQ^a^^ai and Kav^rjo-ayfjiaLj which we 
still find : an error on the one side or the other of part of a 
letter. That the former is the true 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, viii., 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. viii. 28, the evidence stands thus : 

TaBapr)va)V B C M A and some more recent copies, Pesh. and 
Harcl. (txt.) Syr. 

Tep^e<j7]vwv LXKSUV (and C*** in mg.) 1 (and most 
copies), Memph. Goth. Arm. 

Tepaa-riv&v D apparently, though now defective, because this 
is the reading of the Latin. Old Latin, the Vulg. Harcl. Syr. 
in mg. (codd. 33 and 69 hiant). 

In Mark v. 1, the authorities stand thus : 
wv B D. Old Latin ; Vulg. 

L AU 1, 33, and later MSS. Harcl. Syr. in mg. 
Memph. Arm. JEth. 

raSapyvvv A C E F G H K M (and S Ve sil), 69, and most 
copies. Pesh. and Harcl. (txt.) Syr. Goth. 

In Luke viii. 26, thus : 

Tepaarjvwv B C* D, Old Lat. Vulg. Theb. Harcl. Syr. mg. 

Tep*/ear]v&v C** P L X, 1, 33, etc. Memph. Arm. JEth. Jer. 

ra&aprjv&v A E F G H K M A Gr. (and SVe sil.) 69 Pesh. 
Hcl. (txt.) and Curt. Syr. (Curt. Syr. is defective in the other 

The statement of this evidence seems to show that 


is the best supported reading in Matt., and Tepacrrjvwv 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 Tepao-rjvwv was the reading in 
Matt. It does seem to show that Tepyearjvwv (or Tepyecraiwv) 
was a reading then unknown ; and it has been judged that this 
reading originated in the conjecture expressed by Origen. He 

To iievTOvye rffAaprfjcrOai ev rot? t EX\fr]ViKois dvri<ypd<j)0i,<> TOL 
Trepl rcov ovofJLCLTGov TroXXa^oO, KOI CLTTO TOVTCOV av Tt9 Tretadelrj ev 
T0t9 eva<yrye\loi$ rj Trepl rov? VTTO ra)v SaifAovlcov /caraicp rjfjivi^o^e- 
vovs Kol ev rf/ Oa\d(ro~rj (rv/jLTrvtyo/jLevov^ ^pipovs OLKOVOjJiia dvaye- 
yeyovevai ev rfj xobpa r&v TepaarjVMV. Tepaaa 8e TT}? 
earl TroTu?, ovre 0d\aacrav ovre \ifJLvriv 7r\v](Tiov e^ovora. 
KOI ov/c av our&)9 7T/3o^>ave5 -v|rei)So5 Kal eveXey/crov ol evayyeXicrTal 
vSpe? eVtyiteXco? ^LVWG-KOVTG^ ra irepl rrjv lovSalav. 
l tcai ev b\ifyois evpofjbev " ei? rrjv ^(wpav TWV PaSap^vwv," fcal 
Trpo? TOVTO \6Kreov. FdSapa yap TroXt? jj^ev ecrrt TT}? 
Trepl r)V TO, Sia/Bo^ra Oepfjua Tvy%dvei, \lfjLvrj Se /cpTj/ji 
fjbivr] ovba/uio)*; ecmv ev avrfj r) OdXacraa. *A\\a Tepjeaa^ d(f> 979 
ol Pepyea-aloL, 7roXt9 dp^ala Trepl -rrjv vvv Ka\ovfiev7jv 

Trepl r)V Kprifjivos TrapaKeifJievos rf) \ijJLvr], dfi ov 
%OLpov<; VTTO TCOV ^aijjiovwv KaTa{3e/3\rja6ai. ep^veveTai Be 
rj Tepyea-a, Trapoifcla e/c/3e(3\rjK6rcov, eTrcovufios ovcra rd^a Trpo(f>rj- 
ov Trepl TOV acorrjpa TreTTOL^KacrL 7rapaKa\eaavre^ avrbv 

eic rcov bpiwv avrwv ol T&V xplpcov TroXnm. 
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 


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 

In Matt, xxvii. 16 and 17, some few copies prefix Irja-ovv to 
BapaftjBav 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 : Quern 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 alicui iniquorum." (iii. 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 lyo-ovv: he cites 
these words with TOV before Bapaj3j3av, as now read in B (riva 
0e\6T6 TWV Svo aTToXvcro) V/JLLV; TOV Bapa/3/3dv rj ^Irjvovv rbv 
\ey6/j,evov Xpio-Tov). A scholion in certain MSS. (sometimes 
ascribed to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch) also speaks of ancient 
copies which gave the words of Pilate Irjaovv TOV Bapa/3{3dv. 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, Irjaovv Bapa/3/3dv is found 
in 1 a prima manu, and two other copies ; also in another, a cor- 
rectore : also in the Armenian and Jerusalem Syriac versions. 
In ver. 17, Irjcrovv TOV Bapaftftdv is the reading of 1 a prima 
manu, and of the two above mentioned which agree with it ; and 


a similar reading (though perhaps without TOV) 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 ^I^aovv 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, 
d7ro\v(rc0 VJMV Itjcrovv Bapaftftav (or lya-ovv 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 BapajSftav ^7), 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 
i>iuv, which would form the contraction IN for Irja-ovv. Thus, 


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 AYTOIC, the three last letters having been repeated, 
AYTOICOIC, this has been read as the contraction for avrois 6 

After the marginal scholion already noticed had been appended 
to certain copies, it can be no cause for surprise that the name 
I^croOv 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 rw; in this Tischen- 
dorf has followed Scholz ; and as he inserts the word irjo-ovt/ in his text in both verses, 
the want of accuracy as to the wording of his authorities is of all the more conse 


notion of u explicit ancient testimony" to this passage, and thus 
important is it to sift such testimony. Lachmann well asks, how 
could any suppose that if the evangelist had written ITJCTOVV Bap- 
aftfidv in verses 16 and 17, he could have expressed himself (in 
verse 20), ol Se ap^tepel^ KOI ol Trpea/SvrepoL eireicav TOVS o^Xof 5 
iva alrrjffcwTai, TOV Bapa(3/3av, TOV Be IH2OTN 

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 

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, 
SiafiapTvpo/jiai \_ovv eycb] evwiuov TOV Oeov /cal [TOV /cvplov~\ ^Irjcrov 

XplCTTOV TOV yU-eXXoVTO? KpiveiV ^COVTO-9 Kal VKpOV<> fCaTO, TT}V 7Tl- 

<f)dveiav avTov Kal TTJV /3a<ri\,elav avTov : in our English version, 
u I 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 ovv lya) and TOV /cvplov 
(placed within brackets above) are not genuine ; and also the best 
authorities have XpiaTov before Irjaov: but, besides these differ 
ences, the best authorities have /cal Trjv 7ri(f). instead of KUTO, 


TTJV e7rt<. And this last-mentioned variation lias been pointed at 
as devoid of sense. But whence does the supposed difficulty 
arise? Entirely from the meaning traditionally assigned to Sia- 
fjiaprvpofjiai^ which has been taken as though it expressed a charge 
given to Timothy, for which purpose "thee" has been added in 
translating. But 8ia/j,apTi>pojjiai, means far more fitly, " I testify," 
" I 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: 

ei/wTTtov roC eou Kat Xptorrou lycrov, TOV ytxeAAovros 
/cat ve/cpovs, Kat rrjv 67rt<avetav avrov Kat TT)V /^acriActav avrov. 

** Testificor cor am Deo et Christo Jesu, qui judicaturus est vivos ac mor- 

tuos, et adventum ipsius et regnum ejus." 
" I 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 


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 (6Vo? r) /3o?) 
fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the 
sabbath day?" 

But, instead of oVo?, the reading mo? is found in (A) B E G H 
M S (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 


oiJoZ. oj oiio), the Thebaic, and two copies of the Old Latin 

npofiarov is the reading of D ; while 01/09, as found in the 
common text, is that of K L X, the Old Latin; the Yulg., Memph., 
Arm., jEth. The other ancient MSS. not cited by name are here 
defective, as is the Gothic version. 

That vlb? rj /3oO? is the best-supported reading is most certain; 
6Vo9 seems to have sprung from Luke xiii. 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 (TOZ- 
ftovv avrov 7) TOV ovov) from the stall, and lead him away to water 
ing?" Here we have 6Vo? so connected with /3o09 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 vibs 
might be as much a difficulty to them as it has been to some later 
critics. np6/3a,Tov, as found in D, seems to be simply another 
correction, taken from the " one sheep" (Trpoftarov ev) falling into 
the pit on the sabbath, Matt. xii. 11. 

And yet the reading vibs 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 v 09 rj /3o>9, 
Luke xiv. 5, that they unanimously inserted 6Vo?, though they 
found it not in a 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 6Vo9 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 mo9 we should read OI5* : and, 
though Lachmann of course inserted vlbs 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. TH/O? vpwv TS 
(or rather O T2) rj fiovs et? <f)peap Treo-elrat, ; that which pleased 
the early correctors is devoid of skill, namely, to substitute 6Vo9 or 


>7rp6j3aTov. Mill was most true in his conjecture OI%. For I 
prefer writing ot? rather than 0*9, a form perhaps too Attic, and 
which by the ancients was not written #5." 

Very similar conjectures have been put forth by a writer in the 
Edinburgh Review,* who traces however the reading vlb? or o vio<? 
to the Latin ovis. This writer says that the reading vios 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. CXCL, July 1851, p. 34. " Luke xiv. 5. The reading of 
the Textus Receptus is, nVos v/awv 6vos ^ /3ovs el? <pe ap Treaeirai ; 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 nVos v^Stv vibs y /SoC? els <peap weo-en-at ; 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 vibs (a reading which would witness against itself by the article, 
even if there were nothing suspicious about vibs) ; and the other the Codex Bezse, 
which furnishes a clue to the whole difficulty. That MS. has nVos e v^v npo^arov ^ 
/SoOs eis<fr>eap Trea-eirai ; The Latin equivalent of Trp6pa.Tov (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 ovis 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 ovis was meant 6 vibs, the 
reading of the Vatican [read Alexandrian] Codex. Whether oros is an arbitrary 
correction of the senseless reading vibs, or whether there were two very early alter 
native readings, nVos v/aaJi/ Trpd/Sarov rj /3ovs, and rtVos vfjitav Si/os 17 /3ovs, 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 TU/OS v^iav vibs y /3ovs (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 012? To do this, would be like making an immense circuit to reach a point 
near home. 


jccture might have had much in its favour : for the later of the 
uncial codices do so confuse vowels, as to exchange OI and T : 
thus croi and crv are confounded ; and so 0^9 might have been 
written L>?, identical in letters with the contraction t>9 for vibs. 
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 
oi 9 or TTpbfBaTov) in the passage. 

The investigation then shows, that, without license of conjec 
ture, the reading vlbs 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 u son or 

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 ox. 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 Eeview, 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 


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 linguse. " 

This theory is then illustrated by three passages : the third of 
these has just been mentioned ; the second is thus stated : 

" Marc. xi. 8. The Textus Receptus has TroXXot Se (teal TroXXol 
B C) ra l/judna avr&v eo-rpwo-av et9 rr/v 68oi>, aXXot Be cm/3aSa? 
6K07TTOV K Twv SevSpcov KOI eaTpcoaav (ea-Tpwvvvov D a b c) et? 
Trjv 6S6v. For the last clause, the Vatican Codex (B) has the 
variation aXXot Se crrt/SaSa? Ko^ravre^ etc rcov dypwv. 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 cuyp&v and Sev&pwv. 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 SevSpwv, became readily altered into (or taken for) 
4 arvorum, and the Greek equivalent of this (dypwv) was placed 
in the margin as an alternative reading to SevSpcov. The true 
reading is (we have little doubt) to be gathered from the combi- 


nation of the two sources: KCU 7ro\\ol TCI Ifiarta avrwv 

et9 rrjv 6$bv, aXXot 3e (nijBa&as Kotyavres etc TWV SevBpwv." (Edin. 

Kev. CXCL, July 1851, pp. 33, 34.) 

There are a good many questions involved in this theory 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 aypwv (instead 
of SevSpcov, of the common text) must first be stated: B C L A 
(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 
ar/p&v in the third century, it could not have been introduced 
through Latin influence in tlie 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. Aevbpwv is a reading which may well 
have arisen from an attempt, designed or not, to correct dypcov, 
the reading which has the support of the best MS. authority, as 
well as of good versions, and Origen. For BevSpcov is the reading 
of the parallel place Matt. xxi. 8, and a copyist would easily 
enough exchange "cut branches from the folds" for "cut branches 
from the trees" * Proclivi scriptioni praestat 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 SevSpuv would affix definitely to <mj8a5as (or <rroi/3a$as) the signification 
of branches. But this is not exactly the meaning of o-n/Sas, even though it might be 
so 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 


The other case brought forward by the Reviewer is Mark i. 41, 
where, for the common reading a-7r\cuy)(yicr6ei s, the Codex Bezae 
(D) has opvicrOek, and in the Latin iratus (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 opyto-#et9 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 Bezae, as though we 
could generalise from such a point. But the notion of opyiaOels 
and iratus might just as well spring up from confounding this 
miracle of healing with the very different one in Mark iii. 5, 
where per 0/97779 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 
eaQiwv /cal TTIVGW Kpl/jLa eavrq) eaOiei /cal Trivei /JLTJ SiaKptvow TO 
<7<w//-a, without dva^icos after TTLVCOV, or TOV tcvplov after TO aw/ua. 
A great difficulty has been raised as to the former non-insertion, 
as if it involved some unprecedented ellipsis of aSo/a/merro)?, 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 


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. 
M^ Sia/cplvcov 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, 
a fjii] e(*)paK6v e/ji(3aTV(i)v elfcij ^>vcnovfjbevo^ VTTO rov voos TT)? crap/cos 
avrov, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly 
puffed up by Ids fleshly mind" ; the negative JJUTJ 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 /z?), 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 


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 xxiii., 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, Irenasus, and Hippolytus. But, besides 
the MSS. which now contain it, it is 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 o-v/r/a? 7ev.) 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, xxvii. 28, where the order of the words 
in the best MSS., etc., is, KOI e/cSva-avres avrov > x\a/n,vBa KOK- 
KIVTIV 7repie6r]Kav avrw : but here the MSS. B D and the Old 
Latin are cited as reading evSva-avres : of these, however, D and 
the Latin copies read ez/Sucraz/Te9 avrov IJAGLTIOV irop^vpovv /col, 
so that B stands alone in having merely evSvcravres for eVSiWz Te?. 
The origin of the erratum seems to have been the parallel passage, 
Mark xv. 17, KCLI evSibvo-Kova-iv (common text evSvovaw) avrov 
7rop(j)vpav /col TrepiTi6ea<Tiv avrw TrXefavre? aKavQivov arefyavov : 
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 e 

* Cod. 33 has O.VTOV TO. l^dria. avrov. 


In Heb. xi. 35, the only two MSS. of the most ancient class 
which contain the passage, A and D*, read e\a/3ov <yvvai/cas, in 
stead of <yvvai/ce<i : 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, 
ef avacrracre&>9 TOU9 ve/cpov? avrcov. 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. f 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; J so that we may confidently reject 
7t/mt/ca9, as an early erratum of some copies, and retain ryvvcu/ces, 
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 aXXo? e Xa/3a>v \6yxrjv evv- 

* The divisions into OTI XOI, 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 ywalxas has been partly obviated by an alteration in rendering. 





f 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. {! N OOOUO 
"And they gave to women their sons, from resurrection of the dead :" the translator 
BO rendering as to indicate that the faith referred to was in the prophets, not in the 
X Chrysostom s note (after citing the words as we h,ave them) is, To, Kara TOVJ irpo- 

<7Tas evTavOa Aeyei, TOV EAco"<ratov, rov HXtav vexpovs yap aWanjow o^rot. 

The scholion published by Matthsei from his Cod. a is, "EXafiov ywaucts] ^ xi?p ai 

Y) (TWjU.avtTlS. 


fet/ avrov rrjv 7r\evpdv, fcal e^rp^Oev vBcop Kal alfjba. Tliis clause 
is found in the very ancient and valuable copies B C, also in L U 
and five cursive MSS., in the JEthiopic 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 Tessaron) 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 A A A, has arisen the vicious 
orthography found in common editions, AafBLS. The older MSS., 
when they give this name at full length, spell it AaveiS, and in 
this they ought to be followed ; it is a point quite unimportant 
whether the copyists meant by et the diphthong, or the simple 
vowel t (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 \4/4o><? is the reading of B C 


M A and other authorities, where the common text has 
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- 

O D 

nations of proper names, when transfused from one language to 
another. Similar to this is Ao-cuf) instead of the commonly edited 
*A aa 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 3$, n JD, fibpE^ n^D. 
The proper name Shiloah affords a good example of the changes 
made in giving such a word a Greek form. This, in Hebrew, is 
Dw Isa. viii. 6, and n?& Neh. iii. 15; while Zikatdp 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, Ia/co>/3o?. 
In names of places, etc., the older orthography should of course 
be followed, and thus the form Ka<j>apvaov/jb stands on a higher 
ground of authority than KaTrepvaovp, 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 Na^apd, and this seems to have been the name in itself; 
and then it is lengthened in different occurrences, by various au 
thorities, into Na&pdr, Naapd&, Nafrper, .Na&peO; the latter 


appears to be the form generally best attested; in Matt. iv. 13, 
however, Na&pa simply appears to be correct. It may be in 
itself wholly indifferent whether we spell MaOQaios or MarOalos, 
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 vv e$e\KvcmKov 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 v is not peculiar to a few of the most ancient copies, but 
it is so widely extended that its present general omission is re 
markable. So, too, as to \afjL/3dvco and its compounds; in which 
the ancient MSS. retain the jju 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 X^/nfrerat, Xij^cfrOija-eTcu, etc. In other 
points of orthography, united testimony should prevail over 

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 -ay, such as %elpav, dcrrepav, the geni 
tives and datives in -779 and -77 instead of -a? and -a, such as /-ta- 
%atp?79, -py, c-7retp79, a-Trelpp. 

So, too, peculiarities as to the formation of verbs ; such as 
the second aorist with the terminations of the first, as r]\6a, 
rfkOa/Jiev^ evpdfirjv : peculiarities as to the augment, such as not 
doubling the letter p, as epafiSlaOvjv ; the reduplication of the 
same letter, as pepavTia/jievoi ; the insertion of the augment before 
the former part of a compound verb, as eTrpo^tJTeva-av for 7rpoe<f>r)- 
Tevaav (or Trpov^Tjr.) 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 yeyovav, ecDpa/cav: also 
the termination -ocrav for the third person plural of the imperfect 
and second aorist. 

It must always be borne in mind, that the uncial MSS. contain 



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 et and i is habitual; 
so too of at, and e 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 o> 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 (ei and i, and ai 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 postscribed, 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,^: 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 toords 17 and el appears to be anterior to the confusion of 
Bound, which subsequently led to the substitution of one vowel for another. 

f For instance, 6NTflICYN6APIQI, AYTQI, eKGINGI ; but on the same page 
occurs TOIOYTQANAPI, showing that the insertion of the Iota was on the wane. 

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 
Iota. 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) : 
" I have diligently noted in the preceding chapter which of the copies I have collated 
retain, and which reject, the i. In the great majority i ascriptum is found but rarely ; 
in all, it is far oftener neglected than inserted : . . . . i 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. Ixxj.) 


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 &o (written, of course, &) and 8ot, and <yvw (<yvco) 
and 7^04, etc., as though they might stand interchangeably the one 
for the other : as if, in fact, J/2I of the more ancient orthography 
might be expressed by either Afl or JOI. In all these points the 
authorities must be followed ; but this fact suggests the inquiry, 
whether the terminations -01 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 -01 ought to be -w, is found in o-wyKXypovofjioi,, 1 Pet. 
iii. 7 : for which it has been proposed to read a-vy/cX^povo/jiw, so as 
to be closely connected with the dative singular crfcevet, 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 i had 
ceased to be written, -cot was in fact expressed either by -01 or -w. 

In the MSS. later than the seventh century, there is a similar 
(almost indiscriminate) use of -et and -vj (for -77 as well as for -97 
simply). Thus, in Matt. viii. 20, K\ivy is written /c\ivi in G K 
M X. Now, if it could be shown that, at an earlier period, j]i 
(after the i had ceased to be written) was expressed at option by 
-rj or -et, it might account for some of the terminations which we 
find. Thus it would explain away the future subjunctive (as it 
now stands) Iva Scocr??. 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 grammarians! who wish to bend the facts of 

* The Elzevir text has often been quoted (among others by Tischendorf) as though 
it read O-UYKA^POI/OJUCH?, this, however, is a mistake ; for it accords with the Stephanie 
reading -M.OI. For -yuot?, which Tischendorf has adopted, there appears to be hardly 
any MS. authority at all. 

f An allusion has been made, in the concluding foot-note to 12, to the manner in 
which Lachmaim was attacked for calling iVa 606077 the future subjunctive. Besides 


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- 

Kev. viii. 3 of the common text, the same construction is found in the authenticated 
reading of John xvii. 2, iva nav o SeSco/cas avrw Suvy auToi? farjv o.luvt.ov. 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 difficult} in reading aloud the Greek as written without 
even word-divisions : hence the O-TI XOI 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 cn-t xoi very often answer to the place of a dot in previous use. 


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 : Trdvra St avrov eyevero, teal %&>pt9 avrov eyevero 
ov$e ev. "O yeyovev ev avr> f&>?) rjv, /cal r) ^corj rjv TO </>w? TWV 
dvOpaiTTcov. " 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 o yeyovev from the latter sentence, and to connect it with 
the former, and this our English version follows. But the other 
connection is that of IrenaBus, 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 "Keforin 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. 


punction) adhere, as A C D L (B lias 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 MSS., 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 Kom. ix. 5, the common punctuation is /cal eg &v 6 

* It cannot reasonably bo 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 navra fii avrov eyeVero : this was not very dextrously met by joining 

yeyovev to the former sentence to limit ndvTa. and ouSe eV. 

That any revertence to a demonstrably ancient punctuation will be regarded as " in 
novation," and will be called a neiv 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 

1 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." 


TO Kara crdptca, 6 wv evrt irdvrwv $609 evXoryrjTos et? TOU? 

d^v. 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 ^MOTO?. There 
are, indeed, eighteen writers in the first four centuries who are 
proofs of this, and (in spite of the very erroneous statement of 
Wet-stein) 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 
capita. 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 : ev\oyr]To$ must have introduced the sen 
tence. This is evident to any one who will compare the doxolo- 
gies with evXoyrjrbs 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 o-dp/ca 
is equally opposed, f In fact, the division was originally suggested 
by some in opposition to the application of o wv eVt TrdvTwv #eo? 
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. 423456. 

f If it be said that MSS., such as the Codex Ephraemi (C) have a point after o-ap/ca, 
let it also be observed that that MS. has a similar point after i-o/xofleeno, Xarpeta, and 
tTrayyeAuu, in ver. 4 ; at none of which places we could introduce more than a comma, 
if indeed even that were needed. 


however, translated thus " und aus welchen Christus stammet 
nach dem Fleische, der liber alle ist. Gott Bei 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 VTrep rwv ve/cpwv 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 virep TWV veicpwv rovrecm TWV o-co/jLarcov, 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 irjrep r&v 
ve/cpwv with the preceding ftairTiCppevoi 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 : eVet TL iroirjaovcnv ol 
PaTTTi^ofjLevoi ; vTrep TWV ve/cpcov, el 0X0)9 veicpol OVK eyelpovrai* 
ri Kal (3a7rTlovTcu virep avrcov ; f " 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, el Se vexpw earn 

TO oxojixa, /cod OVK a.via-ra.Ta.1. ri STJTTOTC <ca! |3a.7m eTai ; Theodoret, 

f avrwv, instead of TWI> veKp<Sv of the common text, is the ancient reading. 


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, in 1 Pet. iii. 21, our English 
version rightly marks a clause as parenthetic ; b KCU 77/^9 avri- 
TVTTOV, vvv crwfet /3a7moy/,a, (ov aapKos aTroOecri? pvjrov d\\a 

" 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 crwfet may wait 
for L amo-Taa-eo)?), 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 irpo^riKov \6yov, <a 
tfaXw? TTOtetre Trpocre^o^Te?, (&>9 \v-)(yw fyaLvovri ev av^iTjpaj TOTTM, 
eo)9 ov r)(j,epa Siavydarj /col (jxucr^opos dvarei\ri), ev rats KapSlais 
vfju&v. " The prophetic word, whereunto ye do well to take heed, 
(as unto a light shining in a dark place, until the day have dawned, 


and the morning-star arisen), in your hearts." What the meaning 
of the latter words may be, according to the common punctuation, 
1 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. viii. 20, I would introduce a similar kind of paren 
thesis, with a construction of the same sort : rfj <yap 
Kria-is virerajT] (ov^ eicovcra aXka Bia rov VTrord^avra) ITT 
on real avrr) r; KTians eKev6epw6^o-eTai, KT\. " For the creation was 
subjected to vanity (not willingly, but in consequence of him who 
hath subjected it) in expectancy, because the creation itself also 
shall be delivered," etc., so as to connect eir e\7r/St with vTrerdyr), 
and not with vTrord^avra* 

At the beginning of Rom. ix. is a passage in which many have 
found a difficulty, which would, I bclieve ? be obviated, if part of 
the words were read as parenthetic, thus : A\ij0eiav \eyco tV 
ov tyevBofjicu, avfji/jiapTVpovo-^ [JLOL 7779 o-fmS^crew? fiov eV 

* Thus, too, the words are connected by Mr. Alford in his Greek Testament, but 
without the introduction of the parenthesis by which this would be indicated. He 
says in his note, " e^ eXirlSi. must not be joined with vnord^avTa, because then the eAn-ls be- 

COmeS the hope Of the v-OToa?, but with VTreTayrj, being the hope of the inroTayeia-a.." 

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. 


or/to), on XVTTTJ /j,oi ecmv jj,eyd\7j teal aStaXetTrro? oSvvrj 
Kap oia /AOL, (j]\}^o^r\v jap dvdOe/jba elvat, auro? eyco diro rov 
vTrep TUV aSeX^wi/ /uov rwv avyyevwv yu-ou Kara o~dp/ca 
in this manner joining vjrep TWV do. JJLOV, with XVITTJ . . . teal dSid\. 
oSvvrj rf) K. [Jbov instead of with dvdOefjia. " I have great heavi 
ness and continual sorrow in my heart (for I myself did wish to be 
anathema from Christ), for my brethren, my kinsmen according 
to the flesh." Paul felt full sympathy for his own nation still 
remaining in unbelief, for he had once been in their condition, 
thinking in himself that he ought to do many things contrary to 
the name of Jesus of Nazareth, and doing them : the desire of his 
heart had then run in full opposition to Him whom he now knew 
as the Christ, so that his wish had been to stand in no other rela 
tion to that person, than in one which he now knew to be ana 
thema. The preceding chapter has ended with the most absolute 
statement of the impossibility of his being separated from Christ 
his Saviour. " I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor 
angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, 
nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall 
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ 
Jesus our Lord." How, after this strong and full assertion, can 
we imagine the Apostle, immediately in the most solemn manner, 
calling on Christ and the Holy Ghost as witnesses to a 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 Apostle s conscience (if he 
had admitted such a sentiment), and this being left by the Spirit 
on record for our instruction? 

When once the position has been definitively taken, that the 
ancient evidence is that which we must especially regard, other 
considerations affecting various readings must have their place, in 
order to judge between the ancient authorities, when they differ 
among themselves. 


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 

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, iva aTrekdovre? el<$ rou? KVK\U> dypovs Kal iCM^as dyopdo-ay- 
cnv eaurot? rl (f>d<ya)(n,v, while others have .... dyopdo-wo-w eav- 
rot? aprovs, rl 7p fywyaxnv OVK. e^ovcrLV . in this and 
similar cases of coiiflicting evidence, the rule approved by Person 
holds good, Prceferatur brevior lectio. 

Some of the amplifications might be called common additions, 
such, for instance, as avrw or avrois after Aeyet or el^rev, T^o-oO? 
before or after Xptcrro?, 6 I-r/o-oO? 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, dSe\(f>ol was in like 
manner introduced. 

One cause of amplification seems to have been the pure mistake 
of repeating letters : thus, after aurot?, there is in some copies the 
addition 6 I^o-oO? in Matt. iv. 19; viii. 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 AYTOIC having been repeated, 
AYTOICOIC, and then the added QIC having been read (since it 
would make good sense in the passages) as QIC the contraction for 
o ^Irjcrovs, found in the MSS. in general. 

One of the most habitual kinds of amplification arose from 


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 in 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 

Omissions by copyists sometimes appear to have occurred from 
one source which might be called systematic; these are those 
which have taken place 8t o/zotoTeXevro^ ; 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 

In cases of conflict of ancient evidence, Bengel s rule 

Proclivi scriptioni praestat 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 Avhich 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 
preposition?, such as airoKafliVr^- From this verb, aTreKaTcoraflr) is found in many MSS. 


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 et, and t, and ai and e, the supposed 
interchange must not go beyond these limits : any that have to do 
with co 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. vii. 5, rfj vrfo-reia KOI has been 
introduced before rfj 7rpoo-V)(f), and vricnevwv /cal stands similarly 
after jj/jqv 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 rat? ^pe/at? rcov 
ajiwv Koivwvovvres : now, when a^ioi 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 %pelai<i should 
have been changed into fjuveiais, an idea utterly foreign to the sub- 

in Matt. xii. 13, and other places. This is not tlie 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 dTrocaTeo-ra^Tj (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 anoKarea-rdOr) 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, " a.vr^ape^ how 
ever is found in several MSS. of Chrysostom, Horn, in Matthaeum, II., p. 20, where 
eee Mr. Field s note. I recollect no other examples of such a form." Among other 
similar instances may be mentioned KaTeSn^Tr/o-a, Dem. 542. 1 (cited in Liddell and 
Scolt under Statrdto). 


ject on which the apostle is writing : the passage then seemed to 
be an exhortation to communicate at the memorials of the saints, 
(fjiveia, 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 bucaioo-vvrj , adds /col acr/crjo-is, 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 
tion 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. ov yap io"nv Kpvirrov o ov (fravepbv yevrj- 
crerai, ov&e aTro/cpvcpov b ov fJbrj yvco&Of) KOI et? fyavepov e\6r), for 
ov fjur] yvwa-df), the reading of B L, 33, the common text has ov 
yvuHrdria-erat,. On this Mr. Green observes " Luke viii. 17, ov 
yap ecm . . . diroKpv^ov o ov yvcocrO^crerai, Ka\ et9 fyavepov e\6r), 
is remarkable ; because, though o ov yvwo-drjcreraL is correct, o ov/c 
e\6y is a solecism : but e\6rj appears to be used as if ov fjur] had 
preceded. The reading o ov fir] yvwaOfj has evidently arisen from 
a critical correction, to render e\0rj 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, ovScv yap eariv /ceKaXv/mjuevov o ov/c d7ro/ca\v<j)d^creTai : KOI 

* Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament Dialect, by the Rev. T. S. Green, 
M. A., page 128. 


KOVTTTOV, o ov yva) <j 6 ^er T ou.* Alteration from parallel pas 
sages was far more habitual, than change on real or supposed 
grammatical grounds. 

Matt. i. 25. eW ov ere/cev TOV vibv avrrj<; TOV TrpcoTOTOKov. Here, 
for the words TOV ulbv avrijs TOV TrpcoToro/cov, only vlov is found in 
B Z, 1, 33, with the Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Memph., Theb. 
(some of the versions retaining avrfjs). 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, KOI eTe/cev TOV vlov ai/r?}? TOV irpwTOTOKov, and thus the 
alteration in Matthew (if alteration there had been) would be 
incomplete, for rrpwTOTOKov 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 general this reading was in 
both the East and the West. Had the omission of rrpwTOTOKov 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 
in 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 TTOWTOTOKOV 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 iAAa iVa yvuvdfj, partly confirming B L. a\\a Iva. seems 
to spring from aXA iVa eis 4>avcpbv e X^jy, in Mark iv. 22. 


while the Old Latin is content with filium, the version of Jerome, 
the strenuous assertcr of the dogma that Mary had no other child 
ren, isjilium 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 lias (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 eSo^ev rot? aTrocrroXot? KOI rot? Trpe- 
a(3vTpois CTVV o\rj rfj eKfcXijcria e/cXe^af^epov^ dv$pa<$ e avroov 
TrefL-^rai, " Then it pleased the apostles and the elders, with the 
whole church, that, having chosen men from among them, they 
should send," etc. (or, " to choose and send men from among 
them"; not, 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, eSo^ev I]\MV ryevofjievois ofjioOvfJia^iOV e/eXe- 
%a[jbevois civftpas Tre/^at, " It seemed good to us assembled with 
one accord to choose men and send them," according to the read 
ing of A B G, etc. The common text has here eVXefa^e^of? just 
as in verse 22, with C D E 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 no 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, 



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 e/cXe^flez/ra?) agreeing with avSpas, 
instead of seeing that it 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. In 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. 


AMONGST the passages to the reading of which discussion has 
been directed on tkeological grounds, the more prominent are 
1 John v. 7; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 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 evidencei 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, on rpetV 


etcrti> ot fjLctpTVpovvTes [eV ro> ovpavw, 6 Trarrjp 6 \6yos Kal TO ayiov Tzretyza KCU 
OVTOL ot Tpe Is ev clcriv. (ver. 8) Kal rpels elcriv ol fjiaprupovvTes cv rfj yfj~] TO Trvevpa 
KOI TO vdcop KCU TO alfj.a, KT\. I only add, that if 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, debs e(f)avfpa)6r] ev trap*/, as in 
the common text; os ecbav. KT\. and 6 e<par. KT\. 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 $eo y, 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. debs 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 debs, ought to be omitted from the 
list ; because it is certain, from other parts of their writings, that they did 
read 6? in this passage, or because more exact collations of the MSS. of their 
works show that debs 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 or, which was 
then become peculiar.^ 

The fathers, then, who support debs are, Didymus, Dionysius of Alexandria, 
and Theodoret, the two former possibly, the latter not improbably ; and in 
more recent times John Damascenus, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius. Cyril 
Alex, and Chrysostom do not belong to this list. 

In favour of a relative, os 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 A C F G is doubtful ; and, indeed, some have cited them all for 
6e6s ; and it has been asserted also that G originally read o. 

Both A and C have suffered correction in this word ; A in modern times, 

* In one cursive MS., Cod. Leicest., I observed that the reading is 6 fods. 

f Thus Cyril Alex, really read 6;, though in his printed works fobs also occurs ; the 
very context would prove that this latter reading had no place in Cyril s sentence. 
Several MSS. contain a scholiontothe purport that 6s was the Cyrillian reading, even 
though the MSS. themselves contain the common text foos (6 ei/ dyiots KvptXAos . . 

Chrysostom has been cited in favour of foos ; 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 

eis crepov avdyet TO irpa.yfj.a- on e<o.fepc6#r) ev c"<xp;u, has been transformed into ets eVepoi 
ai/dyet TO Trpay/aa, A.e ywi fobs t^ayepuiflij ev crapKi. 


and C at a remote period. Such a change was effected by altering OC into 
0C by introducing two little strokes, and then there was the contraction com 
monly found for 6e6s. 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 
Hack dot in the middle, decisive that the first letter is not O but 0. "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 w r as denied by Woide, who said (trusting 
to the eyes of others rather than his own) that the G 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 G 
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 
G ; they read os-, and G has no correction in the place, as if it had ever read 
o. It must be remembered that F and G are both of them copies of some one 
more ancient MS., and thus they are but one witness. 

The versions which support a relative, are 1 the Old Latin, 2 the Vulgate, 
3 Peshito and 4 llarclean Syriac, 5 Memphitic, 6 Thebaic, 7 Gothic, 8 Arme 
nian, 9 xEthiopic : that is, ALL the versions older than the seventh century. 
(Also a MS. Arabic version in the Vatican.) This united testimony that 
tiebs 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 6? or o, from the want of genders in the relative ; while others (such 
as the Vulgate), which mark the neuter, have given, not improbably, what 
was considered to be constructio ad sensum, by taking p.vo-Tr)piov as a personal 

* See above p. 165, note. 


designation for the antecedent. The two Syriac versions (the Ilarclean as to 
the text at least), the Armenian and the JEthiopic, are wholly doubtful as to 
this point : the Old Latin and the Vulg. have the neut. quod : the Gothic has 
the masc. relative, and so too the Memph. and Theb. ; but, in the case of these 
two latter versions, it is said that the word by which pvo-rripiov is translated is 
also masc., and so the masc. relative in itself proves nothing. 

Theodorus of Mopsuestia, Cyril Alex., Epiphanius, read or, 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 $ed?, it would have maintained an important part in arguments, 
must not be forgotten, for such silence expresses much. 

In addition to the evidence of MSS., versions, and early citations, there is a 
narrative which relates to this passage. According to this narrative, Mace- 
donius, Patriarch of Constantinople, was deprived by the Emperor Anastasius, 
anno 506, for having corrupted the Scriptures (called in the account " evan- 
gelia," as a general term), especially in this passage, by changing one letter so as 
to make OC into 0C. 

" Hoc tempore Macedonius Constantinopolitanus episcopus ab imperatore 
Anastatic dicitur expulsus, tamquam evangelia falsasset, et maxime illud apos- 
toli dictum, qui apparuit in carne,justijicatus est in Spiritu. Hunc enim im- 
mutasse, ubi habet O2, id est, QUI, monosyllabum Grsccum ; litera mutata O in 
G vertisse, et fecisse 82, 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 fobs 
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 02, have fl and O2; 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 0EO2, and the Greek 
monosyllable O2 is in opposition to that dissyllable. And so Ilincmarus in his Opus- 
culum, chap, xviij., where ho cites the same story (without doubt out of Liberatus), 
has it plainly, as I have put it, o in & vertit et fecit 02." It is important to remember 
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 Maoedonius changed o? into wy, 
and this has even been put in opposition to the testimony of Hincmar. " The first 
editor," whoever he may have been, had probably some notion how a short O might 
be interchanged with a long one, and hence the mistake ; one which might have been 
avoided, if he had noticed the Latin qui and Deus ; but probably he did not understand 
that 02 would be the common contraction for 0eo?. 

The same transaction regarding Macedonius and the corruption of Scripture is 
referred to in the Chronicon of Victor. " Messalla V. C. Coss. Constantinopoli, 
jubentc Anastasio imperatore, saucta evaugelia tamquam ab idiotis evaugelistis com- 
posita, reprehenduntur ct cmendantur." 


not joined in unity of person. But it must be remembered that Cyril was 
the orthodox authority then with the strong anti-Nestorian party, and he read 
os (f)avpa)0rj : also the reading 6ebs decidedly favoured the conception then 
formed of the doctrine of Nestorius ; as if it had taught that God was mani 
fest in or by the flesh of him who was born of Mary, whereas the reading os 
strongly asserts unity of person. 

This narration shows that in the early part of the sixth century the readings 
os and Gfbs were both known ; even if it be doubted whether this was the 
origin (as it may have been) of the latter. If it did so spring up,* and if it 
was thus propagated, the versions made previously are witnesses against the 
addition : " cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat 
falsa esse quae addita sunt," says Jerome (ad Damasuni) of similar cases. 

It is thus seen that for reading a relative pronoun in this place, there are the 
MSS. A C D F G, 17, and two others, nine ancient versions, and some fathers 

For reading the substantive $eoy, 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 

Codex B does not contain this epistle. 

Thus the evidence in favour of a relative preponderates greatly ; for it is not 
to be supposed that the independent more ancient versions could agree fortui 
tously in ignoring the substantive God, if they had it in their copies ; and if 
none of them had it, then the Greek copies must have agreed in reading a 

The advocates for 6ebs, as being the reading supported by the numerical 
array of copies, are accustomed to divide the evidence into three heads, 1 $eor, 
2 or, 3 o : and then, by giving the ancient versions in general to o, they seem 
to make 6? 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, os or o. 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 o is only supported by D a 
prima manu. Thus os 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 fobs into 6? 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 

* If so, the occurrence of 0eos iu any earlier citations must be occasioned by copyists 
or editors assimilating, pro more, the Biblical citations to the text Avhich they were 
accustomed to read. 


the sentence : Does os go back to Qeov covros for an antecedent ? or are we to 
take fjLvo-Trjpiov os for a constructio ad sensum ? or is the antecedent under 
stood, that being the nominative to the verb of the next clause eSiKaicotfr/, " he 
who was manifested in the flesh, was justified," etc. ? I do not think that either 
of these solutions is precisely the true one ; os appears to me to relate to the 
person indicated, with something of the same kind of indefinite emphasis (if I 
may use the term) as is found in the mode in which avrbs occurs in 1 John. 
" Confessedly great is the mystery of godliness : HE WHO was manifested in 
flesh, (he who) was justified in spirit, (he who) was seen by angels, (he who) 
was preached among Gentiles, (he who) was believed on in the world, (he who) 
was received up in glory." 

The passage thus sets before us the whole dignity of Christ s person ; and it 
has been well asked, If He were not essentially superhuman, how could the 
Apostle have emphatically declared that he was manifested in flesh f 

I now pass on to Acts xx. 28, Troipaiveiv TTJV KK\r]o-iav . . . . TJV nepienoirjo-aTO 
8ia TOV at/jLciTOS TOV iSt ou. 

After eKK\rjo-iai> there are three readings which are entitled to be considered 
as to their claims to fill up the place which I have left blank. 

1. Trjv KK\r)o-iav TOV #eou, the Church of God. 

2. T?7i> eKK\^o-Lav TOV Kvpiov, the Church of the Lord. 

3. TTJV e<K\r]o-iav TOV Kvpiov KOL $eo{5, 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. CKK. TOV Kvpiov 6eov in one or two later MSS., and the Arabic of the Poly 
glot, a version of no critical importance ; (ii.) T. e /oc. TOV 6eov KCU Kvpiov, in 
one cursive copy; (iii.) T. CKK. TOV %pio-Tov as found in the Peshito Syriac (and 
of course in the Erpenian Arabic made from it) ; Origen so reads once ; and 
this lection is found in three copies of Athanasius, and in Theodoret twice. It Ms 
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. Tou dcov. 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 is the 
reading of that MS. The late Mr. Edgar Taylor procured a tracing of rather more 
than three lines in this passage from the custode of the Vatican library : and it ap 
peared in the editorial Monitum prefixed to the second London reprint of Griesbach s 
Greek Testament (1818). But it was soon suggested that though the MS. now reads 
Y, it might formerly have had KY : I therefore, when at Borne, directed my attention 
particularly to that point, and I can state positively that the stands without any 
erasure, or trace of there having been originally a K. This was contrary to what I 
had expected ; for I had quite anticipated that I should have found that it had at first 
the same reading as A C. 


(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 Kupt ou, and the reading 0ov has been taken from the Homilies on the Acts 
which bear his name ; but even there the reading is doubtful.* Cyril of 
Alexandria reads Qeoi> tivice, in a treatise on the name $eoroKos, 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, f 

2. Tou Kvpiov is the reading of A C D E, 13 (with thirteen other cursive 
MSS.), of (1) the Old Latin, as found in D and E, (2) the Memphitic, (3) 
the Thebaic, (4) the Armenian, and (5) the margin of the later Syriac. 
Irenseus (or his contemporary Latin interpreter), Eusebius, the Apostolic 
Constitutions, Didymus, Ammonius, Athanasius in one MS., Chrysostom (on 
Eph. iv. 12), and at a later date Theophylact (three times), have this reading; 
as also, among the Latins, Lucifer, Jerome, Augustine, and others. 

3. Tov Kvpiov KOL deov : this is the common reading of MSS., being found in 
G H, (also C a tertia manu) and in more than a hundred cursive copies, also 
in six lectionaries. As to versions, it is found in the Sclavonic alone, j which 
is of the ninth century, and has no voice in criticism. Theophylact has this 

* In expressing my opinion that the Homilies on the Acts are not really Chrysos- 
tom s, I shall not be accused of rashness by those who understand the real state of 
the question: a statement which I once made that I thought they were not 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-ChrysostomliJce ; 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. 

f Some of the overworks published by Mai in the same place as Cyril s, are cer 
tainly not his (in one of these, p. 56, Kvpiov is cited in this passage) ; they contain abun 
dant proof that they were subsequent to the Eutychian controversy ; and not only do 
thc-y combat heresy of later date than Cyril s time, but they express sentiments by no 
means Cyrillian. 

I It is instructive to see how repeatedly, when the mass of modern MSS. oppose the 
ancient, they are supported by no versions except those later than the seventh century. 
In speaking of the Sclavonic as belonging to the ninth century, I do not discuss whe 
ther or not the other books were translated about the same time as the Gospels. We 
know when this version was began, but as to its completion we have no eA ideuce : the 
oldest existing MS. of the whole Sclavonic Bible is of A.T>. 1499. (Davidson s Biblical 
Criticism, ii. p. ?38.) 


reading once, so that when he has TOV Kvpiov simply, he may probably abbre 
viate the reading to which he was accustomed. This reading is found in the 
Complutensian edition, and as it is that supported by numbers, it would of 
course have been defended by many if it had been in the common text. The 
Latin in the Complutensian differs from other copies of the Vulgate in having 
" dni (i. e. Domini) et dei." 

In this conspectus of authorities, the .ZEthiopic version has not been cited for 
any of the readings : it is doubtful whether the Roman text of this version 
should be quoted for deov or Kvpiov, and the edition of Mr. Platt has ^pio-rov. 
All that can be said is, that, like the Peshito Syriac, it opposes the compound 
reading TOV Kvpiov KOI 0eov. 

The whole question must lie between TOV Kvpiov and TOV deov ; 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. 

Tou 6eov has good witnesses in B (the other MSS. are unimportant) and the 
Vulgate ; but TOV Kvpiov has preponderating testimony ; for B alone could not 
on such a point outweigh A C D E ; and as to versions and fathers, TOV Kvpiov 
stands on stronger ground ; and therefore it should be accepted, even while all 
that can be said in favour of TOV 6eov is fully admitted. Either of these read 
ings might easily have sprung from the other, as the change is but one letter 
(KY and GY) ; and, while deov might claim the preference as being, in connection 
with "blood," the more difficult reading, 17 fK <\rjo-ia TOV Kvpiov is a reading found 
nowhere else in the New Testament ; so that a copyist would naturally alter it 
to CKK. TOV 0eou, as is found 1 Cor. i. 2 ; x. 32 ; xi. 22 ; xv. 9 ; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; Gal. 
i. 13 ; 1 Tim. iii. 5, 15. This whole passage may also be compared with 1 Pet. 
v. 2, TTOLpdvaTe TO ei> iroip,viov TOV deov eTrio-KOTrovvTes, which might 
aid in suggesting TOV 6eov in Acts XX. 28, Trpocre^ere . . . . TW TTOI/MI/IO), lv a> 
vfjias ro nva TO ayiovedeTO eTTio KOTrov $ TTOI p,aive tv TTJV KK\rjo-iav TOV Kvpiov. 
Thus the introduction of 6eov, instead of Kvpiov would be natural, though the 
contrary would not be so ; and even if the evidence for e/oc. TOV Kvpiov had not 
been so strong, it would have been confirmed by its peculiarity, and by the 
immense probability of the familiar phrase being substituted for it. 

But although this passage with the reading Kvpiov 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 


the dignity of this Redeemer exceeds that of a mere man. His blood was so 
unspeakably precious that it was capable of outweighing, even before God, the 
sins of all his people ; and this it is that shows how exalted must be the per 
son of whom such things could be spoken. If this passage, as rightly read, 
does not declare our Lord s Godhead, it still states, in clearest words, his re 
demption and Lordship. 

Many have shrunk from the results of criticism because of these three pas 
sages : they were accustomed to them as setting forth theological verities ; 
and they have desired to cling to them ; although they might have known 
that in argument they are worthless, because opposers are full well aware 
how groundless or uncertain are those readings of these passages which some 
have called 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 ; John i. 1 ; xx. 28 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; Phil. ii. 6 ; 
Heb. i. 8) which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing 
to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence, 
and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early 

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. Instances of this will be seen in two passages, 
John i. IS, and 1 Pet. iii. 15. 

John i. 18, Btbv ovdds ecd/mKev TrcoTrore* 6 fJLOisoyevrjs vios 6 &>v et? TOV KO\TTOV 
rov Trarpos, eKelvos ^]yrj(raTo. 

Here, instead of ^ovoyev^ v ibs of the common text, great authorities sup 
port }j,ovoyvi)s 6f6s. 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 ^"Ethiopia : and as to fathers, the 
reading may almost be called general, for it is that of Clement of Alexandria, 
Irenseus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Lucian, Basil, Gregory of Nazian- 
zum, Gregory of Nussa, Didymus, Basil of Seleucia, Isidore of Pelusium, 
Cyril of Alexandria, Titus of Bostra ; as also of Theodotus (in the second 
century), Arius, Marcellus, Eunomius, etc. ; and amongst the Latins, Hilary, 
Fulgentius, Gaudentius, Ferrandus, Phoebadius, Vigilius, Alcuin, etc. The 
reading of the common text, vios, is found in A and the MSS. in general : of 
these A alone belongs to the most ancient class ; D is here defective. It is 
that of the Old Latin, of the Vulgate, the Curetonian Syriac, the text of 


the Harelean Syriac, and the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionaiy, and the Arme 
nian. It is found twice in Origen, in Eusebius, Basil, and Irenseus (though 
all these writers have also the other reading, and in general they so speak of 
6ebs in the passage, that vlbs 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 p.ovoyfvr)s would naturally suggest vlos as the word which should follow 
it, whereas 6ebs strikes the ear as something peculiar, and not elsewhere 
occurring in Scripture; the change, being but of one letter (YG for 0C), 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. 0eoy, 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 vlos. No critical edition hitherto 
published has given 6ebs in the text ; it is placed, however, in Lachmann s inner 
margin, as a reading between which and that in the text the evidence stands 
in doubt : he gave it that place on the combined testimony of Origen and 
Irenseus, but he did not know (for then it was not ascertained) that this read 
ing is that of B and C, two of the principal witnesses that he admitted.* 

1 Pet. iii. 15, Kvpiov 5e rbv debv d-yiao-are, so the common text ; but instead 
of 6ebv the reading xp icrTOV is supported by most preponderating evidence; 
for it is the reading of A B C, 13, and some other cursive MSS.; of the 
Vulg. the Peshito and Harelean Syr., the Memph. Theb. Arm. (the .ZEthiopic 
has neither word) ; it is also cited by Clement and others : the reading 6ebv 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 xpicrroz/ may be relied on confidently. This occurs in a 
citation by the Apostle from Isa. viii. 12, 13. In the Prophet the words are, 
"Neither fear ye their fear nor be afraid ; sanctify the LORD of hosts himself." 
The citation of the Apostle exactly agrees with this, except in the concluding 
words, in which, in the corrected text, we have nvpLov Se rbv xpio-roy ayidarare, 
" Sanctify the Lord Christ" : this shows that the expression ififc rflKZiy mn 
" Jehovah of hosts Himself" in the prophet, finds its New Testament expo 
sition as an equivalent in Kvpiov rbv x/jierroi/, "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 0eo?, he at 
once admitted the claim of that word to stand in the text instead of vio?. Indeed, his 
principal witness for giving the preference to the latter word was B, which had been 
supposed to read thus. 


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 6e6v ; for the passage 
there runs rov Se ^>d,3oi> aurou ou p.r) (j>o^drjrf ovue p.rj Tapa^drjrf Kvpiov avrov 
a-yiacrare. In this citation the Apostle shows how independent the New Tes 
tament writers can be of the LXX. when needful ; indeed, in some part of the 
passage the LXX. so reads as utterly to contradict both the Hebrew text and 
the New Testament use of the facts previously revealed. To the LXX. trans 
lators it was incomprehensible that the Lord could become a stone of stum 
bling and rock of offence to Israel; and thus, in ver. 14, a negative is intro 
duced, Ken oi>x u)S \idov Trpoovco/LijuaTi arvvavTi]af(j6f^ ov8e cos nerpas Trroopm. 
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. 

3, 4; AND MARK XVI. 920. 

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 II K U, and more than 300 cursive copies, 


without any note of doubt or distinction, as also in a few lection- 
aries. In E it is marked with asterisks in the margin; so, too, in 
sixteen cursive copies (two of which thus note only from viii. 3). 
In M there is an asterisk at vii. 53, and at viii. 3. In S, it is 
noted with obeli, and so, too, in more than forty cursive codices. 
This narrative is placed at the end of the Gospel, by itself, in ten 
cursive copies ;* four others similarly place viii. 3 1 1 . Four MS S. 
(of which Cod. Leicestrensis, 69, is one) place this passage at the 
end of Luke xxi., and one copy has it after John vii. 36. 

As to versions, it is found (i.) in Cod. Colbertinus and some 
others of the Old Latin (Cod. Veronensis is here defective) ; (ii.) 
the Vulgate, (iii.) JEthiopic, 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 modicse, vel potius inimici 
verse fidei, CREDO, metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieri- 
bus suis, illud, quod de adulterse indulgentia dominus fecit, aufer- 
rent de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit, qui 
dixit, Deinceps noli peccare." (De Adult. Conj., ii. 6, 7.) But 
this supposition of Augustine would not account for the fact of 
the omission of this passage having been so general, as it will be 
shown to be when the testimony of the versions against it is 

* One of these is the excellent Basle MS., Cod. 1. On the last leaf this passage is 

added, with this prefatory note: TO Trepl TT)S jaoixo-XtSos Ke^dXaLOV. ev TW Kara. iudvvTiv euay- 
yeAtw as ez> rots n\eCoai.v (sic) dvTiypdffroiS /u.7/ Kifi.evov /J.T) 8e irapa. TUV Oeiuiv irptav T<av epju.?]- 
Vf.vo~6.VTiav fj.vr)iJ.ovev6ev (>TJ/XI Sr) itodvvov TOV x- t Kvpi XAov aAeai/Spe/: ovSe jar)); vnb OeoSta: JU.WI//DV- 
ecrr : KCU riav A.O<.TT| 7rape Aeu//a KT\ TOV TOTT \ Ket rai Se OVTCOS /aer b\iya T^? apx- TOU TTS /ce| ef^s TOV 
epevm]<TOV KallSf on Trpo^^rrjs CK TIJ? yaAiAcuas OVK eyetperai. This note has been printed 

commonly (as taken from Wetstein) with mistakes such as TrAeiVrots for TrXetoo-ti/, an 
alteration which has been so rested on in argument as to affect the sense. 

The 86th section (TJV), to which this note refers, commences at John vii. 45, and 
extends to the end of viii. 18. Now whatever may be the antiquity of this prefatory 
note, it appears to have belonged to a more ancient copy than Cod. 1. For, as it 
quotes vii. 52, OVK eyeiperai, it can hardly have originated with this MS., which has in 
the text OVK cyci yepTcu [.vtcj (though commonly quoted for eyeiperai, as given by Wet- 
stein, who must have followed the note at the end, instead of the text itself of the 
MS.), tyetperai is the best-supported reading (B D T A, 33, etc.). 


This passage is 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 (iii.) 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, six old codices of those used 
by Zohrab omit the whole passage, as also do the MS. lectionaries; 
nineteen MSS. have the section separately, at the end of the 
Gospel, while only Jive (and those the most recent) place it here. 
One proof that it is a later addition, and not an original part of 
this version, is found in the great variety of forms in which it 
exists in those Armenian copies which contain it at all ; some of 
these are quite peculiar, and resemble none of the Greek copies. 
It is thus rejected, as not a genuine part of that version. (For 
this precise statement I am indebted to Mr. Charles Bieu.) 

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. 

f In L and A there is a blank space left, but not sufficient to contain the passage : 
the copyists seem to have had a notion that something was here inserted in some 
exemplars ; but this was clearly not the case with regard to those from which they 
were transcribing. In A, the first words of viii. 12 were at first written directly 
after vii. 52, and then a line was drawn through the words. 


that they could hardly by possibility have been acquainted with 
it. So, too, with regard to such ecclesiastical writers as wrote 

Thus it may be held for certain, that Tertullian* and Cyprian 
knew nothing of the passage ; while Origen and Chrysostom show 
in their Commentaries, that they were not aware of its existence. 
It has been indeed objected that nothing is proved by Origen s 
silence; because he often passes by portions of St. John s Gospel, 
and he had no occasion to mention this narrative : but, in reading 
his Commentary on this part of the Gospel, it is difficult (if not 
impossible) to imagine that he knew of anything between vii. 52 
and viii. 12 : for he cites and comments on every verse from vii. 40 
to 52, and then at once continues from viii. 12 in the same manner 
(iv. p. 299, ed. De la Rue). The silence of Chrysostom on the 
subject, as well as that of Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodorus of 
Mopsuestia, was long ago noticed. 

The omission of this section by Nonnus, in his metrical Para 
phrase of this Gospel, is worthy of notice ; for though he does 
pass by parts, yet no narrative portion of certain genuineness, and 
of such length as this, is unnoticed. 

* Granville Penn, in his " Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant," states 
well the argument which may be drawn from Tertulliau 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 peremptoriuni, "Pontifex scilicet Maximus [quod 
esf] episcopus episcoporum, dicit [edicit] : "Ego et moecMce et fornicationis delicta, 
poenitentia 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 prseceptorumque calestium, soli mce- 
cTiice, et in ea fornicationi quoque, januam poenitentise expandas, ad hanc 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, qusecunque ratio moecJio et fornicatori pacem 
ecclesiasticam reddit, eadem debebit et homicidse et idololatriae poenif entibus subve- 
nire. Whatever authority, whatever consideration, restores the peace of the church 
to the adulterer and fornicator, ought to come to the relief of those who repent of 
murder or idolatry It is manifest, therefore, that the copies of St. John with which 
Tertullian was acquainted did not contain the exemplum cceleste, the divine exam 
ple^ devised in the story of the woman taken in adultery " (pp. 267, 268). Was this 
edict that of Callistus, referred to in the recently-discovered Philoaophoumcna (of 
Hippolytus), ix. 12, pp. 290, 291 ? 


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 
diiference 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 

* Sec Beza s note on the passage, above, page 34. 


translators in 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 nothino- 

O t3 

unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. 


And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and 
phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it 
to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations 
current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded ac 
tions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been 
transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to 
have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps 
some one added it at the end of John s Gospel, as one of the 
" many things which Jesus did which are not written in this 
book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to 

We learn from Eusebius, that Papias transmitted an account of 
a woman who was accused before our Lord, eKTeOeirai Se /cal 
aAA/7?v la-ropiav irepl ryvvcu/cos, eirl TroXXat? afjuapriai 
0-779 eVt rov Kvplov TIV TO /ca9 EfBpaiovs vayye\iov 
(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 
vii. 53 viii. 11. In favour of the identity may be mentioned 
that in D (Cod. Bezge) the sin of the woman is spoken of in a 
general manner, eVt dfiaprla <yvvaiKa el\vjfj,/j,evijv, instead of eV 
fjioi^ela KaTei\r)/j,iiJiev7]v. 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 Euffinus 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. Euffinus renders, " Simul et historian! quan- 
dam subjungit de muliere adultera, quse accusata est a Judseis apud 


Dominum." Attention to this, and also to the point of resem 
blance between the Cod. Bezae and the words of Eusebius, was 
directed by Dr. Routh ; who adds, " Evidenter constat, etiamsi 
suspecta haec evangelii pericope eadem esse censeatur atque historia 
Papiana, nondum earn codici Novi Testamenti tempore Eusebii 
insertam fuisse" (Rel. Sac., i. 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. 

John v. 3, 4 ..... rcov acrOevovvrajv, Tf^Xw^, po>Xwv, f rjpw v, 
[iK^e^ofjbivwv rrjv TOV /8aro? tclvrj(riv\. (verse 4) [0^776X09 yap 
Kara Kaipov Kcnepawev ev rf) KO\v/j,/3ijOpa Kal erdpaacre TO vScop 
6 ovv 7T/DWT09 e yLt/3a9 f^eTo, TTjv Tapafflv TOV i/Saro?, 7/779 ey/z/ero, 
w cv/JTTore /care^ero voorffjLari]. 

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, eVSe%o/<6. r. T. vS. icivriaiv, 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 S and others ; it is omitted in the 
Codices Brixianus and Rhedcrigianus (/"and /) 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 


apostrophes." In the Harclean Syriac the former half of the verse 
is marked with an asterisk (cfyyeXo? ... TO /8o>/>), and the re 
mainder is marked with an obelus ; this latter part of the verse is 
omitted in the ^Ethiopia (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 quaerebantur. Kam si quis prasvenerat 
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 
dyy. <ydp, and some 0.77. Se; some then add /cvplov, and some 
rov Oeov, while others, with the rec. have neither: /cara /ccupov 
is inserted elsewhere in some authorities, and in the best copies of 
the Old Latin is altogether omitted: instead of Kareftaivev, some 
copies (including A) have eXouero : the best Old Latin codices 
omit eV r/7 /co\vp,/3i]0pa, and also pera rrjv rapa^rjv rov uSaro?. 
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 Bezas 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 Bezas), 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 
Michaclis, ij. 737, 8.) 


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 is 
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 

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 

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- 

* I only mention the fact, that some have chosen to accuse critics who do not 


liasts had strong pragmatical reasons for explaining why tlie 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, 1st, 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 critics are held 
responsible for finding the evidence to be such as it is. Is this equitable ? 


(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 thejirst of his Qucestiones ad Marinum, dis 
cusses 7TW9 rrapd aev rat MarOaiu* " o^re craft [Bar wv" fyaiverai 
eyrjyep/jievos 6 cr&mjp, Trapa Be ra> MdpKw * rrpwl rf) (Jbia rcov o-aftftd- 
rcov." * He thus commences his solution of the difficulty : rovrov 
Sirrrj av eirj r) \vais 6 aev yap ro Ke(f)d\aiov avro rrjv rovro 
rrepLKorrrjV dOerwv, elrroi, av urj ev ajracriv avrrjv 
rot? avnypdcfrois TOV Kara Mdptcov evayye\iov. 
TO, y ovv d/cpi^TJ T&V dvTiypdtycov TO TeXo? irepiypdfyei 
T>)? Kara rov MdpKov icrropias ev T0?9 ^670^9 rov o<f>Qevro<? veavl- 
CTKOV rals yvvait;l KOI elpTjKoros auTat?, " ar} ^>o/3etcr^e, Ivjcrovv 
rov Na^aprivbv" Kal TO?? ef?;?, ol? errikzyei, * /cal d/cov- 
e<f>vyov, Kal ovSevl ovbev elrrov, etyoflovvro ydp" ev rovrw 
yap a"%eov ev arcavi, Tot? dvriypd<f>ots rov Kara MdpKov 
uayye\lov rrepiyeyparcrai TO TeXo? Ta Se ef/}? cnravia><$ ev ri&iv 
OVK ev Trdcn (frepoueva rrepirrd av etrj, KUL p,d\io~ra eirrep 
dvri\oylav rfj ra)V \oirrwv evayye\LO~rcov ^aprvpia ravra 
uev ovv etVot av n<$ irapairovuevos Kal Travrrj dvaipwv rrepirrov 
epcor^aa. (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 is evident that Eusebius 
did not believe that they were written by Mark himself, for he 
says, Kara MdpKov aerd rr]V dvdcrracriv ov \eyerai, axfiOat, Tot? 
jjiaOrjTalsJ 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 TOV cra/S/Sarov is the 

f Cited from Eusebius in Victor s Commentary on Mark ii. 208, ed. Matthsei, Mos 
cow, 1775. The quotation is here taken from Matthsei s New Testament, ii. 269, and 
Griesbach s Commentarius Criticus (ii. 200), who adds, "quod scribere non potuisset 
si pericopam dubiam agnovisset." 


ver. 8, which is marked crXy (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, eo><? coSe Evaefiios e/cavo- 
vio-ev. 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,* ev Tofc aKpiftecrTepois dvriypd(f)0i$ TO Kara Map KOV 
evayye\iov f^e-^pi Tov " efofiovro yap" e^ei ro reXo?. 

(iii.) Victor of Antioch, in his Commentary on Mark, says : 
eVetS?) ev THTI rwv dvnypdcfxov rrpbo-Ketrai, T&> Kara Mdp/cov evay- 
ye\iw, " dvacrrds Se rfj fua rov aaftfBdrov rrpwl etydvr)" KT\. So/cet 
Se rovro Sia<fxdViv rco vrro rov Mar0alov elpypevcp, epovuev, &><? 
Svvarov rjv elrrelv, on vevoOevrai ro irapa Mdp/cw re\evralov ev 
fapo/juevov. 7r\r)V f (va /j,rj So^co/jiev ejrl ro eroifjiov /carafavyew, 
varyvuHTOfAeOa, " dvacrras Se," real vrro<jri^avre^ eTrayofjuev, 

" Trpcoi rfi fjbia rov crafiftdrov" KT\ rrapa TrXe/crrot? dvn- 

ypd<poi<$ OVK rjv Se ravra ra em^epofJieva ev r> Kara Mdprcov 
vay<y\lq) co? v66a yap evouicrav avrd rives elvai. 77^6?? Se e 
dtcpi/Bwv dvnypd(j)cov, w? ev TrXetcrrot? evpovre<s avrd, Kara ro 
rrdKaio-rivalov evayye\(,ov MdpKov, co? e%et rj d\r)Beia, avvreOei- 
Kaaev Kal rrjv ev avrw em<^epoiJiev7]V &<JTroriKr)V avaaraaiv uera 
TO, e<j)o{3ovvro ydp. (Matthsei .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 hia 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. 


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, eV /j,ev ovv 
TO?? aKpifBecnepois TWV avrtypd^cov TO Kara Mdptcov evayyeXiov 
yu-e^/ot rov " efyofBovvro <ydp" e %a TO reXo? eV Se rial Trpoo-Keirat, 
Kal Tavra, " avacrra? Be TTpco l Trpcorr) aappdrwv e^dvrj TT/DWTOV," 
KT\.* This testimony may be but a repetition of that already 
cited from Gregory of Nyssa ; but if so, it is, at least, an approving 

It is worthy of remark that both Eusebius and Victor have 777 
fjbia where our text has Trpcorrj ; 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 rfj pia 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 niglit, 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 
valcat, is purely negative. 

Jerome s testimony is yet to be adduced. He discusses (Ad 
Hedibiam, Qusest. II. ed. Vallarsi, i. col. 819,) the difficulties 
brought forward as to the time of the resurrection. " Hujus 
* (Montfaucon, Bibliothcca Coisliniaua, p. 7J.) 


qusestionis duplex solutio est ; aut enim non recipimus Marci 
testimonium, quod in raris fertur Evangeliis, omnibus Grcecice 
libris pene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus, prsesertim quum 
diversa atque contraria Evangelistis coeteris 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 Gr&cis codicibus 
juxta Marcum in fine ejus Evangelii scribitur : Postea quum accu- 
buissent undecim appamit eis lesus, et exprobravit incredulitatem 
et duritiam cordis eorum, quia his qui viderant eum resurgentem 
non crediderunt. Et illi satisfaciebant dicentes ; Sceculum istud 
iniquitatis et incredulitatis substantial* est, qucB non sinit per im- 
mimdos spiritus veram Dei apprehendi virtutem: idcircojam 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, 
(ii.) If this testimony be supposed to relate to Greek MSS. in 
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, it 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, 

* " TJnus Vatican, sub satana est, quam certe prseferrem lectionem, si qui haberet 
pro quceJ Vallarsi. Quia might be suggested for qiice> or the relative might be con 
nected with incredulitatis. 


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 Irenseus : * "In fine autem Evangelii ait Marcus, Et 
quidem Dominus lesus, postquam locutus est m, receptus est in 
calos, et sedet ad dexteram Dei" (C. H. iii. 10. 6). This sentence 
of the old Latin translator of Irenseus is thus cited in Greek in 
confirmation of his having used this part of the Gospel : r O fj,ev 
ovv tcvpios fji6Ta TO \dKrjcrcLi avTols dve\^(j)0e et? TOV ovpavov, /cal 
etcdOicrev /c Befywv TOV 0eov. Elprjvcuos 6 TWV a7rocrTO\a)v TrXrjaiov 
eV TO) TTpos ra? atpeo-ew 7 \6<yq) TOVTO dvrfvey/cev TO pyrov o><? 

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. II. 
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 irepl 
xapiovAai-wv, 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, Aminonius has been quoted on the same side, when it is certain, 
from the Sections which he formed, that he belongs really to the other. 

f 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 


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 Trepl 
Xapia-fjLdrcov aTrocrroX^ TrapaSocrt?, in which this part of St. 
Mark s Gospel is distinctly quoted : (apostoli loquuntur) &>? av 
T6T6\eic0p,evc0v TI^V tyrjcrlv [6 /cvpio<i] irao-iv dfjua irepl TWV e 
avrov Sia rov Trvevfjuaro? SiSojjLevwv papier pdrtov, ^rjjjueia Se rot? 
ravra TrapaKoXovOrfo-ei ev TO> ovo^iarL {MOV ^ai^ovia 
Xct)<7crU5 tcaivals \d\,r)o-ovcriv, o</>e? dpovai, tcav Oavd- 
TI irluxjiv ov yu-r; CLVTOVS {3\dtyi eVl dppuxrTovs %eipa<; 
L /oiXw? e^ovcri. Tovrwv T&V ^apia/JLarcov Trpb- 
repov /J,ev rjfjLiv BoOevrcov rot? aTroo-roXot?, /jLeXXovat, TO 

Trdarj rfj Kricrec eTreira 8e rot? Si? rjfji 
xoprjyov/jievcov. (Ed. Fabr. i. 245. Cotel. Patr. Apost. 
i. 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. 

Under this head mav be mentioned the MSS. and versions in 

* In proof of difference of reading, I refer to Origen against Celsus, vi. 36 ; where 
Celsus says of our Lord en-el TeVnoj/ rji> Ti]v rex^v, and Origen denies that he is himself 
so 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 E D ; 
Origen a reading seems to have been 6 TOU Te /crovo? vtb? /cal Maptas, 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.) 

f 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 Irenseus, 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 (en-ecra Se rot? n-ia-TevVao-tv) . 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. 


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 Ammoniaii 
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 (k), 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, u Omnia 
autem quaecunque prsecepta crant et qui cum puero [1. cum Petro] 
crant breviter exposuerunt. Posthaec et ipse jhesus adparuit. et 
ab oricntem usque, usque in orientem. misit per illos sanctam et 
incorruptam (** add. prsedicationis, *-nem ?) salutis osternae. Amen." 
And the Armenian, in the edition of Zohrab, separates the con 
cluding twelve verses from the rest of the Gospel. Mr. Eieu thus 
notices the Armenian MSS. ; " (f>o{3ovvro jdp" Some of the 
oldest MSS. end here : many put after these words the final 
Evay<ye\iov Kara. Mdp/cov, and then give the additional verses 
with a new superscription, evayy. Kara 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. 

t 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. 


any break." The Arabic MS. in the Vatican is that described 
by Scholz in his " Biblisch-Kritische Keise" (pp. 117126) ; 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. | 

In L, after ecfroflovvro yap, there is added ^^^00^^^^ 
----- " <pepere [i.e. -ra^J irov /cal ravra" ~ ----- ~ 
Trdvra Se ra TraprjyyeX^eva rot? irepl rov irerpov o-vvr 
\av yLtera Se ravra /cal avrbs 6 Irjaovs CITTO araroXrjS /cal 
&v<T6(o<; ej;a7re(TTi\ev & avrcov TO lepbv /cal afyOaprov /crfpvyfjia T??<? 

alwviov crwrriplas ~ ~. 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). L then continues : 
" earjjv [i. e. -TIV~] Se teal ravra fapoaeva aera rb Efoffovvrai, 

yap." ~ - ~ avaara^ 8e KT\. (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, ev TKTI fiev rwv 
etw? wSe 7r\ijpovTaL 6 evaryyeXicmjs eco? ov /cal Evo-effios 6 
\ov eKavoviaev. ev TroXXot? Se /cal ravra (^eperai (and then follow 
ver. 9 20). A similar note or a scholion stating the absence of 
the following verses from many, from 7720.5^, or from the most 
correct copies (often from Victor or Severus), is found in twenty- 
five other cursive codices ; sometimes with reXo? 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 G-ospels, by Matthsci, perhaps omitted 
this section : there is a IreaJc at ver. 8, and all after that is at least defective, even if 
the MS. ever possessed it. (See Mattheei s larger Greek Test. vol. ii. p. 260, and vol. 
x. p. 228.) 

f 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 ("/56 and 757), examined by Birch. (137 and 
138 of Griesbach s notation). 


A C D, X A, E G II K M S U 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 ^Ethiopic ; 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 Yercelli 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, I 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. Yeronensis does not end at xvi. 7, but at xiii. 24. (ii.) Cod. Erixianus 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 Corbie in Picardy. 


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 first, 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 
vcr. 16) Baptism is too highly exalted. I mention these objec 
tions, though I do not think any one of them separately, nor yet 
the wlwle 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 is 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, arc 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 irpoorrj 
o-a{3{3drov (ver. 9), instead of which rfj fjua TWV crappdrayv would 
have been expected: in ver. 10 and 14 sentences are conjoined 
without a copulative, contrary to the common usage in St. Mark. 
e/ceivos is used four times in a manner different from what is found 
in the rest of the Gospel. The periodic structure of verses 1 9 and 
20 is such as only occurs once elsewhere in this Gospel (xiv. 38). 


Many words, expressions, and constructions occur in this section, 
and not in any other part of St. Mark : e. g. Tropevo/jiat, (thrice), 
Oedofiai, (twice), aTr/oreo) (twice), erepos, Trapa/coXovOea), /3Xa7TT&>, 
eircucoXovOiw, auvepyeco, (3e(3cu6(o, Travra^oO, //.era raura, eV TO> 
ovo/jLan, 6 /cvpios, as applied absolutely to Christ (twice).* Now, 
while each of these peculiarities (except the first f) may possess 
singly no weight, yet their combination, and that in so short a 
portion, has a force which can rather be felt 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 . . . efoftovvro 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. 

f The change (as noticed above) of Trpwrr? o-appdrov into -rfj fiiS. r. em/3/3. by Eusebiua 
and Victor of Antioch in their citations, may show how unexpected the phraseology 
is which is found in ver. 9. 



fact is not incredible. Such a peculiarity would not have been 

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 
efofiovvro <ydp, 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. 


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 
amono-st 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 


inspired: 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 
&fact, then inquiries as to the relation of human authors become 
a matter of secondary importance. It has its value to know that 
Apostles bore testimony to what they had seen of Christ s actions, 
and that they were inspired to write as eye and ear witnesses of 
his deeds and teaching. So it is of importance to know that in 
this Gospel we have the testimony of Peter confirmed by John the 
Presbyter ; but the real essential value of the record for the con 
tinuous instruction of believers, is that inspiration of the Holy 
Ghost which constitutes certain writings to be Holy Scripture. f 

" If one knew a person to Lave 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.) 

t Kal TOvQ 6 TrpecrjSuTepos lAeye- Map/cos jtxev ep/x^vevTrj? Herpov yei/d/xej o?, 6<ra ey^/xoi/everev, 
a/cpi|3a>s eypiujjev. ov /ouV TOI raei ra virb rov XptOTOu 17 \e\QevTO. 17 7rpa,\0eVTa- cure yap jjKovtre TOW 
Kupiou cure 7rapT]KoXoi;0Tj(rei> avraJ- vcnepov oe, ws e^Tjv, IleTpa), 6s Trpbs ras xpeias eTroiecro ra? 
SiSacr/caXias, aXX" ovx wcnrep <rui>Ta ii> ru>v KupiaKcui> Trot-ov/aeros Xoycoi/, ai or T e ovoev T) /a a p T e 
Map/cos, OVTUI? evict ypoty/as a>s a7reju.vTj|ut.6i/eucrei/. evb? -yap eTroiijo-aro irpovoiav, TOV jarjSe^ wi> 
rJKOvere TrapaXiTreu , 17 \f/ev<7a<rdai TL ev avTOis. (Euseb. H. E. iij. 39). 

We can hardly over-estimate the importance of this testimony of John the Pres 
bytera 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 ep^rji/evrrj? rieVpov, 
but it seems to be here used as indicating that Mark wrote for others the narrations 
which Peter had orally declared. The Presbyter says that Mark wrote ov raei and 
ovx oiorrep truvra^iv riav Kvpia/cwi/ Trotovyaei os \6yu>v ; this may mean that he did not compose 
a history, but only wrote down the separate narrations given by the Apostle Peter ; or 


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. 


THE generation of EDWARD 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. Ei asmus, in his "Apologia de In principio erat sermo" 
(Opera ix. Ill, 112), does not give the name of this bishop : but in a letter to Herman 
Busch, dated July 31, 1520 (Ep. DXIV. torn. iij. 561, seq.), he mentions that it was 
Standish, Bishop of St. Asaph, whose unintelligent zeal thus carried him away. 


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 sufficient 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, Matthsei 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 e^ v/u.5? by Griesb., 

Lachm., and Tisch., on the authority, they allege, of MSS. B D L, 1, 33," etc 

" But MS. B (the most ancient of all MSS.) has the words." Thus Griesbach, Lach- 


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 1% Tu orews 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 cn> ovv KOKOTT., six uncial and five cursive 
MSS., . . . have cnr^a*." 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 (rooTpariwTij? for a-rpar. ;" he adds, that ai> ovv KaKoir. "is found in the Vat. B." 
What Dr. B., in referring to six MSS., says of " all of them" is true only of tivo, 
D* E*; and to quote a reading in 2 Timothy from the Yatican 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. v. 12, he 
quotes A! 

1 Pet. iv. 1. "The ev before <rap/d, 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 Iv, but only 
marks it as a probable omission. 

Eom. ix. 11. "For KO.KOV Lachm. and Tisch. edit (f>av\oi>, 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 <ai)Xoi/ ; while Lachmann, 
by a glaring inconsistency, retains KO.KOV" 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 
eo-xarov" instead of the common evxaruv; he says that the former derives support 
from Heb. i. 2, " and 2 Pet. iii. 3, CTT eo-xarou rw r/^epwi/, which has place in Text. Rec. ; 
though there Lachm. and Tisch. think proper to read, inconsistently enough, from 
several MSS. en- ea-xarcoi/. Surely the reading, whether eo-x<xTi> or ecrxarow, 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 incon 
sistency in cases in which they consistently follow evidence, and not preconceived 
imaginations ? 

On Rom. v. 13, 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., 
eXXoya, and Lachm. should place in the margin here eXXoyarai ; for there is not 
the slightest vestige of such a verb as eXXoyaw." But there is just as little ti ace 
of e XXoye co, 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 not true 
that cither Lachmann or Tischendorf has in the text in Rom. v. 13 departed from the 
common reading eXXoyeti-ai : it is also incorrect to state that Lachmanu s margin has 

t XXoyarcu, for it has e XXoyaro. [On 


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 0eoO [instead of xptorouj 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 0eoC 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 ofABCDE FGr introduce 6eov in this place to oppose the 
proper Grodhead of Christ ? Or are the ancient MSS. of no 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 e/*7rpoo-0ej> roO /3^aro? TOU 
XPIOTOU, and hence, on the usual principle of harmonising, has arisen xpto-roO instead 
of 0eoO in Rom. xiv. 10 : "for we must all appear before ro3 jSry/uan TOT) 0eov." Compare 
the two passages, and then say whether reading 0eo5 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 suck a kind. 


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 certain 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 modem 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 


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 from 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 
u guilty 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 Journal for July, 1853, W. E. T. (" on the Samaritan Pentateuch ") enun 
ciates his critical canon, " Transcribers are more liable to omit than to add": this 
opinion is one which (according to Porson) "onines 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, u 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 SINAI, 
of Mount G-erizim as being " beyond Jordan towards the west" "Hlltf p"Vn "DJQ 
t^DJ^n N13D "pT 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 


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 JEschylus, 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 noio 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.f 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 Michael is, 
directed attention in some measure to the subject, and this was done far more exten 
sively through the appearance of the Rev. T. II. Home 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. 

f 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, 


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 truth. 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 
Cramner. 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 ? " 


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 eKK\7jcrla, 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, 6K/c\ijo-iai, rest through 
out all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria," etc.), though critical 
texts, relying on united ancient authority, have here the whole 
passage in the singular, rj /-tev ovv eK/cX^aia Ka0 J 0X779 TT}? lou- 
Wa? /cat Ta\i\aias KOI ^a^apeia^ el^ev elpi]vr]v, olfco$ofjiou/j,evr) 
Kal Tropevofjuevrj T&> (j)6/3cp TOV KvpLov, KOI rfj TrapaKXrjcrei, TOV dylov 
irvev paras, eTrXrjOvvero. l 

Pains have often been taken to explain difficulties occasioned 
wholly by readings of later copies : thus, in Acts xiii. 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.^ But the most ancient 
copies put this period of four hundred and fifty years in quite a 

* It may be denied that this verse is still thus quoted : I therefore explicitly state 
that it has been so done, even while these sheets were passing through the press. 1 
subjoin a remark from the North British Review, No. xxxviii., 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." (Keview of Dr. Davidson s Biblical Criticism, 
page 435.) 

f I only state the fact ; I build no theories on it. 

I 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? 


different connection : " .... he divided to them their land by 

lot, 0)? T6(71V T6Tpa/COCriOl,<$ KOL 7T6VTr)KOVTa, KOi fJLGTa TaVTO, &Q)fCV 

Kpirds, 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 

A later reading may cause an expositor needless labour : thus, 
in 1 John v. 13, the common text has ravra eypatya VJMV Tofc TCKT- 
Tevovonv et? TO oVoyita rov vlov TOV 6eov, f iva el$r)Te on ^COTJV e^ere 
alcoviov, fcal iva irio-revrjTe et9 TO ovofia TOV vlov TOV 6eov. But 
this reduplicate reading of the modern copies has sprung, by 
addition and transposition, from two varieties found in the older 
copies, TavTa eyp. vp. r (va el&Tjre OTI o>. e%. alcov. ol TricrTevovTes 
(or TO?? Trio-Tevovcriv) els r. ov. T. ul. T. Oeov. 

In discussions on prophecy how much has been said about " the 
beast that was and is not, AND YET IS !" Kev. xvii. 8, TO Oripiov 
o TL rjv KOI OVK <JTI, Kaiirep icrTiv, as it stands in the common 
text. But this phraseology would not have been used if the older 
text had been known or remembered, TO Orjptov OTI, rjv /ecu OVK 
eaTiv /col TrdpecrTai, , "... 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 

* I 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 Kev. E.B. Elliott in his "Horao Apocalypticse," in the second and subsequent 
editions. The Eev. 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. 


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. 

I am persuaded that very much of the biblical study amongst 
us in the present day is superficial in the extreme. Holy Scrip 
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 


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 

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 ; arc 
amongst the weaknesses of Christian people in this day. And 
those who most require to be told that this is the case, are those 

* "Ex elementis constant, ex principles oriuntur omnia : et ex judicii consuetudine 
in rebus minutis adhibita, pendet saopissime etiam in maximis vera atque accurata 
scientia." (Clark, cited by Blomfield : Prom. Vinct., p 135.) 


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 therein 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 
eeems, 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 



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. 










THE 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 GRIESBACH 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 

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 SOHOLZ has been taken from his edition, 1830-36, 
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 Comtantinopolitan (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 TISCHENDORF have been taken from his 
second Leipsic edition, 1849 : as he only gives a text, 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. 


Besides these four critical texts, the variations have been noticed 
of that of STEPHENS, 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 Text 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 

The following is the list of Griesbach s signs : 

^ indicates & 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. 

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. 


Alx. 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. 



X AauiS Gb. Sch. Tf.; 

Ln. semper. 
Boo^ X Boos 1 bis Ln. 
Q/3?)S X ico/S^S 6** Ln. Tf. 
6 /3ao-iXev?, o?. Ln. Tf. 


Sch. Tf. 

8. Acra X Acra(/> Ln. 
O^ ai/ X O^fiai/ Ln. 
Oias X *Ofiay Ln. 
Ee/a ai/ X E^"efC6iai/ Ln. 
E^eKi as- X E^fKems Ln. 
A/taw X A/iW? 6ts Ln. Tf. 
X "icocretav Ln. 
X loocretas 1 Ln. 
Mardav X Ma^^ai/ 6is Ln. 
iT/crou, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 
yevvrjo-is Cst. X yeveais Gb. 

Ln. Tf. Ufa?.] [Rcc. Gb. ~]. 
yap, om. Ln. 
TrapaSeiyjaartVai X Sftyp-a- 

ri a-at Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. 
Mapia/z X Maptav Tf. 
rou Kupiof, ow. roi) Ln. Tf. 

[Gb.-]. Ute.] 
6 Geoy, o?. 6 Ln. 

rof vtoi^ O.VTTS TOV Trpcoro- 
TOKOV\VLOV Ln. Tf. [oi. aur. 



icpocroXvpa X 

6 {Ba<T. 
HpwSi^ff Ln. Tf. Wir.] 
aKptftws e^cracraTe X e^fT. 

Ln. Tf. W7ar.] 
e(rr?7 X fa-Tadr] Ln.Tf. [Gb.^]. 

fupoi/ X fiSoi/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
(paiWrat KOT 6Vap X car> 
oj/ap (paiv. Tf. ; /car 6Vap 

i^. rou Kfpi ou, o?n. rou Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. -]. ^Za?. 

17. VTTO X 5ta Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. 


18. dprjvos /cat, o??i. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =?]. ^ite. 
- ry^eXe X rjdefycrev Ln. 

19. Kar oi/ap (patVerai X $aiv. 

KUT ov. Ln. Tf. J?.r. 

21. ^X^ev X fla-rfkBev Ln. Tf. 

22. eVi, om. Ln. [Gb.-]. 

HpcoSou rou Trarpos avrov X 
roi5 rrarp. at>r. HpcoS. Ln. 

23. Nafaper X Naape0 Ln. Tf. 


Se Gb.-. [ow. ^Ite.] 

Kai Xeycoz/, oi. /cat Ln. Tf. 

VT X 5ta Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

~]. Alx. 

avrov rjv X ^" O.VTOV Ln. Tf. 
e /3a7rr/bi/ro, add. [Trcii/rfy] 

lopSai/?/, add. 7rorap,<u Ln. Tf. 


aurou, 07?i. Ln. Tf. 
Kapnovs diovs X xapnov 

aiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
fj8r] 8e Kat, o??i. Kal Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. [Alx.] 
(3cnrTia> vp.ds X ^P- /3a7r- 

Tt ^co Ln. Tf. 

Kai Trvpi Gb. -. [om. Cst.] 
avTov Gb. ->. 
d-rrodrjKrjv, add. avrov Ln. 
Icoai/z/?;?, OTO. Ln. Tf. 
rrpos avrov X aurw Ln. Tf. 
KOI ftcnrTiade Is X ftaT 

de Ln.Tf. 
dveflr] v6vs X fvQv 

Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
aWcpx$J7O"az> X rjvfw 

Ln. ; aurai [Ln.]. 
Acai ep^6/j,vov, om. Kal Ln.Tf. 


i. 6 ITJITOVS, om. 6 Tf. 

3. aura), om. Tf. [Alx.] 

(iirev, add. aura) Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

4. avdpcorros X o avdpcoTros Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 

eVi TTdvrl X fv Trdvri Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ]. 
$. ivrrjGiv X ea-rrja-fv Ln. [Gb. 

~]. ^te. 

6. Xeyet X flnev Ln. 
9. Xeyei X ewrev Ln. 

- Trdvra (roi 

10. YTraye, add. OTTtcra) p.ou 

Gb. - Sch. [Ln.] Tf. 

12. 6 ITJO-OUJ, o?n. Tf. [Gb. =*]. Alx. 

13. NaaprX 

Naapa$ Ln. 

KaTrepraou/Li X Ka<papz/aou/u, 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^] szc semper. Alx. 
1 6. orfcdrei etSe (pco? X cncoria 
(pco? ci Sei/ Ln. Tf. 

18. o l^crous 1 , OTO. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

19. auroTy, add. 6 l^trous [Ln.]. 

23. oX?yi/ TTJV raXtXai ai/ 6 ir/- 

(TOVS X O lrj(TOV$ O\7) TTj 

FaXtXa/a Ln. ; eV oX?/ TT/ 
FaXiXat a Tf. [om. 6 ir/croCy]. 

24. /fat daip.oviofiVovS) om, Kal 

Ln. Tf. 


i. aura), oz. Ln. 

4 & 5. Trans. Ln. (text) Tf. 

9. avroi [Ln.]. 

11. prjfJLa, om. Ln. Tf. 

KO.(? u/iwv, ante TTO.V TTOV. Tf. 

- ^fvd6fi i/ot, 
13. ftXrjdrjvai e 

Ln. Tf. 

21. f ppedrj X fp 
szc deinccps). 

22. ei/o), ow. Ln. Tf. 

25. eV r^ 65a3 /^ifr avrou X f 

avrov eV rfj 65(5 Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. (ef 


o-e TrapaSw, OTW. Ln. 

rots dp^atots, o?. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
auras X aiiTrjv Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb.^]. ^ 

aurov X fciVTOv Ln. 
(3\r)6j) els yffvvav X f S 1 7^- 

ewaz/ dTreXOrj Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
on, oi. Ln. Tf. [^ite.] 
oy av aTToXvcTT; X Tray 6 aVo- 

Xvcoi/ Ln. [Gb. ~]. [Alx.] 
p.oixd(r()ai^p.oixv6f)va.i Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 
6y eai/ a77oX. yap.T]o~T) X o 

aTroXeX. yap,r]cras Ln. 
^ p,\aivav TrotTyVai X ^rot^- 

o~at ^ fj.f\aivav Ln. Tf. 
ecrrco X eVrat Ln. Tf. 
paTrum eVt X poTrt ^et ets Ln. 
o-ou o-tayoi/a X o-tayoVa o-ou 

Ln. Tf. 

Si Sou X ftos Ln. Tf. 


v[, Kaa>s TTOterc rovs 

fjucrovvTas t , o?. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =J] [roTs [uarovcriv Gb. 

f7rr)pa6vT(t)v v/xaf, Kai, om. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. 
ro avro X OVTCOS Ln. Tf. 
ddf\<povs X (ptXovs Gb. . 
reXa)j/ai X fOviKoi Gb. Ln. Tf. 

Ute.] [Rec.Gb.~]. 
ourco X To avro Ln. Tf. 
coo-Trep X ^^ Ln - Tf - 
eV rots ovpavols X ovpdvios 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ]. ^4to. 


7rpoo"e ^ere, afW. 6e Tf. [^4te.] 
\r)p.oo~visr)v X 

Gb. Ln. Tf. 
dvroy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

eV ra> (pavepat, om. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb.^]. yfte. 
Trpoo-evxy X Trpoo-et^o-^e 

o^/< eo-eo-^e Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
toantp X <y Ln. Tf. 
ai/, om. Ln. Tf. [^te.] 
on, OTO. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
TO) eV, r( Gb. -. 
ev TU> <pavfpu>, om. Ln. Tf. 


TTJS yrjs, om. TTJS Ln. Tf. 
a(pifp.v X d(pr]Kafj.V Ln. Tf. 
6 rt o*oC <TTLV rj ^SacrtXet a /cat 

jy /cat 7^ So^a etf 

1 6. 





TOVS alwvas. dp.rjv Cat.; om. 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
ra 7rapa7rra>/iara avru>v, om. 

Tf. [Gb. =;]. 
coo-Trep X o>s Ln. Tf. 
avTtoV X eaureov Ln. 
on a.7rf\ovcrt, om. ort Ln. Tf. 
rots dvdpunrois vrjo-Tevatv X 

vr]VT. rots dvdp. Ln. 
KpvnTO) X Kpv<pai(p bis Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. c], 
ei> ra> (pavepip, om. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

up,coz/ X O-QV Ws Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~). 
/cat, om. Ln. 

o<p$aX/xoV add. o~ov Ln. 
6 6<p6aXp.6s (TOV dn\ov$ 77 X 

77 6 o<pd. crov oVX. Ln. 
[jLcipfjuiivq X /Aa/xcora Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
/cat X *7 Ln. ; om. /cat rt TTLT)T 

Tf. [Gb. ={]. 
avdvf oi> KOTTta, ouSe yjj- 

$et X avdvovcrw ov KOTTC- 

wcnv ov8e vrjQovcriv Ln. Tf. 

TJ7i> fiaaiXfiav TOV Qeov KOL 

TTjV dlKCllOO~VVr]V X T^ &- 

/catoo-. /cat TTJV fiav. Ln. Tf. 
ra eavrrjs X eavrrjs Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. *]. 


2. avTtp.fTprjdrjo fTai X 
Orja: Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

4. OTTO X e>K Ln. 

5. rj)i> doKov fK TOV o(p6aXfj.ov 

crov X K TOV o<pd. crov TTJV 
doKov Ln. Tf. 

6. KaraTrar^crcocrii X KaraTra- 

Trjo-ovo-iv Ln. Tf. 

8. avoiyr)o~eTai X di/oi yerat Ln. 

9. eaTiv, om. Ln. Tf. 
- e aj/, ow. Ln. Tf. 

alrrjcrr] X atr^crft Ln. Tf. 

10. *ai eaj/ tx^t V alrrjo-rj X i) at 
t^^. atTTjcrei Ln. Tf. [/} Acat, 

cav, Alx. om. 

12. OVTOS X ourco Gb. ~. 

13. eio-fXdert X eto-e X^are Ln. 


77 TrvAr/, om. Ln. 

14. ort aTfVT) X TI VTtvr] Gb. Sch. 

Ln. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 

17 TrvXr) [Ln.] 

1 6. <TTa(pv\r)V X <TTa(pv\(is Ln. 

TTOJ/, .<&/. [ouv] Ln. 

a7ro X Ln. 

ovpavols X ToTs ovp. Ln. Tf. 

7rpoe<pr t Tevo-afj(.V X eVpo^rj- 

rei>o-. Ln. Tf. 
rovrovs [Ln.] 
6juotoo-a> auroi/ X 6/j.oia>6r j~ 

o-fTcii Ln. [^4te.] 
r^v oiKiav ai)Tov X avroC rjjy 

oiKiav Ln. Tf. 
Trpoaerrecrov X irpoo tiraurav 

Ln. ; irpoo-fTreo-av Tf. ^4te. 
rj)i/ oiKiav avTov X aurov rjjy 

OIAC. Ln. Tf. 
Trpoo-eKO-^-av X Trpocrepprj^av 

Ln. nig. 
o-vi/ert Xecrei/ X CT\f<rev Ln. 

Tf. [Jte.] 
ypafj-naTfls, add. avT&v Kal 

ol (papio-aioi Ln. ; a(W. av- 

r&w Tf. yite. 


t Se atra> X Ka * 
Kara/3dj/ros avTov Ln. ; [/ca- 
Tafidirros avTov Alx.] 
2. e Xtfaw X Trpoo-eX^a)* Ln. Tf. 


3. 6 I^o-ovy, cm. Ln. Tf. 

4. irpoo-fvtyKe X ltpo<rtVfyKov 

Ln. Tf. 

- MCOCT^S X Mcovo-^f Ln. Tf. 
(semper) [Gb. -^]. 

5. EiVeX0dVri 5e rai l?;o-o{5 ( 

eto-eX. fie avrai Gb. Sch, Tf. ; 
eio-eX$oWos de OVTOV Ln. 


7. Kat Xt yft avrw 6 l^o ovs X 

Acyet CLVTW Ln. Tf. 

8. Kat a.TTOKpi6c\s X UTroxpid. 

de Ln. 

- Xoyop X Xdyw Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

9. ^ovo~iav,ndd.Tao~o~6[Jii os Ln. 
10. d/coXou^oucrtv, ofW. avro) Ln. 

ovSe eV r&) l(rpaj)X Tocrav- 

TTJV TT KTTIV X Trap ovSevi 
roo". nio Tiv tv ra> lo-pai}X 
Ln. Tf. 

13. eKarofrdp^eo X fKciTOvrdp^rj 
Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- Kal 2, owt. Ln. Tf. 

aorou, om. Ln. Tf. 

eV r?7 copa eKfivrj X 7ro r^s 1 

copa? fKfivrjs Ln. ; [adfn.add. 
Kat VTroo-Tpe^as 6 eKarov- 
rdp^os ets rov oixov avTov, 
tv avTfi TTJ copa, tiipe roi> 


avT(ns X auT<3 Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. cv]. 

TroXXovs o%\ovs X o^Xoi/ Ln. 
airou, om. Ln. Tf. 
etTrez/ X Xe yei Ln. Tf. 
TO TrXotoi/, om. TO Ln.Tf.[^te.3 
ot paQrjTdl, om. Tf. [Ln.] 
, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
, om. Ln. Tf. 
6Vi /cat, om. /cat Ln. Tf. 
v7ra<ovov(Tiv avrut \ aura) 

VTTCIK.. Ln. Tf. 
fXdovri avTW X 

TOV Ln. [^4te.] 



) om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. <*>] ; Tadaprjvfov Sch. Tf. 
[Gb. cv]. 
29. l^a-ou, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ^/a:. 

31. fTTLTpf^fov i7jutz> a7reX$eti X 

aTTOoreiXoz/ f)fj.ds Gb. Ln. Tf. 
[Alx.] Rec. Gb. ~. 

32. avTols, add. [6 l^o-ov?] Ln. 

a.TTYi\dov X aTr^X^av Ln. 

els TTJV dyf\r)v ro)v xoipav X 

ety TOVS xLpvs Gb. Ln. Alx. 
i , om. Gb. Ln. 

34. o-vvdvTrjo-iv X VTidwrrjcriv Ln. 


TO, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 
Trpoo-ecpepoz/ X 7rpoor<jbepov- 

o-ti/ Ln. 

d(f)fU)VTai \ afpievrai Ln. 
o~ot ai a/xapriai aou X " u 

at a/iap. Ln. Tf. [Gb.~], Alx. 
i7rov X firrav Ln. 
tSa)!/ X ftSwy Ln. [Gb. ~]. 
v/zeif, o?w. Ln. Tf. 
d<j)a>vrai X dfpifvTai Ln. 
o-oi X o-ou Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
eyetpoi X ey et P e ^ch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ]. 
eyepticls X eyetpe Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. *>]. ^?ar. 
6 IT;O-OUS eKfWev X f<fW. 6 

IT/0-. Tf. 

Mar^aTot X Ma$$. Ln. semper. 
avrov dvaK.fip.fvov \ dvaK. 

avT. Ln. 
eiTroi/ X eXeyov Ln. Tf. 

iTjaour, o??i. Ln. Tf. 
aiiTOts, ow. Ln.Tf. [Gb.-*].^4Z^. 
dXX X aXXa Ln. 
e\eov X eXfos Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

aXX X aXXa Tf. 

14. TroXXa, om.. Ln. 

17. aTroXow 

, />os< ao"/couy Ln. 
X d{j.(f)OTpoi. Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

18. apxw X fl<W. f^ Gb. Sch.Ln. 

- \da>vJ,7Tpoa-e\6o3v Ln. ; eto-- 

eX^wi/ Tf. [Gb. *>]. 

- "Ort, om. Tf. 

19. ^KoXov^o-ei X^ coXou^ftLn. 
22. eTtuTTpcKpels X (TTpafpds Ln. 


24. Xe yet avTois X eXeyey Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. ~]. ^te. 

27. auro, o?w. Ln. 

- vie X vioy Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~] 4 

28. 7rpocrrj\dov X Trpoa-fjXBav Ln. 

TOVTO 7TOt^O"at X TTOtfjO ai TOV- 

TO Ln. 


eW/3pt/i^o~aro X e 

Ln. Tf. 

32. av6pa>7rov, om. Ln. 

33. Xeyo^Tey, orfrf. OTt St. Elz. ; 

om. Mill, Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
3^. cv T<B Xa(5 [C^.] om.Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

36. CK\f\Vp.fVOl X (TKV\fi.eVOL 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

fppip,p,fvoL X pfpip.fJ.evoi Ln. ; Tf. 


2. laKco/Soy X fat lax. Ln. 

3. Ae/3/3atoy 6 e7TtK\Tj6els, om. 

Ln. [Gb. -]. 

6 f7nK\T)6f\$ OaSSato?, om. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. 

4. KavaviTrjs X Kai/amtoy Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 

. 6 Elz. Ln. [Alx.] 
Iovcapta>$ Ln. 
7/Ort, om. Tf. 
8. VfKpovs eyetpfTf, ae XfTrp. 
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ; om. Sch. 
f [Gb. -]. 

10. pdj38ov X pa/SSotis 1 Sch. Tf. 
JGb. ^]. [Ln. mg.] 

fcmv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

12. ad Jin. add. Xeyoz/rey, ~Eipr]vrj 

TO) OI K&) Tovro) ^4te. 

13. f\6fT(o X eX^drco Tf. 

14. e az> X a^ L- Tf. 

- ft-epxopie j/ot, rtfW. eoo Ln. Tf. 

- Kovioprbv, adtl. fK Ln. 

. To/xoppcoi/ X To/ioppas Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ^te. 

. TrapaStScoo tv X Ttapaboxnv 
Ln. Tf. ; Trapaddxrovcriv Alx. 
do6f)(reTcn yap v/zti/ eV eKf-ivrj 
TT) &jpa TI XaX^creTe, Gb. -. 

. aXX^i/ X fTfpav Gb. Ln. ; add. 
[KO.V fv TT] fTfpa Sta>Ka>o-ii/ 
s, (pfvyfre els TTJV dX- 
Ln. ; ofZ<^. 
Gb. -. 

yap Gb. ->;o 
TOI), o??i. Ln. Tf. 
ai>, om. Tf. 

TOJ/ olKodeo-noTTjv X TO) OIKO- 

X fTTfKd\earav Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

TOtiJ 1 OIKIO.KOVS X r l OiKia- 

KOIS- Ln. 

28. (po^d^re X <poj3eTo-^e Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

drroKTfivovrav X a 

ydj/Tcoi/ Ln. Tf. ; a 
TCOI/ Gb. Sch. 

Kai v^y^^i/, [at] Ln. 

29. eVrt TT)V y^v, Gb. =J. 

31. (pofirjdrJTe X (poftflo-de Ln. 

Tf. Ufa?.] 

32. ovpavois X TOis 1 oup. Ln. Tf. 

33. d av X Se Ln. Tf. 

avTOV /cdya) X Kayca avrbv 

Ln. Tf. 

- ovpavois X rolff ovp. Ln. Tf. 
38. os ov \afj,jBdvei X os av fj.rj 
aprj Ln. mg. 

aKoXovdfl X aKoXovdrjcrrj Ln. 

42. eai/ X o.v Ln. 


2. dvo X 5ta Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 

5. /cat ^coXot, [Kal] Ln. 

/cat Kaxpot, [/cat] Ln. 

veKpol,prcem. /cat Tf.[Ln.] ^4te. 

/cat TTTco^ot, [/cat] Ln. 

6. eav X &v Ln. 

7. 8, 9. fgr)\0cTc X efj\0a,TC Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

8. ip-ariots, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

X /3ao"iXeia>i> Sch. 

^. . 
9. t oVii/ ; TrpocprjTrjv X 7rpo<p. 

ro. yap [Ln.] 
f ya) [Ln.] 
- 6s X fat Ln. Tf. 

IT. auroG eo-Ttv^fornvavrov Tf. 
13. 7rpopr)T(vo av X (Trpo<pr)T. 

Ln. Tf. 

t$. aKovdv, om. Tf. 
16. 7rai8ap[oisjjrat8iois Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

(V uyopal? KaBrjp.ei OLS X <$ 

eV dyopa Ln. [Gb. ^]. Alx. \ 
Ko.6. (v dyopals Tf. 

Kal 7Tpocr(p(t)vovcri rots erat- 

pois avTcov, 17. Kal Xeyou- 
(7ti/ X " 7rpocr(p(jL>vovvTa rols 
eraipois (erepot?) \eyovcriv 
Ln. (Tf.) Gb. *>. [Alx.} 

Vfuv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
21. Xopafii/ X Xopafii> Tf. 

- BrjOo-a idav X B^&raiSu Ln. 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 

23. 77 U>S X M 7 ? ^ C0y -^ n W^-] 

TOU, oi. Ln. Tf. 

- v-^todelaa X v^^drjs Tf. [Gb. 

*]. ^Z.r. ; v^0)0f)(rr Ln. [Cs.] 

Kara/3i/3acr$J7O77 X 

a-7) Ln. Tf. 

yvop.vai. fv crot, epeivav X 
eV croi yfi/. (/jifivev Lu. Tf. 

25. iiTTKpv^fas X eKpw/^arLn.Tf. 

26. eyeveTO evdoKia X f6\ eyeV. 


27. eav (3ov\r)ra.t 6 vibs a 

Xu\|/m X al/ o vtos a 
X^r; Ln. mg. 
29. Trpaos X Trpai^s 1 Ln. Tf. 


1. (ra/3/3acri X (raf3[3dTois Ln. 

2. flirov X tiirav Ln. Tf. 

3. CIVTOS, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

4. e(payv X (<j)ayov Ln. 
- o>? X o Ln. (txt.) Tf. 

6. ndfav X fmcw Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. 

7/ EXeoj/ X eXeos Ln. Tf. 
8. *ai, oni. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

10. TJV TTJV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

11. ecrrai, om. Tf. 

eyepel X eyfipet Ln. 

12. crd/S/Sao-i X cra/3j3arois Ln. 

13. T/)I> ^f tpci crou X a ou r? ) v 

^elpa Ln. Tf. 

a7roraTecrru$?7 X aTrexarf err. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

14. Oi 8e 

v KO.T avrov e 

res X e ^fX^. 5e ol <&apicr. 
crvp.j3. \aj3ov /car* OLTOU 
Ln. Tf. 

M A T T H E W. 

. o^Xot, o???* Ln. 
OTTCOS )( tra Ln. Tf. 
ety, ow. Ln. Tf. 
eV, OT/I. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Trpoo-^vex^ 1 ! X 

8ailJ,OVl6fJLVO$ TV(f)\bs KO.I 
Kd)(p6s X $ai/AOVl6/JlVOV TV- 

(p\bv KOL Kcixpov Ln. 
TOP TvdjXbv, om. Ln. Tf. 
Kai XaXeti , om. K.CU Ln. Tf. 
6 Irjcrovs, om. Ln. Tf. 
vpcov eaovrai Kpirai X Kpir. 

6(rovT. vp.u)V Ln. Tf. 
eya) eV LTi/f u^tari Gfou X >J/ 

IIv. 0eo{) eyw Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. 
StapTracrni X /)7rucrai Ln. Tf. 
StapTratret X a/JTracrfi Ln. Tf. 
rots dvQptoTTOis 2, aw. Ln. 
ai/ X f" Ln - Tf - 
ou/c dfpfdrjcrerai X o ^ ^ 

d(f)e6fj Ln. 
roura) TO) X TW i/i)v Sch. 

[Gb. ~]. ^ 
TTJS Kap8ias, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


ra, onj. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 
sav, om. Ln. Tf. 

dirfKpidricrdv, add. avra) Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

Kal ^>aptcraicoi/, om. Ln. 
2oXo/zcoi>roff X 20X0^.0)^0$- to 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
ETTioTpex^a) fiy rov OI KOI 

/zov X ^is 1 ro* oi /c. /xou eVtcrr. 

Ln. Tf. 

o-xoXabi>ra, w?^. [KOI] Ln. 
errra erepaXerep.eTrr. Ln. mg. 
Se, ow. Ln. Tf. 
dd\(po\ avrovy [avrou] Ln. 
flirovn X Xeyoi/rt Ln. Tf. 

7TOLTJO-T) X 7701^ Tf. 


<=, orn. Ln. Tf. 
aTro X Ln. 
ro, 0)?. Ln. Tf. 
o-TTfiptiv X o-7re/pat ^4te. 
^6 X ^X&w Ln. U7a;.]; 

f \00VTO. Tf. 

Kai KdTf(pay(v, om. Kal Tf. 
7^}s X TT)J yrjs Ln. 
d/covety, aw. Tf. 
fiaQrjrai) add. aurov Ln. 
flrrov X fiTTfiv Tf. 
rcoy ovpav&v, Gb. ->. 
eV, o?.. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

i^. &>0"t, <?f7. [aircoj/] Ln. 
- (rvv><ri X cruwaio-tv Sch. Tf. 
[Gb. ~]. 

at X, Ln. Tf. 



. v/j.)v, om. Ln. 
aKovei X d^ououo iy Ln. Tf. 


eiftov X (18 nv Ln. 
(TirfipovTOS X virdpavTOs Ln. 


rourou, o?. Ln. Tf. 
-y^i/ TT)I/ KaXrjv X Ka\r]v yijv 

Ln. Tf. 

o-vvi&v X (rvvifis Ln. Tf. 
cnrdpovTi X OTTcipavn Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

eo-TTf ipe X eWoTretpav Ln. Tf. 
ra, <w. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
SovXoi, cwi. Tf. 
(LTTOV avrw X aura) XeyovcrtP 

Ln. Tf. 

e cpj; X (prjcriv Ln. Tf. 
p-e xpi X f^y Ln. Tf. 
TO) Kaipa), ow. rai Gb. Sch 

Ln. Tf. * 

, om. ets Tf. [Gb.^J, 
X o-vwiyere Ln. 
Kara(TKr]vovv X KaTacrK.rjvi.ilr 

Ln. Tf. 

aurolf, add.\tyu>v Alx. 
fvtKpv\l/-ev X 
OUK X oiSev Ln. Tf. 
Koayzov, GOT. Ln. Tf. 
6 l^o-oCs-, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.=J]. 
TTpocrrfkOov X TTpO(rrj\6av Ln. 
<3?pd(rov X 8iao d(pr]O-ov Ln. 
avrols 1 , om. Ln. Tf. 
6 (TTTfipas avTa e&Tiv X e> o 

TLV 6 (nrdp. aura Ln. 
TOU aiwi/op, aw. rou Ln. Tf. 
KaraKai erat X Kcuerai Gli. 

Sch. Tf. 
rourou, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

43. dxoueti/, onz. Tf. [Ln.] 

44. LTdXti/, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

Trdira ocra e^ei TrcoXfrXTJ"^ 

Trdi*. 6Va e^et Ln. Tf. 
46. 6s 1 evpMV X evpa>v 8e Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. Lite.] [Rec. Gb. v]. 
48. dvafiijSda-avTfs, add. avTijV 

Ln. Tf. 

eVl TOV aiyinXov, Kai Ka6i~ 

cravTfs X Ka ^ e>7r TOJ/ a ^/- 
a^. Ln. [Rec. mg. Ln.] ; om. 
Kal Tf. 

dyyfla X "7V7 Tf. 


Ae yei aurots 6 l^troCy, om. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. =:]. 
Kupie, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 
6 5e eiVe^ X Xe yei ^ n - 
el? TTJV /3acriXeiai> X T?7 /3a- 

(TtXeia Gb. Tf. (sic prcem. eV 

Ln.) Jfte. 
K7r\rjTTfrdai X Kn\qCTO C- 

<r6ai Ln. Tf. 
oi^i X ov^ Ln. Tf. 
Mapid/u. X Mapta Tf. 
icoo-T/s- X I<wo-)7<p Ln. Tf. 
Trarpt Si aurou, om. at/rot) Ln. 


/cat e$ero, oi. Tf. ; aTre &ro, 
/x>s fcai eV TT) <pv\. Ln. 

T) X T77 <pvXaKrj Ln. Tf. 

, cm. Tf. 
aura) 6 la>di>vT)s X o icoai/. 
avr. Ln. 

vecriois fie yei/o/zeVois Ln.Tf.; 

yei>. fie yevoueviov Gb. ~. 
e di/ X ai/ Ln. Tf. 
\V7rf)6r) 6 /SacriAeir, fiia fie 

rot>? X XuTn^eiy o /3atr. fiia 

rous Ln. Tf. 
roz/, ow. Ln. Tf. 
crco/Lia X Trroo/Lia Ln. [Gb. ~]. 
auro )( avTov Tf. [Ln. mg.] 
/cat d/fowfras X aKOvcras fie 

Ln. Tf. Wte.] 

TTf C^ X TreC Ln - m ^- 

6 l^troO?, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb.^3. 

avTuvs X avrols Gb. Sch. Ln. 


TrpoarjKQov X TrpOfrrj\dav Ln. 
CWTOV, om. Ln. Tf. 
dmtXvaov, add. ovv Tf. 
avrovs wfie X &fie our. Ln. Tf. 
rous yoprous X roL* voprou 

/cai Xa/3a>i/, om- Kal Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

et Xdyjyo-e X J]v\6yr]crfv Ln.Tf. 
yumi/ccoi/ /cat Traifii ooi/ X Tmi. 

/cat yui>. Ln. 
6 ir/crovs [Cfci.], om. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

avrov [Cst.], om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 
ro TrXotoj/, om. ro Tf. 
ciTT^A&r X /;X/9ei/ Ln.Tf. [Gb. ~] 
6 l^o-ouy, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 
rrjs 6a\dcrcrT]s X TTJV 6di 

crew Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


26. *ral idoires airov ol fjui 

X 01 Se /Lta^. Idovrcs avrov 

OT/S- Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

27. V0f(dS X (V0VS Ln. 

- avroly 6 iqcroi;? X o 

avTOts Ln. 

28. avrw 6 Tlfrpos etVe X o LTe- 

rpos flnfv ai>T(d Ln. 
Trpos tre e X^eii X e X^. Trpoy 
o-e Ln. Tf. U?.] 

29. 6 Herpes, om. Ln. Tf. 

- f\6ftv X fai ^X(9ev Tf. 

32. fjjifta.vT(>v X dvaftdvrcov Ln. 

Tf. Wte.] 

33. \66vTfS, om. Alx. 

34. revisrja-apeTXrcvvrjcrapfO Ln. 


ot OTTO, am. ot Ln. 
ypa/M/xareTy xal $aptcraTo6 X 

$ap. mi ypap.. -4?a;. 
eVereiXaro, Xe ya)i/ X fiVev 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ow]. ^?^r. 
Trare pa (rov, om. (rou Gb.Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

/cat ot>, ora. Kal Ln.Gb. -*. [Alx.] 
TL/j-rjo-r] X TifJirjO ei Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

~]. Alx. 

ij ri]V /jirjTepa avrov, om. Ln. 
rrjV evTO\T]v\Tov XoyovLn.; 

rbv VO/JLOV Tf. 
7rpoe(pf)Tev(T X eVpcx/^reu- 

a-ei/ Ln. Tf. 
Eyyi et /zot 6 Xao? OVTOS TO> 

aro/xart avrtav, KOI X o Aaos 

ouros Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [yite.] 
elirov X Xe youcrtv Ln. Tf. yite. 
odrjyoi eicrt rucpXoi X TV(j)\oi 

fieri odrjyol Ln. Tf. 
raurr/z/, o?/t, Ln. Tf. 
iryo-oO?, o?, Ln, Tf. [Jfa-.] 
OUTTCO X ot Ln. Tf. [yite.] 
(Kpavyao-ev X expa^ei/ Ln. 

(txt.) ; eKpa^ev Ln. rng. 
aura), OHI. Ln. Tf. 
vte X vios Ln. Tf. 
rjpobTcov X r)pd)TOVV Ln. Tf. 
Trpocre/aWi X irpocreKvvTja fv 

Gb. c*j. Ln. mg. 
ecrrt KaXof X ef<mv Ln. Tf. 


fy, prcem. Kal Ln. Tf. 

32. fj/JLepas X i7/ie pai Gb. Sch. Ln. 


33. ai/rov, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

35. e /ce Xevcre X TrapayyeiXas Ln. 

rots 1 o^Xois X T< p o^Xa> Ln. 

(txt.) [Rec. mg.] ^4te. 

36. KaiXa/3a)i/Xe Xa/3ei/Ln. [^te.] 

, prcem. Kal Ln. 

avrovy om. Tf. [Ln.] ^4r. 

rw o^Xo) X TOIS o^Xois Tf. 

37. ^pai/, ;ws K\ao-/jidTcov Ln. Tf. 
39. eV/S?; X di/e /S?/ Gb. Tf. 

- MdyfiaXd X MayaSdV Ln.Tf. 

3. t/TTO/fpirai, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.^]. 

prcem. /cat Ln. 

4. ro) 7rpo<pr]Tov, om. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. 

5. ayrov, om. Ln. Tf. 

8. at rots, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
eXd/3ere X *X fT -^ n - C-^^-] 

10. o"7rupifias X <r$vpidas Ln. 

11. aprov X apTWV Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. *]. 

- roi) IT/CTOI) X OWTOI) Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. w]. ylte. 

31. TOUS O^XoUS X TOt 0, 

Tf. [Gb. ~] ; 77-poo-e^ere 
Gb. ~. 

12. rou aprov X rcov cipTcov Ln.Tf. 

- dXX X aXXa Tf. 

13. /Lie, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 

14. L7rov X fiirav Ln. 

aXXot X 01 Ln. 

15. aurois, afW. [6 ir/o oOs] Ln. 
17. Kai drroKpidels \ drroKp. fie 

Ln. Tf. U&?.] 

rois oupai/ois, o???,. rols Ln. Tf. 

19. /cXels X /fXetfias Ln. Tf. 

- o e av X o av Ln. (txt.) Tf. ; 

ocra civ Ln. mg. 

fiefie/LieVov X fiefie/neVa 

20. fiiecrrei XaroX eVeri /Li^(rej/Ln. 

[Gb. ^]. 

aurou, om. Ln. Tf. 

l77<ro{)s, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

21. 6 l?7cro{)p, om. o Ln. 

dVeX^eu eis c Iepoo~dXu/Lta X 

eis lep. aVeX. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

22. fTTLTLfJiaV ClVTtt) X CIVT. 7TIT, 

Ln. Tf. 

23. JJ.QV ei X ei e /iioO Ln. ; ei pov 

23. ycip a^ X y a P eav L . Tf. 

26. oxpeXelrat X w^eX^ 

Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
28. u/AU , fM. on Ln. 

. Ln. 
eo-T&TCS Sch. Tf. 


3. a>d)0T)(T(iv X totpuT] Ln. Tf. 

Maxrrjs X Mowenjs Ln. Tf. 

per avTOv (ruXXaXovires X 

<ruXX. per cturoi Ln. 

4. 7roir)(TG)fj.ev X 7roiT/o~a) Ln. Tf. 

- MOJO-?; X Mcovo-eT Ln. Tf. 

- p.iav HXia X HXia pt ai/ Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

5. <pcoreti>77 X <pwr6s Gb. [Rec.f^]. 

evdoKrjo-a X ijvdoK. Ln. Tf. 

avrou d/covere X d/cou. air. 

Ln. Tf. 

6. eirecrov X fTTfcrav Ln. Tf. 

7. TrpocreXOaiv 6 ir/crouff fj\l/~aTO 

avra>i>, Kat X 7rpoo-f)\6ev 6 
IT?CT. Kai d\^dpevoy 
9. OTTO X * * Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

di/acr?) X *y f p6fl Ln. Tf. 
10. auroD, owi. Ln. 

m. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


- aurots 1 , 077J. Ln. Tf. 

- Trpooroi/, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =i]. 

i2.dXX XdXXaTf. 

14. C\66vTti)V (IVTtoV X 

rcoy Ln. ; eX$a>i> Tf. 

- avroi X avr6i> Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


eo-op. Ln. Tf. 
20. iTiamiy, OTTI. Ln. Tf. 

X Xeyet Ln. Tf. 

X oXiyoTTtartai/ Ln. 

(ff^ei/ Ln. Tf. 
23, drao*rpe<i)opeVa>i Xo i;(rrpe<p. 

X dvao TTjO CTai 


24. eiTToi/ X f "rap Ln. Tf. 

25. ore elarjXdev X etereX$oVra 

Ln. ; e Xtfo i/ra Tf. 

26. Ae yei aurw 6 Herpes X e *~ 

TTOVTOS Se Ln. ; o?7. 6 IleVpos 


Tf. [Gb. =?]. 




1. eopa X W*pq Ln - C Glt >. c^]. 

2. 6 Ij/crovs 1 , o?rt. Tf. 

4. rcnrfivtoo-r) X raTrei^coo-et Sch. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. .]. 

5. 6s- eai/ X os at/ Ln. Tf. 

- iratdiov TOIOVTOV ev X e^ Trat- 

fitoi/ TOIOVT. Ln. Tf. 

6. eVi \7Tfpl Ln. [^4te.] ; eiy Sch. 

Tf. [Gb. *]. Cst. 

7. etrrii , ow. Ln. Tf. [^4/a:.] 

- fKfivw, om. Ln. [yife.] 

8. aira X auroi/Ln. Tf. [Gb. *0. 

xo)\bv TJ KV\\OV X 

^coXoj/ Ln. 

10. ei ovpavolS) om. Tf. ; [eV rai 

ovpavw] Ln. 

11. ^X^e yap 6 vtoy TOV dvdp<a- 

TTOV araxrai TO aTroXcoXos 1 , 
o?. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =5]. ^Za;. 

12. dfpels X d<pT)(Ti Ln. Tf. 

- TTOpevOels X ai Trop. Ln. Tf. 
14. vfj-wv X /*ou Ln. Tf. 

- ffs X ei/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. ev]. Alx, 
i$. els ere, om. Ln. Tf. 

KOL e\eyov t om. Kal Gb. Ln. 

Tf. lAlx.] 

1 6. jMera o~oi), posi Svo Ln. 
1 8. eav df)(rr]Te X ay drjcrTjTf Ln. 


- raj oupaz/<5, o?. rw &is Ln. Tf. 
19. TraXiv X a/M^ Ln. ; add. aprfv 

Gb. ^. [Alx. & Cst.] 

. e {ip.coyLn.Tf. ; 

21. aVTO> 6 HfTpOS flTTf X O Ile - 

rpos eiTTfv avTcp Ln. Tf. 

22. dXX X dXXa Ln. Tf. 

24. Trpocr^i/e ^^T? X Trpocrrjxdr] Ln. 


25. Kvpios aurou, o??z. avr. Tf. 
-e^eXe X Ln.Tf. 

26. Kfpte, o?7z. Ln. Tf. 

- voi,post aTroSaxrco Ln. [Alx.] ; 

om. Tf. 

27. e /ceti/ov, om. Ln. 

28. eKflvos, om. Ln. 

- pot, 07W. Ln. Tf. [Gb.^]. Alx. 
-o Ti\ et n Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

29. els TOVS TToSas aurov, OTTI. Gb. 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
e pot X e p^ Ln. Tf. 

n. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 

30. aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 
- ov, om. Ln. Tf. 



de ol a"vvdov\oi avTov X ovv 


avTutv X eavrcoi/ Ln. Tf. 
KOL e ycb X Kycb Ln. Tf. 
oVj om. Ln. 
avrw, om. Ln. Tf. 
enovpdvtos I ovpdvios Ln, 

Tf. [Gb. >]. Alx. 
TO. TrapaTrrcopara auroip, om, 

Gb. Ln. Tf. [^te.] 


TTJS FaXtXatay, om. TTJS Elz. 
ot $apio-aioi, om. ot Ln. Tf. 
aurw, oTTi. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^4te. 
d)7ry, 07?i. Ln. Tf. 
r, ow. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
X eveKa Ln. Tf. 

n X f oXXr;- 
-. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. *>]. 

wo-rjs Ln. Tf. (ct 
sic deinceps). 

avTrjv, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
on, o?Ji. Ln. Tf. 
ei pr) eVi Tropveiq I pr) eVi 
TTOpveiq Gb. Tf. [Os.] ; Trap- 
CKTOS Xoyou Tropveias Lu. 

, o?. Tf. 
roOroi , o??i. Tf. [Ln.] 

aai> Ln. Tf. 

avTols TCIS ^eipas X ra s" X f ^P- 
avr. Ln. Tf. 

16. eirrev avrto X vr<u etTT. Ln. 


- dya$e, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. 

K\r]povop,T](r<i) Ln. mg.] 

17. Ti pe Xe yety dyaBov ; ovdels 

dya^oy, et p?) ety, 6 Geo? X 
rt pe epcoTqs Trept rov dya- 
6ov ; els ecrTiv 6 dya$o<? 
Gb. Ln. Tf. [Roc. Gb. ev]. Alx. 

elcreXdelv els TTJV farjv X fls 

TTJV farjv etcreX. Ln. Tf. 

- TT)pT]<Tov X rr;pet Ln. Tf. 

18. Ae yet X f<pf/ Ln. 

ov (povevo-eis" ov poixeixreis 1 

X ov pot^. ov (pov. Ln. m{r. 

19. Trare pa o~ov, o??i. o"ou Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

20. TrdVra raura X raur. ndvT. 

Ln. [^Za:.] 

efpvXa^djjLrjv X e(f)v\d^a Ln. 


so. e i/eor^ro s /xou, om. Ln. Tf. 
Gb. -. 

21. e<pr) X Xe yei Ln. 

Trrco^oi?, proem, rots Ln. Tf. 
- ovpavcp X ovpavols Tf. Ln. 

22. roi/ Xoyoy, awi.Tf. ; add. [roO- 

roj/] Ln. 

23. Siio-KoXcos 1 TrXoucrtos X TrXou. 

8v<rK. Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

24. SteX^ety X o-eXd. Gb. Sch 


ovpavwv Ln 


17. eV TT) 65<5, KOI X Kal eV Tfl 

ody Ln. Tf. Ufa?.] 
19. dvaaTTj(TTai X e yep^o-. Tf. 

Trap X <wr* Ln. Tf. 
ai. OVTOI [Ln.] 

df^iwv crov, om. orov Ln. 

add. <rou Gb. Sch. 

ro{! Geoi) X 


e2o"eX$eiz , posi TrXovaiov Ln. 4 
ow. Tf. Ute.] 

25. auroC, oi. Gb. Sch.Ln. Tf. 

26. Swarci eVrt, o?/i. e o*rt Gb.Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
29. os X OO-TIS Ln. Tf. 

oiKtas, ?}, oi. Tf. 

T) Trare pa, jj /ATjre pa X ^ yo- 

i/eiy Ln. mg. 
- r/ yu^at/ca, oi. Tf. 

TJ dypovs, add. rj oiKias Tf. 

X TroXXa- 
-. Ln. Tf. 


2. <rvp.(pa)vr)o-as Se X fat o~v/i- 

(pa)vf]o~as Cst. 

3. nyy TpiTT]v, om. TTJV Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

5. TraXti/, afW. Se Tf. ^4te. 

6. <wpai>, o?, Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^4te. 
- apyouf, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [./* te.] 

7. d/iTreXwz/a, add. /zou [Ln.] 

/cat eav 7 

om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =s]. ^4^. 
9. /cal \06vTfs X eX^oj/res Se 

10. e\Q6vTes Se X Ka * e X$. Tf. 


Kai avToi ava 8r)vdpiov X TO 

dva drjvdp. Kal OVT. Tf. 
i2/ Ori, om. Ln. 

^/ziv avTovs X avTOvs rjp.1v 

Ln. (txt.) 
ij. f) ou/c, o?,. f) Ln. Tf. 

TTOirjirai o 8e\a) X o ^e Xco 

TroiTJaai Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 
-rjlel St. Tf. Gb. ~. 
1 6. TroXXot yap euri *cX?/rot, oXt- 

yot Se e /cXe/cro/, o?. Tf. 
1 7. p.a$f;rar, o??j. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

22. Se 6 X o Se St. 

, 6 e yo) /3a- 
t, om. 

Gb.Ln.Tf. f.Alx.1 ; [77 ro fair. 

23. Kal Xe yft, om. Kal Ln. Tf. 

Kal TO fidirTKTfJLa, o e yco |3a- 

om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ; [y TO /3a7T. 

fi)(f>vvjj.<av /j.oVj om. p.ov Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. =>]. ^te. 
- e^ioi/, add. rotJro Tf. 
24. Kal aKoixravTfs X aKOvcrav- 

res- Se Tf. .4te, 

26. Se, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

eVrai X f(TT\v Ln. L4r.] 

6$- e ai/ X oy ay Ln. 
- eV VJMV X v/xcoi/ Tf. 

eoTG) X eVrat Ln. [Gb.^]. yfte. 

27. o? e az/ X os av Ln. 

FCTTO) X eVrai Ln. [Gb. <*>]. 

30, EXe r;o-oi/ ry/iar, KupieXKuo., 

eXcrjcr. rjp. Ln. Tf. 

v<oy X ute Ln. [^4te.] 

31. eicpaov X fKpa^av Ln. Tf. 

f\er)(r. f)/J,. Ln. Tf. [ 
- vlos X f*e Ln. 

32. 6e\fT, add. [tva] Ln. 

33. dvoL^daxTLV X a 


4 . oXw, o. Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. ^4te. 
^. Kal 7ri(3e(Br]Ku>s, om. Kal Tf. 

7ra>Xoi>, pram. eVi Ln. Tf. 

6. 7rpoo-e raei/ X o-vi/eVa|ei/ Ln. 


7. eVaj>a> i X eV Ln. Tf. 

ifjuina OVT&V, om. avratv Tf. 


8. farpcavvvov X earpaxrav Ln. 


9. irpodyovTfs, add. avrbv Ln. 

11. Ir/o-ovs 6 TrpofprjTrjs X o ?rpo- 

(p^r. lj;o-. Ln. Tf. 

12. 6 l7/(roi)y, om. o Ln. Tf. 

roC Geou, o?w. Ln. [Gb. -*]. 

13. 7roiTj(raT X 7rotetT Ln. Tf. 

15. Afpo^oi/ray, prccm. TOVS Lu. 


16. etVoj/ X flirav Ln. Tf. 

r)p.o)V OL 

f)p. Ln. Tf. [.- 

34- 0<pdaXfJLG)V X O 


ol o(p6a\p.ol) om. Ln. 



- Trpoy X ft? Ln. Tf. 

2. UnpevdrjTf X TTOpcveadf Ln. 

Tf. Wir.] 

- direvavTi X KciTevav. Ln. 
ayayere X ay ere Ln. 

3. aTrocrreXet X a7ro<rreAX Gb. 



1 8. eVaraycop X firavayayav Tf. 

19. M^/ceVt, prasm. ov Ln. Tf. 

22. a> X eai> Tf. 

23. e\66vri avT(o X eX^oyroy 

avrov Ln. [^ir.] 

24. Se, om. Ln. 

25. icoaz/i/ov, promi. ro Ln. Tf. 

- Trap X fv Ln. Tf. 

26. e^ovcri TOV ^Icnavvnv <u? ?rpo- 

(prjTrjv X t^S" 73"po. ev. roj/ 
Icoav. Ln. Tf. 

28. avdpoiiroS) add. n? Ln. 

TCKva dvo X Suo Tfkva Ln. Tf. 

- /uou, w. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^te. 

ou $e Xa> X fy^ Kvplf t Kal 

OVK aTTijXdcv Alx. 

29. varrepov Se, [Se] Ln. 

Ln. i 30. Kai Trpoo"eX$aji/ X Trpoo~eX. 
Se Ln. Tf. 

Seure pw X eVe pa Gb. Sch. Tf. 

[Rec. Gb. ~]. 

31. aura), om. Ln. Tf. 

O Trpcoroff X o vcrTcpos Ln. 
(Tf. 1841). ^ 

32. yrpos 1 vp.ds laidvvijs X icocii . 

Trpos- vp. Ln. Tf. 

ou X oySe Ln. Tf. y/Z^r. 

33. ri?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- ee 5oro X e^e Sero Tf. 

38. /caruo-^co/Liey X <r\)fjt,cv Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 
41. e /cSoVerai X e /cScoo erai Gb. 

Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 
44. Kal 6 7reo-a)i/ eVi roi/ \i6ov 

n. Tf. 


arj, \LKfjLrjo~fi ay- 

TOV ver. 44, om. Tf. [Ln.] 
[Gb. -]. 

46. TOVS O%\OVS X TOV O)(\OV Ln. 


- e-rreidrj X rei Tf. Alx. 

- cos X etsLn. Tf. [Gb. e]. Alx. 


i. avrols ev irapaftoKals X * v 

Trapafi. avrols Ln. Tf. 
4. yToipacra X Tjroifj.aKa Ln. Tf. 

5. 6 p-ey X or My Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
-6 del bs de Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

els TTjf X f 73 "* r *l v Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 

7. A/covo-as Se 6 j3a<j-i\evs X o 
Se /3ao-tX. d/c. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 
p], Alx. ; /cat a/c. 6 /3acr. Sch.; 
add. fKcivos Sch. [Gb. ~]. 
9. ai> X eav Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
13. eiTrev 6 /SaatXeuj X o /3ao~t- 

Xeuy eiTrei/ Ln. Tf. 
~ cipare avrbv /cat, om. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ]. ^te. 
- e/c/3dXere, add. UVTOV Ln. Tf. 

^[Gb. *>]. 
1 5 . eXa/Sop, add. Kara roC l^crou, 

s. /car aurou ^4te. 
1 6. \eyovres X Xe yoi/ra? Ln. 
20. avroty, add. 6 l^crovs Ln. 

anrjKOov J aTrrj\dav Ln. Tf. 
23. Oi Xeyoi/Tfff, ow. ot Ln. 

25. ya/jLTja-as X y^as Ln. Tf. 
28. ovi/ di/aorao-et X ai ao T-. out 

Ln. Tf. 
30. eKyap.iovTai X ycLfj.i^ovra.1 

Ln. Tf. ; [^4te. s. Kov- 

rat] [Gb. ~]. 
- TOV Gcou, o?ra. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

oupai/w, pnem. rco Ln. Tf. 
32. Gfos 1 v<pa>v, om. Qeos Ln. 

35. /cat Xeycoi/, ow. Ln. Tf. [^4Zar.] 

37. O Se l^crous 1 clirev X o ^ e 

e$?7 Ln. Tf. [^te.] ; 6 de 
Ir](T. etprj Gb. Sch. 

oXr; Tr) /capSt a X ti Xj? /capS. 

Gb. ^. [Crf.J 

38. TTpoarr} /cat /MfyuXr; X ^ M e y* 

/cat TrutTi Ln. Tf. (sic sine 17 

39. creaurdf X eavrov [Gb. ~]. 

40. /cat 01 TrpotprJTat Kpep.avrai X 

Kpeparai KOL ot 7rpo(p. Ln. 


43. Kvpiov avrov /caXei X 

avrbv Kvp. Ln. Tf. 

auroty, ac?d. 6 irjcrovs Alx. 

44. 6 Kvptoy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

V7ro7r68iov X V7ro/cara> Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 

46. avrut aTTOKpiBrjvai X a7ro/cp. 
aurai Ln. Tf. [^te.] 


j om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

/cat Trotetre X 
(rare /cat rr/petreLn.Tf. [^fte. 
sic s. Trotetre], 

4. yap X e Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^?o?. 

- /cat Suo-/3ao-ra/cra, ow. Tf. 
[Gb.^]. ^ 

ra> 5e X aurot de rco Ln.[^?.] 
$. 7r\aTvvov(n Se X TrXar. yap 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 

TWV ifMTiav O.VT>V) om. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. 

6. re X Se Ln. Tf. lAlx.] 

7. pa/3/3t, pa/3/3t X pa/3/3i Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

8. 6 Kadr)yr)Tr)S X StSaa/caXos 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. *>]. 

6 Xpto roy, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

9. 6 7rarj)p vfjL&v X vfJ-wv 6 ?ra- 

r?)p Ln. 
- cV roTs ovpavois X ovpdi ios 

Ln. Tf. 

10. eis* yap vp,)v eVrii/ 6 KaOrj- 
yrjTrjs X on KadrjyrjrfjS vp,S)V 
els Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

3. Ouai vp-Ti/, ypapfiarets /cat 
$apto~atot, UTTO/cpirat, ort 
/carecr$i ere ray oi/ctas raiv 
, /cat 7rpo(pao~et /xa/cpa 

TJ\IS eo-0e TrepurcroTepov /cpt- 
pa, ow. Ln. Tf. [Gb.=J] ^4te.; 
ver. 13 j?os ver. 14 Elz. ; (con 
tra Sch. Grf.) 
17. n s X TI Ln. 
p,eia>v X ftelfcav Ln. 

- ayta^coy X dytao-ay Ln. Tf. 
1 8. eai/ X civ Ln. Tf. Wte.] 

19. /icopot Kal f om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. -. 


Gb. Sch. Tf. 

23. roi/ eXeov X r " f Xeos Ln. Tf. 

- raOra, ocW. Se Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. 

23. d(j>tfvai X dfalvat Ln. Tf. 

24. ot, DOT. Ln. 

25. e^, om. Ln. 

- d/cpao-tas [^4te.] X dSt/ctas Gb. 

Sch. [Rec. Gb.~]. Cs*. 

26. /cat rj}s 7rapo\^t 5oy, om. T. 

[Gb. ^3. 

avrwv X airou Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

~]. Alx. 

27. 7rapop.oiaereXo/ jtol "<r ere Ln. 

28. /jLecrroi e(TTf X f o"re p-earot 

Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

30. rjfj.evbis X fjp-eda Gb. Sch. Ln. 

- /co/a>i>ot avT&v X aur. KOII/. 

Ln. Tf. 

34. /cat e i, om. /cat Ln. Tf. 

35. eK^yv6fjt,evov X eKxywopevov 

Ln. Tf. 

36. j^e t, _prcem. ort Gb. - & Sch. 

ravra Traj^ra X 7raj/ra rara 

Ln. Tf. 

37. a7ro/creiw)uo-aXa7ro/cret oi5o-a 

Gb. ~. 

ema~i;vdyci opvis X opv. eVt- 

o-vv. Ln. Tf. [Alx. ] 

eavTTJSf om. Ln. Tf. 
Trrepuyay, add. avrrjs [Ln.] 


38. eprjftoS) om. Ln. 


1. ejropevero OTTO rou lepov X 

OTTO roO tep. eVopevero Tf. 
(sic, sed! e /c Ln.) [J7a7.] 

2. irj&ovs X aVo/cpt^ets Ln. Tf. 

- Ov i, Gb. =s ; om. Alx. 
Travra raiira X raura Trdvra 
Ln. Tf. 

p,rj KaTayrjcrerai, om. /J.T] 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
3. fiadTjTal, add. [aurou] Ln. 

TTJS o~vvTe\eias, om. rrjs Ln. 

Tf. [Alx. ] 

6. TravTCL, om. Ln. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

7. /cat Xotpot, o?/i. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
9. TWV eOvwv, om. ra>i> Elz. 

15. eo~ra>s X euros St. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. 

1 6. eVi X fts Ln. 
17. KciTafiaiveTO X /cara,3ara> Ln. 

- rt X T Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
1 8. ra Ifjidria X TO IfMTlov Ln. 

[Gb. ^]. ^4te. 
20. eV o"a^3/3drco, om. eV Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 


23. 7ri(TTvo-r)Tf X TTto-TeveTe Ln. 

3. arrives X at fie Ln. ; at yap 6 TraTTjp p,ov Gb. ~. 

24. 7r\avrjo-ai X nXavdcrdai Lu. 


44. avTco, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


eavTcov X avTcov Gb. Sch. Ln. 

27. KOI, om. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =*]. 



28. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

4. ayyetoty avTcor, om. avrcov 

3. Kat ot ypaju/iaTety, om. Ln. 

30. TO) oupa^co, om. TO> Ln. Tf. 


Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

32. cKtpvT) X K(pvf) Ln. [Gb. <*>]. 

avrwv 2 X eavTcoy Ln. 

4. KpaTr)(T(0o-i fidXco X fidX. KpaT. 

34. ov p.r), pnem. on Ln. [Alx.] 

6. ep^eTat, o;w. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =]. 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf! 

TrdvTa ravra X TavYa Traz/Ta 


7. d\dj3acTTpov /ivpov e^ova aX 


- OVTOV, 0771. Tf. 

e%. d\dj3. pvpov Ln. [^iZ^;.] 

5$. 7rapeXevo~oi>Tai X TrapeXev- 

7. avrutv X eauTcov Ln. Tf. 

/3ttpt>Tl /ZOU X TToXvTt^OV Lll. 

o-eTat Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

8. eiVov X firrav Tf. 


36. TTJS copay, 07/1. TTjy Gb. Sch. 

9. OVK X ov /x?) Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

- TT)I/ KJ)a\r)v X T?}y K<paX^s 

Ln. Tf. 


Ln. [^4Za;.] 

- ovpai/cov, add. ovfie 6 vtoyLn. 

fie /xaXXoi/, om. fie Gb. Sch. 

8. OVTOV, 077i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 


Ln. Tf. 


p.ov, om. Gb. Ln. [Alx.] 

ii. /cat, 0774. Ln. 

9. TO fjLvpov, o/?i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

37. fcai 17 Trapouo ta, om. *at Ln. 

13. eV 7] 6 VIOS TOV dvOp&TTOV 

ToTy, om. St. Elz. Gb. ; habent 


ep^eTat, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 

Mill, Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. *>]. 

38. coo-7rep X &>? kn. Tf - 

1 6. fie [Ln.] 

17. avrcp, 0771. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 

j/p^epaty, arZfZ. eKfivais Ln. 

fTroiijaev X eKep8rjo~ev Ln. 


Taty rrpo, o?. Tf. [Gb. ]. 

[Gb. cv]. 

20. ficoSeKa, a<Z(Z. p.adr]T(ov Ln.,iovTs X ya/ucrKovres 

TaXawa, om. Ln. [Gb. ]. 



17. coo~avTcoy Kal X wcr. [/cat] 

22. e/cao Toy avTu>v X cty eKacrros 

39. *at 77 7rapovo-ta, o?7i. Acat Ln. 


Ln. Tf. [Gb. cv]. .^fo.. 


Kal avTos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

23. ei/ Tc5 Tpu/3Xico TT)I/ X e ^P a X 

40. fivo ecrovrai X eo~ov. fivo Ln. 

-]. Alx. 

njv^eipa eVVco Tpu^3. Ln. 

- 6, om. bis Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. JZtf. 

18. ei/, arftZ. TcxXai/TOV Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

41. /zvXawt X p-fXco Ln. Tf. 

- eV T^ y t ^ X 7^ Tf - 

26. TOf apTOV, om. TOV Ln. [Gb. 

42. copa X yptpa Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

d7TKpv\l/-e X fKpv^ev Ln. Tf. 

-]. -4 fa?. 

44. copa ov fioKetTeXov fiox. copa 


eyXoy^ay Ufa?.] X tvxapi- 

Ln. Tf. 

19. XpOVOV TToXvV X TToXvi/ XP^" 

o-Trjaas Sch. [Gb. *>]. Cat. 

4^. KVplOS aVTOV, 077?-. OVTOV Ln. 

wi/ Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

efit fiov TOty p.adrjTals KOI X 

Tf. Ute.] 

jLteT* avTcov Xdyov X Xdyoi/ 

fiovy TOty ynad9. Ln. [Alx.] 

depaTTfias X oiKfTCiag Ln. Tf. 

/LieT* OUT. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

27. TO 7roT77ptoi/, om. TO Tf. Ute.] 

- Stfidrai X fiovwu Gb. Ln. Tf. 

20. eyr awToty, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Kal ev^., om. /cat Ln. 

[Rec. Gb. ~]. Alx. 

-]. Alx. 

28. TO T^y, 077i. TO Ln. Tf. 

46. Trotovitra ourcoy X ovYcoy TTOI. 

2i."E<p?7 ^^ owl - S* Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Kaivrjs, om. Tf. [Alx.] 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


lK^yv6p,fvov X eK^vvvo/jifvov 

48. 6 KVplOS /J.OV X fJ-OV 6 KVplOS 

22. Xa/3coy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

Ln. Tf. Ufa;.] 

Ln. Tf. Ute.] 


29. OTI, om. Ln. [Alx.] 

e X$eti/, om. Ln. 

In auYotV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

yevvr)p.aTOs X yevi7jaaToy Ln. 

49. crvi/SovAovy, cwZrZ. avYov Sch. 


Tf. Ute.] 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

26. Trovrjpe SovXe X fioOXe TTOV. 

- p.0 y vp-coy Kaivov X Kaivoi/ 

ecrdifiv fie Kal irivfiv\ ecrdir) 


p.ed* vfj.oi)V Alx. 

fie Kat TTtV/7 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

27. ovv o~f X o~e ovv Tf. 

31. 8iao~Kop7rio-6r]o-Tai X fi ta " 

29. OTTO fie TOV p.T) X TOV fie p.T) 

(TKopTTio-Orjcroi Tai Ln. Tf. 


Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. 


i. avTiov X favTwv Ln. Tf. 

30. e/c/3aXXeTe X e/c/3(iXeTe Gb. 

33. Kal Trairey, 0771. Kal Gb. Sch. 

aTruvTrjmv X VTrdvr. Ln. Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

2. ^cra*/ e^ OUTCOZ X * avrwv 

31. aytot, O77i. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx] 

eyco, a<Z<Z. fie Gb. <*>. 

rjvav Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

32. (rvvax8r)o~eTai X o~vvax&rj m 

35. d7rapvr)o~op,ai X 7rapi>7;o~co- 

(ppdvi/iot X p-opoii Ln. Tf. 

crovTai Ln. Tf. UZ^;.] Cat. 


36. r) Xc9eTe X fj^daTe Ln.Tf. UZa;.] 

OpWcoy, arffZ. fie Sch. Gb. <*>. 

at TTfVTf, om. at Elz. Gb. Ln. 

39. ao-^ci/r} X daOevovvTa Ln. 

36. Yfdo~r)iJLavf) X Tfdarjp.avfl 

Tf. ; fta&en* Sch. [Gb. .] 

(txt.) Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

jucopat X <ppovi[Ml Ln. Tf 

40. Tcof d$f\d)u)V uov [Ln.] 

p.a6r)ral<?, add. OVTOV Ln, 


41. TO f)TOi/ X o T^TOI- 



36. ou X ^ "^j Ln - ; al/ Tf. ; om. 

u|. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

38. auroly, add. 6 *Ir]o~ovs Sch. 

[Gb. *]. 

39. irpoe\6(0v X irpoo-e\6<i>v Sch. 

pou, om. Tf. 

42. ro iroTrjpiov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

- air epou, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

43. evpicrKfi aurouy ird\iv X Tra- 

\LV evpev aurouy Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. *]. Alx. 

44. cnreX&Joi/ TraXti/ X TraXiv a?r- 

eX0. Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
- e< rpi rou, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 


45. aurou, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

TO XOITTOI/, om. TO Tf. [-<4Z^.] 
50. e<p w X *< o Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 
52. crou TJ]V pa^aipap 

Xaipav aov Ln. Tf. [Alx. 

pa^atpa X f ta X at /- ) ?7 -^ n> 

X A 

Gb. *>. [Cst] 

53. TrXeiouy X 7rXeia> Ln. Tf. 
- j} fiwSe/ca, cm. 77 Tf. [Ln.] 

Trpoy upay, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

iep<5 X c ^ T &> * f P- fKa&. di- 
do-K. Tf. ; Ka6. fv TU> If p. 
do~K. Ln. ; 

56. pa^^rat, adj. [aurou] Ln. 

59. Ot fie ap^tepeiy X o fie ap^- 

tepeuy Ln. mg. 

- KOI 01 7rpfo-/3urepot, om. Ln. 
Tf. [Gb.=i]. ^te. 

avrbv 6avciT<ao a>o~i X ^ ai/ - 

avrbv Sch. 

davaruxrcoo LV X QavaTtcxrov- 

(TLV Ln. Tf. 

60. /cat TroXXaJi , om. Kat Gb. Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

TWV X 7rpoo~eX$. 

Ln. Tf. ylte. [Gb. -* TroXX. 


60. ou^ eupoi , om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] 

-vl/eufiopaprupey, om. Tf. [Jte.] 

61. aurdi/, om. Tf. ; ate otKofi. 

Ln. nig. 

63. aTTOKpt^eiy, o??i. ^4Za?. 
6i."Ort, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx] 

- aurou, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 


67. eppaTTioraz/ X pdm<Tav Ln. 
Tf. Ute.] 


70. ep.TrpoadfV, add. avTa>v [Gb. 

-]. Sch. 

71. eeX$di ra fie avTov X e^eX- 

Bovra fie, s. e^eX^dj^roy fie 
aurou ^4 to. 

auroi>, i [Ln.] 

roiy fKelJ^avTols ex. Sch. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. 

72. pe^ X P"" Ln. Tf. 

74. Karai>a$epan eti X Kara^e- 

par/^eti/ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

75. ro{5 l^aou, o??i. rou Ln. Tf. 

[Gb.=J]. Alx. 

aurw, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 


2. 7rape fia)/cai/ auroi/, om. avrbv 

Ln. Tf. Uto.] 

- LToz^ria), om. Tf. [Jte.] 

3. Trapafifiouy X Trapafiouy Ln. 

aTreVrpex^e X e o~rpe\^ei> Tf. 

roty 7rpeo-/3ure poty, o?. roiy 

Ln. Tf. Uto.] 

- o^ei X o\^j/ Sch. Ln. Tf. 

6. (faov X elirav Ln. Tf. 

- Kopfiavdv X Kopfldv Ln. mg. 
ii. eVr?; X eo~Tadr] Ln. Tf. 

1 6. Bapa/3/3aV, prcem. ir/croui/ Tf. 

17. Bapa/3/Sa^, prtem. l^o-oui/ Tf. 
22. aura), om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. 

23. j^yepcbj , om. Tf. 

24. dnevavTi X KarevavTi Ln. 

rou fit/caiou, o?re. Tf. [Gb. ->]. 

[Ln.] ^?os rourou. 
28. eKuo-arrey X eVfiuo-amryLn. 



^77 v TTfpieOrjK. aura) Ln. Tf. 


29. eVi TJ7i/ fie^tai X * " T77 fiesta 
Ln. Tf. Uto.] [Gb.~]. 

ev7raiov X cviraiav Alx. 

6 /3ao~tXeuy X /3ao~tXeu Ln. 

33. 6y X o Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

Xeydpei/oy Kpaviov TOTTOS X 

Kpai/. roTT. Xey. Ln. Tf [^4to.] 
[Gb. - Xeydpevoy]. s. om. 
Xeydpei/oy ^4to. 

34. o^oy X olvov Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

^4to. [Rcc. Ln. mg.] 

X rjdtXrjo-fv Ln. Tf. 

3$. ftdXXovres X /3aXdvrey Ln. 


- ii/a TrXrjpcodrj TO prjdcv UTTO 
rou 7rpo(pr)Tov, Aiepepiaai - 
ro ra tparia pou eauroTy, 
Kol eyrt r6t ipariapoV pou 
e/3aXoy K\rjpoV) om. Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

40. ei^ rou Geou X fou el Ln. 
Karci/3r7^i, praam. KCU Ln. 

41. fie /cat [Ln.] 

f pa)^, atZcZ. Kai 3>api- 



ei /3ao-tXeuy, o?. ei Tf. Gb. -. 

Trto-reuo-opei/ X Trio-reuopej/ 

aur<p X ^TT avrbv Tf. ; CTT* 

ai;T<5 Sch. [Gb. cv]. 
TOV Qf6v\rw 0fa) Ln. txt. 
atir&i X "^ airw Ln. Tf. 

aura) X UVTOV Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. * 
aW,3d?70-ez/ X ffiorjo-cv Ln. 

Aapa X X^pa Ln. ; Xfpa Tf. 

vaftaxQavl X crajBaKdai i 


eo~rcorcoi> X fO~TrjKOTO>v Tf. 
e Xeyoi/ X ewrav Ln. 
acZ ^/m. a^rf. aXXoy 5e Xa/3a>i/ 
KCU e^ijXdev v8a>p 

KOL atpa Alx. 
els 8vo OTTO (ivcodfv fcas Kara) 

X ety Suo, post Kara) Tf. 
rjyepdr) X r)yepdr^o~av Ln. Tf. 


yei/o pei/a X yiwpera Ln. Tf. 
06ou vtoy X ^^os Geou Ln. 

fjj,adrjTVare X p.a0rjTev6r] 


VVKTOS, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
Se, o/. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 



2. 0*770 TTJS Ovpas, om. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. Alx. S. 0770 TT)S 6v- 

pas TOV fJLirjfjieiov. 

3. Idea X "Sea Tf. 

- cboVi X &>$ Ln. Tf. Alx. 

4. eycvovro X fyfVTjdrjo-av Ln. 



4. a>o-6i X ws Ln. Tf. 
6. 6 Kupioy, om. Tf. ^ 

8. ef\6ovo~ai X 


9. ws 5e eiropfvovTO oVayyel- 

Xai roly jj.a6rjTais aurou, 
ow. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. ^4te. 

Tf. 20. 

14. eVi X wo Ln. 

15. o-r]fj.epov, add. rjfJLfpas Ln. Tf. 
17. avr<5, o/?i. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

iS. yfjs, pram, r^y Ln. Tf. 
19. ow/, oi. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.j 
/3a77Ti^bi/Tey X ftairricravTes 

/, oi. Gb. Ln. Tf. 



. TOU, om. Ln. Tf. 

. u>s X Kadvs Tf. ^4Z#. 

eV roiy 7rpo<pr)Tais X f " H<r- 

am ra> irpofprjTr] Gb. Sch. 
[Ln. (txt.) Tf. r<5 H.J [Kec. 
Gb. ~. Ln. mg.] 

eyci>, om. Ln. Tf. 

e/z77pocr$eV croVj om. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
. /3a77Tifa>i>, prcem. 6 Tf. 

/cot, ora. Tf. 
. ef7ropevero X et-erropevovTO 

Gb. c. c&rf. 

xat e/3a7rri^oi/TO Trdvres X 

Troi^res" Kal fjBaTTTi^ovTo Gb. 

Lii. Tf. v4?^. 
eV TO) lopddvrj 7rora/i<u v?r 

airoO X V77* avr. eV rai lop. 

TTOT. Tf. Ln. mg. Jte. 
r)v 5e X at ^i/ Ln. (txt.) Tf. 


looai/., prcem. 6 Tf. Jte. 
eV^t coi/ X 6(T0a>z/ Tf. 
/xei/, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] ^4 to. 
eV uSart, om. eV Tf. 
eV n.i>ev/j.aTi) om. eV Tf. [Ln.] 
Kai eyevero, [Kai] Ln. 
Na^aper X Naape$ Tf. 
VTTO Icoai/i/ov 6t? TOV lopSa- 

^v X 6ty TOV lopS. 77. 

Icoai/. Ln. (txt.) Tf. Alx. 
evdfus X fvdvs Tf. 
ayro X 6K Lu. Tf. [Gb. RJ]. 

a>oVi X ws Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

TT avTov X f is O.VTOV Ln. 

(txt.) Tf. 
eV w X fV o-ot Ln. (txt.) Tf. 

[Gb. cv]. Alx. 
fvdvs X ev&ews Ln. 
e /f6t, o??z. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 
i ]fj.e pas reo-0-apaxoj/ra X TT. 

Ln. mg. Alx. ; arfd. *ca 
reo~o". iniKTas Alx. 

14. Mera Se X Kai ftera Ln. Tf. 

rov, cm. ^4te. 

- TTJS /Sao-tXeias-, .oi. Tf. [Ln.; 

[Gb. =*]. ^?CP. 

15. Kai Xeycoi/, a?. /cat Tf. [Gb.=t] 


16. LTepi77ara)i> Se X ^ a 77apa- 
ya>i> Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 

avTOv\TOv Sip.covos Ln. [Gb 

K>]. ^4te. ; aurov TOV 
Sch. 0^.; Stfjiwvos Tf. 

/3(iXXoi/ray X d 

ras- Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec 
Gb. ~]. 

- ap,0 1/3X7; crrpov, om. Tf. 

18. avTMV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J] 


, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =J. 

rffZ. avTutv Alx. 

20. ev0ea>s X et^s Tf. ^4te. 

21. 6io-eX$a>i>, o??^. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

(Is TrjV crvvaycoyrjv, e St Sa- 

O~K X fts 7" ) I/ o~vz/ay. e5t - 
8ao~Kev Tf. ; o??i. r^y Elz. 

22. ypap.p.arery, oAZ. [auraii ] Ln. 

23. Kai, acZ(/. evdvs Tf. ^te. 
2 4 . J/ Ea, OT. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

oldd X o lda/jifv Tf. 

26. Kpd^av X <p<j)vrjo-av Tf. 

- e X "77* Ln. [Gb. <*>]. ^te. 

27. Trai/re? X airavrfS Tf. 

- avTovs X eavTovs Ln. Tf. 

Xeyofras-, Ti eort rouro ; 

Tt y r) 5i8a^j) 17 Katvrj avTr), 
OTI X Xe yoKres" ri? ^ 5t- 
Sa^r) 17 Kaivr] ; Gb. ~. 

Tts r; 5iSa^?7 17 Kaivr) O.VTTJ, 

OTI X SiSa^r) Kaii/^ Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

28. fllQilS, TTCtVTClXOV, S. V0VS 

TravTa^ov Alx. 

29. evdfws X tvdvs Ln. Tf. ^4?a:. 
- e^XtfoVrey, ^X^ov X f ^eX- 

&bi/ ^X^6J/ Lu. [Gb. ev]. 

30. (vOcoos X eu^wy Ln. Tf. Jte. 

31. airr^f, o/. Ln. Tf. 

evdews, om. Alx. 

32. e 5u X f8vo~ev Ln. Tf. 

33. n 77o Xis oXn eTria-vvnyiicvrj 

Y * "\ \ 

J^V X ^^ O * ? ^ 770Aiy 677tO". 

Ln. Tf. 

34. avrov, flcZcZ. Xpio~Tov dvai 


35. evvv^ov X fvwxa Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. Jte. 

/coKei X fa! eKei Ln. 

36. 6 2tp,a)i/, o?. 6 Tf. 

37. evpovTes auroi/X ei poi aCroi/ 

Kai Tf. 

r)Tov(ri o~e X "^ {flrovtri 

Sch. Ln. 

u Tf. 

KaKe I X Kai eKei Gb. Sch. 

v Tf. 

39. ev ras o~waycoyaiy \d$ TIIS 

crvvaycoyas Gb. Ln. Tf. ^fto. 

40. Kai yow77era)Z> avToi>, om. Ln. 


Kai Xeycoz;, oi. Kai Tf. 

"Ort X Kupte Ln. mg. ^4te. ; s. 

om. OTI Alx. 

41. O de lr;o~oi}sXKai Ln. (txt.) 


rj^aro CIVTOV X aurou TJ^UTO 

Ln. Tf. 

42. CITTOVTOS CLVTOV, om. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. ^Ite. 

- evdeais X fO^uff Tf. 

:3. evdetos X ev^uy Ln. Tf. 
14. p,r/8ev^ om. Ln. ^/a?. 

- dXX X uXXa Ln. Tf. 

44- MaHTrjs X Mower?/? Ln. Tf. 
45. aXX* X aXXd Ln. Tf. 

- ev X 7r Tf. 

- ^ [Ln.] 

- TravTCfxoQev X iravroQev Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 


1. rra\iv flo-rj\0V X elo~r] 

TrdXiy Sch. Ln. ; 
TrdXti/ Tf. 

Kal rjKovcrOri, om. Kal Tf. [Ln.] 

- els OIKOV X fv (>"<(}> Ln. 

2. evdecDS [Ln.] o?. ^4te. 

3. TrapaXvTiKovfpepovTesJicpep. 

TrapaX. Ln. 

4. e(p X OTTOU Ln. (txt.) Tf. 


obj/ 8e X Kal iSobv Tf. Alx. 
a(pea>z>rai X d(pievrat Ln. 

o~oi at o~ov X 0"ov 

af dpap. Gb. Tf. ,4te. [Rec. 

Gb. ~]. [o-ou] Ln. 
XaXet jBXacrCJir] pias X XaXet; 

/3Xacr<p? Ln. Tf. 
evQeats X ei$us Ln. Tf. 
ourcos 1 , ow. Ln.; add.avTol Gb. 

Sch. Tf. [Gb. -]. 
e?7rej> X X.ey Tf - [Gb - ~^- 
Acpecovrai X d<pievTai Ln. 


o-oi X o-ou Gb. Sch. Tf. 
v Eyetpai X eyeip Gb. Sch. 

Ln. ; eyetpou Tf. 
/cat, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 
crou rov KpdfilBaTOV X T OV 

Kpdft. (rov Ln. Tf. Alx. 
a^ierai eTTt r?}? y^y X ^1 

TIJS yf/s ddtievai Gb. Sch. Ln. 
eyeipai X eyeipe Gb. Sch. Ln. 


Kal i, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] 
eu^eco? /cat X Kai fvdvs Tf. 
Xeyoi/ras [Ln.] 

OVTCOS X O^ 7 "- ^~ 

. Tf. 

el Sa/xei/ Ln. 
eyevero X yivercu Tf. 

o??^. yite. 

X r)Ko\ovdovv 

Kai ot ^apLcraloi, X T>I/ ^*- 
picraicav Ln. mg. ^4te. ; cW. 
[*cat] Ln. Jte. 

aurov ecrOiovTa X ori eadiei 
Ln. Jte. 



reXeoi/coi/ Kat aftapT(o\S)V X 

a/zap. Kai reX. Ln. Tf. 
T/, ow. Tf. 
Tf\o)V(ov Kal d/xaprcoXaiy 2 

X d/j-ap. Kal ratv reX. Ln. 

(txt.) Tf. 
Kal TT LVCL ; [Ln.] 
OVK rj\6ov X ov yap r}\6. Ln. 

els uerdvoiav, om. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
01 rS)V QapiaaiGdV X of $a- 

pi(raloi Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. [Rec. 

Gb. ~]. 
Kal of, add. fiaQrjTal Tf. 


rov vvp,<piov, oil dv- 
vavrai vrjarreveiv, Gb. ->. 
^if^ lavTutv %ovcri TOV wjj.- 
(piov X f x- roi/ wpjfy. p.eff 
eavr. Ln. ; szc, secZ ^ter a^- 
TWV Tf. 

tKfivais rals f)p.epais X exei- 
vr) TTJ fjpepa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
*cai ovSels 1 , om. Kal Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 
paKovs X paKKovs Ln. 

X fTrtpdirTCi Tf. 
icp TraXatw / f/zarioz/ ?ra- 
Xai oi/ Ln. Tf. ^te. 
airoG X " aurou Ln. Tf. 
ro ?rX.] 

;ei Ln. (txt.) ^4te. 
6 ve oy, o?/j. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =0. 

i o ao"Ko aTro- 
\ovvrai X aTrdXXurai Kal of 
ao-Kol Tf. 

dXXa OLVOV veov els dcrKovs 

KaLvovs [SXrjreov, om. Tf. 

23. TrapaTropeveadai avrbv eV 

rot? o-a/S^ao-i X a vr. eV r. 
o~d/3. SiOTrop. Ln. 

fjpavTO of p,a6rjra\ avrov X 

of /na^. aur. ?} /). Ln. Tf. ^te. 
- odbv TJOLC LV X odojroLelv Ln. 

24. Trotouo iz , AZ. of p,adr]Tai 

- eV, o^?^. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =i]. 
2$. atrros [Ln.] Gb. ->. 

eXeyey X Xe yet Ln. 

26. rot) apx-j OTO - r0 ^ L 

[Gb. =s]. ^te. 

27. ou^, prcem. Kal Tf. 


i. -nyy i, om. Tf. 

17; , om. Ln. Tf. 


2. Traperrjpovv X 

- KaTT)yopf](TQ)(Tiv X Karrjyoprj- 


pa X T?)I/ x e 

Ln. Tf. 
-"Eyeipat X eyeipe Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

5. O-QV, om. Tf. 

- a7roKaTeo-ra$?7 X arreKar. Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. Rec. ~]. 

- vyirjs a>s 17 aXXr;, om. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

6. evOe&s X evdvs Tf. 

- enolovv X fdidovv Tf. Alx. 

7. aVe^cop^o-e p-fra rail jj,a6rj~ 

rail/ ayroC X p-erd rail/ p,a^. 
avr. dv\. Gb. Ln. (txt.) Tf. 

Trpos X f t? Gb. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 
Rec. ~]. 

Ln. Tf. (Gb. e). [Gb. -]. 
- ai-r, om. Tf. [Ln.] (Gb. =s). 
8. of ?repl, [of] Ln. 

UKOvo-aj/res X a/covovre? Ln. 


otra X Ln. mg. 

errotei X Trotei Tf. 

ii. e^ecopft X e$ea>poui/ Ln. Tf. 

X Trpoo-eT 

Ln. Tf. ,4 to. 

- eKpafe X fKpafov Ln.Tf. Jfe. 
12. avrov (pavepbv X ^ctJ 7 avr. 

Gb. Sch. Grf. 

. [on fldeicrav TOV Xpi- 

etVat] Ln. 
14. Scode/ca, add. ovs Kal aVo- 

OTO XOUS o} Alx. 
i$. Ofpanevetv TCIS vocrovs, Kal, 
om, Tf. 

16. Kal, prcem. TTpcoroi/ 2t pcoi/a 

Gb. <*. 

rw Stpcovt ovoua X ovop.a rco 
2l/i. Tf. Ln. mg. ^4te. 

17. Boai/epyes X Boawypyes Ln. 


18. KavavLTTjv X Kai/avatoj/ Ln. 

Tf. ^Zar. 

19. icTKapiodTrjv X lo~Kapia>6 Ln. 

Tf. .to. 

20. o^Xoy, prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 
- p^re X p,?;Se Ln. Tf. 

25. SuVarai X Svwjo-erat Tf. Lu. 


(TTadrjvai rj oiKia CKeivr] X >7 

otx. Kivr) crraO. Ln. (txt.) 


o-radfjvai X arrant Tf. x4te. 
arradrjvcu X o-rrpai Tf. 
ou 8vvarai ovdcls X ouSeis 

Suj/arai Gb. Sch. Ln. ; dXX 

ou dvvciT. ov8. Tf. 
o\apyrao-ei X ftiapirdfrr) Cst. 
ra ci/zapr^ara roiff vtoty 

rail/ dvdpunrav X ToTff violy 

r. dv6p. ra ajj.apr. Gb. Ln. 

Tf. ^te. 
/3Xao~(pr7ftiat oo~a? X at /3Xa- 

(T(f)r) fj.ia.1, ocra Ln. Tf. ; prcem. 

ai Gb. -. Sch. 
ay X fay Tf. 
eiff rov altova Gb. -. 
aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 

X (i fiTrj.aTOS Ln 


Tf. [Gb.<^]. ^/te. (s. dfj-aprias) 
"Epxovrai ovv X *at ep^oy- 

rai Ln. Tf. .4 to. 
ot aSeX(pol KCU 77 p.rjrrjp av- 

rou X >? M 7 ] 1 "- awr. /cat ot 

u5eX. avr. Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. 

Tf. serf aSeX(p. avr.] 
eo-rcores 1 X O-TT)K.OTS Tf. 
(pcovovvTfs X KaXouyreff Ln. 

Tf. ^te. [Gb. - <?W. air.] 
o^Xoff Trepl avrov X Trepi 

our. o^X. Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
eiTTOV Se X Kn ^ ^y ova iv Ln. 

Tf. ^4te. 
d5eX(pot crou, nJ<Z. Kat at 

d8e\(pai. o-ov Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. *]. 

avrols, Xeycov X 
ty avr. Xf yet Tf. 

(Ln. mg.) 
r/ X Kai Ln. (txt.) 

IOU, o?. /zov Tf. 

iff X TOVS KVK\(t) 

Gb. ~. 
KVK\c0 TOVS Trept avTov X 

rovs vrept auroy KVK\a> Ln. 
Trept auroy, Gb. -. 
t Se X tSou Ln. Alx. 
yap, om. Ln. Tf. 
ro 6e\r)p.a X ra 6 

d?)e\(f)T] p,ov, om./jiov Ln. ylte. 


X crwayerai Ln. 


X TrXeio-rof Tf. 
a els TO TrXotoj/ X $ 



ro TrXoToi/ f/j-13. Ln. Alx.; om 
TO Tf. [Alx.} 
i. J7i> X J70-az/ Tf. 

3. rot), owi. Ln. Tf. 

4. roi) ovpavov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln 


5. aXXo Se X fat aXXo Ln. (txt.) 


TrerpaiSeff, fw7^. Kat [Ln.] Tf. 
- evOftos \ fvOvs Ln. Tf. 

y7?, prcem. TTJS Ln. 

6. 77X101; &e aVaret Xaz ros X K a 

ore aWretXey 6 fj\Los Ln. 
txt. Tf. Alx. 

aav Ln. mg. 

7. ray, cm. Gb. 

8. aXXo X XXa Tf. 

av^avovra \ av 

Tf. [Gb. 0. Alx. 

- li>, ter els Tf. [/er eV Gb. ~]. 

9. aurotff, om. Gb. Sell. Ln. Tf. 

- C O exotv X off e xet Ln. Tf. 
10. "Ore 5e X Ka * ore Ln. Tf. 


r]pa>Trjcrav X rjp&T&v Ln. Tf. ; 

s<c, s. e7rr)p<0Tr}<rav Alx. 

Trjv 7rapa.fio\T]v X TCIS Trapa- 

fio\ds Tf. ^te. 

ii.yvtovat, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =3]. 

ro p.vo~Trjpioi>, ante Scdorai 

12. ra dfj-apTT) |iara, oro. Tf. [Ln.] 

Gb. =s. Jte. 
15. cudfoos X eitfiff Tf. Jte. 

eV rats Kap&iais (IVT&V X eV 

airotff Ln. mg. Tf. [Gb. *>]. 
1 6. fvdfois X e^^ff Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

17. fv9ea>s X c^^t 1 ? Tf. ^te. 

18. ovTOi 1 X "XXoi Gb. Ln. Tf. 

^&r. [Gb. :-{ oSroi ela-iv Cst.] 

OVTOL el(riv, om. Elz. Gb. =J. 

aKovovres X atoucravres Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 

19. rovrov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

20. OVTOi X Kfll>OL Tf. j4Z.T. 

- ev X eV Tf. fcr [Gb. ~]. 

21. aurot?, add. ort Tf. 

- 6 \i>x vos cpxerai X epx- o 

\VXV. Ln. Tf. 

- fTTLredfj X Tf^?7 Ln. Tf. ^7o?. 

22. rt, ora. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. -. Alx. 

6, om. Ln. Tf. ^4te. [Gb. ~, s. et 

/LIT) i i/a], 

(p(iv(p(jL>ufji prcKin. \va Ln. 

eiff (pavepbv f\drj X e X^. els 

cpavcpov Tf. 

24. Kat Trpoo-Tfdi jo-fTai v/xiv, om. 


rot? dKovovcriv, om. Gb. Ln. 

25. ai/ exf] X X et Ln - Tf 

26. e ai/, o/. Tf. ^4Za?. 

27. Kadevdrj KOI yiprjTai\Ka&- 

euSet Kai e yet perat Csf. 

- (3XaoTavr] X /SXacrra Ln. Tf. 

28. yap, oi. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -^]. 

- 7T\r]prj criroj/ X TrXrjprjs (Tiros 

Ln. Tf. ^/j?. 

29. TrapaSa) X TrapaSoI Ln. Tf 

- tvQeats X e^uy Tf. y/te. 

30. TtVt X TT^S Tf. Ln. mg. [Gb. 


Xa>p-ei> avTrjv X ev TIVI ai Trjv 
Trapa/SoX?/ $coju.ei> Ln. txt. Tf. 

31. KOKKCO X KOKKOV Gb. Sch. Ln. 

/niKporepoff X piKporepov Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~] ; add. 6> Ln. Tf. 

e crri, oi. Ln. Tf. 

raw eVt r^ff yTjff [Ln.] 

32. jLtt^a/, OHfe TTCLVTWV Ln. Tf. 

^4te. [jLtet^oy Ln. mg. Gb. ^]. 

33. TToXXatff, Gb. ->. 

- rjbvvavro \ COVVCIVTO Ln. Tf. 

34. fj,a&r]TCUS O.VTOV \ Idiots p.(i6. 


36. Se, om. Ln. 

TrXoidpta X TrXoIa Gb. Ln. Tf. 

37. uWp.ou p,eyaX?7 X p.yd\rj avt- 

p.ov Ln. Tf. 

- ra Se X fat ra Ln. Tf. Alx. 

yep.. TO TrXolov Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

38. eVi i X c" G b. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

[Rec. Gb. ~]. 

Steyetpof o"tv X eyfipovcrtv Tf. 
40. ovro) ; Trcoff OUK e ^ere X ov- 

TTco e xfTe Ln. [Gb. ~] ^-Ite. ; 
ourco? OVTTO) Gb. ~. 
. vnaKovovcnv aura) X airaj 
Tf. Wte.] 


1. rjXOov X rj\Bei> Gb. ~. 

T adapT]i>a>i> X Tepaarjvwv Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. >]. 

2. e^\66vTi aurw X e(\66vTOS 

avrov Ln. ^4te. 

(vdea>s, om. Ln. ; evdvs Tf. 

X virfivrrjo cv Ln. 

3. fivrjfieLois X p-vr)p.a(riv Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- OVTC X oijfie Ln. Tf. 

- dXvo-ecrti/ X dXucrei Ln. txt. 

Tf. Alx. 

ovSds rjdvvciro X OVKCTI ou- 

Seiy efiui/. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

4. avrov i&xye X to^uey avrbv 

Ln. Tf. 

5. eV roty opecrt Kai ev rots 

p.vrjpacriv X fv roty pvrjpa- 
criv Kai v TOLS opecrt Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

6. Ifiobz/ fie X Kai i Swv Tf. ^te. 

OTTO, Gb. ->. 

y. eure X Xe yei Ln Tf> tGb ^ ]> 

8. e < X drro Ln. mg. 

9. e rn/pcora X 7rr)pd>Tr)(rv Ln. 


croi ovopa X ovopa (rot Ln. 

Tf. ^4te. 

drreKpidr), \eya>v X Xeyet au- 

r<5 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 
llec. ~]. 

Aeyeobf X Aeyta>z> Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

p-ot, add. (TTLV Ln. 

10. Trape/cdXet X TTapeKaXow Ln. 

CIVTOVS a.TTO<jTfi\r] X ewroor. 

atr. Ln. mg. 

IT. eWiTrpoy ra op?; aye Xr? ^o* - 
pcoi/ p,eyd\r) (BocrKopevrj- 
12 Kai napfKaXfcrav X f * 6 

KOfJ.VU>V TTpOS T(U Opff Kat 

7raperaXoui> Ln. mg. ; [/xe- 
yaX?; Gb. -]. 

- ra op?; X TW opei Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. - npos T. op.] 

12. Trai/res-, om. Gb. Sch. [Ln.] Tf. 


- ol 8a[fj.oves, om.Tf. [Gb.^].^/ar. 

13. (vdeas 6 lr)(rovs [Ln.] ; om. 

Alx. ; 6 Ir;. Gb. =t. 

- rjcrav 5e, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =?. 


14. Ot 5e X K <" ot Ln. Tf. Alx. 
rouy %oipovs X awrouy Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 
- erj\dov X ^X^ov Ln.Tf. [Gb. 

*>]. Alx. 
15. Kai leaner p,evov, om. Kai Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. ^4te. 
roi/ eV^r/Kora roz/ Xeyea>i/a 

Gb. =J ; Aeyia>2/a Ln. Tf. 


18. fp,j3dvro$ X fpfiaivovTOS Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^ite. 
rj per* avTOV X / ier avr. ^ 
Ln. Tf. .4^. 

19. 6 Se IT/CTOV? X fai Gb. Sch. 

(Ln.) Tf. ; Ln. 

txt. Tf. 

aoi 6 KupiosXo Kvp. (TOtTf. 

eirotr)<r X ireiroirjitev Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

22. tSotF, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =5. -4te. 

OVO/JUITI idfipos Gb. -*. 

23. TrapeKciXei X irapctKaXel Tf. 


- aur^ ra? ^etpay X Tcis ^et- 

pay aur^ Ln. Tf. 

OTTO)? craidf] /cai (^o-erai X 

iva (ra>dfj KOL 77077 Ln. Tf. 
./4fce. ; [KOI ^crerat Ln. mg.] 

OTTO)? X ti/a Gb. %. 

25. rts-, OTO. Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^Zar. 

26. eaur^s X avrrjs Gb. Sch. Ln. 


28. KO.V TU>V lp,aTi(i)v avrov a^oo- 

p.a.1 X f "i* aS// i c0p,ai Kav ra>y 
t/zar. airou Tf. 

29. evdeuts X fv^uy Tf. Alx. 

30. evde&s X fvdi/s Tf. 

33. eV, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] ^7. 

34. 6 5e, (W. l^o oCis Ln. ^4te. 

- wyarep X Ovydrrjp Ln. Tf. 

36. evdeois, om.Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-]. 


aKovo-as X TrapctKovcras Tf. 

37. aurw X per avrov Tf. ^4te. 

(TwaKoXovdrja-ai X axoXov^. 


- ne rpoi/, ^?r<Bm. rov Tf. 

laKa>/3ov X aurou Gb. ~. 

38. ep^erat X fpX OVTai L n - Tf. 


- Qopvftov, add. KCU Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

40. 6 fie X avros 8e Ln. /fte. 

aTTCLvras X Trai ras Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

- aVaKei p-ei/oi/, o?. Gb. [Ln.] Tf. 


41. KOVp.1 X KOU/i Tf. 

eyetpai X fyeipf Gb. Sch. Ln. 


42. evdeoas X V@vs Tf. 

e<TTr)crav, add. ev0vs Tf. 

43. yya) \yvol Ln. Tf. yito. 


eV r?7 o-yvaycoy^ SiSacr/ceii/ X 

dtS. ev TTJ away. Tf. 
TroXXoi, proem, ol Tf. [Gb. *]. 
avrw X TOVTCO Tf. 
ort, o?n. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
dvvdfjtfis Toiavrat X at Suv. 

at rotavr. Tf. 
Maptay, pram. TTJS Tf. Alx. 
ac>eX(poy Se X ti aSeX(pos- 
^Ln. Tf. [Gb. cvj. ^te. 
looo-?} X IQMTTJTOS Ln. Tf. 

eXeye fie X K t eXeyej/ Ln. 

txt. Tf. ^te. 
. o uyyei/e cri, otZcZ. avrou [Ln.] 

Tf. ,4te. 

rjftvvaTO X efiui/. Tf. 
ovdepiav dvvap.iv TTOLrjcrai X 

Trot. oifi. 8vv. Ln. Tf. 
TTJ7paz/, /AT) aproi/ X aproi/ p;; 

Trrjpav Tf. 
aXX X czXXa Ln. Tf. 

Ln. mg. 

10. Kai eXeyev X Ka Xe yet Ln. 

- fdv X av Ln. Tf. 

11. ocrot av pr) fie ^coi/ra X s " 

roTroy /XT) Se ^rat Tf. ^^-. 
0^,77^ Xeyco v/zti/, aj/*CTore- 
poj/ eVrai 2ofiop,oty 77 Fo- 
poppots ev fjpepq KpiVecos , 
77 rr} TrdXei fK.fivfl) om. Gb. 
[Ln.] Tf. ^te. 

12. Ki ]pva-<Tov X fKrjpvgav Tf. 




14. e Xeyey X eXeyoz/ Ln. txt. 
[Gb. ~]. 

e /c VKpa)V rjyepdr) X fyn~/ f p~ 

rat e /c veKpwv Ln. ^4te. 

rjyepdrj X dvearrj Tf. ^4te. 
i$."AXXoi, aAi. fie Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. <*]. 

- eo-riv, o?n. Tf. [Ln.] 

- 77, om. Gb. Sch. Ln Tf. 
1 6. etVei/ X f Xeyev Tf. ^4te. 

-"Ort, ow. Ln. Tf. Gb. -. Alx. 

Iwdvvrjv, Gb. =J. 

OVTOS X avTos Gb. ~. 

- e crrti/ avros, om. Gb. Sell. 

[Ln.] Tf. 

e /c ve<pa)v, om. Tf. ^te. 

17. r^ (puXaxT^, OTO. T>7 Gb. Sell. 

Ln. Tf. 

19. fjdeXev X f ^ 7 " 61 -k n 
si. ore X o Te Ln - 


21. eiroifi\litoir}a tv Ln. Tf. Alx. 

36. aprou?, ow. Tf. Alx. [Gb. *>]. 

TOVfTt X ^ TTfptTT. Ot /Lia(9. 



o-ou Tf. 

Kal dpeadcrTjs X fjpecrfv Ln. 

- yap, om. Tf. Alx. [Ln.] [Gb. 

5. dviirrois X KoivaTs 1 Gb. Ln. 

txt. Tf. Alx. 


txt. Tf. ^fcr. [Rec. Gb. cv]. 

*y r o \ * V ^ 5* x 
fiTTfV O paO~l\fVS A etTTfV 06 

- OVK f xova-iv, om. Tf. Alx. 

6. dTTOKptOfls, om. Tf. ^4Za:. 

6 /3acr. Ln. ; 6 Se /3a<r. i- 

[Ln.] [Gb. ~]. 

- "On, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 

77fl> Tf. ^4?vC. 

37. 8iaKO(TL(i)V br]vapi(>v X fyv. 

TrpofCpT^rfvcrei/ X eVpocpiyr. 

23. fie Gb. -. 

8iaK. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. Alx. 

24. H Se X fai Tf. 

S&aev X ScocroyLtei/ Ln. Tf. ^te. 

OVTOS 6 \aos X o Xaoj ovr. 

amjcro/zat X atr^o~a)jLiat Ln. 

s. . 


Tf. ylte. 

38. vTrayerf /cat, om. /cat Tf. -<4te. 

8. yap, om. Ln. Tf. 


[Ln.] Gb. =S. 

^aTrTio-povs ^fcrTcoi/ /cat TTO- 

25. evQfvs X ev0vs Ln. Tf. G4fo. 

Xf yovcrt, add. [avrco] Ln. 

TTjpi coi , Kal aXXa Trapouoia 

s. om.) [Gb. -]. 

39. aVa/cXtwu X avaKXt^j}vai Ln. 

TOtaCra TroXXa Trotf tre, o?ra. 

p,ot Scpf f avrrjs X e^avTrjs 

40. aVeVf (rov X dvfirfcrav Tf. 

Tf. ^4te. 

dais p.ot Ln. Tf. 

ai>a--dj>a, Ws /cara Ln. Tf. 

9. TT)pr)o-r]Te X O TTjO TjTe Gb. <*. 

26. &vvavaKfip.evovs X dvaxtlp. 

41. avrov, oi. Tf. 

12. /cat ovKeri, om. Kal Ln. ^4te. 


Trapa&ocrii/ X TrapartdSxriv 

ro> Trarpt aurov ^ r t ^ fi /rpi 

avrrjv ddfTrjo-ai X d$fr. our. 


auro{!, om. avrou ois Ln. Tf. 

27. fvQews X ft^us- Tf. ; (stc s. 

43. KO(plVOVS 7T\T]plS X KO<plVO)V 

7T\rjp(j}fj,aTa Tf. 

14. TraiTa X TraXti/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

cm. ^fte.) 

44. cbo-f c, 077i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


o"7re/coiAarcopa X OTreKouXu- 

45. c ideas X et^y Tf. 

A/oi;f re X afovcrarf Ln. Tf. 

ropa Ln. Tf. 

aVoXvcTfl X aVoXvfi Ln. Tf. 


Vf%8i]vai X fVfyKai Tf. 

48. f ZSff X i5<i)i Ln. Tf. 

ij. KTropfv6uva aV aurouX c f 

K((>a\j]V airov, atW. eVt TTI- 

- Kal TTfpi, om. /cat Ln. Tf. 

roi) dvQpCOTTOV KTTOp(v6p.. 

ra/ct [Ln.] 

$o. Kal evdecos X KCJ l fvdvs Ln. 

Ln. Tf. ^Z. 

28. 6 Se aTrfX^cbz; X *ai a7rfX$. 

txt. Tf. ; 6 Se fvdvs Ln. nig. 

16. eiVt? e^ft a>ra a/covets, d/cov- 

Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 

51. XiW Gb. -. 

frco, om. Tf. ^4te. 

29. T)\dov X rfkOav Tf. 

Kal cdavp,aoV) om. Tf. [Ln.] 

17. TTfpt rrjs TrapafloXrjs X TJ 7 I/ 

rco /jif^/xfico, om. rco Elz. Gb. 

Gb. =i. x4te. 

TrapafioXrjV Ln. Tf. [Gb. f*]. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

52. r^i/ yap X XX rjv Alx. 


30. /cat oVa, om. Kal Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

r] /capSt a at>Tcoi> X CIVTCOV TJ 

19. Kadapi^ov X caaapt^cov Ln. 

=*]. Alx. 

Kap8. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Tf. ^te. 

31. ftTTfi/ X Xeyet Tf. 

54. fuc^fco? X cv&us Tf. ^4Za?. 

21. ftot^f tat, Tropi/flat, (poi/ot, 

dvaTravfcrdf X dvairava-acrOf 

erriyvovres, add. [ot ai/Spes 

/cXoTrat X Tropj/fTai, /cXoTrat, 

Tf. Jte. 

ro{) TOTTOV f/cftVou] Ln. 

(povoi, ynot^fTai Tf. 

TjVKaipovv X fVKaipovv Ln. 

55. 7Tpi8pafj.ovTfs oX. r. Trept- 

24. Kat fKfWft X CKcWcv Se Tf. 

Tf. Grf. 

X(*>pov K. X TrepLfOpa^LOV 

p.edopia X opta Ln. ^4te. 

32. aTT^X^Oy X aTnJX&I (7s#. 

oX. r. ^copaz> e/c. /cat ^4tr. 

/cat StScovoy, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

ft? pT)fJ,OV TOTTOV TO) TrXo/O) 

- TTfpt^copoi/ X X < * > P av Tf - Ln - 

r/)! oi/ctai , om. r?)i/ Sch. Ln. 

X eV rai ?rX. 6iy epijp TOTT. 


Tf. [Gb. =J]. 

Ln. ^4te. 

2^. aKovcraa-a yap X dXX ev6vs 

33. ot 0^X01, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

56. TroXf t?, jircem. els Tf. [Ln.] 

aKoiKT. Tf. ^4Za;. 

7ryvaxrav X eyvutcrav Ln. 

aypovs 1 , prcem. els Tf. [Ln.] 

26. r]i/ 5e 77 yw?) X ^ Se ywr) 77^ 

J f. 

endow X eri6f(rav Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

- auroi/, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ; (om. 

fJTTTovro X fj^avro Ln. txt. 

S,vpo(poivio-o~a X 2upo<jf>oti/i- 

s. avTOVS Alx.} 


KKTtra Sch. Ln. ; 2(^pa $ot- 


i/t /cto-o-a Tf. [Gb.] 

K at f]\6ov K(L Gb. ^ ; om. 


eVcjSaXXfl X Kfld\r] Gb. Sch. 

Gb. ^4/j?. s. K. 7rpo(TTJ\d. avr. 

2. aprovs X rous apr. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

Kal (Tvvrj\dov rrpbs avrov, 


f .< Gb. =t; O7u. ^4te. 

om. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

e p.e p.\lsavTO, om. Gb. Sell. Ln. 

27. 6 e l^o-oOs X Ka Ln. Tf. 

34. 6 ir/croi?, om. Gb. Tf. Alx. ; 


- f trrf i/ X eXeyei/ Ln. Tf. 

mtfe eu5ei> [Ln.] 

4. arro X OTT Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

KaXoi/ fVrt X fVTtv KaXbv 

eV aurots X fw a^roui Ln. 

5. eVftra X / Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 



- /SaXfti/ rot? Kvvapiois X TOIS 

35. ayrou [Ln.] 

ot p.auT]Tai crov ov TTfpwra- 

KW. /3aXfTi/ Tf. 


a8. yap [Ln.] om. Alx. 
- <r6ii X ccrQiovviv Ln. Tf. 

29. TO daipoviov f< TTJS 6uya- 

rpos crou X TTJS 6vy. o~ov 
TO daifj,. Tf. 

30. TO daipoviov ef\T]\v6os, KOI 

Tr)v 6vyaTpa 

fVl TT)S K\lVr)S X TO 

KOI TO daiuovLOv e 

66s Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 
31. Koi 2icoi/oy, ^X$e X ^ 

Sta 2iSa>j/oy Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 


- Trpoy X f*s Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 
33. Kcocpoi/, add. KOI Ln. [Gb. ~]. 

poytXaXoy X p-oyytXuXoy Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ,4for. 
3$. fvdeas, om. Tf. ^Z.r. [Ln.] 

dnjvoixdrjcrav X rjvoiyrjcrav 
Ln. Tf. 

36. fiiroHTLV X Xeycoo-tv Tf. 

atroy, om. Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

, prmn. avrol Ln. Tf. 

37. Toi>y dXdXouy, om. Touy Tt. 


1. 7ra/Li7roXXou X TraXtv TroXXou 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ]. Alx. 

6 l^o-oOs 1 , o?re. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. Alx. 
- avTOv, om. Tf. Alx. 

2. fjfjifpas X fjp-fpai- Gb. Sch.Ln. 


p.oi, om. Ln. Tf. 

3. rives yap X Kctl Tires Ln. Tf. 

odev, prcem. dno Tf. 

X fj<ovcri Elz. ; eio"iV 
Tf. ylte. s. fJKaai. 

4. IIo$ei>, prcem. OTt Tf. 

5. eTrrjptoTa X ^pcora Tf. 

CLTTOV X tiirciv Tf. 

6. TraprjyyeiXe X Trapayye XXet 

Ln. Tf. 
- aprovy, OfZ<7. [/cat] Ln. 

7rapa6<j)(TL X TrapaTidaxnv Tf. 


7. et^oi/ X flx av -^ n - ^ > 

eyXoy^as 1 , prcem. TCIVTO. Ln. 
prcem. s. acid, avra Alx. 

Trapadelvai X irapaTedrjvat 


Kai aura Gb. -*. 

8. etpayov Se X K al f(bayov Ln. 


8. (TTTUpt Sap X o~(pvpidas Ln. 

9. of (payoWey, o?rt. Tf. [Gb.^ 

10. evdecos X evdvs Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. ^fte. 
. ffj.(3as TTciXiv X TraXti/ ep.f3as 
Ln. Tf. ^ite. 

eiy TO TrXotci/, ow. Tf. [Gb. 
=t]. ylte. ; OOT. TO Ln. 
. /SXeVfTe, prcem. [/cat] Ln. 
. Xe yoz^Tey, o?. Ln. Tf. ^te. 
exofj.ev X %ov(rLV Ln. Tf. 
. 6 l^o-otiy, oi. Tf. 
Ti, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^7a;. 
TrX^pety icXao p.czrcot X ^Xao". 
. Ln. Tf. ^te. 
e X Ka! OT6 Ln. mg. 
orfrf. [aprouy] Ln. 
Of de eiTrov X Kill Xeyoww 

Tf. ^te. 
, o??i. Tf. 
ov X OUTTCO Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. s. 


epxcTM X 

[Gb. .]. Alx. 

. e^rjyayev X er]veyKv Tf. 
^XeVet X J3\7Tis Tf. 
. e Xeye X fiTrev Ln. mg. 
OTt <By SeVSpa opai X <uy Sei/- 
Spa Elz. Gb. Sch. [St. Gb. ~. 
^4te. et Cst.] 
erredrjKe X edrjKev Tf. 
Knt eiroirjarfV avrbv di/a/3Xe- 
v/^at X a t 8t/3Xe^ej> Tf. 
[Gb. -]. ^4te. s. /cai eveftXe- 

X ciTre/care- 
Qr) Ln. ; dirfKaTforTT] Tf. 
X cveftXeirev Ln. 




airavTas X airavra Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. <*]. 
TOV OLKOV, om. TOV Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
p.?7e e lTrrjs Ttvl eV 

om. Tf. 

Tf. Alx.; 
add. avT(p Xeyoz/rey Ln. Tf. 

/, prcem. OTL Tf. 
eVa X OTt eiy Ln. Tf. ; Alx. s. 
ws eva. 

Xe yft auToTy X eV^pcoTa au- 

Toiy Ln. txt. Tf. [Gb. *]. 

29. A770<pi^ety 8e X ai axroKp. 

Ln. ; drroicp. Tf. 

30. Xeyooat X eiTTCSO tJ Ln. 

31. OTTO X wro Ln. Tf. [Gb. ]. 

fCDV, prcem. T>V Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

ypapp.aTecoi , prcem. TU>V Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

32. avrov 6 IleVpoy X o IleT. 

OI;T. Ln. Tf. 

33. TO) IleTpw, o;?i. TW Ln. Tf. 

Xeycov X Ka Xeyet Tf. 
34."Oo-Tis X Tty Ln. [Gb. ^]. 

Gb. Sch. 
Tf. CW. [Rec. Alx.] 
3$. av X ear Tf. 
- cnro\(rrj X diro\carct Tf. 
TI^I/ \l/v^r}i> avrov X T^y eau- 




om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

dxpeX^o-et X &>(peXet Ln. mg. 

, prcem. TOV Ln. Tf. ; 

. ~. .4 fa?. 

s. ^4te. TOf civdpcoTTOv. 
c cii/ Kp8r)(rT) X Kfpdfjcrai Tf. 
rj [jLicddf) X r)fj.icodr)vai Tf. 

^ Tt 6\00-ei (ivdpCOTTOS X Tt 

yap Tf. 
. cu/ X ea^ Ln. Tf. 


. TU>V a>Se X w e TWI/ Tf. 
. p,e# X peTa Ln. Tf. 
TOV l(dcii>vT)V) om. TOV Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. Cat. 
. eyeVeTO X eyevovro Ln. Tf. 

wy X L ^ V I om - ^- ^^- ^ - ^ x - 
dvvaTai, add. OVTCO Tf. Gb. <*> 

. <TKT]vas Tpety X TpeTy (TKrjvas 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 
. XaXj^o-?; X XaXj]o-ei Gb. R. 

C*-<. ; dlTOKplQfi Tf. ^i/.r. 
^aaj/ yap eK(po/3ot X fK-(pn- 

fioi yap eyevovTO Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. *>]. Jte. 
^X^e X fyeVeTO ^4te. 
Xeyoto-a, o?. Gb. Sch. Tf. yite. 

OUTOl) d/CO^6T6 X KOU. aVT. 

Ln. txt. Tf. 
dXXa X f P r ) Ln. Alx. 

8. et Sov, dXXa rov irj&ovv p.6- 

vov fj,e6 J eavrcov X et S. p-rra 
eavr. el /J.TJ TOV Irjcr. p,6vov 
Ln. mg. 

9. Kara/3aiVoi/ro)i/ 8e X *< Ka 

ra/3. Ln. ^4te. 

OTTO X e /C Ln. 

dir]yrj<r(i)VTaL a ei Sov X a f to\ 

SiT/y. Ln. txt. Tf. ^te. 

10. TO, e/c ve/cpa>v dvao~Trjvai X 

orav e/c ve/cpa>v aVacrny Gb. 

11. eVn/pcorcov X eirr]pd>Tt]O av Ln. 


- Xeyovo-iv, <M. ot Qapicraioi 

Kai [Ln.] 

12. aTTOKpldflS) etVfV X f^ 7 ? Tf. 

[Gb. *]. 

- /iev, om. Tf. 

- drroKadicTTa X aVoKa&crrd- 

vet Ln. Tf. ^te. s. dnoKa- 


J ovSeV(0$7 X eoveVJ7$J7 Ln. 

13. r)6e\T]o~av X fjdcXov Tf. 

14. avrols X Trpoy avrovs Alx. 
i$. evdeoas X ev^vs 1 Tf. ^fte. 

n. Tf. [Gb.*]. 

X e 

o-av Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. .4te. 
1 6. rot s 1 ypap.p.a.Tf is X avrovy 
Gb. Ln. txt. Tf. .<4te. [Rec. 
Gb. *>]. 

17. dnoKpidels X drrcKpidrj avrai 

Ln. Tf. 

etVe, o?. Ln. Tf. [Alx. drre- 
Kpidrj els K TOV o^Xov s. 
aTTOKpidels en TOV o%\ov 
els firrev aura).] 

18. ai/ X fai/ Ln. Tf. 

aurov, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 3]. 

19. aurai X aurols Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. =*]. 

20. evdetos TO nvevfjia X ro Trvev- 

pa evQvs Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 


21. TratSio^ei/, prccm. eK Ln. Tf. 

22. avrov KOL fls TTvp X ^at eis 1 

TrOp aiiTov Tf. ; (f?(?. ro /;<e 
7ri)p Sch. Gb. <+>). 
o~vvao-(U X St5i/.^ Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

23. fiui/ao-at X Svvrj Ln. Tf. 
TTto-reOo-at, o;. Tf. [Gb. -]. 


24. Kai fvdeoiS) om. Kal Tf. [Ln.] 

a Saxpucov, ww. Ln. Tf. 



Kvpie, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
TTvevfJ-a TO a\a\ov Kal KCO- 

<pov X X. /cat Ka><pov rrvev- 

fia Ln. Tf. yite. 
o~ot eVtraa O o} X eVtrdo"O"co 

crot Tf. 
e^ X OTT Ln. 
/cpd^ai/, /cat TroXXa crTrapd- 

|ai/ X A-pd^as- Kai TroX. 0-770- 

pd^as Gb. Ln. Tf. ^te. 
avTOV, om. Tf. [Ln.] ^te. 

avrov Tiys- x t Ps X T^S X et " 

poy avrov Ln. Alx. 
eiVeXtfdVra avrov X eio-eX- 

OOVTOS avrov Ln. Alx. 
errrjpdtTcov avrov /car idiav X 

/car t Si aj/ eVj/p. avrov Ln. 

Tf. Alx. 

OTl X 0*10. TL Alx. 

/cat vrjCTTeia, om. Tf. 

Kai eKeWev X KaKeWev Ln. 

TrapenopevovTO X eVropevovro 

Ln. txt. 

tva riy X Tt ff ^ a Elz. 
yvai X y^ot Ln. Tf. 
r t ?7 rpi r?; i7ftepa X p-era rpets 

T)fj,pas Ln. Tf. [Gb. <*>]. ^4to. 
ri\0ev X v^^ov Ln. Tf. 
Trpoy eavrovy, OTW. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =*]. ^te. 
ev r^ 6Sa) [Ln.] 
eav X av 6is Ln. Tf. Alx. 

X fiex^rat Tf. Ln. 

Tf. Alx. ; 


6 icodi/VTjs 1 , om. 6 Gb. Sch.Ln. 

ra> ovd/Ltar/, prcem. ev Elz. Ln. 

Tf. ^te. 

os ov/c d/coXov^et i7/xtv, om. 

Gb. .^.r. 

eK(o\vo-ap.ev X e/ccoXvo/xev Tf. 

ort ov/c d/coXov^tt ^/itv, o??i. 

Tf. [Gb. =0. 

40. tyzcov, VTrep v/io>v X 9p>&>v, 

VTrep r]p.<i>v Elz. Tf. 

41. ev TO) ovopaTi p,ov X cV ovd- Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
- vptv, o^Z. ort Tf. [Ln.] ^Zar. 
a7ro\eo-r) X OTroXeVet Ln. Tf. 

42. /xtKpaiv, aAZ. rovrcov Ln. ylZvC. 



crrtv e ^dvrcov Tf. 

- Xt $0 p,V\lKOS X p-vXoff OVt- 

/coff Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 

43. o-/cav5aXi(j7 X orKavdaXicrrj 

Ln. mg. 

- o-ot eVri X rriV ere Ln. Tf. 


- /cvXXov ety rj^v coj)v eio-eX- 

^etv X KvX. el(re\6e1v els r. 
^a>^v Ln. Tf. Alx. 

- ets ro Trvp ro ao-flecrTOV Gb. 

44. ver. 44, OTO. Tf. Gb. -. Alx. 
4$. KaXbv, add. [yap] Ln. 

- eVri crot X eVrtv ere Sch.Ln. 


eiy ro Trvp ro acr/3ecrrov, om. 

Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =?]. Alx. 

46. ver. 46, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^4te. 

47. croi ecrri X ecrrt v o-e Tf. 

Tyv yeevvav, om. TJ)V Tf. 

rov Trvpos 1 , om. Ln.Tf. [Gb.->]. 

^o. aXas X a\a Ln. Tf. Alx. 

^ CHAP. X. 

1. Ka/cet#ev X at e/cet^ev Ln. 

Tf. Jte. 

Sta rov Trepav X Ka * irepav 

Ln. Tf. <4te. 

2. ot $aptcratot, o??i. ot Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

errrfputTrjo-av X eTnypwrcov Ln. 

Tf. ^te. 
4. etVov X etn-av Ln. Tf. 

- MCOO-T}? errerpe-v^e X eTre rpe- 

^ev M. Ln. Tf. ^Za;. s. M. 
eVerei Xaro. 

^. /cai dVoKpi^eis- 6 ir/crovs X 
6 Se ijcroCs Tf. ^te. 

6. 6 Geoy, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

7. /cai 7rpoo-Ko\\r]dr]o~eTai Trpos 

TTJV yvvat/ca avrov, ow. Tf. 

Trpoy r^v yv vai/ca X ^ yv- 

vatKt Ln. Alx. 

8. pia o-dp X o-ap^ pta Alx. 

10. e v r^ oi/ci a X fls ri)v ot/ct av 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. <*>]. 

avrov, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

- rov avrovXrovrov Ln.Tf. ^te. 

eV^pcor^crav X eV^pcoroov Tf. 

11. edv X v Ln. 

12. yvv?) dTToXva-T] X avri) 0770- 

Xvcrao-a Tf. 

yafj.r)()fi aXXa) X ya/^ "?? oX- 

Xov Ln. Tf Alx. 


13. cfy. our. X aur. a\lf. Alx. 

34. Kai Tiywo ovo iv OVTOV, 

$i. rt t^e Xety Trotr/ova o-ot X " 

eirfTip-cov rots Trpooxpepou- 

Kai e/jLTTTvcrovo iv aurai X 

crot $eX. TTOiTjcra) Alx. 

criv X firfTifJUOV auroTy Ln. 

Kai e pyrrvo". avr<w Kai pa- 

- c Pa/3/3ofi X Pa/S/Soui/i Gt. 


crrtya>o-. auroV Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

14. Kai pr) KoAuere, om. Kai Gb. 

a7TOKTevovo~iv afroV, [avrdy] 

52. ev0ea)s X evQi/s Tf. 

Sch. Tf. 


r<5 l^o ou X aurai Gb. Ln. 

i$. edi/ X a^ Ln. Alx. 

rr} TpiTrj r)j.iepa X pera rpcly 

Tf. ^Z#. 

16. 77uXdyei X euXdyet Sch. Ln. ; 

r)pepay Ln. Tf. [Gb. f^>]. Alx. 

aura Kai euX. ante TiBels Tf. 

35. ot utoi, ow. ot Tf. 


19. Mr) poi^eua-fly pr) (povfV- 

- Xeyoi/rcy, acZd. aurw Tf. [Ln]. 

i. c IepoucraXr)p X lepocrdXupa 

crrjs X P 1 ) (pov. p?7 pot^. Ln. 


Ln. Tf. Alx. 

txt. (pr) (pof. Gb. ->). 

atr77O"a>pei>, a^Zd. ere Ln. Tf. 

- els Bydcpayr) Kai Erjdaviav X 

- pr^repa, add. crou Ln. 


Kai ety Hijdav. Ln. [Gb. ~3. 

pr) dTrocrreprjcrrjs, om. Alx. 

36. Troirjcrai pe X pf 7roir)o~ai Tf. ; 

- dTroo-reXXetXaTreo-reiXei/Ln. 

so. raura TrdWa X TrdV. TOW. Ln. 

jrotrjo-Q) Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^4Za;. 

2. eu^ecoy X cvt^uy Tf. 


37. eiTTOv X flnav Ln. Tf. 

ouSeiy, add. OUTTO) Ln. y4Za:. 

- <puXadp77i> X e(puXaa Ln. 

- eK dei>v crou X o" u ^ ^ f ^ 

Xuo ai rey aurov X Xuo~arf 

vedr. pou, add. rt en uore- 


auroy Kai Ln. Tf. [Gb. e*]. 

pS> ; Alx. 
21. eiTrev aura), add. fl $e Xety 

- fvo>vvp,o)V crou X dpicrTepcov 
Tf. ; [o-ou] Ln. 

dydyere X <pepfre Tf. [Gb. 

re Xetoy elvat Alx. 

38. Kai ro /SaTrrtcra X ^ ro /SdV. 

<*>]. Alx. 

- o-oi X o-e Tf. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. <^]. Jr. 

3. Tt Trotelre rouro X fi Xuere 

rot? Trrco^oTy, om. roTy Ln. 

39, eiTTOV X ciTrav Ln. Tf. 

TOV 7T(0\ov Ln. mg. 

Tf. Gb. =*. ^Za?. 

- per, om. Tf. 

- f/ Ort, om. Ln. Tf. 

apay TOV o~Tavpov [Ln=] [Gb. 

40. Kai e euooz/upcov X *} f ^ f v- 

eu$e<y X fvdvs Ln. Tf. 

=i] ; om. ^Z#. 

&)//. Ln. Tf. ^4Z^r. 

- dVoo-reXe! X aTrocrreXXet Gb. 

24. TeKva X TCKvla. Ln. 

- pov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

roty xpr^pao ii , om. roly Ln. 

42. 6 8e *Ir]o~ovs Trpoo KaXeo d- 

4. ATr^X^oi/ 8e X KCU dni]\6ov 

Tf. [Gb. =t]. Cfc*. 

p.evos avrovs X Ka Trpocr- 

Ln. Tf. 

2<J. rrjy rpupaXtdy rf}y, om. rr}y 

KaX. aur. 6 irjcrouy Ln. Tf. 

TOV 7rS)\ov, om. TOV Gb. Sch. 

bis Ln. [Gb. -]. Cst. 


Ln. Tf. 

- eio-eX^eii/ i Csf. X 8ie\6elv 

43. eo~rai X O~TIV Ln. Tf. ^4Za?. 

TTJV Ovpav, om. TTJV Tf. 

Gb. Sch. Elz. Ln. txt. Tf. 

- eai/ X ^ Ln. 

6. ei/eret Xaro X erei> Ln. txt. 

[eto"eX$eti/ Gb. ^]. 

yeveo~6ai peyay X pf yay ye- 

Tf. [Gb. ~], 

27. 8e, om. Tf. 

vecrdai Ln. mg. viZa;. 

7. rjyayoi/ X (pepovaiv Tf. [Gb. 

aV$pa>7roiy, add. [rouro] Ln. 

SidKoi/oy upcov X vu.5)V Sta- 


- TO) Qea), om. TO) Tf. [Gb. -]. 

Koi/oy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- eVe/3aXoi/ X eVi/3dXXoucnj/ 

Trdvra yap Sward eVrt Trapd 

44. &i/ X edz> Gb. Tf. 

Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

ra> 0eo) Gb. -*. 

vp,)V X eV upti/ Ln. ^4Zj?. 

- aura) X auroV Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

28. Kai r) paro, om. Kai Gb. Sch. 

yeveo~dai X eivai Ln. Alx. 


Ln. Tf. 

46. tfpxovrat X 6OYTai Ln. txt. 

8. TroXXoi 8e X Kai TroXXoi Tf. 

Xeyeif, anie 6 Her. Tf. 

OTTO Ifpi^ci) X eKeluev Gb. ~. 

ety TTJV odov X fv rrj 6Sa3 Ln. 

- T)K.o\ov6r](rap.ev X r)KO\ov6r)- 

- vioy X o utoy Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

mg. Alx. 

KapeV Ln. Tf. 


- crrot/3dSay X crri/3aay Ln. 

29. A7TOKpi$eiy Se 6 lr;a-oi)y a- 

- 6 ru<pX6y, om. 6 Ln. Tf. ^4Z#. 

Tf. Alx. 

7TI/ X C^>J/ 6 lrjo~. Tf. ; o??i. 

- Trpoo-aiTcov \Trpo(ra.iTr}s,post 


8e Gb. Ln. ; Kai drroKp. Sch. 

TV(p\bs Tf. 

- 8ev8pQ)V X dypS>v Tf. 

77 Trarepa, 7^ prjrepa X ^7 p 7 ? 7 "- 

47. Na^copatoy X Naapr7.i/oy Ln. 

Kai ecrrpavvvov els rr)v 6$ov 

f) ?rar. Ln. txt. Tf. 

Tf. ^?a?. 

om. Tf. 

77 yvvalica, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

C O utoy X vie Ln. 

9. Xeyoi/rey, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

->]. ^4te. 

49. avTov (pavrjdrjvai X <ptovr)- 

-0. Alx. 

- epoC Kai, wZd. evex.fv Gb. Sch. 

crare avTov Tf. ^4Za?. 

10. eV d^dpart Kupt ou, om. Gb. 

[Ln.] Tf. 

eyeipai X eyeipe Gb. Ln. Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

prjrepay X p-WTepa Ln. ^4Z^. 


IT. 6 I^o-ouy, Kai, om. Ln. Tf. 

31. ot eVxarot, om. ot Gb. Ln. 

^o. d^acrrdy X dvarrrjo rjcras Ln. 

[Gb. =i]. ^Za:. 


Tf. ^4Za?. 

Kai ety, om. Kai Ln. Tf. Alx. 

33. roty ypappareucrt, om. roty 

^ i. Xeyei aurtu 6 ^o^ouy X aur. 

13. paKpodev, prcem. UTTO Ln. Tf. 

Ln. [Gb. =s]. 

6 IT/OT. efTrev Tf. Alx. 

[Gb. ~]. 




TI X Tt fvp. Ln. ft. 


(puXXa, add. [/idVa] Ln. 
Kaipbs, prcem. 6 Ln. ; [6 yap 

tempos OVK rjv Tf.] 
6 l^crou?, owi. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

e /c (rou eiff rov aicora X f ^ 

roj/ aieora e /c (rov Ln. Tf. 

/iTjfieiff X oufieiff Elz. 
6 iT/o-oOff, ow. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 
dyopdfcovraSi prcem. TOVS Ln. 


Xe ycoy X *ai eXeyei/ Tf. ./4Z#. 
ai>Toiff, oi. Tf. [Ln.] 
""On, om. Ln. 
eVoi^crare avrov X 

7TOir](TaT Ln. ing. ; 
avr. Tf. 

ypa/ is Kal ol a 
X PX* KC " 




aVoXeVouo-ii X aVoXeVcocrii; 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 
avrbv 2 [Ln.] 
on Tray X iras 7P Tf- ^^ ? - 
ore X orai/ Tf. Alx. 
ft-fTTopevero X et-etropevovro 

Ln. ^4te. 
Trpcoi 7rapa7ropevop,ei>ot X 

TrapaTropfvofjLCVoi Trpcoi Ln. 

Tf. y*te. 

6 l^OTOUff, OOT. 6 St. & Elz. 

[Gb. ~]. 
-yap, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 


a X o Tf. 

Xeyei X XaXei Tf. 
6 eav ewTJ/, o??i. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 
av, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. ^4?a?. 
X Trpocrev- 
i Ln. txt. Tf. ^Za;. 
Xa/i/3df ere X eXd/3ere Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. ~]. 

(TTr)K7JT X <TTr)KT Ln. Tf. 

cwi. ver. Tf. 

rot? ovpavols., om. Tols Ln. 
Xeyoutriv X e Xeyoi> Tf. ^4te. 
Kai Tis X ^ Tts 1 Tf. -<4te. 

TJ)I/ f^ovcriav Tavrrfv e 
X t$u>Kcv Tr]v eovcriav rav- 
TT]V Ln. yite. 

aTroKpi^eiff, OTO. Tf. ^4te. Kayo) X Kayo) vpas Ln. ; 

30. Icoawou, prcem. TO Ln. Tf. 


31. eXoyt^oi/TO X 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 
- ovv, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

32. dXX eav X dXXa Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ]. 

- anavres X Travres Ln. 


^4te. (s. o?tt. oWcoff). 
33. Xe you(ri T<W l^croO X T<5 l 7 ? 
croC Xey. Ln. mg. Tf. Alx. 

6 irja-ovs drroKpidels X [OTTO- 

6 IT/CT. Ln. Alx. ; 
. Tf. ^r. 


1. Xeyeu/ X XaXeii/ Ln. Tf. Alx. 

6pa>Tros X ov6. 

. Tf. 

X e le &ro Tf. 

2. TOl) KapTTOV X TCOJ/ KapTTtoV 


3. 01 fie X K" Ln. txt. Tf. 

4. Xt#o/3oXj7<rai/Teff, o?re. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =;]. ^te. 

OTTCO TflXai T)TlfJi(i)IJ.VOV X 

r)Ti/j.r)(rav Ln. Tf. Jte. 

5. TrdXii/, o??i. Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

- TOiiff, bis ovs Ln. Tf. ^4Z. 


vovres Gb. Ln. Tf. 

6. ovi/j om. Tf. [Ln.] 

- tuoi/ \a)v X 

e?Xei> vlw Tf. 

avrov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

??i. ai Tf. [Ln.] 
- Trpoff avToi/s eV^aTOj/ X eo-^. 
?rp6ff avr. Ln. Tf. 

7. eirrov X eiTrai/ Ln. Tf. ; post 

Trpoff eavrovs Tf. 

8. avrbv dneKTeivav X drreKT. 

avr. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

9. GUI/, om. Tf. 
14. 01 5e X ai Ln. txt. Tf. 
SiSdo Keis 1 , add. eiVe ovv r^pTiv 

- Kr)V(Tov KoiVapi dovvai X 

Krjvaov Kaicrapi Ln. 
iSwi / Gb. ~. 

16. Oi fie X [oi fie] Ln. 

- eiTroj/ X c iTrai/ Ln. txt. Tf. ; 

Xe youcrty Ln. mg. 

17. Kai aTTOAcpi^eiy 6 X o fie Ln. 


- ai/TOty, om. Tf. 


17. ATTofioTt Ta KaiVapoff X ra 

KaiV. OTrdfioTe Tf. 

edavfjiacrav X fdav^a^ov Ln. 


18. eVr;pei)Tr;o-aj/X eV^pcoTWi/ Ln. 

txt. Tf. 

19. TKva X TfKvov, post d(pf] Tf. 

yvvalna avrov, om. avrov Tf. 


20. 6 f 7TTa, fl(7(Z. OUJ/ Elz. 

rjcrav, add. Trap rjfjuv Alx. 

21. Kai oifie avros d(prJK X fii) 

KaTaXtTTcoi Tf. Ln. mg. 

22. e Xa/3oi> avTrjv, om. Tf. [Ln.] 


- /cai, om. Tf. Alx. 

- ea-xdrr) rrdvrav dnedave Kal 

rj yvvrj X fo-xarov irdvTwv 
Kal T) yvvr) dneOavev Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. ~]. Ala;. 

23. ovv, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

orav di/acTTcocri [Ln.] [Gb.^J]. 


24. Kai aTTOKpidels 6 irjcrovs 

einev avrols X ^p 7 ? auT. 6 
IT/O-. Tf. ; aVoKp. fie, s. 

25. yap.i(TKovTai X 

Ln. Tf. 

- 01 eV ToTff, ow. oi Gb. Sch.Ln. 

26. T^ff /3aTov X TOV /3aTOV Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- a>ff X 7T<> Tf. 

- 6 Geoff lo-acbc, /cai 6 0e6ff, 

om. 6 bis Ln. Tf. 

27. 6 Geoff, om, 6 Ln. Tf. 

- Geoff <nvra>v, om. Ge6s Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

i>/zeiff ovV, o??i. Tf. 

28. eifiwff X tS^" Ln. ^47^. s. Kai 


- avToiff cLTTfKpiOri X dneKp. 

avr. Tf. -4te. 

Traawv X Trdi Tcov Gb. Sch. 

Ln.Tf. ; (eVToXr) 7rpu>rrj Trdv- 
TCOJ/ Tf. Ln. mg.) 

29. C O fie 17/o-oCff drrcKpidrj X 

dnfKp. 6 Irjo: Tf. Ln. mg. 

. Tf. 

coi X Trdi/TO)!/ Gb. Sch. Ln. 

&V, om. Gb. 

VToXwi/X [eWoXjJ fcrriv] Ln.; 
(on TrpcoTr; e crTiV, "A/coue) 
Tf. [Gb. F*>] ; [irdvrcw TrpcoT?; 

30. /cai e ^ oXr^ff T/Jff 
crou, oi. Tf. 


avTT) 7rpa>r?7 eWoX?), om. Tf. 
KOL Seurepa, om. KOI Tf. [Ln.] 
6/j.oia, om. Tf. 
0e6$-, oiw. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
Kal e 6\r]s TTJS ^^X^ y om - 

Tf. [Ln.] Ah. 
rwv Bvvitov, om. T>V Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

eort Aa^tS X A- eVrt ^4te. 
yap, om. Tf. [Ln.] 
ra> LTz/eu/iart rw, oi. r &w 

Gb. Sch. 
elrrev 2 X Xe yet Gb. Sch. [Rec. 

Gb. ~]. 

6 Kuptoy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 
Kd$ou X KO.&UTOV Tf. 

V7T07ToStOJ> X VTTOKarO) Tf. 

oyi/, o?/i. Tf. [Ln.] Gb.-. Alx. 
vibs O.VTOV ecrrt X avrov eo~- 

TLV vibs Tf. 
eXeyet* avrols ei> rrj StSa^ t ^ 

avroi) X ey r. StS. aur. eXe- 

ye^ Tf. 
KdTco-diovTes X Ka 

6 ijya oOs , o?w. Tf. [Ln.] 




42. TlTti)^ ^b. -. 

43. Xe yet X fiirev Gb. Ln. yiLc. 

[Rec. Gb. ex.]. 

e/3aXev Ln. 

X jSaXXdi/rcoi Ln. 
Tf. ^Za?. 


1. TCDI; fj.aQr)TO)V) prcem. e/c Tf. 

2. 6 ij/croi)? iiTTOKpidels X 7TOK. 

6 l^cr. Ln. ; om. aTTOKp. Tf. 
xas 1 , oAZ. cz/x^y Xe yco 
(s. V/AIJ/) ort ^4te. 
;, add. &)Se Ln. [Gb. ex>]. 

- Xt (9a) X Xi 

3. 7T.rjpa>T(C>v X eTn/pcora Tf. 

4. Et-rre X ciTroi Ln. Tf. ^te. 

Traira ravra X TaOra Trd 

Ln. ; raura crui/r. Travr. Tf. 

5. aTTOKpiOels, om. Tf. ^4Z^. (s. 

Kat a7ro/cp. 6 l/;o-.] 

avrols ffp^aro \eyeiv X ^p^- 

Xe y. avr. Ln. Tf. 

6. yap, om. Tf. 

7. aKov<TT]T X tiKouere Tf. 

yap, om. Tf. 

8. Kai ecroi/rat, om. Kai Tf. ^4Za;. 

Kai ecroi/rai, ow. /cat Tf. 

- Kai rapa^at, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

-]. Alx. 


9. yap, om. Tf. 

10. Set irp&Tov X TrpcoToi/ Set Ln. 


11. orav Se X Ka orav Ln. Tf. 


dydycocriv X aywrtv Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

- p,r)8e /xeXeTare, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

Alx. [Gb. =?]. 

- 6 eaf X o ai/ Ln. 

12. xrapaScoa ei Se X *ai TrapaS. 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 

14. TO prjOev VTTO Aavtr)X TOU 
TrpocprjroVj om. Gb. [Ln.] Tf. 


- eo-TOS- X eo-njKos Ln. Tf. ; 

(TTti)S Elz. 

13. Se, om. Ln. 

fls rrjv oiKiav [Ln.] 

Tf. Alx. 

- apat Tt X TI apat Tf. 
1 6. a>i/, o?7i. Ln. Tf. 

18. f) (pvyr) vpcov, om. Ln. Tf. 

JGb. =s]. 

19. T/S KTLO~fV X ^V fKT. Ln. Tf. 

20. Kupto? e/coXd/3o)cre X eKoXd. 

6 Kup. Ln. mg. Tf. 

21. fyui/ e 17177 X f MJ77 v^w Tf - 

- ISou i X i Se Tf. 

- 77, om. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 

- i8oi> 2 X i8e Ln. Tf. 

- TTto-Tevo-Tjre X TTio-TeveTe Gb. 

Sch. Ln. txt. Tf. 

22. \^euSd^pto~TOi Kai, o??^. Tf. 

Kai daxrovcTi X 7roir)o~ovo i Tf. 

Kai TOUJ eKXeKTOus 1 , om. Kai 


23. iSoi/, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] 

24. dXX X dXXa Ln. Tf. 

25. TOU ovpavov forovrat eKTrtTT- 

rovTfs X ecroi/Tat eK rou ou- 
pavov TrtTTTo^TeyLn. Tf. ^4Za?. 

(S. e KTTtTTT.) 

26. TroXXryy Kai Sd^r?? X Ka i Sd^. 

TroXX. Ln. 

27. afToO i , O7?i. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 

[Gb. -*]. 

- aVTOV 2, 0771. Tf. 

28. avrrjs fjdrj 6 KXdSoff X ^J/ 6 

KX. avr. Ln. ^4Z.r. 

yiz/coo"Kere X yivaio-Kerai Tf. 

29. Ta^Ta Idrjre X i 5??Te Ta{;Ta 

Ln. ^4Z.r. 

30. Trdvra ravra X TauTa TTUVTU 

Tf. ^Za?. 

31. napeXfvcrovTai X TrapeXeu- 

o-eTat Gb. Sch. Ln. mg. 

31. 7rapeX$a)0*/ X TrapeXeucroy- 

Tat Tf. 

32. Kai TT}? X ^7 r ^ Grb. Sch. Ln. 


- ot ayyeXoi 01 X ayyeXoy Tf. 

33. Kai Trpocrey^ea^e, om. Ln. Tf. 

34. Kai eKao~T<y, o?n. Kai Ln. Tf. 

35. d^e, prcem. ^ Tf. 


37. a 8e X o Se Ln. Tf. Ate. 


2. Se X yap Ln. Tf. Alx. 

dopvftos corrai X COT. ^dp. 


3. Kai o"WTpt^acra, om. Kai Tf. 

- TO d\dfta(TTpov X roi/ dXd/3. 

Ln. ; TT)I/ aXd/3. Tf. 

Kara, om. Ln. Tf. 

4. Kai XeyovTes, om. Tf. 

g. TOUTO, otZ(Z. TO p,vpov Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

TpiaKoo~La>v drjvapia>v X S?;^, 

TptaK. Ln. Tf. 

6. ets epe X e> " ffot Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

7. aiiTovs X avrols Ln. Tf. ^Z. 

8. et^ei/ X (rxev Gb. Sch. Ln. 


avTi], om. Tf. [Ln.] ^4Z#. 

/iou TO crco/xa X TO O"a>/i,d /xou 

Ln. ./4Z#. 

9. dpi)f, orfd. Se Tf. [Ln.] ^4Za;. 

av X fay u4Z. 

- TOUTO, om. Tf. [Ln.] ^4Z. 

10. 6 lo^Sas 1 6, 07?z. 6 bis Ln. Tf. 


ets, prcem. 6 Tf. 

- TrapaSw X TrapaSot Ln. ; (.9/0 

Tf. ^os^ avrbv [Alx.] ) 

11. evKaiputs avrbv X avrov et 1 - 

Kaipcos 1 Ln. Tf. yfZa?. 

- Trapadcp X TrapaSot Ln. Tf. 
14. e ay X !> Ln. Tf. 

atZd. /AOU Tf. [Ln.] 

dmyatov Gb. Sch. 
Ln. ; dz/coyatoz/ Tf. 

eYoipoi/ [Ln.] ; o?. Alx. (s. 

add. Kai). 

cKei, prcem. Kai Tf. 

19. Of Se, om. Tf. 

- Ka# X KOTO Tf. 

- Kai aXXoy, Mr] TI e ya> ; Gb. 

-. Alx. 

20. aTTOKpt^eif, 07?i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

so. p.T e/ioO, add. TTJV X f *P a ^n. 

21. 6 p.ev, proem. OTI Tf. 

- rjv, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

22. 6 IT/O-OVS-, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

- (payere, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

23. TO TTOTTjplOV, OTTI. TO Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. Alx. 

24. ro Trjs, om. TO Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 


- Kaivrjs, om. Tf. [Gb. =i]. Alx. 

- TTfpl X wrep Ln. Tf. Alx. 


Ln. Tf. ; ro fK^yvv. vrrtp 
TToXXooz/ Tf. 

23. TTi cD X TTpOO~6) TTietl/ Gb. . 

yevvrj/jLciTOS X yevr^iaTOS Tf. 

[Gb. ]. 
27. eV e/zot, OCT. Tf. [Gb. =!]. Alx. 

ev TTJ VVKT\ Tcwrr], om. Tf. 

[Ln.] [Gb. =i]. Alx. 

8iao Kop7rio 6r)O eTai TO. Trpo- 

/3ara X BuurKOfHTur0^o ov m 
rat ra 7rpd/3. Ln. ^4/,r. ; ra 


29. Kat 6i X e * fat Tf. Alx. 

30. on, (M. aii Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

eV T?7 J/UKTl TO.VT7] X TO.VTT) 

TTJ VVKTL Ln. txt. Tf. ^4te. 

Tpt? aTrapvr](rrj p,e X Tpis /ie 

d.Trapvr]o~r] Ln. Tf. 
31.6 5e, add. TleTpos Alx. 

IK. Trepicraov X < Treptcrcrcos 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~] ; Alx. s. rre- 

- e Xeye X eXaXet Ln. txt. Tf. 

- p.aXXoj/, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 


- /ze 5e?/ X SeTy /i Ln. 
32. ov TO X w Ln. 


Tf. ^te. 

33. TOI> Ia/ca)/3oy, ow. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

p.$ eaurou X P- 

Ln. Tf. 

35. 7rpoeX$&>i/ X Trpoo-cX&bi/ Gb. 

cv. ^Ite. 

errecrev X firiirrev Tf. 

36. UTT ep.oO roOro X TOUT. a:r 

e p.. Ln. Tf. ^/.t. 
38. el(T\6r)T X ehQrjTf Tf. 

ciS X TTaXiV \6o)V 

Ln. Tf. 

/, GOT. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 
Voi X K(tTaj3apv- 
Ln. Tf. [Gb. <*>]. 


40. avra) airoKpiOwvi X a 

avr<5 Ln. Tf. ^te. 

41. ro XOITTOZ>, ont. TO Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =s]. ^(te. 

43. fvOevs X evtfus Ln. Tf. 

- lovSas X o loud. 6 Ln. Tf. 

(6 lo^Kaptam??, s. lo~Kapt- 
ebrr/s-, s. E/captcarT/? ^4te.) 

- &v, om. Ln. [Gb. =i]. ^(te. 

- TroXv?, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] Jte. 

44. napadidovs X 7rapa6oi>s Ln. 


fxrrayayere X aTrayere Ln. Tf. 

4$. evdews X f^^s Ln. Tf. 

Xe yet, arftZ. airo) ^4te. 

- pa^/3/, o?w. Lu. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

(s. ^alpe) 

46. eV avTov TO.S ^ftpa? CLVTWV 

X Tay X 6 ^- ^ 7r avTov Ln. ; 
ra? X 6 P- a ^ r( ? Tf. ^4te. 

47. rtr, o??^. Ln. Tf. ^?^. 

eortoi/ X wTcipiov Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


- cgr}\6T X egr)\0a,T Ln. Tf. 


49. eKpa.Tr)o~aTe X eVpareire Tf. 

50. TrdVres 1 ffpvyov X e<pvyov 

TrdvTfs Tf. 

^ i. eiy rts veavicrKos X veavl&KOS 
TIS Ln. ^4te. 

r)Ko\ovdet X trvvrjKO\. Ln.Tf. 

[Gb. ~] ; T]KO\ovdr]a-V Sch. 
[Gb. ~]. 

01 veavicrKoi, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

=J]. ^?ar. 
52. CITT auraif [Ln.] [Gb. -]; O?H. 

<3. ap^ifpea, arfd. Kai a(pai/ ^(te. 

aura), o??i. ^4te. 

ol 7rpco~/3i;repoi /cat ot ypcifj,- 

/larels X 

7rpeo-/3. Ln. 
^4. TO ^coy, o/. ro Elz. 
55. evpto~KOV\ r]vpio~Kov Ln. Tf. 

60. ro peVoi/, o?. TO Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

61. ouSei/ aTTfKpivaTO X OUK aTre- 

Kpiy. ovo~V Tf. ^4/.r. 

KaQt inevov eK Se^iaif X e K 

fie|. /ca^. Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. 

64. TIJS /3Xao-(p?7/Ai as X TT^^ /3Xa- 

(T(f)Tjfj.iav Ln. 

et j/at evo^ov X vo%ov fivai Tf. 

65. e/3aXXoi> X eXajSov Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. (*>] ; v4te. 
s. e/3aXoj/. 


66. eV T^ avX?; /carco X fdrco eV 

TT; auX^ Tf. 

67. iTyo oO TJarda X qo~6a TOV 

lj;o-. Ln. Tf. 

68. OUK otSa, oufie X ovre ot5a 

owre Ln. txt. Tf. 

TI o~u X &V TI Ln. Tf. 

Kai aXe/cTcop efp&vqore [Ln.] 

69. TraXti/, om. Tf. 

Trapeo~Tf)KOo~w X 


70. KOI ^ XaXta o~ 

o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =5]. ^ite. 

71. op.vviv\ ofj-vvvai Gb. Ln.Tf. 

[Bee. Gb. ex.]. 

72. c /c devTepov, prcem. evdvsLn.; 

prcem. evdecos Sch. [Gb. <*>]. 

ToO prj[j.aTOS ov X To pijp- a 

as Ln. Tf. ; ro prjp-a o Sch. 
[Gb : ~]. 

(pa>VTJo~at dls X Sis (pew. Ln. 


- OTrap 1/77 0-77 p,e rpts X Tpt? M f 
anapv. Ln. Tf. 


1. ev0cos X f^^s 1 Tf. 

eVi TO, om. Ln. 

T<U IliXara), o??z. TW Lu. Tf. 


2. eV?7pa>rJ7crei> X fjrrjpoyra Ln. 


enrtv aira) X oira) Xe yei 

4. eV?7pa>r77o-ei/ X eVi/pcora Tf. 

X Karrjyo- 
Ln. Tf. J?.r. 

7. wo~TacnacrTwv X O Tacriao - 

T<UI/ Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

8. ai/a/Soryaas X avaftas Ln. Tf. 
10. TrapadedtjOKfia av X 7rape 6\- 

12. ctTTOKpidels nd\iv X TTdXt 

cnroKp. Ln. Tf. 
eiVei/ X e Xeyfi/ Tf. 

- 6e\eT, om. Alx. 

- ov Xeyer6, o;. Ln. ^te. 

- /3ao-tXea, ;J;YC?. Toy Ln. Tf. 


, add. \tyovres Ln. 


/coV Tf. 
- Trepio-croTepcos X 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
fKpa^av X Kpaov Ln. 

17. V$VOV(Tll> X l 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 

i8. /3ao-tXeu X o /SaatXeuy Gb. 
Sch. Tf. 

20. ra t Sta X cturov Ln. [Gb. 


X ayovo~iv Ln. 

crti> Ln. Tf. ./4&r. 

21. dV X aTro Ln. Tf. 

22. eVt, add. TOI> -4Ar. 

23. Trieti/, o?n. Tf. 

24. o-ravpcoo-ai/res 1 avroi/Xorav- 

povcriv avTov Kat Tf. 

- $ifp.piov X 5ta/Aeptoi>rat 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

28. Kat 7T\r)p(i)Qr) f) ypacpr) 77 

Xe youcra, Kat pera di>d- 
p,a>z/ eXoyicrdrj, om. Tf. [Gb. 

29. Dual X Ova St. Elz. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

ev Tpio~\v T]p.epais oiKoSop,a>i> 
X otKoS. Tpicnv f)p.fp. Ln. Tf. 
(om. ev Alx.) 

30. Kai Kard/3a X Kara^as Ln. 


31. 5e, o?ra. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

32. TOV lo-par)X, ow. rov Ln. 


- 7rto-reu(7Ci}p,ei>, add. aurai Ln. 



32. aurw, prcem. crvv Ln. 

33. Tfvop.evT]s dc X tal yei>. Ln. 

Tf. ^te. 

34. 777 wpa TT; fwdrrj X 177 o>. 

wpa Ln. Tf. Alx. 

\eycaVj om. Tf. Alx. 

- Xa/u/ta X Xe/xa Ln. ; Xa/xa 

Tf. ; Xi/ia (&. 

- /Me eyKOTf\tirS X fy^ar. /ue 

Ln. txt. Tf. 
3$. I8ov X i^e Tf. 
36. els X ff Tf. 

- KOI ye/iio-a?, ow. Koi Ln. 


- jrepideis re, ow. re Ln. Tf. 

38. OTTO X an Ln. Tf. 

39. Kpaas-, OTO. Tf. 

6 avdpatrros OVTOS X OVT. 6 

avQp. Ln. Tf. 

40. ro{5 laArco^ou, o??z. ro{) Ln. 

Tf. .4te. (5. om. 17 rov.) 

- Icocr^ X Icoo-^roy Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. cv]. Alx. 

41. at Kai, oi. Kat Ln. ; (om. at 


42. 7rpo<ra/3/3aroi/ X Trpos (ra/3- 

/3aroi/ Ln. 

43- ^X^ei/ X e X0au> Ln. Tf. [Gb. 
*>]. Alx. 

TOV Tf. 

44. TraXat X 7&7 Ln. 

45. o-wfia X Trrcop-a Ln. Tf. 

46. KOI Ka$eXci>i/, om. *cai Ln. Tf. 

KareOrfKev X edrjKev Ln. ^f Ar. 

47. Icoa^ X. ^ l^ocr^roff Ln. Tf. 

- ridcTai X rt^etrat Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~3. ^te. 


1. TOV Iaxa)/3ou, Gb. - TOV 

2. rJ}? p,tas X M 1 ? T^ Ln - 

3. e x X OTTO Ln. ^4te. 

4. dTTOKeKuXKrrat X dvaKfKv\i- 

crrat Tf. 

5. eto r eX^oO(rai X eX^ovcrat Tf. 

7. aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 

8. ra^v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- Se X yap L n - 

ovdeV, om. Ln. (? erratum.) 

9. ver. 9 ad fin. om. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 

d(p X Trap Ln. 

10. fKclvrj, add. de Ln. 
14. vcrrepor, add. Se Ln. 

- eyrjyfpp.evov, add. e/c veKpaiv 


17. ravra TrapaKoXou^crei X ?ra- 

pa.Ko\ov6r)o~ei ravra Ln. 

18. /3Xd^ X/SXctyi; Gb. Sch. Ln. 

19. Kvptoy, add. iT/croOs 1 Ln. ^te. 

20. t Afj.rjv ) om. Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. 



KOI 77 yvvr] avTov X ^at 

aura> Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 
eVcoTTtoi/ X fvdvTiov Tf. 
77 EXto-d/3er yv \ rjv *E\i- 

o-d/3er Ln. ; rjv TJ EXto-. Tf. 


fvavri X fvovriov Gb. ~. Alx. 
TOV XaoC fjv X *\v roO Xaov 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
ycwfoei X yei/eVet Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

rou Kvptou, om. TOV Gb. Alx. 
7r\rjpa>df}o-ovTai X TtfalvQi]- 

(rovTai Gb. ~. 
T/Sui aro X e Suvaro Ln. Tf. 
6 Kuptoy, ow. 6 Ln. 
VTTO X drro Tf. 
Naaper X Na^ape^ Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 
6 ayyeXoy, oi. Tf. 

28. (vKoyrjfjLevT] (TV ev yvvcu,iv t 

om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

29. t5oi5o-a, OOT. Gb. Tf. Alx. 

Sierapd^^ eVrt rw Xdya) au- 

roO X eVt ro> Xdy Sterap. 
Gb. Tf. 
Gb. ^ ; 
Gb. ~], 

30. avrr} X Trpoy CIVTTJV Ln. mg. 

34. eVrat, add. p-ot ^4te. 

35. yewapfvov, add. e/c (rov [Ln.] 

[Gb. *] ; 

36. o-vyyevr)s X (rvyyevis Ln. Tf. 

yr/pa X yhpei Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

37. r&> 0ea5 X 7"u eou Ln. mg. 

39. Maptap, X Mapta Ln. mg. 

41. 77 EXto-d/3er rov do-Trao-fJ,6v 

TTJS Maptas X ro1 ao~7T. r. 
Map. 17 EXto-. Ln. Tf. ^te. 

42. <pa>vf) ,X Kpavyfj t Tf. 

44. eV dyaXXtdcret TO /3pe(pos X 

ro /3pe (p. eV dyaXX. Gb. 

49. /ieyaXeta X peydXa Ln. 

50. yei/eco!/ X fat yeveay Tf. [Gb. 

<v] ; [eiy yevedv Kal yeveav 

Gb. ~]. 
$$. els TOV altova X ca>s alcovos 

Gb. Sch. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 
56. cbo-ei X &>s Ln. 
59. oySdr7 T7p,e pa X W- Tfl oyd. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. Alx. 

6l. flTTOV X etTTOI/ Tf. 

- eV rr] crvyyeveiq X ^ TT}? 
o-vyyevfias Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

62. ai/rdi/ X a^rd Ln. Tf. 

66. Kat X 6 *P ^ Ka ^ 

Tf. Alx. 

67. 7rpo<pr)TVO~f X 

(rev Ln. Tf. 

69. ro ot /co), o?n. ra> Ln. Tf. Alx. 
roi) TratSos, om. TOV Ln. Tf. 

70. T&ii/ aTT* atcoi/oy, o??i. reov Tf. 

74. rcoi/ xdp5)v, om. rwv Ln. Tf. 

7)p,a>v [Ln.] om. Tf. 

7^, Trao-as- ray jjpepay X Trao-aty 
rats- fj/jicpais Ln. mg. 

TT/S- C^fj om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 
76. Kat o-v, aaW. 5e Tf. ^ite. 


3. T/ a?roypa(pi7, om. 77 Ln. 

Kvprjviov X KvptVou Ln. 

3. tdi aj/ X eauroi) Ln. 

4. Na^aper X Naapa# Ln. ; 


X a;roypa- 

p.p,vrjo~TVp.evrj X f/AWyOTCV/t. 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 

- yuraiKi, om. Ln. Tf. ^47a?. 

7. TT; (pdri/?;, om. r^ Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. l^te. 
9. Kvpiov 2 Gb. -. 
12. eo~7rapyaya)peVoj/, a<7^. Kai 
[Ln.] ^4te. 

- TT; <pdrvr], om. TTJ Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

14. evftoKia X ev8oKias Ln. 
i. Kal 01 avdpwTTOi [Ln.] ; om. 

^4 to. 

flrrov X eXdXoiw Ln. mg. 

1 6. dvevpov X dvevpav Tf. ; eu- 

pov s. eupai/ ^te. 

17. 8 


19. Mapiap X Mapi a Ln 

20. eVeoTpe^av X virfO 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

21. TO Traidiov X avTW Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

Kai eK\r)dr], om. Kal Alx. 

22. avTwv X ovr^S Elz. ; avTOV 


23. vopa), prcem. rw Ln. 

24. i/opo), prcem. TO> Ln. Tf. 

veocrcrovs X voacrovs Tf. [Gb. 

~]. ^Zar. 

2^. ^j/ avdpaTTOs X nv^p. ^i/ Ln. 

dyiov rjv X ^ ayiov Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 
28. airov, om. Tf. [Ln.] 
33. la)O"j)(p X o > Icoo - j)(p Ln. ; 6 

7rarj)p O.VTOV Gb. Tf. -<4te. 

[Rec. Gb. ~]. 
35- 8e [Ln.] 
36. err; pera dvftpbs eTrra X p-era 

dvdpbs frr) CTTTCI Ln. Tf. 


Alx, ; (s. errj eWa 

37. aW X e^s Ln. Tf. ^te. 

OTTO, om. Tf. 

38. aur?7, O?M. Ln. Tf. Jte. 

- Kvpia) X fw Ln. txt. Tf. 


- eV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

39. r?)y TrdXii/ avT&v X 7roA 

cov Ln. Tf. 

Y X Naap<- Tf. ; e 
sic deinceps. 

40. Tn/eupart, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.^j. 


- <ro<pias X o"o(pia Tf. Ln. nig. 

42. avaftavTav X avafiawovTwv 

Ln. Tf. ^fte. 

- eis lepoo-oXi;p,a, om. Tf. [Gb. 

=a ^fe. 

43. eyi/a) *Ia)orr)<p Kal f) p^r^p \ 

eyvcoaav ol yovfls Ln. txt. 
Tf. [Gb. ex,], ^te. 

44. eV Trj (Tvvodiq eiVai X e Ivai 

Iv TTJ (TWoSiq Ln. Tf. Alx. 

- Kal eV, om. eV Gb. Ln. Tf. 


4$. avTov i, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] 

- riTOvi>Tes X dvafarovvres Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. *]. Alx. 
46. pe0 X p-era Tf. 
48. eiTre, ante Trpbs avr. Ln. Tf. 

$i. KOI ^X$/ Gb. -. 

- TroWa ra pqpara X 7" p^ 

Trdirra Ln. txt. Tf. 

raura [Ln.] 


2. eV X e> 7 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- apxtepeW X apX te P e/a)s ^ b - 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

rod Za^aptou, OT?Z. roC Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

3. TTJV Trepi^copoi/, om. rrjv Ln. 

Tf. ^to. 

4. Xeyovroy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.=J]. 


^. fvQelav X evdeias Ln. Tf. 
7. oui/ X Se ^Za;. 
9. K.a\bv [Ln.] 
10. 7TOir j(TOfj,ev X Trotj^crajp-ev Sch. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

it. Xeyet X f Xeyer Ln. Tf. Alx. 
12. i7rov X tlirav Ln. 

roir)(rop,i> X 7roir)(T(op,ev Ln. 

14. Kal fleets TL 7roir)(rop,v X "t 

7704170-. /cat 17^. Ln. txt. Tf. ; 

[^Za,-.] (.TTOifja-ca/JLev Tf.) 
14. Trpoy O.VTOVS X aurois Ln. Tf. 


1 6. t>, ad^. ets perdvoiav Ln. 
17. /cai diaKa.Oapie i X 8ictKa6d- 

pai Ln. nag. 

19. ^tXiTrTrov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


20. TrpocredrjKe Kat, [Afai] Ln. 

ei> r^, OOT. r^ Ln. Tf. -<4te. 
22. wo-ei X $ Ln. Tf. ^te. 

\eyov(rav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

evdoKqaa Ln. Tf. 

23. o irjcrovs a>ael e rcov rptd- 

Kovra dp^6fj.evos X o l^o*. 
ap^op.. wo-et eraii/ rptaK. Tf. 
Ln. mg. ^4te. 

&v, ws eVopi^ero, vtoy X ^^ 

mos &>$ ez/op. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

la>o~j)<p, prcem. rov Tf. 

24. Mar^ar X Mar^av Alx. 

lawa X lawal Ln. Tf. 

26. TO) Sepei, TOV Ia)o-J7<p X r. 

2ep-6tV, r. Icocn^ Tf. Ln. 
mg. Alx. 

- loufia X iwSa Tf. 

27. Icoawa X Icoavav Ln. Tf. 

28. EXpcodap, X *EXp,aap, Ln. 


29. Icoa^ X lijffav Ln. Tf. ^4Za;. 

31. TOV Ma tVai/ X T ^ Mew/a 

[Ln.] Tf. 
a^ay X Na^ap. Ln. mg. 

32. /3))a X lw,/3^S Ln. Tf. 

Boov Ln. Tf. Alx. 

33. rou Apap, X TI) ASpeti/, 

roC Api t Tf. ; TOV Apa/t, 
TOU icopap, ^4te. 

- Eo-pcop, X E(rpo>i> Ln. txt. 


35. Sapov^ X Sepov^ Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

$aXe/< X *aXey Tf. Ln. mg. 


36. KatVai X KaiVa/Lt Tf. 

37. lapeS X Idped Ln. 


1. TLvfvp.aTos Ayi ov TrXrjprjs X 

TrX. Ill/, ay. Ln. Tf. ^fte. 

eiff TTJV cprj/jiov X eV r^ ep?;- 

p-o) Ln. txt. Tf. [Gb. ]. Alx. 

2. vo-repov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 


3. Kai erTrei/ X 7rei/ Se Ln Tf. 

4. irjcrovs Trpbs CLVTOV Xeycov X 

Trpbs avT. 6 Irjo: Ln. Tf. 


o avdpaTTOS) 6 Gb. -. Cst. 
- aXX eVi TrajTt popart 0eoC, 

o?n. Tf. 

5. 6 StajSoXos, ow. Tf. [Gb. =5]. 

eis opo? vty^ov, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

6. eai/ X ai> Ln. Tf. 

7. pou X e/Aov Ln. Tf. 

Trdvra X yracra Gb. Sch. Ln. 


8. aur<5 elirev X elrrev avrm Ln. 
-"YTraye OTTitra) pov, 2arai/a, 

ow. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] <4te. 

- yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

IIpoo~Kvvr]o~is Kuptoz/ 

Qeov aov X ,Kvp. r. GedV 
o~. rrpoo-KW. Ln. txt. Alx. 

9. Kai rjyayev X rjyayev de Tf. 


avTov 2, om. Tf. 

~ 6 vtoff, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


n.ori Gb.=s. 
i3. eiirev aura) 6 Ir)o~ovs, om. 

1 6. T^I> Nafaper, om. r^i/ Ln. 

17. Hcraiov TOV irpo(pt)TOv X rov 

7rpo<p. Her. Ln. txt. Tf. 

- ai/aTrru^a? X avoias Ln. ^te. 
1 8. eveKev X ftVexei/ Gb. Sch. Ln. 


et>ayyeXiV<r$ai X cuayyeXi- 

Ln. Tf. 
Oai TOVS (TUVTTpifJifJ.- 

vovs TTJV KapSiav, om. Gb. 

Tf. [Ln.] ^te. 
20. 01 6(pOa\fjiol rjcrav X ^crav ot 

6<p8aXpdi Ln. Tf. 
23. Ov^ OVTOS ecrTiv 6 vibs l<u- 

(D70 X ^X* vios ecmv 

idoarjcp OVTOS Tf. Ln. mg. 

Alx. ; (oy^i Ln. txt.) 
23. ei/ T^ KaTrepvaov/z X ftff K. 

Gb. Ln. Tf. Alx. (s. /). [Rec. 

Gb. v]. 
2^. eVi er^, om. enl Ln. 

26. 2apf Trra X 2ape<p#a Tf. ^4Za;. 

2ta>vos X 2i8a>i ias Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ^te. 

27. e?ri EXwrcraiou rou 7rpo(pr)~ 

TOV cv T<5 icrpa^X X f^ T"^ 
icrp. eVi EXicr. roO ?rpo(p. 
Ln. Tf. ^4te. ; ( EXio-atou 


27. Neepai/XNatpavLn. Tf. Alx 
29. TTJS ocppvos, om.Trjs Gb. Sch 

O.VTWV (pKod6[JiT)TO X &)Kodop 

avTcov Tf. 

- els TO X ware Gb.Ln. Tf. Alx 
34. Xeycoi/, om. Tf. 

35- e X OTT Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx 

TO peo~oi>, om. TO Gb. Cst. 

38. <FK X OTTO Tf. [Gb. ]. Alx. 

- i^ 7rei/$epa, om. 17 Gb. Sch 

Ln. Tf. 

39. Trapa^pjjpa de X fat rrapa- 

40. cmufts X firtTiQfls Ln. txt 

Tf. ^Z,r. 

41. Kpa^ovra X Kpavydovra Ln 

Tf. ^4te. 

- 6 Xpto-roff, o?. Gb. Ln. Tf 


42. eftrovv X eVe^rovi/ Gb. Sch 

Ln. Tf. 

43. pe Set X del pe Ln. 

ety roOro X f ^ri Touro Ln 

Tf Alx 

aVeVraXpat X aVeoraXTp 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 

44. eV rats- truz/aycoyats X ctj 

ray crv^aycoyay Tf. ^f?a?. 

- TTJS TaXtXatay X T^ lou- 


1. roi) aKoveiv X fai OKOV. Tf. 

Ln. mg. j;?a?. 

2. Suo TrXoTa X TrXotapta Sui 

Ln. mg. ; dvo vrXotapta Tf. 

aVojSdVres OTT avT&v X OTT 

avr. arro^. Tf. ^4te. 

drreTrXwav X en\vvov Ln. 

Tf. ; e7T\vvav Gb. ~. ^to. 

3. roC Stpcoj/oy, om. roi) Ln. Tf. 

Kai K.a6io~as\ Ka.6t.o~as de Tf. 

Ln. mg. 
S. 6 2i pa)i>, o?ra. 6 Tf. 

om. Trjs Ln. Tf. 

TO diKTVov X Ta diKrva Ln. 

6. l%6va)V 7T\r)do$ X 7T\rjdos 

l-%6va)V Gb. Sch. 
- difpprjyvvTo de TO &IKTVOV X 
Se ra diKTva 

Ln. mg. ; dieprjaeTG de TO 

dlKTVOV Tf. 

7. rot? cV, o?w. rots Tf. [Ln.] 



rou I^(rov, owi. rov Ln. Tf. 

6 LjKTOVff, OTO. 6 Tf. 
airavTa X TTtzi/ra Ln. 
flrronv X Xeyeov Ln. ^4Za?. 
VTT avrou, owi. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

^]. Alx. 

^aptcraiot, prceTre. ot Ln. 
eXyXvQoTes X trvveXiyXv^o- 

rey Ln. txt. ^4te. 
did Troias, om. did Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
aur<5, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

(s. T<U TrapaXvriKw). 
dfptevai dfiaprias X apap- 

ri as dobeli/at Ln.txt.Tf. ^te. 
P.OVOS X e ^ -^to. 
aTTOKpidels) om. Ln. 
Eyeipai X eyftpe Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 


Opwirov X o vtoy rov aV$p. 
egovtriav e ^ei Tf. Ln. mg. 

- TrapaXeXupeVa) X TrapaXvrt- 

K&> Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^4te. 

- eyeipai X eyeipe Gb. Sch.Ln. 


25. e<p J X *U o Tf. [Gb. ~ 


26. Kat eKO~Tao~is e Xa/3ei> arrav- 

TO.S KOI ed6aov TOV Qebv, 
om. Alx. 

27. ededaaTO X ci Sey Ln. mg. 

28. arrai/ra X Trai^ra Ln. Alx. 

txt. Tf. 

29. 6 Aeviy, oi. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. Alx. 

VS X TToXl/S 1 T- 

Ln. ^to. 

30. ot ypapparcls 1 CLVT&V KOI ol 

&apio-dioi X ot $ap. Kai ot 
ypap. avTcov Ln. Tf. yl&r. 

- pera, add.Ta>v Gb. Sch.Ln.Tf. 

Kai apaprcoXwi/, om. Tf. 

31. aXXa X XX Ln. Tf. 

33. einov X elrrav Ln. Tf. 

- Atari, o?rc. Tf. ^Z*. 

34. 6 6e, arfd. l^aovy ^Z^. 

VTJGTCVflV, Om. Alx. 

35. Kai orai/ X [<i] Ln. 

36. e7Ti /3X?;pa, arf(Z. tZTro [Ln.] Tf. 

[Gb. cv]. Alx. 

- KOIVOV, add. crxicras Tf. [Gb. 

cv]. Alx. 

- o-^i ^et X o~xio-ei Ln. txt. Tf. 



36. e7ri73X?7/ia, om. Tf. [Gb. =*]. 

Cst. ; prcem. TO Alx. 
37- P^ft X pf]<r<rci Ln. mg. 
6 i/eos olvos X o oil/off 6 veos 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 
38. Kai dp,<poTpot (TvvTrjpovv- 

rai, GOT. Tf. [Gb. -]. x4te. 
- evdeus, om. Tf. ^4te. 


i. SeurepOTrpwro), om. Tf. [Ln.] 


cr7ropi/x&>z>, om. ra>i> Ln. 


2. avrols, o?tt. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-*]. 


- iroifiv ei/, om. Ln. Tf. Alx. 

3. Trpos 1 avTovs flrrev 6 !T](TOVS 

X 6 Iyer. eiTrev Trpbs avravs 
Ln. ,4te. 

- OTrore X ore Ln. ^&r. 

oi/rey, am. Ln. ^(Zu?. 

4. y, om. Tf. Wfcc.] ; TTOOS Ln. 

txt. Ute.] 

- eXa/Sc, Kai Gb. -, [aw. -<4fo.] ; 

AajSwi/ Ln. Ute.] 

Kai rot?, om. Kai Ln. Tf. Alx. 

6. Kai eV, o??i. Kai Ln. Alx. 

- eKf 1 iivdpa)7ros X aVtfp. e /cel 

Tf. Jte. 

7. Trapfrrjpovv X TrapeTrjpovvTo 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. ^4te. 

- avTov, om. Sch. Ln. [Gb. =J]. 

Qepanevaet X Oepcnrfvei av- 

rov Alx. 

8. ai eiTre X ewrej/ Se Tf. Ln. 

ing. yite. 

ra) dvdpd>7T(d X TO> dfSpi Tf. 

[Gb. ^]. Alx. 

-"Eytipat X eyetpe Gb.Ln.Tf. 

- O Se X Kai Ln. Tf. ^4te. 

9. ovv X Se Ln. Tf. Alx. 

ETrepcor^crco X eVfpcorw Tf. 


- rt X ft Ln. Tf. 

TOLS (TafSfScuriv X TO> (ra/3- 

/3ara> Ln. txt. Tf. 

ciTroXe crat X diroKTelvat Gb. 

Sch. [Rec. Gb. *]. 
10. r<5 dvdpa>7T(j> X airw Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. <v]. 

eiroirjcrfV X e^ereti/e Gb. . 


ourco, om. Gb. Cst. 

d^ X avrf /care- 
Gb. Ln. Tf. y(to. 


10. vytfjg) om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- Q)s f) a XX?/, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

]. Alx. 

11. TTOLTjaeiav X Troirjcraiev Ln. 


12. f^rfkBev X ft-eXQelv avrbv 

Tf. [Gb. .]. Alx. 

14. laKco/Soj/, prczm. Kai Ln. Tf. 


- <i Xt7T7roi/, ^rcem. Kai Ln. Tf. 

^ to. 

15. Mar^aToi , prcem. Kai Ln. Tf. 


TOV rou, OT?I. Tf. Alx. 

16. loufiai/, prcem. Kai Ln.Tf. ^4Z. 

icrKapicorT/j X l<TKapt&>$ Ln. 


- 6s Kai, om. Kai Ln. Tf. 

1 8. o^Xou/iei/oi X fVOX^ovfJXVOl 
Tf. [Gb. ~]. -4te. 

- VTTO X dno Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- Kai edepanevovTo, om. Kai 

Ln. Tf. Alx. 

J 9- f C 7 ? 7 " 61 X ttf)TQ\)v Tf. Ln. nig. 
22. po-^crcocrii/X fJ>io-r](rov<nv Ln. 


X fVfKfv Ln. 

X X^P 7 / 1 " 6 ^ b - ^ cn - 
Ln. Tf. 

raura X Ta avra Ln. txt. Tf. 

.4fo?. ; raura Ln. mg. [Gb. f^>]. 

25. fj.7Tf7r\i]crfJ.VOL,add. vvv Alx. 

vp.l.V) ol y\)VTfs X t > /*i > oi. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

26. vfuv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- Trdvres, om. Gb. Sch. 

radra X TO. aura Ln. txt. Tf. 

Alx. ; raura [Gb. f^]. 

27. AXX X "XXa Ln. Tf. 

28. vjj.1v X vp.ds Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. 

Kai Trpoaevxecrdc, om. Kai 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

inrep X Trepi Tf. 

30. Se ra> [Ln.] ; om. 6e ^4Za:. 

31. Kai vp.fls [Ln.] 

33. X<*P IS f " 3 " 1 X eVrti/ X"P ty Ln - 

34. davei^re X 8avcicrr]T Ln. 

txt. ; &ai/e/ere Tf. Ln. mg. 


a7roXa/3eii/ X Xa^eTv Tf. 

- yap, om. Tf. 

- of, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =8]. Alx. 

35. dire\7riovTes X d(f>\iri^ov" 

res Ln. 

- TroAvy, ofZ<?. eV roty ovpavols 


rou v^iVrou, o?w. roO Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 


36. ovv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. Alx. 

- Kci0a>s Kai, om. Kai Tf. [Ln.] 

37. *rai ov p.r) X "^a /-") Ln. txt. 

/MT) KaratKaere, prwm. Kai 

Tf. yite. 

38. Kai <recra\evp.evov Kai om. 

Kai &is Ln. Tf. 

VTrepfK)(vv6iJ.fvov X vTrepeK- 

Xvwd/xevoi/ Ln. Tf. 

- rw yap avrw p.erpa> <a X <? 

yap p-frpat Ln. txt. ^4te. 

dvTip.eTpr]6r)cr(Tai, X P-^P 1 ] 

OrjCTfTai Ln. mg. 

39. Etrre Se, a<M. Kai Ln.Tf. Jte. 

TeaovvTai X f/xTrecrouz/rat Ln. 
txt. Tf. Jte. 

40. dtddcrKaXoj/ avrov, om. avrou 

Ln. Tf. Alx. 

42. T) Trews, om. r; Tf. 
eK/3aXe>, ^;osi roO d8e\<pov 

vov Tf. 

43. ovSe, <w?d. TrdXtj/ [Ln.] Tf. 

44. rpvyoMTi aTa<pv\r)V X (TTa<p. 

rpvy. Tf. yife. 

4$. avdp&TTOS 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] 
[Gb. =S]. ^Z;r. 

- fycravpov TTJS KapStas av- 

roC 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =:]. 

roi) 7repi(7(reu^iaros r^s, om. 

rov e< r^s Ln. Tf. Alx. 

XaXet ro o~rdp,a avroO X To 

o~rdju.a aur. XaXeT Ln. [av- 
rou Gb. -]. 

48. TeQep.f\ia>TO yap cVi TTJV 

Trerpav X Sia ro KaXcos oZ- 

KOOOfJ.e ia OClL CtVTl]V Tf. ^i/Z . 

49. o? 


i. Errei Se X fTTfidrj Ln. Tf. 
4. 7rapK.d\ovv X ^pco 

d<Z. aurai 
e^ei X 

rt Ln. 

ecoff X euflvff Tf. 

X orvvir<rev Tf. 

6 e f Kardi/rapxoy (p/XovsX^t- 

Xous 6 CKCITOVT. Tf. Ln. mg. 

et/ii iKavos X iKafos etp.t Tf. 

Ln. mg. 
VTTO r7]i/ VTeyrjv p,ov X /*ou 

VTTO r. crrey. ^te. 
m^aerat X ta^i/rco Tf. 


ouSe X OVT Cst. 

of 7Tfp(p0evTfS fts TOV O?KOI 

X els TOV &IK.W of 7rep.(p. Ln 


do-0evovvTa, om. Ln. [Alx.] 
Trj f^rjs X Tea eijs Ln. mg 

[Gb. *>]. Cst. 

iKcivol [Ln.] [Gb. -] ; om. Alx 
Tfdi>T]K(i)s [Ln.] 
vlbs fjiovoyfvrjs X povoy. ufos 

Tf. Ln. mg. 

OUT??, add. rjv St. Ln. JZ.r. 
iKavbs r)V) om. rjv St. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =*]. Cfc. 
dveKa&io-fv X fKadio~ev Ln, 


f 8u>Kv X aircftiDKev Ln. mg. 
airavTas X Trai/ras Gb. Sch. 
X riyepdri Ln. Tf. 


17. eV Trdo~rj X cV [Ln.] 

19. l^o-oOf X Kupioi Tf. Ln. mg. 

20. (LTTOV X f iVaz> Ln. Tf. 

aXXoi> X fTepov Alx. 

21. Ei/ OUT?/ X ^ eKeivrj Tf. Ln 

mg. ^Za?. 

- de^-om. Ln. Tf. 

- ro /3XeVeti>, o??i. TO Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =J]. Crf. 

22. 6 Ifjo oCs 1 , o/ra. Tf. [Ln.] ^4Z.r. 

ort TwtpXot, o??i. OTi Ln. Alx. 
24. Trpos 1 TOVS o%\ovs\Tols o%- 

\OLS Cst. 

[Gb. *]. 

25. ee\T]\v0a.Te X e ^ 

[Gb. .]. ^4te. 

26. ef-e\r)\vda.T X e^rjXdare Ln. 

[Gb. <*>]. JZ-r. 

27. eya), cm. Ln. Tf. ,4Za?. 

28. Acyo) yap, o. yap Tf. ; d/x^y 

Xeya), s. Xeyco 8e, s. Xe yco 

) om. Ln. [Gb. -]. 

roi) BaTTTiorov, o??i. Tf. [Gb. 

-]. ^te. 

31. eiTre fie 6 "KvpioS) om. Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

32. Kal \eyovo~LV X Xeyovre? Tf. 


vp.1v 2, o??i. Alx. 

33. apTOV ecrOiwv X fo~0(ov ap- 

TOV Ln. Tf. ; [aproj/ Gb. - ; 
OHJ. ^te.] 

~ oii/oi/ Trivav X ifivoav olvov 
Ln. Tf. ; [ou/ov Gb. - ; om. 

34. eV$iW X eo-$a>i> Tf. 

reXcoi/coz/ <pi\os X (pihos T 

\tova>v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

35. TO)V TKV<OV aVTTjS TTaiTtoV 

T. TCK. avr. Ln. Tf. 
Gb. - ; om. ^fte.] 

36. r^v oiKiav X TOI/ OIKOV Ln 

Tf. ^te. 

dvK\idr) X KaTfK\[drj Ln. Tf 

eV T?/ TToXft, T^TiJ ^V X 

r)V eV T ( ^ TroXet Ln. txt. Tf 
eTnyvovaa, prcem. Kal Ln. Tf 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 
dvaKfiTai X K-O.TO.K.vrcu Ln 

Tf. Alx. 
Trapa Touy TroSas avTOv OTTL- 

cra) X oTTio-a) Trapa TOVS- TTO- 

Sas- avToO Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
TOIS- daKpvo-i, ante rjpaTO 

Ln. Tf. Al 

, AtSacrxaXe, i 

AiS. ei?re, (prjo-iv Tf. 
^peco(petXeVai X 

TO i Ln. Tf. 

Se, owt. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =r. ^4Z^. 
eiTre, o??i. Ln. [Gb. -*]. Alx. 
avTov dyaTrrjcrei J dyarrtjo-f 

avTov Ln. Tf. Alx. 
Se i, om. Tf. [Ln.] ^Za?. 
eVi TOUS- Trddas 1 /zou X P- 

eVi TroSas 1 Tf. 
T^s 1 /cecpaXr/s 1 , o?ra. Gb. Sch 

Ln. Tf. 
flo-TJ\6ov X flo-rjXdev Gb. ~. 


p-ov Gb. Ln. [Gb. -]. 


pov Ln. Tf. 
af dfj.apTiat avTrjs X auT^ af 
ap,ap. Ln. 




3. aiira) X avrols Sch. Tf. [Gb. 

- OTTO X CK Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. ^te. 

5. avrov X fctuTou CsZ. 

6. Zireo-ev X KctreTrearfv Tf. 

8. eVl X ets Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

9. Xeyoi/rcs-, GOT. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

5. (Z Jin. add. rai)ra, Xe ycor 

6. Xu^i^ias X Trjtf \vxviav Alx 

1 6. eirtridrja-af X ridrjo-iv Ln. Tf. 

17. ou yvti)a 6rjO Tai X ^ /^^ 

yvu>o~6f] Ln. 
1 8. yap ay X av yap Tf. 

20. Kal dirr]yye\Tj X dnrjyyeXrj 

fie Ln. Tf. Jte. 

XeyoVrcoi , om. Ln. ^4te. 

21. Trpos O.VTOVS X atrots Ln. 


avrov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. ^4Za:. 

22. Kal eyevero X fyevfTO 8e 

Ln. Tf. Jte. 
- eVe/3^ X aixf/377 Tf. 

23. avtp.ov, _pos \ifj.vr)v Ln. m,^. 

24. eycp6e\s X Sieyfp^eiy Tf. ^4te. 

25. e orii>, OHZ. Ln. Tf. ^4&r. 

26. Ya^aprfvwv X Tfpao-rjvtov Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. <4te. (s. Tepye- 

dvTiTrepav X dfTiVepa Ln. Tf. 

27. e /c ^povcoj/ iKavaiv X fai xp<> - 

28. Kal dvaKpd^aS) om. Kal Ln. 

Tf Alx 

TOV Geov Gb. -. 

29. IlapTjyyeiXe X Trap^yyeXXfi/ 

Ln. Tf. ^Za;. 

fdfo~p.f7.TO X edeo-fjLevfTO Tf. 

8iapprjo~o~a)v X tapj^o". Ln. Tf. 

8aipovos X 8atp,oviov Ln. txt. 

30. Xe ycof, om. Ln. 

e crTif 6 j/op.a X ovopd O~TIV 

Ln. ^4Za;. 

6ai/zoVia TroXXa flo~r)\dev X 

elo~rj\d. 8ai/j,. TroX. Ln. Tf. 

31. TrapeKaXei X rrapeKaXovv Ln. 

[Gb. <*]. ^Z.r. 

32. l3oO~KOfJLV(t)V X ^O(TKOfJLVrj 

Ln. txt. ^4Za;. 

rapeKa\ovv X 7rapeKd\o~uv 

Ln. Tf. ^Z#. 

33. elo~r)\dev X fiO"^X^oi/ Sch. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. <*>]. 

34. yeyevjjfievov X yeyovos Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

aTreX^dVTes 1 , o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

. Ka6rjfJLVOV TOV civdp(07TOV X 



6. Kai of l86vTs t om. Kal Ln. 

[Gb. =s]. Jte. 
6 8ai[j.ovio~de{s Gb. ^. 

7. r)pwTt]<j-av X rjpwTrjo-ev Ln. 

37- Ta8apy]vS)v X Tepacrrjvcov Ln. 
Tf. Alx. (s. repy COT; i/ooi/). 

TO TrXoToi/, om. TO Ln. Tf. Alx. 

38. eSe fro X eSeetro Ln. 

et TO. dai/jiovia X TO 
i. eeX. Ln. mg. ^te. 

- 6 ir/o-oCy, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

=5]. ^te. 

39. eirofyo cv crot X " l rot. Ln. 

Tf. .4Za?. 

40. eyeveTO Se eV ro> X f" Se r<5 


wrooTpe^ai X vfroorpfCpeiv 

Ln. mg. 

41. auToy X euros Ln. txt. ^fte. 

42. coy X <uo~et ^4te. 

Ev de r<5 virdyeiv X Kai eye- 

j/fro / raj nopeveo-dai Ln. 
Tf. ^4te. 

crvveirviyov X (rvvedXifiov 


43. ety laTpovs X larpols Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

/3tW, a<M. avTrjs Ln. 

- UTT X an" Ln. Tf. 

45. /zfr avTov X o i i at>T<u Gb. 

Ln. Tf. Alx. 

- Kai Xeyety, Tt y 6 

/xou ; Gb. - ; om. Alx. 

46. lr](rovs Gb. =3. 

- ef\6ovaav X 


47. aura), om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 


48. Gapcra, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

X dvyaTTjp Tf. 

49. irapa X OTTO Ln. 

aura), cm. Tf. ^fa\ 

fj-rf x fMJKfTi Ln. 

50. Aeyeof, o??i. Ln. Tf. ^4Zar. 

Trtoreue X iriGTevcrov Tf. 

51. Eto-eXdcl/ X eX^cbv Gb. Sch. 


ouSeVa X Tt va (ruj/ atrw Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

- laxco/Sov /cat ladwrjv X !<- 

ai/. /cai Iti. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

52. OVK X OL> yap Ln. txt. Tf. Alx. 

dirfdavfV) add. TO Kopdaiov 


54. 6Kj3aXa)z/ e^a) Travraf, /cat, 
oro. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^Za;. 

- eyeipov X eyctpe Ln. Tf. ^4fo. 


i. p.adr]Tas CIVTOV, om. Gb. Tf. 


2. do~d(vovvTas X acr^fi/ery Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. .]. Alx. 

3. pdftdavs X pa/35oi/ Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

5. degtovrai X Se^ffliTat Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. *]. ^ite. 

/cat rot , o;n. /cat Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 
7. yivofjxva X yevopeva Ln. mg. 

VTT aurou, oi. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

8. eis- X Tty Tf. Jte. ; (s. ow. ets). 

9. Kat eiirev X ftTre^ Se Ln. Tf. 


6 HpcoS^y, om. 6 Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

10. TOTTOV epr]fj.ov TroXecos Ka\ov- 


Tf. [Gb. ~] Ute.] ; [els ro- 
TTOJ/ ep. Gb.~]. [Alx.] 

11. 8fdp.evos X a 

Ln. Tf. ^te. 

12. aVeX$di>res X 

Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. ^fo. 

TOVS dypouy, ot. rovs 1 ^4r. 

13. up-ets- (frayelv X <pay. v/iets 

Ln. Tf. 

- e?7roz/ X etTrav Ln. Tf. 

dvo i^dves X lx^ es ^ ^ < 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

14. K\io-ias,add. [axrei] Ln. [JZa?.] 

15. avK\wav X Kare/cXtvav ^?a,*. 
1 6. TrapaTiOcvai X 7rapac9cti/at 


18. p,adrjTai t add. O.VTOV Alx. 
ig. flirov X etrraj/ Ln. Tf. 

20. ATTOKpitfeis- Se 6 Ilerpos X 

n. Se OTTOAC. Tf. 4te. ; OTTOK. 
8e H. Crf. ^ 

21. etTreii/ X Xe yeti/ Gb. Ln. Tf. 

Ute.] [Rec. Gb. ~]. 

22. eyfpdrjvai X dvaaTijvai Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. [^te.] 

23. eXdelv X epxeo-dat Gb. Ln. 

Tf. [^ite.] 

a7rapvrjO d(rd(i) X dpvr]crdo~6a) 

Gb. Ln. Tf. ^tte. 

Kat aparco TOJ/ dTavpov av- 

TOV Gb. -. 

- KO^ 77/zepai/, owz. Sch. Ln. 

[Gb. =s]. 

24. ai> X cav Csf. 

27. wSe X avTOv Tf. 

- earrjKOTtov X ea-rebrwv Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- yevtroz/rai X yev<rcoKrat Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

28. /cat 7rapaXa/3a)i/ X [Kat] Ln. 

- TOV LTeYpoi/, GOT. roj^ Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

ladwrjv KOI laKco/3oi/X *Ia/c. 

Kat Iwav. Tf. UteJ 
31. eXeyof, dc^. [6e] Ln. 

33. 6 LTerpoy, om. 6 Cs. 

- CTKT/i/ay rpcty X rpety (TKrjvas 


Maxrel /ztai/ X /^tai Mcovcret 

[Gb. Sch.] Ln. Tf. 

34. eTreava acrei/ X (ureffKiafav Tf. 

Ln. mg. 

- cKcivavs fl<re\6iiv X elo-\0. 

avTovs Tf. 

35. ayaTT^ros 1 X K\e\fyp.evos Tf. 

[Ln. mg.] [Gb. ~]. Ute.] 

36. 6 lr;o-oy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

ecopaKacrti/ X ecopaKai/ Tf. 

37. eV r^, o?w. ei/ Tf. 

38. dvfj36r)o- X fftorjo-ev Ln. Tf. 

oi/ X e7rt/ 
Sch. Tf. 

earl pot X f 10 * f&Tiv Ln. Tf. 


39. Kpa^ift, ad<Z. Kat prjo~o-ei Alx. 

40. eK(Bd\\coo-iv X cK/SaXcoo ii 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

41. Kat dvet-ojjuu X f ^s Trore dve. 


a>5e roz/ viw (rou X TOP f toi/ 

o-ou a>Se Gb. Sch. ; [&8e Gb. 

43. eiroirjcrcv X fTroiei Gb.Ln.Tf. 

- 6 l^o-oCs-, om. Tf. [Gb. =*]. 

45. fpcoTrjcrai X nepo>Tr]0~ai Ln. 

47. tSa>v X fiSwy Cs^. 

48. eav X av Ln. 

- eo-Tai X fCTTiv Ln. txt.Tf. [Gb. 
^]. Alx. 

49. 6 Ia>dvvT)s, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

eVt X e>1/ ^^ 

ra 5at/xovta, om. ra Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. =*]. 

KCt)\VO-afJ.V X KO>\VO[JLfl> 

Ln. mg. 

^o. Kat etTre X flfrev fie Ln. txt. 
Tf. ^4te. 

KcoXvere, arftZ. OVTOV Alx. 

fjp.O)V, VTTp f)IJ.a>V X V/MOV 

UTrep vjj.ti)v Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
51. airoO [Ln.] ; eavTOv Cst. 
X eor^ptaev Tf. 


$i. wore X <oy Ln. mg. 

12. Xe yco fie, o??i. fie Gb. Sch. Tf. 

35. a^rw, ow. Tf. [Ln.] [JZ#.] 

54. fiTrov X ftjrav Tf. 


36. OTJV, ow. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 

OTTO X e/c Ln. 

13. Xopai>XXopaeiV Tf. [Alx.] 

- fio/cet o-ot TrXrjo-iov X 71X77- 

cos Kal HXtay erroiTjare, om. 

B77$o~at a X B^Sorai Sd Ln. 

o~iov fcoKfl croi Gb. Sch. Tf. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 


37. ovv X fie Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

55. /cat etTrei/, Ou/c ot fiare otou 

- e yeVoiro X eyvf)6r)(rav Ln. 

[Gb. -]. 

Trvev/j-aros eVre v/j-els ; 56. 6 

Tf. [Alx.] 

38. e yeVero fie eV TOJ X f" fie TCO 

yap vtoy rod di/dparrov OVK 

Kadfj/j.fvai X Kadrjfjievoi Ln. 


rjXde \l/~vxds dvOpcaTrcov dno- 

Tf. Ute.] 

/cat avTos X [fai] Ln. 

XeVat, dXXd arcoaai, om. 

15. 77 ecoy X M 7 ? ecoy Ln. txt. Tf. 

39. rrapaKa0io-ao~a X 7rapa/ca0e- 

Ln.Tf.; [56. 6 ydp . . . o-<w- 


o-$etcra Tf. [^4Za;.] 

<rai, om. Gb. Sch., ccetera Gb. 

- v^udflo-a X v\ls(o6{](TT) ; Ln. 

Trapd X Trpoy Tf. Ln. mg. ^4?j?. 

=5 ; o?w. Alx. et Cat.] 

txt. Tf. [Alx.] 

ITJCTOI) X Kvpiov Ln. txt. Tf. 

.<7. EyeVero fie X fai Tf. [Gb. 

TOV ovpavov, om. TOV Ln. 


]. Alx. 

afiou, pnem. TOV Tf. 

40. etTre X fiTrbv Tf. 

av X e di/ Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

1 6. O UKOVtoV Vp-WV X O l^/i. UK. 

41. 1770-oOy X Kvpios Tf. Ln. mg. ; 

/cupte, ow. Ln.Tf. [Gb.-*]. ^4Z.r. 

Ln. mg. 

[6 l77o-oTjy etVe^ 01077, x - tl> " 

59. OTreX^oVrt irp&Tov X Trpcoroi/ 

17. tfi(jOp.f]KOVTa, mid. [Svo] Ln. 

?rei/ atT77 Kuptoy ^4Zo?.] 

aTreX^etz/ Ln. 


Tvp(3dr) X 6opvftdr] Ln. 

60. 6 l77o~oDy, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

19. fi/Scojut X fie Sco/ca Tf. Lu. mg. 

42. e^dy fie eVn XP La X dX/ycoi/ 



fie eo"rt ^peta 77 ez/oy ^Za7. 

62. Trpoy avTov, om. Tf. ; poii 6 

d8t.Kr)o-r] X dfit/c?7crei Elz. Ln. 

OTT avTrjs X COTT ] Ln. ; [o//i. 

1770". Ln. [Cut.] 


OTT u4Z.r.] 

eiriftaXav X eVi/3aXXft>v Ln. 

20. Tn/eu/iara X fiat/zo i/ta ^17. 

ety TT)! /3ao~iXetai> X T?7 /3a- 

- /naXXoz/, 07. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


crtXeta Ln. Tf. [^4Z#.] 

eypdcprj X eyye ypaTrrat Tf. 

2. 7rpoo~fvxf]o~6e X TTpocrevx^- 


o~0e ^Zrr. 


21. TTfeu/xart, f?(Z. r(5 dytw Ln. 

TJJJ.WV 6 v roTy ovpavols-, om. 

i. e/3So^i77/cofra, ac&Z. [fiuo] Ln. 

[^iZa?.] ; [pncm. eV -4Zj?.] 

Gb. Tf. UZ,r.] 


6 I770"oi)y, o??i. Ln. Tf. [JZx.] 

77 /3ao~iXet a o~ov\(rov 77 /3atr. 

- e/ieXXei/ X fjp-eXXfV Ln. Tf. 

eyeVero euSo/ciaXei So/c. eye - 


epvecr0ai X eto~e p^eo-0ai Ln. 

^ero Ln. Tf. [JZ.r.] 

yfvrjdrjTO) TO QeXrjfjid croi 1 , 

2. ofo X fie Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

22. Kat orpacpety Trpoy rouy /za- 
0?7rdy etyre, om. Elz. Gb. 

ob y e^ ovpavai, Kal enl Trjs 
y^y, oi. Gb. Sch. Tf. [JZa-.J ; 

KjSdXXrj e pydray X e pydray 

Traptdodrj fioi X ftoi Trnpefid- 

[a>y ev oup. /cat ejri y^y] Ln. 
4. d<piep.ev X d(pt o/xej/ Ln. Tf. 

eKftdXXr) Tf. ; eK/3dXr] e py. 

^77 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. c*]. Ute.] 

Gb. Sch. Ln. 

- e di/ X ai> Lu. Tf. [Alx.] 

- dXXd pucrat 77/xdy dyro roi) 

3. eyco, ow. Ln. Tf. 

24. etfiof X etfiaz/ Tf. [JZa;.] 

Trovijpov, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 

4. fiaXdvTLOv X ftaXXdvTiov Ln. 

25. /cat Xe ya>i>, om. /cat Tf. 

$. f iTrr/ X epet Ln. ^-iZa:. 


27. e 6 X77y TT)? ^x7? O-QU, /cat 

6. /MOV [Gb.-]. 

5. OLKiav fi(repx r ]O @* X OIKICW 

e 6X77? r?}y to-^voy crou, 

8. airoi) (ptXov X <piXov avTov 

eio~eXQr)T Ln. [Gb.^ 1 ]. Jte. ; 

/cat e^ oX77y r^y fitai/oi ay 


flcreX6r]T OLKLUV Tf. 

(TOU X e^ 0X77 T?7 ^Vxf] (T07J, 

ocrcov X oo~oy C Z. 

6. /j.ej , ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Kat ev oXr; TT] ICT^TJI o~ov, 

9. di/otyr^o-erai X dvotxdf](reTai 

- 77 e xet X e /cet T] Ln. mg. 

/cat ey 6X77 TTJ dtavoia o~ov 

Tf. [Cirf.] 

6 Tjtoy, o??j. 6 St. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Ln. txt. 

10. dvoiyrjaeTai X avot^^orcrat 


29. fitKatoGf X fit/cataJo"ai Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. [C!s.] 

7. fo-diovTes X e&OovTcs Ln.Tf. 


ii. rtW X Tts ^^P- 

- eVrt, o:n. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

30. fvo~avTf$ X e ^e fiucraj/ Csf. 

7j/xo)f X e^ vp.u>v Sch. Ln. Tf. 

8. T)I/ S di/ X fa av Ln. [Gb. ^]. 

ruy^di/oi/ra, om. Ln. ^IZa:. 

[Gb. ~J. 

to. elo~epx r ]o~@ f X flo~eX6rjT Ln. 

32. yevopevos, om. Alx. 

- et Kal X 77 /cai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Tf. [Gb. ^]. [^/ar.] 

eX0coz/ Gb. -. [^4te.] 

- eVtficoo-et atra> X aurw eyrt- 

ii. vficoi , ft*7. et? rous Trdfia? 

tfia>i/, ad<Z. avTov Ln. 

fia)O~et Tf. Ln. mg. 

Ln. [<4te.] ; [szc, (?(?. rjfj.u>v 

33. avTov 2 owz. Tf. [Ln.] 

12. 00-77077 X air?70-et Tf. [JZ^.] 


34. e7Tt/3i^do-ay fieX fai 67Tt/3.Ln. 

13. vrrdpxoVTes X oVrey ^4Za:. 

- e c^) ti/zdf, ow. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

35. e^fXd&v, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 

dya0d fid/nara X fio/aara 



dya0d Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


13. Trariyp, add. vp.wv Ln. 

6 e , ow. 6 ^4Za?. 

14. Kat auro rjv, om. Alx. 

eeX$di/ros X fK^\rj 

Ln. [Alx.] 

[Gb. ~]. ^Z,r. 

- ad fin. add. 6 Se aTTOKpi^ely 
eiVe, Hcos 1 fiui/arat Sarajvds 1 

16. Trap aurou e^roui/ e ou- 

pavov\^ oup. e^". Trap aur. 
Ln. Tf. ,/lZ.r. 

17. avruv ra diavorj^ara X rd 

5iav. aur. Ln. 

19. oi viol, om. oi Ln. 

Kpirai up,a)i/ a>rol X aurol 

vpo)V Kpirai Ln. Tf. Alx. 

20. 6K/3dXXa>, prccm. eya) ^4Z#. 
22. 6 lo-xvpoTfpos, om. 6 Ln. 
24. oral/, arZcZ. Se JZa?. 

Xeyei, prceni. [rdre] Ln. [Alx] 
2$. eupto-Kei, acZd. xoXd^oi Ta 

26. eTrrd erfpa TT^eup-ara TTOVTJ- 

pdrepa eaurou X r TTI/. 
TrovTjp. eaur. errrd Tf. 

eto eX^di/ra X eX^dvra Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. 0*f. 

27. *ywri (pcovnf X {bd&i iiv *yuwn 

Ln. Tf. 

28. auroi>, o??^. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

29. aur?7, add.yevfd Ln. Tf. 

- eTTi^ret X C ? re ^ Tf - 

rou 7rpo<p^rou, o??i. Gb. Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

30. orTjpeioi/ rois NtveuiVai? X 

roT? Nif. o"7^p.. Tf. [^Z#.] 

31. SoXopaJi/roy Z/is X 2oXop,<u- 

vof Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

32. Niz/eui X NifeutVat Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

33. KpvTrrbv X Kpvnrrjv Elz. Gb. 

Ln. Tf. 

(faeyyos X ^aiff Ln. [^fZo;.] 

34. d(p$aXp.d?, acZcZ. o~ou Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. *>]. 

- ovv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

Kal oXoi/, om. KOI Ln. 

- eo-riv X eWat Alx. 

(TKoreivov, add. e o-rat Alx. 

36. rt fte po? X p-^pos rt Ln. Tf. 


37. XaX7yo"ai, mZcZ. avrov Ln. 

T^pcora X e pa)ra Ln. Tf. 

- ri?, 07?j. Tf. [.4Z.r.] 

40. ea)^ei/ Kal ro ecrwdev J^eaco- 
fttv Kal TO ea)^ey Ln. mg. 


41. ecrriv X eo~Tat Alx. 

42. dXX X XXa Tf. 

raura, add. [e] Ln. [Gb. ~], 

- e 6Vt X Set Ln. mg. 

d(pieVai X 7rapeTi>ai Ln. Tf. 

43. dyopai?, afZfZ. [KOI rd? Trpa)- 

roKXicrta? eV TOI? detTTi oiS ] 

UTTOKptrat, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] 

oi TrepiTraTouVrey, om. oi Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. 

48. paprupeire X p-dprupe s e crre 

avrcov ra p-i^peia, om. Tf. 

[Ln.] [Gb. =?]. ^Ztf. 
50. fK^yvofj-evov X fK^vwopevov 

Ln. Tf. 
gi. rou ai/zaros i, om. rou Ln. 

Tf. UZ#.] 

rou aiparos 2, om. rou Ln. 

Tf. L4te.] 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

3. Ae yoiros 8e aurou raura 
Trpoy avrovs X KazeWev e - 
f\66i>ros aurou Tf. ; KOI Gb. 

avrov Gb. =J. 

Kal ^T/rovvres, om. Tf. ; o?7i. 

Kal Gb. Sch. Ln. ; [(^roui/rey 
Gb. =s]. 

ii>a Karr)yopi]o-(i)o~tv aurou, 

om. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 


4. aTTOKTfLvoi/ra^v X dnoKrev- 

vovrcov Gb. Sch. Lu. Tf. 
- TrepLO-o-orepov X Trepio-o-oi/ 

5. e^ovaiav e^ovra \ e^oi/ra 

eouo-. Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 

6. 7ra)XeTrat X 7ra>Xouz ra4 Tf. 

7. ouV, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] 

Siacpepere, (Z(Z. upeis 1 ./Ite. 

9. eVd>TTioi> i X <fp-irpocr0ev Ln. 

10. /jXao~<p77p.^o-ai/ri Gb. -. 

11. 7rpoo-<ppa>cnv X (pfp&criv 


p.pip,i>dre X fJ-epipvfjo-rjre Tf. 

[Ln. mg.] [^4Z.r.J 

r^ rt i, om. Tf. 

13. aurai oc rou o^Xou X /c rou 

o^Xou aura) ^Za;. 

14. 8iKao~rr)V X xpiTrjV Ln. Tf. 

X Tru(rt]s Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

2 X aura) Ln. txt. Tf. 


yewTj/jLard X yfvf]p-ara St. 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gs*.] ; rov 

crlrov Alx. 

Qfbs X Kvptos Ln. mg. 
"A(ppa>z> X a(ppov Elz.Gb. Sch. 
aurou [Ln.] 

up-a* Xe ya) X Xe ya) upiv Tf. 
up-eot , om. Ln. Tf. [Gb.=?]. ^4Za?. 
a~a>p,ari, a<Z<Z. [t paJi/] Ln. 
j) v/^ux ) X ^ [yap] tyvx*) L n - 

[Gb. ~]. ^te. 
ou X ou re Tf. 
ouSe X oijre Tf.>v, om. Tf. 
TrpoaBelvat eVt ri^i/ rjXiKiav 

avrov X fTri r?)i/ i^XtK. aur. 

Trpocrdflvai Tf. 
ei/a, o??i. JT. 

cure X ouSe Ln. Tf. {Alx.] ^ 
avt-dvff ov KOTria, ouSe r^- 

^ei- X oure vrfdei ourc v<pai- 

vet Tf. 

ouSe, prccm. [on] Ln. [JZa\] 
roi/ x^P 7 " ^ f ^ TO) dyp<B. X f " 

dypa) roi/ x / )TOZ/ O"T/pepoi/ 

Tf. ; r. X^P- o" 7 //^ e>1/ aypai 


X dpcpi ei Tf. ; 

X eVi^V/rouo-u/ Tf. 

31. rou 9eou X aurou Ln. (txt.) 

Tf. [Gb. <*]. Alx. 
- 7rdi/ra, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 
33. /SaXdi/ria X /SaXXdvria Lu. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

35. V/JLMV at 6o~<pvS X at oo~<pue? 

vtLu>i> Ln. 

36. dVaXuo ei X dva\vo-r) Ln. Tf. 

38. oi SouXoi, 077i. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

39. ttJ/ 2, 0771. Tf. 

diopvyrjvat, X Siopw^Qrjvai Tf. 

40. ouV, o?7i. Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

41. aura), o??i. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

42. etVe 5e X K l fiTrev yfZ.r. 

Kal (ppoVipos 1 X o (ppov. Ln. 

txt. Tf. [Gb. *]. 

rou StSdj/ai, om. rou Ln. Tf. 


TO o irop.eVpiot , om. ro Tf. 
44 aurw X aura) Ln. mg. 

47. eauroO X auroC Ln. Tf. 
49. eis X rt Ln. [Gb. ~]. 
^o. ot X orou Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

^2. OIKQ) Vi X CJ/i OIKO) Ln. txt. 

rpicri. 53.Sia/xepio~^J7o~erat X 
rpicrlv 3. 8tap.epio~6rjarovTaL 
Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
53. e <p X rt Tf. 
- Ovyarpi X ^uyarepa Ln. ; sic 
prcem. TTJV Tf. [^4 to.] 

i X T 1 .rTCa Ln. Tf. 

- avr^? 2, om. Tf. 
^4. rj)i> Vf<pf\r)v, om. TTJV Ln. 

- Xeyere, add. ort Tf. [Ln.] 


56. TTJS yrjs Kai rov ovpavov X 
rou ovpavov Kai rl;s y^s 

X o^ K oi Sare 

. TrapaSw X 7rapa8a>o-ei Ln. Tf. 

- jSaXXi; X ^aX 
XT; Gb. Sch. 
59. ro X rov Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 


3. 6 Iqo-ovs-, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

3. fJLTdVOTJT^p.fTdVOT]0-rjT Ln. 

txt. Tf. [Ate.] 

- axTdVTO)S X 6/*oi a)ff Ln. [Jto.] 

4. Kai oKra) X [^ a i] Ln. ; om. 


- OVTOL X auroi Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

dvOptoirovSi prcKm. TOVS Ln. 

Tf. [Ate.] 

- eV, om. Tf. [Alx.] 

5. p.eTdVorJTe\p.TdvorjO-TjTf Ln. 

Tf. Wto.] 

6/ioicoj X (Waurcos- Tf. [^4?.] 

6. eV reo djJL7r\ci)Vi dVTOv 7T- 

(pvTvp.evr]v X Trecpur. ei/ rw 
d/iTT. at>r. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

- Kapnov {rjTtov X &T&V Kdp- 

TTOV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

7. err;, add. d<p ou Alx. 

CKKO^OV, add. ofiv Ln. [Alx.] 

8. Korrpiav X KoVpia Elz. Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

9. ei Se fiJ7yc els TO p.e\\ov X 

eiy ro /xe XXoj/, ei Se p-^yf 
u.rjv i, om. Ln. Tf. [Ate.] 

Kai OKra) X [*ai] Ln. 

12 r?)ff do-^eveias, prcem. dno Ln. 
13. dvu>pB<adrj\dvopda)drj Ln.Tf. 


, add. or i Tf. 

X avrais Ln. Tf. [Ate.] 
i$.ovv\de Ln. Tf. [Ate.] 

- YTTOKpira X VTTOKplTCti Sch. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. 

18. 8e X UP Tf. [Ln. mg.] Alx. 

19. fj.eya [Ln.] Gb. - ; om. Alx. 

20. Kai, om. Sch. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 
zi. fvcicpwfrcv X expv^fev Tf. 


lepouo-aXjyp, X lepoo~6\vp,a 
Ln. mg. 

TrvXrjs X ^vpay Gb. Ln. (txt.) 

Tf. Wte.] [Rec. Gb. ex.-]. 

Kupte 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] Uto.] 
. apf-cadc X (ipr)o~6e Alx. 
. tym?, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

01 epyarat, om. of Tf. [Gb. 

-a ^ 

r^s* dcjiKias, om. rrjs Ln. Tf. 
OTTO 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. =J. 
f)p.pq X wpa Gb. ~. [Alx.] 
eVireXa) X aTroreXa) Ln. Tf. 
Tpirrj) add. [fjpepa] Ln. 
rj)v eaur?)? voo-cnav X T~ a 
eavr. voo~o~ia Ln. txt. 
5. epyfjLoS) om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- a/i?)i/ 8e Xe ya) X Xe ya) 5e Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- ori [Ln.] 

- /Lie {8r]T X #Ve /U<? Ln. Tf. 

- ai/, om. Tf. 

~ tf%a X ^ Ln. 

3. Xeycov [Ln.] 

- Ei, om. Tf. 

Tf. Wte.] ; odd. 77 ou Tf. 


fine X f ai f fTTf^ Trpos 1 au- 
TOV? Ln. ; [aTTOKpi^eis Gb. 
=J ; om. ^f?a?.] 

- 6 j/oy)(vfosSch.Ln.Tf. [Gb.^]. 

- e /.tTreo-eirai \7reo-elTai Ln.Tf. 

eV [Ln.] ; o??i. ^4te. 
6. avrw, om. Tf. 

9. /ner X ficra Ln. Tf. 
10. dm7rco"oj/ X "^TTf o~e Sch.Ln. 
Tf. ; dvaTTfa-ai Gb. 

- eiTT?/ X fpci Tf. 

eVcoTTioi/, add. Travratv Ln. 

12. /ir;e rous o-yyyevers- o-ou Gb. 
X d 

o-e Ln. txt. Tf. 

(rot dvraTrdSo/za X dz 

dopd o-oi Tf. 
d^aTr^pous- X dvarrfipavg Ln. 
off X oaris ^4Zrr. 
aproj^ X apurrov Gb. ~. [Cs/.] 
eVoi7/o-e X firoiei Tf. 
/ue ya X pfyav Ln. Tf. 
Trdi/ra [Ln.] 
TTapa.iTfia Oa.i TTtivrfS X Tray- 

res TrapaiTflcrdai Ln. [Alx. ] 
6 Trpwros-, prcem. [KOI] Ln. 
e ^co dvdyKT]v\ dvdyK. e^co Ln. 
Kai ideli>, om. Kai Tf. 
fKelvos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =0. 


dvaTrrjpovs X dvaTTflpovs Ln. 
^eoXovy Kai rv(p\ovs X TV(p. 

Kai X^X. Ln. Tf. 
wff X o ,4te. 

6 OlKOff /iOU X /AOV 6 ofKOS 1 Tf. 

ad Jm. odd. TroXXoi yap eicrtv 

K\i]Tol, dXi yot Se eicXcxTot. 


eaurou X avrov Ln. Tf. 
ert 6e X fVt re Ln. txt. Tf. 
/zou fjLddrjTrjs eti/at X f l at 

/xov fia^. Tf. 
avrou X eaurov Ln. Tf. 
p-ou eivat p.a6r)Tr)S X fiJ at 

/nou /ia^. Tf. Ln. mg. 
^eXooi , prcem. 6 Cst. 
TCI Trpos X TO. els Ln. [Gb. 

~] ; els Gb. Sch. Tf. 

civ aura) X 

Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
o*v/x/3aXeti erepw /3ao~iXet X 

erepa) /3acr. crv(J,(3ah.eiv Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 
/SouXeuerai X /3ovXeuo-erai 

Ln. mg. 
dTTdi/Trjo-di X VTravTrjcrai Ln. 

Tf. [^te.] 
aurov TToppco X Trdppo) airoi) 

p-ou efi at p-ddrjTrjs X 
/MOU p.a^. Ln. 
KaXor, add. oi;z> Tf. 
e ai/ Se, add. Kai Ln. Tf. 

e yyi^oi/res- aurai X aura) ey- 

yt ^OKres- Ln. Tf. 
01 $apio~aioiX 01 re $ap. Ln. 

ei> e ^ avrSiv X f^ aurcoi/ Ij/ 

Tf. [^te.] 
eVrai eV r<5 ovpavco X eV rw 

ovp. eVrai Tf. 


9. o-uyKaXemu X Q-vyKaXet Tf. 
Tay yeiVoi/ay, om. Taj Ln. Tf. 
10. x a P a y wfTO.1 X yiverai X a P a 

12. Kai StelXey X o ^e StetX. Ln. 


13. aTravTO. X TroWa Ln. 

14. lo-xvpbs X to-^vpa Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ]. ^to. 

15. ye/iiVat Tj)y KOtXtav 

17. enre X e 0?; Tf. 

Trepto-o-euoucrii/ X 7Tfpt(T(T - 

oi/rai Tf. 

- eya) Se, add. &Se Gb. Sch. Tf. 
[pos Xt^iai Ln.] 

19. Kai ouKeVt, om. Kai Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

20. eavrov X OUTOV Ln. [Alx.] 

21. a^Tw 6 vlos X o vios auT<5 


Kai ouKeTt, om. Kai Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =t] ; ad ym. ad(?. Trot ^- 
o-di/ /ie coy eVa TCOI/ jJU(r6i<av 

(TOV Alx. 

22. Eez/e yKaTe, preem. Ta^v Ln. 

Tr)V (TTO\r]V) om. rrjv Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. [Alx.] 

- TrdSay, f?d. auTou ^te. 

23. evtyKavres X 0epeTe Tf. 

24. Kai aVoXcoXco? ^v X fa aTro- 

XcoXcb? Ln. Tf. ; [Kai Gb. ^ ; 
om. Alx. ; ^ Gb. -]. 

25. ^ yyto-e X ^V7 C ei/ Ln - m S- 

26. auTou, om. Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


- Tt, acM. [ay] Ln. [Alx.] 

28. fjdeXfv X rjdeXrjfTev Ln. mg. 

- oui/ X & Ln. Tf. [^7ar.] 

29. Trarpt, add. avroi) Ln. [^4?a?.] 

30. Tropvwv, "prawn. TWV Ln. Tf. 


(TIT. fJ-OO-X- Tf. 

32. ai>ej7<T X t&crtv Tf. 

Kai aTToXcuXwy, Kai Gb. - ; 

om. ^4to. 

- T)V 2, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 


1. airoi), om. Tf. [^4/a;.] 

2. oLKOvop-ias <rov, (rov Gb. =J ; 

om. ^4te. 

$vvr)(rr) X 65vr/ ^to. 

4. rrjs oiKovopt a?, prowi. [eK] 
Ln. [^fc:.] 

avTwv X eauTcov Tf. 

TCOI> Ln. Tf. 

eauTou X auTOu Alx. 

Kai X o Se Ln. Tf. 

TO ypdpp.a X Ta ypd/M/xaTa 

Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.] 
Kai Xe yet, om. Kai Ln. Tf. ; 

Xeyet de Alx. 
TO ypd/i/za X 7" a ypdju/MOTa 

Ln. txt. Tf. 

Kayo) X K fl i ^7^ Tf. [^4te.] 
IIoiTyVaTe eavTols X eauToij 

TTOt. Tf. 

eKXiV^Te X fKXiTTT/ Sch. Ln. 
(txt.) [Gb. ~] ; eKXeiTTT; Tf. 
o-KT/ras 1 , add. [auTooi/] Ln. 
eo-Ttv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
eW X M e xP l Tf - Wto-3 
Tra?, om.Ln.Tf. [Gb.=t]. 
CXTTO di/Spoy, Gb. -. 
T;I/, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 
Of, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 

, ^n\ia)v Tail/, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

, TOU A/3pad/z, om. TOU Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 
. TOV A/3pau/z, om. TOV Ln. Tf. 


. o-u, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 
oSe X &8e Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

. eVi X v Ln. mg. 
evTevdev X fvdev Gb. Sch. Ln. 

01 eKei$ez/, om. ot Ln. 
ovv (re X o~6 ouV Ln. Tf. 
Xe yei X Xeyet Se Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
auTco, om. Tf. 
ouSe, edv X oi S* edi/ Ln. Tf. 


p-ad^Tas.) add. avTov Ln. Tf. 

eo-rt, add. TOV St. Ln. Tf. 
pr) eXdelv TCI o-xdvdaXa X T 

o"KaV. p.r) e \0flv Tf. 
ovai 8e X TrX^y ouai Ln. 

Ute.] ^ 


KOS Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. [^47a?.] 
ei/a Tail/ yniKpaii/ TOUTCOI/ X T. 

/xiKp. TOUT, era Tf. 
8e, om. Ln. [Gb. =t]. [y4Za;.] 
fiy o-e, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 



ajj-dprr) X apapTrjo-ij Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. ]. [^te.] 

[eai/] Ln. 
.. Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 

eVi o-e, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. ; 
Trpo y o-e Ln. 
$. etTTOJ/ X eiTrav Ln. Tf. 

7. epet, add. auT<0 Tf. [Ln.] 


aVdvreo-ai X di dTreo-e Ln. Tf. 


8. ecos 1 , add. av Alx. 

g. X ( *P iV *X ei X *X l X**P lv -^ n> 
txt. Tf. [Alx.] 

- eVceu/G), om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

- auT, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- ov SoK<, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 

10. Xe yeTe OTt, om. OTI Ln. [Gb. 

-*]. [Alx.] 

OTt 6, om. OTI Ln. Tf. 

11. p.o~ov X p><rov Ln. 

12. OUTOJ, om. Ln. 

> ^ Y T 

\ c\ \ 

01 oe, om. oe Ln. 

21. ?} Gb. ^. 

- iSou 2, om. Tf. 

22. fJLCidrjTcis, add. auTOu Ln. 

23. iSou wSe, ^, iSou e Kei X I8ov 

Kel, iSou a>Se Tf. ; [om. f) 

24. UTT i X V7ro roz/ Ln. Tf. 

Kai 6 uioy, om. Kai Gb. Sch. 

Tf. [Ln.] 

eV TTJ ry/zepa auTOu, om. Ln. 

26. TOU Ncoe, om. TOU Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

27. e ^eya/ii^oi/TO X e yajui ^bi TO 

Ln. Tf. [^te.] 

aVai/Taj- X wdwas Ln. 

29. drravTas X Trdi/Tas Ln. 

30. Taura X Ta auTa Gb.Tf. [ Alx.] ; 


31. T<5 aypa), om. TO> Tf. 

33. o-QJo-at X TreptTTOLTjo-acrdai Tf. 

avTi]v 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

34. pias [Ln.] 

- 6 eiV, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

35. Suo eo-ovrat X f /0 "- ^uo Ln. 

- 77 fii a, om. 17 St. Tf. [Gb. =s]. 

- Kai 77 X ^ Se Tf. 

dfp0qo-Tai,add. 8uo fo OVTdi 

eV T&) a ypa), ei? TrapdXrj- 
(pdrfo-eTai^ Kat 6 eTepo? dof)- 
(dr)O~fT(it (v. 36. Elz. & Sch.), 
om. St. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

36. o~vvax6r)o-ovTai ol deTOi X 01 


(Tvva%0. [Kal] ot deroi Ln. j 24, 

<al, om. Kal Ln. [Alx.] 

Ln. Tf. 

elv X eyKciKtlv Ln. Tf. 
a dd- TIS Elz. 
v X rj0\cv Ln. Tf. 

dcj/ X wrorria^/ Gb. ~. 
Troirjrret X TTOM/VJ/ Ln. Tf. 


Trpo? CLVTOV X aurai Tf. 
p.aKpodvp.u>v X 
Ln. Tf. 

9. Ewre 6e /cat X [neat] Ln. [Gb. 

->] ; [owi. Csf.] 
10. 6 6t?, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 
u. Trpbs eavTov raura X raura 
Trpo? eavrov Ln. nig. [.<4/a?.] 
- wo-Trep X &>s Ln. 

OVTOS 6 T\a>vr)s X o Te ^ 

our. Ln. mg. 

13. Kal 6 reXaVris 1 X o Ss reX. 
Ln. mg. 

els TOV ovpavov eirapai X CT- 

apai ei? TOJ> ovpavov Tf. 
[Ln. mg.] 

ft? TO o~r77$o?, o??i. eis Ln.Tf. 

[Gb. =*]. Ute.] 

a*7cZ. [on] Ln. 

- rj eKelvos X Trap tKeivov Ln. ; 

7} yap eKelvos Gb. Sch. Tf. 

6 &e X Ka l o Ln. 

13. 7TTip.rjo~av X eVeri p-ooz/ Ln. 
Tf. [Jte.] 

1 6. 7rpoo-Ka\o-dp.Vos aura ei- 7 

Trei/ X Trpoo-ocaXetraro Xe- 8 
yooi> Ln. mg. ; [npocreKa- 
Xetro (s. Trpoo-KaXeVaro) 
aura Xeya>i> ^4te.] 

17. ea^ X ai/ Ln. Tf. 

20. o~ou, 2, om. Ln. [Gb. =t]. 
^te.] f j 

21. e<pv\adfjir]v X e<puXa^a Ln. 


- /xou, o??i. Tf. j 13 

22. raura, om. Ln. Tf. [/ite.] 

8tdSo? X So? Ln. [Alx.] \ i^ 

ovpavco X TO?? ovpavoils Ln. 

txt. Tf. 

23. 6yeVero X eyfvrjdr] Tf. 

24. 7repi\V7Tov yevoaevov^ om. Tf. 



Xet ai/ rov GeoO X f ts T. /3acr. 

roi) GeoO elcriropfvovTai Tf. 
rpu/xaXias X rpij/jt-aros Ln. 

pa(pi Sos X P^dvrjs Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~] Wte.] 

X &eX$eii> Ln. 




eo-rt Trapa ra> Ge&i X Trapa 

rai 0ew ecrriv Tf. ; [om. r<w 

Ln. txt.] ; f(TTiV napa 0e<u 

Ln. mg. 

6 LTerpos-, om. 6 Tf. [C&.] 
d(pr)KaiJiv Travra, Kal X a<p~ 

fvrcs TCI iSta Ln. Tf. [Gb. ?*>]. 
7^ yoj/ets, T^ dde\(povs, rj yv- 

val<a X ^ yui/. T^ aSeX0. 77 

yoi/6i$- Tf. 
oi> X ou^i Tf. 

a7roXa^77 X Xa/S?; Ln. txt. 
lepocroXvna X ifpovaaX^/j. 

7rpoo~airco!/ X firaiToiv Ln. 


Tt, arfd. [&J/3 Ln. Ute.] 
TrpodyovTfs X TrapdyovTes 

Ln. mg. 

o~ia)7r7}o"77 X " t y ] " i r / ^ n - Tf. 
Xe ycov, om. Tf. 


OVTOS X avTus Ln. 
T^I/ 2 [Ln.] 
7rpo$pap,u>v X 

crvKop.a>pa!.av X crvKopcopeav 

Ln. Tf. ; crvKOpopfav Gb. 

[Rec. Gb. >]. 
Si , om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
aTravTes X Trd^rcs Ln. Tf. 
77/^/0-77 X fjp-io-ea Ln. ; T;^/- 

o~eta Tf. 
rail VTrap^ovTcov p.ov X p-ou 

rcor vnapx- Tf. 
Si Scopt rotf 7rroo^ots X7i" r < u X 

fii d. Tf. ; [rols- Trr. St 5. 4te.] 
avTov flvai lepovaaX^p. X 

etVat avTOV if p. Ln. ; etVai 

lep. auroi/ Tf. 
f cos- X " Ln. Tf. [Gb. **]. 

yi ai X yyot Ln. Tf. 

rt y ri SieTrpayp-areiio-aro X 

rt SteTrpayp.areua a^ro ^4te. 
TrpocreipydcraTO deKa p.vds X 

5e /ca 7rpoo-f)py. JJLVO.S Ln. Tf. 

17. Eu X evye Ln. Tf. 

19. yivov endva) X fTrdvat yivov 


20. crepe?, prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 

22. Se, om. Tf. [Gb. =s], 

23. TO dpyvpiov p,ov X /^ou ro 

dpy. Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 

TTJV TpdneaV) om. TTJV Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =$]. 

- KOI eycb X Kayco Ln. Tf. 

- eVrpaa aurd X a^i"o eVpa^a 

Ln. Tf. 
2^. einov X elirav Ln. Tf. 

26. yap, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

d?r aurou, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

27. CKCIVOVS X rourou? Tf. [^^-.] 


29. auroG, om. Tf. 

30. fiTrcoj/ X Xeytoi Ln. 

Xvo~ai^re?, prccm. Kal Tf. 

31. aura) [Ln.] ; [om. ^4te.] 

33. ern-oj/ X fiirav Ln. Tf. 

34. CLTTOV X fltrav Ln. Tf. ; cra d. 

on Ln. Tf. [J/.r.] 

35. fTTippfyavTes X eTTtpt^avrcs 

Ln. Tf. 
- (avT&v X avTatv Ln. 

37. 7rao~u>v X Trdi/rcoi/ Ln. 

38. eiprjvr) ev oupavai X / oup. 

flprjvr) Tf. 

39. a7roy X CMrav Ln. Tf. 

40. aurot?, om. Tf. 

O lcoTrrjcrcoo iv X (ria>7rf)0~ova iv 

Ln. Tf. 

KCKpd^OVTai X KpdoV(TlV Tf. 

41. 67T aur^ X e ?r avTrjv Ln. Tf. 

42. Kat ye [Ln.] 

- CTOTJ i, om. Ln. 

- o-ou 2, [Ln.] Gb. -. 

43. 7rept/3aXouo-ti/ X 

Xouo-i^ Ln. mg. 

44. eV O~Ot \l6ov 7Tt Xt^O) X Xt- 

^ov eVt Xt ^a) ev o~oi Ln. Tf. 

. eV aurai Kai dyopd^oj^ra?, ow. 

Tf. [Gb.=S] ; [o?/i. cv aur. Alx.] 

46. reypaTrrat, cwZrf. on Ln. txt. 

*O ouco? p.ou OIKOS Trpoo-ev- 
Xys fcrTLV X Kal eVrat 6 oix. 
p.ov OIK. 7rpoo~. Tf. Ln. mg. 

48. fVplO-KOV X TJVplCTKOV Ln. 

i. fKeivcw, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 

apxiepets X if pels Tf. [Gb.~.] 

eiTTOV X eiVai> Tf. 

irpbs O.VTOV, \eyovres X ^ e/ " 

yoz/Tes 1 Trpos 1 avrov Ln. ; om. 

Xe yoz/Tes Tf. 
EiVe X ecTrov Tf. 
ei/a, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =S]. Wfc?.] 
crvve\oyicravTO X crweXoyi- 

blTO Ln. 
e pel, add. ?}/uv Ln. 
ouj/, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 
Tras 1 6 \CLOS X o Xaos OTTOS 

Tf. Ln. ing. 
Trpos rov Xabv \eyeiv X Xe y. 

Trp. r. Xaov Ln. Tf. 

ris ecpvTCV(rev 
X /^7reX. e 0uT. 
. Ln. 

rts 1 , om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
e|e SoTO X egcdero Tf. 
eV, om. Ln. Tf. 
fioocrii> X dacrovo-iv Ln. Tf. 

Tre /rv/mt eTfpov^frepov Tre /x- 

i/u Ln. Tf. 
7rep,\|/m Tpirov X TP LTOV Trep.- 

\|/m Ln. Tf. 
mi rouroz/ X KaKe/oz> Ln. 

r, om. Ln. [Gb.=J]. [Alx.] 
SieXoy/^bi/TO X SteXoyiVai/ro 



, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 


yevrjrai X etrrat Ln. mg. 
A/covcrai/res Se X oi Se CIKOU. 

Ln. txt. 

eiVoj/ X fiTrav Ln. Tf. 
er)Tr)trav X er)TOW Ln. txt. 
oi fxp^tepets KCU oi ypa/i/za- 

Tets- X oi ypa/ji. KCU oi ap%. 

Ln. Tf. [/ito.] 
roy Xaoi>, o?w. Ci i. 
r^r 7rapa/3oX?7V Tavrr/v eiTre 

X ctwez/ T7;i/ 7rapa/3. raur. 

Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
et? ro X coo-re Ln. Tf. 
r/^iif X J^firtS 1 Tf. [yite.] 
Ti jue Tretpcz^ere, o??i. Tf. [Gb. 

. Sell. 
Ln. Tf. 

SrjvdplOV, add. [oi 5e e Set- 
^av Kai erTrez/] Ln. [Alx.] 
finov X etVo^ Tf. 
. avrols X Trpo? avrovs Tf. 


Toiwv X Toivvv 

KatVapt, prcem. Tea Tf. 

27. aVriXeyoi/rey X Xe yoires 1 Ln. 

mg. [Alx.] 

28. drroOdvY) X 37 Ln. txt. [^4te.] 

30. e Xa/3 , om. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

Tr]V yvvcuKa, Kal OVTOS drre- 

Oavev (ireKvos, om. Tf. [Gb. 

31. avrnv t add. [axravrcos] Ln. 

KOI oy, om. /cat, St. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

32. Se, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =5]. [Alx.] 
, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

a.TT0av KOL f] yvvr] X 

yu^)7 dnedavev Tf. 
yiverai X fffTai Alx. 
ev rrj ovv X 17 


ls, om. Ln. Tf. 

rai Ln. Tf. 
eKyapiaKovTai X 

Ln. Tf. 

o#re X oifie Ln. Tf. 
TOV Geou, om. rou Tf. 
TOP Qebv 2, om. rbv Ln. Tf. 
TOV Qebv 3, om. TOV Ln. Tf. 
flfrov X ctTrai Ln. Tf. 
de X yap Tf. 
Vi6z/ Aa/3tS eiVat X fii at A. 

vibv Tf. ; [eti/at Gb. -]. 
Kat avrbs X CIVTOS yap Alx. 
v/^aXpcov, prcem. TO>V Ln. 
6 Kupto?, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 


Tf. M?.] 

vto? avro{5 X airou vlos Tf. 
rols p-cidr/Tois avrov X Trpos 1 

eV o-roXats X / 

47. ot KarevBiovcTLV \ oi Kare- 


fj-fVOL Ln. 


1. TO Saipa avrwv els TO yao- 

ra Scopa auT. Tf. 

2. Kat nva X Ttz^a /cat Tf. 

Ktu [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 
Suo XeTTTa X Xe?TTa Suo Ln. 
mg. [Alx.] 


^17 Ln. txt. lAlx.1 
7r\iov X TrXeico Ln. Tf. 
uTravres X Traj/res Ln. 
TOW Gfov, om. Tf. 
aTravTO. X TTOVTCi Ln. 
e/3oXe, (wW. TaOra 

ecpcoi/et, C O ecoy COTO 


dvadrjp.acri X avadefjuuriv Ln. 
u(pedT f ]o~fTai, add. cooe Alx. 
Xi<9w, add. o>Se Ln. [^Ite.] 
r/ OTt [Ln.] 

oui/, om. Ln. Tf. [^fte.] 
TavTa yeveadat. X yV. raura 


eVi f Qvos X e ^ edvos Ln. Tf. 
KaTa rdVouj KOI X ^at Kara 

Xipot KOI Xoi/xoi X Xot/xoi 

xai XifjLol Ln. Tf. 

X CpojBrjOpa Ln. 
CITT ovpavov X "T 1 " 

ovpavov a^p-ela Ln. 
aTrai TGOz/ X Tra^Tcoi Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

ayo/zeVous 1 / array opevovs Tf. 
0r& X ^eVe Ln. Tf. ^ 
eiy Ta? Kcipdias X ^ Tals 

Kapdiais Ln. Tf. Wfe.] 

8e dvTio-Tijvai X 

Ln. ; dvTio~T. r) ai/TftTT. Tf. 

[Alx.] ; [ovSc, Gb. ?}]. 
X ctTravres Tf. 

KTT)o~cr6e Ln.Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. Ute.] 

T?)y ifpoucraX^p, om. T^^ Ln. 
7r\r)p(t)dr)vaL\Tr\r]O-()r)vai, Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 
ouat Se, o??i. fie Ln. Tf. 

ev T<5 Xaa>, om. eV Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
TraJ^Ta Ta Wvr] X TU e^z/7^ 

ndvra Ln. txt. Tf. 


ecrTai X e<TOVT<U Ln. Tf. 
^ovonys X VX OUS Gb - Ln - Tf - 

[Ucc. Gb. ~]. [^te.] 
ve(pe\rj X Vf(pe\ais Ln. mg. 
7rapeXewcroi>rat X TrapeXeu- 
Ln. mg. 

i X TrapeXevo-oi/TOt 

Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
(3apvv6o)0 iv X 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 



34- v/zojv a* KapSiat X a * Kapd. 

22. Tropeverat Kara ro copia /ze- 

54. avrov 2, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

v/i. Ln. Ute.] 

vov X Kara ro toptcrp.. Tro 


aicpvifiioy e <p v/xay emo-Ty X 

peverat Ln. Tf. [^4r.] 

rov OIKOV X TJ)V otKtav Tf. 

ai<p. eViO". e (p v/n. Ln. txt. ; 

30. fad[r)T X eV^r/re Ln. Tf. 


eVicT. e (p vp,. al(p. Tf. Ln. 

e v r?7 /3ao~iXeta ynov, om. ^4te. 

55. d\^dvrcov X Trepia^dvrctfv Tf. 


Ka6i(TT)o~()f X K.a6io~o~6e Gb. 

o"vyKa^io"avrtov X TrepiKu^t- 

35. yap, ate eVi Trdvra s Ln. txt. 

Ln. Tf. 

crdvrcov Ln. txt. 

eVeXevVerat X eVeto"eXevo"e- 

31. Etrre fie 6 Kvptoy, om. Tf. 

avrcov i, om. Ln. Tf. [^4/x.] 

rat Ln. Tf. 

32. e/cXeiTTJ; X e KXiTrr; Ln. [^iZa?.] 

e v p-e cra) X j^eVoy Tf. 

36. ovv X fie Ln. txt. Tf. 

- o-rrjp^ov X o-rjjptcrov Ln. Tf. 

57. avrov i, o??i. Ln. [Gb. -1. 

Karaia)$?ire X xarto YVcrrire 




34. O fie efTre X etrrev fie 

Fvvai, OVK otfia avrov X l K 

ravra Trdvra X Trdvra ravra 

ov /zr), o?. /xr) Tf. 

otfia avrov, yvvat Tf. 

Ln. mg. ; [om. ravra Cxt.} 

Trpiv rj X ecoy Ln. Tf. [Alx. s. 

- eirrev X e(pr; Tf. [^4^.] 

37. e v rai iep<5 fiifido~Kcov X fii$ 

ecoy ov]. 

60. 6 dXeWcop, om. 6 Gb. Sch. 

e v rai iepai Tf. Ln. mg. 

dTrapVTjCTT) p.rj etSe vat p.e X 

Ln. Tf. 

^te dnapvrjfrrj etSevat Ln. 

Xdyov X pr/fiaroy Alx. 



(pa>v^o"ai, otW. crry/zepov Tf. 

3. 6 Saravay, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 

35. /SaXavrtov X /3aXXavrt ov Ln. 



Tf. ; e< sic ver. 36. 

62. 6 LTeYpoy, om. Gb. [^te.] 

eVtKaXov p,evov X KaXov/ievov 

- eirrov X eirrav Ln. Tf. 

63. rov Ir^o"ovv X avrov Ln. J f. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

Ovfievdy X ovdfvos Tf. 

[Gb. *>]. Alx. 

4. ap^tepevo"t, er<W. Kai roty 

36. ovv X fie Alx. 

64. ervTrrov avrov ro Trpdo*co- 

ypa/i^iarevo"iv Ln. 

- TTtuXT/o-drco . . . dyopao-dra) 

TTOV, Kai, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 

roiy or parrjy my, om. roly Tf. 

X Tr&>X7jo~ei .... dyopd- 

- avrov 2, om. Tf. 

avrov Trapafiai avroty X au- 

o-ei Cst. 

66. dv;}yayov X aTrrjyayov ALv. 

roiy Trapafia) avrov Ln. txt. 

37. e rt, om. Ln. [Gb. -*]. [Alx.] 

- eavraivX avraiv Sch. [Gb. ~]. 


ro X on Ln. txt. 

eiTre X eiVov Tf. 

<. dpyvptov X dpyvpia Alx. 
6. Kai e^co/^oXoy^crev, om. Ln. 

- yap [Ln.] 
38. eirrov X eirrav Ln. Tf. 

68. Kat, o?n. Ln. Tf. 
p.oi, r^ aTToXvo^re, om. Tf. 

rov Trapafiovvat X twi Trapa 

39. avrov, om. Tf. [Alx.] 

69. vvv, add. fie Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

fia) Ln. mg. 

42. TrapeveyKeiv X TrapeveyKe Ln. 

70. EiVov X etTrav Tf. 

avroty, .posi o^Xov Ln. txt. 


71. eiTrov X eiTrav Ln. Tf. 


TO TtOTrjpiov rovro X rovro 

^pei av %op.fv papTVpias X 

7. e v r), om. e v Tf. 

ro TTorr^piov Tf. [Alx.] 

e ^o/zev /xapr. ^petav Tf. 

9. ewrov X etrrav Ln. Tf. 

43. ver. 43, 44 [Ln.] 

eroip,dcra>p.ev, o*Zd. [o~ot] Ln. 

- (iTro rov X TT Ln - 


10. ov X ety J]V Ln. [Alx. s. eiy r?v]. 

4^. avrov, om. St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

i. fjyayev X fjyayov Gb. Sch. Ln. 

12. dvcoyeov X dvdyatov Gb. Sch. 

avrovy Kotp.cop,e vovy X f ot/z. 


Ln. Tf. 

avrovy Tf. 

2. ro e^voy, arZ^Z, r}/icov Ln. Tf. 

13. etpr;Kev X eipr^Ket Ln. txt. 

4 7. v Ert fie, om. fie Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


14. SobfieKa, om. Ln. Tf. 

avrcov X avrovy Gb. Sch. Ln. 

KatVapt (pdpovy X <p<>povs 

1 6. ovKe ri [Ln.] ; om. Alx. 


Ka/o-apt Ln. Tf. 

- e avrov X avrb Ln. Tf. 

48. 6 fie lrio~ovy X l^o^ovy fie 

Xe yovra, pram. [Kat] Ln. 

17. Tror)7piov, prcem. TO Ln. [^4fcr.] 


3, e 7r77pa>r?icrev X r)pa>Trjo-fv Tf. 

eavroly X f is eavrovy Ln. 

49. eiVov X eiVav Ln. Tf. 

7. Hpcofiryv, pra?m. rov Ln. 


- avra>, om. Tf. 

8. ^eAcov e ^ IKOVOV X * IKOI/WV 

18. on, om. Tf. ; [.4te. s. OTTO rov 

50. rov fiovXov rov ap^tepecoy X 

^povcov ^e Xcov Ln. MZ#.] 


rov dp^. rov SovX. Tf. 

TroXXa, OHJ. Tf. [Gb. =;]. [ylZ.3 

yevvry/iaroy X yev/yfiaroy Ln. 

avrov ro ovy X ro ovy avrov 

11. avrov 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] 


Ln. Tf. 

o re LTiXdroy KOI 6 Hpo ^Srjy 

20. C i2o"avr<uy Kai ro Tror/7piov ) 

51. avrov, om. Tf. 

Xo re Hp. KOI 6 LTiX.Ln. mg. 

Kai ro TTOTTjp. ajcravrcoy Tf. 

52. 6 Jr^aovy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

i^. dveirf p,\lsa yap v/iay Trpoy 

- e K^vvd/nevov X e K^vvvo/ievov 

- tt\rj\v6aT X e r;X0are Ln. 

avrov X dveVe/ifv^e yap av 

Ln. Tf. 


rov Trpoy T^ay Gb. ~. [^-fZar.] 

22. Kai 6 p,ev vtoy X fat 6 vioy 

<3. dXX X dXXd Tf. 

17. AvdyKT^v fie et^ev aTroXuetv 

/iev Ln. mg. ; on 6 vioy p,ev 

v/xaiv eVrtv X e o~rtv vp-wv Ln. 

avroiy Karti eoprr)v eva, 07n. 

Tf. Wte.] 


ver. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.=s]. [.-Ite.] 


18. dveKpaav X dveKpayov Tf. 
TOV Bapa/3/3ai>, TOV Gb. -. 

19. pfp\Tjfj.evos X P\r)8cis Tf. 
ety <pv\aKr)v X e 


20. oui/ X e Ln. 


21. 2Taupa)o-ov, aTavpcacrov X 
aTavpov, (rravpov Lu. Tf. 

23. /cat TOW ap^tepecov [Ln.] 

24. O fie X ai Ln. Tf. 

2$. avToty, 07?z. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] 

TT)V (pv\aKT)v, om. rr]V Ln. Tf. 

26. 2ipa)i/dy Tti/oy KvprjvaiovTOv 

p%op.evov X 2i p,a>z>a Ttva 
K.vprjvalGV ep^oaevov Ln.Tf. 
Ute.] ; [TOU, o?ra. Gb. Sch.] 

arr X "fi" I^ 11 - 

27. at /cat, om. Kal Ln. [Gb. -]. 

28. 6 l^o-ovy, om. 6 Tf. 

29. KotXt ai, prcem. al Tf. 

- f6rjKao-av \ fdpe\l/av Ln. Tf. 

30. Tre crere X TreVaTe Tf. 

33. drrrjXdov X rj\6ov Ln. [^4te.] 

apto Teptov X eua)vup,a)v ^te. 

34. 6 fie l^o-oOy e Xeye, LTaTep, 

a^)ey atroty ou yap ot Saat 

Tl TTOtOL O t [Ln.] 

- K\fjpov X K\r]povs Tf. Ln. mg. 

35. Kai ot ap^ovTey, om. /cat Ln. ; 
prcem. avTov Alx. 

cri/v auToty, o??z. Tf. [Ln.] 

[Gb. -]. ^4Za;. 

6 TOV GeoO e /cXe/CToy X o e /c- 

Xe/CToy TOU Qeov Ln. mg. ; 
TOV Qeov 6 e /cXe/CTo y Tf. 

36. EveVat^ov X fveirai^av Tf. 

/cat 6 oy, om. /cat Tf. [Ln.] 


37. Et au X C e ^l Ln. 

38. yeypapp,eV?7 X eVtyeypap.- 

.eV? Ln. [^4te.] ; om. Tf. 

Pcupai /coty /cat E/3pat/coty, 
oi. Tf. [Ln.] [Jte.] 

Oirroy fCTTiv 6 /SnatXeuy TCOV 

lovfiatcov X o /3ao*. T. loufi. 
[ouroy] Ln. txt. Tf. ; [otro y 
caTiv] Ln. mg. 

39. Xe ycoz/, om. Tf. 

Et crv X o^X^ ~^ ^ -^ n- m e- 

40. eVrcTi /zct atrco, Xeycov X f 7r ~ 

Ttfjiwv avrco e<prj Tf. 
42. TO) l^o"ou, orw. TCO Tf. 


MvrjcrdrjTi p.ou, post [Kupte] 

Ln. mg. 

Kvpte, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 
ev TT} /SacriXeta X e ^ T *) v 

/3ao-tXei av Ln. mg. 
6 l^crovy, om. Tf. 
Xeyo) o~oi X " l Xeyeo Tf. 
T Hv fie X fat r\v fjdr] Ln. txt. 

Tf. [Alx.] 
7rapa6f]o-oaai X TrapaTi^epat 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. 
Kai TaC Ta X K( *i- TOVTO Ln. 

txt. ; TOVTO fie Tf. 
e Sd|ao-e X edda> Ln. txt. 

6fa)povvTes X 

Ln. txt. Tf. 

e auroov, om. Tf. [Gb.=J]. 
ai>Tov X tro) Ln. Tf. [Alx.] ; 

arfrf. a;r6 Ln. 

X o-vy- 
Ln. mg. L4te.] 
off /cat Trpoo-efie xeTO Kai au- 

Toy Tip X os frpocredejffTO 

TTJV Ln. Tf. [Gb. <]. [Alx.] 
OUTO i, o?. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
ai>TO 3 X avrbv Ln. txt. Tf. 
ov8e7ra> ovdels X ovfieiy ov- 

TTCO Ln. Tf. \_Alx. s. ovdfls 

- Kal o-a,3/3aTOi>, om. Kai Tf. 

5. Kal yvvcuKes, om. Kal Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. =t], [at Ln. 



i. ftadeos X fiascos Ln. Tf. 

- /ecu rti/es (rui airaZs 1 , om. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. [Jte.] 

3. Kal elo-\0ov<rai X clo~\6ov- 

o-fu 5e Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

- TOV Kvpiov lr]o-ov, om. Tf. 

4. diaTTOpfladaL X aTropfladai 

Ln. Tf. ufte.] 

5uo avdpes X av8ps dvo Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

O-6rJTi aTpaTTTOVo-r} Ln. 

5. TO TrpoawTTOV X ra 7rpdo-a)7ra 

Tf. [^te.j 
- erTroi/ X ftTrav Ln. Tf. 

6. aXX X aXXa Tf. 
coy X otra Ln. mg. 

7. del TOV vlbis TOV dvdpwTrov X 

TOV viov TOV av6. ort Set Tf. 

ID. rjo-av SeX^v fie Sch. [Gb. <*>]; 
[om. rfcrav Se Gb. *>]. 

prcem. fj Ln. Tf. 

- at, ow. Ln. [Gb. ^]. 
ir. pyp-aTa avT&v \ pfja. 

Ln. Ute.] 

12. ver. 12, o?w. Tf. [Ln.] 
15. 6 l^o~o!y, om. 6 Tf. 

17. /cat eVre, om. Tf. 

18. 6 ety, om. 6 Ln.Tf. [Alx.]; add. 

[e avTwv] Ln. 

<6 oj/o/xa X ovouaTi Ln. mg. 

- /, oi. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Gb. ~, 


19. Nacopai ou X Na^aprjvov Ln. 


Xdya), praym. [eV] Ln. 

20. Trape Sco/cav avTov X CLVTOV 

TrapedcoKav Ln. 

21. aXXa ye, arfd. Kat Ln.Tf. 

22. opdptai X opdpival Ln. Tf. 

24. Kadcos Kat, ow. /cat Ln. 

27. 8irjpfj.r]vevci> X Step 

Ln. Tf. 

- eauToC X a^TOu Elz. Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

28. Trpoo-eTroietTO X Trpoo-eTrot- 

Ln. txt. [Gb. ~]. 

Troppcore pa) X Troppco 

Ln. Tf. 

29. KfK\iKev, add. rjdrj Tf. [Ln.] 


30. etXdy^o~e X rjvXoyrjcrev Ln. 

32. efTroi/ X ewrai/ Tf. 

KO-I coy, om. Kat Ln. Tf. 

33. avvr}6poio~p.cvovs X TjQpoi- 

(rptvovs Ln. Tf. 

34. r)yep6rj 6 Kvptoy oj/TCOff X 

oWcos- rjyfpdr] 6 Kvptos Ln. 
[Gb. *>]. [^te.] 

36. 6 lf;o-o{)y, o??. Gb. Ln. Tf. 
U?*.] f 

Kal Xe yet airoTy, JLlprjvTj 

vulv, om. Tf. ; add. [e yco et//t 
p.?) (po/3eto-^e] Ln. 

38. filOTl X Tl Tf. 

- Tats- KapSi aiy X TTJ /capSt a 
Ln. txt. Tf. 

39. avTos eyd) et/Ltt X *y<& ftp-t 

avTos Ln. txt. Tf. 

40. ver. 40, om. Tf. 

X e Set^ev Ln. [^4ir.] 

41. OTTO Try x a p^ s Ka * 6avp.a- 

.a\ dav/j,. dno TTJS 

42. KCU a7r6 p.eXto-0-iou Krjpiov, 
om. Ln. [Gb. -]. [Jfo.] 

44. avTols X Trp JS 1 avTOvs Ln. 

mg. Tf. 
- Xoyot, ffrftZ. JLIOV Tf. [Ln.][^te.] 

46. Kai ourtos 1 eSet, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

[Gb. -]. [Alx.^ 

47. dp^dfJievov X dpdp,voi Tf. 


[Alx.] ; dpap,VO)V Ln. rag. 

48. fie eVre, om. Tf. 

49. aTrocrreAXa) X e^CMTOOreXXa) 

lepovcraXjjp., om. Gb. Ln. 


- dvvap.iv e v\}rovs X e v^ous 

50. e<o [Ln.] Gb. -. 
- et? BrjOavlav X Trpos BT^U- 

i/iav Ln. txt. 
g i. Kai dvecpepero eiy roi/ oi pa- 

vov, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 
52. irpoo-Kvvrjo-avTfS avTOV, om. 
Tf. [Gb. -]. 

, om. Gb. Sell. Tf. [Ln.] 



4o.*H\6ov X rfKQcLV Tf. ; acZrZ. 


4. far/ rjv \ far) eVrii> Ln. txt. 

ouy Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.1 


1 6. Kai i X on Gb. Ln. txt. Tf. 

- eldov X e?$av Ln. Tf. 


copa 8e, om. Se Gb. Sch. Ln. 


18. vlbs [Gb. -*] ; Oebs Ln. mg. 



19. aTrecrrfiXay, add. Trpbs CIVTOV 

41. Hi>, cZ^. [Se] Ln. 


Ln. [Alx.1 

42. Trpcoroy X TrpS)Tov Ln. [yiZa?.] 

20. OVK elpl e ya) X *yu> OVK elpl 

Meffcriav X Mecr/av [Gb. f^]. 


Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

6 Xptards", om. 6 Gb. Sch. 

22. EITTOV X elnav Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 


- ow, om. Ln. 

43. Kai rjyayev, om. Kal Tf. [Ln.] 


24. ot, om. Tf. [Alx.] 

- e /i/3Xe\^ay Se, om. 8e Gb.Sch. 

2$. fL7rov X flirav Ln. Tf. 


- oi/ re Ms X ouSe Ln. Tf. [,4 fa?.] 

- Icoi/d X *Ia>aw)V Ln. txt. 


26. p,eo-oy 8e, o?. Se Tf. [^te.] 

44. 6 ir/o ovy, o??z. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


ecTTrjKfv X (TTrjKfi Tf. Ln. mg. 


27. auroy ecrTiv, om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] 

Xe yei atr<5, cZfZ. 6 irj&ovs 



Sch. Ln. Tf. 


os ep-rrpocrdev p.ov yeyovev, 

46. roz/ vtoi , o?re. roi/ Ln. 


om. Gb. Tf. [Ln.] [Alx.] 

roi) Icoo"j)(i), om. rou Alx. 


- eycb, post ft pi Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. 

Na^aper X Nadpe $ Gb. Sch. 

=f]. [om. yite.] 

[Rec. *]. 

28. BrjQaftapa X ^davia Gb. 

47. ^iXiTTTTos 1 , prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 


Sch. Ln/Tf. [Rec. Gb. *]. 

48. 6 Iiyo-oCs 1 , om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

IcoavvTjs^ prcem. 6 Ln. 

49. 6 irjo-ovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


29. 6 ifudVz^s 1 , om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 



30. A7reKpi $77, add-. aur&) Tf. 

30. Trepl X ^Trcp Ln. Tf. 



3 1 . f))\dov eyu> X 6-yco ^X^. Ln. mg. 

- Kai Xeyet, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

rai uoart, om. rw Ln. [Gb. -*]. 

aura), om. Ln. Tf. 


- el 6 fia<TL\vs X o (3aa-. e^ 

32. o)o-ft X &>? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 


$i. ~Eldov, jjraxn. on Ln. Tf. 


Ln. mg. 

- o\lsei X ofa Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

3^ . 6 Icodi/v?;?, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

52. air prt, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. =?]. 

36. TOV Qfov, add. [6 a lpcov Tr/v 


dp.apTiav Tail KOCT/IOU] Ln. 


38. a-Tpatpels 8e, om. 8e Cat. 


39. flTTOV X fLTTCtV Ln. Tf. 

i. Trj rjp.epa r?} Tpirr) X T?/ ^P 4 


epp.ipev6p.fvov X p.edepp,rj- 

rr/ rjpfpa Ln. mg. 


vev6p.evov Ln. [y4Z.r.] 

4. Ae yet, pnem. [Kat] Ln. [J/,r.] 

40. tT6 X o^eade Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

6. uSpi at \idivat X \i6ivai vSp. 


l Air.] 

Ln. txt. Tf. 

t/jLfvat, post louai<i> Tf. 
Kai rjveyKciv X oi Se rjveyKav 

Ln. mg. [^te.] 
ro re [Ln.] 

T)^ ap^rjv, om. TTJV Ln. Tf. 

dehcpol avTOv X airoi; [Ln.] 
/j,fivav X ffJ-ftvev Ln. mg. 
ro Kpfj.a X T Keppara Ln. 

mg. [^4Z#.] 
/xr) TTOietre, ^ssm. [Kat] Ln. 

crdrjcrav Se, [Se] Ln. 
Kare (paye X Kara^)dyerai Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

tTrov X fi7raz> Ln. Tf. 
6 ir^troCs 1 , om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Ub. 

Elirov X emav Ln. Tf. 
aurots-, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
<w elirev X oi/ elrrev Ln. 

lepocro\vp.oLs, prcem. roTp 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

6 l^o ovs , om. 6 Ln. Tf. 
eavTov X CLVTOV Ln. Tf. 
rot) dV$pa>7rou, om. rot) Ln 


TOV irjcrovv X avTov Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
rat)ra ra o"r]p.fla dvvaTai X 

dvvaTat TavTci TO. arjpc ia 

Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 
6 l^crot)?, o??i. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

6 l^o Oi}?, o?. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. ; 

[add. Kal flrffv CIVTW Ab\~\ 
6 ir/o oOs 1 , om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


6 a)i> eV rai ovpavte Gb. ->. 
v\l/-(ii)8jjvai Set X ^ e v^lronOrj- 

vat Ln. mg. 

tf auro^XeV aur6fLn.txt.; 

eV avra) Tf. Ln. mg. 


i$- fj.r) arrdX^Tai, aXX , om. Tf. 

[Ln.] [Gb.^]. [Ate.] 

17. avroO, o;. ^fte. 

18. 6 Se, [Se] Ln. 

19. Trovrjpa avTti>v X avrvv TTO- 

yj/pa Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
25. lovda/cov X lovSat ov Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. [Bee. Gb. ~]. 
28. /not, om. C6 <. 
OVK elpl e ya) X ey<*> ov/c etp.1 

Ln. txt. 

31. errdva) rravrcov eVrt, 32. KCU 

Gb. =t ; [om. Ate.] 

32. KOI 6 ecopa/ce, [Kal] Ln. 
- roi5ro Gb. ={. Ute.] 

34- 6 0e6s-, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.=t]. 

35. fjifvfi X p-fvel Gb. ~. 


! 29. oo-a X a Tf. 

30. ~Er)\Oov, prcem. [Kal] Ln. 
- ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

31. Ev fie, om. fie Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 

[Gb. 3]. 

34. TTOto) X TroiJjcra) Ln. [Gb. <^]. 

35. eVt Gb. -. [Alx.] 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

36. Kal 6 $epicoi>, om. KOI Gb. 

Tf. [Ln.] Ate. 

- Kal 6 OTrei pwv, om. Kai Tf. 

37. 6 d\r/dLvbs, 6 Gb. -. Ufa.] 
39- oo-a X a Tf. [Ate.] 

42. On [Ln.] 
6 Xpio-TO?, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


1. Kvpios X l^croi)? Ate. 

2. lovdaiav, add. yrjv Ate. 

3. TraXii/ Gb. -. [Cat.] 
<j. Su^ap X St^ap Elz. 

o edcoKev X o^ 1 eficoKei/ Gb. ! 46 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

6. coaei X wy Ln. Tf. [y. 

7. 7rie> X TTII> Tf. 

9. TTieij/ X TT" Ln. Tf. 

ovar/s yvvaiKos 

dos X yvv. 2ap,ap. ovarjs \ 
Ln. Tf. Ufa.] 

10. metis X 7TIZ/ Tf. gl. 

13. 6 Irjaovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


14. ov p.j] di\l/i]crrj els TOV alu>va- j 

aAXa TO v8a)p o Sa)O"co au- j 2. 
TOO [Ln.J ; (di\l/r)o-ei Ln. Tf. 
[Alx. ct o eyco Ate.]) 

1 6. 6 l^croO?, om. Tf. ; om. 6 Ln. ; 

[ liycrous] Ln. 

TOV aVfipa aov X " ou TOV 53- 

aVSpa Tf. 

17. 6i7rei/, add. [aura] Ln. [Cfc.] 

OUK e ^a> avdpa X az/fipa OVK i. 

e ^a) J!te. i - 

e\u> X ^ x ft ^ -^ n- m s> 

20. TOVT6) T60 6 p66 X T(5 Op6t j 2. 

TOUTW Gb. Sch. Ln. txt. Tf. | .,. 

fiet TrpovKvvelv X TrpoaKvvelv 

del Ln. Tf. [Ate.] 

21. Tvvai, post p,OL Tf. Ln. mg. 

[Gb. ]. Ute.] 

Trio-Tevaov X nioTV Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. U^r.] 
23. aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 
27. edavp.aaav X 0ai>fiaov Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Kat dirrjXdev, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

[Gb. -]. Ate. 
6 irjaovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


a X ocra Ln. Tf. [Ate.] 
6 Irjaovs, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

[Ate.] ; (post TrdXiv Sch.) 
avrov 2, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 
co X 6v Ln. [^4to.] 
Kai eirio-Tevaev, om. Kal Tf. 

[Ln.] [Gb. -]. 
6 I/^o-ous 2, o??i. 6 Elz. St. 

Gb. [Gb. v]. [Alx.] 
aTri]VTi]o-av X vnfjVTrjaav Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 
?rai? Q-OU X Trals avTov Ln. ; 

vlbs avTov Alx. 
Trap avTU)V TTJV oipav X TTJV 

cop. Trap avT. Ln, Tf. [Ate.] 
Kal elrrov X fltrov ovv Tf. 
X#e? X f\^ s Ln - Tf - CGrb.]. 

OTI om. Ln. [Ate.] 

eopr?), prcem. r] Tf. 

6 Ij/troOy, o??i. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Br/^eo-SaX Bi]daa ida Ln. mg. 
u, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =1]. 

Tj)y ToC vfiaTOS 

KLvrjaiv. 4. ayyeXojyap KOTa 
Kaipoi/ KaTeftatvev ev TTJ KO- 
\vp,fir]dpq, Kal cTcipaaae 
TO vdcop- 6 ovv TrpcoTOs e /z- 
/3af juera TTJV Tapa^fjv TOV 
eyiVeTO, a) 

ad/n. ver. 4, om. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 

4. ayyeXoff yap, add. [Kupi ov] 

Ln. Ufa?.] 

eVapacrcre TO X fTapdaaeTO 

TO Ln. mg. [Cs#.] 


Kat OKTO) Gb. Sch. Tf. (Ln. 

r.u] )^ 

do~Qeveiq, add. avTov Tf. [Ln.] 

7. (3d\\r) X jSaXi; Gb. Sch. Ln. 

8.*Eyeipai X eyeipe Sch. Ln. 

Tf. ; add. [Kai] Ln. 

10. OUK eeo-Ti, prcem. [Kai] Ln. 


11. ArreKpi^T/, prcem. os fie Ln. 

12. ov, om, Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -]. 

TOV Kpa/3/3aToV o"ov, om. Tf. 

13. labels X dadeviov Tf. [Gb.~]. 

14. TI croi X o-oi Tt St. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

15. A7T7yX$ei>, prcem. [KOI] Ln. 

- a^yyeiXe X ftirfv Tf. Ln. 

mg. ; [sic s. aTT^yyeiXe ^4te.3 

16. TOV lyaovv 01 lovfiaiot X * 

loufi. r6f irjaovv Ln. txt. 
Tf. Ufa.] 

Kai ffyrovv avTov aTTOKTfl- 

i/at, om, Gb. Tf. [Ln.] Ufa.] 

19. a yap az> eKflvos Troifj X a 

yap eKelvos zroiei Ln. mg. 

20. ^)iXei X ayaTra Ln. mg. 

2^. aKot o oz Tai X dKovao)o~i s. 
aKovaovai Ate. 

- {TJO-OVTCU X rj<TOV(nv Ln. Tf. 

20. efia)Ke Kai TCO vlco X Kal TCO 

vlco fdcoKev Ln. mg. 
27. KOI Kpio-iJ/, om. Kai Ln. Ufa.] 

29. 01 fie, om. fie Tf. [Ln.] 

30. TroTpo ?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

i>ai Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; [post 
Trpbs &pav Ln. mg.] 

36. jLteiCco X LieiCcov Ln. 

- eficoKe X fie ficoKeV Tf. 

e yo) TTOICO, om. e ya> Ln. 

37. avTos X eKcivos Tf. Ln. mg. 

- aK^Ko aTe 7ro)7roT6 X TrcoTTGTe 

UKT]KOaT Ln. Ufa.] 

38. fjLevovTa ev vulv X cV ^V 1 - 

p.vovra Tf. Ln. mg. 
42. aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 
44. Qeov [Ln.] 


f CHAP. VI. f 
a. KOI rjKoXovdei X r)Ko\ovdei 

fie Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
ecopo)i> X 0f&pow Ln. [^4r.] 
- auTOv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
3. 6 I^crous 1 , om. 6 Ln. Tf. 
$. 6 IT/O-OUS- roiis 6(pda\p,ovs X 

rovs o<$. 6 iT/o-ovy Ln. Tf. 

TOV <&tXimrOl>i Om. TO!/ Ln. 


- dyopda-ofjLfv X dyopdo-wptv 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

6. e/zeXXe X ^eXXe ^te. 

7. ai)Ta)v, om. Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

- Tt [Ln.] 

9. i/, GOT. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb.-*]. Ute.] 

- 6 X os- Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. [Alx.] 
10. fie, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =:]. 

Xopros TTO\VS X TroXvs XP~ 

TOS Ln. ing. 

X dveircaraif Ln. Tf. 


ovi/ [Gb. ^]. EC s*.] 

ot mopes , om. oi ^4te. 

fie X ovv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

Tols [J.a0r)Tals, oi fie p,a6r]- 

TCU, oi. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. ^te. 
ti7pi<TO~ev(T X eVepio~o"et;- 

o-ai> Ln.. Tf. 
6 7roir)o~e cTYiiLtiov X a eVoi- 

r;(T6^ 0-77 /*eia Ln. mg. 
6 l/ycrous-, OMI. Tf. 
ai>TOi/ 2, om 
TrdXiv, om. Tf. [Gb. =5]. [Cst.] 
OTJK X ovTTco Ln. txt. [^4te.] 
SiT/yetpeTO X fiteyetpero Tf. 
ob? X wo"el Ln. 
TO TrXoTov e yeVeTO X cyevero 

TO 7T\otov Ln. Tf. 
iScoy X etfiov Ln. [^ 
eVeivo eiy 6 fve 

6r)Tal avTov, om. Gb. Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 
7r\oidptov X TrXoToj/ Gb. Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

TrXoiapta X TrXoTa Ln. 
fvxapi(TTr]O"avTOS TOV Ku- 

pi ou Gb. ->. 
. Kat avTOt, om. xai Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

TrXoia X TrXotapta Ln. [^4/a;.] 
. 7roiovfj,v X Trotw/iev Elz. Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 
. 6 iryo otis , ow. 6 Tf. [Gb. =?]. 


7TlO-T(V(rr)Tf X 

. o^v Gb. 5. 

32. eBKei/ X edo)Kv Ln. 
33- <T a)1 7 I/ StSou? X fitSov 
Ln. mg. 

35. fie, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =i]. 

Tretvdarr) X Trfivdo-fi Ln. 
- 1^77077 X fit^o-ei Ln. 

36. p.6 [Ln.] 

38. 6/< X TTO Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 

39. Trarpos, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

ouro eV X O.VTOV Cut. 

40. fie X yap Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

TTffjityavTOS /if X Trarpos p,ou 

Ln. txt. Tf. [Gb. *]. Alx. 

eya) [Ln.] 

?/, prcem. ev Ln. Tf. 


ow X i / i)i Tf. 

OTOS 2 [Ln.] [Gb. -*]. Alx. 
o^i/, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] 
Trpo? fjLe X Trpos- e p.e Tf. 
/cat e ycb X Kayco Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
rfj fV^ciT?/, prcam. fv Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
TOU Geou, om. TOU Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

ow, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
aKovo-as X aKovav Sch. [Gb. 

TLS ewpaKcv X ecopaKev TIS 

Ln. Tf. [^ite.] 
eiy.ep-e, om. Tf. 
TO fjidvva ev rfj ep?jp.a) X f ** 

T?; ep77/xw TO pawa Ln. txt. 

Tf. [Jte.] 
7)^ cycb fid)O"o>, oi. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -]. [^?ar.] 
Trpos aXXryXotis 1 oi louSatot 

X ot lovfi. Trpos aXX. Ln. 


TTJV o~dpK(i, add. avrov Ln. 
Kal lyu> X /cayo> Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
rfj eV^aTT?, prcem. ev Sch. 

Tf. [Ln.] 
d\r)6&s X dXr]Or)S Ms Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. R]. Alx. 

X t r ;" ei Ln - Tf - t Gb - 

58. ex ToO X ^ Ln. Tf. [Alxl 

V/JLO>V, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. 


TO p-dwa, om. Gb. Tf. 

- ?o-eTcu X &<rci Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

60. OVTOS 6 \6yos X o Xdyoy 

OVTOS Ln. Tf. [JZ.] 

63. XaXw X XeXaXiyxa Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ]. 

64. aXX X a\\a Tf. 

61. pou, o??i. Ln.Tf. [Gb. r;]. Alx. 


66. a7T7}X$oi , jposi OVTOU Ln. 

TCOV pad^Tcav^ prcem. K [Ln.] 

68. GUI , om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

69. 6 XptcrTOS 6 vibs X o ciyios 

Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ev]. 

TOV WVTOS, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


70. 6 iT^o-oOy, om. Tf. [Gb. =?]. 

71. l&KapiwTrjv X lovcapi&>Toi> 
Ln. Tf. UZar.] 

X (p-\\ev Ln. Tf. 

avTov TrapafiiSot/ai X ?rpa- 
fitfidi ai CIVTOV Alx. 

&>v, om. Ln. [Gb. ^]. 


i. KGU, om. ^4fa?. 

jucTa TouTa, 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

3. 6e<t)pr]0-a)o-i X 


- Ta epya o-ou X <rv TO. epya 


4. eV KpVTTTCO Tt 770161 X Tt eV 


avTos X VTO Ln. 
6. ow, Gb. =J. 

8. Tavrr]v, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =}]. 


- oi/Va) i X OVK Gb. Sch. Tf. 

6 KCUp6$ 6 fJLOS X O [ KCIL- 

pbs Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

9. fie, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 

avTols X fivTos Tf. [Gb. ~]. 
10. fls TTJV eopTrjv, ante TOT* Ln. 


- aXX X d\\d Ln. Tf. 

12. TToXvs Trepi avrov fjv X Trept 
avTou T)^ TroXi S Ln. Tf. 

- fie, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 

14. 6 Irjaovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

15. Kal edav/JLa^ov X f6av[j,aov 

ovv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

16. ATreKpiOr], add. ovv Sch. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. <v]. 

19. fieSajKez/ X e 6\0Kez/ Ln. 

20. /cai etVe, om. Ln. Tf. [^te.] 

21. 6 l/io oOs , oj. 6 Tf. [Gb. ]. 


22. eV o"a/3/3aT&>, [eV] Ln. 
24. KplvaTf X Kpivere Ln. 
26. AOZI i, Gb. ->. 

0X77^0)$-, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
29. eya) fie, om. fie Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 


30. f7TJ3a\ev X e/3aX/ Ln. mg. 

52. ftTTOV X fnrav Ln. Tf. 

38. TW Trarpt X ToG iraTpbs Ln. 

31. IloXXot Se K TOV o^Xou X 

irpo(pT)Tr)s K TTJS FaXtXaias 

Tf. [Jte.] 

CK roG o^Xou e yroXXol Ln. 

X e/c TTJS FaX. ?rpo0. Ln. Tf. 

- {yzooi>, OCT. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

Tf. [Ate.! 



"On, ow. Ln. [Alx.] 

ey/^yeprai X eyetpfrat Ln. 

39. etTToi X etirav Ln. Tf. 

- P.TJTI X /^ Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~], 

Tf. [^te.] 

- r;re X eor Gb. Ln. Ufa.] 


^3. . . viii. ii, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 

- aj/, o?n. Gb. Sch. Tf. 

- Tovrcoi>, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

41. oui>, O77i. Ln. Tf. [Gb.-]. Alx. 

32. ot < I > (ipto"atoi Kal ot ap^te- 


ov yeyevvf]p.f6a X OVK eyev- 

pets X ot dpx- /cat ot 4>ap. 

3. Trpo? avTov, om. Sch. 

vr)dr)ij.fv Ln. 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.l 

- eV X Arl Sch. 

42. ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

VTTfjpeTas, post aTT0~Tfi\av 

5. XidojBoXflo dai X Xi^d^ctv 

6 li/ffoGy, om. 6 Ln. 



7rarr)p, proem. 6 Ln. 

33. auTOt?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Xeyetr, crrfrf. Trept avTJJs Sch. 

44. Trarpoj, .preewi. roG Gb. Sell. 

- pLKpbv xpv v X XP OVOV P" 

6. KaTyyopelv X KaTiyyopiav 

Ln. Tf. 

Kpoi> Ln. Tf. 

KaT Sch. 

4^. Xeyco, add. [Ln.] 

34. evj^afTf, add. p.e Ln. 

9 fO"rcoo"a X omra Sch. 

46. Se, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

36. ouro? 6 Xdyo? X 6 Xdyop ov- 

10. H yuj/j) X "yvww Sch. 

48. ovv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

TO? Ln. Tf. 

12. 6 I^O oGs aVTOlS f\d\Tj(T X 

eiTrov X fiirav Ln. Tf. 

6i>pr}o~ere, ocW. j^e Ln. 

auToTs e\d\r)<rev 6 Irjcrovs 

$i. TO v \6yov TOV ffjibv X TOV 

59. e/ieXXov X J/ /jteXXoz/ C* . 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

e/jibv \6yov Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

TTio~TvovTfs X TKOTeucraiTfS 1 

e/J-ol X /^ot Ln. 

52. ovv, om. Ln. Tf. 


/ Y / 

- ytuo-eratXyeva-r/rat Gb. Sch. 

- "AyMW, o?. Tf. [Gb. -] ; So 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

Ln. Tf. 

dofjievov Ln. 

14. d\r]6r)$ ecrTiv f] /xaprvpta 

- els TOV al&va. Gb. -. 

o l^o oGs , 077Z. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

/zou X !? p-aprupia ^tou dXr;- 

3. (TV, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

=:]. Alx. 

^s eo~Tiv Ln. mg. 

<4. &oaco X $odcr(0 Ln. txt. 

ovdeTTO) X OUTTO) Ln. 

- *ai ?roG X J? TroG Gb. Sch. Tf. 


40. TroXXoi, o??i. Ln. Tf. 

1 6. dXrjdrjs X d\r]6ii>f) Ln. Tf. 

- vp.a)V X ryp-coz/ Sch. Tf. [Gb. *>]. 



55. *rat edi/ X ^ai/ Ln. 

o^Xou ow Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

19. 6 l^oroGy, o?n. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 

vfj.a>v X t p-ii/ Ln. 

rov Xdyoz/ X TOOI> Xdycoz/ TOU- 


- dXX X dXXa Ln. Tf. 

rcoi Ln. [Alx.] ; ra>i/ Xdycoi/ 

rjdfiTf av X av T^Setre Ln. Tf. 

58. 6 l^o oGf, o??j. 6 Tf. 

Tf. [Alx.] 


9. 8i\6u>v Std avTtov 

4i/ AXXot, add. 8e [Ln.] 

20. 6 iTycroGy, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Kal Traprjyev ourcoy, o??i. Gb. 

"AXXot de X ot Se Ln. [^47,r.] ; 


Ln. Tf. 

o??i. 5e Tf. [Gb. =:]. Alx. 

21. 6 iTyo oG?, 0771. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

42. ov^t X OI; X Ln. Tf. 

=?]. [Alx.] 


6 XptoTo? ep^ercu X *PX f ~ 

23. finev X eXeyev Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

3. 6 Ir]<rovs, om. 6 Gb. S.-h. Ln. 

rat 6 Xpio~ro? Ln. Tf. 



43. eV TO) o^Xw eyeVcro X ey e/ " 

roG Ko oyiov Ln. Tf. 

4. e/ie X yp-us Alx. 

veTO V rc5 o^Xco Ln. Tf. 

2^. Kat etVei/, o?. Kal Ln. Tf. 

6. cTTXP LO ~ e > a dd- avrov Ln. Tf. 


[Gb. =:]. Alx. 


44. eiTffiaXfV X e/SuXei Ln. Tf. 

26. Xc yco X XaXw Ln. Tf. [Gb.^]. 

- roG TV(p\ov, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

46. ourcof e\d\r]o~fv X e XuXijo ej/ 


[Gb. -]. 

oOrco? Ln. Tf. yJte. 

28. aurotf, OHJ. Ln. 

7. vfyat [Ln.] 

- iff o^ros 6 uvBpwrrosi om. 

p.ov, om. Ln. [^-Ite.] 

8. TvtpXbs X TrpocraiTrjs Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. ^te. 

29. 6 TraTrjp, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 

Ln. Tf. 

47- GUI , O7. Tf. 


9. Se, o>/i. Tf. [Ln.] ; add. eXe- 

49. dXX X dXXa Ln. Tf. 

33. aira) X Trpos 1 avTov Ln. Tf. 

yoi/ [ou^t.dXX ] Ln.Tf.[^4ir.] ; 

eTriKaruparot X tTrdparot Ln. 


e \eyov [on] Ln. mg. [Alx.] 

r i f. 

34. 6 ifjo oGf, o??i. 6 Ln. 

EKetj/or, add. 8e Ln. 

50. VVKTOS Trpos avrov X TrpC S 1 

T1JS (lfJ.(ipTlflS Gb. ^i. 

10. llo)?, add. ovv Tf. [Ln.] ^te. 

ailTOV TTpOTfpOV Ln. [JZx.] ; 

38. e ya) oX f y^ Ln. ; eya) a Tf. 

ai><axd^o-av X r)Vfcpx@ r lo~dv 

7Tpc? nuroi Tf. 

- /uou, o?/i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. yite. 

Ln! Tf. Ute.] 

r. yrup OUTOU TrpoTfpov X Trpco- 

- cvv o\ovv a Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

o~ou X o~m Elz. Ln. mg. 

roi Trap avTOv Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

ecopd/care X fjifovvart Ln. Tf. 

ii. Xfyd^iei/oy, prccm. 6 Alx. 

">] [^ito.] 

[Gb. ~]. 

Kal fLTTfv, om. Tf. [Ln.] ^te. 


1 6 

. /xoi, add. on Tf. 
VTraye, add. vfyai Alx. 

TTjV KO\Vp.j3f]0paV rOV X TOV 

Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx] 
de X ovV Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
KOI VL^d/jifvos, om. Kal Tf. 
. EtVov X etTTCiv Ln. Tf. 
ovV, om. Ln. Tf. ; [Alx. s. Kal 

. ore X eV r) 77/ze pa Ln.Tf. [Alx.] 
. eVl rovy 6<pda\iJLOVs p-ov X 
p,ou eVl TOVS o<pd. Gb. Sell. 
Ln. Tf. 

. Ouros 6 av6pa>7Tos OVK eari 
Trapa rov 6eov X OVK eariv 
OVTOS Trapd Geov 6 dvBpo)- 
nos Ln. txt. Tf. ; [Ln. mg. 
et Alx. om. TOV.] 
XXoi, add. 8e Alx. 
Ae yovat, add. ovv Ln. [Alx.] 
rjvoi^e X ^)veco^ev t s. aWa>e 

rvcpXos" rjv X r)V TV(p\bs Tf. 
Ln. mg. 

apri /SXeVrei X jSXeTTCl aprt 
Ln. txt. Tf. Wte.] 
^A.ircKpidijcrav, add. ovv Ln. ; 
add. fie Ctf. 

avrots 1 , om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 
flirov X ewrai/ Tf. 

X L avT OV | 
X avr6i> e pwr 


Kat rJKOva-av, om. Ka\ Tf. 

[Gb. =*]. Jte. 
6Wes fzer UVTOV X ^fT* au- 

rou ovTfs Ln. Tf. 

ow, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =5]. 
rj ovv d/Maprta VJJL&V [j-fvei X 

at [our] d/xapri at vf.iu>v p.- 

vovcri Alx. 


KaXet X <pa>vfl. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Kat orav, om. KOI Tf. [Gb.^]. 
7rpo/3ara X TrdVra Ln. Tf. 

avr. T^XtK. e^ei Ln. Tf. [Alx] 

23. COTOJ/ X ei7J"ai/ Lu. Tf. 

24. e/c devrepov TOV avdpoonov X 

roz/ tti>$p. e/c 6eur. Ln. txt. 
Tf. [Alx.] 

elnov X flirav Ln. Tf. 


tivdp. Ln. 

25. ouv Gb. ^. 

Kai flnev, om. Ln. Tf. 

- a>i/ X jjpp Kal yiZa?. 

26. Se X ovv Ln. Tf. 

- ?rXtj/, owi. Ln. Tf. 

28. ow, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- ef p.adrjTT]S X p-aOrjrrjs el Ln. 


30. yap TOVTto X TOVTft) yap Tf. 

dveat^e X fjvoi^e Ln. 

31. Se, ow. Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^te. 

ajj.apT<Ji>\S)v 6 Qebs X o eoy 

a/j.apTG)\a)V Ln. txt. 

34. eiTrov X fwrai/ Ln. Tf. 

35. QeoO X avdptoiTov Gb. ^. 

36. /cai ctVe, o??i. Ln. ; a(7<?. Kal 

Gb. Sch. Tf. 
39. Se, o?. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. ^te. 


o~ovo~iv Ln. Tf. 
TraXi^ avToIs X ctuTols naXw 

Ln. ; om. avTols Tf. 
on, om. Tf. [Ln.] ^4Za;. 
rrpb efjiov i]\6ov \rfk6ov Trpb 

ep.ov Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx] ; om. 

Trpo e/xou C6 #. 
flo~lv X eo~Tiv Ln. Tf. [^fa?.] 
ra 7rpd/3ara, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

6 fie fjiio-dcoTos (pevyei, om. 

Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =s]. ^4te. 
yivwo-Kopai VTTO TU>V C/JLWV X 

ytfcocr/coTO"i /xe ra e /xu Ln. 

Tf. [Alx] 

yue 6a X Set J*e Ln. Tf. [Alx] 
yevr]o~Tai X yevrjaovTai Alx. 
6 TraTrjp p, X /** o 

Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
ovi^, am. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 
dvoiyeiv X cu>olai Tf. 
rols lepoo-oXu/xoty, rots Gb. 

^ Wte.] 
KOI ^ei/zcbf, om. Kal Tf. [Gb. 

-]. Alx. 
rod SoXo/^aii/ros X 2oXo/xco- 

i/o? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 
ov yap eVre X ori OVK e crre 

Ln. mg. [Alx] 
na6u>s eirrov v^iiv [Ln.] [Gb. 

-] ; om. Alx. 
aKOvet X d.Kovovo iv Alx. 
ov^ apTrdcrei X ^ M 7 ? "P~ 

Trdar] Alx. 
/Jifia>v TTUVTCOV X 7rdvra)V 

[Hfifav Tf. 
/LIOU 2, om. Tf. 
TraXtv, om. ^4/a;. 
KaXa epya X epya KaXa Ln. 



/uov, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] 
Xi$aere /ue X P>e 

Tf. Ln. mg. 
\eyovTS, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =s], 

Eycb etVa X on e ya) (ITTCV 

Ln. ; ort eycb etTra Tf. [Alx] 
7no~Tvo~aT X Triorevere Ln. 

X ytvu>o~KrjT6 Ln. 


avrw X TO> Trarpi Ln. txt. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 
TrdXiy avroi/ X avroi^ TtahiV 


f peivev X epifvev Ln. 
O"r]u.elov eTroirjaev X fTTOir]- 

o~fv o~T]fielov Alx. 

e7TlO~TVO~aV TToXXol X TToX- 

Xol enio-Tevaav Ln. 
e ^ei ei$- avTov X f i 
fKfl Ln. Tf. 




7. p.adr]Ta1s, add. avTov [Ln.] 

9. 6 IT/O-OV?, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


- flaw wpai X wpai flo-iv Ln. 

Tf. [Alx] 

12. Oi /j,a6r)Tal avTOv X avrw ot 
fjLa6i)Tai ~Ln.[Alx] ; avrw Tf. 

14. ovv [Ln.] 

15. dXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 
17. EX0cbz> X q\0fv Ln. 

evpev, pram. Kal Ln. 

- r)p.epas rjr] X ^^ f)[J*pas 

Ln. mg. ; om. 77877 Tf. 

19. Kal TroXXol X TroXXol 5e Ln. 

Tf. W?a?.] 

ray Trepl X T ^l v Ln. 

- Mapiav X Maptd/.i Ln. Tf. 

- avrcoi/, om. Tf. [Alx] 

20. 6 L^aovs-, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


21. 77 Map$a, om. 77 Gb. Ln. 


6 d8e\<pos [J.ov OVK av e re- 

6vr)Ki X OVK av dnedavev 6 
ddf\(pos p-ov Ln. [Alx] ; 
OVK av 6 dSeX. p.ov eTedvrj- 
Kfi Tf. ; [<ETe6vr]Ki X antQa- 
vev Gb. K>]. 

22. dAXa [Ln.] ; om. Alx. 

24. Mdp^a, pram, f) Ln. Tf. 

28. ravra X rovro Tf. 

- Mapi ai> X Mapia/x Ln. Tf. 

29. e/cetV?/, add. fie 
- e yeiperai X ^y*, 

ep^erat X VPX 

30. rjv, add. ert Ln. 

31. Mapiav X Mapinp, Ln. Tf. 

Xeyoz/rey X So^ai/res Gb. <^. 

32. Mapta X Mapia/Lt Tf. 

6 l^croOy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 


els TOVS TroSa? avrov X V" 

roO fls TOVS Trodas Gb. Tf. ; 
aurou Trpos TOVS TrdSas Alx. 

aurw, om. ^te. 

diredavev p.ov X fiou dneOa- 

vev Tf. [yi?^.] 

37. rjftvvaTO X f8vvaTO Ln. 

38. e/ J i/3pi/z&>/zei < 

fjLevos Ln. mg. 

39. 6 ir^o otis , o??i. 6 Ln. 


Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. ^te. 

40. o^et X o^V Ln. Tf. [Gb. %]. 


41. oy ^f 6 TfdvrjKws Keip.evoS) 

om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

o(pda\p.ovs, add. avTOv, s. 

eavTov Alx. 

44. Kat er]\dev, om. /cat Gb. Tf. 


avTols 6 irj&ovs X l^crous 1 

avTols Tf. 
- acpere, arf^. aCroi- Tf. [Alx] 

45. Mapiav X Mapiap. Ln. Tf. 

a eTToirjcrev X TTOiT)o~. Alx. 

6 lr]o-ovs, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


46. a 7roLr)(rev X o enoirjcrfv Ln. 

txt. [/Jte.] 

6 l^o-ous 1 , om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

47. a^p-eia Troiel X Trotet 

Ln. Tf. [Alx] 


/cni roy roTToi/, om. /cai 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 
51. 7rpoefprjTevo~v X fTrpofbrj- 
Tcvaev Ln. Tf. [JZa:.] 

ep^eXXei/ X ^ /MeXXei/ Ln. Tf. 


o l^croCy, o??i. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. 


aavTO Ln. [ylte.] 
4. l?;o~o{)s ovv X o ouy 



$4. CWTOV, om. Tf. [Alx] 

$6. ev roi lepoi eo-TrjKores X ecr- 

TrjKores ev ro> tepoi Alx. 
$7. KOI i, om. Ln. Tf. 

evTO\r]V X eVroXas 1 Tf. 


1. 6 reQvrjK&s, om. Tf. [Ln.] 

e/c veKpcov, add. 6 Irjo-ovs Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

2. ?7i>, <7<M. CK Tf. 

dvvavaK.eiiiev<JOV X awwcet/ie- 

vav avv Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
4. ow X Se Tf. 

fis e< TWV p.adrjTK>v avrou, 

lovdas Sip.ciovos Io-Kapia>- 
r/?y X o lo-Kapi&TTis els CK 
TO)V jjiaBrfTutv avrov Tf. 

6. ei^e, *at X ex a)I Tf - [^#-3 

7. avrfjv- add. iva Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


T7 ?P J 7 tr ?7 Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ^te. 
epXT(U)post lr](rovs 


6 Irjamis-, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. 
fKpaov X fKpavyafcov Ln. Tf. 

[Alx. ] ; add. Xeyoi/rey [Ln.] 


6 epxofievos, 6 Gb. ^t. 
6 /SacriXei S , om. 6 Tf. [Gb. 

=t]. Cs. ; \.pr(Kin. KOI Alx.~\ 
dvyarep X dvyaTrjp Ln. Tf. 


5e, om. Tf. [Ln]. [Jte.] 
6 ir^croDs 1 , o/rt. 6 Tf. [Alx.] 
ore X OTI Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[ore Gb. ~]. Cst. 
fJK.ov(T X fJKOvo av Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

KocrfJLOs, add. 6\os Alx. 
rives f/ E\\r)ves X "EXX^ves- 

ri^fff Ln. txt. Tf. [Alx.] 
7rpoarKvi>r)cra>(Tiv X Trpoo-Kv- 

vfj&ovaiv Ln. Tf. 
<J>tXt7r7roy, proem. 6 Tf. 
/cat TraXii/ X ep^erat Ln. Tf. 

Xeyouirt, pnem. Kal Ln. Tf. 

diaKovf) TLS X "? SuiKOVrj Ln. 

Tf. [Jffa?.] 
/cat e dV rty, om. /cat Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

ro ovop-a X TUV vlbv Alx. 
ovv [Ln.] 

eWcby X eo-rrjKtos Ln. [Jir.] 
6 I^croi)?, om. 6 Tf. [Alx] 

30. avn^ fj fyatvr) X 17 ^COVT) avr?; 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

31. TOVTOV Gb. ^. [Jte.] 
34. drrtKpidrj, add. ovv Tf. 

- o-v Xe yetff X Xeyety o~v Tf. 
- r/ On Gb. 3. [C.] 

3$. jjied v^wv X eV Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

- ecos X &>? Ln. Tf. 

36. f(os X ? Ln - Tf. MZ.r.] 
6 *Ir](rovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
40. TTfTTwptoKev X fir&paxrfV Tf. 

fpSxri X 
Ln. Tf. 

- lacrco/zai X Ln. txt. 

Tf. [Gb. >]. ^te. 
41. ore X on Ln. Tf. [^te.] 
44. aXX X aXXa Ln. Tf. 
47. fJ.r) TTLO-Tevcrrj X /^"7 (frvXdgrj 

Ln. Tf. [Gb.*] ^Za;. ; [om. /u) 

Gb. ~]. 
49- f| X TT ^te- 

- edatKC XSe 5a)Kej/Ln. Tf. 
^o. XaXw eyco X e V^ 


1. e\^\v6ev X ^X^ez/ Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. *>]. Alx. 

2. yei/o/xeVou X ytvofjievov Tf. 


om. Tf. ; jpos^ napadol av- 
TOV, habct lovftas 2,Lfj.a>vos 
Io-K.apiu>Tr)s Tf. [Ln. nag.] 
yifcr. [Gb. %]. 

TOV Ln. Tf. ; [Kap8iav "iva 
Trapadol avrbv lovdas 2t- 
fj,o)vos lo-Kapia>Tr)s Ln. nig.] 
3. 6 iTjo-ouy, om. Tf. [Ln.] Gb. 

5. /3uXXet uScop X Xa/3o)i/ vdtep 

/SaXXei Jte. 

6. Kai Xeyet, o??z. Kat Tf. [Gb. =J]. 

, om. Ln. Tf. 
8. rovy TroSas ^ou X 
Tro Sas Ln. txt. Tf. 


6 l^o oC S 1 , O?H. Tf. ; om. 6 

Ln. [Alx.] 
9. juov, om. C6 f. 
10. 6 Ij?o-ous-, om. 6 Tf. 

ou xpflav e^et X ^ K f x et 

Xpeiav Ln. Tf. [^te.] 
- 77 X et jn?) Ln. [Alx.] ; [^ ro^y 
nodas Gb. -]. 


ii. Oi>xl, prcem. on Ln. Tf. 

37. o~oi, add. vvv Alx. 

23. 7roiJ7crop.ei/ X TroiT/o-dpec^a Ln. 

12. Kai e Xa/3e, om. Kai Ln. 

38. ArreKpi07 airco X djroKpive- 

Tf. Ute.] 

dvarreo~u>v, prcem. Kal Ln. 

rai Ln. Tf. [^te.3 

28. eiTTOi/, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Alx.] ; Kai aVeVecrei/ Tf. 

- 6 Irjo-ovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

7rar?7p p.ov, om. p.ov Tf. [Ln.J ; 

13. 6 fiifiacTKaXoy Kai 6 Kvpios X 

- (pcoi^crei X <p<^o-?7 Ln. Tf. 

om. ^(Z. [Gb. -*.] 

6 Kvp. Kal 6 fitfi. Cst. 


30. rovrou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

i. e ficoKa X fie ficoKa -<4r. 

d.Trapvf]<rfl X dpvrjo-r) Ln. txt. 

31. Kai Ka$cby, [Kai] Ln. 

1 8. e ycb, add. yap [Ln.] Alx. 

Tf. r^te.] 

eVere/Xaro X eVroXj}z/ eficoKfi/ 

ovs X Tivas Alx. 


p.fT fJLOV X [AOV AlX. 


19. ora^ yevrjTai, Trtorevo^re X 

2. Tropevo/xat, prce/?z. on Ln. Tf. 


Tricrreuo-7/re 6 rai/ yeVryrai 


2. TrXet om Kapnbv X Kapnbv 

Tf. Ln. mg. 

3. Kai eroip.acrco, om. Kai Ln. 

7rXeioi/a Ln. Tf. Mte.] 

20. iv X "V Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


4. p-fivrj X M^X 7 / Ln. mg. 

21. 6 Irjcrovs, om. 6 Tf. 


peiVr/re X fteV^re Ln. 

22. ovv, om. Tf. [Gb. =?]. 

4. eycb [Ln.] ; om. Alx. 

6. fj.eivfl X M^?/ Ln. 

23. fie, om. Tf. 

oi fiare, Kai TTJV ofioy oi fiare 

- avra X ^TO Gb. ~. [Jte.] 

- els, add. eK Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

X otfiare TTJV 66v Tf. [Ln.] 

TrOp, prcem. TO Sch. Tf. [Gb. 

24. Trvdecrdai TLS av c lrj X Ka l 



Xe yei avrco, eiTre TIS eVriz/ 

$. Kal Trcoy, om. Kai Ln. txt. 

7. eai/ X a^ Ln. 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

ovvap,fua TTJV 68bv eifiez/ai X 

alTTjo-eade X atr^cracrc^e Ln 

25. eViTrecrcbz/ X araTre crcoz/ Ln. 

o idap,ev TTJV 6S6v Ln. txt.Tf. 

Tf. [Gb. cx>3. ^ite. 

Tf. [Gb. ~3. [^te.] 

[Gb. ~3. 

8. yevrjaeo de X yevr]O"6e Ln 

- fie, om. Tf. ; ovv Alx. 

6. eyi coKeire oV X oi/ rjdeiTe 

^te. [Gb. ~]. 

- eKelvos, add. OVTMS Tf. [Cst.] 


9. T)ya7rrjo~a vp.ds X vp.ds Tjyci- 

26. ATTOKpiVerat, add. out/ [Ln.] 

7. Kai OTT apri, [KOI] Ln. 

TTT/cra Ln. txt. Tf. ^te. 

Tf. ; s/c s. add. aurco JZa;. 

ecopaKare avrov, [avTov] Ln. 

10. ray evToXds TOV rrarpd? X 

(3d\l/-as X f p-ftd^as Ln. [^te.] ; 

9. ToaovTov xpvov X roo~oj/rco 

rou Trarpbs TO.S ei/roXas 1 Tf. 

/3ax//"co Tf. [Alx.] 

Xpovco Ln. [^4te.] 

Ln. mg. 

eTrificocrco X Kai ficocrco aurco 

Kai TTcoy, o??j. Kai Ln. 

p,ot>, om. Ln. 

Tf. Ute.3 

jo. XaXcb X Xe yco Tf. [Alx.] 

n. peivrj X ?7 Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

Kai ejLi/Sa^as 1 X /Sagas ouv 

- 6 V epoi, om. 6 Tf. [Ln.] 


Tf. Ln. mg. [^te.] 

avTOS post TCI epya Tf. 

14. ocra X a Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

fit ficocrii , prcem. Xa/3dVet Kai 

- ra epya, add. [aurou] Ln. 

i$. vuds Xe yco X Xeyco v/xas 1 Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

\Alx.] f 

Tf. [Alx.] 

IcTKapicor^ X itrKapicorou 

ii. eV ep.ot, add etrTiv Elz. 

1 6. fico X fi^ 7 ? Tf. [C^.] 

Tf. [Jte.3 

- p,oi, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. ^?a?. 

21. tipti/ X fis vp,ds Ln. txt. Tf. 

27. rdre, om. ^4r. 

12. roi/ Trare pa pow, om. p:ou Ln. 

[Gb. ~].Alx. 

o loom s 1 , o??i. o Tf. 

Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^te. 

22. ei ^oi/X ei / X" ai; Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

29. 6 loufiay, om.6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

14. alrrjcrrjTe, add. [pe] Ln. 

24. TTfTToirjKev X eVoi jycrei/ Ln. 

6 ir/croCj, om. 6 Tf. 

eycb 7j"oi7yo"co X To5ro TTOIT^CTCO 


30. evdectds ^rj\6ev X er)\0V 

Ln. mg. [y4te.] 

ci%ov X ei^oo-av Ln. Tf. 

fvdvs Ln. txt. Tf. [^4te.] 

16. Kai eycb X Kaycb Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

25. yeypauuevos ev rco rdpco 

- ow, o?. St. Gb. Sch. Tf. 

p.vrj p,e^ vp.u>v els TOV al- 

auTcov X ^^ rco I^OLICO avToov 

31. 6 lijaovs, om. Tf. 

G)va X p-fd* vp,S)v els TOV 

yeypappeVo? Ln. Tf. [^te.] 

32. ei o Geos fdo^aadrj ev airrco 

atcova ?/ Ln. ; [ry^ vp.S)V 

[Ln.] ; om. Alx. 

Tf. yite.] 


33. on, om. yf/^c. 

17. yu/coo"Ket at>ro, [a^ro] Ln. 

3. tyui>, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

VTrayco eycb X 7 V7rdya> 

- upeis- fie, om. fie Tf. [Ln.] 

4. copa, add. avrwv Ln. [^4te.] 

Gb. Ln. Tf. Wte.3 

ecrrat X ecrriv Ln. 

7. eai/ yap, add. eycb Sch. Ln. 

36. aurcp, om. Ln. Tf. [^fce.] 

19. ^o-eo-t^e X &v-fT6 Tf. 

[Gb. ~3. 

- 6 iT/crouy, om. 6 Ln.Tf. [Alx.] 

20. yv<ao~eo~6 vp-els X [Opels ] 

10. p,ou Gb. ^J ; 07?i. ^4to. 

OTTOV, add. e yco Alx. 

yfcoo"eo~$e Ln. [J?a?.] 

12. Xe yeif uptz^ X t p-iv Xe yetv Tf. 

vaTtpov fie aKo\ov6fjo-ets pot 

21. Kat eycb X Kaycb Ln. Tf. [^fte.] 

Ln. mg. 

X ciKoX. fie vo-repoi/ Ln. Tf. 

22. Kupie, add. Kai Gb. Sch. Tf. 

13. ei? 7rdo~av TTJV d\r )dfiav^fLS 


[Gb. -]. 

TTJV dXydeiav Trdcrav Ln. 

37. 6 IleVpos-, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 

23. 6 Irjo-ovs, om. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 

[Alx.] ; ev rjj d\r)6fia Trdor] 



Tf. [Gb. ^ Alx. 



13- av, om. Ln. [Alx.] 

ii. Kal eyoj X *ayo> Ln. Tf. Wte.3 

i^. ^v yvcoo-roy X yvwcrros TJV 

i$. \rj\lffTai X Xa/i/3avei Gb. Sch. 

- ovs- X Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. mg. 

Ln. txt. Tf. 

jy/ielr, prcem. Kat Tf. 

1 6. 6s TJV X 6 Tf. 

16. ov X ovKeri Ln. txt. Alx. 

12. e v roi KoV/zw, om. Ln. Tf. 

- r<5 apxtepci X TOV dpx Lf pe<>)S 

on e yco vTrayco Trpos- TOV Tra- 

[Gb. ->]. Ute.] 

Tf. Ute.] 

re pa, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. -*] 

- ovs\cp Tf. 

17. 77 TraiSto-KTi 17 Ovpcopos raj 

Alx. ; [om. e yco Gb. Sch. Lu.] 

ecpuXa^a, prcem. Kal Tf. [Ln.] 

ne rpw X r( p Her. 77 TratS. 17 

17. e yco, om. Ln. [Alx.] 


0up. Ln. txt. Tf. [J/a;.] 

1 8. Tovro rt eVrtv X eVrtv 

1 6. eK rou KOCTUOV OVK flai X 

1 8. avTcov o IleVpos X Ka l 6 

rovro Ln. 

OUK etp,t eK rou KOCTUOV Ln. 

Ile r. /xer avr. Ln. txt. [Alx.] 

19. ovv, om. Gb. Tf. [Alx.] 

Tf. [Jte.] 

20. aura) [Ln.] 

20. v/zeTs- 8e, om. Se Ln. [Gb. 3]. 

17. o~ou, o?/i. Ln. [Gb. =t]. Alx. 

eXaX?7o~a X XeXaXjyKa Ln. Tf. 


19. e yw [Ln.] ; om. Alx. 


- aXX X aXXa Tf. 

Kal avrol coo-iv X &CTIV Kal 

TT) avvayioyfj, om. Trj Gb. Sch. 

22. Xvrrrjv [J.fv vvv X vvv p.fv Xv- 

avrol Ln. Tf. Alx. 

Ln. Tf. 

irr\v Ln. Alx. 

20. mcrrfvcrovTcov X 7Tio~Tev6v- 

- Travrore X irdvres Gb. Ln. 

e%fre X eere Ln. txt. [Alx.] 

rcov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Alx.] ; TTavrodfv Elz. ; [Trav 

aipei X apei Ln. txt. 

21. ev, om. Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. =J]. 

rore Gb. ^ Cst.] 

23. on, om. Tf. [Ln.] Alx. 


21. firepccrqs X cpwras- Ln. Tf. 

- 6Va av X av Ti Ln - txt - TJi - 

22. Kat e ycb X fy<w Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


[^fte.] ; [o rt av Ln. mg.] 

dtdcoKas X fScoKas Ln. [^4te.] 

eVepcorr/crov X epcorr/aov Ln. 

e v rco ovouaTi pov, Scocrei 

eV/xev, om. Tf. [vi?a:.] 

Tf. Wte.] 

VplV X 5<WO~ei VfJUV e v rCO 

23. Kat tva, om. Kal Ln.Tf. [Alx.] 

22. rcov VTrr/percov Trapeo-Tr/Kios X 

ovd/zari /xov Tf. [Alx.] 

[Gb. -]. 

7ropfo~rr]Kcos rcov uTT^peroov 

2$. aXX , om. Gb. Sch. Tf. [Ln.] 

24. Ilarep X narrjp Ln. 

Ln. txt. ; rcov 7rapeo~rcorcov 

dvayyeXco X aTrayyeXco Ln. 

- ovs- X 6 Tf. 

VTnjpfTcov Ln. mg. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

dtdatKas X eScoKa? Ln. 

23. o ^crovy, o??z. o Ln. Tf. 

27. rov Geou, om. TOV Ln. ; rov 

fdcoKas X Se ScoKas Ln. Tf. 

24. AyreVretXev, (W. ovv Elz. 

Trarpos Tf. [Alx.] 



28. Trapa X & Ln. txt. Tf. UZa;.] 

25. Ildrep X 7rar)p Ln. 

25. T)pvr)o~aTO, add. ovv Cst. 

29. avrco, o??i. Tf. [Ln.] 

27. o lleVpoy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Trapprjcriq, prcem. ev Ln. Tf. 


=s]. ^to. 

31. 6 irjo-ous-, om. 6 Tf. 

i. 6 Irjcrovs, om. 6 Tf. 

28. OTJV Gb. =i. 

32. vvv, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. =J]. Alx. 

rcov Kefipcov X ro ^ Ke Spcov 

- rrpcota X Trpcot Gb. Ln. Tf. 

- Kai fUf \ Ka/ne Tf. 

Gb. Sch. Ln. 


33. eere X e x 6re St. Tf. Gb. Sch. 

2. 6 iTyaouy, om. 6 Tf. ; [prcem. 

aXX iva X aXXa Ln. [Alx.] 


Kat Cs^.] 

29. Trpoy avrovSj prcem. e^co Ln. 

3. ^apto aicov, prcem. rcov Ln. 



4. e eX$a>v etVev X f^rj\6fV Kai 

- fine X (prjcrtv Tf. [Jte.] 

i. fTrrjpe X errdpas Ln. txt. 

Xeyei Ln. Tf. Mte.] 

30. eiVov X f iVav Ln. Tf. 


5. 6 ir/o ovs , Eyco et/ii X *V < * > 

- KaKonotbs X KOKOV TTOICOV Tf. 

Kat etVe, o??t. Kat Ln. txt. 

6tp.i 6 IT^O OVS Ln. mg. ; om. 

Ln. mg. 


6 Irjcrovs Tf. 

31. ovv [Ln.] 

- Kat 6 vid?, om. Kai Ln. Tf. 

6. on, om. Ln. [Alx.] 

- o IliXaroj-, om, o Tf. 

[Gb. =;]. [Alx.] 

- dTrr]\6ov X airrjKQav Ln. Tf. 

ovv, om. Ln. Tf. 

crou, 07?i. Tf. 

fTTfcrov X eVecrav Ln. Tf. 

33. els TO TrpaiTcoptov TraXiv X 

3. yiva>o~Ka>cri X ytvcoo-KOVcri Tf. 

7. afrov? f7rTjpa>Trjo~f X fTTTjp. 

TTciXtv fls TO rrpair. Ln. Tf. 

4. e rfXet wo-a X reXetcoo-as Ln. 

avrovs I/n. Tf. Mfce.] 



8. a.TTKpidT] t add. auroi? x4?.r. 

34. avrco 6, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

6. Se SajKas X eSwKas Ln. [J^.] 

6 IT/CTOUS-, om. o Gb. Ln. Tf. 

5 * ^ f ^ V ^ ^ 

A^> eavrov J^ OTTO o"eavrou 

Kat ep.01 X Kciaol Tf. 



8f8coKas X eScoKa? Ln. 

10. con ov X wrapiov Tf. [^4te.] 

36. 6 J^o-ovr, om. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. 

Tfrr]pr)Kao-i X TfTTjprjKav Ln. 

ii. o-ov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Alx.] ^ 


13. am/yayov X fjyayov Ln. 

av 01 e /xoi rjyovi^ovro X * 

7. fiedaxds X f8o3Kas Ln. 

avrov, O?H. Tf. [Ln.] ^4te. 

fu. rjyov. av Alx. 

- eVriv X 6io-tv Tf. [Jte.] 

14. aTroXeV^ai X diroQavelv Ln. 

37. o l^o-ovy, om. 6 Tf. 

8. Se5a)Kas X eScoKa? Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ^/.r. 

- e yoo 2 [Ln.] Alx. 

/cat eyva>o~av [Ln.] 

15. 6 a XXoy, OHI. 6 Ln. [Gb. =;]. 

38. airt av evpt o"KO) e v ayrw X 




evpio~K(o Iv avTca atTiav Ln. 

vplv aTroXucrco X aVoXvcrco 

ti/ztj/ Ln. [^4te.] dyroXvcrci) X a7roXu(7co 

V/J.TZ/ Ln. [Alx.] 
Tnii/res, o??i. Alx. 


777 K(pa\fj X eVi r^z/ ne(pa- 

X?)i/ Ln. nig. 
TrepiffiaXov O.VTOV, add. KO.I 

rjpXOVTO Trpbs avTov Ln. Tf. 


eSidovv X efiifioo-aj/ Ln. Tf. 
JL^rjXdev ovv X Kal f^fj\dev 

Ln. [^te.] ; o??i. ovi/ Gb. 

eV auroi ov8ffJiiav aiTiav ev- 

piaKu> X oufie/LiMW alriav 
fvpiaKco ev airaj Ln. ; otr. 
eV aur. ouSe/x. eup. Tf. 

6. o~Tavpa>o~ov, add. CIVTOV Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Ute.] 

7. rj/jLutv, om. Ln. 

eavTov vlbv TOV Qeou X viov 

Geoi) eavTOV Ln. Tf. ; [o??i. 
roi; St.] 
0. ouv, oi. Tf. [Gb.^]. ^4te. 

o~TavpS)o~ai o~e, Kal e^ovo~iav 

ej^co (iTroXiicrat o~e X oTroX. 
trf fc. 6^oucr. e^a> o~Tavp. o~e 
Ln. Tf. 

. ATre/cpi&T", acM. avrw [Ln.] 

6 l^(7ous, o?7i. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. 



ov8efj,iav Kar e /^oi) X Kar> 

e juou oue/it ai/ Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 
(rot dedopevov X SeSo/Lt. crot 


TrapaSiSous 1 X Trapabovs Ln. 
e^rjTei 6 LTiXaros X o UtX. 
X fKpavyaov Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 
CIVTOV X eavTov Gb. Sch. Ln. 

roi)roi> roi/ Xoyoy X TCOZ^ Xo- 

ycoy TOVTCOV Ln. Tf. [Gb. H. 

roi) ^S^ju.aros , o??i. roi; Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ^]. ^te. 
copa Se wo-ei X ^"P ^ ws 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. RJ]. Alx. 
eV.T7/ X TptTT) Gb. f^. 
Ot Se eKpavyao~av X fKpav- 

yao~. ovv eKflvoi Tf. Ln. mg. 


16. LTapeXa/3oi/ 8e TOV Irjaovv 

Kal dnriyayov, Gb. -. 

- fie X ovv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

Kal drrfjyayov, om. Ln. Tf. ; 
Kal rjyayov Gb. Sch. [Alx.] 

17. TOV Q-Tavpbv avTov X ai/Tca 

TOV (TTavpbv Ln. Tf. 

- 6s- X 6 Ln. Tf. 


TTOS TTJS TToXecos Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

/uai crr 

appa(po$ X cipa<pos Tf. 

. fLTTOV X fiTTUV Tf. 

77 Xeyoticra, o?. Ln. 

avTov [Ln.] 

tfiov X ifi* Gb. Ln. Tf. 

[Rec. Gb. x-j. 
Ifiou X ifi* Ln. Tf. [Alx] 
avTr/v 6 [j.u0T)Tr)S X o p,a0. 

avT. Gb. Sch. 
eifieby 6 l^froOs 1 X tS&w o 

ir/cr. Gb. ~ [Alx.] ; irycroCs 

eldcos Ln. mg. 
TrdvTa. fj8rj X J7&7 Travra Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 
GUI/, o?7*. Ln. 
01 Se, 7T\f]o~avTfs cnroyyov 

oovs, Kcii X ffiroyyov ovv 

peo-Tov TOV oovs Ln. [Alx] 
eVet TrapacrKevr) f]v, ante Iva 

fJLT) p-fivfl Alx. 
KLVOV X fKlVrj Elz. 

avTOV TJdrj X JS^ avTov Tf. 
evdvs fr)\0v X e i}X$ep ev- 

^us- Tf. Ln. mg. 
Ka/ceti/os X K " fK&VOS Ln. 
ii/a, arfd. /cat Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. -*]. ^ 

avTov X QTT O.VTOV Gb. ~. 
fie, oi. Tf. [Gb. =s]. C. 
6 Icocn7<, o?/i. 6 Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

6 UTTO, o?7i. 6 Ln. [Gb.-]. [Alx.] 

roi ir^crou 2 X O.VTOV Ln. Tf. 

39. TOV *\i~icrovv X O.VTOV Ln. Tf. 

- cbo-ei X &>9 Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
40. odoviois, 2 )rccm - *v Gb. Sch. 
Tf. [Gb. =;]. 


4. /cat 6 a XXos 1 X o Se aXX. Ln. 

5. Kfifieva TCI odovia X 7~a o^o- 

i/ta Kei/jLfva Ln. txt. 
10. eai rovs X avToits Tf. 


ii. ro (J.vrjiJ.e iov X TW 
Gb. Ln. Tf. Ufo.] 

e^-co, O77i. Ln. ; ante /cXatovcra 

Tf. [Alx.] 

14. Kcu raura, o??z. KCU Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

- 6 l^croGs 1 , 077Z. 6 Gb. Ln. Tf. 

i$. 6 irjo-ovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

avrov eOrjKas X fdfjKas au- 

TOV Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

16. 6 ir^crouf, o?7*. 6 Ln. Tf. 

Map/a X Mapia/x Tf. 

- avTa), add. EjSpai oTt Sch. 

Tf. [Ln.] [Gb. ex.-]. 

17. 6 irjo-ovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

TraTepa JJLOV i c , 0777. p.ov Ln. 


18. Mapia X Mapto/x Tf. 

ayrayyeXXoucra X cryye X- 

\ovo~a Ln. Tf. 

X tcopaxa Ln. mg. 

19. r&>y a"a/3/3arcoi/, o?7i. rail/ Ln. 


- 0-vvrjyp.evoi, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


20. avTols ray ^eipas 1 Kal r?)i> 

TrXfvpav avTov X Ka * TCI? 
Xfipas Kal T. 7r\evpav av- 
Tols Ln. Tf. 

21. 6 l^croOy, o?7i. Tf. [^4to.] 

23. ay i X ^^ ^ n - 

Tivatv 1 X TWOS Ln. mg. 

cKpievTaiJ^d^ectiVTai Ln.txt. 


- at/ 2 X fav Ln. 

~ Tti/cov 2 X Tii/oy Ln. mg. 

24. 6 irjaovs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 


TJ/I/ X f P^ M 011 X / lol; T 7 } 17 

Xelpa Tf. f 

28. Kat dirfKpidr), om. Kal Gb. 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

6 Galas , 077Z. 6 Gb. Sch. Ln. 


29. 6a>/ia, o?7j. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

30. avTOV) om. Ln. Tf. 

31. 6 Ir/a-ous, 077i. 6 Gb. Sch.Ln. 


cor)i 5 add. al&viov [Ln.] Alx. 


i. 6 l^croCs 1 , o?7i. Tf. 

iJ.a6rjTaiSi add. UVTOV Alx. 
3. Et-rjXdov, proem. Kal [Ln.] 

~ dvefirjo-av X evcfiijorav Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

3- evQvs, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =*]. 


4. yevop.6vr]s X yivojJ^vrjg Tf. 
6 l/ifrous, om. 6 Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
- fls X rl Ln- Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^te. 
^. 6 lr)<rovs [Ln.] 
6. ia xya av X fcr^voi Ln. Tf. 

8. aXX X aXXa Tf. 

9. (B\t7rov<Tiv X fiftav Ln. mg. 

11. Avefirj, add. ovv Tf. 

- eVt TTJS yr)? X els TTJV yrjv 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.} 
l%0V(dV p.eydXa>v X 

IxOvatv Ln. txt. 

12. e, 0l. Tf. 

13. ow, o?tt. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


, am. 6 Ln. Tf. 

13. o 

14. o *Ir](rovS) om. o Ln. Tf. 

auTo), o?rt. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
i$. Ia>i>a X IOHM/OU Ln. 

Icodwou Tf. kite.] 

- TrXelov X TrXe oi/ Ln. Tf. 

1 6. Aeyei avrtw TrdXti/ X 7rdXu> 
Xe yei at>TO> Ln. mg. 

- Icora X l<oaVou Ln. ; 

vov Tf. 

17. icova X icodVou Ln,; 
vou Tf. 

- Kai eiTreV) [/cat] Ln. ; Xe yet 

Ln. mg. 

<ri> 7rdvTa X TTcivra crv Ln. 


6 ITCTOI)? ow. 6 Ln. Tf. 

17. 7rpo/3ara X 7rpo/3drta Tf. 
1 8. ouret, a<fcZ. ere [Ln.] 

20. ETTio-rpa^eis Se, om. Se Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 

21. Touroi/, f?c?. ovv Ln. 

22. aKoXovdei pot X poi a/coXou- 

^et Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

23. 6 Xoyoy OVTOS X ot/ros 1 6 Xo- 

yo? Ln. 

KCU OUK elrrev X ^K f Mrev Se 

Ln. mg. 

24. ypa^a?, prcem. 6 Ln. 

fcrriv rj jLiaprvp/a avrou X 

awroO 17 /naprvpta fOTiV Tf. 

25. 6Va X a Ln- 

ouSe avrov X ouS* avrbv Ln. 

??z. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


i. 6 irjcroD?, o??j. o Ln. Tf. 
4. iraprjyyeiXev avrols X au 

/iart X cV TTVCVfJ.. (BaTTT. Ln. 
6. eV^pcora)^ X ^pwrooi/ Ln. 
8. /^oi X /-tou Ln. Tf. [yite.] 
eV Trdcrr), om. ev Ln. Tf. [yite.] 

10. fcrGrjri XevKrj X eo-drjO f(ri 

\evKots Ln. Tf. [/fto.] 

11. fiTrov X flrrav Ln. Tf. 

13. dveftrjcrav fls TO vnep&ov X 
ei? TO viTp<pov dveftrjffav 
Ln. Tf. 

- ld/ca)/3of KI looaw?;? X !&>- 
dvvrjs Kal laKco/Soy Ln. Tf. 

14. Kai r^ Secret, o??z. Gb. Ln. 

Tf. {Alx.} 
Mapi a X Mapiaju, Tf. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. =*.]. [^te.] 
15. p,a6r]rwv X d$e\(f)S)V Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ylte. 
1 6. ravTi]V^ om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 


roy l?7O"oC Z/, o??i. roy Ln. Tf. 

17. (TVV X f^ Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. X VfJLLV Tf. 

18. roO picrdov, om. TOV Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

19. AKeXStt/utX A/ceXSa/za^ Ln. 




Xa/3oi X Xa,3eVa> Ln.Tf. 
eV a), o??i. eV Ln. Tf. 
yeveadai avv f]p.1v X o"^^ 

^Tv yevea&tu Ln. Tf. [ylte.] 
Bapcra/Saf X B(jpo~a/3/3aj/ Ln. 

flrrov X fiTTCtv Ln. Tf. 


e^eXe^co X oi/ e^eXe^a) e fc 

TOVTGOV TWV 8vo tva Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
K\fjpov X TOTTOI/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

-]. Ute.] 

e ^ff X (/> js Ln. Tf. [^7.i\] 
aiiT&v X avrols Ln. Tf. [Jfa-.] 


ciTravTfs X Truvres 1 Ln. 
6p.o6vp.adov^6p.ov Ln. [^4Z^.] 
Kadf]p.voi X KaOe6p.evoi Ln. 

eKadicre re X K^ fKadureV 


oTrorre? X Traz^re? Ln. 
avrois d7ro(pdeyyeadai^t:7ro- 
avrols Ln. Tf. 

o;. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

TTpo? aXXr;Xouf, 07. Ln. Tf. 

OUK X ov\ Ln. ; oi ^t Tf. 
navTse X ajravTfS Ln. Tf. 
. dir/TTOpovv X 8ir]7ropovvTO Tf. 


rc? Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
LTeVpos 1 , prcem. 6 Ln. 
UTTCIVTCS X Trdircs 1 Ln. 
ico^X, o?/i. Tf. 
Kat ecrrnt, o??t. /cat Tf. 
fvvTrvia X evvTTviois Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

Trpii 77, om. 77 Ln. [Gb. ->]. 
TTJV fjpepav, om. TJJV Ln. Tf. 
a> X eav Tf. 
avro ro{) Geou a7roSe5et-yp.e - 

i- oi/ X ayroSeSety. JTTO TOU 

0eo{) Tf. Ln. mg. [Alx.] 
KaOa)s K(il, om. Kai Ln. Tf. 
jGb. ={]. [,i?.r.] 
eK.doTOv \a(36vTS, dia X fi- 

paiv X fxftoTOv 8ia ^eipo? 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. ^Zar. 
dve/Xere X aVetXare Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. X otoou Gb. ~. 


26. eu(ppdi/$?7 X rjvfppdvGrj Ln. 
f Tf. 0/te.] 

77 Kcipdia p.ov X /^ov 17 KvTp- 

fiia Tf. 
- eV e XTri Si X f \7ri8 1 


27. a^ou X a<V Ln. Tf. [Gb. .*]. 

30. TO Kara adpKa uva 


rbv Xpto-ror, om. Gb. Ln.Tf. 

10. ouro? X civrbs Ln. Tf. [^Z#.] 


ii. roi) lauzvros ^coXov X ofTOLi 

30. eVl rou Bpovov X ri roz/ 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

6p6vov Ln. Tf. 

icodvvrjv, prcem. rbv Ln. 

31. ou KareXfifpdij X cure e y- 

- irpbs avrovs Trds 6 Xabs X 


/careXet(p^ Ln. Tf. [Gb. c]. 

Tray 6 Xaoy Trpos avrovs Ln. 




17 tyvx*) oivrov, om. Gb. Ln. 

- SoXop.wvTos^ ZoXop.covos Tf. 


Tf. [^4Za?.] 

12. rieVpos 1 , prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 

- adou X q8rjv Tf. 

13. IO~CICIK K.CII Ia/ccb/3 X fo? 


- ovde X cure Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. 

Io-aa/c, /cat eoy Ia/cco/3 


Ln. [JZ.r.] 

33. TOU "Aytou Hvevp-aros X T" ^ 

I /LteTy, afZ^Z. juei> Gb. Sch. Ln. 


Hi/. TOU dyt ou Ln. Tf. 


- vvv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. lAlx.] 

at>roi>, o??i. Ln. [Gb. -]. ^4Za7. 


/SXeVere, prcem. /cat Tf. 

18. auroO nadelv rbv Xpto"Toi/X 

36. otKoy, prcem. 6 Ln. 

Tradelv rbv Xpicrrbv avrov 


Kvpiov, prcem. /cat St. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. !]. yfte. 

/cat Xpio"rci> avrbv X avrbv 

20. 7TpOKK1]pVyijiVOV X TTpO/Ce- 


/cat Xpto-rov Ln. Tf. 

Xfipio~fJ.vov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


6 eos snoirjcre X Voi. 6 

ir^o-ow yLpicrrbv X XptcrToi/ 


eos Tf. 

ir/o-ow Ln. txt. Tf. 

37. TJ? /capita X TT?" /capStai/Ln. 

21. Trdin-cov 2XTcoi Gb. Sch. Ln. 



Tf. ; [7rdi>ra>i> ran/ Gb. ~]. 

Troirjcronev X TTOLTJCTCO^V Tf. 

aiiroO TrpofpTjrcov drf alcavos 


38. ecpT/, o??z. Ln. Tf. 

X OTT alcovos avrov Trpocp. 


eTTt r&> X e ^ f^ ot/0 " 

Ln. Tf. ; [drr alcovos Gb. ^]. 


yuan Ln. 

22. yap, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


dp-apriwv X T"^ 1 ap-apricov 

- 7rpos TOVS TraTepay, GOT. Ln. 


vpeov Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. =s]. ^Za:. 

39. oaovs X o^s Ln. 

23. ai/ X f^ Tf. 


40. Ste/zaprvpero X 8iep.aprvpa- 

^oXo6pevdr}o~6rai X c ^oXe- 

ro Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. ^te. 

6ptv6. Ln. Tf. 

Trape/cdXet, afZd. avrovs Ln. 

24. TrpoKarrjyyeiXav X Karrjyyei- 



Xav Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

41. dcrfjievcos, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

25. inot, prcem. ol Gb. Sch. Ln. 


rj]. ^Za7. 

Tf. [Gb. -] 

r?/ TjfJLepq, prcem. ev Ln. Tf. 

Ste^ero 6 eo? X o eoy 

42. TJ/ St&a^T^, prcem. v [Ln.] 

diedfro Ln. 


/cat TT} /cXdo~et, om. /cat Ln. 

- 77/xcoi/ X v/icov Tf. 



rco o~7repfj,ari, prcem. ev Gb. 


43. e ye i/ero X eyti/ero Ln. Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 


47. /ca$ rjfj.fpav rfj eKK\Tjcriq. 

26. 6 Qfbs dvao~rr)o~as X di/a- 


III. i. ETTI ro auro 8e Ile- 

o~TT)cras o Qeos Tf. 

Tpos X Kf 1 ^ rjp.epav e?rt TO 

lr7o-oi)i>, o?w. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


aurd. III. i. LTerpos- Se Ln. 

f ^ V ^ T 





3. Xa/3e> Gb. ^. 

2. Tr)v e/c X rcov Gb. w. [Cat.] 

6. eyetpat X eyftpf Ln. ; o?. 

3. fdevro, add. avrovs Alx. 


eyctpat /cat Tf. 

4. 6 dpt^/zoy, o??i. 6 Ln. 

7. rjyetpe, arfd. avrov Ln. [>4Z;r.] 

- o)o-ei X $ [Ln.] Tf. 

auroO at fidcreis X a ftdcreis 

5. Trpearftvrepovs, prcem. TOVS 

avrov Ln. 

Ln. Tf. 


8. /cat atfooi/, o??i. /cai Tf. [Ln.] 

ypa/M/iareiV, prcem. TOVS Ln. 


9. avrbv TTCIS 6 Xabs X TT^s 1 6 



Xaoy avrbv Ln. Tf. 

- ets- X eV Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. Alx. 

10. re X &e Ln. [JZa,\] 

6.*A.vvav rbv dp^tepea /cat Ka- 


id(f)av KaClcodvvrjv /cat AXe- 
Kvvas 6 a. Kat 


ro peered, om. TCO Gb. Sch. 
roi) lo-par)X, om. Ln. 


Ln. Tf. [Gb. *>]. JZa:. 
Kat OUAC ecrrtf eV aXXw ot- 

&ei>t 77 crcoTrjpia Gb. ->. 
cure X oi/Se Ln. Tf. [JZ.] 
rof 5e X TOI/ re Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Voj/ X trvvejSaXXov 

Ln. Tf. 
7TOLr]o~ofJLfv X TTOLrjcrcoaev Tf. 

dpvr]o~ao~dai X dpveicrdai Ln. 

avrols TO, ow. Ln. ; o??z. ai - 

rols- Tf. [Gb. =sj. Ute.] 
Trpos 1 avrovs eirrov X t?7T<v 

Trpbs avrovs Ln. Tf. [Jte.] 
e i8o[iev X f i8ctfjLfV Ln. Tf. 
/coXdcrcoi Tai X /coXdo-ovr. C. #. 
e yeyd^et X yeydj/et Ln. Tf. 
(LTTOV X fltrav Ln. Tf. 
flnov X fiTrav Ln. Tf. 
6 eos-, ow. Ln. Tf. 
6 Sia ar6p.aros X o TOU TT- 

Tpoy TJ/J.COV Sta Tlvfvuaros 
Ay/ou 0-rop.aros Ln. 
rou TratSos 1 , o/rt. ro{) Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
eyr aXrjuias^ add. ev TTJ TTO- 

Xet TOUT-T; Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ute.] [Gb. -]. 
0"ou 2, o??z. Ln. 

e(ptSe Ln. Tf. 
3u, o??i. o~ot Ln. 
o-e, om. Tf. 
LTj/ei;p,aTos- Ayiou XT dyt- 

oi) TTVCV p.aros Ln. Tf. 
17 /capSi d, o??i. r; Ln. 
r; \l/vxr), om. f) Ln. 
cinavra X Trdvra Ln. 
fj,eydXrj 8vvdp.ei X 

ueydXy Ln. Tf. 
TJ}? ai/ao-Tao-ecos-, a?z^e X^-P iS 

re Ln. 
l^c"o{), a(Z(Z. Xptaroi) [Ln.] 

dicdidoTO X 8if8i8fTO Ln. Tf. 
icoo-^s 1 X lcoo"))<p Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

- I TTO X "7TO Ln. Tf. 


i. Avavias oz/o/xart X ovo/ 
Avavias Ln. 

Sarrcpe/p?; X 2a7r<petpa Ln. 

2. (TuvetSuias X orvveiftvirjs Ln. 


airoO, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =]. 


3. LTerpoy, prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 

voa<pi(raa dai, add. <re Tf. 

5. Avai/i af, prcem. 6 Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

- raura, o?/i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 


8. Se, om. Tf. 

- avr^ X Trpos avTr]v Ln. Tf. 

6 IleVpoy, om. 6 Ln. 

9. e?7re, om. Ln. Tf. 

10. Trapa X Trpos Ln. Tf. 

12. eyeWro X eyiWro Elz. Ln. Tf. 

ei/ rai Xaa> TroXXa X TroXXa 

eV TO) Xaa) Ln. 


1 6. 

Kara X 

K\iva>v X icXwapicai Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. ^4te. 
cis lepoucraX^p,, om. et? Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. -]. 

avTutv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 
r?)ff i/DKro?, om. rr/? Ln. 
rjvoi^e X aVoi ^a? Tf. 
vTTTjpfTai Trapayevop-fvoi X 

Trapayez/o/z. vTrr/perat Ln.Tf. 
p,eV, om. Ln. Tf. 
eco, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
Trpo X r! Ln. Tf. 
lepevs Kill 6, om. Ln. [^tte.] 
Xe ycoi , om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
tfa, o??i. Ln. 
Ou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 
6 nerpoy, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 
fLTTOV X fwrrav Ln. Tf. 
eV/xei/ aurou pdprvpcs X ^ 

aura) jj-dprvpcs ftr-fv Ln. ; 

[aurou Gb. ^ ; o??*. 
8e, om. Ln. [Gb. -]. 
ef3ov\(voi>TO X efiov 

Ln. [/Ite.] 
Ppaxy rt rouj a7roo"roXou? 

X fipaxu TOVS dvdpa>7rovs 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. <v]. [/fte.] 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. yl 

dv8pa>v X 

Ln. Tf. 

i X 6)f Ln. Tf. [/-ite.] 
iKavbv, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 


38. eao-are X a<pere Ln. [Gb. ~]. 

avTT) Gb. -. 

39. dvvacrOe X $vvr)(T(r0 Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. *>]. Alx. 

- avrb X avrovs Gb. Ln. Tf. 
[Bee. Gb. cv]. Alx. 

40. avrovs, om. Tf. 

41. aurou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

drt/zacr$?)rat, ante vnep TOV 

01/0/4. Ln. Tf. 

42. l^uovi/ roi/ "Kptcrrov X T ov 

OV Irjo~ovi> Ln. Tf. 


etTrav Ln. Tf. 
GUI/ X ^17 Ln. 
deX<pot, om. Ln. 
f Ayi ov, GOT. Gb. Ln. Tf. [^te. 
KaTa.crTfjO~op.fV X 

(TWfJ.ei Elz. [^te.] 
T~\r]prj X rrXfjprjs Ln. 
iricrrtats X x ( *P LTOi ^ p ^ cn> 

Ln. Tf. 

KCU Ao-iay, om. Ln. 
/3Xdo-(p?7/ia, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


rourou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
drravTfs X TroWes Ln. 


. apa, oi. Ln. [Gb. =}]. y*te. 
. e< r?}? truyyeveiay, owi. CK 
Tf. [Ln.] 

y ?" X rfv yrjv Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 

. aurai ftoui/ai X SovVai aura) 
Ln. Tf. ; [dovvai avrfjv fls 
Kard(r\. aura) Alx. 
. eav X " Ln. 

-a)crii X 
Ln. [,4/,r.] 

6 Geos X o 

. 6 icraaK, om. 6 Ln. 
6 laKa>/3, oj. 6 Ln. 
. eei Aero X e ^et Xaro Gb. Ln 

, prcem. e ^4 
Il.y^l/ AfyvTTTOU X 

Ln. [Gb. ]. ^4/j?. 


12. a-Ira X <rtria Ln.Tf. [Gb. f^]. 


ev AiyvTTTw \ fls AZyvjrrov 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. Alx. 

13. rou la)o~J7^), o?/z. rou Ln. Tf. ; 

[avTov Alx.} 

14. TOV Trarepa avrov laKoj,3 X 


laK<u/3 TOI/ TTarepa avTov 
Ln. Tf. Wte.] ; [ Lww/3 Gb. 

14. avrou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

15. KaTcfirj 8e X tat Kare /3r/ Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

ets At yvTrroi/, o??i. Tf. 
1 6. 6 X w Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

op X E/i/uwp Ln. Tf. 

TOV 2t^e/x X TOV eV Su^ep, 

17. a>p.ocrV X o>jJ-o\6yrj(TV Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^te. 
1 8. erfpos 1 , orfcZ. eV 

Ln. Ute.] 

19. Trarepay 37/^0)^, o??7. 

pe(^^ X TCI /3pe - 
Ln. Tf. 

at>TOv, OTO. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

21. eVre$eWa Se avrov X (Kre- 

6ei>To$ 8e CIVTOV Ln. [^1?^.] 

dfei Afro X avctXaro Gb. Ln. 

Tf. [^te.] 

22. ndcrr] o~o^)ia, prcem. Iv Tf. 

- Koi /, om. eV Ln. Tf. [Gb. =:]. 

epyoiff, add. avTov Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
23. aurou, om. Tf. 

auroTs autTrjpiav X (rooTTjpiav 

avTols Ln. Tf. 

26. Tf X Se Elz. Gb. Sch. ; [re 

Gb. . Alx.} 

o~vvf]\acrfv X o~vvrj\\acr(Tfv 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ev]. Alx. 

- v/zeiy, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =:]. 


27. i^pa? X r)p-)v Ln. Tf. ylZ.r. 

28. X 0es X e x^e? Ln. Tf. 

30. Kupi ou, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 


<p\oyl Trvpbs X TTupi <p\oybs 

Tf. [Gb. e*]. ^/.r. 

31. fdavfjiacrf X edcivfuifcv Gb. 

Sch. Tf. 

Trpo? avTOV, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

32. 6 eoy, Zs, f//e Io-aaK e< 

rtn/e laKO),3, o??. Ln. Tf. 

34. aurcoi> X urou Ln. 

aTToo-reXeo X flTrooretXa) Ln. 


e cp J7pai/ Alx. 


35- upxwra, prcem. Kal Ln. Tf. 

12. TO Trept, OTTI. Ta Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


- aVe o-TeiAev X dire(TTa\Kev 

=J]. ^&r. 


Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

TOU l77o"oO, OOT. TOU Gb. Sch. 

- e v xetpi X O-TJV xeipi Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 


[Gb. ]. Alx. 
36. yf) AiyuTTTOU X ffl AiyvTira) 

13. cr?7p,eia Kai Suva/zets 1 yueya- 
Aas 1 yivop-evas X $vvdp.Ls 


Ln. ; yrj AtyvTTTO) Gb. Sch. 

Kal o~T?p,eTa yivop-e va Tf. ; 


STJV. Kai 0-77^,. p.eyaXa yivo- 

37. eiTToov X ttiras Ln. Tf. 

p,eva Gb. Sch. ; [p,eyaXa Gb. 

- Kvpios, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -?]. 



14. TOV LTeTpov, o/n. TOV Ln. Tf. 

- 7jp,(5v, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 



1 6. OTJTTCO X ouSeVco Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


- avTOv aKOuo-eo-#e, om. Ln. 

*]. ^(te. 


Tf. [Gb. -.]. 

17. eTTfridovv X eVeTi ^eo av Ln. 

39. tiXX X d\\d Ln. Tf. 

Tf. [Jte.] 


Tais- KapSiaiy, prcem. e v Ln. ; 

18. 6eao~ap.evo? X Swv Gb. Sch. 


TTJ KapSYa Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

40. yeyovev X e ye veTO Ln. 

- TO aytov, 07?i. Tf. 


43. ti/^cov, om. Ln. Tf. 

19. dv X *dv Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


t Pep,(pdv X Pe(pav Ln. Tf. 


[Gb. ~]. .4te. 

21. e va>7Tiov X fvavn Gb. Ln. Tf. 

i i. 

44. e v Tots, o??i. e v Ln. Tf. [Gb. 



3]. Jte. 

22. 0eo{) X Kupiou Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


46. 0ea> X oiKco Ln. 

p], Alx. 

47. a>KoSo p70-ev X ot/co8o/7<r. Tf. 

25. v7reo~Tpe^av X virfcrTpe(J3ov 


48. vaoly, o?ra. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 


50. TauTa TravTa X TravTa ravra 

- c Iepouo-aXr7/i X lepoo-oXu^a 


Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

$r. Tr/ Kapfiia X Kapfticus Ln. 

- et>7iyyeXiVavTO X cvrjyyeKi- 



^OVTO Ln. Tf. [JZ.r.] 

a>y X Kada>s Ln. 
<2. yfyevrjcrde X e ye veo~^e Ln. Tf. 

26. TTOpfVOV X 77Opv6rjTL Lll. 

27. TT^S- /Sao iXio crris , o??z. T^s 1 Ln. 



Tf. [Gb. -]. ^te. 

56. dv^yjJLVovs\bir]voLy^vovs 

6y \rj\vdft,, om. os Ln. 

Ln. [JZa;.] 

28. Kai Kadrj/Jievos, om. Kal Tf. 


58. avTMV, om. Tf. 

Kai aveytva)o~Ke X aveyivco- 


60. Tr)v dp,apTtav ravTrjv X Tau- 

o~Kev Te Ln. ; avayivcoo"Kcov 

TT^V T?)V afj-apriav Ln. Tf. 



30. TOV 7rpoc677T??v f Ho"ai*avX Ho". 


TOV 7rpo(p. Ln. Tf. 


i. Te X Se Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

32. KetpovTos X Kfipavros Tf. 

2. eVoii^aavTo X eVoi ^trav Ln. 



<. TroXtv, prcem. rr)i> Ln. 

33. afTOTj i, o??z. Ln. 

6. Te X &e Ln. Tf. [^?a?.] 

TJ)V Se, o??z. oe Ln. 


7. TroXXaiv X TroXXol Ln. [^4?.r.] 

37. EtVe fie 6 ^tXiTTTTos 1 , Ei TTI- 

u.ya\rj djcovfj X (pc^Vf] p- f " 

o~Te7jei? e ^ o\rjs rrjs Kap- 


yaX^ Ln. Tf. 

St a?, e^errTiv. A7TOKpt$ei? 


- e |r/pxeTO X e l^pxot TO Ln. 

fie eiVe, LTto-TeTjco TOV TJIOV 

Tf. [Jto.] 

TOU GeoO ei^at TOV iTyo oi. 1 ^ 

8. Kat e yeVeTO X e ye veTO Se Ln. 

Xpto-To v, o??z. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


Tf. Wte.] 


- x a / Jrt p<eyd\r) X TroXXr) X a p a 


Ln. Tf. 


9. e io"Ta>v X f^icrrdvccv Ln. Tf. 

3. Kai fgatyvrjs X e |a/(pV7/s- Te 


10. TraWe?, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

Ln. Tf. 

GeoO 77, r/d. Ka\ov/j,fVT] Gb. 

- TTfptqo-Tpa^ev at/Tov X o.v- 

Sell. Ln. Tf. 

TOV Trepieo-T. Ln. 

OTTO X e/< Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
Kvptos flnevj om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

=t]. Alx. 
l^o-ovs-, add. [6 Nacopalos ] 



XaKrifciv. 6 Tpe/xcov Te KOI 
6ap.[3)v etTre, Kvpte, ri pe 
6f\eis noifjcrai ; Kal 6 
Kvpios TTpbs avTov, Ava- 
arr\Qi X aXXa dvdcrTrjdc Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

ri X o TI Ln. Tf. [Gb.~]. Ate. 

eVi/eol X fveol Lu. Tf. [Gb. 
^]. Alx. 

6 SavXos 1 , om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

aVe&>yp.e vcov X ^veroy/ie vcoy 
Ln! r rf. 

ovdeva X ovdtv Ln. Tf. 

6 Kvpios fv 6pdfj.aTi X fV 
opap.. 6 Kt;p. Ln. Tf. [J7a?.] 
Ai/acrras 1 X a^acrTa Ln. 

e v opaynaTi, o?Ji. Ln. Tf. 

oVop,aTt Avaviav X Avavlav 
6i>6p.aTi Ln. Tf. 

x e V a X TOS x e P asi Ln - [^^ ] 
6 Avavtas 1 , owi. 6 Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

aKrjKoa X rjKOVcra Ln. Tf. 
eVoi rio e TOIS dy/oiy aou X T. 

ay. o~of eiroirjaev Ln. Tf. 


OVTOS Ln. Tf. 
e$vcov, prcem. TCOV Ln. ; fi(?(?. 

Te Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
iryo-ovs- Gb. =J. 
OTreVecrov X dntnecrav Ln. 


a^ToO, a??te aTro Ln. Tf. 
were! X &>s Ln. 
Trapa^pryp-a, o??z. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

6 SaGXos, o??z. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

TOV Xpiorov X T 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
e\r)\v0ei X eXr; 
TrapeTrypouv X irapenjpovvro 

Ln. Tf. Ute.] 
Te X 5e Ln. Tf. [^?.r.] 
Ta? TTtiXay, prcem. Kal Ln. Tf. 


. OITOV ot fjiciQrjTal X 01 jj.a6i]- 
ra\ avrov Ln. [^te.J 
adrjKav did TOV Ti%ovs X 
fiia TOT) Tfix ovs KadfjKav 
OUTOV Ln. [.-ite.] ; [s/c CM. 
auTOV Tf.] 

26. 6 SaCXo?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 
- els X ev Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 
erreipdro X eireipaev Ln. 

r A 7~ n 

27. rov IT/CTOU, om. rov Ln. Tf. 

28. eV X s Ln.Tf. [Gb. c*]. Alx. 
Kal 7rappr)o~ia6p.evos, om. 

Kal Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. Alx. 
~ ir/o-oO, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

29. avrbv aVeXetv X aVeXeiV au- 

rbv Ln. Tf. 

30. avrbv 2, om. Ln. Tf. 

31. At pei/ ovv eKK\r)criai . . . . 

el%pv elprjvnv, oiKodopou- 
pei/at Kal Tropeudperai . . . 

KK\rjo-[a .... fix ev etp^- 
i^f, olKo8op.ovp.evrj Kal no- 


Ln. Tf. 

32. AvSSav X AvSSa Ln. Tf. 

33. Alveav oi/o part X ovouari 

Alveav Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

- Kpa/3/3ara> X Kpa/3drrou Ln. 


34. 6 Xptard?, om. 6 Ln. 

35. et&oi> X eldav Ln. Tf. 

- AvSSai/ X AvSSa Ln. Tf. 

36. dyadS>v epyuv X epyccv dya- 

Ln. Tf. 

jjrcem. ra) Ln. 
38. fiuo av8pas Gb. -. 

p?) oKt Tjaat SteX^etv eco? au- 

rS)V X P 7 ) oKvrjcrrjs 
eois f)p.)V Ln. Tf. [^ 
40. dels, prcem. Kal Ln. 

42. TroXXol e7rio~revo~av X eTrt- 

(TTV(T. TToXXot Ln. Tf. [^4te.] 

43. f)p.epas iKavas p.elvai avrov X 

avrbv r)p.epas iKavas petvat 


i.rjv, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
[Rec. Gb. cv]. 

2. re, o/re. Ln. [Gb. -]. -4te. 

3. copav, prcem. Trepl Ln. [^4Za;.] 

4. evu>7TLov X ep-TTpovdev Ln. Tf. 

5. ei? inmrrjv av8pas X avdpas 

els loTnrTjv Ln. Tf. 

"2iiu.(dva, ctdd.rLva^j\\. l f[Alx.] 

- os eTTiKuXemu Ilerpo? X roi/ 

neVpov Gb. 

6. oi!roy \a\f]<Tfi (rot ri o~6 Set 

Troteti/, o??i. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

7. rw KopVTjkicp X aurai Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 


7. aurou, ow. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =5]. 


8. avrols ajravra X airavTa av- 

rots Ln. Tf. 

9. eKeivmv X avrwv Gb. f. [^47a?.] 
10. eKfivwv X o.vTO)V Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

X eyevero Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. *>]. ^te. 

ii. 67r avrbv, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

l,om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. 

12. rrjs yrjs Gb. -*. 

/ecu ra ^pia, owi. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =t]. Jte. 

- ai ra epTrera, ?ife r^? y??? 
[ow. ra] Ln. Tf. Wte.] 

ra irereiva, om. ra Ln. Tf. 
14. ^ ctKadaprov X ^al a/cci^. Ln. 

Tf. [Alx.] 
1 6. TraXtj/ X ev^iiy Ln. Tf. [Gb. 


al iSou, ow. Kal Ln. 
Si/icoi/oy, prcem. rov Ln. Tf. 
evdvp.oviJ.evov X tevdvp.ov- 

p,evov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
ai>ra> ro IIi/ei)jLta X TO TTI . 

avrco Ln. Tf. 
rpeiy, om. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 
Start X ort Gb. Ln. Tf. [Rec. 

Gb. ~]. ^4te. 
rovs a.Trecrra\p.evovs cirrb rov 

"KopvrjXiov Trpbs avrbv, om. 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
flnov X fwrai/ Ln. Tf. 
6 Tlerpos X afaaray Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
rrjs IOTTTTJ/S-, om. rfjs Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

Kal Tf) X rrj Se Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
elvrjKdov X elo-fj\6ev Ln. Tf. 
eto"eX$et)f, praxn. rov Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
avrov fjyeipe X rjyeipev av- 

rbv Ln. Tf. [^te.] 
Kal ep.ol X Ka/zol Ln. Tf. 
6 Qebs e8eie X edett-ev 6 

Qebs Tf. 

vrjo-revoov, Kal, o??i. Ln. [Alx.] 
u)pav, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =i]. 

32. o? rrapayevoftevos XaX^cret 

a"ot, o??z. Ln. [Gb. -]. 

33. rou Oeou X o~o^ Gb. ~. 

- V7TO X OTTO Ln. Tf. 

Geov X Kvpiov Ln. [Gb. <^>]. 

34. orrdpa, a^rf. avrou Jte. 

36. 6i>, om. Ln. [^4te.] 

37. dpgdp.evov X dpgdp.evos Ln. 

nig. UZ#.] ; acW. [yap] Ln. 

38. Naaper X Na^ape^ Ln. Tf. 


39. eo-/ti/, ow. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
ev lepovaaXrjp,, om. ev Tf. 

X fal aj/etXai/ [Gb. 

Sch.] Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
42. avros X ovros Ln. txt. [Gb. 

~]. ^te. 

44. eTreneo-e X eirecrev Ln. 
4g. 6Vot X ot Ln. 

- rod Ayt ou LTi etip.aroy X TV 

TTV. rov ay. Ln. 

46. 6 LTerpos, o??i. 6 Ln. 

47. KcoXOaYZi bvvaral X Svvarat 

KO)\vo~ai Ln. 

- Ka0a>s- X ws 1 Ln. 

48. /3a7rrto $?7i>ai, posi eV r. ovop,. 

rov Xp. Ln. 

you Kvpiov X l^orou Xpt- 
Ln. [Gb. ~]. Alx. 


2. Kal ore X Ve 8e Ln. Tf. 

- ifpoo-oXiyia X lepovo-dXrjfj, 
Ln. Tf. 

3. elarjXQes, ante Trpbs av8pas 

Ln. Tf. ; Ute. s. elo-jj\6e 
Kal o~vve(paye]. 

4. 6 LTerpof, o?. 6 Ln. 

7. fjKovo-a de, add. Kal, s. Kal 

praam. Kai Ln. Tf. 

8. TTOI/, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

9. pot, om. Ln. Tf. 

10. TraXtv dveo-Trdadrj X aveo"7ra- 

(rdrj <jrd\iv Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

11. fjp.r)v X f)/J.ev Ln. 

12. pot ro TTfevpa X TO 7rvevp.d 

pot Ln. Tf. 

- p^Sei/ 8taKpivop.evov X p??Sey 

diaKpivavra Ln. ; om. Tf. 
[Gb. -L 

13. re X 8e Ln. [J?a;.] 

av8paSf om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

1 6. Kupt ou, prcem. rov Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

17. fie, om. Ln. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

18. e86aov X e86ao~av Ln. 

- ye, om. Ln. 

edtoKev els farjv X eiy ^&>j)^ 

e 8a>Kev Ln. 

19. 2re(pava> X Srefpdvov Ln. 

[Gb. ~]. 


20. d(re\66vTs X eXtfovres Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- eXaXow, a(W. KOI Ln. 
EXXTptcrray X^EXXf/z/ay Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. Alx.] 

21. Tnarevcray, prcem. 6 Ln. Tf. 

22. lepoaoXu/xoty ^ lepovo~a\f)p. 

Ln. Tf. 

. Ln. [yifo.] 
, arW. r?)y Ln. 
6 Bapm/3ay, om. Ln.Tf. [Gb. 

auroi/ i, om, Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 
avrbv 2, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

CIVTOVS X avrols Ln. Tf. 
eviavroV) prcem. Kal Ln. Tf. 
eo~r]p.av X ecrrjuaivev Ln. 
p-tyav X peydXrjv Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

- ocrrty X ^riy Ln. Tf. [Gb. ro], 

Kai crapoy, om. Gb. Sch. Ln.Tf. 
??L>7ropeTro X evTropelro Ln. 


Kai idaw X i3coi> Se Ln. Tf. 


rjp.epcu } prcem. ai Gb. Sch.Ln. 


<. KTVr)S X ZKTfVtdS Ln. 

- VTrep X 7repl Ln. Tf. [Gb. ^]. 


6. e/ieXXey X ifrieXXez Tf. 

- auroy TTpcdyeiv X TTpoaya- 
yeii/ CIVTOV Ln. Tf. 

7. e^tTTGO ov X f^eTTfcrav Ln. 

Tf. ; [eTTtTrecrav Alx.} 
S. re X Se Ln. 

- LTepi ^coo-at X t^* "" Ln - Tf - 

[Gb. <*>]. ^ite. 
9. aura), o;?i. Ln. Tf. [^te.] 

Sia X ^o Tf. 

10. 7?X#oi/ X ^X^ai/ Ln. Tf. 

rjvoi^di ] X ^voiyr] Ln. Tf. 

11. yv6jj.i>os fv eaurtB X e y eau- 

ro yevop.. Ln. Tf. 

- ee/Xero X e|ei Xaro Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

12. Mapiay, prcem. TTJS Ln. Tf. 

13. roO nt rpou X aiToC Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 
15. fiTTOv X eiTTCiv Ln. Tf. 

- 8* eXeyoi/ X ^ eiTra^ Ln. 


1 5. avrov eo~Tiv X *O~TIV avTOv 21. Kty X Keiy Ln. 

Ln. Tf. Bewa/nii/ X Bfj/tap.e/t Ln. 

17. auroiy, om. Tf. 
- cje X re Ln. Tf. 
19. ri]v Kaio~apetaf, 



20. 6 HpwS?/?, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 


21. /cat KaOiaas, [/cal] Ln. 

23. r^ So^av, om. r^v Gb. Sch. 

25. e ifpovo-aXrjp, X "^o If- 

povcr. s. e lepouo". yite. 
- Kat Icoaw^f, o?. Kat Ln. 


1. rives, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 


2. re, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- TOV 2ai)Xoz>, o??i. Ln. [Gb. 3]. 


4. OVTOI X cttrot Ln. Tf. 
TlvevfjiaTos TOV A.yiov X ayt- 

OU 7TVfVp.ClTOS Ln. Tf. 

??2. r?)y Ln. 

KvTrpov, om. rrjv Ln. 
6. 8te\66vTCs Se, arf<Z. oX^i/ Gb. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 
- eupoV, add. aj/Spa Ln. Tf. 

9. /cat are^i o-ny, o??z. KCU Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. =j]. yfte. 
ii. TOU /cupiou, o??i. rou Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

X fTTecrev Ln. 

13. TOI> IlatiXov, o??z. 

Ln. Tf. 

22. ayroiy roi/ Aa/3t5 X TOI/ A. 

avTots Ln. Tf. 
avbpa Gb. -. 

23. fjyeipe X rjyay* Gb. Sch. Ln. 

2$. 6 lojdviTjs, om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

26. tJTrecrraX^ X 


29. aTravra X Trdvra Ln. Tf. 

31. om^e?, AZ. rOi Sch. Ln. Tf. 

33. avT&v rjp-lvj. rjp.wv Ln. [J?^.] 

dfVTepcp^TTp&Tfi) Gb. Ln. Tf. ; 

[rco Trpcora) Ln. ^os yeypa- 
Trrat]. Rec. Gb. f^; [/<?. ^poctf 
ye yp. ^te.] 

35. Sto X Sidrt Ln. 

36. TOI/S- Trarepay, o??z. roiy Elz. 
39. Kai OTTO, o??z. Kat Ln. 

raj ro ^tft), om. rco Ln. Tf. 

40. c cp i/xa?, o??z. lai. 

41. eyco epyofjuii X e 
eyo> Ln. Tf. 

- epyoi/ 2 Gb. -. 

- <y X o Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

42. iwrcoy e eK ry vvva- 
ycoy^y root louSaico^, ?rap- 
fKiiXovv TO. Wvr] X eiovTtov 
8e avTwv TTapeKoXovv Gb. 
Sch. Ln. Tf. 

ravra Gb. -. 

43. avroty, om. Sch. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 


Sch. Ln. Tf. 
44. Se X re Gb. Sch. Tf. 

. Sell. 

Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~], 
- GeoO X KVpLOV Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

43. roC IlauXov, oi. TOV Ln. 
\eyop.evois X 

14. TYJS EEtcrtSiay X ri) 

1 5:. ecrri Xdyoy eV t /xiz X 

eo~Tiv v Xdy. Ln. 
17. lapa^X, o??z. Gb. Sch. Tf. 

AlyvTTTCO X AiyvTrrov Ln. Ln. 

19. er/)O7ro^dp^crey X e rpoc^o- dfriXe yoi rey Kai, o;. Ln. 

(froprjo-ev Gb. Sch. Ln. [Rec. [Gb. -*]. Alx. 

Gb. ~]. 46. ^e X re Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

KareKXnpoSdn/crez X xare- \ el-rrov X etVav Ln. Tf. 

K\rjpov6p,rjcrev Gb. Sell. Ln. 5e, om. Ln. 

Tf. 5o. KOI ray eucr^^oi/ay, o??j. KU! 

20. Kill pera raGra, coy ereo"i ! Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

TfTpaKoaiois Kal TrevTt jKov- \ TOV Bapya/3ai>, om. TOV Ln. 

raX^oy ereo~t rerpaKotr. KOI Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^te. 

TTfVTTjK. KCll fJLCTCl TCIVTCI Lll. jl. nVTCOI , O?W. Ln. Tf. [///O. 1 .] 

[Gb. ~]. [Alx.] 2. 5e X re Ln. Tf. 



res 1 X d 

Ln. Tf. [^te.] 
Kal didovTi) om. Kal Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

Avcrrpaj>, prcem. fls Ln. 
^crai/ evayyeXi^o/jLevoi )( eu- 

ayy. ^crav Ln. 
vTidpxav, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Trepi67T<;TraTT]Kt X 

Trjcrev Ln. Tf. ; 

r^Ket St. 
/y Koue X f]K.ovcrV Ln. Tf. 


i, om.Trj Ln.; arfcZ. (rot 
eV r ow/nart rou 
Kvpiov irjcrov Xptarou Ln. 

j^AAero X J7 Aaro Gb. Sch. Ln. 


de I TC Ln. Tf. 
6 IlavAoy, OTO. 6 Ln. Tf. 
p,ei/, o??z. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. 
o Se X o re Ln. Tf. 
aurcoi>, o?. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
?7<9eAe X rjdeXov Alx. 
elo-enrjSrjcrav X e^f7rrj()r](rav 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 





)VTa Ln. Tf. [Gb. eo]. Alx. 
ye, o??z. Ln. [Alz.] 
eavrov X auroz/ Ln. [Gb. =J]. 
dyadoTTOLcov X dyadovpycov 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. <*>]. ^4te. 
^/iij/ X v/iiv Gb. Sch. Ln. ; 

om. Tf. [Gb. =s]. 
TJ/JLCOV X vfi&v Gb. Sch. Ln. 

E7r?}A$oi> X frrr/Xdav Ln. Tf. ; 

[^4te. 6tarpt/3o^rcov avrwv 

Kal 8i$da~Kcc>v errf]\0ov OTTO]. 
ecrvpov X e&vpav Tf. 
vop.i(ravTfs X vop.iovTes Ln. 
Tfdvdvat X Tfdvr]Kvai Ln. 

aiiTov TCOV uadriTwv X fail, avTcov Ln. Tf. 
. evayyeXia-dp.evoi X euayye- 
Xi6p.evot Ln. Tf. 

prccm. els Ln. [^te.] 
j??-fe??i. ets Ln. 

23. Trpeo~j3vTepovs 

6. Se X re Tf. 

7. 6 Qfos,jJost e eAearo Ln.Tf. 

eV X eV v/zti Ln. Tf. 

8. avrols 2, om. Tf. 

9. ouSez/ X ovtfez Tf. 

ii. Kvpiov, prtzm. TOV Gb. Sch. 
Ln. Tf. 

- Xpia-rov, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. 
14. eVt, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =?]. ^4fo. 

17. 6 Trotcoi/, om. 6 Ln. 

rrai/ra, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

18. rVcocrra X yvcooTTov Ln. 

eVrt TO) 0e w TrdVra TCI epya 

avTov, om. Gb. Sch. Tf. ; ra> 
Kup/a> TO epyov aurou Ln. 
20. OTTO, om. Ln. Gb. -. 

Kal rou TTVIKTOV, om. TOV Ln. 

22. eTTtKaXovfJ-evov X KaXov fievov 

Ln. Tf. UZa?.] 

- Bapa-aftav X Bapo-a/3/3aj/ Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

23. rafie, oro. Ln. Tf. 

Kat ot, om. Ln. [Gb. -]. Alx. 

24. Aeyoz/res TrepiTepvecrdai KOI 

TOV vojioV om. Ln. 

Tf. [Gb.=i]. Alx. 
2^. eK\ea.fAevovs X 

foiy Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^/te. 

28. TOO? TrdvayKes TOVTCOV^TOV- 

TU>V TO)V fTrdvayK. Ln. [Alx.} ; 
o??i. TOVTOOV Tf. [Gb. =t]. ^4te. 

29. Kai TTVIKTOV, Gb. -* ; /cut TTW- 
/cro)i Ln. Tf. 

- 7rpaere X Trpd^are Alx. 

30. rj\8ov X Ka.TT)\dov Ln. [Gb. 

<*>]. yite. 

32. e X T6 St. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
67re(7ri7pt|ai/ X e 



ulav X KaT-> eKK\. 7rpecr/3. 
Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
24. Uap,(pv\LaV) prcem. TTJV Tf. 

27. oV^yyetAa 


28. eVcet, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 


1. rrepiTefj-vrjcrde X TrepiTfjir/i 

re Ln. Tf. [Gb. >]. Alx. 
rco edfi, add. TO) Ln. 

2. ovv X Se Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. ; 
Gb. =t]. 

3. 3>oiv!.Kr)v, prcem. re Ln. Tf. 

4. dnede^d^o av X Trapede^dr]- 38. 

cray Ln. 

33. aTroaroAofff X aTrooreiXai/- 
ras avTovs Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 
[Gb. Rec. ~], 

34- eSo^e 5e r<5 2/Aa tTripelvai 
, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 

36. IlavAoff Trpoy Bapvdflav X 

Trpos Bapi/. LTaiiAos 1 Ln. Tf. 

- 77/Mw^, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- Tracrav 7ro\iv X TroAti/ nacrav 

Ln. Tf. 

37. e/3oi;Aevcraro X c /3ovAero Ln. 

[Gb. ^]. ^4te. 

- roi/ icddvvrjv X at looa 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. ; [ leoa 

Ln. Tf. 

39. o&/ X Se Ln. Tf. 

40. Geou X Kvpt ou Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

~]. Alx. 

41. RiAi/aW, prcem. TTJV Ln. 


i. ets Aep/3?7i>, prcem. Koi Ln. 

AvcrTpav, prcem. fls Ln. 

- Tiz>os-, o?. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

3. aTravTts X Trai/res" Ln. 

ro^ 7rar/pa auroi), ori "EA- 

A^y X on r/ EAA?;i/ 6 

4. Trapedidovv X 

Ln. Tf. 

rait 7rpecr/3urep<i>, o??i. raiz/ 

Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 
6. Aie\6ovTfS X SirjXdov Ln. 


7. eovTs, add. Ln. 
Kara 2 X e Gb. Sch. Ln. 


TT^eD/xa, arfrf. Irjcrov Gb, Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

w(/)(97; Tf. 

ri? rjv MaKfdcov X MaK. rts 

rjv Ln. ; Ma/c. TiS 1 Tf. 

7rnpaKaAa>i>, prcem. Kal Ln. ; 

[^4/ar. s. prcem. Kara Trpocrco- 
TTOV auroi)]. 
10. ri^ Ma/<e8oi/tai/, o??z. rni/ Ln. 

10. Kvpios X $Off Ln. [Gb. *>>]. 


11. o&/ X 8c Tf. 

TT/S TpoodSos 1 , o?n. r?}? Ln. 

rrj re X T// 5f Ln. 

12. ekfWev re X KaKei$ef Ln. 

- TTJS pepidos Gb. -. 

- -nyy, o?ra. Ln. [Gb. ^]. ^to. 
Ko\a>via X KoAcoveta Tf. 

- ravrr/ X avTrj Tf. 

13. TrdAecos- X TTvXrjs Ln. Tf. [Gb. 
e]. Alx. 

X fvop.L^ojj.ev Ln. 


39. e eA$e/ X a;reA$e/ OTTO Ln. 

40. etf X Trpoy Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. Ilec. ~]. 
TOVS dde\(povs, Trape/cdAe- 

crav CIVTOVS X Trape/edX. roi/s 
. Ln. 

^l X Trpocrev^rjv Ln. 

14. TJKOVfV X f}KOV(TV Alx. 

1$. p-eivare X /AeVere Ln. 

16. Trpocreuxrp, prccm. TTJV Sch. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. co]. ^te. 
- LTu^coi/os X Ilu^com Ln. Tf. 

[Gb. v]. ^te. 
aTrair^trat X VTraiT^crat Tf. 

17. 37/^0 X ^p-T" Elz. Ln. Tf. 

18. rai oVo^tari, oz. r<5 Ln. Tf. 

19. roy 2/Aai , o?w. TOV Tf. 

20. CLTTOV X firrav Ln. Tf. 

22. TTfptpprj^avTfS X 7Tfpipr)av- 

res Ln. Tf. 
24. d\r)(p(ds X Aa/3a>i> Ln. [Gb. 

avrwv T]cr(pa\io~aTO X J^crcp. 

avTtov Ln. Tf. 

26. avew^BrfO dv X r]V(pX@ r ] a av 

Ln! Tf. 

- re X e Ln. Tf. Ute.] 

27. p.dxaipaV) prcvm. rr/v Ln. 

- e /ieAXei> X fjp.e\\fv Ln. Tf. 

28. <pa>vrj p.eyd\r) 6 HavXos X 

LTaDAoy (pcavfj /zeydA?; Ln. 

29. rai Si Aa, oni. rw Ln. r>1 f. 
31. flrrov X ftJrav Ln. Tf. 

- Xpia-rov, om. Ln. Tf. [^fo.] 

/cai Tracri X o"UJ> Tracrt Gb. Ln. 

Tf. U/x.] 
34. aurou, oi. Ln. Tf. 

^yaAAidcraro X ^ 

36. TOVTOVS, om. Ln. 


! i. ATroAAaWav, prccm. TTJV Ln. 
j 17 crwaycwyr), om. rj Ln. [Alx.~ 

2. SteAe yero X 5teXe aro Ln. 

[Alx. s. die\c x0r)]. 

3. 6 Xpto-ror, om. 6 Ln. 

4. E\\rjV(*)v, prcem. Kal Ln. 

- TToAv 7T\TJ00S X TrXr} 

Ln. Tf. [ Jte.] 

5. frXaxravTfs de oi d 

Tfs louSalot, KOI TrpocrXa- 

/3d/iei/ot rail dyopaiccv X 

Ln. Tf. 
37. e /SaAoy X e/3aAi/ Ln. Tf. 

38. KvT]yyi\av X aTT^ 

Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 
Kal ecpofirjOrjcrai X e 

Ln. Tf. 

Oalot Ot dTTflUOV I TfS TU)V 

ayopaiaif Sch. Tf. ; rrpoo-- 
\a[3up.voi oe ot loudatot 

aVe i $ot) lores , OTO. Gb. Ln. 

Ttvds avdpas, om. Gb. ; aV- 

Spay rivets Ln. Tf. 

e TTiOTaVres re X Kai * 

Ln. [Alx.] 

ayayen/ X TTpoayayelv Ln. 

6. fcrvpov X fffvpav Tf. 

- roi> Ido-oj/a, om. roz/ Ln. 

7. Trpdrroucrt y,7rpdo~o~ov(Tiv~Ln. 

Tf. [^te.] 

Aeyovrey erepoi/ X *T(pov Ae - 

yoires 1 Ln. 

10. r^y j/uKros", OOT. TJ^? Ln. 

ra>i/ lovSaico^ drrijecrav X 

drrflecrav TWV louS. Tf. 

11. ro Ka^ , om. ro Ln. [^ite.] 
73. o"aAe vovres, add. Kal Tapdcr- 

CTOVTCS Ln. [J/.r.] 
14. <wy )( ecor Ln. ; [Alx. s. om. 
cos 1 ]. 

V7rep.i>ov X vtre/Jieivev Ln.Tf. ; 

[Alx. s. i 

- <$ X re Ln. Tf. 


re? Ln. Tf. 

- CIVTOV i c , om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =t]. 

16. OfdopovvTi X ^ecopoDi/ros- Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^ite. 
18. rtveff Se, 7tZ. Kal Sch. Ln.Tf. 

[Gb. ~]. 
TWV Sroo tKcol , om. TWV Ln. 

Tf. [SroiKwi/ Ln. Tf.] 

18. ort Tov lrfcrovv Kal ri]V dvd- 
(TTacriv avrols etfTyyyeAt^eT ) 

avTols Ln. ; om. avrols Tf. 

77 TJTTO, o??i. 77 Ln. 

20. rt av ^e Aot X rt ra 0e\ci 

Gb. tv [Jte.] ; rtVa ^e Aet Ln. 

21. evKaipovv X iJVKaipovv Ln. 

Tf. Ute.] 

Kat aKoveti X ^ aKoveiv Ln. 

Tf. ; acW. rt Ln. 

22. 6 LTauAoy, oz. 6 Ln. 

23. bv X o Ln. Tf. 

- roCroi/ X rovro Ln. Tf. 

24. Kvptos VTrdpxcov X VTrdpx<*>T> 

Kvpios Ln. Tf. 

25. dv6pa>7ru)V X avdpcoTrivoov Ln. 

Tf. [Gb. *]. ^te. 

- Kara X Kal ra Elz. Gb. Sch. 

Ln. Tf. 

26. at juaroy, oni. Ln. [Gb. -]. 

TTOI/ ro 7rpoo~co7roy X TTtx^roy 

Ln. Tf. 


Taypevovs Gb. Sch. (Ln.) 
Tf. ; [Trpoy reray. Ln.] [Gb. 
Rec. ~]. 

27. Kvpiov X 6*bv Gb. Sch. Ln. 

Tf. ; [Rcc. Gb. ]. 

- /cat fvpoiev X rj (vpotfv Ln. 


Kairotye X Kat ye Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

~]. Alx. 

28. TTOlTJTtoV Gb. -. 

30. 7rao"i X irdvras Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

^]. Alx. 

31. Stori X *a&m Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

. Alx. 

32. (L7TOV X fiTTClV Tf. 

idAt^ Trept TOVTOV X TTfpi 
rourou Kat TrdAtv Ln. Tf. ; 
[^te. s. o?7i. Kat]. 

33. Kat ourcoj-, om. Kat Ln. Tf. 

6 ApeoTraytVri?, om. 6 Ln. 


1. oe, om. Ln. 

6 LTa{)Aos-, om. Ln. Tf. [ALc.] 

2. eK X OTTO Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

3. etpyd^ero X r)pydero Ln. Tf. 

fjcrav yap o~KT]vo7roiol rrjv 

Tf. Ute.] 

. TTvevp-ari X Aoyw Gb. Sch. Ln. 


$. loufiaiW, add. elvai Ln. 

6. TrpofCpr/Tfvov X evpotf>rjTfVOV 

29. roO LTavXov, owz. rov Gb. Sch. 

[Gb. ~]. Alx. 

Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. 

7. ?i\6ev X elcrf)\6ev Ln. [Alx] 

7. e/caj;o X ScoSe/ca Ln. [^/te.] 

30. roO 5e LTavXou X IlavXoi; fie 

9. dt 6pd/j.aTos tv VVKTL X *v 

8. ra Trepi, om. ra Ln. Tf. [Alx] 


WKTl fit opd/zaroy Ln. 

g. rii/df, om. Ln. Tf. 

32. ev(Kv X ej/exa Ln. 

ii. re X fie Ln. [^te.] 

10. l^trou, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

33. Trpo/SaXXoVrcdi X 7rpo(3a\6v- 

12. dvdvTraTfvovTos X di^UTrd- 


rcoi/ ^4/.r. 

rou OVTOS Ln. [Gb. >>] -<4te. 

ii. eVoiei 6 Geoj X o ^eoy eVotet 

7rpoe/3i,/3a(7a X (rvvej3i(3a- 

13. OVTOS dva-rrfidfi X dvaneifci 

Ln. [,4Z;r.] 

crav Ln. [^4te.] 

OVTOS Ln. Tf. 

12. fTTKpepfcrdai X a7ro(pepe<j$at 

34. emyvovToov X firiyvovrcs Gb. 

14. oui/, em. Ln. [Gb. -]. ^4te. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. ^te. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

r^i>eo"^o^- r l v X a.v(o~xofj.r)i> Ln. 

- e^e pxecr^ai X fKiropcvcaQat 

3>. avOpurtTOs X dvdpojTrwv Ln. 

I > CTTTJ/JUI A rjTr) p,ciT(i Ln. Tf. 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Tf. [<4te.] 

[Gb. -]. ^ te . 

OTT aurcoi/, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. 

- <9e5y, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

- yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. -<4te. 


36. Trpdrretv X irpdcrcreiv Ln.Tf. 

17. ot "EXXfyi/ey, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

13. aV6 X Kai Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

37. rj)y ^eay X T?)V $eoj/ Gb. Sch. 

3]. u4te. 


Ln. Tf. 

18. ri")z/ K(pd\T]V fi> KeyKpeats X 

- Op/ci^o/iej/ X opKifa Gb. Sch. 

vfj.S)v X f]p-<t)v Ln. [Gb. KI. 

fV Key^. rqz/ Kf(paXr}V Ln. 

Ln. Tf. 



6 LTavXos 1 , om. 6 Ln. Tf. 

38. Trpds- rii>a Xdyov e^oucrti X 

19. KaTrjvTrjcre X KaTr)vrr]o~av Ln. 


e^oDcr. Trpds 1 rtz/a Xdyov Gb. 

Tf. [yfte.] 

14. rti/es X fivos Ln. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

avTov X e*Ket Ln. [JZ.r.] 

utot, posi CTrra Ln. Tf. 

39. Trept eVe pwv X 7repairepa> Ln. 

dif\f%dri X SteXe ^aro Ln. 

- ot, om. Ln. [Alx] 

40. ou, add. ov Gb. <v. [^4te.] 

20. Trap aurot?, om. Ln. Tf. 

i$. eiVe, add. avrols Ln. [Alx] 

- a7rofioi>ai X dovvai Tf. [Gb. 

21. dXX X dXXd Ln. Tf. 

1 6. f(pa\\6p.fvos X e 0aXd/xeroj 

<v]. Cat. 

a7rerdaro avro is X "Trora- 


Xdyof, add. Trepi Ln. k4r.] 

d[j.vos Kai Ln. Tf. [Gb.^]. 

eV avTovs 6 avdpanos X o 


avdp. eV aur. Ln. Tf. 


Ael p.e TrdtTcoj rfp eopri]v 

- /eat, o?w. Ln. Tf. Gb. =J. [^to.] 

i. TrpoorKaXecrdfjLfvos X pfTa- 

Tfjv (pj(Ofj.evY)v TTOirjcrai (is 

- KaraKVpifvcras X KaraKvpi- 

77ffJi\l/dp.VOS Alx. 

lepocrdXu/za, om. Ln. Tf. 

evaav Gb. ~. ^4te. 

- TOVS /Madras-, add. Trapaxa- 

[Gb. ={]. -4te. 

avT&v X dfjL(pOTp(i)V Ln. Tf. 

XeVas Ln. [Alx] 

- fie, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =8]. Jte. 

[Gb. ~]. ^te. 

7ropfv6r)vai\Tropeveo~dai Ln. 

Kal dvr/x6r/, om. Kal Ln. Tf. 

17. eVeVecre X f7i0~ev Ln. 

ri^i/ MaKeSoi/i ai , om. rj)y Ln. 

23. fTricrTTjpi^dii X orrjpifov Ln. 

20. 6 Xdyo? rov Kvpiov X TOU 

3. auroi eVt/3oi;X^y X eVt/3ou- 

23. Kvpiov X lijtrot) Ln. Tf. [,4te.] 

Kvpiov 6 Xdyos Ln. Tf. 

X^f aur<5 Ln. 

26. A^vXa? Kal ripiV/aXXa X 

21. SteX^coz/ X 8ie\6flv Ln. 

4. ScoTrarpos 1 , add. Tlvppov Gb. 

Upio-K. KOI A/a<X. Ln. Tf. 

A^ataf, prcem. TTJV Ln. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -]. 


lepovcraXrjp. X ifpotrdXvjLia 

g. o^rot, add. fie Ln. [Alx.] 

TOV GeoO 6di/ X oSoy TOV 

Ln. Tf. 

7. rttiv paffrjT&v TOV X 17/10)^ Gb. 

^eoO Ln.[^4?a;.] ; om. TOV 6cov 

24. Trapet ^ero X Trapei^e Ln. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Tf. [Gb. =;]. 

epyacriav OVK oXiyrjv X oi/c 

8. rjcrav X rjfj.ev Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

oXt y. e py. Ln. 

9. KaQrinevos X Ka0^6p.fvos Ln. 


2<(. i]fj.S)if X J^ty Ln. Tf. ; vp.a)v 

Tf. Olte.] 

i. e X^eTi/ X KareX$eii/ Alx. 

Gb. *>. Ute.] 

ii. aprof, ^>rcem. roi/ Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Vpu>v X evpetz Ln. Tf. [^4?a;.] 

26. cr^eSoi , prcem, Kal Ln. [^/.r.] 

*>]. Alx. 

2. etWe, add. re Ln. Tf. [Alx] 

27. Apre /ztSoy lepov X tepo^ 

13. ety X fVt Ln. Tf. 

- elirov, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 3]. 

Apre/M. Tf. [^Ite.] 

TJV fitereray/itVoy X fiiarer. 


oudev X ovdfv Ln. Tf. 

TJV Ln. 

ouSe X Ol - ^ Ln. 

\oyicr6rjvai X Xoyicr^frerat 

14. o-we ;3aXei/Xa-we/3aXXei/Ln. 

3. Trpoy avTovS) om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

Ln. [^4?.r ] 

15. Kai p-flvavres fv TpcoyuX- 

=:]. ^dte. 

p,f\\LV X p-e XXet Ln. 

Xt co, r?/ %oiJ.evT] X T^ fie 

firrov X etVai/ Ln. Tf. 

- ri7i> p.ya\fioTT}Ta X r^s /ne- 

e ^o/ieV?; Ln. [Gb. f^] yite. ; 

4. pef, o?u. Gb. Ln. [Jte.] 

yaXfioTTyros- Ln. [<4te.] 

[Tpa>yuXio) Tf.] 

Xpicrrov, om. Gb. Ln. Tf. 

29. oX?;, om. Ln. Tf. 

1 6. fKptve X KfKpLKei Gb. Ln. Tf. 


cruy^ucrecos 1 , prcem. rrjs Gb. 

[Rec. Gb.~]- ^^-. 

6. ray ^eipa?, om. rds Ln. Tf. 

Sch. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

r)f X fi 7 ? Ln. [^4te.] 



i8. Trpbs avroz>, afZcZ. 6p.ou OVT&V 

4. dvaftaiveiv X firifiaivtiv Ln. 

avT&v Ln. 


19. TroXXcov, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

lepotxraX^/z X lepocrdXt /xa 

21. rrjv els roz>, om.Trjv Ln. [Alx] ; 

Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

om. TOV Tf. 

$. J7p,as cgaprio-ai X e ^apr. ^/i. 

XptcrroV, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 

Ln. Tf. 

22. fyco SeSep-ews X oeoe/M. eyco 

- irpoa-r]v^dp.f6a X 7rpocreva- 

Gb. Ln. Tf. 

p.evoi Ln. Tf. [JZ,r.] 

/ Y 


6. Kai d O-Traa-ap.ez ot X cnrqo-Tra- 

O~Q.VTCl S. 0~Vp.^TJO~6p,Va Alx. 

o~a/j.fua Ln. Tf. [^4Za7.] 

23. 6iap.apruperai, arfd. pxn Gb. 

- eW/3?7p.ez/X fai cVe/S^/Ltez/ Ln. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

[^4te.] ; Kai dvefirjuev Tf. 

- jLte Kai 8\[\jsis X Ka $Xn^. 


/ie Ln. Tf. UZa:.] 

8. oi Trepi rw UaOXov, ow. Gb. 

24. TTOtoup-at, ouSe e^a> X e^a) 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

ouSe Ln. ^4to. ; o???. 

- ?j\6ov X fj\8op.V Elz. Gb. 

ov5e e^co Tf. 

Sch. Ln. Tf. 

^/vvrjv uou, 07?i. p.ou Ln. Tf. 

rou oz/ros 1 , o?7i. TOV Gb. Sch. 

[Gb. =s]. 

Ln. Tf. 

ULfrci vanac om Ln Tf fGb 

9 7rapU6Z^Ot T0~0~aO$ T T0~O~ 

X]. Alx 

Trapd. Ln. 

25. rou 0eo{), o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

10. r]p,)i>, om. Ln. Tf. 

3]. ^Za;. 

ii. re, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =;]. 

26. eyco X et/it Ln. [^4?a;.] 


27. v/JUV) post ucov Ln. txt. 

- avTov X eaurou Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

28. ovv [Ln.] ; om. ^4Z. 

pa]. Alx. 

- GeoG X Kvpiou Gb. Ln. Tf. 

TO.S ^eTpay Kai roi^s TrdSas X 

[Rec. Gb. ^-.] ; Kvpiov Kal 

rovy TrdS. Kal ray ^eip. Ln. 

Oeov Cst. [Alx.] 

Tf. [Alx.] 

idiov at/iaros X o.ip,aros TOV 

- fv X ets Tf. 

Idiov Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. [Rec. 

13. aneKpiOr] Se X Tore arreKpi0Tj 

Gb. ~]. 

Ln. [^4Za?.] ; drreKp. re Tf. 

39. yap, om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =*]. ^4Za;. 

14. To 6e\r)p,a TOV Kvpiov XTOU 

- rovro, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. =J]. 

Kvpiov TO 6e\r)p.a Ln. Tf. 

32. dSeXcpoi, o??i. Ln. Tf. [Gb. -*]. 

yev0~@a> X yiveo~6<d Ln. Tf. 

fTTOtKO^Op.rjO O.t, X OlK.OOOp,7J- 

i. ot X eTrtcrKeu- 

crai Ln. [Gb. p=]. Alx. 

ao"dp.evoi Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. 

-, om. Ln. Tf. [Alx.] 


33. ovdevbs X ovdevbs Tf. 

lepovadXyp. X lepocroXi pa 

34. 8e, om. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. ~]. [^te.] 

35. p,a\\ov, ante SiSdVai Gb. Sch. 

17. eo"ea.vro X a7reSe^az/ro Ln. 

Ln. Tf. 

Tf. [Gb. ~]. UZ^.] 

37. e yeVero K\avQpbs X fXau^. 

20. Kuptoz/ X #eoz/ Gb. Ln. Tf. 

eyeV. Ln. Tf. 


- eirrdy re X etTrdVrey Ln. 


louSatoov X eV roT? lovSatoTff 

i. Ki/ X KS Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

Ln. Tf. [Gb. *]. [Alx.] 

3. dvatpdvavTes X dva(pavevrcs 

21. TrdvTas, om. Ln. [Gb. ->]. ^4Zic. 

Elz. Gb. Sch. Ln. Tf. 

22. Set TrX^os 1 (TvvcXQflv, om. 

KaTr] ^dr] p.v X Karfj\6op.ev 

Tf. [Gb. -]. ; Set o-vv(\6elv 

Ln. [.4te.] 

7rA7?c/os t Ln, 

yap rfv TO TrXotov X 7"P T ^ 

- yap, om. Tf. [Gb. -]. 

TrXotov ^y Ln. 

24. yv&cri X yv&crovTai Gb. Sch. 

4. Kai dVevpovres X dvevp. Se 

Ln. Tf. [Rec. Gb. ~]. 

Ln. Tf. [JZ.r.] 

roi> i>6p.ov <pv\do-o~(i)V X Y>fA. 

a^rou X avrots Ln. 

roz/ VQJJ.OV Ln. Tf. 


25. eVecrreiXa/xev X a 
.ef Ln. 

prjev TOIOVTOV Tripev av- 
rovs, ei ym), om. Ln. Tf. [Gb. 

- ro cu/za, om. ro Ln. Tf