Skip to main content

Full text of "Introduction to the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament"

See other formats 







re ae ' 
; Taye 

ee Mets 
shi 
Reyes 
Lt 








Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


https://archive.org/details/introductiontoteOOnestrich 


THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION LIBRARY 


VOL. XIII. 


NESTLE’S INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL 
CRITICISM OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 





INTRODUCTION 


TO THE 


PEATUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


BY 
EBERHARD NESTLE, PH. AND Tu.D. 


‘" MAULBRONN 


TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION 
(With Corrections and Additions by the Author) 
BY 
WILLIAM EDIE, B.D. 


KING EDWARD 


AND EDITED WITH A PREFACE BY 


ALLAN MENZIES, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAI. CRITICISM IN THE 
UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS 


WILLIAMS AND NORGATE 


14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON 
20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH 
AND 7 BROAD STREET, OXFORD 
New York: G. P, PUTNAM’S SONS 


Igo 


438 


PRINTED BY 
NEILL AND COMPANY LIMITED 
BELLEVUE, EDINBURGH 


MOFFITT 





EDITORS PREFACE: 


PROFESSOR EBERHARD NESTLE of Maulbronn is one of the 
distinguished company of philologists who have in recent 
years directed their attention to the study of the New Testa- 
ment. He is by no means a stranger in this country. 
Readers of the Expositor and the Exfosztory Times are 
familiar with his name, and are accustomed to receive from 
him original and independent discussions of New Testament 
textual problems. He is consulted by scholars both in this 
country and on the Continent on questions of Aramaic and 
Syriac scholarship, and has contributed, in the way of 
criticism and careful proof reading, to many important 
publications of English scholars,-such as Professor Swete’s 
edition of the Septuagint,’ the publications of Mrs. Lewis 
and Mrs. Gibson (Zhe Sznaitic Palimpsest, etc.), and the 
Gospel of the Twelve Apostles recently published by Pro- 
fessor Rendel Harris. 

The readers of this volume may be glad to know a 
little more of its author. A native of Wiirttemberg, he was 
educated at the Gymnasium of Stuttgart and then at the 
Theological Seminary of Blaubeuren, the latter being one of 
the four old cloister schools of Wiirttemberg, in which, far from 
the distractions of large towns, a thorough philological train- 


1 See the Dedication to Dr. Nestle of Professor Swete’s /itroduction to the Old 
Testament in Greek, just published. 


rs 
109298 


vi EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


ing is provided for the future clergy of that kingdom. It was 
as “ Praeceptor” of one of these schools that Albrecht Bengel, 
that great textual critic and unaffectedly pious man, spent the 
best part of his life, and in his Warginalien und Materialien 
Dr. Nestle gives an interesting account of Bengel as a scholar, 
and describes the studies of the school over which he pre- 
sided. Our author studied divinity and oriental languages at 
the Universities of Tiibingen and Leipzig, and considers it 
one of the happy dispensations of his life that he was per- 
mitted to live in England for two years, working in the 
British Museum and preaching to German congregations in 
London. He was then Repetent or Tutor at the Theological 
Seminary of Tibingen, and, after a short period of work as a 
preacher, was called to the Gymnasium of Ulm to teach 
Greek, German, Hebrew, and Religion. For two years he 
filled the vacant professorship of Semitic languages at the 
University of Tiibingen, but, not being appointed to the chair, 
he returned to Ulm. From there he moved to the Seminary 
at Maulbronn, which offered better opportunities for combined 
philological and theological studies. 

Dr. Nestle’s principal works are :—Dée ¢sraelitischen Eugen- 
namen nach threr religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung (Proper 
Names in Israel: their significance for the history of religion), 
the Prize Essay of the Leiden Tyler Society, 1876. An earlier 
Prize Essay at Tiibingen on the Septuagint and Massorah 
of Ezekiel was also successful, but was not published. 

Psalterium Tetraglottum (Graece, Syriace, Chaldaice, Latine), 
1879. Sixth and Seventh Editions of Tischendorf’s Septuagint 
(with new collation of Codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alex- 
andrinus) 1880, 1887. 

Septuagintastudien, iii, 1886, 1896, 1898. 





EDITOR’S PREFACE. Vii 


Syriac Grammar (Latin, 1881; German, 1888; English, 
1889). 

Novi Testamenti Graect Supplementum, 1896 (Collation of 
Codex Bezae: Apocryphal Gospels). 

Philologica Sacra, 1896. 

Minor publications collected in J/. arginalien und Materiatien, 
1893. 

Edition of the Greek New Testament for the Stuttgart 
Bible Society, 1898, of which a third edition is now in pre- 
paration. 

Numerous contributions to theological and literary Journals 
(Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie, Studien una Kvritiken, 
Theologische Literaturzeitung, Literarisches Centralblatt) and to 
Herzog-Hauck, Encyklopidie fiir Protestantische Theologie. 

The Introduction now brought before the English public 
in Mr. Edie’s translation is thus the work of one who is, and 
has long been, actively engaged in the studies belonging to 
several parts of the great subject of the text of the New 
Testament, and who possesses an exact and practised know- 
ledge of the words of the sacred books of Christianity. The 
present manual accordingly shows the instruments of criticism 
in actual operation in the hands of a master. It was meant 
originally for the Goschen-Sammlung, a collection of small 
manuals for the general public, and arose out of the wish of the 
author to tell his pupils with whom he read the Greek Testa- 
ment, as well as others, more about the history of the New 
Testament text than was at the time generally accessible. 
The handbook was brought out by the theological publishers 
Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, literary references being then 
added to fit it for use by students of theology. It met with 
a warm welcome from such readers, and the second edition 


Vili EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


was largely recast so as to meet still further the purposes. 
of students. The long experience of Professor Nestle as a 
teacher of younger pupils has no doubt enabled him to pre- 
sent the subject so clearly that his book may find favour 
in the eyes of the general reader, and commend itself to all 
who care for the New Testament. 

The absence of theological bias will not be thought by 
any wise judge a disadvantage in a work of this character. 
It will be observed that Professor Nestle does not regard 
the texts recently formed by great scholars as constituting, 
either singly or jointly, a Zexrtus Receptus in view of which 
textual enquiry may now desist from its labours, but that 
he believes that much is still to be learned about the text 
both of the Gospels and of the other books of the New 
Testament. 

This translation, as the title-page indicates, has been made 
from the second, enlarged, edition, and the author has kindly 
furnished various corrections and additions, bringing the 
book in its English form up to date. Some additional 
references to English books and periodicals have been 


inserted by the translator. 
ALM. 





GON DENTS: 


CHAPTER I. 


PAGES 


History of the Printed Text since 1514,_.. : . 1-27 


Complutensian Polyglot — Aldus — Erasmus — Collections of 
editions—Literature—First critical edition: Colinaeus— 
Stephen—Verse division—Beza—Polyglots: Antwerp: 
Paris: London—Elzevir—7extus Receptus—Critical at- 
tempts : Caryophilus : Courcelles: Saubert : Simon—Mill 
—Toinard—Bentley—Gerhard von Maestricht—Bengel— 
Wettstein— Griesbach— Matthaei— Birch— Moldenhauer 
—Adler—Scholz— Lachmann— Tischendorf—Tregelles— 
Westcott and Hort: their types of text—Weymouth—B. 
Weiss —von Gebhardt — Stuttgart New Testament — 
Schjett—Baljon—Catholic editions: Gratz—van Ess— 
Gehringer — Patricius — Jaumann — Reithmayer — Hetze- 
nauer—Brandscheid—A pocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. 


CHAPTER II. 


Materials of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa- 
ment, . ; ; : : : . : ; 28-155 


Autographs—Manuscripts—Versions—Quotations—N umber of 
Manuscripts—Uncial and Cursive Script—Age— Material 
—Scriptiocontinua—Accentuation—Stichometry—Palimp- 
sests — Punctuation — Size — Contents — Lectionaries — 
Parchment— Ink— Papyrus— Paper— Pen— Manuscripts 


x CONTENTS. 

PAGES 
de luxe—Illustration—Uncials: of the whole New Testa- 
ment: of the Gospels: of the Acts and Catholic Epistles : 
of the Pauline Epistles: of the Apocalypse—Muinus- 
cules —Ferrar Group —Lectionaries —Versions : Syriac : 
Peshitto : Curetonian: Lewis: Tatian: Philoxenian : Hark- 
lean: Gwynn: Jerusalem: Literature of Syriac Versions 
—Latin Versions : Old Latin manuscripts: Fathers: The 
Vulgate: Jerome: Alcuin: Theodulf: Harding: Correc- 
toria Bibliorum: Mazarin Bible: Sixtine and Clementine 
Vulgate—Egyptian Versions: Bohairic: Sahidic : Middle 
Egyptian — Gothic— Ethiopic — Armenian — Georgian — 
Arabic—Patristic Quotations. 


CHAPTER III. 


Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the 
New Testament, : y . ; ; ; 156-246 


Task and method—Internal criticism—Conjecture—Eclectic 
method — Genealogical method — External testimony 
—Lucian: his relation to the Peshitto— Hesychius : 
Codex B—Eusebius: Pamphilus: Origen: Euthalius : 
Evagrius: Athos manuscript — Later revisers — Pre- 
Origenic texts—Heretics : Artemonites, Marcosians, Basil- 
ides, Noetus, Valentinians, Gnostics, Marcionites, Arians— 
Marcion : his relation to the Western text—Tatian : ques- 
tion as to a Greek Harmony: his relation to the Western 
text—The Western text: theory of Blass: the Lucan writ- 
ings in Codex Bezae: conclusion of Luke’s Gospel: the 
Apostolic Decree—Rules of Textual criticism: sources of 
error: illegibility : homoioteleuton : transposition of letters 
and words: itacism: substitution of synonymous terms : 
additions: conscious alterations: stylistic, liturgic, and 
dogmatic changes : critical canons: proper names: textus 
brevior—Conclusion. 


CONTENTS. xi 


Critical Notes on Various Passages of the New ig 
Testament, . ; : ; ; : : : 247-335 
Appendix I. List of Greek and Latin Writers, . - 336 
Appendix II. List of Passages referring to dyr- 
ypada, . : : : ; : ‘ : . 340 
Index of Subjects, . : : ‘ ; : fath@ae 


Index of New Testament Passages referred to, . » | Va50: 





ae ; ae _ Pe 






ee Syise * oe 


ae | 


ie) 
~~ 


‘omy bby, 
Peake) 
- 


. 


i» 
a jets 


tT ¥ 
A 
a 7 
@ 
» Ss : 
’ 7 , H 
: , = 
ca eb : 
oe ee ? - 
<p . é A [ 
te! nae - Rae as 
rn = > Ps ==) j oad uh ,s = 
Lp - a = a. te —s. rs ais : 1 ' 7 7 
, ene ae - £ ‘eb ae _ on 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


The symbols used to indicate the various manuscripts and versions 
will be found in the chapter on Materials. The student will compare 
the Notes in Tischendorf’s Zito octava minor and the Index in the 
Octava maior, vol. iii. The following contractions are employed in 
the course of this work :— 


GGA. = Gédttinger gelehrte Anzeigen. 

GK. = Zahn’s Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons. See 
ps 590rn, 2: 

LC. = Literarisches Centralblatt. 

PRE. = Protestantische Real-Encyklopaddie. See p. 7. 

ThLbl. = Theologisches Literaturblatt. 

ThLz. = Theologische Literaturzeitung. 

ThStKr. = Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 

TiGr. = Tischendorf’s V.Z7. Graece, editio octava mator, vol. iil. 
see p. 6. 

rU. = Texte und Untersuchungen. 

Ort. = Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. See p. 6f. 

W-H. = Westcott and Hort. See p. 21. 

W-W. = Wordsworth and White. See pp. 123, 131. 

ZdmG. = Zeitschrift der morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. 


ZfdPhil. = Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie. 
ZfwTh. = Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie. 





ADDENDA. 





Page 6. To the Literature add: Ritiegg, Die neutestamentliche 
_ Texthritik seit Lachmann, Zurich, 1892. 
| age 74. Two fragments of N.T. text have been published by 
) Grenfell and Hunt in Zhe Amherst Papyri, Part I.: The Ascension 
g of Isaiah and other theological fragments (London, 1900). The first 
} consists of Hebrews 1. 1, written, along with Genesis i. 1, in a small 
} uncial hand of the late third, or more probably early fourth, century at 
the top of a papyrus leaf containing a letter from Rome. The verse 
_ from the N.T. exhibits the reading tots zatpaow jpov, which is not 
} found in any of the manuscripts. The other fragment consists of 
Acts ii. 11-22 with lacunae, written on vellum and dating apparently 
_ from about the fifth or sixth century. It contains a few singular 
readings such as: (verse 12) mpos t Ov GAXov ; (13) éxAevalov A€yovres, 
which is practically the reading of D, the only difference being that 
D has the compound verb d:exAevaLov ; (14) yrworov tpiv, apparently ; 
(17) pera tadra with B instead of év rats éoxaras Hpepacs, and also, 
apparently, év’mma with the fextus recepfus; (20) zpw 7 with the 
textus receptus ; (21) ds dy with the fextus receptus. 


Page 91. Add: J. R. Harris, Further Researches into the History 
of the Ferrar Group, 1900. 


Page 106 (5). Add: Hilgenfeld, Zhomas von Heraklea und die 
Apostelgeschichte, in the ZfwTh., 1900, 3. 


Page 137. Add: Forbes Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, in 
Texts and Studies, iv. 2, 1896. 


Page 139. To Kauffmann’s Beitrage must now be added: v. Der 
codex Brixianus (ZfdPhil. xxxii. pp. 395-335). In this important 





XVi ADDENDA. 


contribution Kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by Burkitt 
in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. pp. 129-134, that Wordsworth 
and White were mistaken in regarding the text of codex Brixianus (f) 
as a recension of the Old Latin closely allied to Jerome’s revision. 
Burkitt holds that the text of Brixianus was corrected from the 
Vulgate, and afterwards altered in conformity with the Gothic. The 
only difference between Burkitt and Kauffmann is that the latter 
believes that the text of Brixianus was derived from an earlier Latin 
manuscript which had been altered in conformity with the Gothic, 
and that it was afterwards assimilated to the Vulgate. This view 
must also be noted in connection with the Old Latin codex gue (see 
p. 118). For an example of the connection between ee and 
the Gothic see the note to p. 289, below. 


Page 162. Add: (9) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, in cod. min. go. 


Page 289. John vii. 15. For “Iovdator f here reads ¢ur+bae, which is 
interesting as agreeing with the Gothic, which has mazageius. Com- 
pare the view of Burkitt and Kauffmann in the note to p. 139 above. 
The variant is not mentioned in Tischendorf. 


INTRODUCTION 


TO THE 


TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. 


G€HAPTER I. 
HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 


IT is not quite creditable to Christian scholarship at the close 
of the Middle Ages that not a single printed edition of the 
Greek New Testament appeared during the course of the 
fifteenth century. The Jews printed their Hebrew Psalter 
as early as 1477, and the entire Hebrew Bible in 1488. 

I. The honour of producing the first edition belongs to the Editio prin- 
Spanish Cardinal Francis XIMENES de Cisneros (1437-1517). Gompittere 
It was included in the so-called Complutensian Polyglot, which sian Polyglot. 
takes its name from Complutum (now Alcala de Henares), 
where it was printed. The plan of the work was conceived as 
early as 1502, in celebration of the birth of the future Emperor 
Charles V. The scholar who had the principal part in it was 
James Lopez de Stunica. The printing of the New Testament 
was completed on the roth January 1514, and of the remaining 
five volumes, comprising the Old Testament with Grammar 
and Lexicon, on the 1oth July 1517. On the 8th November 
of the same year the Cardinal died. It was not, however, till 





2 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ CHAP, 1e 


the 22nd March 1520 that Pope Leo X. sanctioned the publi- 
cation of the work, the two Vatican manuscripts of the Greek 
Old Testament, which had been borrowed in the first year of | 
Leo’s papacy, having been returned on the oth July 1519." 
On the 5th December 1521, the presentation copy designed | 
for the Pope, printed on parchment and bound in red velvet, 
was placed in the Vatican Library. No copies seem to have 
reached Germany through the trade till the year 1522. Only 
600 copies were printed, which were sold at 6} ducats per 
copy—about 43 of our present English money. The Cardinal, 
who enjoyed the income of a king but was content to live like. 
a monk, expended over 50,000 ducats on the undertaking. At 
the present time, copies of the Complutensian Polyglot, 
especially those printed on parchment, are counted among the 
rarest treasures of libraries. The Old Testament is printed in 
three columns, the Latin text of the Bible used in the Church 
of the Middle Ages standing between the original Hebrew 
text of the Synagogue and the Alexandrian Greek version, 
“like Jesus between the two thieves.” The New Testament 
has only two columns, that on the left containing the Greek 
text, that on the right the Latin version. For the sake of | 
those learning Greek the corresponding words in each are: 
indicated. The type is modelled on the characters found in 
good manuscripts. Of accents, the acute alone is used to. 
mark the tone syllable. | 


LITERATURE.—Scrivener, Jztroduction, ii. c. 7; Hoskier (see be- 
low, p. 5); Frz. Delitzsch, Studien sur Entstehungsgeschichte der Poly- 
glottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes, Leipzig, 1871; Fortgesetzte Studien, 
1886; Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 64. A facsimile of 
the title-page and colophon will be found in Schaff’s Companion to 
the Greek Testament and the English Version. ‘The decree of Pope 
Leo X. is printed in the Greek and Latin Testament of Van Ess, 
Tubingen, 1827. 


Previous to Ximenes, however, the famous Venetian printer 
Aldus Manutius had conceived the idea of such a Polyglot. 


1 They were reinserted in the library on the 23rd August. 


CHAP. I.]} THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 3 


In the Preface to his undated Greek Psalter (cérca 1497), a 
triglot Bible was promised. Of this he was reminded from 
London by Grocyn on the 6th October 1499. On the gth 
July 1501 he wrote about it to the German humanist Conrad 
Celtes, to whom he sent the first specimen page on the 3rd 
September of the same year. (Facsimile in Renouard, Z’/m- 
primerte des Aldes**.) 

Still earlier, the Magnificat and the Benedictus! had been 
printed among the hymns at the end of the Greek Psalter 
(Milan, 1481; Venice, 1486). These were the first portions of 
the Greek New Testament to be printed, while the first printed 
in Germany appeared at Erfurt in 1501-2. The first edition 
of the Greek New Testament for sale was Erasmus’s edition 
of 1510. 


LITERATURE.—On Aldus, see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i. 2; 
mir On Aldus’ s well-known device, the anchor and dolphin, see 
Léon Dorez, Etudes Aldines, Revue des bibliotheques, vi. (1896), 
part 5-6, p. 143 ff.; part 7-9; also J. R. Harris, Zhe Homeric Cen- 
tones, London, 1898, p. 24. The device is emblematic of the favour- 
ite motto of Augustus and Titus, dei o7etde Bpadéws, Semper festina 
lente. 


2. Froben, the printer of Basel, was anxious to forestall the a 

costly edition of the Spanish Cardinal, and with this object ee 

appealed on the 15th March 1515 to the famous humanist 

Desiderius ERASMUS (1467-1536), then in England. His 

edition appeared as early as the tst March 1516, and was 

dedicated on the Ist February to Pope Leo. The printing 

was begun in the previous September, and was partly super- 

intended by Zwingli’s friend, John Oecolampadius of Weins- 

berg. Erasmus himself confessed afterwards that his New 

Testament was “pracipitatum verius quam editum,” though 

he boasted that he had employed in its preparation not any 

sort of manuscripts, but the oldest and most correct copies.” 

As early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apoca- 
1 Mary’s Hymn, Luke i. 46-55 ; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-70. 


3 


2 ‘© Nec eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis.” 
> 


4 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Ie 


lypse Erasmus must have used only one manuscript, and that 
partly mutilated, so that he was unable to read it correctly 
and was obliged to supply its lacune by means of a retrans- 
lation from the Latin into Greek. And this conclusion was 
confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very manuscript 
by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at 
Mayhingen." 

In a parallel column Erasmus gave a translation of the 
Greek into elegant Latin. The Emperor protected the edition 
for four years by copyright, but as early as February 1518 it 
was reprinted by Aldus Manutius in his Greek Bible. It was 
sanctioned by the Pope on the roth September 1518. Four 
successive editions were afterwards prepared by Erasmus: the 
second in 1519, the third in 1522, the fourth (improved) in 
1527, and the fifth in 1535. 

In his third edition, Erasmus for the first time incorporated 
the well-known “comma Johanneum,” the passage about the 
Three Witnesses (1 John v.7). He did so on the evidence of 
a manuscript now in Dublin (Montfortianus, 61), in which the 


1 At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens and even 
hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London. To 
this day the word aka@dprytos is printed in their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though 
there is no such word in the Greek language as dxa@dprys, meaning uncleanness. In 
the concluding verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus 
from his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future ddaiphoe: for a@ere?t. We find 
also constructions like ot« @o71, xalmep éotty, inc. xvii. 8, where, however, the 
accentuation éorfy makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not 
commit, seeing that he at least printed @ormw. Every college lad knows that 
kalrep is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will 
see just at once that kal mdpeors is the correct reading. [Cf Mark xv. 6, where 
the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between dy rapyrodyro and byrep Hrovvto (ON- 
TMIAPHTOYTNTO.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has adopted the 
reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is unsupported by any known MS. 
are to be found, e.g, in I Pet. ii. 6 (Kal wepséxes) and in 2 Cor. i. 6, Luther, 
who used Erasmus’s second edition of 1519, followed him in saying of the Beast, 
‘that is not although it is.” This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the 
year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first impression of the Re- 
vised Version of Luther’s Bible issued by the Conference of German Evangelical 
Churches, and only removed in their last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc. 
xvii. 8 was copied into the English Authorised Version of 1611 (‘is not and yet. 
is”) but was corrected by the Revisers of 1884 (‘‘is not and shall come”). 





CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 5 


passage had probably been inserted from the Vulgate by the 
English Franciscan monk Roy. From the Vulgate it had 
already been received, in a slightly different form, into the 
Complutensian Polyglot. Luther himself purposely omitted 
it from his version. The first edition of his translation to 
contain it was that printed at Frankfurt by Feyerabend in 
1576. It was not inserted in the Wittenberg editions till 
1596. After 1534 no Greek edition appeared without it for 
the space of 200 years. 


LITERATURE.—Scrivener, vol. ii. p. 182 ff. ; Frz. Delitzsch, Hand- 
schriftliche Funde, i., Leipzig, 1861 ; H. C. Hoskier, 4 full Account 
and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 
together with ten Appendices containing ....(B).. . . the various 
readings by the five editions of Erasmus, 1516, 1519, 1522,1527, 1535. 
.... (F) Report of a Visit to the Public Library at Bale, with fac- 
simile of Erasmus’s second MS. Evan. 2, ... . London, 1890. On 
Erasmus’s supplementary matter, the New Version, Annotationes, 
Paraclesis ad lectorem, Methodus and Apologia, as also on the 
entire practical and reforming aim of his N.T., see R. Stihelin 
in the Protestantische Real-Encyvklopidie, third edition, v. 438. 
Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 126 ff. 


3. The number of editions of the Greek New Testament Collections 
which have been brought out since the time of Ximenes is % “Ts 
about 1000. No library in the world contains them all. In 
the last century the Danish Pastor Lorck possessed perhaps 
the largest private collection of Bibles. This was purchased by 
Duke Charles of Wiirttemberg, and has found a place in the 
Royal Public Library at Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it is not 
possible to supplement or enlarge it in the way that it deserves. 

The largest collection of the present century is that of the 
late Prof. Ed. Reuss of Strassburg. In his descriptive cata- 
logue he established the genealogy of the separate editions by 
a collation of the readings in 1000 selected passages. Several 
editions he was unable to obtain: some he was obliged to 
regard as of doubtful existence: others, again, mistakenly 
quoted by previous collectors, he was able to discard once for 


6 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. 


all. His labours form the basis of those further researches 
prosecuted with much ardour chiefly in England and America: 
in the latter by the German-Swiss scholar Philip Schaff (d. 
2oth Oct. 1893), and his American friend I. H. Hall (d. 1896), 
in England by F. H. A. Scrivener (d. 26th Oct. 1891), and 
in Germany by the American C. R. Gregory. Mention can 
be made of only a few of these printed editions. 


LITERATURE.—Ed. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novt Testamenti Graect, 
cuius editiones ab initio typographiae ad nostram aetatem impressas 
guotquot reperiri potuerunt collegit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentora- 
tensis, Brunsvigae, 1872. Tischendorf, ovum Testamentum Graece 
ad antiguissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum apposutt 
Constantinus de Tischendorf, Lipsiae (Hinrichs), vol. i. 1869 ; vol. 11. 
1872; vol. iii, Prolegomena scripsit Caspar Renatus Gregory additts 
curis Ezrae Abbot, 1894, 8vo. (vol. iii. cited in the following part 
of this work under the symbol Z/Gy.). F. H. A. Scrivener, 
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 
Fourth edition, edited by Ed. Miller, 2 vols, London, 1894. P. 
Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version. 
Fourth edition revised, New York, Harper, 1892. Schaff’s Com- 
panion gives, in an Appendix, Reuss’s list of printed editions of 
the Greek N.T., with additions bringing it down to 1887, by 
I. H. Hall. It also contains an interesting set of facsimile illustra- 
tions of twenty-one standard editions of the Greek N.T., showing 
in each case the titleppage and a page of the print. I. H. Hall, 
A Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament, as published 
in America, Philadelphia, 1883. Also, by the same author, Some 
Remarkable Greek New Testaments, in the Journal of the Society 
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Dec. 1886, 40-63. S. P. 
Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament 
with remarks on its revision and a collation of the critical texts with 
that in common use, 1854. Copinger, Zhe Bible and its Transmission, 
being an historical and bibliographical view of the Hebrew and Greek 
Texts, and the Greek, Latin, and other Versions of the Bible (both 
manuscript and printed) prior to the Reformation. With 28 facsimiles. 
London, Sotheran, 1897, large 8vo. H. J. Holtzmann, Linlettung 
in das Neue Testament (Allgemetner Teil, Geschichte des Textes), ¥rei- 
burg, 1886. Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel in tibersichtlicher 


CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 7 


Darstellung, a reprint of the article ‘ Bibeltext und Bibeliibersetz- 
ungen,” in the third edition of the Real-Encyklopadie fir protes- 
tantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1897, pp. 15-61 
(Tischendorf), O. v. Gebhardt, “ Bibeltext des Neuen Testamentes,” 
PRE, ii. 728-773 (cited hereafter as Ur7.). C. R. Gregory, Zexthritik 
des Neuen Testamentes, vol. i. Leipzig, 1900. Vol. ii. in the press. 





4. The first to prepare a really critical edition of the Greek First critical 

New Testament, ze. one based on a collation of manuscripts, “!“°™ 
was Simon de Colines (COLINAEUS), the father-in-law of the 
Parisian printer Robert Stephen (Estienne). In his edition,' 
_ which appeared in 1534, he adopted for the first time a number 
of readings that are now generally accepted, though naturally 
he did not succeed in gaining credit for them. Up till the 
time of Mill and Bengel the publishers and their more or less 
uncritical coadjutors simply reprinted the text of Ximenes 
and Erasmus, mostly the latter, with trifling variations. 

Among the innovations introduced by these editors was the 
choice of a more convenient form. The first editions were all 
in folio. Butin 1521, Anselm, then in Hagenau but previously 
in Tiibingen, reduced the size to quarto; in 1524 Cephaleus 
in Strassburg still further to octavo ; while Valder printed the 
first miniature edition in Basel in 1536. The smallest edition 
printed previous to this century is that of Jannon, 1628 
(Sedan) ; the smallest of this century is that of Pickering, 1828 
(London). 

But a much more important feature was the collation of 
fresh manuscripts. The credit of being pioneer in this respect 
rests with the Parisian Typographer-Royal, Robert STEPHEN Stephen 
(1503-1559). He was assisted by his son Henry Stephen 
(1528-1598), particularly in the preparation of his third edition 
of 1550, the Eaitio Regia, which takes its name from the 
inscription on its title-page in honour of Henry II., BaowAeé 7’ 
aya0e, kpatepo 7 aixunrn.! The first edition, called O mrz- 
ficam, from the opening words of its preface, appeared in 1546. 

The Editio Regia was the first to contain a critical apparatus 


1 Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion. 





Verse division. 


Chapters. 


8 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. L@ 





f 


in which fifteen manuscripts indicated by the Greek letters — 


§—t were collated with the text of the Complutensian which 


was designated a. All the manuscripts employed were of © 


late date, with two exceptions, viz., the Codex Bezae, of which 
we shall have a good deal to say in the sequel, and a Parisian 
MS. of the eighth century, now known as L, 

An important innovation of another sort is due to the same 
Robert Stephen, who printed at Geneva in the following year 
(1551) a fourth edition containing the Greek text with the 
Latin version of Erasmus on the outer side and the Vulgate 
on the inner. With a view to carrying out this arrangement 
conveniently, he divided the text into separate verses or very 
small sections, which he numbered on the margin. In this 
way he introduced into the New Testament not only a con- 
venient verse-enumeration—there are 7959 verses in all—but 
also the unfortunate practice of printing the text in separate 
verses. Mill in 1707, and notably Bengel in 1734, were the 
first to revert to the practice of printing the text in paragraphs 
divided according to the sense while retaining the enumeration 
of the verses in the margin. The customary division of the 
New Testament books into chapters is much earlier, having 
been first invented in Paris for the Latin Bible by Stephen 
Langton (died Archbishop of Canterbury in 1228), and at 
once adopted in the earliest printed editions of the Vulgate. 
It was employed in the Complutensian Polyglot with a sub- 
division of the various chapters into A B C etc. 


LITERATURE.— LVov. Test. textus Stephaniti A.D. 1550, ed. Scrivener, 
Camb., 1859, 1871 etc. Hoskier (as above). ... (B) A Reprint 
with corrections of Scrivener’s list of differences between the editions of 
Stephen 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565 and the Complutensian, 
together with fresh evidence ... . by the other editions of Stephen of 
1546, 1549, 1551... . Ezra Abbot, De Versibus, in 7iGr. 167-182. 
I. H. Hall, Modern Chapters and Verses, in Schaff's Religious Ency- 
clopedia, i. 433. Journal of the Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exeg., 1883, 
60; 1891, 65. 


1 Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion. 


CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 9 


It is frequently stated that copies exist of Stephen’s edition of 
1551 (the first to contain the verse enumeration) bearing on the title- 
page the date MDXLI. In the two I examined belonging to the col- 
lections of Lorck and Reuss, the two halves of the number MD and 
LI are far apart. In the case of the Lorck copy it is possible to 
suppose that a letter has been erased from the middle, but not in 
the Reuss copy. In his Preface, Stephen says: ‘‘Quod autem per 
quosdam ut vocant versiculos opus distinximus, id, vetustissima 
Graeca Latinaque ipsius Novi Testamenti exemplaria secuti, fecimus : 
eo autem libentius ea sumus imitati, quod hac ratione utraque trans- 
latio posset omnino eregione Graeco contextui respondere.” As 
Ezra Abbot pointed out, Stephen gave a double number }% to the 
verse Twes O€.... mpds pé in Acts xxiv. <A similar double 
enumeration occurs in the previous chapter, where the verse Tpawas 
...+. xaipevw is numbered 33. Accordingly, Abbot’s supposition 
becomes pretty certain, that the verse division was originally made 
for a Latin copy which, at the passage in Acts xxiv., contained the 
additional sentence: Et apprehenderunt me clamantes et dicentes, 
Tolle inimicum nostrum. And in chapter xxiii. several Latin 
editions show an extra sentence at the place marked with the double 
number: et ipse postea calumniam sustineret tanquam accepturus 
pecuniam. But what edition it was from which Stephen took the 
enumeration into his Greek copy is not yet known. Unfortunately, as 
Abbot shows (Zc. 173-182), later editions frequently deviated from 
Stephen’s enumeration. Even Oscar v. Gebhardt, in his editions 
of Tischendorf’s text, followed in eight instances a different verse 
division from that recommended by Gregory in his Emendanda 
(p. 1251 ff.). 

Several mistakes in numbering crept into the Stuttgart edition of 
the N.T., but the division and enumeration have been carefully 
compared with that of the Reuss copy for the second edition. 
There are differences in verse-division even in the reprint of Westcott 
and Hort’s Greek Testament (Macmillan fount, 1895), Heb. xii. 22, 
23: in Swete’s Gospel of St. Mark (Mk. ii. 18, 19), and in Cronin’s 
edition of Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (Lk. iii. 23, 24, 1x. 7, 8.) 

The Textus Receptus is usually indicated by the Greek letter ¢, the 
initial of Stephen’s name. 


Following Stephen, the French theologian Theodore de 
Béze (BEZA 1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin 


Beza. 


Polyglots. 
1. Antwerp. 


fe) GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. 


in Geneva, prepared, between 1565 and 1611, four folio and 
six octavo editions, which are noteworthy as forming, with 
the last two editions of Stephen, the basis of the English 
Authorised Version. Beza was the owner of two valuable 
Greek-Latin manuscripts of the Gospels with the Acts and 
Pauline Epistles, one of which, the now so famous Codex 
Bezae, he presented to the University of Cambridge in 1581. 
He himself, however, made little use of these in his editions, as 
they deviated too far from the printed texts of the time. 
Beza seems also, in the preparation of his Geneva edition, to 
have been the first to collate the oriental versions. For this 
purpose he employed the Syriac edition of Emmanuel 
Tremellius (1569), and for Acts and 1 and 2 Corinthians the 
Arabic version put at his disposal by Franciscus Junius. 


LITERATURE.—Scrivener, ii. 188 ff ; Hoskier (as above) : the various 
readings... . by the remaining three Bezan editions in folio of 1582, 
1588-9, 1598, and the 8vo. editions of 1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604. 


5. The credit of presenting these oriental versions in a con- 
venient combination for the interpretation of the Bible belongs 
to the so-called Antwerp Polyglot, the Biblia Regia, printed in 
eight folio volumes between 1569 and 1572 by Christopher 
Plantin, a French printer residing in Antwerp. In this work 
the Greek New Testament is printed twice, first in vol. v., 
alongside the Vulgate and the Syriac text with its Latin 
translation, and again in vol. vi. with the interlinear version 
of Arias Montanus. Plantin was aided in this enterprise by a 
grant of 12,000 ducats from King Philip II. It was carried 
out under the supervision of the Spanish theologian Benedict 
Arias, called Montanus from his birth-place Frexenal de la 
Sierra. 


“‘ Labore et Constantia” was the motto of this celebrated family of 
printers, who continued to carry on their trade on the same premises 
till August 1867. Nine years later the house was sold to the city 
and converted into the ‘‘ Musée Plantin.” 


1 Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in Schaff’s Companzon. 








CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. II 


Of the Antwerp Polyglot 960 ordinary copies were printed, 200 
of a better quality, 30 fine, ro superfine, and 13 on parchment, for 
which last 16,263 skins were used. One of these Montaigne saw 
and admired in the Vatican Library ; another, the copy dedicated 
to the Archduke Alba, is in the possession of the British Museum. 
The undertaking was the glory of Plantin’s life, but it was also the 
beginning of his financial difficulties. Copies were sold to book- 
sellers at 60 gulden each, and to the public at 70 gulden (about 46 
and £7). Ordinary copies now fetch from £6 to £7 or £8. At 
the sale of the Ashburnham Collection in 1897 a parchment copy 
realised £79. The supplements, including lexical and other matter, 
are still valuable to a certain extent. But here the collector must 
note that certain parts have been reprinted. 

On the Polyglots, see: Déscours historique sur les principales editions 
des Bibies Polyglottes. Par PAuteur de la Bibliotheque Sacrée, 
Paris, 1713; especially pp. 301-554, ‘‘ Pieces justificatives du dis- 
cours précédent.” Also, Ed. Reuss, Polyglottenbibein, PRE*, xii. 
95-103 (1883). Max Rooses, Christophe Plantin, Imprimeur 
Anversois, Antwerp, 1884. Fol. 100 plates. Also Correspondance 
de Plantin, edited by Rooses. 2 vols. 1886. L. Degeorge, Za 
Maison Plantin a Anvers. 3rd ed. Paris, 1886. R. Lorck, Das 
Plantin-Haus in Antwerpen. Vom Fels zum Meer, 1888-9, ix. 
328-346. On the double imprint see Rooses, p. 123; A. Rahlfs 
in Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca, p. 19. On Plantin’s connection 
with the Familists see PRE, v. 751-755. 


A still more extensive undertaking than the Antwerp 
Polyglot is that brought out in Paris by the advocate Guy 


| Michel LE Jay. This Paristan Polyglot extends to ten folio 
| volumes of the largest size, furnished externally in the most 


sumptuous manner. Le Jay expended his whole fortune on 
the edition, and was obliged at last to sell it as waste paper, 


| being too proud to accept the offer of Cardinal Richelieu, who 
| wished to purchase the patronage of the enterprise for a large 
| sum and thereby acquire the credit of it. The scholars who 
| gave most assistance in the preparation of the oriental texts 


were Jean Morin and the Maronite Gabriel Sionita, the latter 
of whom superintended the Syriac portion. The two volumes 
of the New Testament, viz. vol. v. 1, comprising the Gospels, 


2. Parisian. 


I2 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. 

and vol. v. 2, the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, appeared in ‘I 
1630 and 1633. In addition to the texts printed in the — 
Antwerp Polyglot, the Parisian contained a Syriac version of 
the so-called Antilegomena, ze. those parts of the New 
Testament at one time disputed (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 
and Apocalypse), and it had also an Arabic version, each 
one being accompanied with a Latin translation. 

3. London. Less sumptuous, but more copious, convenient, and criti- 
cally valuable, is the last, and at the present day still most 
used of the four great Polyglots—the London Polyglot of Brian 
WALTON (1600-1661). It contains in all nine languages. In 
the New Testament (vol. v.) there is the Greek text of 
Stephen with slight alterations, the version of Arias, the 
Vulgate, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and (for the Gospels only) 
Persic versions, each with a literal translation into Latin. The 
sixth volume also contains Walton’s Apparatus, which was 
re-issued at Leipzig in 1777, and again at Cambridge by 
F. Wrangham in two volumes in 1828. It is really a kind 
of Introduction to Biblical Criticism. Finally, in two supple- — 
mentary parts, there is Edmund Castle’s Lexicon Heptaglotton, 
a thesaurus linguae semiticae such as no one since has 
ventured to undertake. 





The London Polyglot first appeared in 1657, under the patronage 
of Cromwell, but after the Restoration it received a new Preface 
from the editor, who was raised to the See of Chester by Charles II. 
In this Preface Cromwell is styled “ Magnus Draco ille.” Accordingly, 
bibliophiles draw a sharp line of distinction between republican 
and loyalist copies. One of the former costs considerably more 
than the latter, the most recent prices running from £22 to £31. 
This is said to have been the first work brought out in England 
by subscription. See Schaff’s “ Companion” for facsimiles of title- 
page and page of text. Todd: Li of Brian Walton with the 
Bishop's Vindication of the London Polyglot Bible. Wondon, 1821. 
2 vols. 


For this Polyglot, in addition to the critical works of 


1 Copies of the Parisian Polyglot now cost about £6. 


CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 13 


previous scholars, the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek 
Bible, sent by Cyril Lucar to Charles I. in 1628, was also 
employed for the first time. Its readings are set at the foot 
of the Greek text and indicated by the letter A. This was 
the origin of the modern custom of indicating manuscripts 
with Roman letters in the apparatus of critical editions not 
only of the New Testament but of other books as well, a 
custom which has generally prevailed since the time of Wett- 
stein. That gift of Cyril Lucar seems really to have awakened 
for the first time a general desire for critical editions. At the 
same time it was Walton’s edition that made Stephen’s text 
of 1550 the “ textus receptus” in England. 


6. On the Continent a similar result was attained by the Evevir. 
enterprising Dutch printers Bonaventura and Abraham 
ELZEVIR of Leyden. What scholars had a hand in their 
edition, if we may speak of scholars at all in this connection, 
is not known. In 1624 the Elzevirs published, in a handy 
form and beautifully printed, an edition the text of which was 
taken mainly from Beza’s octavo edition of 1565. In their 
Preface to a new issue in 1633 they said “textum ergo habes 
nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut 
corruptum damus,” while they professed that even the smallest 
errors—“vel minutissimae mendae”—had been eliminated 
with judgment and care. By means of this catchword they 
actually succeeded in making their text the most widely 
disseminated of all during 200 years. The English Bible 
Society alone have issued not fewer than 351,495 copies of it 
in the 90 years of their existence, and at the present time are 
still printing this text alone. They issued 12,200 copies of it 
in the year 1894. For several centuries, therefore, thousands 
of Christian scholars have contented themselves with a text 
based ultimately on two or three late manuscripts lying at the 
command of the first editors—Stephen, Erasmus, and Ximenes 
—a text, moreover, in which the erroneous readings of 
Erasmus, already referred to, are retained to this day. 


Critical 
attempts. 


14 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. L 


LITERATURE. —Scrivener, ii. 193. Hoskier. . . . (C) a full and 
exact comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633, doubling the 
number of the real variants hitherto known, and exhibiting the support 
given in the one case and tn the other by the subsequent editions of 1641, 
1656, 1662, 1670, avd 1678. On the Elzevirs see G. Berghman, 
Nouvelles Etudes sur la Bibliographie Elzevirienne.  Supplément a 
Pouvrage sur les Elzevier de M. Alphonse Willems, Stockholm, 1897. 
Also, A. de Reume, Recherches historiques, genealogiques et biblio- 
gvaphiques sur les Elsevier, Brussels. Facsimile of the edition of 
1633 in Schaff’s Companion. 


7. Even those who were impelled by a greater spirit of 
research did not yet get back to the oldest attainable sources. 
In Rome, CARYOPHILUS set about preparing a new edition. 
With this view, about the year 1625 he collated twenty-two 
manuscripts with the Antwerp Polyglot—ten for the Gospels, 
eight for the Acts and Epistles, and four for the Apocalypse. 
Among these were the most celebrated manuscript of the 
Vatican Library, the “ Codex Vaticanus” far excellence, and 
another of the same collection, dating from the year 949 
(Tischendorf’s S), one of the oldest manuscripts of the Greek 
New Testament whose date is known with certainty. The 
results of this collator’s labours were printed at Rome in 
1673. But such collations were not then made with that 
exactitude which is the primary condition of works of 
this nature at the present day, though even now it is not 
always observed. In 1658 Stefan de COURCELLES (Curcel- 
laeus, 1586-1659), a native of Geneva, brought out an edition 
which was printed by the Elzevirs, and which is valuable for 
its scholarly Introduction, its careful collection of parallel 
passages, and its fresh collation of manuscripts. In this 
edition the “Comma Johanneum” was included in brackets. 
The editor also expressed the opinion that even conjectural 
readings deserve consideration. Courcelles had further pro- 
jects in view, but these were interrupted by his death. 

In 1672, in Germany, John SAUBERT published a collection 
of various readings in St. Matthew’s Gospel which he had com- 





eILAP.'T.| THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 15 


piled from printed editions, manuscripts, ancient versions, and 
quotations in the Greek and Latin Fathers. 

In 1675 John FELL, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, pub- 
lished anonymously at the Sheldonian Theatre, ze. the Oxford 
University Press, an edition in the preparation of which more 
than too Greek manuscripts were employed. Among the 
ancient versions the Gothic of Ulfilas and the Coptic were 
also made use of. 

About the same time (1689) there appeared anonymously 
at Rotterdam a Histoire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testa- 
ment, by Richard SIMON, a member of the French Congrega- 
tion of the Oratory. Simon is the father of the historical 
method of critical introduction to the New Testament. With 
his work, what might be called the infancy of New Testament 
criticism comes to a close. With Mill’s New Testament 
begins the period of its maturity, especially if Simon’s works 
are taken as belonging to it. Such, at least, was the 
judgment expressed in 1777 by the Gottingen scholar J. D. 
Michaelis. But we would say rather the period of its youth, 
for otherwise we should now have reached the time of its old 
age, and much work still remains to be done. 


8. Encouraged by Bishop Fell, John MILL (1645-1707), 
about 1677, set to work upon an edition which appeared in 
the year of his death The value of Mill’s New Testament 
lies in its extended critical apparatus, and particularly in its 
Prolegomena. An enlarged edition was brought out in 1710 
by Ludolf Kiister of Westphalia (1670-1716), which, however, 
had sucha small sale that it had to be reissued with a new title- 
page at Leipzig in 1723, and again at Amsterdam in 1746. 
_ In Mill’s time the number of various readings in the New 
Testament was estimated at 30,000: a competent estimate 
will now make them more than four or five times as many. 
That is to say, there are almost more variants than words. 

Mention must also be made of Nicolaus TOINARD’S Latin- 


1 Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion, 


Mill, 1707. 


Bentley. 


Bengel. 


16 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP, I. 


Greek Harmony of the Gospels, which appeared at Orleans 
in the same year as Mill’s New Testament, and which was the 
fruit of nearly as many years’ labour. Toinard was the first 
Catholic after Erasmus, and the last previous to Scholz, to 
undertake a critical edition of the New Testament. He was 
also the first editor after Beza to estimate properly the critical 
value of the Vulgate. 

It was Edward Wells who set the example of greater free- 
dom in the adoption into the text of new readings from the 
manuscripts. His famous countryman, the great philologist 
Richard BENTLEY (1662-1742), projected a great critical edi- 
tion of the New Testament, but unfortunately got no further 
than the preparation of materials and the publication of his 
“Proposals” in 1720. He undertook to remove two thousand 
errors from the Pope’s Vulgate, and as many from that of the 
Protestant Pope (Stephen), without using any manuscript under 
900 years old. But as his edition never appeared, his nephew 
had to refund the 2000 guineas prepaid by the subscribers. 

In 1729 MACE published an edition anonymously, in which, 
perhaps, most courage was shown in departing from the 
ordinary text. Thereafter, English work in this department 
was suspended for nearly a century. It was transferred to 
Germany and the Netherlands by the Swabian scholar Ben- 
sel and by Wettstein of Basel. 

LITERATURE.—A. A. Ellis, Bentleti Critica Sacra, Camb., 1862. 
R. C. Jebb, Bentley, London, 1882. ZiGr., 229-240. Wordsworth- 
White, I. pp. xv-xxviii (see below, p. 123). 


g. As early as 1711, G.D.T.M.D., ze. Gerhard de Trajectu 
Mosae (Maestricht) Doctor, a Syndic of Bremen, published 
at Amsterdam an edition prefaced by 43 canons or rules of 
criticism. Thereafter, in 1725, J. A. BENGEL (1687-1752) 
issued his Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci recte cauteque 
adornandt, in which he unfolded a most carefully thought-out 
scheme for a new edition, undertaking to reduce all Gerhard 
von Maestricht’s 43 canons to one comprehensive rule of 








CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 17 


four.words. That was the principle now commonly expressed 
in the shorter but less satisfactory form—/ectio difficilior 
placet. Bengel himself chose a more careful mode of ex- 
pression—froclivi scriptiont praestat ardua. Six years later 
he was able to issue his Motitia Novi Testamenti Graeci recte 
cauteque adornati. It was published in 1734 at Tiibingen by 
Cotta in a handsome quarto.! In the same year a small 
octavo edition appeared at Stuttgart in which he urged the 
duty expressed in the motto, 


Te totum applica ad textum, 
Rem totam applica ad te. 


Of the latter, four editions were afterwards brought out. 
Of the large edition, the Apparatus, pronounced by Hauss- 
leiter to be a “ memorable work of most solid and productive 
learning,” was reprinted separately after his death. Bengel 
was too timid. He was unwilling to admit into the text any 
reading which had not already appeared in some printed 
edition. But he inserted new readings in the margin and 
classified them. Out of 149 readings pronounced by Bengel 
to be genuine, only 20 are not now generally approved. Out 
of 118 whose genuineness appeared to him probable but not 
quite certain, 83 are now accepted. 

But Bengel’s most important contribution to the textual 
criticism of the Greek New Testament consists in the sound 
critical principles which he laid down. He recognised that 
the witnesses must not be counted but weighed, z.e. classified, 
and he was accordingly the first to distinguish two great 
groups or families of manuscripts. His principles were re- 
affirmed by the celebrated philologist Lachmann, the first 
great textual critic of our time, and the advance which the 
latest English critics have made on Tischendorf is really due 
to the fact that they have gone back to Bengel. 


LITERATURE.—Eb. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, ein Bild fiir 





1 Facsimile in Schaff's Companzon. 


Wettstein. * 


Griesbach, 


18 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. 


unsere Tage. (In Marginalien und Materialien: also printed sepa- 
rately, Tiibingen, 1893.) Scrivener, ii, 204. 


For the time, however, Bengel’s rival, John WETTSTEIN 
(1693-1754), outdid him. His treatise on the Various Read- 
ings of the New Testament was published as early as 1713, 
to be followed by his Prolegomena, which appeared anony- 
mously in 1730, and later by his New Testament,’ which was 
issued in two folio volumes in 1751 and 1752. His Apparatus 
is fuller than that of any previous editor, while he also gives 
a detailed account of the various manuscripts, versions, 
and Patristic writers. It was he who introduced the practice, 
already referred to, of indicating the ancient MSS. by Roman 
letters and the later MSS. by Arabic numerals. He too, 
however, still printed the Elzevir text, following Maestricht’s 
edition of 1735. At the foot of the text he placed those 
readings which he himself held to be correct. 

LITERATURE.—Scrivener, Jztroduction, ii. 213; Carl Bertheau, 
PRE’, xvii. 18-24, 1886. 


10. J. J. GRIESBACH (1745-1812) was the first in Germany 
who ventured to print the text of the New Testament in the 


_ form to which his criticism led him. He was the pupil of 


Salomo Semler, who had combined the principles of Bengel 
and Wettstein. These principles were adopted and carried out 
by Griesbach. He enlarged the Apparatus by a more exact 
use of citations from the Fathers, particularly from Origen, 
and of various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian, 
and the Philoxenian. In his classification of the witnesses, 
Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a 


Byzantine Recension. The edition, in four folio volumes, | 


printed by Géschen at Leipzig (1803-1807), is rightly de- 

scribed by Reuss as “editio omnium quae extant specios- 

issima.”2 His text was more or less faithfully followed by 
1 Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion. 


2 Facsimile of the second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in Schaff’s 
Companion. 


CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 19 


_ many later editors like Schott, Knapp, Tittmann, and also by 
Theile. 

Griesbach’s opponent, Christian Friedrich MATTHAEI, a 
Thiiringian (1744-1811), was misled into attributing a too 
great value to a large number of manuscripts in Moscow of 
the third, the Byzantine, class. 

A considerable amount of critical material was collected at 
the expense of the King of Denmark by Andreas Birch 
(afterwards Bishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus), by 
D. G. Moldenhauer, and by Adler. 

A similar service was rendered, though not with sufficient 
care, by J. M. Augustin SCHOLZ, Professor of Catholic 
Theology in Bonn. 





LITERATURE.—On Matthaei see O. v. Gebhardt, Christian Friedrich 
Matthei und seine Sammlung griechischer Handschriften, Leipzig, 1898. 


It was Carl LACHMANN (1793-1851) who first broke with 
the Textus Receptus altogether. He was a master in the 
domain of textual criticism. He distinguished himself first 
in the department of classical and Teutonic philology, but 
came afterwards to render equal service to the textual criti- 
cism of the New Testament. His object was to restore the 
text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient 
Church about the year 380, going on the ground of the oldest 
known Greek and Latin manuscripts, ze. the oldest Eastern 
and Western authorities! He did not claim to go further 
back than that date with any certainty. But it was still open 
to question whether that were not possible, and whether the 
grounds on which Lachmann’s work was based might not be 
still further extended and confirmed. 


11. The task which Lachmann set before him was prose- 
cuted with the most brilliant success in and from Germany by 
| Gottlob (Aenotheus) Friedrich Constantin von TISCHENDORF 
(b. 18th January 1815, d. 7th December 1874). In the course 


1 Facsimile in Schaff’s Companion. 


Matthaei 


Lachmann. 


Tischendoef. 


Tregelles, 


20 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP I. 


of several tours, first in Europe and afterwards in the East, 
from the year 1841 onwards, he discovered and collated a 
number of the most important and ancient manuscripts of 
the Bible. Among these the most notable was the Codex 
Sinaiticus, found by him on Mount Sinai in 1859, and now in 
St. Petersburg, the oldest known manuscript of the present 
day which contains the entire Greek New Testament. On 
the basis of the material collected by himself and others, 
Tischendorf prepared eight different editions between 1841 
and 1872.1 His seventh edition, consisting of 3500 copies, 
appeared in 1859, previous to the discovery of the Sinaiticus. 
The text of this edition differed from that of 1849 in 1296 
instances, of which no fewer than 595 were reversions to the 
Textus Receptus. The text of the last edition, the octava 
critica maior, which was issued complete in eleven parts 
between 1864 and 1872, differed from that of the seventh in 
3572 places. The third volume of the editio octava maior, 
containing the Prolegomena, was completed in three parts, 
extending to 1428 pages, by Caspar René Gregory between 
1884 and 1894, a work which affords the most complete survey 
of what has been done on the Greek New Testament up to 
the present time. 


LITERATURE.—Scrivener, li. 235; Z7iGr7., 1-22; Urt, 49-52. Apart 
from the Editio Octava Maior, the most useful editions will be found 
to be those of O. v. Gebhardt (see below, p. 23), or the Editio Aca- 
demica ad editionem oct. maior. conformata, Leipzig, Mendelssohn, 
16mo, 1855, twentieth edition, 1899. 


While the editions of Tischendorf were appearing on the 
Continent, an edition began to be issued in England, which 
was completed in the course of twenty years. It was the work 
of a Quaker, Samuel Prideaux TREGELLES (b. 1813, d. 1875), 
who, while reaping no profit from his undertaking, has left in 
it a monument to his fidelity. In this edition (1857-1879)? 

1 Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in Schafi’s 


Companion. 
2 Facsimile in Schatf’s Companion. 





CHAP. L.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 21 


those passages in which the editor was unable to pronounce 
a final judgment from the accessible material are indicated by 
the form of the type. 

A still more important advance was made by Brooke Foss Westcott and 
WESTCOTT (b. 1825), now Bishop of Durham, and Fenton 2 
John Anthony Hort (b. 23rd April 1828, d. 30th November 
1892). In 1881, these Cambridge scholars, after nearly thirty 
years of joint labour, published two volumes, the first contain- 
ing the Text with a brief survey of its history and resulting 
criticism, the second giving a detailed exposition of their 
critical principles by Hort himself. They were led by their 
investigation to distinguish four main types of text :— 

(1) A late type, originating in Syria about the year 300, 
which, issuing from Constantinople, became the prevailing 
text in later manuscripts, and corresponds essentially with 
the textus receptus of early printed editions: 

(2) A type originating in Alexandria, characterized by lin- 
guistic emendations: 

(3) A type originating in Syria but reaching the West pre- 
vious to the year 200, represented essentially by the Old Latin 
versions on the one hand and by the Syriac on the other, and 
displaying all sorts of remarkable additions : 

(4) The Neutral text, which displays no sort of corrup- 
tions. 

Westcott and Hort’s work is the latest and most thorough 
| attempt yet made at a complete edition of the New Testament. 

LITERATURE.— Zhe New Testament in the original Greek. The 
text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John 
Anthony Hort, D.D., Cambridge and London. Vol. i. Text 
(Fourth Edition, 1898). Vol. ii, Introduction and Appendix 
(Third Edition, 1896). A smaller edition of the text, 1885. Text, 
from new type, in larger form, 1895. For “Some trifling Correc- 
tions to W.-H.’s New Testament,” see Nestle in the Zxfository 
Times, Vili. 479; ix. 95, 333, 424. See Life and Letters of F. J. A. 
fiort, by his son, A. F. Hort, 2 vols., London, 1896; also article on 
Hort, by Gregory in the PRE®, viii. 368. Facsimile of the American 
Edition with Introduction by Schaff, in Schaff’s Companion. 


Weymouth. 


Weiss. 


Von Geb- 
hardt. 


22 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. 


The “Resultant Greek Testament” of R. F. WEYMOUTH 
affords a convenient comparison of the text of the most im- 
portant editions. 


LITERATURE.—TZ%e Resultant Greek Testament, exhibiting the text 
in which the majority of modern editors are agreed, and containing 
the readings of Stephen (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, 
Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the Bile edition (1880), Westcott 
and Hort, and the Revision Committee. By Richard Francis 
Weymouth. With an Introduction by the Right Rev. the Lord 
Bishop of Worcester. London, 1886. . . . Cheap Edition, 1892, 
pp. xix. 644. Besides the editions mentioned in the title, the 
Complutensian, Elzevir (1633), Scrivener and others are compared 
in several places. 


Quite recently, Bernhard WEISS, of Berlin, began a new 
and independent revision of the text, which has been 
published in three large volumes with introduction and ex- 
planatory notes. 


LITERATURE.—Das Neue Testament. Texthritische Untersuch- 
ungen und Textherstellung von D. Bernhard Weiss. LErster Theil, 
Apostelgeschichte: Katholische Briefe: Apocalypse. Leipzig, 1894. 
Zweiter Theil, Die paulinischen Briefe einschliesslich des Hebraerbriefs, 
1896. Dritter Theil, Die vier Evangelien 1900. Vol. i. is compiled 
from Zexte und Untersuchungen, ix. 3, 43 Vill. 3; vii. 1. The section 
in vol. ii. entitled Zexthkritik der paulinischen Briefe, is taken from 
TU. xiv. 3, and the corresponding section in vol. iii. from ZU. xix. 2 
(New Series, iv. 2). See “B. Weiss and the New Testament,” by 
C. R. Gregory in the American Journal of Theology, 1897, i. 16-37. 


In Germany, O. von GEBHARDT has done good service 
by issuing the text of Tischendorf’s last edition, with the 
necessary corrections, and giving in the margin the readings 
adopted by Tregelles and Westcott-Hort, when these differ 
from the text. In the “editio stereotypa minor,” the differ- 
ences of Westcott-Hort alone are shown. In his Greek- 
German New Testament, he also exhibits at the foot of 
Luther’s German text those readings wherein the text of 
Erasmus’s second edition of 1519, used by Luther, differs 


CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 23 


from that of the last edition of Tischendorf. In this diglot 
of v. Gebhardt, therefore, one can see at a glance not only 
how far the Greek text of the present day differs from that 
printed at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but also 
the amount of agreement between present-day editors work- 
ing on such different principles as Tischendorf and Westcott 
and Hort. In the Adnotatio Critica found in the Appendix 
to the larger edition, there is a brief digest of the critical 
Apparatus, but it extends only to those passages where 
Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort disagree. The editio minor 
contains 600 pages. One of these, p. 501, shows not a single 
disagreement between these great editors, while 18 pages 
exhibit only one variation each, and these, for the most 
part, mere grammatical trifles. 


LITERATURE.—LVovum Testamentum Graece recensionis Tischen- 
dorfianae ultimae textum cum Tregellesiano et Westcottio-Hortiano 
contulit et brevi adnotatione critica additisgue locis parallelis illustravit 
Oscar de Gebhardt. Editio stereotypa. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1881. 
Seventh edition, 1896. 

NV. T. Graece et Germanice. Leipzig, 1881. Fourth edition, 
1896. In this edition the Greek is that of Tischendorf’s last 
edition, and the German is the Revised text of Luther (1870). The 
various readings are shown for both texts, and a selection of parallel 
passages is also given. 

N. T. Graece ex ultima Tischendorfii recensione edidit Oscar de 
Gebhardt. Editio stereotypa minor. Lipsiae, 16mo., 1887. Fourth 
| edition, 1898. 


The text of the Greek and Greek-German New Testa- Stuttgart 
ments prepared by me, and issued by the Wiirttemberg 7 Oyen, 
Bible Institute, is based on a comparison of the three editions 
of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and Weymouth. The varia- 
tions of these editions are shown at the foot of the page, 
| where are given also the readings inserted by Westcott and 
Hort in their Appendix and omitted by O. v. Gebhardt. 

From Acts onwards, the readings adopted by Weiss are 
| indicated as well. In a lower margin, a number of important 





Schjott. 


Baljon. 


24 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. lie 


manuscript readings are given. In the Gospels and Acts, 
these are taken mainly, though not exclusively, from Codex 


Bezae. In the Greek-German edition, the text (German) 


is that of the Revised Version of 1892. Below it are 
given the readings of Luther's last edition (1546), with 
several of his marginal glosses and earlier renderings. 


LITERATURE.—lVovum Testamentum Graece cum apparatu critico 
ex edttionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto. Stuttgart, 1898. 
Second corrected edition, 1899. Also issued in two and in ten 
parts, and interleaved. Third edition in preparation. 


Fr. SCHJOTT published an edition at Copenhagen in 1897 
the text of which was determined by the agreement between the 
Codex Vaticanus (Claromontanus, from Heb. ix. 14 onwards) 
and the Sinaiticus. Where they disagreed he called in the 
next oldest manuscript as umpire. For this purpose he 
employed for the Gospels the manuscripts AC DE FHI? 
KLPQTUVXZTIA, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles 
ACDEH K'L P, forthe’ Paulme’ Epistles A"€ DE Tis 
H L P, and for the Apocalypse A C P 1, 18, 38, 49, 92, 95. 
At the foot of the text his edition gives, in two divisions, a 
comparison with the Elzevir text and with that of Tischendorf- 
Gebhardt (1894). From what source Schjott derived his 
knowledge of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is not men- 
tioned. The photograph of the former seems not to have 
been employed. 


LITERATURE. —Vovum Testamentum Graece ad fidem testium 
vetustissimorum recognovit necnon variantes lectiones ex editionibus 
Elzeviriana et Tischendorfiana subjunxit Fr. Schjott. Hauniae, 1897, 


pp. xi. 562. 


The edition of J. M.S. BALJON is in the main an abridg- 
ment of Tischendorf’s octava maior. He avails himself, how- 
ever, of later discoveries, such as the Sinai-Syriac Palimpsest 
for the Gospels, and the Syriac version published by Gwynn 
for the Apocalypse. In Acts, Blass’s restoration of the so- 
called Forma Romana is regularly indicated. No other edition, 








CHAP. I.]} THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I514. 25 


for one thing, shows more conveniently where recent scholars 
recognise glosses or other interpolations, or propose trans- 
positions or conjectural emendations and such like. So far, 
therefore, it may be commended to those who do not possess 
an edition witha more copious critical apparatus. But even 
Baljon’s New Testament fails to realise the ideal of a 
practical edition. 


LITERATURE.—Vovum Testamentum Graece praesertim in usum 
studtosorum recognovit J. M. S. Baljon, Groningae, 1898, pp. xxiii. 
731. The first 320 pages are also issued separately as Volumen 
primum continens Evangelia Matthaei, Marci, Lucae et Ioannis. 
Vide Bousset in the Theologische Rundschau for July 1898. 


From the Catholic side little has been done in Germany in Catholic 
this department of scholarship for a long time. In 1821 “tons 
Aloys GRATZ reprinted the Complutensian at Tiibingen ; while 
Leander van Ess issued an edition which combined the 
Complutensian and Erasmus’s fifth edition.!. This alsoappeared 
at Tubingen in 1827. Both of these contained the Vulgate, 
and showed where recent editions gave a different text. 

Reuss mentions two Synopses, one by Joseph GEHRINGER 

(Tubingen, 1842, 4°), the other by Fr. X. PATRICIUS (Freiburg, 
1853, 4°), and two small editions, one of which, by A. JAUMANN 
(Munich, 1832), was the first to be printed in Bavaria. The 
other is by Fr. X. REITHMAYER (Munich, 1847), and closely 
follows the text of Lachmann. 

There has also appeared recently at Innsbruck a Greek- 

Latin edition in two volumes by Michael HETZENAUER, a 
Capuchin. The first volume contains the Evangelium and 
the second the Apostolicum. But as the strict Catholic is 
bound by the decision of the Holy Office, Hetzenauer’s 
edition hardly falls to be considered here. A resolution of 


1 Van Ess’s edition was issued with two different title-pages. One of these 
gives the names of the Protestant editors, Matthaei and Griesbach. But the other 
omits the names together with the Notanda on the back of the title-page, so that 
the reader is left in the dark as to the meaning of the symbols Gb, M, etc., in 
the margin. Most copies omit the Introduction, which contains the Pope’s 
sanction of the editions of Erasmus and Ximenes, 


Apocrypha 
and 


Pseud- 
epigrapha. 


26 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. I. 


the Holy Office of 13th January 1897 pronounced even the 
Comma Johanneum (1 John v. 7) to be an integral part of 
the New Testament. This was confirmed by the Pope on 
the 15th January, and published in the JJ/onztore Ecclestastico 
of the 28th February of the same year. An edition in Greek 
and Latin was issued by BRANDSCHEID at Freiburg in 
1893. 

It is impossible to enumerate here editions of separate 
books of the New Testament. Many of these are in the form 
of Commentaries. In addition to the works of Blass, to which 
reference will be made later, mention may be made here of a 
recent and most thorough piece of work—viz., The Gospel 
according to St. Mark: The Greek Text, with Introduction 
and Notes, by Henry Barclay SwWETE, D.D., pp. cx. 412 
(London, Macmillan, 1898); also of Zhe Gospel according to 
St. Luke after the Westcott-Hort text, edited with parallels, 
tllustrations, various readings, and notes, by the Rev. Arthur 
Wright : London, Macmillan, 1900 ; and of Hilgenfeld’s edition 
of the Acts in Greek and Latin. Berlin, 1899. 

Nor can we enter particularly the field of early Christian 
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Those who cannot obtain 
Hilgenfeld’s Vovum Testamentum extra Canonem Receptum, or 
Resch’s Agrapha, or the editions of Tischendorf, Lipsius, 
and Bonnet, will find a handy and inexpensive selection in 
my Swpplement to Gebhardt’s editions of Tischendorf. 

LITERATURE.—WVowi Testamenti Graect Supplementum editionibus 
de Gebhardt-Tischendorfianis adcommodavit Eb. Nestle.  Insunt 
Codicis Cantabrigiensis Collatio, Evangeliorum deperditorum Frag- 
menta, Dicta Salvatoris Agrapha, Alia. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1896, 
pp. 96. 

There can be no question that in these last mentioned 
editions which have been brought out at the end of the 
nineteenth century, we have a text corresponding far more 
closely to the original than that contained in the first editions 
of the Greek New Testament issued at the beginning of the 
sixteenth century, on which are based the translations into 





CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 27 


modern languages used in the Christian churches of Europe 
at the present time. It would be a vast mistake, however, to 
conclude from the textual agreement displayed in these latest 
editions, that research in this department of New Testament 
study has reached its goal. Just as explorers, in excavating 
the ruined temples of Olympia or Delphi, are able from the 
fragments they discover to reconstruct the temple, to their 
mind’s eye at least, in its ancient glory—albeit it is actually 
in ruins—so too, much work remains to be done ere even all 
the materials are re-collected, and the plan determined which 
shall permit us to restore the Temple of the New Testament 
Scriptures to its original form. 


*Chiivr DER 


MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT. 


EVEN in the age of printing, and with all the security afforded 
by that invention, it is not always easy or even possible to 
exhibit or restore the literary productions of a great mind in 
their original form. One has but to think of the obscurity in 
which the works of Shakespeare and their early editions are 
enveloped, or the questions raised over the Weimar edition 
of Luther’s works. And even when the author’s original 
manuscript is still preserved, but the proof-sheets, as is usual, 
destroyed, we cannot always be certain whether occasional 
discrepancies between the print and the manuscript are inten- 
tional or not. Nay, even when the two agree, there is still 
the possibility that what the author wrote and allowed to be 
printed was not what he thought or intended to be read. Did 
Lessing, ¢g., mean us to read in Nathan ii. 5, 493, “the great 
man requires always plenty of room,” or “the great zvee” does 
so? Various writers, in speaking of this or that artist’s talents 
or dexterity, have used the words “haud impigre.” To take 
them at their word, the object of their praise had no such 
endowment beyond the common. We may be certain that 
what they meant to convey was the very opposite of what 
they actually wrote, viz. “haud pigre” or “impigre.” Asa 
rule, however,-the purchaser of a modern classic may rely upon 
reading it in the form in which the author intended it to be 
circulated. It is quite different in the case of those works 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 29 


which were composed at a time when their multiplication was 
only possible by means of copying, and specially so in the 
case of those that are older by a thousand years than the 
invention of printing. For then every fresh copy was a fresh 
source of errors, even when the copyist was as painfully exact 
as it was possible for him to ba It is simply astonishing, in 
view of all the perils to which literary works have been ex- 
posed, to find how much has been preserved, and, on the 
whole, how faithfully. 

The matter is, of course, quite a simple one, when by good 
fortune the author’s own manuscript, his autograph, is extant. 
The abstract possibility of this being so in the case of the New 
Testament writings cannot be denied. Thanks to the dryness 
of the climate of Egypt and the excellence of ancient writing 
material, we have documents more than twice the age that the 
New Testament autographs would be to-day did we possess 
them. Now and again we find a report circulated in the news- 
papers that such an original document has been found,—of 
Peter, ¢.g., or some other Apostle. About the year 489 it was 
asserted that the original copy of Matthew had been discovered 
in the grave of Barnabas in Cyprus. And to the eyes of the 
devout there are still exhibited not only the Inscription from 
the Cross, but works from the artist hand of Luke. In reality, 
however, we have no longer the autograph of a single New 
Testament book. Their disappearance is readily understood 
when we consider that the greater portion of the New Testa- 
ment, viz. the Epistles, are occasional writings never intended 
for publication, while others were meant to have only a limited 
circulation. Even in the early ages of the Christian Church, 
when there must have been frequent occasion to appeal to 
them, the autographs were no longer in existence. 

Tertullian (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 36) mentions Thessa- 
lonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of the 
Apostles that were addressed there were still read from autograph 
copies! “Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc 

1 Zahn, Geschichte des. N.T. Kanons, i, 652; Einlettung, i. 153. 


Autographs. 


30 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


cathedrae apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae authen- 
ticae literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem et repraesentantes faciem 
uniuscuiusque.” But when the same author, in his De Monogamia, 
speaks of “Graecum authenticum,” he refers not to the autograph, 
but to the original text as distinguished from a version. 

On the copy of Matthew’s Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas 
in Cyprus, vide Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of 
Antioch in Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ii. 81; Vitae omnium 13 
Apostolorum: BapvaBas 6 kal “Iwons . . . . otros TO Kata Mar@aiov 
charyyé\uov oixewwxeipws ypdipas ev TH THS Kurpov vyjow teXevovtau.! In 
the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on 
Holy Thursday of every year. Vide Fabricius, Zvv. Apocr., 341. 

On the supposed autograph of Mark in Venice see Jos. Dobrowsky, 
Fragmentum Pragense Ev. S. Marci, vulgo autographi, Prague, 1778. 
It is really a fragment of a Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, dating 
from the seventh century, of which other fragments exist in Prague. 

In the Chronicon Paschale there is a note on the reading rpiry for 
éxry in John xix. 14, to the following effect :—xafws Ta dxpiBn BuBdria 
mepiexeL AUTO TE TO idvdxeLpov Tod evayyEeALOTOD, Srep péxpt 
rod viv mepiraktar xdpite Geod ev TH Edeoioy dywwraty éxxAnoia Kai 
Sard Tov TioTOV éxeloe TpoTKuveirar. Bengel himself said on r John 
v. 7:—‘ Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum 
Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc periocham 
habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc latentes, suo 
tempore productum irl, (N.T. 420, 602, 770.) 

In disproof of an alleged autograph of Peter, see Lagarde, Aus 
dem deutschen Gelehrtenleben, Gottingen, 1880, p. 117 f. On legends 
of this sort among the Polish Jews, on the autograph copy of the 
Proverbs that Solomon sent to the Queen of Sheba, and now in the 
possession of the Queen of England, etc., wde S. Schechter, Dre 
Hebraica in der Bibliothek des Britischen Museums, in the Jiidisches 
Literatur-Blatt for 1888, No. 46. 

At the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680-1, which Harnack (DG. 
ii, 408) says might be called the “Council of Antiquaries and Palaeo- 
graphers”, investigations were instituted in this department with some 
success. 

J. G. Berger, De Autographis Veterum, Vitenio., 1723.0 ot 

J. R. Harris, Mew Testament A utographs (Supplement to the 

1 From the Cod. Monac. 255 and 551, published by Aug. Thenn in the Zezéschrif? 
fiir wissenschaftliche 7 heologie 29 (1887), 453- 





CHAP. II. | MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 31 


American Journal of Philology, No. 12), Baltimore, 1882, With 
three plates. 

In this connection reference might be made to the falsifications of 
Constantine Simonides: Fucstmiles of certain portions of the Gospel of 
St. Matthew, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, written on 
papyrus of the first century. London, 1862. Fol. 


Seeing, then, that the autographs of the New Testament Manuscripts. 
books have all perished, we have to do as in the case of the 
Greek and Latin classics, viz. apply to later copies of them, 
the so-called manuscripts of which frequent mention has 
already been made. But while in the case of most literary 
products of antiquity these manuscript copies are the only 
sources whence we may derive our knowledge of them, we 
are happily more fortunate in regard to the New Testament. 

The new faith very early and very rapidly spread to distant Versions. 
peoples speaking other languages than that in which the 
Gospel was first preached. Indeed, even in its native land of 
Palestine, several languages were in use at the same time. 
Accordingly, at a very early date, as early as the second, and 
perhaps, in the case of fragments, even in the first century, 
there arose in the East, and in the South, and in the West, 
versions of the Christian books very soon after their composi- 
tion. At first only separate portions would be translated, 
but as time went on versions of the entire New Testament 
made their appearance. Manifestly, the value for our purpose 
of these versions depends on their age and accuracy. It is 
impossible, without further knowledge, to be certain whether 
a Greek copyist of later centuries followed his original quite 
faithfully or not. But a Latin version of the New Testament 
which dates from the second century, ¢.g., will represent with 
tolerable certainty the second century Greek manuscript from 
which it is derived, even supposing that our present copy of 
that version is not earlier than the sixth century or even 
later. But these versions confer yet another advantage. In 
the case of most, and certainly of the oldest Greek manu- 
scripts, we do not know in what country they originated. 


Quotations 


32 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. it 


But it is quite certain that a Latin version could not have 
originated in Egypt, or a Coptic version in Gaul. In this 
way we may learn from the versions how the text of the 
Bible read at a particular time and in a particular region. 
Lastly, if it should happen that several versions originating 
in quite isolated regions, in the Latin West, and in the 
Syrian East, and in the Egyptian South, agree, then we 
may be certain that what is common to them all must go 
back to the earliest times and to their common original. 

In addition to the Greek manuscripts and the versions, we 
have still a third and by no means unimportant class of 
material that we can employ in reconstructing our text of 
the New Testament. We possess an uncommonly rich 
Christian literature, which gathers volume from the second 
half, or, at all events, from the last quarter of the first century 
onwards. Now, what an early Church teacher, or, for that 
matter, what any early writer quotes from the New Testa- 
ment will have for us its own very peculiar importance, under 
certain conditions. Because, as a rule, we know precisely 
where and when he lived. So that by means of these patris- 
tie quotations we are enabled to locate our ancient manuscripts 
of the Bible even more exactly, and trace their history 
further than we are able to do with the help of the versions. 
Here, of course, we must make sure that our author has 
quoted accurately and not loosely from memory, and also 
that the quotations in his book have been accurately pre- 
served and not accommodated to the current text of their 
time by later copyists or even by editors of printed editions, 
as has actually been done even in the nineteenth century. 
We shall now proceed to describe these three classes of 
auxiliaries. 

LITERATURE.—W. Wattenbach, Av/ettung sur griechischen Palaeo- 
graphie, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877 ; V. Gardthausen, Grzechesche Palaeo- 
graphie, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, Palaeographie, Biicherwesen, und 
Handschriftenkunde, in 1. v. Miiller’s Handbuch der klassischen 
Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i, Munich, 1892; E. M. 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 33 


Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, London, 
1891; T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882; W. A. Cop- 
inger, Zhe Bible and its Transmission; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible 
and the ancient Manuscripts, London, third edition, 1897 ; F. H. A. 
Scrivener, Szx Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient 
Manuscripts which contain it, Cambridge and London, 1875; 4 
Collation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels, London, 
1853 ; Adversaria critica sacra, Cambridge, 1893 ; Hoskier ; Urz., pp. 
16, 54; O. Weise, Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer Zeit, 
Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work) ; 
F, G, Kenyon, Zhe Palaeography of Greek Papyri, Oxford, 1899 
(with 20 Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160) ; Ulr. 
Wilcken, Zafeln zur alteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Origi- 
nalen des Berliner K. Museums, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20 
photographs) ; G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, Collezione Fiorentina di facsimtli 
paleografict grecit e latini, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50 Greek Plates 
and 50 Latin, Folio) ; Charles F. Sitterly, Praxis tn Manuscripts of 
the Greek Testament : the mechanical and literary processes involved tn 
their writing and preservation (with table of Manuscripts and 13 
Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898, second enlarged 
edition, 1900 ; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati, Monumenta Palaeo- 
graplica sacra: Atlante paleografico-artistico composto sut manu- 
seritti, Turin, 1899 ; Karl Dziatzko, Untersuchungen iiber ausgewdhite 
Kapitel des antitken Buchwesens. Mit Text, Uebersetzung und Erkla- 
rung von Flinit Histor. Nat., lib. xiii. § 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner, 
1900. 


1. MANUSCRIPTS. 


For no literary production of antiquity is there such a Number of 
wealth of manuscripts as for the New Testament. Our ™™°"P™ 
classical scholars would rejoice were they as fortunate with 
Homer or Sophocles, Plato or Aristotle, Cicero or Tacitus, 
as Bible students are with their New Testament. The oldest 
complete manuscript of Homer that we have.dates from the 
thirteenth century, and only separate papyrus fragments 
go back to the Alexandrian age. All that is extant of 
Sophocles we owe to a single manuscript dating from the 


eighth or ninth century in the Laurentian Library at 
C 


Uncial, 


34 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ CHAP. Il. 


Florence. But of the New Testament, 3829 manuscripts 
have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic 
search in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the 
list ; a search in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly 
do so. Gregory believes that there are probably some two 
or three thousand manuscripts which have not yet been 
collated, and every year additional manuscripts are brought | 
to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain only 
separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New 
Testament.! Not a few, however, go much further back than 
our manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of 
the Greek and Latin Classics. Only in the case of the 
Mohammedan sacred books is the condition of things more 
favourable. These came into existence in the seventh 
century, and the variations between separate manuscripts 
are a vanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was 
officially fixed at a very early date and regarded as inviol- 
ably sacred. Fortunately, one might almost say, it is quite 
different with the New Testament, which was put together 
in a totally different way. In its case the very greatest 
freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half. 

The manuscripts of the New Testament being so numerous, 
it becomes necessary to arrange them. One of the most im- 
portant considerations hitherto has been that of age, and 
therefore manuscripts have been divided into Uneials (or 
Majuscules) and Cursives (or Minuscules), according to the 
style of writing in use at earlier or later times. 

In early times, as at the present day, inscriptions on monu- 
ments and public buildings were engraved in capital letters. 
This form of writing was also employed for books, especially 
those containing valuable or sacred writing. The letters 
were not joined together, but set down side by side.” They 





1 The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert’s ‘‘ Tabellen zur neutesta- 
mentlichen Zeitgeschichte: mit einer Uebersicht iiber die Codices in denen die N.T. 
Schriften bezeugt sind.” Leipzig, 1897. Given in Sitterly (see above, p. 33). 

2 See e.g. Plate I. 








CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 35 


were called /ztterae majusculae, capitales, unciales, te. “inch- 
high,” as Jerome says with ridicule—ancialibus ut vulgo aiunt 
litterts onera magis exarata quam codices. Alongside of this 
there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller 
Cursive form (J/zzusculae), for use in common life, in which 
the letters were joined! This running hand found its way 
into manuscripts of the Bible in the course of the ninth 
century. In some cases, in Codex A eg., both styles are 
found alongside or following each other.’ 

The oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the 
exact date of which is known, is 481°"; it bears the date 
835. The great majority of New Testament manuscripts 
belong to this later date, seeing that out of the 3829 manu- 
scripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules. 
Greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manu- 
scripts exactly, it becomes the task of palzeography to settle 
the criteria by which the date and place of a manuscript’s 
origin may be determined. These are the style of writing— 
whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the punctuation 
—whether simple or elaborate, and the different material and 
form of the book. These distinctions, however, are often 
very misleading. The following table will show the distribu- 
tion of the manuscripts according to the centuries in which 
they were written, as given by Vollert, Scrivener, and von 
Gebhardt ? :— 


Vollert. Scrivener. v. Gebhardt. 
IVth Century, : ; 5 vis 2 
Vth - : : 4 10 15 
With, »,, : : 18 22 24 
MiEIth -.,, ; ; 6 9 17 
With 5 5 : 8 8 1g 
iXth ,, : : 23 or 31 
Xth Ks ; : 4 cae 6 


1 See e.g. Plate X, 

2 See Scrivener, i. p. 160; Rahlfs, Gottinger gelehrte Nachrichten, 1808, i. 
98-112. 

3 7iGr., pp. 1233 ff. ; Warfield, Textual Criticism of the N.T., p. 47. 


and Cursive 
script. 


Papyrus and 
parchment. 


Paper. 


36 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


Manuscripts are distinguished according to the material on 
which they are written, which may be either parchment or 
paper. 

Parehment* derives its name from Pergamum, where it was 
introduced in the reign of King Eumenes (197-159 B.C.). 
But prior to the use of parchment, and to a certain extent 
alongside of it, papyrus” was used, especially in Egypt, 
down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest. Papyrus 
books were originally in the form of rolls (volumina). Only 
a few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain. 
The use of parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form. 
In the case of parchment codices, a further distinction is 
drawn between those made of vellum manufactured from the 
skins of very young calves, and those made of common parch- 
ment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes. 

As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called 
cotton paper (charta bombycina) was introduced from the East. 
This, however, never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of 
flax and hemp. It had been in use for a long time in China 
and the centre of Eastern Asia, but seems to have been un- 
known in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of Samarcand in 
704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of 
linen was employed.° 

In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are 
referred to. In 2 Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the deAovns he 
had left at Troas might be brought to him, and ra 8:8Néa, 
but specially tras peuBoavas. Here, gerovns means cloak 
rather than satchel; +a 8i8dia are the papyrus books, pos- 
sibly his Old Testament, while tas weuBpavas are clean sheets 
of parchment.4 In 2 John 12 the word yaprys is used of 
papyrus. There, and in 3 John 13, ro meAa is the ink, and 
the xaXapos (Zaz. canna) is the reed pen, still used for writing 
in the East. The quill pen, strange to say, is not mentioned 
prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in the sixth 
century.© The size of a sheet of writing paper may be in- 


« The references are to the extended notes at the end of this section, pp. 40 ff. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 37 


ferred from the passages in 2nd and 3rd John alluded to 
above. 

In order to economize space, the writing was continuous, Scriptio 

with no break between the words (seriptio eontinua),! breath- °°°'"" 
ings and accents being also omitted.¢ This is a frequent 
source of ambiguity and misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18, 
e.g., EIXEAOQN may be either cfs €X@ayv or etreNOwv. In 
Mark x. 40, AAAOISHTOIMASTAT was rendered “ aliis 
praeparatum,” a\Aas being read instead of GAN’ ofc. In Matt. 
xvi. 23, AAAA may be taken either as ad\Aa or add’ & = In 
I Cor. xii. 28, again, the Ethiopic translator read ois instead 
of ove. The Palestinian-Syriac Lectionary translates 1 Tim. 
iii. 16 as though it were duoroyotpev ws wéya éeoriv. There 
is something to be said for this, but Naber’s proposed reading 
of Gal. ii. 11, Ott KaTéyvwmev Os Fv, Cannot be accepted. 

Most manuscripts show two eolumns to the page. The Columns. 

Sinaitic, however, has four, while the Vatican has three. 
Columns vary considerably in width. They may be the Lines. 
width of a few letters only, or of an average hexameter line 
of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six letters. 
Such a line is called a otixos, and as the scribe was paid 
according to the number of oriyo:, we find at the end of 
several books a note giving the total number of ¢riyor contained 
in them. In carefully written manuscripts, every hundredth, 
sometimes every fiftieth oriyos is indicated in the margin. 
These stichometric additions were afterwards adopted for the 
entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be obvious." 

As the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testa- 
ment manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either 
from the luxury of the rich or the pious devotion of kings 
and churches.' 

Parchment, however, grew more and more expensive, and Palimpsests. 
so the practice arose of using an old manuscript a second 
time. The original writing was erased by means of a sponge 
or pumice stone or a knife, and the sheets were then em- 
ployed to receive other matter, or it might even be the same 


Punctuation. 


Size. 


Contents. 


38 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IL. 


matter over again. And so we have Codices Reseripti or 
Palimpsesti as they were called, a term known to Cicero, who 
says, though of a wax tablet, “quod in palimpsesto, laudo 
parsimoniam ” (ad Dzversos vii. 18). Some manuscripts were 
used as often as three times for distinct works in three 
different languages eg. Greek, Syriac, and Iberian. Codex 
I” is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first 
in Greek and then twice in Syriac.* 

Marks of punctuation are hardly to be found in the earliest 
times. It was frequently, therefore, a question with church 
teachers whether a sentence was to be taken interrogatively 
or indicatively, or how the sentences were to be divided, as 
in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the general absence of 
punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in some of 
the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus ¢.g., to indicate 
citations from the Old Testament, is remarkable.! 

The size of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in 
the case of a parchment codex must have been very ex- 
pensive, to a small octavo. In regions inhabited by a mixed 
population we find bilingual manuscripts, Greek-Latin, Greek- 
Coptic, Greek-Armenian, and such like. If the manuscript 
was designed for use in church, the two languages were 
written in parallel columns, the Greek frequently occupying 
the left column or reverse side of the sheet, being the place of 
honour. In manuscripts intended for use in schools, the 
translation was written between the lines. Codex A is an ex- 
ample of a manuscript with an interlinear version of this sort. 

Of more importance is the distinction of manuscripts ac- 
cording to their contents. Of all our recorded Uncials, only 
one contains the whole of the New Testament complete. 
That is the Codex Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in 
1859. A few others, like Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, 
Ephraemi, were once complete, but are no longer so. Of 
the later Minuscules, some twenty-five alone contain the 
entire New Testament. Of the English Minuscules, five are 
complete. The fragmentary nature of our manuscripts is 














CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 39 


intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament 
codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and 
ponderous volume running to about 150 sheets. Compara- 
tively few would be in a position to procure such a costly 
work all at once. The other reason is that the New Testa- 
ment itself is not a single book, but a series of different 
collections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated 
separately. To the same reason is due the great variety in 
the order of the several parts of the New Testament found in 
the manuscripts, and still, to a certain extent, in our printed 
editions." It is not exactly known who it was that first 
collected and inscribed in one volume the books and the 
parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single 
volume of the entire New Testament was afterwards known 
as a wavdextys, and in Latin, d¢blotheca™ The parts into 
which the New Testament is divided are— 


1. The four Gospels. 
2. (a) The Acts of the Apostles. 

(4) The so-called Catholic Epistles, ze. those not ad- 
dressed to any particular church or individual, 
wiz Jaiies, 0 ,and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 
Jude. 

3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews, 
fourteen. 
4. The Apocalypse. 


Among these incomplete manuscripts of the New Testa- Lectionaries, 
ment may be classed the so-called leetionaries—z.e. manu- 
scripts containing only those portions read at church services. 
Following the custom of the Synagogue, in which portions of 
the Law and the Prophets were read at divine service each 
Sabbath day, the practice was early adopted in the Christian 
Church of reading passages from the New Testament books 
at services. A definite selection of such extracts was formed 
at an early date from the Gospels and Epistles, and the 
custom arose of arranging these according to the order of 


a 
Parchment. 


40 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IL. 


Sundays and Holy days, for greater convenience in use. A 
collection of selected passages from the Gospels was called 
a EvayyéXuov, and in Latin Evangeliarium, in distinction to 
the books containing the continuous text, which were called 
Terpaevayyédcov, while the selections from the Epistles were 
known as ’AzdotoAos or Ipagardarodos. These lectionaries, 
though mostly of later origin, are nevertheless important as 
indicating the official text of the various provinces of the 
Church. They show, moreover, how sundry slight alterations 
found their way into the text of the New Testament. 

We can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the 
Gospels are by far the most numerous, while those of the last 
book of the New Testament are the fewest. Among the 
Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and only 7 have the Apoca- 
lypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz.®% BK MS U, 
or, if we include Q, only 7 are quite complete; 9 are almost 
so; II exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the 
remainder contain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the 
Pauline Epistles, only 1 is entirely complete—viz., &; 2 are 
nearly complete, D G; 8 have the greater part. It is plain 
that our resources are not so great, after all, as the number of 
manuscripts given above would lead us to expect. Here 
also there are zoAXol KAnTol, OALyot ékNEKTOL. 


The manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of 
papyrus. It is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as 
writing material to the encouragement given to its manufacture by 
Eumenes II. of Pergamum (197-159 B.c.). Pliny’s story,” which he 
gives on the authority of Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a 
library which should, as far as possible, excel that of Alexandria. 
To frustrate this intention Ptolemy Epiphanes prohibited the expor- 
tation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the list of principal exports of 
Alexandria, Lumbroso® mentions BiéBAos and xaprn in the second 


1 To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name Evangeliarium. 
EvayyeAtordpioy means a Table of Lections. (See Brightman, in the Journal of 
Theological Studies, 1900, p. 448, and now Gregory, Zexthriizk, i. p. 334 f.) 

2 Nat. Hist., xiii. 11. 

3 Boitto, 2nd ed., p. 125. 


CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 41 


place after t€Ava, and :8Aca in the seventh.) Eumenes was accord- 
ingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and hence its 
name, tepyayznvy. The name first occurs in Diocletian’s Price- 
list,! and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was di6épai, or 
d€ppeis,® Or wewBpavac as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which last was taken from 
the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than papyrus, and 
was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the 
making of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin. 
But it gradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came 
also the change from the roll to the ‘‘codex” form of book. If 
papyrus was the vehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was 
the means whereby the literature of the new faith became known to 
mankind, and the remnant of the ancient culture at the same time 
preserved. Origen’s library, which still consisted for the most part 
of papyrus rolls, was re-written in parchment volumes (cwpdrwor, 
corpus) by two priests shortly before the time of Jerome. Our 
principal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one of these codices.‘ 
When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a certain number of 
Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire, he sent him, 
not rolls, but codices, revrixovra cwparia ev dipb€pais. 

Parchment was prepared from the skins of goats, sheep, calves, 
asses, swine, and antelopes. Our oldest manuscripts of the Bible ex- 
hibit the finest and whitest parchment. The Codex Sinaiticus, ¢.g., 
displays the very finest prepared antelope skin, and is of such a size 
that only two sheets could be obtained from one skin. As a rule, 
four sheets were folded into a quire (quaternio), the separate sheets 
having been previously ruled on the grain side. They were laid 
with the flesh side to the flesh side, and the grain side to the grain 
side, beginning with the flesh side outermost, so that in each 
quaternio, pages 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 were white and smooth with 


' Vide Th. Mommsen, Das Diokletianische Edikt wiber die Warenpreise 
(Hermes, xxv. 17-36, 1890); on the fragments recently discovered in Mega- 
lopolis, see W. Loring, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1890, 299; also, Revue 
Archéologique, Mars-Avril, 1891, 268. 

* Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of /étera and dip6épa, see M. Bréal, 
Rev. des Et. grecques, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and Rev. Crit., 1892, Vee ital 
Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the d:fAepdrados. 

3 Cf. Codex D, Mark i. 6. 

+ Cf. Victor Schultze, Ro//e und Codex, in the Greifswalder Studien, Giitersloh, 


1895, p. 149 ff. 


Ink. 


b 
Papyrus. 


42 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


the lines showing in relief, while the others, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 
were darker and rough, with indented lines.1 

For writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three 
parts of lamp-black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted 
with water. This ink, however, was easily washed off, and did not 
stick well to parchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made 
of gall nuts. Sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the 
result that the writing material is frequently corroded with the ink. 
From its having been boiled the mixture was also called éyxavoror, 
hence our word ‘‘ink” (encre). Many old recipes for making ink are 
still preserved.2, Even in early Egyptian writing, coloured inks, 
specially red, were used. One of the most beautiful manuscripts 
extant is a Syriac Codex in the British Museum, of date 411, in which 
the red, blue, green, and yellow inks are still quite fresh. Eusebius 
used cinnabar for numbering the paragraphs, and Jerome makes 
mention of minium or vermilion. In times of great wealth 
parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and silver 
letters. 

Among ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the 
preparation of papyrus, in his Astoria Naturalis, xiii, 11.2 The 
sheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the 
plant. This was cut into strips (cx/das) as thin and broad, and, 


1 Vide C. R. Gregory, Sur les cahiers des manuscrits grecs, Académie des 
Inscriptions, Aug. 1885 ; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v. 159 ff. 

2 Z.g. in Cod. Barocc. 1 in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac manuscripts. 

3 Vide G. Ebers, Katser Hadrian: also The Writing Material of Antiquity, 
by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893 ; and especially 
Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant (Cyperus papyrus L., Papyrus 
Antiquorum Willd.), see Bernard de Montfaucon, Dessertation sur la plante ap- 
pelée Papyrus, sur le papier d’ Egypte, etc. Memoires de Académie Royale des 
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608; Franz 
Woenig, Die Pflanzen im alten Aegypten, thre Heimat, Geschichte, Kultur, 
Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is found in 
Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily, but also on the 
shores of Lake Trasimene : see Zhe Papyrus in Europe, in the Academy, 19th Mar. 
1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus (which 
has not yet been explained), whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake 
Menzaleh, where it was first manufactured, fa being the article in Egyptian ; see 
his MZitte’/ungen, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for pronouncing 
the y long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the modern fashion is— 
papyrus, not pdpyrus. Cf Juvenal, iv. 24; vii, 101; Mart. iii, 2; vill. 443 
x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, Met. xv. 7533 T7ést. iil. 10, 27. 





CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 43 


according to some, as long as possible. ‘These were laid side by 
side as firmly as might be, to form the first layer (oyéda). On'this a 
second layer was laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with 
moisture or gum. The two layers were then compressed to form 
the writing sheet (ceXis), which was carefully dried and polished 
with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll (roj0s, x’Awdpos) consisted 
of a number of ceAides joined together to make one long strip— 
sometimes as much as 20 or 4o feet long, or even longer. The 
upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in which the 
fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of the roll.' 
The under or outer side was only used in cases of necessity.2, The 
first sheet (zpwrdxohAov) was made stronger than the rest, and its 
inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (éu¢ados), with a knob at 
the end (xépas). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the 
edge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the 
back was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with 
cedar oil. The title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment 
(cirrvBos or cidAvBos). The separate rolls were enclosed in a 
leather case (dufOepa or PavdAns, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number 
of them kept in a chest (xiBwrds or kiorn). 

On the literature cf. also Paul Kriiger, Ueber die Verwendung von 
Papyrus und Pergament fiir die juristische Litteratur der Romer, 
Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte. Roman section, 
| viii. pp. 76-85 (1887). Wilcken, Archiv fiir Papyrus-Forschung und 
verwandte Geliete, Leipzig, Teubner. F. G. Kenyon, Pa/aeography 
of Greek Papyri. C. Haeberlin, Griechische Papyri, Leipzig, 
1897: “Nearly 150 years have fled since 432 complete Rolls and 
1806 Papyrus Fragments were discovered in the year 1752 at 
Herculaneum, in the Villa of L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, the 
pupil and friend of the Epicurean philosopher Philodemus. Then 
twenty-five years later the soil of Egypt, that home and nursery of 
| literature, opened for the first time to vouchsafe to us a Greek 
Papyrus Roll, destined to be the forerunner of a series of discoveries 
often interrupted but never ceasing altogether. It was, perchance, 
not the only one of its kind; but out of the fifty rolls accidentally 


1See U. Wilcken, Recto oder Verso, Hermes, 1887, 487-492. 

? Apoc. v. I can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing we must 
take kal dmioev with kareoppayicuevoy, according to Grotius and Zahn. On 
émcOdypapov, cf. Lucian, Vitarum Auctio, 9; Pliny, 3, 5; @ ¢ergo Juvenal, 
1, 6; 2 aversa charta, Martial, 8, 22. 


c 
Paper. 


Lead. 


44 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


discovered in the year 1778 by Arabian peasants in the neighbour- 
hood of Memphis, it alone had the fortune to come into the 
possession of Cardinal Stefano Borgia. The rest were burned by 
their unsuspecting discoverers, who found a peculiar pleasure in the 
resinous odour that arose from their smoking pyre.” 

The collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Arch- 
duke Rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of 
paper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more 
exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible. 
Earlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, De Chartae 
vulgaris seu lineae Origine, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1767, 
have been superseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have 
been introduced into Europe by the Moors in Spain, where it went 
by the name of fexgameno de panno to distinguish it from the ferga- 
meno de cuero. In the Byzantine Empire it was called €vAoyaprvov or 
évAdrevxtov, as being a vegetable product. It came afterwards to be 
known as xdprns Aapacknves, from its chief place of manufacture. 
The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence it passed into Italy. 
After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the exports of Genoa. 
European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern manufacture 
chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, e¢.g., which were — 
unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great resemblance 
to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments 
of Mark’s Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were 
written on bark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus. 
Massei said it was cotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be 
parchment. In many manuscripts a mixture of parchment and 
paper is found. ‘This is so in the Leicester Codex, in which the 
leaves are regularly arranged in such a way that the outer and inner 
sheets of a quire are of parchment, while the three intermediate — 
sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, Zhe origin of the Leicester 
Codex of the New Testament, 1887, p. 14 ff. 

Lead was also employed in early times for writing on. Budde 
sees a reference to this practice in the well-known passage, Job xix. 
24. He holds that the lead there mentioned is not to be supposed 
as run into letters cut out in the rock, which would be a very un- 
likely thing to do, and a practice for which there is no evidence. 
He would therefore correct the text so as to read “with an iron 
pen on lead.” Hesiod’s "Epya, ¢.g., was preserved on lead in the 








a HLAP, II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM, 45 


temple of the Muses on Helicon.!_ A leaden tablet from Hadrumet 
contains an incantation showing strong traces of O.T. influence.” 
At Rhodes there was recently discovered a roll of lead inscribed 
with the 80th Psalm, which was used as a charm to protect a 
vineyard.* 


Clay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Clay. 


Strack has omitted to mention in his article on Writing in the 
Realencyklopidie (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces of 
N.T. writing have been discovered in the Ostraca literature of 
which we have now a considerable quantity. We have tiles of this 
sort dating from a period of over a thousand years from the time of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus onwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen. 
Several of these contain portions of literary works such as those of 
Euripides.* 

Linen was also written on. It was used, e.g., for the Sibylline 
Oracles (lintea texta, carbasus: Ovac. Sid. ed. Alexandre, lis; 259, 
178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been found 
on linen. 

On Paul’s “‘books and parchments,” see Zahn, Kanon il., 938 ff. 
I am not aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La 
Bibliotheque de l’Apotre Paul (Chrétien Evang., 1897, v. 224-227). 
In the Theol. Tijdschrift, 1898, p. 217, the view that the pen Bpavar 
Paul sent for were blank sheets of parchment is called in question. 
The most natural explanation, certainly, is that they were. 

The N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. 
By “the wild beast of the reeds” (Ps. Ixviii. 31) the Rabbis under- 
stood the reed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted by 
Jp, and they took it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, who 
decided the fate of nations with a single stroke of his pen.® Luther, 
moreover, was not without precedent in speaking of “governors 
with the pen” in Jud. v. 14, as the Syriac version renders it in the 
same way. In Ps. xlv. 2, the Hebrew MY is rendered xéAapos (LXX), 
oxowvos (Aquila), and ypadetov (Symmachus). It is also rendered 

1 Pausanias, ix. 31, 4. 

2 Deissmann, Bzdelstudien, 26-54. 

® Hiller von Gaertringen, Ber/. Sttz.-Ber., 21st July 1898. 

4See Wilcken, Verein von Alterstumsfreunden im Rheinland. Weft lxxxvi. 
p- 234; also the Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1889, 26. 

® Cf. Livy, B. iv. c. 7; Pliny, xiii. 11, “ postea publica monumenta plumbeis 
voluminibus mox et privata linteis confici coepta sunt.” 

6 Juidisches Literaturblatt, 1889, 10. 


Linen. 


d 
Paul’s 
** books.” 


Pen. 


Reading and 
wiuiting. 


46 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IT, 


cxoivos by the translator of Jeremiah viii. 8, where Aquila has 
ypadetov. Sxoivos must therefore be added to the Bible names 
for pen. Tpadis for ypadeiov, mentioned alongside of ovve a0apavTwos 
in Jer. xvii. 1, seems to belong to the Spanish-Greek of the 
Complutensian, but is really classic, as also its diminutive ypadiduov. 
According to the Rabbis, pens were among the things God 
made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They were 
also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an inven- 
tion of the Deity.! According to Antisthenes? or Democritus,® a 
young man, in order to enter the school of wisdom, requires to 
have a BuBAvapiov Kawvov (= Kal vod) Kat ypadetov Katvov Kal TLVaKLOLOU 
xavov. In Cyprus, the stilus is called dXeurryjpioy, and the 
ypapparodiddoKkados in like manner dupGe_pddordos.* In the recently 
discovered fragments of Diocletian’s List of Wares, the section zepi 
zhovpov (goose, swan, and peacock feathers) is followed by that 
mept kadduov Kat peAaviov, and then by that zepi éo6jros. Ink costs 
12 drachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian xéAapou° cost 
4 drachmae; and xdAapor Sevt[épas] pHp[uns] the same. Baruch, 
the dévayvworyjs, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the 
Gentiles, in order to write his letter to Jeremiah (dzooretAas «is 
tyv dyopav [v. 1, duacropas] trav eOvav jveyKe XapTyY Kat pedava 
[v. 1. wedav]).6 Demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver 
stilus. Boniface, e.g., had one of that sort sent him from England. 

The following is a list of expressions relating to reading and writ- 
ing taken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim 
to be complete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath’s 
Concordance to the Septuagint. 





> / > , > / > / 3 id > 
axpipow, avaylyvwcKM, avayvwols, avayvworTys, avtlypadov, O7TOKG- 


Avrrew ; BuBriabdpos (ByBd0-), BiBArwos, ByBdrvoypados (Est. iii. 13, 
Complut.), BiBrvobjx«n, BBdiov (Bv-), ByBdrv.oPprrdxvov, BiBAos (Bv-) ; 


1 Cf, the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by Ross in 
1844 :— 
eye xpucdOpovos “Ios . . 

adaréwv “Epuavos andxpuda ctuBoda d€ATwy 
eipdueva ypapldecow & 7 evoe act xapdtas 
ppikaréov uvorass lepdby Adyov . .. - 

2 See Nestle, Bengel, p. 105. 

3 Zeitschrift fiir das Humanistische Gymnasium, 1896, p. 27. 

40. Hoffmann, Griéechische Dialekte, i. 107. 

5 Probably pens of the first quality—povoydvaro.. 

6 Harris, Last Words of Baruch, vi. 17, p. 56. 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 47 


yald, ypappa, ypappareia, ypayparevey, ypappareds, ypappatiKos, ypap- 
paroacaywye’s, ypatrov, ypapew (ava-, azo-, ért-, KaTa-, cuv-), ypadecov 
(cvdypodv), ypadeds (raxwvds), ypadpy (ava-, dzro-, cuv-), ypadiKds, ypadis ; 
SipOepwma, SudKew ; €iAnua, cis- Or evyaparrew, éxito, Epunveto, 
émioTamevos ypdupata; OnoavpodirAas; KaAXapos (KkaAapapiov, vide 
Field’s Hexapfla on Ezek. ix. 2) xaorv, xepadris; paxOdp, pédayv, 
peAavodoxetov, pidtos, pvnpocvvov, moAiBos, moAcBdivos ; Evpds; dvvé 
adapavrwos, d&vypados ; twakis, twakidiov, wTvé, TTVXY), TuEiov ; TEAés, 
opin, otnAoypadgia, oppayiew, cppayis, cxoivos ; TO0s (yxapTod KaLvod 
peydAou, Isa. vill. 1; also r Esdras vi. 23 for rézos), redxos, Tvs ; 
xapTys, xaptiov, xapTypia. 

Ancient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous f 
letters were to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunder- erie and 
standing, they employed the izoduacroAy as the mark of division sh ee 
(6, tu, é.g.), and the id’ & as the mark of combination (Avécxovpor, 
not Avos kovpor). Such marks are also found in manuscripts of the 
Bible, in the Septuagint, e.g., in the case of proper names. It goes 
without saying that the scriptio continua made the reading as well as 
the copying of manuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hermas 
(Visio ii. z) says of the book given him to copy peteypawdunv ravra 
Tpos ypdmpa odx yUpirxov yap Tas cvAAaBds.1 For two instructive 
mistakes in the Latin interlinear version of Codex Boernerianus 
ip. 77. 

Breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the 2 
Bible as early as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our map 
oldest manuscripts they seldom occur before the seventh century. 

They were inserted by the first hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch 
(Swete’s F), which is ascribed to the first half of the fifth century by 
Ceriani. They seem to have been added to the Codex Vaticanus 
by the third hand, probably in the twelfth century, and do not always 
conform to our rules. Augustine, commenting on the rival readings 
filiis and porcina, in Psalm xvi. 14, says: “quod (porcina) alii codices 
habent et verius habere perhibentur, quia diligentiora exemplaria per 
accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci ambiguitatem graeco scribendi 
more dissolvunt, obscurius est” (ii. 504-5, in Lagarde’s Probe ciner 
neuen Ausgabe, p. 40). Similarly, speaking of the difference between 
paBdov abrod and paBdov atrod, Gen. xlvii. 31, he says :—“ fallit enim 
eos verbum graecum, quod eisdem literis scribitur sive ezws sive swae ; 


1 Vide Harnack, 7. und U., ii. 5, p. 68, 


Abbreviation. 


Divisions. 


h 
Stichometry. 


48 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


sed accentus [ =spiritus] dispares sunt et ab eis qui ista noverunt, in 
codicibus non contemnuntur” (iv, 53 ed. Lugd. 1586, cited by 
Scrivener, i. p. 47). 

The practice of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like 
@, XS, ANOS goes back to very early times. So, too, does the use 
of letters as numerals, I for ro, etc. 

In dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the 
rule of beginning each new line with a consonant. A good many 
exceptions occur however, especially in the Vaticanus, most of 
which have been corrected by a later hand. These are indicated in 
the third volume of Swete’s edition of the LXX. A good instance 
of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12, where the Vaticanus and Marchalianus 
both originally had zpoo eveykwow, which in the former is corrected 
to zpo ceveyxwou, and in the latter to tpooe veykwow. For examples 
from the O.T. portion of the Codex Vaticanus see Nestle’s Septua- 
gintastudien, ii. 20. 

Carefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are 
provided with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better 
manuscripts of the classics, as e.g. Herodotus and Demosthenes, In 
the N.T. it is found specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back 
to the recension of Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex 
Vaticanus has copied, in several of the books of the O.T., the sticho- 
metric enumeration which he found in his original, and the numbers 
show that the manuscript he copied contained almost twice as much 
matter in a line as the one he himself wrote. See Nestle, SeAtwa- 
gintastudien, ii. 20 f.; Lagarde, Die Stichometrie der syrisch-hexa- 
Plarischen Uebersetzung des alten Testaments (Mitteilungen, iv. 
205-208). On the stichometric list in the Codex Claromontanus of 
the Pauline Epistles (D,), see p. 76. 

American scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek 
N.T. In Matthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke 
19,209. Unfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the 
N.T. See Schaff's Companton, pp. 57, 176. 

Graux (Revue de Philologie, i.) has counted not only the words 
but the letters in the various books. The numbers are given in 
Zahn’s Geschichte des N.T. Kanons, 1, 76. They are as follows :— 


Letters. Stichoi. 


Matthew, : : if : 89,295 2480 
Mark, . : : . 55,559 1543 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 49 


Letters. Stichoi. 
Eaikey .-% , : 97,714 2714 
John; . . : ‘ 70,210 1950 
Acts, : , : 4 , 94,000 2610 
@ pe@hing *« ‘ ‘ , é I,I00 31 
Apocalypse, . : : ; 46,500 1292 
For Philemon, Zahn gives ‘ 1,567 44 


In this last epistle I find that my edition has 1538 letters, or in- 
cluding the title 1550. The lines in my edition happen to coincide 
as near as may be with the ancient stichoi. 41 stichoi at 36 letters 
to the stichos would give a total of 1476. Now in the 41 complete 
lines which my edition gives to Philemon I find 1469 letters, 
that is, only 7 fewer. In Jude, again, Graux enumerates 71 stichoi, 
while my edition shows exactly 70 lines or 71 with the title. For 
stichometric calculations, therefcre, this edition will prove very 
convenient. 

For a “Table of Ancient and Modern Divisions of the New 
Testament,” see Scrivener, i. 68 ; also Westcott, Cazon, Appendix D, 
xix., xx.; Bible in the Church, Appendix B, 4. 

The Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. 
The length of the latter was regulated according to the space (space- 


lines), that of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence 


(sense-lines). On cola and commata see Wordsworth and White, 
De colis et commatibus codicis Amiatini et editionis nostrae, in the 
Lpilogus to their edition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On the 
stichometry proper see Jéid., p. 736, De stichorum numeris in 
euangellts. 

Solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen 
of Sheba, who herself could both read and write.t Mani inscribed 
characters on white satin in such a way that if a single thread was 
drawn out the writing became invisible.” On gold and silver writing 
among the Syrians see Zahn, Zatian, Forschungen, 108, n. 1; also 
R. Wessely, “conographie (Wiener Studien, xii. 2, 259-279). The 
earliest mention of this kind of writing that I know is in the Epistle 
of Aristeas,? civ . . - tats duaddpois dipGépars, ev ais [Hv] 7) vopobecia 
yeypapmevn Xpvroypadia Tots Lovdaixots ypdppacr, Oavpacins eipyacpéevov 


1 Socin, Arabic Grammar, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14; p. 56, line 12. 

2 ZdmG., xiiii. 547. 

* Konstantin Oikonomos, zep! tay 6 Epunvevtay, Bk. iv. p. 975. 
D 


Cola and 
commata, 


i 
Manuscripts 


de luxe. 


50 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


rod tyuevos Kal THS mpos GAAyAAG TvpPodAjs dveratoOntov KaTecKevac- 
pévns. In Alexander’s copy of the Pentateuch the name of God was 
written in gold letters.’ 

On the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing 
see Chrysostom, Hom. 32 in Joannem: onovdis wept tiv tov bpyevov 
Nerréryta kai Td TOV ypappatov Kdddos. Ephraem Syrus commended 
this Christian munificence, as is pointed out in the Astor. Poltt. 
Blatter, 84, 2, 104. -Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum 
on Ps. xlv: re. 

The passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the 
use of purple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived 
from that in Jerome’s Commentary on Job, and he founds on this 
an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle.” In the 
Martyrium of Qardagh the Persian, particular mention is made of the 
remarkable beauty and whiteness of the parchment (cwpdrov) on 
which he wrote his epistles.* 

For the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not 
only of rapid writers (raxvypadpor) but also of girls who could write 
beautifully (xaAAvypdor). Cassiodorus pleads—qui emendare prae- 
sumitis, ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeatis, ut 
potius ab Anfiguariis scriptae fuisse judicentur.* We also find him 
making proposals for expensive bindings in the De Jusz., c. 30, a 
passage which, according to Springer,’ has been overlooked in the 
literature on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art. 

On various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, Ueder die 
mit Gold auf Purpur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamit- 
tonschen Bibliothek, in the Berliner Sitz.-Ber., 7th March 1889, xiii. 
143-156. Cf. Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1889, 33, 34. This manu- 
script purported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but 
was rather from Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had 
the four Gospels written with the finest gold. Boniface requested 
his English friends to send him the Epistles of Paul written with 
gold in order therewith to impress the simple-minded Germans 
(Ep. 32, p- 99), a fact of which Gustav Freitag makes use in his 
Ingo und Ingraban, p. 476. (See Die Christliche Welt, 1888, 22.) 
Cf, also the manuscripts of Theodulf in Paris and Puy (see below, 


1 Hody, 1684, p. 254 ff. 


2 Vide Harnack in the 7/Zz., 1885, cols. 321, 324, n. 5. 


3 Ed. Feige, p. 53. aT Drain. Lele Cn XV 
5 Sachs. Sitz.-Ber. (1889), xi. 4, 369. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 51 


p- 125). The Cistercians forbade the use of gold and silver bind- 
ings or clasps (firmacula) and also of different colours. 

Illustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manu- 
scripts a whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if 
H. Kothe is right in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes 
Laertius, ii. 3, 8 (=Clem., Stvom., i. 78, p. 364, Potter): mpa&ros 8& 
"Avaaydpas kai BiBd<ov eédwxe civ ypady (“ with a picture ” : formerly 
read as ovyypagjs). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the 
obscene poems of Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to 
exist of the works of the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the 
botanist Dioscorides, of the tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer 
Ptolemy. A description of the earliest illustrated Bibles is given by 
Victor Schultze in the Dakeim, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good 
facsimiles. On the horses in the chariot of Elijah in a Greek 
manuscript of the ninth century in the Vatican Library, and on the 
pictures of the horsemen in the codex of Joshua also contained there, 
see F. aus’m Weerth in the Jahrbuch des Vereins von Altertums- 
Freunden im Rheinland, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI. 

Cassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus—/.e. a manuscript of the Old 
Latin Bible of large size—which contained pictures of the Tabernacle 
and the Temple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius 
entitled istoria Bibliorum pictorum ex antiguitatibus Ebraeorum et 
Christianorum illustrata cum figuris, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to ; and by the 
same author, Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen, Lips. 1738, also 
fiistoria Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejunets tllustrata, 
Lips., 1741. See also Georg Thiele, De antiguorum libris pictis 
capita quattuor, Marburg, 1897. 

Palimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the 
Church. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quini- 
sextum, 680-681), in its 68th canon, [epi rod pi e&etvad tun Tov 
ardvtw Biria THs wadaas Kai véas dvabyKys dvapGetpe, forbids the 
sale of old manuscripts of the Bible to the BuBdAoxéwrndAo or the 
pupevot, Or to any persons whatever.! There was naturally a special 
aversion to letting such manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews ; but 
yet there were discovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of 
Old Cairo, fragments of a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had 


} Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that twés 81 aloxpoxépdecay 
BiBAlwv trav Ociwy ypaday éumopevduevor amfdrccpor, and he requests onuelwoa 
TaITa 51a Tovs BiBAtoKamhAous Tovs amarelPovtas Tav Velwy ypapar. 


Illustration. 


k 
Palimpsests. 


l ; 
Punctuation, 


m 
Contents. 


52 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


been afterwards employed to receive Jewish writing. Parchments of 
this sort were at first used only for rough drafts and such like, 
instead of wax tablets from which the writing could be erased again. 

A good example of the importance of punctuation will be found in 
Lk. i. 35, on which see p. 201. Compare also Lk. xxi. 8, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 
where Lachmann punctuates kat év@porwv avOpwros,. By a different 
punctuation in Heb. i. 9, Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort make 
5 @eds vocative and nominative respectively. In the former case the 
Messiah is God, in the other God is the one who anoints him. This 
difference was not observed at first by O. v. Gebhardt. Similarly 
there is a difference between the text and the margin of Westcott and 
Hort in verse 8, where by the insertion or omission of the two 
commas before and after 6 @eds the meaning is either that Messiah is 
God or that God is Messiah’s throne. Considering the importance 
of such marks of division, the rule laid down by Ephraem Syrus in 
the year 350, and again emphasized by Bengel and Lagarde, should 
be carefully attended to in the New Testament: € xéxryoar BuBd<éov, 
eboTixés KTHTAL adTO: pyToTeE ebpEebh ev adiTG TpdcKoppa TE avaywooKovTL 
) peraypapovre (see Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, p. 24). Compare 
also what Chrysostom says regarding punctuation on Mt. vill. 9 : tues 
8& Kal otTws dvaywwcKover ToT! TO xwpiov" €i yap eyo avOpwros dy, Kal 
peraéy origavtes erayovow iro eovoiav éxwv tr éuavTod oTparwras. 
See also Victor (or whoever it is) on Mk. xvi. 9. On the change of 
the sense by means of false emphasis or punctuation see below, 
pp. 204(7), 276. J. A. Robinson thinks it probable that 6 ’Ayamnros 
is a separate title of the Messiah, and would point 6 vids pov, 6 
"Ayamnros in Mk. i. 11, ix. 7 on the authority of the Ascensio ELsatae 
and the Old Syriac (see Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, ii. 501). 

On the contents of Bible manuscripts see Zahn, GA. 1. 62 f. 
According to him Jerome’s Old Testament was in 14 volumes. In 
addition to some entire Bibles Cassiodorus had the Scriptures written 
out ing codices. Of these vol. VII. comprised the Gospels, VIII. 
the Epistles, and IX. the Acts and Apocalypse. Leontius speaks of 
6 books of the New Testament, of which probably I. was Mt. and 
Mk., II. Lk. and Jn., III. Acts, IV. Catholic Epistles, V. Pauline 
Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. Asa rule the Gospels and the Pauline 
Epistles made two codices. 

In cod. 8 we find that the different parts of the New Testament 
display a different type of text, from which we may conclude that the 
codex was copied, not from a single manuscript but from several. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. se 


Similarly, the singular type of text exhibited by cod. A in Mark 
would show that this codex, or that from which it was copied, was 
transcribed from different rolls or codices, each containing one 
Gospel. See Zahn, GX. i. 63. 

On the designation Bibliotheca and Pandectes for Bible manuscripts, 
see Zahn, GX. 1. 65. On redyxos, zbéd. 67. He informs us that the 
earliest mention of a Christian dzb/io¢heca and its armaria is in the 
heathen protocol of the year 304, in the Gesta apud Zenophilum given 
in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in 
Augustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the 
Readers. In Ruinart’s Acta Saturnint a certain Ampelius is men- 
tioned. as “custos legis, scripturarumque divinarum _fidelissimus 
conservator.” From Irenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at 
that time the few existing copies of the Scriptures were in the custody 
of the clergy, and were only to be perused in their presence. (Zusatze 
su einer notigen Antwort. Works, ed. Maltzahn, x1. 2, 179.) On this 
point see Zahn, GK. i. 140. 


(a.) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS. 


& CODEX SINAITICUS, now in St. Petersburg, contains the 
entire New Testament written in the fourth or more probably 
at the beginning of the fifth century. The story of its dis- 
covery and acquisition is quite romantic. When Tischendorf, 
under the patronage of his sovereign King Frederick Augustus 
of Saxony, came to the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount 
Sinai for the first time in 1844, he rescued from a basket there 
forty-three old sheets of parchment which, with other rubbish, 
were destined for the fire. In this way he obtained possession of 
portions of one of the oldest MSS. of the Old Testament, 
which he published as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus 
(F-A) in 1846. At the same time he learned that other por- 
tions of the same Codex existed in the Monastery. He could 
find no trace of these, however, on his second visit in 1853. 
But on his third visit, undertaken with the patronage of the 
Emperor of Russia, the steward of the monastery brought him, 
shortly before his departure on the 4th February 1859, what 


n 
Bibliotheca, 


N 


54 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


surpassed all his expectations, the entire remaining portions of 
the Codex comprising a great part of the Old Testament and 
the whole of the New, wrapped up in a red cloth. Not only 
was the New Testament perfect, but in addition to the twenty- 
seven books, the MS. contained the Epistle of Barnabas and 
part of the so-called Shepherd of Hermas, two books of the 
greatest repute in early Christian times, the Greek text of which 
was only partially extant in Europe. Tischendorf managed to 
secure the MS. for the Emperor of Russia, at whose expense 
it was published in four folio volumes in the year 1862 on the 
thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire. 
In return for the MS. the monastery received a silver shrine 
for St. Catherine, a gift of 7000 roubles for the library and 
2000 for the monastery on Mount Tabor, while several 
Russian decorations were distributed among the Fathers. 

Unfortunately the art of photography was not so far ad- 
vanced thirty-eight years ago as to permit a perfect facsimile to 
be made of the MS., and Tischendorf had to be content with 
a printed copy executed as faithfully as the utmost care and 
superintendence would admit. 

To what date does the manuscript belong? There is still 
extant a letter of the first Christian Emperor Constantine 
dating from the year 331, in which he asks Eusebius, Bishop 
of Caesareain Palestine, to provide him with fifty copies of the 
Old and New Testament for use in the principal churches of 
his empire (zevt}Kovta cwuartia ev dipOépats eyKatacKevors) and 
puts two public carriages at the bishop’s disposal for their 
safe transport. We have also the letter that Eusebius sent 
along with these Bibles, in which he consigns them ép 
TOAVTEAGS HoKNMEVOLS TEVYETL TplTTa Kal TeTpacca—Z~.e. “in 
expensively prepared volumes of three and four.” With former 
scholars Tischendorf understood the expression tpicoa kai 
tetpacoa of the number of sheets in the quires of the manu- 
scripts, as though they had been composed of ternions and 
quaternions of twelve and sixteen pages respectively. Others 
took it as referring to the number of columns on the pages, 


« 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 55 


Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf believed to be one of 
these fifty Bibles, being unique in showing four columns to the 
page. The most probable explanation of the phrase is, how- 
ever, that it indicates the number of volumes each Bible com- 
prised, and means that each Bible of three or four parts, as 
the case might be, was packed in a separate box.! Tischendorf, 
as has been said, saw in Codex Sinaiticus one of these fifty 
Bibles. He also thought that 8 was the work of four different 
scribes, and was confident that one of these, the one who had 
written only six leaves of the New Testament, was the scribe 
of Codex Vaticanus. But other authorities bring » down to 
the beginning of the fifth century. 

One can understand how it was that Tischendorf was led 
to overrate the value of this manuscript at first, and to call it 
by the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet to signify its pre- 
eminence over all other manuscripts. The claim is so far 
justified that it is at least one of the oldest manuscripts, and 
of the oldest the only one that contains the entire New 
Testament. The order is that of the Gospels, Pauline 
Epistles (among which Hebrews is found after 2 Thess.), 
Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, after which come 
Barnabas and Hermas.2. This same order is observed in the 
Old Syriac Bible, and in the first printed Greek New Testa- 
ment, the Complutensian Polyglot. The fact that Barnabas 
is still tacitly included in the books of the New Testament 


10On Constantine’s Bibles, see Westcott, Canon, c. ii. p. 426; Bible tn the 
Church, c. vi. p. 185 ff. ; Zahn, Geschichte des N. 7. Kanons, i. 64. Zahn com- 
bats the supposition that the entire Bible was contained in each Codex, pointing 
out quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been edueTakduloTa, 
and moreover that Constantine speaks of swudria, which does not mean codices 
but something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius intended 
to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or of the columns in 
which it was written. ‘‘ The fifty Bibles might and would be distributed in 200 to 
4oo volumes.” According to the view taken above there would be from 150 to 
200 of these. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 118,.n. 2. 

2 For the order of the books in x, see Westcott, Bible in the Church, Appendix 
B, ‘* Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, x, D, Amiat.)” ; 
Hist. of the Canon, Appendix D, ‘‘ Catalogues of Books of the Bible during the 
first eight Centuries.” = ~ 


ad 


Canons. 


56 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


may be taken equally as indicating the age of w itself or that 
of the exemplar from which it was copied.’ Jerome's recen- 
sion of Origen’s Lexicon of Proper Names in the Greek New 
Testament is still extant, and in it Barnabas is cited like the 
other books. In the Catalogus Claromontanus, which is a 
very old list of the books of the New Testament, Barnabas is 
even found before the Apocalypse, an arrangement which is 
not found again in the succeeding centuries. 

x is also the oldest MS. that has the so-called Ammonian 
Sections and Eusebian Canons. In order to facilitate the 
study of the Gospels, Ammonius of Alexandria arranged, 
alongside of Matthew’s Gospel, the parallel passages. in 
Mark, Luke, and John. For this purpose he was obliged 
of course to dislocate these last.2 Eusebius, however, 
simply divided the four Gospels into 1162 sections—viz., 
355 in Matthew, 233 in Mark, 342 in Luke, and 232 in 
John. These he numbered consecutively in each Gospel, and 
then arranged the numbers in ten Canons or Tables. The 
first contained those passages which are found in all the four 
Gospels ; the second, third, and fourth those common to any 
particular combination of three; the fifth to the ninth com- 
prised the passages common to any two, and the tenth those 
peculiar to each one. The number of its Canon was then set 
under that of the section in the margin, and the Table inserted 
at the beginning or end of the manuscript. By this means 
it was possible to know in the case of each section whether a 
parallel was to be found in the other Gospels,and where. In 
the margin opposite John xv. 20, eg., we find the numbers 
prd 
y 
is also found in Matthew and Luke. For on referring to 
Canon 3 we find that it contains the passages common to John, 


; te. ve Fe This tells us that this 139th section of John 


1 Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hermas. What did these 
contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a different 
conjecture in the Zzterardsches Centralblatt, 1897, N. 49. 

2 Vide Wordsworth and White, Zfz/ogus, p. 737, De Sectionibus Ammonianis 
tn Evangeliis. 


CHAP: I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 57 


Matthew, and Luke, and that this section numbered 139 in 
John, is 90 in Matthew and 58 in Luke. And the sections 
being numbered consecutively in each Gospel, we easily ascer- 
tain that the former is Matthew x. 24, and the latter Luke 
vi. 40. These, or similar numbers, were afterwards inserted in 
the lower margin of manuscripts, as, e.g., in Codex Argenteus 
of the Version of Ulfilas. They are still printed alongside 
the text in our larger editions, though, of course, owing to the 
introduction of our system of chapter and verse division they 
have lost their main significance. 

Now, a Codex like s represents to us not one manuscript 
only, but several at once. It embodies first of all the manu- 
script from which its text was immediately derived, and then 
also that or those by which it was revised. That is to say, 
after the manuscript was written by the scribe, either to dicta- 
tion or by copying, it was, particularly in the case of a costly 
manuscript, handed over to a person called the diopAwrij¢ and 
revised. This might be done several times over; it might be 
done by a later owner if he were a scholar. But it might 
happen, as in the case of 8 ¢.g., that the exemplar by which 
the manuscript was revised was not the identical one from 
which it had been copied but a different one, perhaps older, 
perhaps exhibiting another form of text altogether. Tischen- 
dorf distinguished no fewer than seven correctors in x. One 
of these, belonging, it may be, to the seventh century, adds a 
note at the end of the book of Ezra to the following effect,— 
“This codex was compared with a very ancient exemplar 
which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr 
Pamphilus ; which exemplar contained at the end the sub- 
scription in his own hand: ‘Taken and corrected according to 
the Hexapla of Origen: Antonius compared it: I, Pamphilus, 
corrected it.”1 A similar note is found appended to the 


1 ’AvreBAnOn mpos madatdtatoyv Alay avtiypapov Sed:0pOwuevoy yep) Tod ayiov 
paptupos Maudlrov: Smep avtiypadoy mpds Ta TéAEL bmognuciwais Tis ididyxeELpos 
avTov trexerto €xovea ows’ weTeATH UPON Kal SiopAGOn mpds Ta EEaMAG 'Apiyévous* 
*Avtwvivos avtéBadev" TMdaudidos didpbwoa. 


Revisions, 


58 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IL. 


Book of Esther, where it is also pointed out that variants 
occurred in the case of proper names. Traces are still dis- 
coverable in the Psalms which go to prove that the corrector’s 
Bible agreed with that of Eusebius, while the manuscript 
itself had been copied from one that was very different. 

A considerable number of scholars are of opinion that s was 
written in the West, perhaps in Rome. (See Plate 1) 


Tischendorf: (1) Wotitia editionis, 1860 ; (2) Bibliorum Codex Sin- 
aiticus Petropolitanus, Petropoli, 1862, fol. Vol. I., Prolegomena et 
Commentaria; Vol. 1V., Novum Testamentum. (3) JV. 7: Sinazticum, 
Lips. 1863. (Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel, Lips. 1863; Waffen 
der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel, Lips. 1863.) (4) W. TZ. Graece 
ex Sinaitico Codice omnium antiquissimo, Lips. 1865. Collatio textus 
graeci editionis polyglottae cum Novo Testamento Sinaitico. A | ppenadix 
editionis Novi Testamenti polyglottae, Bielefeldiae. Sumptibus Vel- 
hagen et Klasing, 1894, large 8vo, pp. iv. 96. (Preface only by 
Tischendorf.) On Kenyon’s showing, the recent papyrus discoveries 
give no occasion for abandoning the conclusions formerly.come to 
regarding the age of these parchment manuscripts (Padaeography, 
p. 120). Scrivener, A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the 
Received Text of the N. Testament, 2nd edition, 1867. Ezra Abbot, 
“On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manu- 
scripts of the Greek Bible,” Jowrnad of the American Oriental Society, 
vol. x., i. 1872, pp. 189 Ff. 


A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS: middle or end of the fifth 
century: written probably at Alexandria: contains a note in 
Arabic stating that it was presented to the library of the 
Patriarch of Alexandria in the year 1098. The Codex was 
sent by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. 
of England in 1628, and was deposited in the library of the 
British Museum on its foundation in 1753, where it has been 
ever since. It has been employed in the textual criticism of 
the New Testament since the time of Walton. It was printed 
in 1786 by Woide in facsimile from wooden type. The Old 
Testament portion of it was also published in 1816-1828 by 
Baber. The entire manuscript was issued in autotype fac- 
simile in 1879 and 1880. 





CHAP. IL. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 59 


The Codex is defective at the beginning of the New Testa- 
ment, the first twenty-six leaves down to Matthew xxv. 6 being 
absent, as also two containing John vi. 50-viii. 52, and three 
containing 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6. It also contains after the 
Apocalypse the (first) Epistle of Clement of Rome and a 
small fragment of the so-called second Epistle, which is really 
an early sermon. In the Codex these are recognised as parts 
of the New Testament, inasmuch as in the table of contents 
prefixed to the entire work they are included with the other 
books under the title 4 caw diaOnxn After them is given 
the number of books ouov 6:8da, only the figures are now, 
unfortunately, torn away. The contents indicate that the 
Psalms of Solomon should have followed, but these have 
been lost with the rest of the manuscript. 

A is distinguished among the oldest manuscripts by the 
use of capital letters to indicate new sections. But in order 
to economize room and to obviate spacing the lines, the first 
letter of the section, if it occurs in the middle of a line, is not 
written larger, but the one that occurs at the beginning of the 
next whole line is enlarged and projects into the margin. 
(See Plate [. 2.) Later scribes have copied this so slavishly 
that they have written these letters in capitals even when they 
occur in the middle of the line in their manuscripts. The 
Egyptian origin of this Codex is shown by its use of Coptic 
forms for A and M. In several books A displays a remark- 
able affinity with Jerome in those very passages where he 
deviates from the older Latin version. 

The books in A follow the order—Gospels, Acts, Catholic 
Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse. (Westcott, Cazon, 
Appendix D. xii.; Bzble tn the Church, Appendix B.) 


Woide, 1786; eiusdem, (Votitia codicis Alexandrini, Recud. cur. 
notasque adjecit G. L. Spohn, Lipsiae, 1788; Cowper, 1860; 
Hansell, 1864; Photographic facsimile by Thompson, 1879 ; and in 
the Facsimiles of the Palzeograpical Society, Pl. 106. 

1 This agrees with the last of the so-called Apostolic Canons (85), which includes 


KAnuevtos EmotoaAat S00 among the Books of the New Testament after the Epistles 
of James and Jude. See Westcott, Cason, Appendix D. iii. a. 


60 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IL 


The mixed character of the text of A was early observed ; see 
Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 94. 

C. F. Hoole ascribes the Codex Alexandrinus to the middle of 
the fourth century (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1891; see Academy, 
July 25, 1891, 73). 

B. CODEX VATICANUS far excellence, No. 1209 in the 
Vatican Library at Rome, inserted there shortly after its 
foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest 
treasures. Like A it once contained the whole of the Old 
Testament with the exception of the Books of Maccabees. 
The first 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. I-xlvi, 28, are now 
wanting, as well as 20 from the Psalms containing Ps. 
cv. (cvi.) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6. The New Testament 
is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks off at 
xa9a[piec]. 1 and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse 
are, therefore, also wanting. Rahlfs supposes that the manu- 
script may have originally contained the Didache and the 
Shepherd of Hermas as well. Erasmus obtained some account 
of this manuscript, and Pope Sixtus V. made it the basis of 
an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was published 
in 1586, thereby determining the JZertus receptus of that 
portion of the Bible—Would he had done the same for the 
New Testament! This task was undertaken afterwards, 
specially by Bentley and Birch. Professor Hug of Freiburg 
recognised the value of the Codex when it was removed from 
Rome to Paris by Napoleon in 1809. Cardinal Angelo Mai 
printed an edition of it between 1828 and 1838, which, how-- 
ever, did not appear till 1857, three years after his death, and 
which was most unsatisfactory. After Tischendorf had led 
the way with the Codex Sinaiticus, Pope Pio Nono gave 
orders for an edition, which was printed between 1868 and 1872 
in five folio volumes. Not till 1881, however, did the last 
volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable 
commentary prepared under the supervision of Vercellone, 
J. Cozza, C. Sergio, and H. Fabiani, with the assistance of 
U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi, Then at last the manuscript was 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 61 


photographed, the New Testament in 1889, and the Old 
Testament, in three volumes, in 1890—a veritable 7X/ov 
avaOnua. No facsimile now can give any idea of its original 
beauty, because a hand of the tenth or eleventh century—or 
as the Roman editors say, a monk called Clement in the 
fifteenth century—went over the whole manuscript, letter by 
letter, with fresh ink, restoring the faded characters and at 
the same time adding accents and breathings in accordance 
with the pronunciation of his time (aua€a, for example, and 
adwrné, dé). The Old Testament is the work of at least two 
scribes, one of whom wrote down to I Sam. ix. 11, and the 
other to the end of 2 Esdras, Tischendorf’s opinion with 
regard tothe writer of the New Testament has been already 
noticed. There can be no question that B is more carefully 
written than ». In the Gospels the Vatican exhibits a 
peculiar division into 170, 62, 152, and 80 sections respec- 
tively, which is found also in ®; in the Acts there is a 
double division into 36 and 69.1 The enumeration affixed to 
the Pauline Epistles shows that these were copied from a 
manuscript in which Hebrews came after Galatians, though 
in B its position has been changed so as to follow 2 Thessa- 
lonians. The copyist has also retained in part of the Old 
Testament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found in 
his original. In the New Testament the order of the books 
is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles. An 
increased interest would be lent to this manuscript if, as has 
been supposed, it represents the recension of the Egyptian 
Bishop and Martyr Hesychius, of which Jerome makes men- 
tion in two places. (Bousset, Zertkritische Studien zum 
Neuen Testament, pp. 74-110, see especially p. 96.) On the 
Egyptian character of B, see also Burkitt in 7erts and Studies, 
v. p. viii. f., and compare below, p. 183 f. (See Plate IV.) 
Hug, Commentatio de antiquitate codicis Vaticant, 1810. Vercellone, 
Dell antichissimo codice Vaticano della Bibbia Greca, 1859 ; reprinted 


1 On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18 sections 
respectively, see Kenyon in the Journal of Theological Studzes, i. 149. 


62 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. II. 


in his Dissertazioni accademiche, Roma, 1864, 15 ff. First facsimile 
reproduction, Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus . 
collatis studtis Caroli Vercellone et Josephi Cozza editus, vol. v., Rome, 
1868 ; vol. vi. (Proleg. Comment. Tab. ed. Henr. Fabiani et Jos. 
Cozza), 1881; of. ZhLz., 1882, vi. 9. A. Giovanni, Dela Jllus- 
trazione del? edizione Romana del Codice Vaticano, Rome, 1869. 
Photographic edition, Vouvwm Testamentum e Codice Vaticano 
1209... . phototypice repraesentatum ... . curante Jos. Cozza- 
Luzi, Rome, 1889, fol.; see H. C. Hoskier, Zhe Expositor, 1889, 
vol. x. 457 ff.; O. v. Gebhardt, 7%Zz., 1890, 16; Nestle, Se/.-Sz,, 
ii. 16 ff. Alf. Rahlfs, Alter und Heimat der Vatikanischen Bibel- 
handschrift (Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Gottingen, Philo- 
logisch-historische Klasse, 1889, Heft i. pp. 72-79). In this article 
Rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and order of the books in the 
Old and New Testaments contained in B correspond exactly to the 
Canon of the Scriptures given by Athanasius in his thirty-ninth 
Festal Letter of the year 367. In it, Athanasius, after mentioning 
all the canonica!’ books of the Bible, including those of the N. T., 
cites the extra-canonical books of the O. T. which are allowed to 
be read, putting them after the second group, BiBrAou orix7ypets, 
because two of these books, Wisdom and Sirach, were to be written 
otixndov. In the N. T. the Greek and Syriac forms of the Festal 
Letter put Hebrews expressly between the Epistles to the Churches 
and the Pastoral Epistles. In the Sahidic version of the Letter, 
however, Hebrews stands before Galatians. This latter arrangement 
is evidently the survival of a pre-Athanasian order which has been 
longer preserved in the Sahidic translation.! But if B is the work 
of Athanasius, it follows that it cannot be one of the Bibles 
ordered by Constantine. In this case it would rather be written in 
Egypt, and we should have in it the Recension of Hesychius, as 
Grabe supposed was the case in the O. T., while Hug held the same 
view in regard to the N. T. text of this manuscript (see below, c. III.). 
Against the theory of Rahlfs, see O. v. Gebhardt in the Zheologische 
Litteraturseitung, 1899, Nn. 20. 


1 For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, Cazoz, App. D. xiv., p. 5543; idle in the 
Church, p. 159 ff. ; Preuschen’s Azalecta, pp. 144 ff. ; Burgess, Festal Letters of 
Athanasius translated from the Syriac, p. 137. Sahidic published by C. 
Schmidt in the Nachrichten mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to 
be the original form of the Letter. 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 63 


C. CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS, No. g in the National 
Library at Paris, the most important of the palimpsests. This 
manuscript receives its name from the fact that in the 
twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of Ephraem, the Syrian 
Father (d. 373), were written over the original text. After 
various attempts had been made at its decipherment by Wett- 
stein and others, Tischendorf in 1843 and 1845 published as 
much of the New and Old Testaments as he was able to 
make out after eighteen months’ labour, thereby establishing 
his reputation as a textual critic. 

The manuscript once contained the entire Bible, but the 
whole of I and 2 Thessalonians has been lost, as also some 
37 chapters from the Gospels, 10 from the Acts, 42 from the 
Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse. There is no trace of a 
chapter division in Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. This last 
seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of 
about 120 small leaves, one of which had been displaced by 
some mistake. The Codex dates from the fifth century, and 
may possibly have been written in Egypt. Its earliest correc- 
tions are important, and were inserted in the sixth century. 

A detailed list of the contents of C is given by Scrivener, 
vol. i. 121. Facsimile, zdzd@., Plate X. p. 121. 


Tischendorf, 7%. St. und Kr., 1841, 126 ff; N.T. edited 1843, O. T. 
1845. Lagarde, Ges. Abhandlungen, p. 94. The page of the O. T. 
which Tischendorf issued in facsimile has most unfortunately dis- 
appeared, as Martin points out in his Description technique des 
manuscrits grecs relatifs au NV. T., ett., Paris, 1884, p. 4. A. Jacob, 
Notes sur les MSS. grecs palimpsestes de la Bibliotheque Nationale, in 
Melanges Julien Havet, 759-770. 


The foregoing is what remains of the four great manuscripts 
which once contained the whole Bible. It will be observed 
that at the present time they are distributed among the 
Capitals of the great branches of the Christian Church—viz., 
St. Petersburg (Greek), Rome and Paris(Roman), and London 
(Anglican). German scholars have taken a foremost place in 
the work of their investigation. 


64 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


D. CopEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS, inferior to the fore- 
going in age, compass, and repute, but perhaps surpassing all 
of them in importance, by reason of its unique character. The 
manuscript was presented to the University of Cambridge in 
1581 by Calvin’s friend Theodore Beza, “ut inter vere chris- 
tianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus celeberrimae.” It 
is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth century, but 
is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the Greek-Latin 
manuscripts of the Bible. It now contains, with certain lacune, 
the Gospels (in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the con- 
cluding verses of the Latin text of 3 John, followed immedi- 
ately by the Acts, showing that in this manuscript the Epistle 
of Jude either stood somewhere else or was absent altogether. 
At least nine later hands can be distinguished in it. The first 
scribe was more familiar with Latin than Greek, and therefore 
inserts a Roman letter here and there in the middle of a Greek 
word, and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the 
mistakes he makes in writing his manuscript.! Innumerable 
passages occur, particularly in Luke and Acts, where the text 
of D differs in the most remarkable manner from that of all 
the Greek manuscripts we are acquainted with. It alone, eg., 
contains after Luke vi. 4 the incident of the man working in 
the field on the Sabbath day, to whom Jesus said, “O Man, 
if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou, but if thou 
knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.” 
It is the only one also that has the words in Luke xi. 2, “ when 
ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the Noroi.” In Luke xxiii. 
53, it says that the stone before the grave of Jesus was of such 
a size by moyls etkoot exUALov, an addition in which it has the 
support of only one Latin MS. and the Sahidic Version. 
Again in Acts xii. 10, it is alone in recording that there were 
seven steps down from the prison in Jerusalem (xatéBnoay Tous 
éxta Bauovs). Other examples might be given of similar 
peculiar interpolations for the explanation of which reference 
must be made to c. III. below. 

1 Bie. ATIECTALKEN, 122d, 4. 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 65 


Its companion Latin text d is not translated directly from 
its own Greek but from the Greek of the parent manuscript. 
Seeing that the manuscript was discovered in the Monastery 
of Irenzeus at Lyons, and that its text agrees with the Scripture 
quotations found in that Father even in the matter of clerical 
mistakes, it is possible that the Greek text is derived from his 
copy. The Greek occupies the left-hand page of the open 
volume, which is the place of honour. (See Plates [I and III.) 


Kipling, Facsimile edition, Codex Th. Bezae Cantabrigtensis, 1793, 
2 vols. ; Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis. An exact copy in 
ordinary type... with critical introduction, annotations, and fac- 
similes. to, pp. lxiv+453, 1864. Collation of the same by Nestle, 
Supplementum, 1896 (see p. 26). Cambridge University Press, 
Photographic facsimile. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis Quattuor Evan- 
gelia et Actus Apostolorum continens Graece et Latine. 2 vols., pp. 
830, 1899. 12 guineas. (See Lzterature, 29th April 1899, p. 451 
ff.); Dav. Schulz, Disputatio de Codice D., 1827; K. A. Credner, 
Beitrige zur Einleitung, vol. 1.. 1832, pp. 452-518; J. R. Harris, 
Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western Text of the N. T. 
(Texts and Studies, vol. i.) Cambridge, 1891 ; also Credner and the 
Codex Bezae. A Lecture delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge, 
19th Nov. 1892. (Zhe Classical Review, vol. vii. 6, June 1893, 
pp. 237-243); Chase, Zhe Old Syriac Element in the text of Codex 
Bezae, London, 1893; also Zhe Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, 
London, 1895 ; Nestle, Some Observations on the Codex Bezae in the 
Expositor, v. 2, 1895, p. 235; H. Trabaud, Ux curieux manuscrit 
du NV. T. in the Revue de théologie et de philosophie, Lausanne, 
1896, p. 378; Fr. Blass: 1. Die zwiefache Textiiberlieferung in der 
A postelgeschichte (Th, St. Kr., 1894, p. 86 ff.); 2. Acta Apostolorum 
sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber alter. Editio philologica, Gottingen, 
1895; 3. Acta Apostolorum ... secundum formam quae videtur 
Romanam, Leipzig, 1896; 4. Ueber die verschiedenen Textformen in 
den Schriften des Lukas (Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1895, p. 712) ; 
5. De duplici forma Actorum Lucae (Hermathena, Dublin, 1895, p. 
121); 6.De varits formis Evangelit Lucani (Lbid., Dublin, 1896, p. 291) ; 
7. Neue Texteszeugen fiir die Apostelgeschichte (Th. St. Kr., 1896, 
p- 436); 8. Bvangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucae ad Theophilum 
Liber prior. Secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig, 
1897; B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Textkritische 

E 


Gospels. 


66 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


Untersuchung, Leipzig, 1897, (=Texte und Untersuchungen. N. F. 
Zweiter Band, Heft 1); F. Graefe, Der Codex Bezae und das Lucas- 
evangelium, Th. St. Kr., 1898, 1. 116-140 ; compare especially, Ox the 
Italian Origin of Codex Bezae, 1. Codex Bezae and cod, 1071, by 
the Rev. K. Lake; 2. The Marginal Notes of Lections, by the Rey. 
F. E. Brightman in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 3 (April 
1900) pp. 441-454. Codex 1071 is a minuscule on Mt. Athos, in 
which the text of the Pericope Adulterae (John viii.) is essentially the 
same as the singular text exhibited by D. It seems to have come from 
Calabria. The lectionary indicated in the margin of D points toa 
mixed Greek and Latin population such as that in the South of Italy. 


In what follows the manuscripts are grouped according to 
their contents as copies of the Gospels, Acts and Catholic 
Epistles, Pauline Epistles, or of the Apocalypse. 

E. CODEX BASILIENSIS, by some ascribed to the seventh 
century, but belonging more probably to the eighth: brought 
to Europe by Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was sent on a 
mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basel (1431): used 
by Mill, Bengel, and Wettstein: Luke iii. 4-15 and xxiv. 47-53 
wanting: has been in the University Library at Basel since 
E550: (Serivenet, 1.\p. 131,Plate-X1. 27) 

F. BOREELIANUS, written in the ninth century: so called 
as belonging at one time to a Dutchman named John 
Boreel: now in Utrecht: has many lacune, some Of which 
have arisen since Wettstein collated the manuscript in 1730. 
(Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 28.) 

F*, COISLINIANUS, of the seventh century, though some 
say the sixth and others the eighth: consists of only 26 verses 
from Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Col., and 
Heb., written on the margin of a famous Parisian manuscript 
of the Octoteuch in Greek containing Gen.—Deut., Josh., Jud., 
and Ruth. List of contents of F* in Scrivener, i. 134. 

G. SEIDELIANUS, of the tenth century: part of it in the 
British Museum in London and part in Trinity College, 
Cambridge: brought from the East by Seidel and presented 
in 1718 by the Berlin Librarian La Croze to J. Chr. Wolf, a 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 67 


clergyman in Hamburg who cut out half a page to send to 
Bentley in 1721. (Scrivener, i, 131, Plate XI. 29.) 

H, SEIDELIANUS II., of the ninth century, in Hamburg: 
bequeathed with his library to his native city by Wolf, and 
rediscovered there in 1838. (Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 31.) 

I. TISCHENDORFIANUS IL., fragments of seven manuscripts 
in St. Petersburg found by Tischendorf in the Monastery of 
Mar Saba, near the Dead Sea: consists of 28 palimpsest leaves 
with Greek writing of the tenth century containing only 255 
verses of the New Testament, of which 190 are from the 
Gospels: the three oldest leaves are of the fifth century ; 
some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete Bible : 
detailed list of contents in Scrivener, i. 134 f. 

I, So indicated by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, 
formerly known as N°, of the fourth or more probably the 
fifth century: a threefold palimpsest written first in Greek 
and afterwards twice in Syriac: contains 17 verses from John’s 
Gospel: now in the British Museum: list of verses in 
Scrivener, 1. 141. 

K. Cyprius, No. 63 in the National Library at Paris: 
middle of the ninth century : purchased in Cyprus for Colbert 
in 1673: one of the six, or including Q seven, complete uncial 
manuscripts of the Gospels, the others being s BMSU (Q). 
Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate VII. p. 153. 

L. Reatus, No. 62 in the National Library at Paris: of the 
eighth century: contains the four Gospels complete with the 
exception of five lacunz in Matthew iv. v. and xxviii, Mark 
x. and xv., and in John xxi.: important as showing the 
double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel which is exhibited as yet, 
except in versions, in only three other uncials (", p, and VY) 
and one minuscule (see Plate X.). Facsimile of L, Mark xvi, 
8, 9, in Scrivener, i., Plate IX. 21, p. 137. The conclusions, as 
found in L, 1, p, and Y, are printed and discussed in Swete’s 
Gospel according to St. Mark, pp. xcviii, xcix. See also West- 
cott and Hort’s Introduction, Appendix, p. 28 ff; Scrivener, 11. 
337; Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, iii, p. 13. 


68 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


M. CAMPIANUS, 48 in the National Library, Paris: of the 
ninth century: presented to Louis XIV. by the Abbé Francois 
de Camps, 1st January 1706: contains the four Gospels com- 
plete: one of the oldest manuscripts, with the exception of 
D, that exhibit the pericope of the adulteress, John vii. 53 ff. 
Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate XII. p. 134. 

N. PURPUREUS, belonging to the end of the sixth century: 
one of the most lovely manuscripts, consisting of 45 leaves, of 
which 6 are in the Vatican Library at Rome, 4 in the British 
Museum, 2 in Vienna, and the remaining 33 in the Monastery 
of St. John in Patmos, from which, in all probability, the others 
were carried off. The manuscript is written with silver letters 
on a purple ground, only the letters are not printed on it with 
movable type as was formerly supposed in the case of the 
similar Codex Argenteus of Ulfilas. The contents are given 
in Scrivener, i. 139 f., and a facsimile at p. 98, Plate V. 
182 other leaves belonging to this manuscript were recently 
acquired in Cappadocia for Russia. 


The Vienna fragment is most beautifully printed in facsimile in that 
superb work, Die Wiener Genesis, edited by Wilh. Ritter von Hartel 
and Franz Wickhoff: Supplement to vols. xv. and xvi. of the Jahrbuch 
der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhichsten Kaiserhauses. 
Vienna, 1895. Hartel (p. 142) sees no reason why the manuscript 
should not be ascribed to the fifth century. 

The text of Codex N, including the new Russian fragments, has 
been published with Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. H. S. 
Cronin in Zexts and Studies, v. 4, 1899. The Appendix contains a 
collation of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Imperatricis Theodorae 
(Scriv. 473 : Hort 81: Tisch. 2”°: Greg. 565 ; seenoteonp.151). See 
Nestle in the Zeitschrift fiir wiss. Theologie, 42 (1859), pp. 621-623. 

Some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in 
Paris. See H. Omont, Acad. des Inscr., Mars—Avril 1900. 


O. In Moscow, consists of a few leaves taken from the 
binding of a book: contains 15 verses from John’s Gospel 
i, and xx.: written in the ninth century. 

O*-}, Psalters, in whiclt are found, after the Psalms among 





CHAP. IL] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 69 


the poetic selections from the Bible, the Magnificat, the 
Benedictus, and the Nunc Dimittis from the first and second 
chapters of Luke’s Gospel. O*% is a Greek Psalter of the sixth 
century written in Latin characters and is at Verona. O*isa 
purple Psalter of the seventh century at Zurich. O* at St. 
Gall is a Psalter of the ninth century, written partly in Latin 
and partly in Greek. 

P and Q. Two palimpsests at Wolfenbiittel, the former 
belonging to the sixth and the latter to the fifth century. P, 
it appears, came from Bobbio and was afterwards at Weissen- 
burg, Mayence, and Prague. Q, together with a portion of 
Ulfilas’s Gothic Bible, has been employed to receive the works 
of Isidore of Seville. The codices were edited with great care 
by Tischendorf in 1869. 

R. NITRIENSIS, of the sixth century: in the British Museum: 
consists of 48 leaves containing some 516 verses from Luke’s 
Gospel, over which and a manuscript of 4000 verses of the 
Iliad, the Syriac works of Severus of Antioch were written in 
the ninth century. The palimpsest was brought from the 
Nitrian Desert in 1847, and deposited in the British Museum. 
(Scrivener, i. 145, Plate VI, 17.) | 

S. VATICANUS 354: one of the earliest manuscripts of the 
Greek New Testament that bears an exact date. At the end 
is written, éypady 4 tTyula déATOs alTy dia xetpos Euod Muyanr 
movaxod dmapTwroo unvi Mapriw a, nuépa & wpa ¢, Erous cw’, 
ivéixtiovos (, Ze. at six o’clock on Thursday, 1st March 
6457 in the 7th Indiction! or 949 A.D. 

T* Of the fifth century: in the Museum Borgianum at 
Rome: written probably by a Coptic monk: unfortunately 
a mere fragment containing only 17 leaves from Luke 
and John: is written in two columns, that on the left con- 
taining a Sahidic version. T”, similar small fragments of 
John in St. Petersburg of the sixth century. T°, also of 

1An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from Ist 


September 312 A.D. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine the Great. See 
Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380, 


FO GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


the sixth century, a fragment of Matthew, formerly in the 
possession of Bishop Porfiri Uspenski of Kiev, and now at 
St. Petersburg. T“, of the seventh century, in Rome, part of 
a Sahidic-Greek Evangeliarium, containing a few verses from 
Matthew, Mark, and John. T°, of the sixth century (?), at 
Cambridge, consists of four verses, Matthew iii. 13-16. T* 
(T* in ZiGr. p. 450), three leaves from Matthew xx. and 
xxii. T', fragments of six Greek-Coptic and three Greek 
Gospels of the ninth and tenth centuries, but possibly the 
seventh and eighth, published by Ameélineau in vol. xxxiv. 
of the WVotices et Extraits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 1895, 
363 ff. ; cv. Dobschitz in the Zz. Cent.-Blatt., 1895, 42, 1857. 
T' contains the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel. Tv%, 
similar leaves at Oxford which once belonged to Woide, but 
by a different hand from T°. 

To these Greeco-Coptic fragments there is now to be added 
two chapters of John’s Gospel (iii. 5-iv. 49), in Greek and 
Middle Egyptian, written in the sixth century. They are 
published by W. E. Crum and F. G. Kenyon in the /ournal 
of Theological Studies, i. 3 (April 1900), pp. 415-433. The 
find contains no remarkable readings. The editors call its 
text neutral, and think it helps to show that Egypt was the 
home of such correct and upright texts. (T™ Greg.) 

U. NANIANUS, so called from a former possessor: of the end 
of the ninth or beginning of the tenth century: in Venice: 
a very beautiful and complete manuscript of the Gospels, 
with ornamentations in gold. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 22.) 

V. Formerly at Mount Athos, now in Moscow: of the ninth 
century: first employed by Bengel and Wettstein through 
the medium of G. B. Bilfinger. 

W. Various small fragments: W* of the eighth century in 
Paris: a fragment of Luke. W?” of the eighth century (or 
the ninth) in Naples: a palimpsest with parts of Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke. W¢° of the ninth century at St. Gall: a 
palimpsest, containing fragments of Mark and Luke, per- 
haps once bilingual, Greek-Latin. W° of the ninth century 





CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM, 71 


in Cambridge. W® of the ninth century: part of John, at 
Mount Athos, Oxford, and Athens. W*‘ of the ninth century : 
in Oxford: fragment of Mark. Wé of the ninth century: 
consisting of 36 palimpsest leaves with 497 verses from 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in the British Museum. 
W* of the ninth century: in Oxford: part of Mark. Wi in 
Paris, of the seventh to the eighth or ninth century: frag- 
ments of Mark and Luke, of which W' and W* are printed 
in Omont’s Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs, Latins, Francais, 
et Espagnols et des Portulans, recueillis par feu Emmanuel 
Miller, Paris, 1897. W” of the seventh century, in Vienna: 
fragments of John. W° of the ninth century, in Milan: 16 
mutilated palimpsest leaves, containing portions of Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke. 

X. MONACENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or 
beginning of the tenth century, now in Munich, contains the 
Gospels, with lacune, and a commentary, in the order 
Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 
38; for contents see zézd., p. 152. 

X?. Fragment containing Luke i. I-ii. 40, hitherto reckoned 
among the minuscules and numbered 429; also in Munich. 

Y. Belonging to the eighth century, in the Barberini Library 
at Rome: 6 leaves containing John xvi. 3-xix. 41. 

Z. A palimpsest in Dublin of the fifth or sixth century, con- 
taining 295 verses of Matthew’s Gospel. Scrivener, i. 153; 
Plate VII. 18. 

The Roman alphabet not being sufficient for the number 
of uncial manuscripts, recourse was taken to those letters of 
the Greek and Hebrew which have a distinct form from those 
already employed. It was proposed by others to reserve the 
Greek letters for those manuscripts no longer extant, whose 
text can be reconstructed from a number of kindred manu- 
scripts as their common archetype. 

I’. Of the ninth or tenth century: part in Oxford and part 
in St. Petersburg, the former having been obtained from 
Tischendorf in 1855 and the latter in 1859: contains the 


72 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


whole of Luke and John, but Mark is defective from iii. 
34 to vi. 20, while Matthew is still more defective. The writing 
of the manuscript was finished on a certain Thursday, the 
_ 27th November, in the eighth year of anindiction. Tischendorf 
accordingly fixed its date as 844. It was previously assigned 
by Gardthausen to the year 979. Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 
35. 

A. SANGALLENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or 
beginning of the tenth century: now at St. Gall, where it was 
probably transcribed by an Irish monk: has an interlinear 
Latin version, and was not, therefore, like D, intended for 
church but for school purposes. The Codex has the four 
Gospels complete with the exception of John xix. 17-35. 
In Mark the text shows a closer agreement with CL than 
in the other Gospels. The manuscript has been copied from 
one written scrzptione continua, and in consequence the words 
are often wrongly divided. See G, below, p. 77. 

6*~4, Small fragments brought from the East by Tischendorf, 
of which 6° belongs to the seventh century, and 0” to the 
seventh, sixth, and seventh or eighth century respectively. 
The first is in Leipzig, the others in St. Petersburg. 0%" 
were formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri of Kiev. 

A. Of the ninth century : contains the Gospels of Luke and 
John entire: evidently the second part of a minuscule brought 
to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf, No. 566 °Y (Greg.)+: mar- 
ginal scholia are affixed to four passages in Matthew—viz. 
iv. 5, xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xxvi. 74, giving the readings of ro 
‘Tovédaixov, ze. the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, and 
its subscription runs, éypagy cat avteBAHOn ék THY’ leporoAVmors 
Tadaov avTiypapwv Tav év To Oper ayiw a7roKemévov- & 
orixots Bd’ (2514) kepadais Tvé (345). The manuscript is in 
the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Scrivener, i. 131, Plate XI. 30. 

Cf. von Dobschiitz, Zwet Bibelhandschriften mit doppelter Schriftart 
(7h. L2z., 1889, iii. 74 f.). 


1 See Scrivener, i. p. 160, under A. This minuscule seems to be omitted from 
Scrivener’s list. See below, p. 185. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 73 


=. ZACYNTHIUS, a palimpsest of the eighth century from 
Zante, now in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible 
Society in London : the earliest manuscript with a commentary : 
-has the same system of chapter division as B, and is oftener 
found supporting B against A than vice versa. 

II. Of the ninth century: contains the Gospels almost 
complete: once the property of a Greek of Smyrna called 
Parodos: procured by Tischendorf for the Emperor of 
Russia. 

>. Of the sixth century: written on purple with gold and 
silver lettering and 17 miniatures, being the earliest manu- 
script to contain such: rescued from obscurity in 1879 by 
Oscar v. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, who discovered it at 
Rossano in Calabria: hence designated as Codex Rossanensis : 
is nearly related toN. Scrivener, i. 124, Plate XIV. 43. 


O. v. Gebhardt, Die Evangelien des Matthius und des Marcus aus 
dem Codex Purpureus Rossanensis herausgegeben (T. und U., i. 4, 
1883). A. Haseloff, Cod. Pur. Rossanensis, Die Miniaturen der 
&riechischen Evangelien-Handschrift in Rossano. Nach photograph- 
ischen Aufnahmen herausgegeben. Leipzig, 1898 (contains 14 facsimiles 
of the text and 15 photographic plates). Vide S. Berger in Bull. 
Crit., 1899, 6: also F. X. v. Funk, Dre Zezt. des Cod. Rossanensis in 
the Hist. Jahrbuch der Gorresgeschellschaft, xvii. 2, 1896, 331-344. 


®. CODEX BERATINUS, of the sixth century: at Berat in 
Albania: like the last a purple Codex with silver writing : 
contains portions of Matthew and Mark: seen and published 
by Batiffol. Scrivener, i. 166, Plate XV. 

. Fragments of the eighth or ninth century at Athos: con- 
tains Mark ix. 5 to the end, Luke, John, Acts, seven Catholic 
Epistles, Romans to Philemon, and Hebrews: exhibits after 
Mark xvi. 8 the same double conclusion as is found in L and 
one Sinai manuscript. On some readings of VY, see Lake in 
the Journal of Theological Studies, No. i. p, 88 ; ii. pp. 290-292. 

Q. Of the eighth or ninth century: in the Monastery of 
Dionysius at Athos : contains the Gospels entire. 


Acts and 
Catholic 
Epistles. 


74 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IL. 


The last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly 
collated, some of them having been only recently discovered. 

The following are indicated by Hebrew letters. 

3. Of the ninth or tenth century: in the Monastery of St. 
Andrew at Athos: contains the Gospels with lacune. 

a. GREGORIANUS, a purple manuscript from Cappadocia 
now admitted to be part of N. 

“3°15, Several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century, 
discovered at Sinai by J. R. Harris and published by him 
(Biblical fragments from Mount Sinai, 1890): “V* contains the 
double conclusion of Mark: “V8 is a purple fragment of the 
seventh century containing a few verses from the first chapter 
of Luke, perhaps only a quotation. 

p. Swete indicates with this letter the fragment cited above 
as T!, which exhibits the double conclusion of Mark’s Gospel. 
See his Gospel according to St. Mark, pp. xcii., xcix. 

“|. An Oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century, 
published by Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyrt, 
Part I. with eight Plates, London, 1898: contains only Mark 
x, 50 f, and xi. 10 f.: cited by Swete. (1® Gres) 

Part II. of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899, pp. 1-8) contains 
a fragment of John’s Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a 
papyrus codex written between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one 
of the earliest fragments that have been discovered of a 
papyrus dook (not a roll). It exhibits already the abbrevia- 
tions usually found in theological manuscripts, such as 
Q>, IHS, X>, ITNA. The Codex agrees with » in several 
readings not found elsewhere. (T* Greg.) See Addenda, p. xv. 





The second group is composed of manuscripts of the Acts 
and Catholic Epistles which are distinguished from those in the 
first by affixing the exponent, at the bottom of the symbol. 

sx A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete: 

E, D have the Acts all but entire: 

K L have the Catholic Epistles complete: 

C P have the greater part of them. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. as 


For s ABCD F* (a few verses of the Acts), see above. 

E,. LAUDIANUS 35,in Oxford, written at the end of the 
sixth century: bilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupying 
the place of honour on the left: breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29: 
the text very peculiar and somewhat like that of D. The 
manuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was_ probably 
brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It was 
employed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his Exposztio 
of the Acts and afterwards in his Exposztio Retractata. 
Archbishop [aud presented the manuscript with many others 
to the University of Oxford. Fell and Mill made use of it. 
menivener, i. 121, Plate X; 25. 

G,. Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg 
containing Acts ii.45-1ii.8, torn from the cover of a Syriac 
manuscript. 

G”. Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Rome 
containing portions of Acts xvi. 32—xviii. 20. (Vat. Gr. 2302.) 

H,. Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some 
lacune. 

I,. Fragments in St. Petersburg of the fifth and seventh cen- 
turies: four leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts. 

K,. Of the ninth century: brought to Moscow from Athos: 

contains the Catholic and Pauline Epistles. 
' L,. Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica 
Library at Rome: contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the 
Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii. 

P,. Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of 
Bishop Porfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg: published 
by Tischendorf : contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, 
and Apocalypse, with several lacunz. 

S, Of the eighth or ninth century: at Athos: contains 
Acts, Catholic Epistles, Romans, portions of I and 2 
Corinthians, and Ephesians. 

3,. A palimpsest of the fifth century: in Rome: rediscovered 
by Batiffol: consists of fragments of Acts, James, I and 2 
Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 


Pauline 
Epistles. 


76 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. 


The third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline 
Epistles. Of these there is a comparatively large number, which 
may be taken as indicating the important position ascribed to 
Paul even in early times. s, however, is the only Codex that 
contains his Epistles complete ; in D L they are almost com- 
plete, and A BC EF G K exhibit the greater part of them. 

For s A BC, see above. 

A is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 13—xii.6 inclusive. 

B breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2 
Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are wanting. 

D,. CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Cler- 
mont near Beauvais. The manuscript was written in the sixth 
century, and is bilingual in Greek and Latin, having the 
Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is wanting in 
Rom.. i. 1-7; 27=30, and in. 2 (Cor. xiv:-3=22) 9 fneieae 
v. 9 D, reads dodo?, and in verse 14 éy vi, in both places 
agreeing with Marcion. At least nine hands are distin- 
suishable in the manuscript, one of whom corrected the text in 
over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth century. Two leaves 
are palimpsest, their text being written over part of a play 
of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the 
Codex from a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before 
it is a list of “versus scribtuarum sanctarum,” one of the 
oldest stichometric catalogues of the books of the Old and 
New Testaments, which is derived from an early Greek 
original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in West- 
cott’s History of the Canon, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his 
Bible in the Church, App. B, p. 309. See also Zahn, 
Geschichte des N. T. Kanons, Il. 157-172, 1012; Jiilicher, 
Einleitung, § 40. Thirty-five leaves of Codex D, were stolen 
by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards restored by their 
purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in 1729. 
(See Plates II. and [11.) 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 77 


E,. SANGERMANENSIS, of the ninth century: also Greek- 
Latin: brought from St. Germain de Prés to St. Petersburg 
during the Revolution : in the Greek merely an incorrect tran- 
script of D,, and may therefore be dismissed. See p.179 n. I. 

F,. AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek- 
Latin manuscript: defective in Rom. i. I-iii, 1g; 1 Cor. iii. 
8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philemon 21-25: Hebrews from 
the first only in the Latin. The manuscript was formerly at 
Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It was purchased 
by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at 
Cambridge. An edition of it was published by Scrivener in 
1859. For F*, see above, p. 66. 


Scrivener, Am exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis. . . to which 
ts added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various 
portions of the Greek N. T.,1859. F. Zimmer, Der Codex Augiensis 
eine Adbschrift des Boernerianus (ZfuTh., 1887, i. 76-91). 


G,. BOERNERIANUS, of the ninth century, so called from 
Professor C. F. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705 : 
now in Dresden. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript, the Latin 
being interlinear. It is manifestly the second part of A, and 
has a close affinity with F,, though the Greek of F was not 
copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is rather 
that both are derived from one and the same original, in which 
ag. ws yayypa wa vouny e€er, Sicut cancer ut serpat, was found 
in 2 Tim. ii. 17, and nueOa de SovAwmevor, eramus autem 
servientes, in Gal. iv. 3. This manuscript contains some 
interesting Irish verses! At the end of Philemon there 
stands the title mpos Aaovdaxycas, ad laudicenses, but the 
Epistle that should have followed has been lost. 


P. Corssen, Zpistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine scriptos 
Augtensem, Boernerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se 


1 **To Rome to come, to Rome to come, 
Much of trouble, little of profit, 
The thing thou seekest here, 
If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not” ; etc., etc. 
See Scrivener, i. 180. 


Euthalian 
Recension. 


78 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II, 


comparavit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum, 
1887. <Alterum, 1889. 

H,. Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable 
manuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were 
used in 975 and 1218 to cover some manuscripts at Mount 
Athos. Forty-one of these have been rescued, of which 22 
are now in Paris, 8 at Mount Athos, 3 in St. Petersburg, 
3 in Moscow, 2 in Turin, and 3 in Kiev. They contain 
portions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Colossians, 
1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. The 
value of the manuscript is indicated in the subscription, which 
runs, “I, Euthalius,' wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul 
as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read 
with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy 
in the library at Czesarea, written by the hand of Pamphilus 
the saint”? The subscription may of course have stood in 
the original of H, and simply been copied into it along with 
the text, as in the case of the minuscules 15, 83, and 173 of 
the Acts. But no matter, it serves to locate the text of 
this manuscript, and it is one of our main witnesses for 
the so-called Euthalian Recension of the Acts and Catholic 
Epistles. 

In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius, 
afterwards known as Bishop of Sulce,? published an edition 
of the Acts and Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which, 
following the rules laid down by the Greek schools of 
oratory, the text was carefully broken up into lines, the 
length of which depended on the sense (sezse-clauses), and 
divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also pro- 
vided a system of Church lections, added a summary of 
contents to the various chapters, and catalogued the quota- 

1 Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See below, pp. 188 ff. 

2 “Eypaa kal e&eOeuny kata dtvauw oterxnpdy té5« Td Tedxos MlatAou Tov 
Groctékov mpds eyypauudy kal evkaTdAnumtoy avdyywow ... dvTeBANOn dt F 
BiBdos mpds rd év Katoapia avtiypadov tis BiBArobAKns Tod aylov Maudiaou xeiph 
eypaumevov avTov. 

3 Perhaps in Sardinia, see below. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 63 n. 1. 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 79 


tions from the Old Testament and elsewhere in the separate 
Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became 
a sort of model for later times, and seems to have been made 
use of for the Armenian version among the rest. The 
comparison of the manuscript with those of Pamphilus, 
as well as other additions, would seem then to have been 
made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however, 
thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system 
in Codex H, but that Evagrius is to be read instead of 
Euthalius in the place where the name has been erased. 
This view is combated by Dobschiitz, and in part rightly. 
Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian 
sources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius, 
But in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh century 
in the library of the Laura at Mount Athos, Wobbermin 
found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription, 
Ev@aXiov émisxorov LovAkys omoroyia Tept Ths opOodo€ov 
tictews, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in 
the second half of the seventh century and that Sulce was 
in Sardinia. See G. Kriiger in the Lzt. Cent. Blatt 1899, 
No. 14. 


Omont, LVotice sur un tres ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des 
épitres de S. Paul, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, Zuthaliana, Texts 
and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 96, 8.) Th. 
Zahn, Euthaliana, Theol. Lit. Blatt., 1895, 593,601. Ehrhard, Der 
codex HT ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus, Eine palaeo- 
graphisch-patrologiscthe Untersuchung in the Centralblatt fiir Biblio- 
thekswesen, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. y. Dobschutz, Ein Beitrag zur 
Luthaliusfrage, in the same magazine, 1893, pp. 49-70; Luthalius- 
studien in the ZKG, xix. pp. 107-154 (1898) : also, Zuthalius, in the 
PRE*%, v. pp. 631-633 (1898). Islinger, Dre Verdienste des Euthalius 
um den neutestamentlichen Bibeltext, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare, 
On the Codex Pamphili and date of Euthalius, in the Cambridge 
Journal of Philology, xxiii. 241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, Zhe Harhk- 
lean Version etc., pp. 9, 27 (1889). See also J. A. Robinson, Zexts 
and Studies, vi. 1; C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius, 
p-. 104 ff., and note 2, p. 188 below. 


Apocalypse. 


80 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP., II. 


I, 
Ky |. See above, p. 75. 
L, ‘ 

Py 

M,. CODEX RUBER, of the ninth century: four leaves 
written in bright red ink or other colouring matter, two of 
them in London and the other two in Hamburg. 

N,. Of the ninth century, consisting of two leaves with por- 
tions of Galatians and Hebrews: in St. Petersburg. 

O,. Of the ninth century, two leaves in the same library - | 
containing portions of 2 Corinthians. | 

O>. Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians : 
in Moscow. 

Q,. Of the fifth century, five papyrus leaves with fragments 
of 1 Corinthians: in St. Petersburg. 

R,. Of the seventh century, a single leaf with part of 2 
Corinthians: in Grotteferrata. 

Ss. See above, p. 75. 

Ts. A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See 77G™~., p. 441. 

T’, Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i. 22-29, written in 
the ninth or tenth century, and published simultaneously with 
Ti. Gregory now designates TS as T* P#!, and T® as T? Paul. 

a), See above, p. 75; 

“34, A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians, 
cc. i., ii., iii, written in the fifth century. 

The first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been 
published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part II. (pp.8 f,, Plate IT.). 
The fragment is probably a schoolboy’s exercise. It is written 
in a large rude uncial hand, and dates from the first half of 


the fourth century. In verse 7 it reads KY XPY IHY. 





There are fewest manuscripts of the Apocalypse. It is 
found entire only in s A B, while C and P exhibit portions 
of it. In the Apocalypse, however, it is to be observed that 
Codex B is not the famous Codex Vaticanus 1209, but a 
much later manuscript 2066, dating from the end of the 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 81 


eighth century. It would be better, therefore, with some 
editors, to call it Q or B,, 


Altogether the number of Greek manuscripts is as 
follows ! :— 





UNCIALS : 
Gospels, . : : ; 73 
Acts and Catholic Epistles, . : 19 
Pauline Epistles, . ; ; 28 
Apocalypse, . ; : é 7 
Total, » 127 
CURSIVES, 3702 


In closing our survey of the extant uncials, it is to be borne Book-hand 
in mind that we are not at liberty to regard even the oldest Se 
of them as presenting the very form of the New Testament life. 
_ autographs. The books of the New Testament, at all events 
the majority of them, were not originally intended for publi- 
cation at all, while the others were meant for only a limited 
circle of readers. Now these recent papyrus discoveries have 
shown conclusively what a vast difference existed even in 
those days between the book-hand and what we may call the 
hand of common life and business. A glance at Kenyon’s 
Paleography of Greek Papyri will show how fundamental 
is the distinction between literary and non-literary papyri. 
That writer states that in many cases the difference is just 
as marked as between handwriting and print at the present 
day, and he instances also the distinction between the book- 
hand and the charter-hand of the Middle Ages. Of course 
documents of this or the other class may occasionally be 
found written in the hand that is not the usual one, a pre- 
scription, ¢g., in book-hand, or conversely a literary text in 
the hand of common life. The greater part of Aristotle’s work 
on the Poltty of the Athenians, for instance, has been pre- 
served in the common hand. This papyrus, which is 


1 See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397%. 
F 


Uncial and 
minuscule 
script. 


82 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


attributed to the first century of the Christian era, is the work 
of four scribes. But only one of these writes in a style 
approximating to the book-hand ; the other parts are written 
in a very cursive style on the back of an old account, probably 
by one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short 
time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends 
or slaves. Kenyon quite properly instances this as an illus- 
tration of the manner of the origin and propagation of the 
New Testament books, and suggests that this mode of pro- 
pagation has to be considered in connection with times of 
persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices, 
editions de luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age 
when the Church had attained a position of affluence and 
power. The distinction referred to above is one that has had 
but little attention paid to it hitherto, as is shown by the 
illustration given in Harris’s excellent work on the New 
Testament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that 
this consideration is of great importance in trying to under- 
stand the origin and dissemination of the various readings 
that occur in our manuscripts. It is just a pity that 
Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript of Aris- 
totle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to 
the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in 
1891 by the Trustees of the British Museum, or the Plate 
published in the second volume of the work of the Palzo- 
graphical Society. 

A further consideration is emphasised by means of these 
papyrus discoveries—viz. that no distinction of time can be 
drawn between the uncial and cursive hands found in the 
manuscripts. Even in the very earliest documents the hand 
of common life displays a very cursive character, and a 
fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not necessarily 
later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat 
different in the case of writing on parchment: here the old 
distinction of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly 
maintained, only we must guard against supposing that the 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 83 


minuscule hand and the cursive are quite the same thing ; nor 
must we forget that for a considerable time the older uncial 
and the later minuscule scripts were in use together.) The 
sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has hitherto been 
drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament between 
these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in fact. 
The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey 
of the position of things up to the present, and the following 
description of the minuscules is subject to that limitation. 


(2.) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES. 


When the Greek New Testament began to be printed, the 
editors had necessarily to be content with indifferent and late 
minuscules, and even those who followed them, like Bentley and 
Lachmann, thought they were at liberty to disregard these 
altogether and to found their text exclusively on the oldest 
uncials. They forgot that the text of alate manuscript may be 
derived from a very early and good source through compara- 
tively few intermediaries, and that it is possible to reconstruct 
a lost original by means of a comparison of several witnesses. 
Accordingly, in more recent times, English editors like 
Tregelles, Burgon, Ferrar, Hoskier, and Scrivener have rendered 
great service in the way of collating manuscripts, and the last- 
mentioned as well as Gregory in Germany has also catalogued 
them. At the present moment a systematic investigation in 
this department is being carried on in Berlin. Most of the 
minuscules are still written on parchment which began to be 
mixed with paper in the ninth century,and was ultimately super- 
seded by it. Various minuscules contain commentaries and 
other additional matter,such as the List of the Seventy Apostles, 
short Biographies of the Apostles, Summaries of the journeys of 
St. Paul, or notes as to the date and place of the composition of 
the different books. When dates are given in the manuscripts, 


1Compare the remarks of Grenfell-Hunt on the papyrus (and vellum) books 
and their respective handwritings in Part II. of the Oxyrhynchus Papyr?, p. 2 f. 


Minuscules. 


Ferrar Group, 


84 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


they are still as a rule computed in the Byzantine manner, 
reckoning from the Creation of the world (5508 B.c.). In only 
a few cursives is the date reckoned from the Birth of Christ. 

Since the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts 
have been indicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each 
of the four groups beginning with 1, so that one and the 
same manuscript may have three or four numbers—18evwv. e.g. 
being 113Acts, 132Paul, and 51Apoc., while 209¢vv is the same 
as g5 Acts, 108 Paul, and 4g6Apoc. It is still more awkward 
that in the two principal works on the minuscules, that of 
Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently discovered manu- 
scripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will follow 
that of Scrivener. 


MINUSCULES OF THE GOSPELS. 


1 (Acts 1, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to 
others of the twelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful 
miniatures which were stolen prior to 1860. The manuscript 
was borrowed by Reuchlin and used by Erasmus for his 
second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 23.) 

2. Of the twelfth century, though some strangely suppose 
the fifteenth: also in Basel: formerly purchased for two 
Rhenish florins: printed by Erasmus. 

3. Of the twelfth century, in Vienna, lent to Erasmus for his 
second edition. 

4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38 
were used by Stephen. The most notable among them is 13, 
together with 69, 124, 211, 346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and 
626, which are remarkable for their very peculiar form of 
text and their additions! Luke xxii. 43, 44 is found after 
Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 5 3—viii. 11 after Luke xxi. 38. 
The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in 
Hebrew eight years after our Lord’s Ascension, and contained 
2522 pywata and 2560 stichoi, Mark powuaore ten years 


1 Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott’s Co//ation of Four Im- 
portant Manuscripts (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII, 40, 


CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 85 


after the Ascension with 1675 pyuara and 1604 stichoi, Luke 
ehAnuiori fifteen years after with 3803 (/ege 3083) pyuata and 
2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after with 1938 PNMara. 
These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype by 
the Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominated 
the Ferrar Group, and indicated by the letter @ before that 
symbol was appropriated to the Codex Beratinus. Most of 
them came from Calabria, and another has lately been added to 
thenumber. Their additions, however, as Rendel Harris shows, 
are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I ventured to 
suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the 
Martyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that 
he knew of codices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupatos 
paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio, quibus.. . 

nec in novo testamento profuit emendasse, cum multarum 
gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae 
addita (cod. E edzta) sunt. That, however, is not possible in the 
event of the so-called Syrian recension being the work of Lucian, 
which Hort indicates as possible. In any case, these minuscules 
have preserved to us a very early attempt to restore the text. 

16 is noteworthy as being written in four different colours 
according to the contents. The continuous narrative is 
written in green, the words of Jesus and the Angels are in 
red and occasionally in gold, the words of His followers are in 
blue, while those of the Pharisees, the multitude, and of the 
devil, are written in black. 

28. Contains relics of a very ancient text and bears some 
resemblance to D. 

33. Written about the tenth century: the “queen of the 
cursives”: its text bears a greater resemblance to that of 
B, D, L than does that of any other cursive. The manuscript 
is much damaged, but 34, which is equally old, is still in 
splendid condition, as though it were fresh from the hand of 
the artist. (Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII. 39.) 

38. Sent by the Emperor Michael Palaologus to St. Louis 
(d. 1270). 


86 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IL. 


51. At Oxford: text resembles that of the Complutensian. 

59. At Cambridge: has many points of connection with D. 

61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the 
notorious Codex Montfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives 
its name from one of its later possessors. It was this manu- 
script, “codex apud Anglos repertus,” that decided Erasmus 
to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage of the Three 
Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8. It was probably written 
by a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its 
twin brother, the parchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly 
numbered 110, and now in Berlin, which also contains the 
passage, proves to be nothing more than a transcript of the 
text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be observed, 
continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing. 
Melanchthon, e,g., wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three 
times in Greek ; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library 
hitherto cited as 56/!au! is nothing else than a copy of 
Erasmus’s printed edition of 1516 made by Zwingli in the 
following year. 

69. Cf 13 above, and see J. R. Harris, Ovigin of the 
Leicester Codex of the New Testament, 1887. (Scrivener, 
i, 343, Plate XIIT. 40.) 

77 and 78. Formerly in the fine library of Matthias 
Corvinus, King of Hungary (d. 1490). 

90. In this manuscript the Gospels are in the order John, 
Luke, Matthew, Mark. 

106. Would be important, but has been lost sight of since 
the time of Wettstein. 

140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of 
Cyprus. This manuscript reads dmp@po@y in Luke i. 64, 
therein agreeing with the Complutensian. 

146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg. 

154-156. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden. 

157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable 
resemblance to the quotations found in the early Christian 
writer Marcion. See below, p. 211. 


CHAP. II.) MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 87 


164. The subscription of this manuscript states that it was 
compared with certain ancient manuscripts in Jerusalem. 

205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation 
of Cardinal Bessarion. 209 contains the whole of the New 
Testament, and was the Cardinal’s own copy which he had 
with him at the Council of Florence in 1439. 

218-225 are in Vienna. 

226-233 are in the Escorial. 

237-289 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at 
Dresden. 

263-320 are in Paris, with the exception of 272, which was 
removed thence to the British Museum. 

274 exhibits the shorter conclusion of Mark’s Gospel in 
the lower margin. (See Plate X.) 

405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to 
the Nani family. 

422-430. In Munich. 

431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished 
at Strassburg, in the war of 1870, like 180Acts. This, how- 
ever, is incorrect. 

452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices. 

473. Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscript 
with gold lettering, said to have been written by the Empress 
Theodora. See under N. above, and note, p. 151. 

481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of the 
Greek New Testament bearing an exact date. 

531. Written in a microscopic hand. 

604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the British 
Museum, exhibits 2724 variations from the Textus Receptus, 
and has besides 270 readings peculiar to itself. It is the only 
witness we know that supports that peculiar form of the second 
petition of the Lord’s Prayer found in Marcion in the second 
century, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth, é\@éTw vo 
diylov Trvetua cov ep’ yas Kat KaBapicatw juas (Luke xi. 2) 

1 See Blass’s Praefatzo to his edition of Luke, pp. Ixix f. (1897), and compare 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, iii. p. 144 ; Hoskier, above, p. 5 ; below, p. 211. 


88 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


743 has the double conclusion in Mark. 

1071. See under D, p. 66. 

In his Gospel according to St. Mark, Swete cites frequently, 
in addition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar 
Group, I, 28, 33, 66, 109, 118, 131, 157, 209, 238, 242, 299, 435, 
473, 475, 556, 570, 736. 


ACTS. 


2 and 4. Used by Erasmus. 

7-10. Used by Stephen. 

15, 83, 173. These, like x» in the Old Testament and Hg, 
were compared with the Codex of Pamphilus—ze, were 
faithfully copied from such an exemplar. 

33. The parent manuscript of Montfortianus. See above, 
p. 86. 

42. Closely related to the Complutensian. 

52. Once in the possession of Stunica, the chief editor of the 
Complutensian. It has now disappeared. 

61 has been designated the most important minuscule of 
the Acts. This, however, is an exaggeration. 

137 supplements D E where these are defective. 

158. Used by Cardinal Mai to supply the defects of Codex B 
in the Pauline Epistles. 

162. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century, now in Rome: a 
bilingual in Latin and Greek : contains the passage 1 John v. 7. 

182. Numbered 110 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of 
the cursives, 

220. One of the finest manuscripts of the latter part of the 
New Testament. 

232. An equally superb copy, on which a monk called 
Andreas bestowed three years’ labour. 

246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus 
(d. 1487). 

419. Written in 800 by the Empress Maria, after being 
divorced by Constantine VI. 


CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 89 


PAULINE EPISTLES. 


7. Used by Erasmus. 

56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies of 
Erasmus’s printed text. (See above under 61°’). 

67. A valuable manuscript on account of its corrector having 
evidently made use of an exemplar with a text very closely 
akin to that of B M. 

80 bears a close resemblance to 69°’, 


APOCALYPSE. 


1. This was the only manuscript at Erasmus’s command 
for this part of the New Testament. It is defective in the 
last chapter from verse 16 to the end. For the rest it exhibits 
a fairly good text. (See p. 3 f.) 

36. A text akin to ». 

38 has a text resembling that of A C. 

68. Resembles A. 

95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of being 
one of the best minuscules of the Apocalypse. 

The number of minuscules under each class is, according 
to Scrivener (Miller), as follows :— 





Gospels, : : ; 1326 
Acts and Catholic Epistles, . : . 422 
Pauline Epistles, . ; 497 
Apocalypse, : : ; : 184 

2429 


A great many New Testament manuscripts are in England. 
Some are in the possession of private individuals, like those 
at Parham Park in Sussex belonging to Lord de la Zouche. 
In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts brought with her from 
Janina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of which 
sixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to the 
Ferrar Group, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are 


go GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


136 manuscripts of the New Testament in the British 
Museum. 


The number in Great Britain is . ; 438 
In the National Library of Paris, . : 298 
In Germany, . : : ; ; 140 
In Italy, : : ; 644 


For the total number of Greek manuscripts arranged accord- 
ing to countries, see Scrivener, i., Indices I., II., pp. 392 ff. 

What a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be 
examined is shown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz. 
Accompanied by Dr. G. Wobbermin, he made a journey to 
Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and there in that ancient 
Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found, among about 
1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some 250 
codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have 
been noted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of 
the very utmost importance, as witness the further statement 
of the same explorer. He was looking through the manu- 
scripts of the Apostolos, to which he and his companion had 
to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on one written 
in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following note 
before the Pauline Epistles: yeypapOa: a0 avtvypapov Tadao- 
TATOU, OU Teipav éAaBouev ws ETITETEVYMEVOU EK TOV Els NUaS 
eMOovtav ‘QOpryévovs TOMov 7) OutAtov ely TOV aTOTTONOY ... « 
év ois ovv TapadXaTTet pyTois TPOs TA Vov aTOTTONKA, OiTARY 
Thy Neyouevyy TrapeOijxauev &Ewber, va uy vouicOn KaTa Tpoc- 
Onkny 7 Netw jyuapthicOa Tovtt TO amooroNKkor. And from 
the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn 
that the manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar 
from which it was copied, was written by a monk called 
Ephraim. See further in von der Goltz, Eine tertkritische 
Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts herausgegeben 
nach einem Kodex des Athosklosters Lawra. Mit einer Doppel- 
tafel in Lichtdruck. Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und Untersuch- 
ungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. gI 


LITERATURE.—On 2®’Y, see Hoskier, above, p. 5. 

On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, Collation of four important Manuscripts 
of the Gospels, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J. P. P. 
Martin, Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on peut ajouter un 
cinquiéme, Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, Ox the Origin of the Ferrar 
Group, London, 1894. K. Lake, ‘Some new members of the Ferrar 
Group of MSS. of the Gospels,” in the Journal of Theological Studies, 
I. i. pp. 117-120. The well-known manuscript of the pre-Lutheran 
German Bible, the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. 2, 
“‘in the morning he came again into the temple,” after Luke xxi. 38, 
an arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the Ferrar 
Group, in which John vii. 53-vili. 11 is found after Luke xxi. 38. 
See S. Berger, Bul/. Crit., 1894, p. 390. See Addenda, p. xv. 

On 561, Codex Algerinae Peckover, see J. R. Harris in the 
Journal of the Exegetical Society, 1886, 79-96. 

On 892¢-v, see Harris, “An Important Manuscript of the N. T.” 
in the Journal of Biblical Literature, ix., 1890, 31 ff. 

On Minuscules of the Apocalypse, see Bousset, Zextkritische 
Studien in T. und U., xi. 4. 

C. R. Gregory, “Die Kleinhandschriften des N. Testaments ” 
(Theologische Studien fiir B. Weiss., Gottingen, 1897, 274-283). 

E. J. Goodspeed, “A Twelfth Century Gospel Manuscript” 
(Biblical World, x. 4). 


(c.) LECTIONARIES. 


Till quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church 
Pericopae, were even more neglected than the minuscules. 
And yet they are reliable witnesses to the text of the Bible in 
the provinces to which they belong, on account of their 
official character and because their locality can be readily 
distinguished. The slight alterations of the text occurring at 
the beginning of the pericopae, and consisting usually in the 
insertion of the subject of the sentence or of an introductory 
clause, are easily recognisable as such, and deceive no one. 
It is not always easy to determine the date of such books, 
because the uncial hand was employed in this sort of manuscript 
much longer than in the others. Among the oldest, perhaps, 


Lectionaries. 


92 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. De 


is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a considerable number 
among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to the 
seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to 
the sixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year 
1890. When these Lectionaries originated has not yet been 
clearly made out.1 Up till the present 980 Evangeliaria—z.e. 
Lessons from the Gospels—have been catalogued, and 268 
Apostoli or Praxapostoli—z.e. Lessons from the Acts and 
Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed ; some, 
alas, have been sadly mutilated. 117,in Florence, is a very 
beautiful codex ; and 162, in Siena, is perhaps “one of the 
most splendid Service-books in the world.” 235 may have 
been written in part by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus 
(1081-1118). 286is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai, 
dating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the 
tradition of the monks says that it was written by no less a per- 
sonage than the Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorf’s 
352-360 are nowin the National Libraryat Paris. 355 isprinted 
in Omont’s Catalogue (see above, p. 71). 45°v! is a fragment 
of black parchment inscribed with gold letters preserved at 
Vienna? 40 is kept in the Escorial along with the reliques of 
St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph.* Bilingual 
Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example. 
The arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time 
and region in which they were composed. Several fragments 
which were formerly regarded as parts of manuscripts of the 


1 Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to be found as early as in 
Irenaeus, and likewise in Codex D, zzleztung, ii. 355, on Luke i. 26. 

2 On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49! (a Lectionary of the 
tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the Monastery of the 
Mother of God rod Bpovtoxtov by Nicephorus, Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistes 
of Lacedzemon, in 1312) the lection e/s tas %w éexxAnotas ended with this 
verse (15) and the words attached to it, ‘‘ Andso saying He cried, He that hath ears 
to hear, let him hear,” and that the additional verses were not read e/s rihy 
peydanv exxAnolay, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the words 
év brouovn (Vv. 15). 

® On the “‘ Livre d’Evangiles reputé avoir appartenu 4 S., Jean Chrysostome,” 
of. Ch. Graux, in the Reve de Philologie, Avril 1887. 





CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 93 


Gospels should perhaps beclassed among the Evangeliaria—e.g. 
the solitary leaf of a Bible manuscript Wiirtemberg is known 
to possess, and the Tiibingen Fragment, formerly classed 
among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now enumerated 
as 48r1evl, An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to be 
considered under the head of the Versions. 

For further details, reference must be made to Scrivener, 
to 7zGr., and now especially to Gregory, Textkrittk, 1. pp. 
327-478. 

2. VERSIONS. 


Our second source of material for the reconstruction of the Versions. 
text of the New Testament is the early Versions. The 
value of their testimony depends on their age and fidelity. 
When did the first versions originate? This question reminds 
us of the Inscription on the Cross, a portion of which is still 
exhibited in Rome. It was written in Hebrew, Greek, and 
Latin. But we may get further back still. Palestine at the 
time of Christ was a country where the most diverse lan- 
guages and dialects came into contact with each other. In 
the last century B.C. a transformation had occurred, which 
might be regarded as a counterpart to the supplanting of 
Norman French by English, or of Low by High German. 
Aramaic had already taken the place of the old Hebrew, 
and after the time of Alexander came the intrusion of Greek, 
and later still of Latin. Some of the disciples of Jesus bore 
old Hebrew names, like James (‘Iaxwos) and John (Twavyys) ; 
others had names wholly or partly Aramaic, as Cephas 
(= Peter), the cognomen of Simon, and Bartholomew; while 
others, again, had Greek names, as Philip (@iAvwzog) and 
Andrew (’Avdpéas). To the question what language Jesus 
Himself spoke, the most probable answer is that it was 
Aramaic with a Galilean colouring. “Thou art a Galilean, 
thy speech bewrayeth thee,” said the Jerusalem girl to Peter. 
The Galileans, like the Babylonians and the Samaritans, were 
recognisable by their not distinguishing the gutturals so 
sharply as the pure Jews did. At the same time, Jesus 


East. 


West, 


South. 


94 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP, II. 


certainly understood the Hebrew of the Old Testament. 
But those words of His that have been preserved are 
Aramaic—talitha, abba, and so is sabagtani in Matthew xxvii. 
46,and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text, 
and not asabthant, as a number of manuscripts show. 

In what language, however, the first record of the preach- 
ing of the Gospel was made, whether it was in the classic 
Hebrew of the Old Testament or in the Aramaic of the time, 
is still subject of dispute But as this question is of 
moment only for the original sources, and even then for 
only a certain part of the New Testament—viz. the Gospels— 
it does not fall to be considered here. We have to do only 
with those versions that are derived from the Greek, and 
again with those of them only that are important for the 
criticism of the text, which are the oldest. 

The versions which are of consequence here may be placed 
under three or four heads. 

In the East, Antioch, with its semi-Greek, semi-Syrian 
population, very early became the centre of the new faith, 
which, indeed, obtained its name there, and must very soon 
have established itself in Damascus and Mesopotamia, In 
that region the form of Aramaic now commonly known as 
Syriac was spoken. 

In the West, Greek was mostly spoken and understood, 
even in Rome. Paul consequently, and others as well as he, 
wrote to Rome in Greek. At the same time, the need must 
have existed, even in the second century, of having the Gospel 
in the Latin language in parts of Africa, in the north of 
Italy, and in the South of Gaul. Quite as early, perhaps, 
the new faith spread to Egypt, which at that time was a 
kind of centre of religious culture, and so we find in Egypt 
not one but several versions in various dialects. 

The Gothic version of Ulfilas deserves special mention 
as being the oldest monument of Christianity among the 


1 Cf. Eusebius, Demons, Evan., iii, 7, 15, BdpBapot kal “EAAnves Tas wept Tod 
"Inood ypapas marplots xapaxtipow kal matplw pwve wereAduBavoy, Zahn, GK. 
i, 33; Theoph,, v, 64; Laud. Const., xvii. 9, 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 95 


Germanic people, and valuable too in the criticism of the 
text. 


L. J. M. Bebb, Zucdence of the Early Versions and Patristic 
Quotations, etc., in Studia Biblica, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde, De 
Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem edendo. Berlin 
(1857); with slight alterations in his Ges. Abhandlungen, 1886, 
pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. U7vtext (see p. 7). Copinger (see 
p- 6). An earlier bibliographical work is the Avdliotheca Sacra 
post, ... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine 
disposita, emendata, suppleta, continuata ab A. G. Masch. Halle, 
1778-90, 4to. Fars 1., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars Ll., 
De versiontbus librorum sacrorum (3 Vols.). R. Simon, H7stotve 
critigue des versions du N. T., 1690. Nouvelles observations sur le 
texte et les versions du N. T., 1695. 


(a.) SYRIAC VERSIONS. 


The Bible used in the Syrian Church has long and deservedly 
borne the honourable appellation of “the Queen of the 
Versions.” It was first published in 1555 at the expense of 
the Emperor Ferdinand I. by J. Albert Widmanstadt with 
the assistance of a Syrian Jacobite called Moses, who came 
from Mardin as legate to Pope Julius III. The type for this 
edition was beautifully cut by Caspar Kraft of Ellwangen. 
All the branches into which the Syrian church was divided 
in the fifth century have used the same translation of the 
Scriptures. To this day the Syriac New Testament wants 
the five so-called Antilegomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, 
Jude, and the Apocalypse—a sufficient proof that it goes back 
to a time and a region in which these books were not yet 
reckoned in the Canon of the New Testament. In place of 
these it contained in early times an alleged Third Epistle of 
Paul to the Corinthians, and an Epistle of the Corinthians to 
Paul (cf. below, p. 142). To distinguish it from other Syriac 
translations, this Version has been called by Syriac scholars, 
since the tenth century, the Peshitto—z.e, the “Simple” or 


Peshitto. 


96 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


perhaps the “Common,” which is sometimes pronounced 
Peshitta (S0'W2) and spelt simply Peshitto. 

When and where was this translation made? An ancient 
Syrian tradition asserts that it was done by the Apostle 
Thaddaeus, who came on a mission to Abgar Uchama—z.e. 
Abgar the Black—King of Edessa, after the death of Jesus, 
which mission, they say, arose out of a correspondence that 
Abgar had previously had with Jesus. Another tradition 
ascribes it to Aggaeus (Aggai), the disciple of Thaddaeus, and 
it is even attributed to Mark the Evangelist. It is also said 
that Luke was by birth a Syrian of Antioch, a tradition which 
may preserve an element of truth. 

The earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius’s 
Ecclesiastical History, iv. 22. That historian mentions that 
Hegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the 
Gospel of the Hebrews—z.e. of the Palestinian (?) Jewish 
Christians, and from the Syriac (sc. Gospel), and particularly 
from the Hebrew dialect, showing that he himself was a con- 
vert from the Hebrews (& te Tov xa?’ “EBpaious evayyedov 
kat Tov Dvpiaxov Kat tdiws ex THs “EBpaidos dvadéxrov twa 
tlOncw, éeupawor €€ “EBpaiwy éavtoy memiatevKévat). This can 
hardly be understood otherwise than as implying that a 
Syriac version was already in existence. Whether it con- 
tained all the four Gospels or only one of them, or Tatian’s 
Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as Zahn 
has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether 
it contained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be 
established with certainty. 

From the middle of the present century manuscripts of 
this version have found their way into European libraries 
in great numbers. Some of these are inestimable. At least 
ten date from the fifth, and thirty from the sixth century. 
This is somewhat remarkable when we remember how small 
a remnant of the Greek manuscripts has been preserved. 
G. H. Gwilliam is at present engaged on an edition of the 
Syriac Tetraevangelium for the University of Oxford on ‘the 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 97 


basis of forty manuscripts. The task might seem to be an 
easy one, considering that these Syriac manuscripts display a 
far greater unanimity in their text than is found in any written 
in Greek. The difficulty in their case lies in another direction. 

In the year 1842 a Syriac manuscript containing consider- Curetonian. 
able portions of the Gospels was brought from Egypt and 
deposited in the British Museum. It was afterwards pub- 
lished by Dr, Cureton in 1858 with the title “Remains of a 
very antient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac hitherto 
unknown in Europe.” Cureton himself thought he had dis- 
covered the original of St. Matthew’s Gospel in this version. 
While this was easily shown to be a mistake, the question 
as to the relationship between the Curetonian Syriac and the 
Peshitto, whether the two texts are independent of each 
other, or if not, which is the earlier and which the recension, 
is not yet decided. 

It seemed as if the solution of the problem was in sight Lewis. 
when fragments of a Syriac palimpsest were discovered -on 
Mount Sinai in February 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and her sister, 
Mrs. Gibson. These they perceived to be part of a very old 
manuscript of the Gospels, and Professor Bensly of Cam- 
bridge recognised that their text was closely related to that 
of the Curetonian. (See Plate V.) A second expedition was 
made to Sinai in the spring of 1893, when the fragments were 
transcribed by Professor Bensly, F. C. Burkitt, and J. R. Harris. 
As Bensly died three days after their return, the manuscript 
was published by the others in 1894, with an introduction by 
Mrs. Lewis. On a third visit to Sinai this lady completed the 
work of the triumvirate, and also published an English trans- 
lation of the whole. How, then, is this Sinai-Syriac or Lewis- 
Syriac, as it is called, related to the Curetonian and to the 
Peshitto? The problem becomes more complicated still by the 
introduction of a fourth factor, the most important of them all. 

From early sources it was known that Tatian,! a Syrian and Tatian. 

1 The date of Tatian’s birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year 110. He was 


in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See Hastings, Azs/e Dictionary, ii. p. 697. 
G 


98 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. II. 


a pupil of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels 
called the Diatessaron—z.e. TO dua Teccapwv evayyéAtov, an eX- 
pression which may be taken either as referring to the four 
Gospels or as a musical term equivalent to harmony or chord. 
This Harmony was in use among the Syrians till the fifth 
century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us that he 
destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek 
diocese. About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa 
(407-435) instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that 
all the churches possessed and read a copy of the Distinct 
Gospel—ze. not mixed or harmonised. The Lewis-Syriac 
bears this very title, Gospel of the Distinct or Divided, which 
is found also as the title of Matthew’s Gospel in the Curetonian 
version. Tatian’s Harmony has not yet been discovered in 
Syriac, but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it 
has long been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arabic was 
published by Ciasca which proves to be a translation from the 
Syriac made by Ibn et-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it. 
Again, in 1836 the Armenian version of a Syriac Commentary 
by Ephraem of Edessa (d. 373) was printed, and translated 
into Latin in 1876. [Hvangelit concordantis expositio facta a 
S. Ephraemo doctore Syro. In Latinum translataa J.B. Aucher, 
ed. G.Moesinger. Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered 
in the works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between 
337 and 345, quotations which must be derived from this 
Harmony of Tatian; and isolated quotations from Tatian 
are also found in later Syriac authors. And so the materials 
are provided for deciding the question whether or not Tatian 
made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation 
of his Harmony, and how ‘Tiatian), Syrcu(reton), Syrsin and 
Syrsch(aaf) 2 are related to each other. The most probable view 
perhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came 
to Syria, that in Syrc« and Syrsin we have two attempts to ex- 
hibit T in the form of a version of the separate Gospels which 


1 See below, p. 213, n. 3. 
2 The Peshitto, so indicated from the principal edition by Schaaf, 1708-9. 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 99 


were not generally accepted, while Syrsch actually succeeded 
and passed into general use. 

The interest attaching to this question may be learned from 
the form in which the text of Matthew i. 16 is given in these 
witnesses. Syrsch agrees exactly with our present Greek text, 
but Syrct presents a form which, when translated into Latin, 
reads, Joseph cut desponsata virgo Maria genuit Jesum Chris- 
tum. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that present a form 
corresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624 and 
626, which differ in this respect even from the other members 
of the Ferrar Group to which they belong. In these four 
manuscripts the verse reads, lwond @ urvnotevOjoa (sic) rapPévos 
Mapiau éyéevyncev Incoty Tov Neyouevov Xpistov. Inthe Latin, 
however, this text is represented by a number of the oldest 
manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the word virgo, 
while two have feperit instead of genuzt, and tov Neyouevoy is 
omitted. But in Syrsin we find: Joseph: Joseph autem cut 
desponsata (erat) virgo Maria genuit Jesum Christum. The 
passage is similarly cited in the recently published Dzalogue 
of Timotheus and Aquila} along with two other forms, thus :— 
Taco éyérycey tov “Iwond tov avdpa Maptas, é& iis éyervjOn 
‘Tycots 6 Neyouevos Xpicros, kat lwond eyévvycev tov Iycotv Tov 
Aeyouevov Xpirrov. 

The exact wording of Tatian can no longer be determined, 
but it is evident that of these three forms in which the verse 
is found, only one or none can be the original. If we had 
no more than our oldest uncials or the great body of our 
minuscules to go by, no one could have the slightest suspicion 
that in our Greek text all is not in perfect order. But here, 
in an old Syriac fragment from the far East, there 
suddenly appears a reading which is also found in Latin 
witnesses from the far West, and which is confirmed by four 


1 The Dialogues of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, and of Timothy and Aquila. 
Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles by F. C, Conybeare (Oxford, 1898; 
Anecdota Oxoniensta, Classical Series, Part VIII.). See Notice in the Zz¢, Coz, 
1899, No. 5, col. 154 fF. 


Philoxenus- 
Polycarp. 


Thomas of 
Heraclea, 


100 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


solitary Greek manuscripts, written probably in Calabria at 
the close of the Middle Ages. How are these facts connected, 
and how do they stand to the other two readings, that of the 
common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac? The 
history of the text of the New Testament presents many such 
problems. 

But Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of 
the New Testament already mentioned. In the year of 
Alexander 819 (A.D. 508),! a new and much more literal 
version was made from the Greek at the desire of Xenaia 
(Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug? (488-518), by his rural Bishop 
Polycarp. Part of this version was published in England by 
Pococke in 1630—viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena 
not included in the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. 
Unfortunately this edition was prepared from a somewhat 
inaccurate manuscript, which is now in the Bodleian Library. 
The later European editions of the Syriac New Testament 
took the text of these Epistles from Pococke’s edition, which 
was also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text. 
In 1886 Isaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of © 
another manuscript of this version (the Williams MS.), the 
property of a private gentleman in America, and corrected 
from it the text of the Syriac New Testament issued by the 
American Bible Society. The other parts of this version 
have not yet been found, but the same American scholar 
thought he discovered the Gospels in a ninth century 
manuscript belonging to the Syrian Protestant College in 
Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the Union Theo- 
logical Seminary in New York.’ Bernstein thought he made 
the same discovery in 1853 in a manuscript belonging to the 
Angelica Library in Florence. 

On the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in 
1736 to Dr. Gloucester Ridley, Joseph White published, 


1 Dates are still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting from the 
year 312 B.C. 

® Hierapolis, now Membidsch on the Euphrates, 

3 I, H. Hall, Syréac Manuscript Gospels of a Pre-Harklensian Version, 1883. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 101 


between 1778 and 1803,! a version which he designated 
by the name of Versio Philoxenia, and which still passes 
under this title. But this so-called Philoxenian version is not 
the identical version made for Philoxenus by Polycarp, but 
a revision undertaken by Thomas of Heraclea (Charkel), in 
the year 616-7. This revision was made at Alexandria 
with the object of making the Syriac text represent the 
Greek as closely as possible, even to the order of the words 
and the insertion of the article. The critical symbols used 
by Homeric commentators, the asterisk and the obelus, as 
well as numerous marginal notes, were employed to indicate 
the various readings found in the manuscripts. And it is 
very remarkable to observe that there were manuscripts in 
Alexandria at the beginning of the seventh century which 
were regarded by Thomas of Harkel as particularly well 
authenticated, but which deviate in a marked degree from 
the bulk of our present manuscripts, and which, especially 
in the Acts, agree almost entirely with Codex D, which 
occupies so singular a position among Greek manuscripts. 
A new edition of the Syriac text is necessary before 
any further use can be made of it in the criticism of 
the New Testament. Mr. Deane set himself to this task, 
going on the basis of sixteen manuscripts in England 
alone, but unfortunately he was unable to bring it to a 
conclusion. 

The Apocalypse was first edited in 1627 by de Dieu at Apocalypse. 
Leyden, from a manuscript that had been in the possession of 
Scaliger. It is found in a few other manuscripts, in one, eg., 
that was transcribed about this same time for Archbishop 
Ussher from a Maronite manuscript at Kenobin on Mount 
Lebanon. It is not found in the Syriac New Testament, 
but the later editions insert it from de Dieu. In Apoc. 
viii. 13, instead of “an eagle in the midst of heaven” (éy 
mecoupavyuatt), the Syriac translator took it as “in the 


1 The Gospels appeared in 1778, the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799, and 
the Pauline Epistles in 1803. 


102 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Mie 


midst with a bloody tail” (uecos, ovpa, atua). Another 
Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered 
in 1892 by J. Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford, 
and published by him as the first book printed in Syriac at 
the Dublin University Press. Still more interesting is it to 
know that in a manuscript, once the property of Julius Mohl, 
and now in Cambridge, both the so-called Epistles of Clement 
are found after the Catholic Epistles. This manuscript, part 
of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p. 79), 
contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived, 
so far as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy 
of Pamphilus.! 

About the same time and in the same region, Paul of Tella 
translated one of the best Greek manuscripts of the Old 
Testament into Syriac almost as literally as Thomas of 
Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the construction 
of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the 
textual criticism of the Old Testament. 

Evangeliarium Mention may be made here of another Syriac version of 
Hicrosolymi- the New Testament, the so-called Jerusalem or Palestinian 
Syriac (Syrhr or Syrhier), This version, hitherto known 
almost solely from an Evangeliarium in the Vatican of the 
year 1030, was edited by Count Miniscalchi Erizzo at Verona 
in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was published in 1892 in 
Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae quae ad 
philologiam sacram pertinent. And now not only have two 
fresh manuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on 
Mount Sinai by J. R. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by 
Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but fragments of the Acts and 

' In Tischendorf’s critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as SyrP(osterior) 
or as Syrwhitle), Jt would be better to use the symbol SyrPollycarp) for the first 
version of 508 made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, and Syrtho(mas) for Thomas of 
Harkel’s recension of 616. Gebhardt’s notation is as follows :—Syr* is the Cure- 
tonian; Syr> is the Peshitto; Syr° is the Harklean, of which again Syr‘*t is the 
text, Syr°™ the margin, Syr¢* sub asterisco ; Syr4 is the Jerusalem Syriac ; while 
Syr>dl is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to indicate 


the Philoxenian (Tischendorf’s Syrbed!) by Syr?, and the Harklean by Syr* ; for the 
Gospels he would employ Syr®, Syr’, Syr; Syr1, therefore, is the Peshitto. 


CHAP, II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 103 


Pauline Epistles have also been found and published, as well 
as portions of the Old Testament and other Church literature.’ 
The dialect in which these fragments are written is quite 
different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close 
resemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples. 
At what time and in what region this entire literature took 
its rise is not yet determined with certainty. The Greek text 
on which the Evangeliarium is based has many peculiarities. 
In Matthew xxvii. 17, e,¢., the robber is called Jesus Barabbas, 
or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to Origen, but now 
recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or second 
hand. 

What used to be called the Versio Karkaphensis or 
Montana is not really a version, but merely the Massoretic 
work of a monastery school intended to preserve the proper 
spelling and pronunciation of the text of the Bible. 

No other branch of the Church has taken such pains as the 
Syrian, faithfully to transmit and to circulate the Gospel. 
From the mountains of Lebanon and Kurdistan, from the 
plains of Mesopotamia and the coast of Malabar, and even 
from distant China there have come into the libraries of 
Europe Syriac manuscripts of the utmost value for the 
textual criticism of the New Testament. 


LITERATURE on the Syriac Versions :— 

J. G. Christian Adler, Vouc TZestamenti Versiones Syriacae, 
Simplex, Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinatae et ad 
fidem codicum manu scriptorum . . .. novis observationibus atgue 
tabulis aere incisis tllustratae. Wafniae, pp. vill. 206. With eight 
Plates. 1789, 4to. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see 
my Litteratura Syriaca (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendix 
thereto in Urt., 227 ff.; R. Duval, Za Littérature Syriaque. Paris, 
1899, pp. 42-67; ZiGr., 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition, ii. 
6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane; Zhe Printed Editions 
of the Syriac New Testament, in the Church Quarterly Review, 1888, 

1 Land, in the Anecdota Syriaca, iv., 1875; Harris, Biblical Fragments from 


Mount Sinai, 1890 ; Gwilliam, in the Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, i 5, 
1893 ; ix. 1896 ; Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, Studia Sinaztica, vi. 


104 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


July, 257-297; G. H. Gwilliam, in the Studia Brblica et Ecclesiastica 
(Oxford), ii. 1890, ili, 1891; F. C. Conybeare, The growth of the 
Peshitta Version of the New Testament, in the American Journal of 
Theology, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, 1. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring to his forthcoming edition of 
the Evangelion da- Menten, says that he has had to go over the 
Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and closes by saying, “I confess 
that I am unconvinced that what we call the New Testament 
Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem’s day, and I believe that we 
owe both its production and victorious reception to the organizing 
pee of the Great Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa from 411 to 435 A.D.” 

. Till Gwilliam’s edition of the Gospels appears, which has been 
eee since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of 
Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, MWovwm 
Domini nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum Syriacum cum versione latina 
cura et studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones 
diligenter recensitum et variis lectiontbus magno labore collectis 
adornatum. Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. Acc. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum 
concordantiale. ‘The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805; the 
editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better 
still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American 
Mission in Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New 
York, 1868, 1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation). 
An edition is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, Woxveau 
Testament Syriague en petits caracteres, @apres plusieurs manuscrits 
anciens, éd. par le P. L. Chetkho. 

The New Testament part of the Peshitto has been very much 
neglected in the present century. On the O.T., investigations, 
chiefly in the form of dissertations on most of the books, have been 
published, establishing the relation of the Syriac to the Massoretic 
text, the Septuagint, and the Targum. But almost nothing of this 
sort has been done for the N.T., at least in Germany, since the time 
of Michaelis and Lohlein, The question has never once been taken 
up how many translators’ hands can be distinguished in the N.T. 

J. D. Michaelis, Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum 
consectaris criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu versionts Syriacae 
tabularum Novi Foederis. Gottingen, 1755. C.L. E. Léhlein, Syrus 
Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica "denuo examinatus, 
Erlangen, 1835. 

2. Cureton’s Remains (1858) is now out of print. Till Burkitt’s 





CHAP. IL] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM, IO5 


new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen’s Retransla- 
tion into Greek (Zvangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des 
Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestelit, Leipzig, 1885); and more 
especially by Albert Bonus’s Colatio codicis Lewisiani rescriptt 
evangeliorum Syriacorum cum codice Curetoniano, Oxford, 1896 ; and 
by Carl Holzhey’s Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Mit 
einem vollstaindigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaiticus 
und Codex Curetonianus, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, Zhe Sinattic 
Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac, in the Expository Times, May 
1895, p. 380 ff. The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, Fragmenta Evan- 
gelica, Pars I, If., 1870, 1872, and Observations on the Collations in 
Greek of Cureton’s Syriac Fragments, 1872, contain useful material, 
but there are a good many mistakes. 

3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that of 
Bensly, Harris, and Burkitt, Ze Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed 
Srom the Sinaitic Palimpsest.. . . . Cambridge, 1894. To this 
must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, Some Pages of the 
four Gospels retranscribed (with or without an English translation), 
* London, 1896; further, Zast Gleanings from the Sinat Palimpsest, 
Expositor, Aug. 1897, pp.. 111-119; also, Ax Omission from the 
Text of the Sinai Palimpsest, Expositor, Dec. 1897, p. 472. On the 
discovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, Hozw the Codex was 
found, . . . . Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, Zz the shadow of 
Sinat, . . . . Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, Our Journey to 
Sinat,.... With a chapter on the Sinat Palimpsest. Uondon, 
1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, Zhe Earlier Home of the Sinattic 
Palimpsest, Expositor, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text has 
been translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added a 
brief but valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. The 
second part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. See 
also Gwilliam’s notice of the editio princeps in the Zxposztory Times, 
Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff. 

4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, Lvangelienharmonie, 
PRE®, v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his Forschungen, i. (1881), Zatian’s 
Diatessaron, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); Gesch. des Kanons, i. 
387-414, ll. 530-556. J. H. Hill, Zhe earliest Life of Christ ever 
compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian 
(c. A.D. 160), Zzterally translated from the Arabic Version. Edinburgh, 
1893. J. R. Harris, Zhe Diatessaron of Tatian, a Preliminary 
Study. Cambridge, 1890. Zhe Diatessaron, a Reply, in the Con- 


106 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


temporary Review, Aug. 1895, in answer to W. R. Cassels, in the 
Nineteenth Century, April 1895; also by the same writer, 7ragments 
of the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus upon the Diatessaron. London, 
1895. .... J. H. Hill, A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary 
of S. Ephrem the Syrian... . Edinburgh, 1896. J. A. Robinson, 
Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Dutch Harmony, in the Academy, 24th 
March 1894. Hope W. Hogg, Zhe Diatessaron of Tatian, with 
introduction and translation, in the Ante-Nicene Library. Additional 
Volume... . edited by Allan Menzies. Edinburgh, 1897, pp. 
33-138. W. Elliott, Zatian’s Diatessaron and the Modern Critics. 
Plymouth, 1888. I. H. Hall, 4 Pair of Citations from the Diates- 
saron, in the Journal of Biblical Literature, x. 2 (1891), 153-155. 
J. Goussen, Pauca Fragmenta genuina Diatessaroniana, appended to 
the Apocalypsis S. Joannis Versio Sahidica, 1895. See also Baumer 
in the Literarischer Handwetser, 1890, 153-169; the article Zatian 
in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, vol. 
li. p. 697 f. 

5. On the later Syriac versions, see Urt., 228, 236 f.; Gwynn, 
The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles, 
Hermathena, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, Die in der 
Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Testamentes in arabischer der 
Philoxeniana entstammender Ucebersetsung ... . Leitschrift fiir 
Assyriologie, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii, 1-28. Bensly, Zhe Harklean 
Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, . . . . Cambridge, 1889. In 
this edition will be found the subscription mentioned above, con- 
necting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See Addenda, p. xv. 

6. On the Jerusalem Evangeliarium, see U7r7., 228, 237. Zahn, 
Forschungen, i. 329 ff. Lagarde, Mitteilungen, i. 111, 1V. 328, 340. 
A. de Lagarde, Evinnerungen an P. de Lagarde, p. 112 ff. Lewis 
and Gibson, Zhe Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the Gospels re- 
edited from two Sinat MSS. and from P. de Lagarde’s edition of the 
Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, London, 1899. The Lectionary 
published in the Studia Sinaitica, vi., contains, in the N.T., passages 
from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Ephes., Philip. Col. 1 
Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Heb., James. See notice in the Exfosztory 
Times, Jan. 1898, p. 190 ff. Zhe Liturgy of the Nile, published by 
G. Margoliouth, 1896 (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Oct. 
1896, 677-731, and also published separately), contains Acts xvi. 
16-34. See also Woods, Zhe Mew Syriac Fragments in. the 
Expository Times, Nov. 1893. 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 107 


(.) LATIN VERSIONS, 


The name most closely associated with the Latin Versions Jerome, 
of the New Testament is that of Jerome (Hieronymus). This 
scholar was born at Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia,’ 
about the year 345, and educated at Rome. After leading 
for some time a hermit life in Palestine, Jerome returned to 
Rome, and it was during his residence there, in the year 382, 
that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a revision 
of the Latin version of the New Testament thenin use. This 
he did, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the following 
year, the first instalment of the work, the Four Gospels, 
accompanied with a letter beginning thus :—“ Thou compellest 
me to make a new work out of an old; after so many copies 
of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole 
world, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were, 
and seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accords 
with the truth of the Greek; a pious task, verily, yet a 
perilous presumption, to pass judgment on others and oneself 
to be judged by all.” He anticipates that everyone, no matter 
who, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and finds a 
discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway 
condemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to 
or alter or correct the ancient Scriptures. But he comforts 
himself with the reflection that it is the High Pontiff himself 
that has laid this task upon him, and that the testimony of 
his jealous opponents themselves proves that discrepancies 
are an indication of error (verum non esse quod variat, etiam 
maledicorum testimonio comprobatur) ; for if they tell us we 
are to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must first 
say which, because there are almost as many versions as 
manuscripts (tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices) ; 
if it is to be the majority of these, why not rather go back to 

1 See F. Bulié, Wo lag Stridon, die Heimat des h. Hieronymus? in the 


Festschrift fiir Otto Benndorf. Vienna, 1898. Also La patrie de S. Jerome in 
Analecta Bollandiana, xviii. 3. 


Augustine. 


108 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Tle 


the Greek original which has been badly rendered by in- 
competent translators (a vitiosis interpretibus male edita), 
made worse instead of better by the presumption of unskilful 
correctors (a praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius), 
and added to or altered by sleepy scribes (a librariis dormi- 
tantibus aut addita sunt aut mutata). In a letter to his 
learned friend Marcella, written in the year 384, he gives 
instances of what he complains of, citing, eg., Romans xii. 11, 
where femport servientes had hitherto been read instead of 
domino servientes (kaipo instead of xvpiw),and 1 Tim. v. 19, 
“against an elder receive not an accusation,” where the 
qualifying clause, “except before two or three witnesses,” 
was dropped, and also 1 Tim. i. 15, iii. 1, where Aawmanus 
sermo was given in place of fidelzs. In all three instances, 
our most recent critical editions decide in favour of Jerome, 
against the Old Latin Version. In the last instance cited, we 
know of only one Latin-Greek manuscript that has avOperwos 
instead of micrds, and that only in c. iii, 1, viz. D*. Jerome 
accordingly issued an improved version of the New Testa- 
ment, beginning with the Gospels. For this purpose he made 
a careful comparison of old Greek manuscripts (codicum 
Graecorum emendata conlatione sed veterum). In his ver- 
sion he was also careful only to make an alteration when a 
real change of meaning was necessary, retaining in all other 
cases the familiar Latin wording. The Gospels were in the 
order which has been the prevailing one since his day— 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. 

We learn from the great Church Teacher AUGUSTINE, who 
lived in Africa about the same time (354-430), that there was 
an endless variety and multitude of translators (latinorum 
interpretum infinita varietas, interpretum numerositas). He 
tells us that while it was possible to count the number of 
those who had translated the Bible—z.e. the Old Testament— 
from Hebrew into Greek, the Latin translators were innumer- 
able; that in the early age of the Christian faith (primis fidei 
temporibus), no sooner did anyone gain possession of a Greek 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 109 


Codex, and believe himself to have any knowledge of both 
languages, than he made bold to translate it (ausus est in- 
terpretari). The advice he himself gives is to prefer the 
Italic version to the others, as being the most faithful and 
intelligible (in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala prae- 
feratur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sen- 
tentiae. De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 14, 15). On the ground 
of this passage, the pre-Jeromic versions have been compre- 
hended under the title of the Itala, as distinguished. from 
Jerome’s own work, which is called the Vulgate, seeing that 
it became the prevailing text in the Church of the Middle 
Ages. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must have 
referred to a particular version, and, according to the usage 
of that time, the word cannot mean anything else than a 
version originating in or prevalent in Italy—ze. the North of 
Italy, what is called Lombardy. It is not difficult to under- 
stand how it came to pass that Augustine used such a 
version in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose, 
Bishop of Milan. In recent times Burkitt has revived the 
opinion that by Itala Augustine means neither more nor 
less than Jerome’s Revision of the Gospels. He demon- 
strates that Augustine’s De Consensu, written about the year 
400, is based on Jerome’s revised text. In this, Zahn? 
agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far 
as this point is concerned. But Wordsworth-White’ will 
not admit the inference that Augustine must have meant 
this Revision when he spoke of Itala in the year 397, seeing 
that in his letter to Jerome,’ written in 403, he thanks God 
for the interpretation of the Gospel, “ quasi de opere recenter 
cognito,” while in his earlier letters to Jerome* he makes no 
mention of it: “quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex 
annos publici iuris facto eam collaudasset.” ° 

1 Finlettung, ii. 195. 2 Epilogus ad Evangelia, p. 656. 

3 No. 713; 164 in Jerome’s letters, 

4 No. 56 (A.D. 394), 67 (397), TOI (402). 


5 Burkitt’s view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by 
C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, De vz guam antiguissimae versiones 


Itala, 


Vulgate. 


Old Latin 
Texts. 


African 
Latin. 


I1O GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II 


(1.) LATIN VERSIONS BEFORE JEROME. 


Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at 
least were parts of it, first translated into Latin? From the 
passage in Augustine quoted above, we learn that it was done 
by all and sundry in the very earliest times of the Christian 
faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place where the 
Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek 
was ‘very commonly employed as the written language at 
Rome, especially among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome 
have pure Greek names, and even the first representative of the 
Roman Church with a Latin name, the Clement that wrote 
the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95, even he 
wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin 
Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their 
language, both in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed 
with that found in African writers of that age, and in some 
things agreed with these alone. It is, of course, a fact that 
the majority of the writers of that age known to us are 
African. Till quite recently, therefore, it was held to be 
tolerably well made out that the birthplace of the Latin Bible 
is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as 
equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome 
and Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which 
the Old Latin Bible now exists, these all proceed from a 
common origin, or at most from two sources, so that it was 
not quite correct to speak of a “ multitude of translators” in 
the very earliest times. The settlement of this question is 
rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the extant 
copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early, 
they are few in number, and for the most part mutilated. 
The reason of this is not far toseek. For, as time went on 
and Jerome’s new version came to be more and more ex- 
clusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version lost their 


quae extant latinae in crisin evangeliorum IV. habent (Merseburg, 1824). See 
y. Dobschiitz, 72Zz., 1897, 135. 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. III 


value, and were the more frequently used for palimpsests and 
book covers. One has also to take into account how liable 
the text of both was to be corrupted, either by the copyist of 
an Old Latin Bible inserting in the margin, or even interpolat- 
ing in the text, various passages from Jerome’s translation that 
seemed to him to be a decided improvement, or conversely, 
by the scribe who should have written the new rendering 
involuntarily permitting familiar expressions to creep in from 
the old. It is estimated that we have about 8000 manuscripts 
of Jerome’s recension, of which 2228 have been catalogued by 
Gregory. Samuel Berger, the most thorough investigator in 
this field, examined 800 manuscripts in Paris alone. But on 
the other hand, only 38 manuscripts of the Old Latin Version 
of the New Testament are known to exist. The credit of 
collecting the relics of these pre-Jeromic versions of the Old 
and New Testament, so far as they were accessible at that 
time, belongs to Peter Sabatier the Maurist (Rheims, 1743, 
3 vols. folio). 

In critical editions of the New Testament the manuscripts 
of the pre-Jeromic versions are indicated by the small letters 
of the Roman alphabet. They are the following :— 


1. GOSPELS. 


a. Vercellensis: according to a tradition recorded in a 
document of the eighth century this manuscript was written 
by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli, who died in the year 370 or 
371. Recent scholars, however, date it somewhat later. It is 
written on purple with silver letters. The order of the Gospels 
is that found in most of these Old Latin MSS.—viz. Matthew, 
John, Luke, Mark. The manuscript is defective in several 
places. 


The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in 
1749 along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex. 
This latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne’s 
Patrologia Latina, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by 


112 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ CHAP. II. 


Belsheim; Codex Vercellensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum 
latine translata ex religuits Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut videtur 
guarto scripti, et ex Editione Iriciana principe denuo ededit (sic) 
Jo. Belsheim, Christiania, 1894. 


b. Veronensis: of the fourth or fifth century, also written 
with silver on purple. In this Codex, John vii. 44—viii. 12 has 
been erased. The manuscript is defective. 

Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, Z’£vangeliario 
Purpureo Veronese. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell’ 
Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino), 


c. Colbertinus : in Paris, written in the twelfth century, but 
still containing the Old Latin text in the Gospels, though 
exhibiting Jerome’s version in other parts. 


Edited by Sabatier, and again by Belsheim; Codex Colbertinus 
Parisiensis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum latine translata post 
editionem Petri Sabatier cum ipso codice collatam denuo edidit Jo. 
Belsheim. Christiania, 1888. 


d. The Latin part of Codex D; see p. 64 ff. 

e. Palatinus: of the fourth or fifth century, written like 
a b f ij on purple with gold and silver letters: now in 
Vienna, with one leaf in Dublin. 


Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from 
a transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was 
edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1896. See von Dobschiitz in the 
LE Cbis' £896, -28. 


f. Brixianus, of the sixth century, in Brescia. In their new 
edition of the Vulgate, Wordsworth and White printed the 
text of this manuscript underneath that of Jerome for com- 
parison’s sake as probably containing the text most nearly 
resembling that on which Jerome based his recension. But 
see Burkitt's Note in the /Journal of Theological Studies, I. i. 
(Oct. 1899), 129-134, and the note to p. 139 in Addenda. 

ff,. Corbeiensis I., contains the Gospel according to Matthew 
alone. The manuscript formerly belonged to the Monastery 


CHAP. Leg MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 1) hee: 


of Corbey, near Amiens, and with others was transferred to 
St. Petersburg during the French Revolution. 

ff,. Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in 
Paris: contains the Gospels with several lacunz. 


On Belsheim’s editions of ff, and ff, (1881 and 1887), see E. Ranke 
in the Z%LZz,, 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, Bull, Crit., 1891, 
go2 f, 


g,. Sangermanensis I., of the ninth century, in Paris, 
exhibits a mixed text. The manuscript was used by Stephen 
for his Latin Bible of 1538. 

g,. Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the 
tenth century, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069). 

h. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in 
the Vatican: has the Old Latin text in Matthew only. The 
manuscript is defective at the beginning down to Matt. iii. 15 
and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii. 12. 

Edited by Mai in his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, iii. 
257-288, and by Belsheim, Christiania, 1892. 


i. Vindobonensis, of the seventh century, contains fragments 
of Luke and Mark written on purple with silver and gold. 

Edited by Belsheim, Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus 
; . antiquissimae evangeliorum Lucae et Marci translationis Latinae 
Sragmenta edidit Jo. Belsheim. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula). 


j(zin 77Gyr.). Saretianus or Sarzannensis, of the fifth century, 
contains 292 verses from John written on purple. The manu- 
script was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano, near 
Tortona, and is not yet completely edited. 


Compare G, Amelli, Un antichissimo codice biblico Latino purpureo 
conservato nella chiesa di Sarezzano presso Tortona. Milan, 1872. 


k. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the most 
important of the Old Latin manuscripts, but unfortunately 
contains only fragments of Matthew and Mark. It is said to 
have belonged to St. Columban, the founder of the monastery 


of Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now preserved at 
H 


114 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II: 


Turin. See Burkitt on Mark xv. 34 in Codex Bobiensis in 
the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 2 (Jan. 1900), p. 278 f. 

1, Rehdigeranus, in Breslau, purchased in Venice by Thomas 
von Rehdiger in 1569. Matthew i. 1-ii. 15 and a good deal 
of John wanting. 

Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: Evangeliorum 


guattuor vetus latina tnterpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nunc primum 
edita. 


m. Does not represent any particular manuscript and should 
properly be omitted here. It indicates the Leber de divinis 
scripturts sive Speculum, a work mistakenly ascribed to 
Augustine, consisting of a collection of proof-passages (testi- 
monia) from the Old and New Testaments. All the books 
of the latter are made use of except Philemon, Hebrews, and 
3 John, but the Epistle to the Laodiczans is cited among the 
number. 


Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translatione latina antehieronymiana 
ex libro qui vocatur Speculum eruit et ordine librorum Novi Testamenti 
exposuit J. Belsheim. Christiania, 1899. 


nop. Are fragments at St. Gall: published in the Old Latin 
Biblical Texts, see below, p. 131 f. 

n. Written in the fifth or sixth century, has probably been 
in the Library at St. Gall since its foundation. It contains 
portions of Matthew and Mark, with John xix. 13-42. 

o. Written in the seventh century, possibly to take the place 
of the last leaf of n, which is wanting, contains Mark xvi. 14-20. 

p. Two leaves of an Irish missal written in the seventh or 
eighth century. 

a,. Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a 
leaf containing Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found 
in the Episcopal archives at Chur, and is preserved in the 
Rhetisches Museum there. 

q. Monacensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, came 
originally from Freising. Published in the Old Latin Biblical 
Texts. 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. IIs 


ror r, andr,. Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The 
former is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and 
has several lacune. r, belongs to the ninth or tenth century 
and has an Old Latin text in Matthew resembling that of r,. 
It shows affinity with Jerome’s text in Mark, Luke, and John, 
of which, however, only five leaves remain. 


Edited by T. K. Abbott, Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana 
ex codice Usseriano (Dublinensi), adjecta collatione codicis Usseriani 
alterius. Accedit versio Vulgata. . . . Dublin, 1884, 2 Parts. 


s. Four leaves with portions of Luke, written in the sixth 
century. The fragments came originally from Bobbio, and 
are now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. Published in 
the Old Latin Biblical Texts. 

t. A palimpsest very difficult to decipher, containing portions 
of the first three chapters of Mark, written in the fifth century, 
and now at Berne. Published in the Old Latin Biblical 
Lexts. 

v. Bound in the cover of a volume at Vienna entitled, Pactus 
Legis Ripuarig: exhibits John xix. 27-xx. 11. Published in 
the Old Latin Biblical Texts. 

aur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighth 
century, exhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception of 
Luke xxi. 8-30. An inscription in old English states that 
the manuscript was purchased from the heathen (the Danes? ) 
by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church, Canterbury, when 
Alfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (871-889). It was 
afterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is really 
a Vulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings. 
Published by Belsheim in 1878. 

6. Is the interlinear Latin version of A (see p. 72), and 
is interesting on account of its alternative readings given in 
almost every verse—eg. uxorem vel conjugem for yuvaixa, 
Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, Zhe Codex Sangallensis, Cam- 
bridge, 1891. 


On the Prolegomena found in many Old Latin and Vulgate manu- 


116 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. II. 


scripts of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, Mlonarchianische Prologe 
zu den vier Evangelien. Leipzig, 1896 (ZU., xv. 1). This has 
been supplemented by von Dobschiitz’s Prolog sur Apostelgeschichte. 
See also Jiilicher in the GGA., 1896, xi. 841-851. J.S.in the Revue. 
Critique, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the Z% Lz., 1897, 
xil, col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, <Adtchristliche Prolegomena zu den 
LEvangelien in the Z/fwTh., 1897, i. 432-444. 


27 NCS, 
a Ih As for the Gospels. 
m J 

e. The Latin text of E. See above, p. 75. 

g. Gigas Holmiensis, the immense manuscript of the entire 
Latin Bible preserved at Stockholm. The text is Old Latin 
only in the Acts and Apocalypse, the rest of the New Testa- 
ment exhibiting Jerome’s version. The manuscript was 
brought to Sweden from Prague as a prize of war in 1648, 
along with the Codex Argenteus. 

The Acts and Apocalypse were edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 
1879. On this see O. v. Gebhardt in the 7ZZz., 1880, col. 185. A 
new collation of this manuscript was made for W.-W. by H. Karlsson 
in 1891. 


g,. In Milan, is part of a Lectionary written in the tenth 
or eleventh century, and contains the pericope for St. Stephen’s 
day, Acts vi. 8—vii. 2, vil. 51—vili. 4. 

Published by Ceriani in his Monumenta Sacra et Profana, i. 2, pp. 
127, 128, Milan, 1866. 


h. Floriacensis, a palimpsest formerly belonging to the 
Abbey of Fleury on the Loire, and now in Paris, written 
probably in the seventh century. It contains fragments of 
the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John, in this order, 
(Tischendorf’s reg.: Blass’s f.) 

The latest and best edition is that of S, Berger: Ze Palimpseste de 
Fleury. Paris, 1889. 


p., written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with 





: 
| 
| 
| 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. Ii/ 


an admixture of Old Latin readings in the Acts only. The 
manuscript came originally from Perpignan, and is now in Paris, 
No, 321. It was used by Blass. 

Published by Berger: Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apétres, 
etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobschiitz in the 7hZz., 1896, 4; 
Haussleiter in the 7%. Zé/., no. 9 ; Schmiedel in the Z. Cé2, no. 33 ; 
E, Beurlier, Bull. Crit., 1896, 32, p. 623. 


s,, Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at 
Vienna, containing fragments of Acts xxiii, xxv.-xxviii., and 
of James and 1 Peter. 

x, Written in the seventh or eighth century, contains the 
Acts with the exception of xiv. 26-xv. 32. The manuscript 
is preserved at Oxford and is not completely published. 

w. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of 
the New Testament written, it seems, in Bohemia in the 
fifteenth century, and now at Wernigerode. In the main it 
exhibits Jerome’s text even to a greater extent than p, but 
preserves elements of the Old Latin, particularly in the latter 
half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to that observed in 
the Provencal New Testament! which is derived from a Latin 
manuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-Lutheran 
German Bible. (See U7z,, p. 127 f.) 


On Acts, see especially P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der 
Acta Apostolorum. Berlin, 1892. 


3. CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 
h 
m \As above. 
S 


ff. Corbeiensis, at St. Petersburg, of the tenth century, 
contains the Epistle of James. 

Edited by Belsheim in the Theologisk Tidsskrift for den evangelisk- 
lutherske Kirke t Norge (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by J. Wordsworth, 
The Corbey St. James, etc., in Studia Biblica, i. pp. 113-150. Oxford, 
1885. 

1 Photolithographed by Clédat from a MS. at Lyons. 


118 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


q. Written in the seventh century, and preserved at Munich, 
contains fragments of 1 John, and of 1 and 2 Peter. The 
text exhibits the passage of the Three Heavenly Witnesses 
in 1 John v., but verse 7 follows verse 8. 


Published by Ziegler in 1877, Bruchstiicke einer vorhierony- 
mianischen Uebersetsung der Petrusbriefe. 


4. PAULINE EPISTLES. 


m. As for the Gospels. 

de fg. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G. 

gue. Guelferbytanus, of the sixth century, contains frag- 
ments of Romans cc. xi.-xv., found in the Gothic palimpsest 
at Wolfenbiittel. See p. 69. 

Published by Tischendorf in his Amecdota Sacra et Profana, 
1855, pp. 153-158. See Burkitt, in the Journal of Theological Studies, 
i. 1 (Oct. 1899), p. 134, and compare the note to p. 139 in the 
Addenda, p. xv. 


r. Written in the fifth or sixth century, came originally 
from Freising, and is now at Munich: contains portions of 
Romans, I and 2Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 
1 Timothy, and Hebrews. 

Ziegler, Ltalafragmente der paulinischen Briefe. Marburg, 1876. 
Wolfflin, eve Bruchstiicke der Freisinger Itala (Miinchener Sitz- 
ungsberichte, 1893, li. 253-280). 

r,. Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. and 
of a hess, 

rz. In the Benedictine Abbey of Géttweih on the Danube: 
fragments of Romans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v., 
written on leaves used as a book cover, 


Published by Ronsch in the Zfw7Z%., xxii. (1879), pp. 234-238- 


x, At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the Pauline 
Epistles : defective from Heb. xi. 34—xiii. 25. 


See also Fr. Zimmer, Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text, als 
Grundlage fiir einen texthritischen Apparat der Vetus Latina in the 


at 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. II9 


Theologische Studien und Skizzen aus Ostpreussen, Konigsberg, 1. 
(1887), pp. 1-81. 


5. APOCALYPSE. 


The only manuscripts are m as for the Gospels, and g and 
h as for the Acts. h exhibits only fragments of cc. i. and ii., 
viii. and ix., xi. and xii., and xiv.—xvi. 

For the Old Latin Biblical Texts edited by Wordsworth and 
White, see below, p. 131. 


On account of the small number of these manuscripts the 
quotations of the Latin Fathers are valuable, especially 
those of Cyprian of Carthage,! and after them the recently 
discovered citations in Przscz//zan, who was the first to suffer 
death as a heretic in the year 385. In the Apocalypse we 
have the quotations of Przmasztus, Bishop of Hadrumet (ca. 
550), who used in his commentary on the Apocalypse not 
only his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version the 
same as that used by the African Donatist Zyconzus. In 
attempting to classify these witnesses it was found that the 
text of certain manuscripts coincided with that of the Bible 
used by Cyprian—viz., in the Gospels k especially, in Acts h, 
and in the Apocalypse Primasius and h. This family has 
accordingly been designated the African. 

Tertullian, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refers 
to the existence of a Latin Version in his time, but the 
quotations found in his Latin works cannot be taken into 
account, for this reason, that in citing the New Testament he 
seems to have made an independent translation from the 
Greek for his immediate purpose.” 

1 J. Heidenreich, Der neutestamentliche Text bec Cyprian verglichen mit dem 
Vulgatatext. Eine texthritische Untersuchung zu den h, Schriften des Neuen 
Testamentes. Bamberg, 1900. 

2 This is the view of Zahn. Others, however, have no doubt that Tertullian 
made use of a Latin version. Hoppe, in his treatise, De sermone Tertullianeo 
Quaestiones Selectae (1897), p. 6 (de Graecismts Tertullianz) says, ‘‘ Permultas 


enim (constructiones) T. mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue 
studuit, vel ex librorum sacrorum translatione latina graecismis abundante, qua 


Latin 
Fathers. 


Old Latin 
Texts. 


120 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


As for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to 
resemble the text of f and q in the Gospels, particularly the 
former, and that of q,r,and r, in the Epistles. To this group, 
therefore, the name Italian has been given. It has, however, been 
deemed necessary to regard this Italian family as being itself 
a revised and smoother form of a still earlier version styled 
the European, which is thought to be represented by g, g,, and s 
in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and by g in the Apocalypse. 

As illustrating the way in which the various forms deviate 
from each other, take the text of Luke xxiv., verses 4, 5, II, 
and 13 as exhibited by a bc d e f and the Vulgate (vg). 

v. 4.—All the seven agree in the opening words, Et factum 
est dum ; but after that there follows :— 

(1) stuperent ac, mente consternatae essent b, vg; mente 
consternatae sunt e, aporiarentur d, haesitarent f. 

(2) de hoc a cf, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e, vg. 

(3) ecce acd f, vg; et ecce be. 

(4) viri duo af, duo viri bc de, vg. 

(5) adstiterunt af, astiterunt c, adsisterunt d, steterunt be, 
vg. 

(6) iuxta illas af, secus illas bce, vg; eis d. 

(7) in veste fulgenti af, vg; in veste fulgente bce, in amictu 
scoruscanti d. 

(8) v. 5: timore autem adprehensae inclinantes faciem ad 
terram a; cum timerent autem et declinarent vultum in terram 
bef, vg; conterritae autem inclinaverunt faciem in terram c; 
in timore autem factae inclinaverunt vultus suos in terra d. 

(9) v. II: et visa sunt abc (visae) ef, vg; et paruerunt d. 

(10) illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos ce, in conspectu 
eorum d, coram illos f. 


utebatur.” And to this he adds, ‘‘ Quam multa vocabula graeca in Tertullianeum 
sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur translatione redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii 
libro cum impigritate conscripto, qui inscribitur, /ta/a wnd Vulgata, ed. sec., p. 
238.” The Itala is cited for scéant guia (p. 18), absgue (p. 44), and for the use of 
the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer, refers to Ronsch, 
p. 415, and adds, ‘“‘ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens assumpsisse videtur, 
quamquam in universum vitat.” Cf Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff. 





iCHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 12] 


(11) tanquam a, sicut be, vg; quasi cdf. 

(12) delira a, deliramentum bef, vg; (b spells -lirr-, and f 
-ler-), deliramenta c, derissus d. 

(13) v. 13: municipium a, castellum bcdef, vg. 

(14) stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat 
stadia sexaginta ab hierusalem b, quod abest ab ierosolymis 
stadia sexag. c, iter habentis stadios sexag. ab hierus. d, quod 
est ab hierosolymis stadia septem e, quod aberat spatio sta- 
diorum LX ab hierus. f, quod erat in spatio stadiorum sexa- 
ginta ab hierusalem vg. 

(15) cui nomen a, nomine bcdef, vg. 

(16) ammaus a, cleopas et ammaus b, emmaus cf, vg ; 
alammaus d, ammaus et cleopas e. 

Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said: tot exemplaria, 
quot codices? And when we take into account that all this 
variety in the Latin manuscripts is not simply due to a differ- 
ence in translation, but that a similar diversity exists in the 
Greek,! we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate 
the original text from out these conflicting witnesses. At the 
same time, we have evidence of the singular position in which 
D stands to all the others; while the last example also affords 
an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise. 
The reading 7 évoua in verse 13 would preclude any possi- 
bility of misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the 
translator had before him a manuscript like D, in which the 
reading was ovouatt. What happened, we shall suppose, was 
this. The phrase, “Emmaus by name,” was taken as refer- 
ring, not to the village, but to the subject of the sentence ; 

1 Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (1) amoperoOae 
and S:amopero Oat (or Siamopesw), (2) wept Tovrov and epi avtov, (3) sdov and Kat 


15ov, (4) avdpes 5vo and dvo avdpes, (5) ereatnoay and mapecornkeroay, (7) ev 
ecOntt actpamtoven (Or Aaumpa) and ev ecOnoeow actpamtovoats (OY AevKas), 
(8) eudoBwy (or ev poBw) Se yevouevwy Kat KAWovowy and evPoBor Se yevomevar 
exAewar, (9) Ta tpocwra and ro mpoowmoy (avtwy); in verse II, (10) evwmtoyv avtwy 
and its omission ; in verse 13, (14) efmxovra and exaroy efnkovta, (15) 7 ovoua and 
ovouart, (16) Eupaovs and ovAammaovs. Of these (8), (15), and (16) are found 
only in D. In the case of (15) the very same variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in 


the two recensions represented by Codex Vatécanus and Codex Sinatticus. 


Codex 
Epternacensis, 


Codex 
Amiatinus. 


Codex 
Fuldensis. 


122 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Dr 


the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse 18, and 
in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist. And 
accordingly we find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two 
travellers are regularly called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was 
just as Jerome said: a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, a 
praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, a librariis 
dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata. 


(2.) THE LATIN VERSION OF JEROME. 


It is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of 
Jerome; first of all because all our present manuscripts are 
derived from one and only one source, secondly because the 
number of existing manuscripts is very great, and lastly 
because some of them at least go back to the sixth century. 
There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the 
Church of St. Willibrord at Echternach, written by an 
Irish hand of the eighth or ninth century, and containing 
a subscription copied from its original to the following effect : 
proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in_ bibliotheca 
Eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi, in- 
dictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo 
decimo. That must have been in the year 558. Codex 
Amiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong 
to the same time, but this turns out to be a mistake, because 
it has been proved that it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of 
Wearmouth, who died at Langres on the 25th September 716, 
on his way to Rome, where he intended to present this 
Codex to the Pope. One of the oldest and most valuable 
manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda, where it has been 
preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This Codex 
Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of 
Bishop Victor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It con- 
tains the whole of the New Testament according to Jerome’s 
version, only in place of the four separate Gospels it has a 
Harmony composed by Victor, who followed Tatian’s plan, 





CHAP. IL] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 123 


using the Latin text of Jerome. Victor's Harmony in turn 
became the basis of the so-called Old German Tatian. 

The task of restoring the original text of Jerome’s version Wordsworth 
has been undertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury, ™* “™* 
who has been at work on all the available material for more 
than fifteen years. The edition bears the title, Vovwm Testa- 
mentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum editionem sancti 
Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorum fidem recensuit Johannes 
Wordsworth in operis soctetatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano 
White. Five parts of the first volume have already ap- 
peared, containing the four Gospels with an Lpzlogus ad 
Evangelia’ In France, J. Delisle, the Director of the Paris 
National Library, has rendered great service by his work 
upon the manuscripts under his care; while Samuel Berger 
has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the 
Vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle 
Ages and the remotest provinces of the Church to bear upon 
the history of the Vulgate and its text as well as on the 
origin and dissemination of the different forms. In his com- 
pendious Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers stécles du 
moyen age (Paris, 1893), he has, ¢.g., indicated no fewer than 
212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testament 
were arranged in the manuscripts that he examined, and 
thirty-eight varieties in the order of the New Testament books. 
In Germany Bengel applied himself to the reconstruction of 
the Latin text of the Bible in the last century, and in this he 
was followed by Lachmann in the present century, while 
Riegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledge 
of the history of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen has 
followed up the labours of Ziegler and Rénsch in the par- 
ticular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and its text with a 
methodical examination of the earlier editions, and E. v. 
Dobschiitz has begun to publish Studies in the Textual 
Criticism of the Vulgate. The valuable researches of Carlo 
Vercellone (1860-64) were concerned almost exclusively with 

1 1889, 91, 93, 95; 98; cited in the sequel as W.-W. 


MSS. used by 
Jerome. 


History of 
the Vulgate. 


124 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


the Old Testament, and do not seem to have been fol- 
lowed up in Italy. “Utinam Papa Leo XIII.,” says Gregory, 
“tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se 
suscipiat textus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi; 
cura, Opus ecclesia et Papa dignum.” Meanwhile Words- 
worth and White appear to have accomplished as much as 
is possible at present in the field of the Gospels. 

The principles on which Jerome went in his revision of 
the text have been already referred to, but what the early 
Greek manuscripts were that he employed is not yet clearly 
made out. The relics of the material he used are as scanty 
as those of his own work. He must, however, have been 
able to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius, 
seeing that he adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New 
Testament. But there are certain readings in Jerome which 
we have not yet been able to discover in any Greek manu- 
script that we know. For instance, he gives docebit vos omnem 
verttatem in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions 
read odyyjoet vuds €v TH GAnOeia acy, sO that he would seem 
to have read dwmynoerat tuiv thy adAnOeay wtacav. As a 
matter of fact, this reading does occur in two passages of 
Eusebius and in Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as in the Arabic 
version of Tatian, but it has not been discovered in any 
Greek manuscript.2 In the other parts of the New Testa- 
ment, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the 
year 386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from 
the Greek, but contented himself with improving the grammar 
and diction of the Latin. His work on the Old Testament 
was much more comprehensive, but does not fall to be 
discussed here. 

It was only by degrees that Jerome’s recension gained 

? On the Zfzlogus to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see especially 
S. Berger in the Revue Critigue, 1889, pp. 141-144 ; and on the whole, Burkitt, 
The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus, in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp. 129-134. 


2 Compare E. Maugenot, Les mzanuscrits grecs des Evangiles employés par Saint 
’ } Coy 
Jeréme, in the Revue des sciences eccléstastigues, January 1900. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 125 


ground. In Rome, Gregory the Great (d. 604) for one 
preferred it to the old, though at the same time he says 
expressly: sedes apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, 
utraque utitur. Owing to the use of both forms the diver- 
sity of copies grew to such an extent that in 797 Charles 
the Great ordered Aleuin to make a uniformly revised text Alcuin. 
from the best Latin manuscripts for use in the Churches of 
his Empire. For this purpose Alcuin sent to his native 
Northumbria for manuscripts, by which he corrected the 
text of the Bible, and he was able to present the first copy 
to the Emperor at Christmas 801. A good many of the 
superb Carolingian manuscripts, as they are called, which 
are found in our libraries, contain Alcuin’s Revision, as for 
instance the Bible of Grandval near Basel, which was prob- 
ably written for Charles the Bald, and which is now in the 
British Museum (see Plate VII.); the Bible presented to the 
same monarch by Vivian, Abbot of St. Martin of Tours, 
which was sent by the Chapter of Metz from the Cathe- 
dral treasury there to Colbert in 1675, and is now in Paris 
(B. N., Lat. 1); another written in the same monastery of St. 
Martin, and now at Bamberg; and that in the Vallicellian 
Library of the Church of Sta. Maria in Rome, which is 
perhaps the best specimen of the Alcuinian Bible. 

Another revision was introduced into France by Alcuin’s 
contemporary Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821). He Theodulf. 
was a Visigoth, born in the neighbourhood of Narbonne, and 
the type of text he introduced was taken essentially from 
Spanish manuscripts. We have his revision in the so-called 
Theodulfian Bible, which formerly belonged to the Cathedral 
Church of Orleans, and is now in Paris (Lat. 9380); in its 
companion volume, formerly in the Cathedral of Puy, and 
now in the British Museum (24142); and in the Bible of 
St. Hubert, which came from the monastery of that name in 
the Ardennes. 

A further revision was made by Stephen Harding, third Harding. 
Abbot of Citeaux. About the year I109 he prepared a 


Correctoria. 


Printed text. 


126 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


standard Bible for his congregation, in which the Latin text 
of the New Testament was corrected by the Greek. At the 
same time the Old Testament was revised from the Hebrew 
with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding’s copy of 
the standard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the 
Public Library at Dijon. A similar work was done for his 
monastery by William, Abbot of Hirsau. 

Attempts were also made to settle the text by means of 
the so-called Correetoria Bibliorum, in which those readings 
which were supposed-to be correct were carefully collected 
and arranged. The University of Paris in particular did a 
great deal in this way, and such was its influence, that by 
the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text was the 
one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the inven- 
tion of printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the 
others. 

The first fruits of the printing press are understood 
to be the undated “forty-two line Bible,” usually called the 
Mazarin Bible, seeing that it was the copy in the library of 
Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted the attention of biblio- 
graphers. The first dated Bible is of the year 1462. 
Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before 
the close of the fifteenth century, and over 400 during 
the sixteenth. The first edition in octavo, “for the poor 
man,” was issued at Basel in 1491 from the Press of Froben, 
the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare the first 
Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with 
various readings was printed in 1504. In the following year 
Erasmus published the Axzxotationes which Laurentius Valla 
had prepared for the Latin Bible as early as 1444. The 
year 1528 saw the first really critical edition. It was brought 
out by Stephen, who used in its preparation three good 
Paris manuscripts—the Bible of Charles the Bald already 
referred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth 
century, the New Testament portion of which has now dis- 
appeared. He afterwards published in 1538-40 another 





CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 127 


edition, for which he employed seventeen manuscripts, and 
which became the foundation of the present authorised 
Vulgate. About the same time John Henten published a Henten. 
very valuable edition [1547] on the basis of thirty-one 
manuscripts, in the preparation of which he was assisted 
by the theologians of Louvain. This was followed in 1573 
and 1580 by two further editions containing important 
annotations by Lucas of Briigge. In the year previous to Authorised 
that in which Henten’s edition appeared, the Council of et 
Trent, in its fourth sitting of the 8th April 1546, decided 
“ut haec vetus et vulgata editio in publicis lectionibus, dis- 
putationibus, praedicationibus et expositionibus pro authentica 
habeatur,” and at the same time ordained “posthac sacra 
scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio 
quam emendatissime imprimatur.” 

The latter part of this decree was carried into effect in Sixtine. 
the papacy of Sixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began the 
work of revising the text of the Bible, and a “Congre- 
gatio pro emendatione Bibliorum” gave twenty-six sittings 
to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have allowed 
the work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new com- 
mission for the purpose under the Presidency of Cardinal 
Caraffa. The Pope himself. revised the result of their 
labours, which was printed at the Vatican Press that he had 
founded. This edition, which takes its name from him, 
was issued under the Bull “ Aeternus ille” of the Ist March 
1589, and published in the following year. It is the first 
official edition of the Vulgate. Sixtus died on the 27th 
August 1590, and was succeeded by four Popes in the space 
of two years. His fourth successor in the Chair of Peter, 
Clement VIII., issued a new edition under the name of Clementine. 
the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull “Cum sacrorum” 
of the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing a 
preface written by Cardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for 
the former, and has continued from that day without any 
alteration as the authorised Bible of the entire Roman 


128 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. IT. 


Church. The text of this second edition approximated 
more closely to that of Henten, for which the Commission 
of Pope Sixtus had also expressed their preference, though 
their printed edition went rather by that of Stephen. The 
number of the variations between these two editions has been 
estimated at 3000. For our purpose both alike are super- 
seded by the edition of Wordsworth and White. It may 
be added that the first edition to contain the names of both 
the Popes upon the title page is that of 1604. The 
title runs: “ Sixti V. Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis 
VIII. auctoritate edita.”’ Those printed at Rome at the 
present day are entitled: “Sixti V. et Clementis VIII. Pontt. 
Maxx. iussu recognita atque edita.” See below, p. 132. 

An enumeration of all the manuscripts of the Vulgate 
mentioned by Tischendorf in his eighth edition, or even 
of the earliest and most important of them, cannot be 
attempted. Those, however, mentioned by Gebhardt in his 
Adnotatio Critica are given here, with the notation adopted 
by Wordsworth and White. 

The best manuscripts, in the judgment of the English 
editors, are Codex Amiatinus, Codex Fuldensis, and the 
one in the Ambrosian Library at Milan (C 39 inf.), 
written in the sixth century. (M in W.-W.; not cited 
by Tischendorf.) 

am. Amiatinus (vzde supra, p. 122), written ca. 700, is 
an excellent manuscript, and particularly interesting as 
containing in the introduction a double catalogue of the 
Books of the Bible resembling that of the Senator 
Cassiodorus. See Westcott, Bzble in the Church, Appendix B ; 
Canon, Appendix D. (A in W.-W.) (See Plate VI.) 

bodl. Bodleianus, of the seventh century, formerly belong- 
ing to the Library of St. Augustine at Canterbury. (O in 
W.-W.) 

demid. Demidovianus, belonging to the thirteenth century, 
but copied from an earlier exemplar; formerly at Lyons; 
present locality unknown; not cited in W.-W. 


CHAP. II. | MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 129 


em. Emeram, written in the year 870, in gold uncials with 
splendid miniatures: at Munich, Cimelie 55: not cited 
in W.-W. 

erl. Erlangen, of the ninth century (Irmischer’s Catalogue, 
467): used only indirectly by Tischendorf, and not cited 
in W.-W. 

for. Foroiuliensis, written in the sixth or seventh century, 
and now at Cividale, Friuli: fragments of it at Venice and 
Prague. (J in W.-W.) 

fos. Of the ninth century: from St. Maur des Fossés, 
now in Paris. (Lat. 11959.) 

fu. Fuldensis (wide supra, p. 122), written between 540 
and 546: contains the Epistle to the Laodicaeans after 
Colossians: edited with facsimiles by E. Ranke. (F in 
W.-W.) 

gat. Gatianus, from St. Gatien’s in Tours: written in the 
eighth or ninth century: stolen from Libri: purchased by 
Lord Ashburnham and now in Paris: not cited in W.-W. 

harl. Harleianus 1775, of the sixth or seventh century : 
in the British Museum, formerly in Paris 4582: stolen from 
there by John Aymont in 1707. (Z in W.-W.) 

ing. Ingolstadt, of the seventh century, now in the Uni- 
versity Library at Munich: defective. (I in W.-W.) See von 
Dobschiitz, Vulgatastudien (with two facsimiles). 

mm. Of the tenth or eleventh century, from Marmoutiers, 
near Tours: in the British Museum, Egerton 609. (E in 
W.-W.) 

mt. Of the eighth or ninth century, from St. Martin’s, and 
still at Tours: written in gold letters. (MW in W.-W.) 

pe. A very old purple manuscript of the sixth century at 
Perugia, containing Luke i. 1-xii. 7, (P in W.-W.) 

prag. The fragments cited under for. (see above). 

reg. Regius, of the seventh or eighth century, a purple 
manuscript inscribed in gold, containing Matthew and Mark, 
with lacune: at Paris 11955: not cited in W.-W. 


rus. The so-called Rushworth Gospels, written by an Irish 
I 


130 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


scribe who died in the year 820: has an interlinear Anglo- 
Saxon version. (R in W.-W.) 

san. At St. Gall, a fragment containing Matthew vi. 21- 
John xvii. 18, written by a scribe who says that he used two 
Latin and one Greek manuscripts. In the Epistles san. is a 
palimpsest at St. Gall containing Ephes. vi. 2 to 1 Tim. ii. 5, 
the Biblical text being the uppermost. 

taur. Of the seventh century, at Turin, contains the Gospels 
beginning at Matthew xiii. 34: not cited in W.-W. 

tol. Written in the eighth century: this manuscript, which 
was written by a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville 
to John, Bishop of Cordova, who presented it to the See of 
Seville in 988: it was afterwards at Toledo, and is now at 
Madrid. It was collated for the Sixtine Recension by 


Palomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use. (T in 
W.-W.) 


In addition to the eleven manuscripts mentioned above as 
cited by Wordsworth and White, twenty-one others are regu- 
larly used by them, and a great number are cited occasionally. 
For these reference must be made to their edition, and for 
further particulars to Berger’s incomparable work. 

On the Latin Versions compare 77Gr., 948-1108, 1313, and 
especially Scrivener. The chapter on Zhe Latin Versions in the 
Fourth Edition of the latter work (c. iii.) was re-written by H. J. 
White, the collaborateur of Wordsworth. See also Ur#., 85-118, 
which deals with the Old Testament as well, and the article on the 
Old Latin Versions in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, i. 47-62. 

1. G. Riegler, K7vitische Geschichte der Vulgata, Sulzbach, 1820; 
Lean. van Ess, Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allge- 
meinen und zundchst in Besziehung auf das Trientische Decret, 
Tubingen, 1824; Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz, 1868 ; 
Berger, Htstotre de la Vulgate pendant les premiers sitcles du moyen 
age, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the history of 
the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.). 

2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, Die Latetnischen Bibel- 
libersetzungen vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus, Munich, 
1879; Zycha, Bemerkungen sur Italafrage, in the Lranos Vindo- 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. I3I 


bonensis, 1893, 177-184; Burkitt, Zhe Old Latin and the Itala 
(Zexts and Studies, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896). 

3- On the language see R6nsch (d. 1888), Ztala und Vulgata, 2nd 
Edition, 1875; also Die altesten lateinischen-Bibeliiberse sungen nach 
threm Werthe fiir die lateinische Sprachwissenschaft, by the same 
writer in the Codlectanea Philologa, Bremen, 1891, 1-20; Kaulen, 
Handbuch sur Vulgata, Eine systematische Darstellung ihres Sprach- 
charakters, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, De Bibliorum S. Vulgate Edt- 
tionis Graecitate, Quedlinburg, 18g. 

4. Editions of the Text:—Among the earlier works the most 
important is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in the 
Old Testament at least, Bibdiorum sacrorum Latine Versiones antique, 
seu Vetus Italica, et cetere quecungue in codicibus MSS. et antiquorum 
libris reperiri potuerunt, etc. opera et studio D, Petri Sabatier, 3 vols. 
folio! Rheims, 1743. Jos. Bianchini (Blanchinus), Zvangeliarium 
Quadruplex, 2 vols. folio, Rome, 1749 (copies now cost about £4). 
After a long interval work in this field has been resumed in the O/d 
Latin Biblical Texts, published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, of 
which four parts have appeared :—1. The Gospel according to St. 
Matthew from the St. Germain MS. (g,), now numbered Lat. 11553 
in the National Library at Paris, with Introduction and five Appen- 
dices, edited by John Wordsworth, D.D., 1883 (6/-). 2. Portions of 
the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew from the Bobbio 
MS. (k), now numbered G. VIL. 15 in the National Library at Turin, 
together with other fragments of the Gospels from six MSS. in the 
Libraries of St. Gall, Cotre, Milan, and Berne (usually cited as 
N, 0, P, Ay, S, and t), Edited, with the aids of Tischendorf’s Tran- 
scripts and the printed Texts of Ranke, Ceriant, and Hagen, with two 
Sacsimiles, by J. Wordsworth, D.D., .... W. Sanday, D.D.,.... 
and H. J. White, M.A., 1886 (21/-). 3. Lhe Four Gospels, from the 
Munich MS. (q), now numbered Lat. 6224 in the Royal Library at 
Munich, with a Fragment from St. John in the Hof-Bibliothek at 
Vienna (Cod. Lat. 502). Edited, with the aid of Tischendorf’s Tran- 
script (under the direction of the Bishop of Salisbury), by H. J. White, 


1 The New Testament is contained in vol. iii, The copy I use has the date 
1743 on the title-pages of three volumes, but there is a note at the end, p. 1115, 
which says, ‘‘E prelo exiit hic tomus anno 1749.” Rome, 1713-19, in 77Gr., 
p- 1350, isa misprint. The imprimaturs of the first volume are dated 1737. The 
work was reprinted with new title-pages at Paris by Fr. Didot, 1751. Copies now 
cost from £15 to £25. 


Dialects. 


Bohairic. 


132 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


M.A., 1888 (12/6). 4. Portions of the Acts of the Apostles, of the 
Epistle of St. James, and of the First Epistle of St. Peter from the 
Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library 


at Vienna. Edited, with the aid of Tischendorf’s and Belsheim’s 


printed Texts, by H. ]. White, M.A., with a Facsimile, 1897 (5/-). 
(See notice in the Zxfository Times, April 1898, p. 320 ff.) 

5. Wordsworth and White’s edition of the Vulgate is noticed by 
Berger in the Bud/. Crit., 1899, viii. 141-144. It may be added here, 
as that critic observes, that insufficient regard is paid to the later 
history of the Latin text in this edition. At least one representative 
of a recension so important as that of the University of Paris in the 
thirteenth century might have been collated, and perhaps also the 
first printed edition, ‘the forty-two line” Bible. 

On the authorised edition of 1590 and 1592, see Eb. Nestle, Zzz 
Jubilium der lateinischen Bibel. Zum 9 November 1892, in Mar- 
ginalien und Materialien, 1893 ; also printed separately. 

An exact reprint of the Latin Vulgate has recently been published 
by M. Hetzenauer from his Greek-Latin New Testament (see above, 
p. 25), entitled Movwm Testamentum Vulgatae Editionts. Ex Vati- 
canis E-ditionibus earumgue Correctorto critice edidit Michael Hetzenauer. 
Oeniponte, 1899. As an introduction to this edition reference may 
be made to the same writer’s Wesen und Principien der Bibelkritik 
auf katholischer Grundlage. Unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der 
offiziellen Vulgataausgabe dargelegt. Innsbruck, 1900. 


(c.) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 


Next in importance to the Syriac versions from the East 
and the Latin from the West are the Egyptian versions from 
the South. Here too we find not one early version but several. 

What used till lately to be called Coptic! is merely one of 
the dialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was 
divided. And here we must distinguish three main branches— 
the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and the Middle Egyptian. 

(1) Bohairie? is the name given to the dialect that was 
spoken in the Bohaira—z.e. the district by the sea and there- 
fore Lower Egypt, the neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was 


1 The word Coptic is not derived from the town in Upper Egypt called 
Coptos, but is a modification of the Greek word Alyirtuos. 
? The spelling Bahiric is due to a wrong vocalisation of the word. 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 133 


the principal dialect, and being that used for ecclesiastical 
purposes over the whole country, and, moreover, that with 
which European scholars first became acquainted, the versions 
written in it were described as the Coptic simply. The term 
Memphitic, which was preferred for a time, is incorrect, 
because it was not till the eleventh century that the Patri- 
archate was transferred to Cairo—z.e, the district of Memphis, 
and in early times a different dialect was spoken there. 

(2) Sahidie is the name used to describe the dialect of Sahidic. 
Upper Egypt. It is sometimes and not improperly spoken 
of as the Thebaic in distinction to the Memphitic. 

(3) Under the Middle Egyptian! we have to distinguish— aa 

(a) The Fayumic, spoken in the Fayum—ze. the district to the Bh 


S.W. of the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separated 


from the valley of the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert. It 
was in this district that those recent papyrus discoveries were 
made which have enriched the libraries and museums of Europe. 

(4) The Middle Egyptian proper, or Lower Sahidic, a dialect 
which has its home on the site of ancient Memphis. 

(c) The dialect of Achmzm, which preserves a more primitive 
form of early Egyptian than any of those already referred to. 

In the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasius 
specifies three dialects of the Coptic language—the Bohairic, 
the Sahidic, and a third which he says was already extinct, 
and to which he gives the name of Bashmuric; but whether 
this last is to be identified with the dialects included above 
under the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain. 


(1.) Lhe Bohatric Version. 


This version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first Bohairic, 
used for the New Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, who 
was indebted for his knowledge of it to Marshall. It was 


-afterwards employed by Mill for his edition of 1707. It was 


first published in 1716 by Wilkins (or rather Wilke), a 


1 On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff. 


Sahidic, 


134 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, “ Novum 
Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum.” His edition was 
accompanied with a Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel 
obtained a. few particulars regarding this version from La 
Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the Gospels by 
Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death 
the Acts and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boet- 
ticher, afterwards distinguished under his adopted name of 
de Lagarde. About the same time Tattam prepared a wholly 


‘uncritical edition of the entire New Testament, including the 


Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this version. 
Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version originated 
in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but 
others affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older 
foundation. The order of the New Testament books was origin- 
ally: (1) the Gospels, in which John stood first, followed by 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2) the Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews 
between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.,(3) the seven Catholic Epistles, and 
(4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic manuscripts are pre- 
served in the libraries of Europe, and from these an edition has 
been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with 
exhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898). 

The Greek text on which this version is based is regarded 
by present critics as particularly pure, and free from so-called 
Western additions. 


(2.) The Sahidic Version. 


It was a long time before this version attracted any atten- 
tion. In his New Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manu- 
scripts, “lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis diversa,” and 
Woide in 1778 announced his intention of editing certain 
fragments of the New Testament “iuxta interpretationem 
superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur,” which were 
afterwards published by Ford in 1799, At the close of last 
century and the beginning of this, various other fragments 

1 Westcott, Canon, Part II, chapter ii., § 1 seb fimem. 





CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 135 


were issued by Tuki, Mingarelli, Miinter, Zoega, and Engel- 
breth, but it was not till more recent times that really import- 
ant parts of the Old and New Testaments were published 
by Amélineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero, 
Ceugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of 
the Apocalypse! This version, like the former, contained the 
entire New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse, 
and originally exhibited the Gospels in the same order—John, 
Matthew, Mark, Luke. Hebrews, however, stood between 
2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek original was quite 
different from that of the Bohairic version. (See Plate VIII.) 


(3.) The Middle Egyptian Versions. 


Of these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions Middle 
of Matthew and John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., and P89?" 
Hebrews in the Fayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bash- 
muric dialect, were first published by Zoega in 1809, by Engel- 
breth in 1811,and especially by Bouriant(1889)and Crum (1893). 

Fragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the 
Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus des Erzherzogs 
Rainer. 

In the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20 
are the only fragments that have been discovered as yet, and 
these have been published by Crum. Whether these frag- 
ments are really parts of a separate version, or merely dialec- 
tical modifications of the Sahidic, is not quite certain.” 

As to the date of these versions we have no definite informa- 
tion. It has been understood from certain passages in the 
Life of St. Anthony, who was born about the year 250, that 
in his boyhood he heard the Gospel read in Church in the 
language of Egypt, but that need not imply the existence of 
a written version, as the translation may have been made by a 

1H. Hyvernat, Un fragment inédit de la version sahidique du Nouveau Testament 
(Ephes. i, 6-ii. 84). Revue Bibligue, April 1900, pp. 248-253. The fragment 
is of the eighth or ninth century. 


2 See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum and 
Kenyon, referred to above, p. 70. 


136 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century, 
however, versions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the 
South that the first attempts at translation were made. Our 
oldest known manuscripts, a Sahidic containing 2 Thess. iii. 
and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude 17-20, date from the 
fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems to have 
been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the 
Bohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a 
question requiring further investigation. 

A correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian 
versions is, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules, 
the task of most importance at present for the textual criticism 
of the New Testament. For the Sahidic version in particular 
represents a type of text found hitherto almost exclusively in 
the West, and looked upon as the outcome of Western corrup- 
tion and licence, whereas it may really bear the most re- 
semblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its 
agreement with the text of Codex D is remarkable. One 
might instance, ¢.g¢., the mention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the 
insertion of the Golden Rule in its negative form in xv. 20, 29, 
the relation of the vision in xvi. 10, and the description of the 
stone which twenty men could not roll away in Luke xxiii. 53, 
all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic manuscript. 
The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented in 
European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule 
in the Egyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs— 
z.e. according to an era reckoned from August or September 
284 A.D. 


TiGr., 859-893. Scrivener’, ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with 
additions by Headlam. H. Hyvernat, Ztude sur les Versions Coptes 
de la Bible (Revue Biblique, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1 (1897) 
48-74. Urt., 144-147. Forbes Robinson, Zgyptian Versions, in 
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1. (1898) 668-673. W. E. 
Crum, Coptic Studies from the Egvpt Exploration Funa’s Report for 
1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner’s edition eclipses all 
others. Itis entitled, Zhe Coptic Version of the New Testament in the 





CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 137 


Northern dialect, otherwise called Memphitic or Bohairic, with Intro- 
duction, Critical Apparatus, and literal English Translation. Vol. I. 
Introduction, Matthew and Mark, cx\viii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon 
Press, 1898; Vol. LI. Luke and John, 548 pp., 1898. See notice 
by Hyvernat in the Revue Biblique, 1899, pp. 148~—150, and also W. E. 
Crum, /d. cit., where reference is also made to the AZanuscrits Copies 
au Musee... . a Leide, 1897. As Horner’s edition as yet only 
covers the Gospels, the remaining portions of the New Testament 
must still be sought in the two parts published by Lagarde after 
Schwartze’s death, Acta Afostolorum coptice (1852), and LEpistulae 
Novi Testamenti coptice (1852). On Brugsch’s Recension in the 
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vii. (1853) pp. 
115-121, see zUid., p. 456, and Lagarde, Aus dem deutschen Gelehrten- 
leben, pp. 25-65, 73-77. ‘Tattam’s Bohairic-Arabic edition was pub- 
lished by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in 
Tuki’s Rudimenta in 1778, and Woide’s editio princeps, announced 
in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799. 
Amélineau’s Fragments Thébaines inédits du Nouveau Testament 
were published in vols. xxiv.—xxvi. of the Ze¢tschrift fur dg yptische 
Sprache (1886-1888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse 
were issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his 
Studia Theologica (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical 
writings have also been discovered in recent times, as, for example, 
the Acta Pauli in a manuscript of the seventh century, written in 
Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian vocalisation. These 
are to be published by A. Schmidt. See Addenda, p. xv. 

See also Amélineau, Votice des manuscrits coptes de la Bibliotheque 
Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament, in 
the Atheneum, No. 3601, p. 599. 


The foregoing versions are those of most importance in the 
criticism of the text. There are, however, one or two others 
which, though inferior in value, are still interesting. Among 
these is— 


(d.) THE GOTHIC VERSION. 


This is the work of Ulfilas—z.e. Wolflin—a Cappadocian by Gothic. 
descent, who in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first 


138 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


Bishop of the Goths.t While the tribe was still settled in the 
Crimea, he is said to have invented an alphabet, and translated 
both the Old and the New Testament for their use. In the Old 
Testament Ulfilas followed the Septuagint according to the 
Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), which circulated in 
the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament the 
text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of 
Latin influence which were supposed to be discernible in the 
version, and which may either have existed from the first or 
been introduced at a later time, relate at most, perhaps, to 
matters of orthography. 

(1) The Gothic version first became known through the 
so-called Codex Argenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella’s 
secretary, and Mercator the geographer saw in the Monastery 
of Werden in the sixteenth century. It was afterwards seen 
at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601), In 1648 it was 
brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen 
Christina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by 
Marshall de la Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited 
in the library at Upsala, where it has since remained. Ten 
leaves were stolen from the manuscript between 1821 and 
1834, but restored, after many years, by the thief upon his 
deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth 
or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It 
now comprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments 
of the four Gospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. 
It was published for the first time in 1665, from a transcript 
made by Derrer ten years before. 

(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest already 
referred to as © of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the 
Old Latin gue of Paul (see p. 118), contains some forty verses 
of the Epistle to the Romans. It was first published in 1762. 


1 The dates of Ulfilas’ birth and death are uncertain. He certainly lived till 
autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given as 310-380 or 318-388. 
According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was 
that of Antioch, De Encaenizs, 341. 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 139 


(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian 
Library at Milan, discovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like 
Codex Carolinus, they are in all probability from the 
Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the Pauline 
Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations 
from Hebrews are also found in a theological work. No 
portion of Acts, (Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse 
has as yet been discovered. Editions of the Gothic version 
have been published by Gabelentz and Lébe (1836-1843), 
Stamm (1858), Heyne (1872) (1896), Bernhardt (Halle, 1875, 
1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited by 
Miller and Héppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882. 


LITERATURE.—On Ulfilas, see Scott, Udjilas, the Apostle of the 
Goths, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, Ze Goths, in the “Story of the 
Nations ” Series, 1888. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 1882. Urt.,pp. 
119-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, U/j/as und die 
gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel, in Westermann’s L//ustr. Monatshefte, 
Dec. 1892, 403-407 ; Jostes, Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas und der Ueber- 
tritt der Gothen zum Arianismus (Bettrage zur Geschichte der deutschen 
Sprache, xxii. 1. 158 ff.). Jostes gives 383 as the date of Ulfilas’s 
death. On the other side, see Kauffmann, Der Avianismus des 
Wulfila in the ZfdPhil, xxx. (1897) 93-113; Luft, Die arian- 
ischen Quellen itiber Wulfila in the ZfdAltert., xiii. 4; Vogt, Ze 
Waulfila’s Bekenntnis und dem Opus tmperfectum, ibid. ‘Kauffmann, 
Beitraige sur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibeliibersetsung in the 
ZfdPhil. ; (ii.) das N. T. (xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) das gotische 
Matthiusevangelium und die Itala; (iv.) die griechische Vorlage des 
gotischen fJohannesevangeliums (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by the 
same author, Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentit Dorostorensis 
epistula de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfla im Zusammenhang der 
Dissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben. Strassburg, 
1899. P. Batiffol, De guelgues homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la ver- 
sion gothique des écritures (Revue Biblique, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572), 
see also 7hLz., 1900, No. i. ; ZCbl., 1900, No. 28. On the relation 
of the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see Burkitt in 
the Journal of Theological Studies, i. p. 131 ff., and compare Addenda, 
p. Xv. 

On the Gothic language and writing, see Douse, Ztroduction to 


140 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


the Gothic of Uifiias. London, 1886 ; the grammars of Braune and 
Skeat, and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt ; see 
also Luft, Studien zu den altesten germanischen Alfabeten, Giitersloh, 
1898, vill. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek alphabet 
and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas’s own invention. On R. Léwe’s 
Leste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer (Halle, 1896), see the 
story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (7%. St und 
Kr., 1897, 784 ff.). 

To what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken 
directly from the Greek or influenced by one or other of those 
already described is still subject of dispute. 


(e.) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION. 


According to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the 
Ethiopie version of the New Testament was made from the 
Greek previous to the fifth century. Dillmann accepts this 
as correct, but Gildemeister would assign it to the sixth or 
seventh century, and thinks that traces are discernible of 
Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the 
fifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the 
usual twenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an 
Appendix consisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books 
called the Synodos, so that the Ethiopian Church reckons in 
all thirty-five books in the New Testament. In later times 
the version was undoubtedly corrected from Arabic and Coptic 
texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in 1548-1549, but 
neither it nor those issued since are of any real critical worth. 

At least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late 
origin, exist in the libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the 
oldest is preserved in Paris. It dates from the thirteenth 
century, and exhibits the Gospels in an unrevised text. 


LITERATURE.—See 77G7., 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written 
by Margoliouth. O7¢., 147-150 (F. Praetorius), R. H. Charles, 
Ethiopic Version in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, i. 791-793. 
C. Conti Rossini, Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle Sacre Scritture 
in Etiopico, in the Z. fiir Assyriologie, x. 2, 3 (1895). The view of 


CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. I4I 


Lagarde (Anhiindigung, 1882, p. 28; Gf also Gesammelte Abhand- 
dungen, \xi, 113), that this version may have been made from the 
Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is now generally 
rejected. 


(7) THE ARMENIAN VERSION. 


La Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the “Queen of 
the Versions.” 

Till the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence 
was supreme in Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region 
first received the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments 
in the form of a translation from the Syriac. But in the year 
433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning from the Synod of 
Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from Con- 
stantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alex- 
andria, to have translated it into Armenian. According to 
another account this was done by St. Sahak (390-428) about 
the year 406. The first edition of the Armenian New Testa- 
ment was brought out in Amsterdam in the year 1666! by 
Osgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four years 
previously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from a 
defective manuscript, the missing portions of which Osgan 
supplied from the Vulgate. A better edition was published 
in 1789 by Zohrab, who used twenty manuscripts, and especi- 
ally a Cilician Codex of the year 1310. He was of opinion 
that the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before the 
eighth century. Zohrab’s text was collated for Tregelles by 
Rieu, whom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his 
editions. 

The Armenian manuscripts display variations of several 
sorts. In some John’s Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in 
others it is followed by the Apocryphal “Rest of St. John.” 
The Apocalypse was not read in church prior to the twelfth 
century. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New Testa- 
ment, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of 


1 Or 1115 according to the Armenian reckoning. 


142 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Il. 


the other books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline 
Epistles, with the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In 
Moscow there isa manuscript of the year 887, in Venice one 
dated 902,in Etschmiadzin one written in the year 986 and 
bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth century. In the 
last-mentioned Codex the words, “of Ariston the Presbyter,” 
are found after Mark xvi. 8,as the heading of what follows. 
(See Plate [X.) We learn from this, what is evidently correct, 
viz., that the present conclusion of Mark’s Gospel is due to a 
certain Ariston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion, 
the teacher of Papias in the second century. The earlier 
Armenian version also contained the two verses Luke xxii. 
43, 44, which were omitted in the later. 


LITERATURE.—77Gr., 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F.C. 
Conybeare, Armenian Versions of N. T:, in Hastings’ Bible Diction- 
ary, 1. 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, E£uthaliana, c. v.; The 
Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius, in Texts 
and Studies, vol. ii. (1895). On Aristion see Exfositor, 1894, 
p. 241, and below, p. 295. 


(g.) THE GEORGIAN VERSION. 


This version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought 
to have been made from the Greek in the sixth century, though 
it may also be derived from the Armenian. It contains the 
pericope adulterze (John vii. 53-viii. 11), but places it immedi- 
ately after ch. vii. 44, which is the more remarkable, seeing 
that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from vii. 44 
onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first 
printed at Moscow in 1743. 


Scrivener, li. 156-158 ; re-written by F, C. Conybeare. Z%G~z., 
e22 ft, 


(Z.) THE ARABIC VERSIONS. 


Some of these were made directly from the Greek, others 
from the Syriac and the Coptic, while there are also manu- 
scripts exhibiting a recension undertaken at Alexandria in 


CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 143 


the thirteenth century, The New Testament was even cast 
into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran. 
As early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars 
quoting various passages of the New Testament, particularly 
the sayings regarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13, 
which they understood of Mohammed. He himself, however, 
knew the Gospel narrative from oral tradition only. The 
oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at Sinai, written in 
the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the text of 
Romans, I and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. 1-ii. 9, in the Studza 
Sinaitica, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 by 
Lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number of 
various readings were cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin, 
this last, ¢.¢., being adduced in support of a reading hitherto 
found only in D, one Old Latin (g), and the Lewis-Syriac: 
ouK elo vo 7 TpEls TUVNYMEVOL . . . . Tap’ ois OUK elue ev MéTH 
avtov (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the Gospels 
appeared at Rome in 1591. In common with the remaining Other 
versions of the New Testament, Perstc, Old High German, ‘°™™ 
Anglo-Saxon, Bohemian, and Slavonic, these secondary Arabic 
versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point 
of view of the history of language and culture, but they are 
also valuable here and there for the restoration of the original 
text. In the present work, however, we cannot enter more 
fully into them, 


LITERATURE.—77Gr., 928-947. Scrivener, li. 161-164. O7t, 
150-155. F. C. Burkitt, Avadic Versions, in Hastings’ Dictionary 
of the Bible, i. 136-138, where see literature. Burkitt thinks that 
the oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscript 
formerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known as 
Cod. Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered ror in Z7Gr., which is generally 
assigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter, 
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac. Frag- 
ments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles, are 
all that now remain, From the same convent come two manuscripts 
of the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the 


144 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. II. 


Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic 
manuscript cited as @", of which only four leaves have been pre- 
served (see above, p. 72). On a Greco-Arabic MS. connected 
with the Ferrar Group (211°"), see Lake in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied 
by an Arabic version. ‘The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the 
year 1202 1s the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions. 
The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria, 
by Hibat Allah ibn el-Assal, and a second towards the end of the 
thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde’s edition are 
derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic 
Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered 
154 in Mrs. Gibson’s Catalogue, is published by her in Studia 
Sinaitica, vil. (1899). 

For the remaining versions of the N. T., see Scrivener, i. pp. 
158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor 
versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings’ Bzdle Dictionary, 
under the general heading of Versions. See also Urtext und 
Uebersetzungen der Bibel. 


3. QUOTATIONS. 


Our third source of material for the restoration of the text 
of the New Testament is Quotations found in other books. 
These are of great value, because they represent, for the most 
part, definite manuscripts existing in certain places at the 
time of the writer quoting them, and also because a large 
number of them belong to a time from which no codices 
have come down to us. The value of their testimony de- 
pends, of course, on the conditions already mentioned (p. 
32)—-viz., that the author quoted accurately, and the copyist 
copied faithfully, and the editor edited correctly. Quotations 
made by /ewzsh writers as well as by Christian will fall to be 
considered, only it is doubtful if in their case we have more 
than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v.17. So, 
too, will the quotations made by pagan opponents of Chris- 
tianity, particularly those of Cedsws in the second century, and 
of the Emperor Julian. But here again we are not in posses- 


CHAP. II. ] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 145 


sion of their complete works, which can only be restored by a 
similar process and with more or less uncertainty from the 
quotations from them found in the writings of the Apologists.! 
The books of those Christian Churches which were isolated 
from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of 
Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have some- 
thing to tell us. 

Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It was 
not so convenient to turn up the passage in an old manuscript 
as it is now in our handy printed editions? In the case of 
longer passages and verbal quotations generally, indolent 
copyists were sometimes content with simply adding kat ra 
efys- In the Apostolic Constztutions, ii. 22, for example, where 
the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the 
copyist of a certain manuscript? after writing the opening 
words from Kure down to dixatov, omitted all the rest, 
amounting to thirty-one lines of print, substituting simply 
kal Ta €&qs Thy evxns G vets ovK wyvoeire. (See further, 
Ee pasauens?.i. 75 eacarde, p; $23.5 11. 145) 0:,28;)7; 11 320; 2). 
This, however, is not without its parallel in modern times. 
As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing out Cyril of 
Alexandria’s Commentary on the Gospel according to St. 
John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the 
quotations in his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to 
set up the rest from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus. 
Another editor in Vienna, in preparing an edition of Cyprian’s 
Works, preferred those very manuscripts in which the Scrip- 
tural quotations had been accommodated to the current text 
of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an author 

1 Celsus’s polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable fragments 
are embedded in Origen’s Reply. See Azte-Nicene Christian Library, vol. xxiii., 
(Clark, Edin.). 

? Clement of Alexandria cites Matt. xviii. 3 in four different ways. He quotes 
Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately. 

® Petropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris. coisl. 212, written in the year IIIT, 
the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his edition of the Afostolic 
Constztutions, Further examples of the untrustworthiness of manuscripts and 


printed editions will be found in the small print at the end of this section. 
K 


146 _GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on 
the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, é.g., the con- 
text agrees with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural 
passages like the Zest?monia of Cyprian and the so-called 
Speculum of Augustine are also taken directly from manu- 
scripts of the Bible. 

Francis Lucas of Briigge was the first to explore the 
writings of the Church Fathers for the express purposes of 
textual criticism. They are referred to in four notes found in 
the Complutensian Polyglot. In his edition of 1516, Erasmus 
cites a whole series of Patristic witnesses — Ambrosius, 
Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen, 
Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics 
have paid attention to them. Valuable service has been 
rendered for Tertullian by Ronsch, and for Origen by 
Griesbach. For Augustine, Lagarde is specially to be men- 
tioned. Most ot the Fathers were thus cared for by Burgon, 
who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen large 
volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after 
his death. The only pity is that the works of those very 
Fathers that are of most importance are not yet satisfactorily 
edited. All the more welcome, therefore, is the appearance 
of the Vienna Academy’s Corpus Scriptorum Ecclestasticorum 
Latinorum, of which forty volumes have been issued since 
1867, and of the Berlin Academy’s edition of the Ante-Nicene 
Greek Fathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of 
Origen have made their appearance.’ 

The earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of 
the Canon. That is to say, their evidence must be taken 
simply as showing what New Testament writings they were 
acquainted with, and here the arxgumentum ex silentio is to 
be applied with caution. This is the case with Barnabas and 
Clement? in the first century, and /gnatius and Hermas in the 


1 See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149. 

2 On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of Paul 
to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, Zhe Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul 
to the Corinthians. London, 1900, p. 142 ff. 





CHAP. I.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 147 


first half of the second. Even with the much more extensive 
_ writings of /wstzn, there is still considerable dispute—e,g., as to 
what Gospels he made use of.! /ren@us of Lyons is valuable 
on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be particu- 
larly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testa- 
ment with him from Smyrna? and if his writings were extant 
in Greek, and not, as is the case with most of them, in Latin 
only. In Egypt Clement of Alexandria holds a prominent place, 
but by far the most distinguished of all is the great Biblical 
scholar of antiquity, Origen (d. 248). Already we find these 
writers appealing to manuscripts, and distinguishing them by 
such epithets as “good,” “old,” “emended,” “most,” or “ few.” 
In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers their locality is an 
important consideration, whether Antioch, Caesarea (Eusebius), 
Egypt, Constantinople (Cvysostom), or Cappadocia (7 heodore), 
etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the so- 
called Catensz, or continuous commentaries, in which the 
interpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuously 
like the links of a chain. It not unfrequently happens in 
these Catene that the words of one writer are cited under the 
name of another. The evidence afforded by the writings of 
the Heretics is no less valuable, if we except those passages, 
which are not numerous, in which they are understood to have 
altered the text of the Scriptures. The works of Marcon have 
been preserved for the most part in Latin by Tertullian. They 
have recently been collected and restored by Zahn. The 
Latin translator of Irenzus also belongs, in all probability, 
to the time of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. This 
unknown translator seems to have preserved the Scriptural 
quotations of Irenzus with greater fidelity than the later 
Church Fathers who cite them in the Greek. Of Latin 
writers contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian, those 
of most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible are 
Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine and 


1 Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. ii. 7. 
a Hifi, Pepe WGK ob tie 8 sath AE 


148 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


his opponent Pelagzus, and for the Apocalypse, Zycontus and 
Primastus. From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected 
no fewer than 29540 quotations from the New Testament 
in addition to 13276 from the Old. 

Valuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian 
writers. It is only with their assistance, eg., that it has been 
possible to restore one of our oldest authorities—the Diatessaron 
of Tatian—which dates from the second century. 


(1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature 
of manuscripts and printed editions. 

We find, ¢.g., in the voluminous commentary of the so-called 
Ambrosiaster,! the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. iil. 9 :— 
“Eye hath not seen, etc.”—“ hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Heliae 
in apocryphis.” In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and 
all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur—ze. prior to 
the year 16g0— have “in Esaia propheta aliis verbis.” 

Compare also what Zahn says in his £inleitung, i. 314. “A 
comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered 
more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written 
by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the 
O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in 
the N. T. Cf, also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah 
xli. 10, found in John xix. 37. The same writer says (p. 465): “In 
the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manu- 
scripts save one assert the peaceful death of John (é eipyvy 
averavcato), but this one says the very opposite, paprupiov karngiwrat, 
and goes on to make certain other additions.” On the other hand, 
we must not forget in this connection the testimony preserved by 


1 Ambrosiaster is the name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary on 
the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed to Ambrose. 
In recent times Dom G. Morin has raised the question whether the writer may 
not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in the papacy of Damasus. He 
was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and afterwards returned to his former faith. 
See Dom G. Morin, Z’ Ambrosiaster et le juif converté Isaac, contemporain du pape 
Damase, in the Revue d Histoire et de Littérature religteuses, iv. 2 (1899), 112. 
This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole of Ambrosiaster will be 
brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a very old manuscript from Monte Cassino. 
Morin believes that the text of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is ‘‘ fortement 
retouché, dont on a éliminé la plupart des traits vraiment intéressants” (z62d., 
Pelcds 





CHAP. II] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 149 


Eusebius to the scrupulous care taken by Irenzeus for the propaga- 
tion of his writings in the identical form in which he wrote them. 
According to that historian, he wrote at the end of one of his works 
the following note:— ‘Opxifw ce tov petaypayopuevov Td BuBXLov 
TOUTO Kata TOD Kupiov nuav Incod Xpuctod kal kata THs evdo£ov Tapovoias 
avTod, Hs épxerat Kpivar Lavras Kal vexpovs, iva dvtuBaddAys 0 pereypayw 
kal katopOwons avro mpos TO avtiypadov TodTo dOev pereypaw éripedas, 
Kal Tov Opkov TOUTOV Gpoiws peTaypays Kai Onoes ev TE avtiypadw.! 

(2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the 
unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited. 
How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by 
the discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotations 
in the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see Ur¢., 76, 94; Preuschen, 
in the Z7%Lz. for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin 
edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural 
quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by means 
of an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passages 
from the first volume of Origen recently published will show this, 
and prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been 
hitherto. This first volume of Koetschau’s new edition of Origen 
opens with the Exhortation to Martyrdom (cis wapripiov mpotpertixos), 
a work which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text of 
previous editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Basel 
written in the sixteenth century (No. 31, A. lil. g), which is itself a 
copy, and a not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscript 
written in the year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen 
(P=suppl. grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was not 
transcribed with sufficient accuracy, or the print was not super- 
intended with sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first 
printed edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript 
(M=Venetus Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now estab- 
lished that the writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a great 
number of passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excision 
of Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, ¢.g., in citing a passage 
gives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. The 
Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, this 
manuscript omitting about 100 out of some 1200 lines of print. And 


1 This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his writings 
stand as he wrote them. 


150 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for our 
Patristic quotations! To take an example: 

On Tots é“ovs Adyous, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh 
editicn gave tots éuovs (=my followers) as the correct reading, 
observed that this reading, without Adyous, was supported by Dael 
Or., 1. 298. But he added—and this is a proof of the carefulness 
with which the quotation from Origen is employed here—sed pre- 
cedit ovre eraurxuvteov avtov 1 Tovs Aoyovs avrov. But if we turn 
up this passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34, 
9 iis) our’ ETOLOXUVTEOV GAUTOV 1 TOUS OLKELOVS GQUTOV 1 TOUS Aoyous 
avtov, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order 
frequently found in Origen—viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark 
viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as 
well as the words in the context, 9 Tovs ovxevovs avtov. But now 
everything is in order, The words ovr eraicyvvteov avrov refer to 
ootts 0 av arapyvnonrat pe in Matt. x. 33; 7 Tovs ovKeLovs avTov to os 
yap av eracxuvOn pe Kat Tovs evous in Luke ix. 26; and y tous Aoyous 
avtov to os yap av erarxvvOn jee Kau TOUS eous Aoyous, in Mark vill. 38. 
So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions, Tischendorf was 
obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen’s context and his 
peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new edition serves 
to confirm this peculiar quotation, and shows at the same time that 
we can accept it on the authority of this very passage, as against 
a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the verse in Luke is found 
in the newly-employed manuscript also with the words tovs eovs 
Aoyouvs. That the editor should have put Aoyovs in the first passage 
within brackets, or at least have pointed out the discrepancy between 
it and the quotation further down, would have been too much to 
expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen gave no manner of 
ground for doing so; it is the duty of those who investigate the 
Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to such things. But 
there are also passages where the editor has actually gone in the face 
of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered the text of his Scriptural 
quotations, having evidently allowed himself to be influenced by the 
printed text of the N. T., and paying too little respect to the 
manuscripts. 

An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke 
ix. 26, Tous ewous = my followers, which is now established for Origen, 
is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by 
three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian 





CHAP. I1.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. I5l 


Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the Sinai-Syriac 
could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis ; see Some Pages, 
p. 72=p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the passage in 
Origen’s work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue’s edition): 0 pev yap 
MarOauos aveypade Aeyovra Tov Kupiov . ... 0 de Aovxas .... 0 be 
Mapxos: a8 84 6 rary, dvvara vou ravta TapeveyKe k.t.A. The passage 
is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly with the earlier 
printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark xiv. 36. But 
in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus shows us, the 
Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows elsewhere, reads the 
words in the order dvvara mavta coi, which is exactly the order of 
the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no other Greek manu- 
script with the solitary exception of the cursive 473.1 But there are 
even passages where Koetschau follows the printed text of the N. T. in 
the scriptural quotations in despite of both his manuscripts. In i. 29, 
13 (i. 295 De la Rue), where Matt. x. 17-23 1s quoted, he inserts 
after w@s 7 té AaAjonre the clause doOyjcerar yap buiv év exeivy TH “pa 
ti Aadnoynre from Matt. x. 19, on the supposition that these words 
may have dropped out of the archetype of M P on account of the 
homoioteleuton. But they are also omitted in Cod. D of thé N. T. 
And this, moreover, is not the only point of agreement between this 
manuscript and the text given in this quotation. There is, e.g., the 
omission of dé in v. 17, the reading rapadwcovew in v. 19, which 
Koetschau has altered to the more grammatical rapaddow, again with- 
out sufficient reason and in defiance of both his manuscripts, and the 
omission of duév in v. 20, of which there is no mention in Tischendorf 
(see the Collation of D in my Supplementum). Origen also agrees 
with D, though not verbally, in reading kav éx ravrns Suwdxwow pevyere 
eis tiv GAAny further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to 
me to have unnecessarily inserted 7, which is omitted in his prin- 
cipal manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where 
Origen agrees with D in reading ¢épwow (Luke xii. rr) instead of 

1 Called 2P¢ by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort, and 565 in 
7iGr. Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in 1885, with a collation 
of the other three Gospels, It is a valuable cursive, as appears from what is said of 
it in W—H: ‘‘ The most valuable cursive for the preservation of Western readings 
in the Gospels is 81, a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2P@ by Tischendorf, as 
standing second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large ancient 
element, in great measure Western, and in St. Mark its ancient readings are 


numerous enough to be of real importance.” See above, under Codex N, 
p. 68. 


152 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


ciapepwow, read by our critical editions on the authority of s B L X, 
or zpoopépwow by the fextus receptus with A QR, etc. Both 
concur, also, in the omission of the first 7 7¢ in the same verse. 
What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen’s Bible with 
Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript 
discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. go). This manuscript 
confirms what we knew before—viz. that Marcion’s text had xpurrov 
and not xvpiov or Oedv in t Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we 
did not know—viz. that xpiorov was the only reading known to 
Origen, and that xvpiov in the Synodical Epistle addressed to Paul of 
Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh’s Rediguie Sacre, iii.” 
299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for xpurrov. 
This is made out by Zahn in the 7%L0/., 1899, col. 180, who con- 
cludes by saying that Clement, Zc/. Proph., 49, should not be omitted 
in a proper apparatus, and that xvpeov ought never again to be printed 
in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf, Westcott and 
Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put xvpiov in their text without so much as 
mentioning xpiorov in the margin, or among the Noteworthy Rejected 
Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words (Weiss, p. 7). In the 
Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a consensus of previous 
editions, and I was obliged to let kvjprov stand in the text, but I have 
put xpuordy in the margin, as Tregelles also did. In this instance the 
textus vreceptus is actually better than our critical editions. The 
rejected reading is again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on 
the newly-discovered testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see 
below, p. 327), pertinently remarks that “here again it is perfectly 
evident, as any discerning person might have known, that many 
important readings which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed 
as Western, were long prevalent in the East as well, not only among 
the Syrians but also among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded 
by the official recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the 
time of Origen.” These illustrations will serve to show that not only 
is the editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the 
employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with risks. 
See Koetschau, Bibelcitate bet Origenes, ZfwTh., 1900, pp. 321-378. 
(3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a 
Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels, on the ground of 
Burgon’s Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this 
work (Matthew v. 44) is given in his Present State of the Textual 
Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels, which was printed for private 


CHAP. II.] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 153 


circulation, and may be had of the author.! In this little pamphlet 
he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in the De Ovatione 1 
(De la Rue, i. 198; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22) quotes from Luke (vi. 28) 
or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the latter. Koetschau is of 
the opposite opinion, giving “‘ Luke vi. 28 (Matthew v. 44).” In the 
case of Patristic quotations, it will be seen that matters are frequently 
very complicated. It must be borne in mind, too, that the various 
writers did not use the same copy of the Scriptures all their life long. 
At different times and in different localities they must necessarily 
have had different copies before them. 

(4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial 
writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine 
against the Manicheeans, the question must always be considered 
whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made 
by Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the 
writings they assail or refer to; and also whether the quotations have 
been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the 
works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without 
acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in 
olden times than it is even at present. 

In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (S¢vomata, 
ii. p. 476), and partly also in the Efistle of Polycarp (c. 2), we find 
the following quotation :—“ Be ye merciful that ye may obtain mercy : 
forgive that ye may be forgiven: as ye do, so shall it be done to you: 
as ye give, so shall it be given to you: as ye judge, so shall ye be 
judged: as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you: with 
what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you.” We find also in 
Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria (S¢romata, 
iii. p. 561), the quotation: “ Woe to that man: it were good for him if 
he had never been born, rather than that he should offend one of my 
elect: it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his 
neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea, than that he should 
offend one of my little ones.” Neither of these quotations is found 
literally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly, Rendel Harris con- 
cludes from the testimony of these various witnesses that they must 
have been taken from an Urevangelium, now perished (Contemporary 


1The First Part has been issued: A Textual Commentary upon the Holy 
Gospels. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc, i.-xiv. (London, Bell, 1899). 
See notice by Gwilliam in Zhe Critical Review, May 1900. In this work 
Origen is also cited for Matt. v. 44. 


154 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II. 


Review, Sept. 1897). This view is combated, it seems to me rightly, 
by H. T. Andrews in the L£xpository Times for November 1897, 
p- 94 f. He thinks it probable that Clement of Alexandria and 
Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome.! 

(5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of the 
Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for the 
textual. criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections, 
both ancient and modern, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate 
the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been 
scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not 
yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to eluci- 
date the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted at 
present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and locality, 
of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to dvtiypapa. In the 
new volumes of Origen, ¢e.g., we find two such references—xara twa Tov 
avttypapwv Tod Kata Mapxov evayyeAtov (i. 113), and Kata Ta Kowa 
Tov dvtvypaduv (11. 52).2 The other desideratum is a collection of 
all the passages in the biographies of the Saints where mention is 
made of the writing of Biblical manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius, 
e.g., in the Historia Lausiaca (c. 28 in Preuschen, Pal/adius, p. 111), 
eipuas yap éypade Tov d€vpvyxov xYapaxtnpa, and the preparation of 
Biblical manuscripts is also referred to in the Vita Epiphanit (ed. 
Petav. i1.), and in Cassiodorus, De Jnustitutione Divinarum Literarum 
(see above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony 
see the section De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in TiGr., 1129-1230. 
An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon’s 
New Testament, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates 
of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions of the 


1 In the Zxfosttory Times for October 1897, p. 13 ff., I have called attention 
to another instance in whicha Scriptural quotation (Isaiah lii, 5) is given with 
remarkable similarity in the Afostolic Constitutions, with its original (i. 10, iii. 5, 
vii. 204), in Ignatius (dd Zra/lianos, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.), Similar 
things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, e.g., in Mark i, 2, where a quotation 
from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between the heading, ‘‘ In the prophet Isaiah,” and 
the words taken from that book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul, 
which has led to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic 
anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many quotations from 
Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M. Barnard, Zhe Biblical 
Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. 
Texts and Studies, v. 5, Cambridge, 1899. 

2 See below, Appendix II., ’Avriypada. 


CHAP. II] MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. 155 


N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174.! See also Urt, p. 22, 
56 f., 94. On the Old Latin Dydascalia, see Ed. Hauler in the 
W.S.B., 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ff., and the A/ittetdungen of B. G. 
Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52.2, On the Biblical text of Filastrius (C.S.Z., 
vol. xxxvili., 1898), see Kroll in the notice of Marx’s edition in the 
Berlin. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see 7U., New 
Series, ii. 1, etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian 
(Pseudo-Cyprian) see Harnack in ZU., xiii. 4. 


1 Vide infra, Appendix I. 
* Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900. 


Gisele Rk TNT. 


THEORY AND PRAXIS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.! 


THERE is no special theory of the textual criticism of the 
New Testament. The task and the method are the same for 
all literary productions. The task is to exhibit what the 
original writer intended to communicate to his readers, and 
the method is simply that of tracing the history of the docu- 
ment in question back to its beginning, if, and in so far as, 
we have the means to do so at our command. Diversity of 
treatment can only arise when the fortunes of one written 
work have been more chequered and complicated than those 
of another, or when we have more abundant means at our dis- 
posal to help us in the one case than in the other. The task 
is very simple when we have only one completely independent 
document to deal with, as in the case of several of the recently 
discovered papyri, but this occurs very seldom with literary 
texts. In this case all that we have to do is to see that we 
read the existing text correctly, and then by means of the 

'T could desire no better motto for this third section than the words of Augus- 
tine: Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas 
nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant (De Doctrina Christiana, 
iil. 14, 21, where the saying about the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108, 
is also found). Or if not these words, then those of our Lord himself, yiveo6e 
dékiuwot TpamweCira:, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but 
which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to the work of 
the ‘‘lower” criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also vindicated the right 


of Biblical criticism with these same words. Epiphanius, Haeres., xliv. 2 (Zahn, 
GKE31; 175). 


CHAP, III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 157 


so-called internal criticism to determine whether the text so 
received can be correct. Even when several witnesses are at 
our command, we cannot altogether dispense with this internal 
criticism in the matter of sifting and weighing their testimony, 
only it would be unfortunate were we left with such a sub- 
jective criterion alone. For not only in such a case would 
different scholars come to very different conclusions, but even 
one and the same scholar would not be able to avoid a certain 
amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases. The 
principle laid down in the maxim, /ectzo difficilior placet, or, as 
Bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it, proclzuz 
scriptiont praestat ardua, is perfectly sound ; that reading gis 
correct, is the original reading, from which the origin of 
another or of several others can be most easily explained. 
But how seldom can this be established with certainty! Take 
an illustration :— 

How does the Apocalypse, and the New Testament with it, 
conclude? Leaving out of account additions like “ Amen” 
or “ Amen, Amen,” and variations like “ The grace of the Lord 
Jesus,” and “our Lord Jesus,” and “the Lord Jesus Christ,” 
and “Christ” simply, we find that the following forms are 
given :— 


(1) merTa = TavTwWY Uw 

(2) wera = ravTwy LOY 

( 3) Mera TAavTwV TOV arylov 
(4) wera = TavTwy 

(5) mera TOV aylov 


How are we to decide without external evidence whichtis 
the correct form? Even supposing we know that the first 
two are out of the question, and why they are so, it is very 
difficult on internal grounds alone to decide between the 
other three. Lachmann, who did not know of (5), decided 
in favour of (4). But so does Tischendorf, Weizsacker, and 
Weiss, the latter giving as his reason for doing so that (5), tay 
ayiwv, is explanatory of (4), tavtwv, which is manifestly too 


i] 
} 


Internal 
Criticism. 


Conclusion 
of the 
Apocalypse. 


158 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


general, and that (3) is the result of a combination of these 
two. On the other hand, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort 
favour (5), without so much as mentioning (4) in their margin ; 
while Bousset, the latest expositor of the Apocalypse, regards 
(3) as the correct reading, and thinks that in all probability 
both (4) and (5) are due to a transcriptional error. Who is to 
decide when doctors disagree? Manifestly one might argue 
on quite as good if not better grounds than those of Weiss to 
the very opposite conclusion—viz. that a later writer who 
wished the Apocalypse, and with it the New Testament, to 
conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as possible, 
substituted the words “Grace be with all” in place of the 
restricted and somewhat strange expression “Grace be with 
the saints.” I did not observe that Bousset still defends the 
third form when I said in the first edition of this work that this 
reading does not fall to be considered at all. But my reason 
for saying so was not “because this form proves to be a com- 
bination of the other two,” or “because the authorities for it 
are later,” but because it could be shown that its supporters 
follow a corrected text in other places as well as this; and I 
concluded with observing that the decision between (4) and 
(5) could not be made to depend solely on internal criteria 
either, but depended on the decision come to regarding the 
general relationship between the witnesses that support each 
one, in this instance between A, as supporting (4), and x, as 


supporting (5). 


(1) It may be stated here, merely by way of comment, that the first 
form of the benediction, ‘‘ with you all,” was clearly translated into 
Greek by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, without the authority of a 
single Greek manuscript. But in spite of this, it is still propagated 
in the zextus receptus by the English Bible Society, and even in the 
last revision of Luther’s German Bible it was allowed to stand with- 
out demur. The English Authorised Version had it in this form, 
but the Revised Version adopts the fifth form “ with the saints,” and 
puts (4) in the margin, with a note to the effect that ‘two ancient 
authorities read ‘with all.’” 


CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 159 


The second form, “with us all,” which was adopted by 
Melanchthon in his Greek Bible of 1545, published by Herwag, is 
just as arbitrary an alteration. The third form, “ with all the saints,” 
is read by the Complutensian with Q, with more than forty minus- 
cules, and the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions. The fourth, 
“with all,” is found in A and Codex Anmiatinus, while the fifth, 
“with the saints,” is given by 8 and the Old Latin g. In the 
Syriac version of the Apocalypse, edited by Gwynn in 1897, a sixth 
form seems to have been brought to light, which Baljon, who himself 
decides for (5), cites as pera mdvrwy Tov ayiwy abtod: Syrswynn, 
But the pronoun, which in Syriac is indicated by a suffix only, is 
employed now and again merely to represent the Greek definite 
article, so that this new Syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth 
form but only another witness to the third. On the other hand, 
Gwynn mentions the omission of the entire verse in Primasius, a fact 
that neither Tischendorf nor Weiss takes the least notice of, and he 
adduces lastly that a manuscript of the Vulgate reads “cum omnibus 
hominibus.” One sees from an illustration like this what an amount 
of pains is required seriously to apply, even in a single point, 
Bengel’s principle that the smallest particle of gold is gold, but that 
nothing must be passed as gold that has not been proved to be such 
(Introductio in Crisin Novi Testamenti, § 1, p. 572). 

(2) LireRATURE.—See especially Gebhardt (U77., p. 16). Ed. 
Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schriften des N. T., Braunschweig, 1887, 
§ 351 ff. S. P. Tregelles, Ax Introduction to the Textual Criticism of 
the N.T. (=vol. iv. of Horne’s Jntroduction, 1877). F. H. A. 
Scrivener (see above, p. 6); also Adversaria Critica Sacra, edited 
by Miller, Cambr. 1893. B. F. Westcott, Zhe Mew Testament in 
Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i1., London, 1863. C. E. 
Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism, Oxford, 1890. Westcott— 
Hort, vol. ii. (see p. 21). B. B. Warfield, Ztroduction to the Textual 
Criticism of the N. T., New York, 1887; London, 1893. J. W. 
Burgon, Zast Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark, 
Oxford and London, 1871; also Zhe Traditional Text of the Holy 
Gospels vindicated and established, edited by Miller, London, 1896 ; 
also, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy 
Gospels, edited by Miller, London and Cambridge, 1896. Ze 
Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N. T. held at New 
College on May 6, 1897; with a preface (by Miller) explanatory of 
the Rival Systems, 1897, pp. xvi. 43. Ed. Miller, Zhe Present State 


160 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III, 


of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels (see above, 
pe 052). 

Martin (Abbe J. P.), Zetroduction a la Critique textuelle du N.T., 
in five volumes, with plates and facsimiles: vol. i. pp. xxxvi. 327, 
Paris, 1884, 25 fr.; vol. ii. pp. ix. 554, 1884, 40 fr.; vol. iii. pp. vi. 
512, 1885, 40 fr.; vol. iv. pp. vi. 549, 1886, 4o fr.; vol. v. pp. Xi. 
248 and 50 pp. of facsimiles, 1886, 20 fr. Also by the same author, 
Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au N.T. conserves 
dans les Bibliothéques de Paris. Supplement to the foregoing, Paris, 
1884, pp. xix. 205, with facsimiles, 20 fr.; Quatre manuscrits im- 
portants du N.T. auxquels on peut en ajouter un cinguieme, Paris, 
1886, pp. 62, 3 fr.; Les plus anciens mss. grecs du N.T., leur origine, 
leur veritable caractere, in the Revue des Quest. Hist., 1884, No. 71, 
pp. 62-109; Orvigene et la Critique textuelle du N.T., Paris. 
Reprinted from the Rev. des Quest. Hist. for Jan. 1885, No. 73, 
pp. 5-62. 

Th. Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons: vol. i., Das N.T. vor 
Origenes, Part 1, 1888; Part 2, 1889. Vol. ii, Urkunden und 
Belege zum ersten und dritten Band, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1892. 
The third vol. has not yet appeared. The order of the books of the 
N.T. is discussed in vol. ii. p. 343 ff., and the conclusion of Mark’s 
Gospel in the same vol., p. gto ff. 

Salmon (Geo.), Some thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 
London, 1897, pp. xv. 162. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, London, 
1898, pp. vill. 250. Ada Bryson, Recent Literature on the text of 
the N.T. in the Expository Times for April 1899, pp. 294-300. 
M. Vincent, story of the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 1900. G.L. 
Cary, The Synoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the Textual Criticism of 
the V.T., New York, 1900. See also Prof. Jannaris in the 
Expositor, vol. vi. of Series V. There is an article in the American 
Journal of Theology, 1897, iv. p. 927 ff., entitled Alexandria and the 
NV.T:, which I have not been able to consult. 

In attempting to restore the text of the New Testament 
as nearly as possible to its original form, it is essential to 
remember that the New Testament, as we have it to-day, 
is not all of one piece, but consists of twenty-seven separate 
documents now arranged in five groups, and that every several 
document and every several group has had its own peculiar 
history. Of these groups the most complicated, perhaps, is 





CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 161 


the one with which the New Testament opens—viz. the 
Gospels. 

It is quite uncertain when our four Gospels were first Gospels. 
written together in one volume and arranged in the order 
that is now common. The Muratorian Fragment on the 
Canon ! is defective at the beginning, but seems to imply this 
arrangement. It was supposed that the Gospels were written 
in the following order—viz. Matthew first and John last. The 
order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which is found in nearly. 
all the Greek and Syriac manuscripts, was made popular by 
Eusebius and Jerome. The former followed it in his Caxous, 
which were afterwards adopted by Jerome in his Latin Bible. 
According to Eusebius (Zcc?. Hzsz., vi. 25),? Origen knew this 
order, though he very frequently cites the Gospels in the 
order Matthew, Luke, Mark. 

The following arrangements are also found :— 

(2) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, in the earlier (Curetonian) 
Syriac and in the Canon Mommsenianus, a catalogue of the 
Books of the Bible and of the works of Cyprian, originating 
in Latin Africa about the year 360, and first published by 
Mommsen.? 

(3) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, in the so-called Ambrosi- 
aster and in a Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books. 


1 The fragment was edited by Tregelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is given 
in Westcott’s Cason of the N. T., Appendix C, where also see the section on the 
Muratorian Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found also in Preuschen’s Axalecta, 
Kiirzere Texte . . . . pp» 129-137 (the eighth number of G. Kriiger’s Sammlung 
ausgewahlter kirchen- und dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften, Freib, and 
Leipzig, 1893). 

2 Quoted in Westcott, Cazon, part ii. c, ii, § 1, and in Zahn’s Ezndeztung, ii. 179. 

3 Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled ‘‘ Indiculum Veteris et 
Novi Testamenti et Caecili Cipriani.” It was first made known from a MS, 
at Cheltenham in 1886, As it is mostly assigned to the year 365 (see also 
Jiilicher, Zzs/ectung, p. 336) the words of W.-W, may be repeated here : ‘‘S. Berger 
tamen aliter sentit, rationibus commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur. 
Concordant enim numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis, 
e.g. in libris Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum, 
Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo, Indiculus tamen sine dubio antiquus est” 
(p. 736). 

L 


162 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ CHAP. ITI. 


(4) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke—ze. the two Apostles put 
before the two pupils of Apostles, in the Codex Claromon- 
tanus.! This order occurs also in the Arabic writer Masudi’s 
Meadows of Gold.* 

(5) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, in Codd. D and X, in the 
Apostolic Constitutions, in Ulfilas, and especially in the Old 
Latin Manuscripts; see Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe, 
p65, tad eas 

(6) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, in Codex k. 

(7) John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the Vocabularies of the 
Egyptian versions. 

(8) John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, in Tertullian and cod. 19. 
See Arthur Wright, Some New Testament Problems, p. 196 ff4 

This very variety shows that for a long time, perhaps till 
the third century, at all events much longer than the Pauline 
Epistles, the Gospels were propagated singly, perhaps on 
rolls, and only afterwards incorporated in a codex. And 
this makes it probable that the text of our manuscripts was 
not taken from a single copy of the first Tetraevangelium. 
More than probable we cannot call it, seeing that a copyist 
may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging 
the order of the books given in his exemplar, as may still be 
gathered luckily from the position occupied by Hebrews in 
Codex B. The probability is heightened, however, by the 
fact that our manuscripts display a considerably greater 
amount of textual variation in the Gospels than in the Pauline 
Epistles, though not in all to the same extent as in D which 
contains an entirely peculiar recension, especially in Luke. 
One of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by 
the discovery made by E. Lippelt, a pupil of Professor Blass. 
The order of the books in D is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, 
Acts, where it will be seen that the two portions of the book 


1 Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, Cazon, Appendix D, p. 563. 

2 Translated into French, Prairies @or, i. 123: one volume into English by 
Sprenger. 1841 ; Sayous, Jésus Christ @aprés Mohammed, p. 34. 

3 See Zahn, E7zn/., ii. 176; GK, ii. 364-375, 1014. +See Addenda, p. xvi. 





CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 163 


inscribed to Theophilus are separated by Mark. Now Lippelt 
observed that while the name Johannes is regularly spelt with 
two v’s (Iwavvys) in Matthew, John, and Mark, it is just as 
regularly spelt with one (Twavys) in Luke and Acts, sundered 
though these two books are by Mark, where the other spell- 
ing prevails! This shows an accuracy of tradition which is 
surprising, but till now it has only been traced in this one 
manuscript. The others write the name throughout with two 
vs and B as consistently with one. In this connection the 
question naturally arises whether certain liberties were not 
taken with the books on the occasion of their collection and 
arrangement. Resch, ¢.g.,thinks that it was then that the second 
Gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in 
most of our manuscripts, and Rohrbach holds a similar 
opinion.?, I have elsewhere expressed the idea that the 
peculiar opening of Mark is to be accounted for in this way.® 
Zahn, however, doubts whether the use of apy and 7édos 
for apyerar and éreréoOn, zucipit and explicit, can be estab- 
lished for early times. I have found it in Greek Psalters, 
though not very early, I admit, where apyy twv wédwy occurs 
instead of wda: as the superscription of the Hymns at the 
end of the Psalter.» However, there is no need to dwell 


1 The numbers are as follows :— 


=I =v 
Matthew, : : : : J 2 24 
John see c : : ‘ ‘ 7 17 
Luke, . : : 5 : : 27 I 
Mark, . é : : : ; 2 24 
NCS te ; ; : r 5 21 2 


See Blass, Zucae ad Theophilum liber prior, p. vi. f., Philology of the Gospels, 
p- 75 f., where three of Lippelt’s numbers are corrected with the help of Harris. 
See also Axfpository Times, Nov. 1897, p.92f. I cannot understand why Wendt, 
in the new edition of his Commentary on the Acts, should take not the slightest 
notice of this far-reaching discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts, 
see W.-W., Zpzlogus, 776. 

2 Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangelien-Kanon, und die 
kleinasiastischen Presbyter (Berlin, 1894). 

3 Expositor, Dec. 1894. 4 Einlettung, ii. 221. 

5 See Coxe’s Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 1854. 


164 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. III. 


further on this point. Zahn (p. 174) is quite right in his con- 
tention that the usual titles cara MaO@aiov, etc.) imply a 
collection of the Gospels of which Evayyé\coy is the general 
title. 

If, then, for the sake of simplicity, we take as our goal the 
first manuscript of the Tetraevangelium, one would think it 
must be possible with the means at our command gradually 
to work back to it. Even the latest of our manuscripts is 
surely copied from an earlier one, and that one from another, 
and so on always further and further back, so that all we have 
to do is to establish their genealogy, pretty much as Reuss 
has done for the printed editions of the New Testament ; and 
seeing we have manuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth 
century, that means that the entire period of a thousand years 
prior to the invention of printing is bridged over at once, so 
that the task would appear to be simply that of throwing a 
bridge over the first few centuries of the Christian era. And 
by going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating 
those that prove unreliable, it must be possible, one would 
suppose, in this way to arrive at the original. But a little 
experience will shortly moderate our expectations. 

At the outset it is very much against us that we have no 
really serviceable text for comparison. The text of our 
present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours, more 
wonderful than the cloak of Child Roland of old. In fact it 
is a text that never really existed at all. In the preparation 
of my Supplement, which I undertook with the object of 
making the text of Codex Bezae easily accessible to every one, 
I compared the text of that manuscript with that of Tischen- 
dorf-Gebhardt’s edition, and I saw clearly that my work would 
necessarily present a very confused appearance indeed. I also 
issued an interleaved edition of my Stuttgart New Testament 
with a similar object—viz. to furnish a convenient means of 


1 On cata or fata in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of Latin manu- 
scripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable phrase cata tempus, 
which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of secundum tempus in the other 
manuscripts. 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 165 


comparing the text of manuscripts and of Patristic quotations, 
but that, too, labours under the same disadvantage. Whoever 
intends really to further the textual criticism of the New 
Testament will have to issue a copy of a single manuscript 
printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient for 
the comparison of different texts, something like Tischendorf's 
edition of Codex Sinaiticus (ovum Testamentum Sinaiticum, 
1863), which, however, is of little use for other purposes, or like 
Schjett’s edition of the New Testament (see above, p. 24). 
But as these are in the hands of very few, there is nothing for 
it at present but to take one of our most common texts, 
always bearing in mind its composite character. This feature 
of the text appears at the very outset in the title. In» B(D) 
it is cara Ma@@awv. Codex D is defective at the beginning 
down to c. i. 20, but car Ma@@aoy is found regularly as the 
title at the top of the pages, a fact which Tischendorf has 
overlooked. Most other manuscripts, C E K M etc., have 
Evayyedwov cara Mar@aor. If this latter is held as incorrect, 
then all these manuscripts should for the future be dropped 
out of account and s B D alone be regarded as authoritative. 

Again, in verse 2, 8* has Ioak twice, while the others have 
Icaax, so that s too would drop out, leaving B standing 
alone. But then in verse 3 our editors forthwith reject B, 
which reads Zape, and decide in favour of the others which 
have Zapa. Whether this may not be a little premature, 
seeing that there are other places where e¢ is found for final 
n and that one manuscript, 56, has deliberately corrected 
Zapa into Zape in Gen. xxxviii. 30, where a third has Zape, we 
do not pause to determine. The point is simply this, that in 
these first three verses there is no manuscript that is always 
right in the judgment of our editors. True, the cases we 
have been considering are trifling, the differences being of an 
orthographical nature merely, and one must not be too par- 
ticular in such matters, though at the same time the oft- 
quoted maxim, minima non curat praetor, is nowhere less 

1 See Field, Hexapla, i. p. xxii. 


Dogmatic 
influence. 


Parallel 
passages. 


166 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. III. 


applicable than in textual criticism. But the same state of 
things reappears immediately where we have differences 
involving important matters of fact. What is the fact in 
verse I11?. Did Josias beget Jechoniah, or did he beget 
Joachim and Joachim Jechoniah? Verse 16 has already 
been referred to: in this case our oldest Greek manuscripts 
would give no occasion to mention the verse. But in verse 
25 we have again to ask which is correct, érexey viov Or éTeKev 
Tov vlov avTis Tov mpwToToKov? And when we hear Jerome 
say—Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios 
filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi 
qui habeat et fratres, we learn already how dogmatic motives 
may have some influence upon the form of the text. And, 
moreover, when we call to mind the words of Luke ii. 7, we 
are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing 
influence in the Gospels—viz. the tendency to alter the text 
in conformity with the parallel passage. Apart from the 
stylistic peculiarities of Codex D, we meet with no materially 
important variants in our Greek manuscripts of Matthew till 
we come to the Sermon on the Mount. The only thing is in 
iii. 15, where two Latin witnesses have an addition which is 
evidently taken from a Greek source: et cum baptizaretur, 
lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui 
advenerant (congregati erant). This interpolation, however, 
does not concern the criticism of the text of the New Testa- 
ment, seeing that it is derived from some source outside the 
Canon. 

On the other hand, there is a great question as to the order 
of the first three Beatitudes in Matthew v. 3-5, whether they 
are to be read in the order given in the common text, trwxo 
ee Wud mevOouvres . . - . Wpaeig. ..., OF as Our recent 
editors prefer mrwxyol .... mpacis .... mevOovvres.' The 
latter arrangement is attested by only two Greek manuscripts 
—D and 33. Now, if their evidence is accepted here in spite of 


1The order, mpaeis.. . . mrwyol... . mevOodvres, in Baljon is due to a 
strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda. 


as De 


CHAP. IIT] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 167 


its apparent weakness, how can we justify the refusal to 
acknowledge the authority of D in other similar cases? 
Verse 22, but a short way down, is a case in point. Here D, 
with most authorities, exhibits the sorely-contested eky. But 
our modern critics will have nothing to do with it, going by 
sx B, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius. Merx (Dze vier 
kanonischen Evangelten, pp. 231-237) has recently come for- 
ward as a strong supporter of it, on the ground that Syr*™ also 
has it,’ but how is its omission, especially by Jerome, to be 
explained? The Vulgate itself shows that it was easier to 
insert it than to omit it, because out of twenty-four manu- 
scripts collated in W.—W. three have it, though it certainly 
does not belong to the text of the Vulgate.” 

In view of these illustrations, which serve to show the some- 
what haphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto 
has been arrived at, the question becomes very important 
how the original text is to be restored in disputed or doubtful 
cases. 

The first case, or, if we like to call it, the last, but at all Conjectural 
events the one most easy of settlement, is when the correct Bc 
reading is no longer found in any of our witnesses, neither in 
Greek manuscript, version, nor patristic quotation. Here 
we must simply have recourse to conjecture. Not long ago 
philologists evinced such a fondness for conjectural emenda- 
tion that the question might not unreasonably be asked why 
they did not rather themselves write the text that they took 
in hand to explain. At the same time, the aversion to this 
method of criticism which till recently prevailed and still to 
some extent prevails, especially in the matter of the New 
Testament text, is just as unreasonable. Tischendorf, e,g., did 
not admit a single emendation of this nature into his text, 
while Westcott and Hort consider it to be necessary in only a 


1 To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add Clement, 
Hom. n 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), sa 32 (118, 31). 

* Codex D and Syr*i also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is probably no more 
than a remarkable coincidence. 


168 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


very few cases, such as Colossians ii. 18, though they also 
decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text. For 
AEOPAKENEMBATEYON in this passage, which Weizsacker 
renders “pluming himself upon his visions,” they would read 
AEPA KENEMBATEYON, which is obtained by the omission 
of a single letter and a different division of the words. In 
Holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in, the 
example of Cobet and his school being followed by such critics 
as S. A. Naber, W. C. van Manen, W. H. van de Sande-Bak- 
huyzen, van de Becke Callenfels, D. Harting, S. S. de Koe, 
H. Franssen, J. M.S. Baljon, J. H. A. Michelsen, and J. Cramer.’ 
Baljon has adopted a great number of such conjectural emen- 
dations in his edition of the text published in 1898 (see above, 
p. 24). In place of zoAXot didackado, ¢.g., in James iii. 1, 
Lachmann would read 7@Xo d’vcxoAo1, Naber rXavodidacKaXot, 
while Junius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer zoXv- 
AdAo. on the ground that m™ has nolite multilogui esse® So 
far, therefore, this last is not pure conjecture. For xpwérw in 
Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished to read xipyarw, because the verb 
a7 found in the Peshitto at this place is elsewhere used to 
translate Opoeiy (Matt. xxiv. 6), rapdooew (John xiv. 1, 27), 
eyxorrew (Gal. v. 7), and also dvarrpépery (Eccl. vii. 18 ; xii. 3). 
My proposal to read éwi zovrov in Apoc. xviii. 17, a reading 
adopted by Baljon in his text, instead of éwi tozoy or émt 
7Aolwy as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but 
it has the support of super mare in Primasius.* There is 
therefore no objection on principle to the method of con- 

1 See Urt., 55 ff, where works on this subject are cited. 

2 See also Linwood, Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New 
Testament, 1873. 

3 On the symbol m, see above, p. 114. 

4 The converse occurs in Eusebius, Zcc/. H7st., iv. 15, in the address of Polycarp’s 
Martyrium. There the reading kara Méyrov, which is also found in the Syriac, 
should, according to Harnack’s Chronologze der altchristl. Lit., 1. 341, be replaced 
by kata mdvra témov, or rather by kata témrov which is found in 1 Macc. xii. 4; 
2 Macc. xii. 2. Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor. 


x. 15 between komots, movors, and tomos, and between woros and tomes in Judith 
vi. 21. See also Eusebius, Zcc/. Hist., v. 15, 23. 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 169 


jecture, nor to the adoption of conjectural readings in the text, 
though it is only to be resorted to as the wdtzma ratio regis and 
with due regard to all the considerations involved, transcrip- 
tional, linguistic, and otherwise. There is no essential difficulty 
in supposing, e,g., that x.pvatw in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted 
into cpwatw and then into xpiwérw. Such a transposition of 
the liquid is quite common in all languages.” But we must 
see if xipvatw has the sense required in the passage. There is 
no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far, therefore, 
the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true that 
evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word 
proposed to be inserted. Passow, e., gives To Tis pucews 
okAnpov kipvay from Polybius iv. 21, 3,and Thy TOA Kipvav from 
Aristophanes i. 1. In spite of this, however, I have consider- 
able misgivings whether this sense of the word is in harmony 
with Pauline usage and is suitable to the context of the 
passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural reading on 
transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82), 
a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing 


1 The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244: ‘‘ It is now agreed among 
competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in 
passages of acknowledged difficulty”; and he quotes from Roberts (Words of the 
New Testament): ‘‘ conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field . . . . 
simply because there is no need for it.” With this, however, he does not quite 
agree. He admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing 
a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they 
are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we should be glad of 
more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi, 28; Rom, viii. 2; 1 Cor. xii. 2, 
where Ephes. ii, 11 might suggest 7: woré; 1 Tim. vi. 7; 2 Pet. iii, 10, 12; 
Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Kriiger expresses himself to the same effect. He would have 
no conjecture, however well founded, received into the text. See his notice of 
Koetschau’s Origen in the Z. Cé/., No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete has had no 
objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of 
the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3). If such a thing is permissible in the 
case of Enoch, why should it not be allowable in the New Testament? As clever 
suggestions may be noted tkoAd¢icay for the hapax legomenon éxepadiwoar, Mark 
xii. 4 (Linwood, Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and Aav@dvovar for uav@avover, 1 Tim. 
v. 13 (Hitzig). Lagrange (Aevae Bibligue, 1900, p. 206) cautions us against 
‘* préter de l’esprit 4 ?Esprit Saint.” 

2 Compare my conjecture of pina for DEIN, Ps, Ixviil. 31, and see below, 
p- 236. 


Eclectic 
method. 


170 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


prevaleuc at the time when the corruption is supposed to have 
originated. Luke’s handwriting must have been very bad 
indeed if we are to suppose that the scribe of D or the parent 
manuscript mistook ypyycacQe for the enigmatical ¢Bapivare 
in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable how he came to 
write dogy instead of de€ia in v. 31, or conversely wrote edé€avro 
instead of édd€acay in xiii. 48, or that KAITOYTOLYN®ONO- 
YZIN was made into KAIOYTOZSZSYN@ONHZOYSIN or 
vice versa. A slight experience in the reading of ancient 
*huscripts shows how easy it is to make mistakes of this 

*. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this sort actu- 

¢* do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, 
.ad Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish’s Handy 

concordance of the Septuagint, though of course the examples 
ere are all from the Old Testament. We have, e.g., ayamraw 

c aratraw ; ayarn for aratn; ayratw for ayopatw ; dytos for 

yelos, ayyeiov, aypos, yx; adiaduTos for daduvTos ; BadrAw 

i’ ‘ts compounds for XauGarw and its compounds ; dads for 
vaos, etc. 

It is more difficult to answer the question how the text is 
to be restored in cases where there is no lack of external 
evidence. We have already seen that critics have hitherto 
adopted an ecleetie mode of procedure. In general, whenever 
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree, editors, Tischendorf as well 
as Westcott and Hort, give the preference to their testimony. 
But if they do not agree, what is to be done? And what if 
a third reading seems on internal grounds to be better than 
either? In his Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New 
Testament, Salmon very pungently, but not altogether incor- 
rectly, describes Westcott and Hort’s method on the lines of 
an anecdote told of Cato by Cicero: “To the question what 
authorities should be followed, Hort answers, Follow By. 
But if B is not supported by x? Still follow B, if it has the 


1 Meyer-Wendt’, p. 51. For an example of = repeated by mistake, 
EISSTEAOS® in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common. 
* Bagster, London, 1887. 








CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 171 


support of any other manuscript. But suppose b stands 
quite alone? Even then it is not safe to reject B unless it 
is clearly a clerical error. But suppose B is defective? Then 
follows. And what about D? What about killing a man!” 
Lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of 
the stake. Codex D has not been gagged outright, to be sure, 
but it has been shoved aside, and only now and then with 
remarkable inconsistency has its evidence been accepted as 
trustworthy. For one must surely call it inconsistent to follow 
one side as a rule and then all at onceto take sides with t. 
which is diametrically opposed to the first. In his /ztroa’ 
tion, Hort, in the most brilliant manner one must admit, f 
established the principle that the restoration of the text mu. s 
be grounded on the study of its history, and no one ha 
studied that history as carefully as Hort has done. But tir: 
question remains whether he has not interpreted the histos 
wrongly, whether what he calls the Neutral text is really th. 
original, and whether that which he rejects as a Wether 
Corruption is really to be regarded as such. 

I cannot presume to judge; but I have the feeling that the History of 
history of the transmission of our New Testament text must maa 
be studied in quite another way from that in which it has 
been done hitherto, and in a twofold direction :— 

(1) The manuscripts and their relation to each other must 
be subjected to a still more searching investigation, and 

(2) The works of the ecclesiastical writers, especially the 
Commentaries and the Catenz, must be thoroughly explored 
for any information they may have to give regarding the 
history of the text of the New Testament, and these two 
results must then be set in relation with each other. 

With regard to the former task, it might not be essential to 
make such a minute collation of the manuscripts as Ferrar, 
Hoskier, and other investigators deemed necessary, and as 
is certainly the right thing to do in the case of the oldest 
documents. With such a mode of procedure, the task could 
not be accomplished in any conceivable time. But suppose 


Analogous 
works. 


172 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. III. 


the work was organised the way that Reuss did with the 
printed editions, by selecting say a thousand passages for 
comparison, it would be possible, and in a very short time we 


should be much better informed than we are at present as to 
the state of the text in our manuscripts, and especially in the 
minuscules. 

Such a task, moreover, must be preceded by a fresh scien- 
tific statement of the way in which the text was propagated 
previous to the invention of printing, on the lines laid down 
by Hort in the first fourteen paragraphs of his /xtroduc- 
tion A necessary preliminary to this is the study of 
genealogy, in which we have an excellent guide in Ottokar 
Lorenz’s Lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen Genealogte 
(Berlin, 1898). See especially the first chapter of Part I. on 
the distinction between Genealogical Tree (Table of gene- 
alogy) and Table of Ancestors, and the third chapter of Part 
II. on the problem of Loss of Ancestors. 

All the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures, 
such as crossing, heredity, and so forth, fall to be considered 
also in the genealogy of manuscripts, the only difference being 
that in the latter case new features make their appearance. 
It has been asserted somewhere that ifan Englishman, a Dutch- 
man, a German, a Frenchman, and an American meet in a 
company, the nationality of each is at once recognisable, 
but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical 
relationships, and that the same impossibility exists in the 
case of the manuscripts of the New Testament. That is 
perhaps an exaggeration, but it is certainly a surprising 
fact that so few even of our latest manuscripts can be 
proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts still in 
existence, or at least to be derived from a common 
original. 

It will be a very great help, particularly to those beginning 

1 See Isaac Taylor’s History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern 


Times (1827); and compare also the text-books on Hermeneutics, e.g. in 
I. v. Miiller’s Handbuch der hlasstschen Altertumswissenschaft. 


. 





CHAP. IIt.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 173 


work in this field, to compare the method and results of 
investigations pursued in similar and perhaps easier depart- 
ments of study. Apart from the works of classical philolo- 
gists, or works like the new edition of Luther’s writings, a 
great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of 
late years in the matter of textual criticism, some of it very 
extensive, some of it less so. Ed. Wolfflin, eg., devoted his 
attention to the Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, who died Rule of 
some time after the year 542. His Rule, which extends only eae 
to eighty-five pages of the Teubner size, is extant in manu- 
scripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries. 
By a comparison of these, Wélfflin was convinced that we 
still possess the Rule essentially in the identical wording of 
the original vulgar Latin, that Benedict himself had after- 
wards made certain alterations and additions, and that we 
have therefore to distinguish several (fortasse tres) editions.' 
Walfflin purported to give the text of that recension which 
he took to be the earliest. But we had no more than time 
to congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at 
by this experienced philologist, when behold, another totally 
different conclusion was announced by a younger worker in 
the same field. W6lfflin had done little more than compare 
the manuscripts, but Lud. Traube applied also the external 
evidence afforded by the history of the text, and discovered 
that certain manuscripts that W6lfflin had thrown aside 
possessed a greater claim to originality.’ 

Similarly, E. C. Richardson gave several years to an €X- De Viris 
amination of all the accessible manuscripts of the De Virds Mlustribus. 
Itlustribus of Jerome and Gennadius, a work not much larger 
than the Rule of Benedict. These manuscripts, about 120 in 


1 Benedicti regula monachorum. Recensuit Ed. Wolflin, Lipsiae, Teubner, 
1895, pp. xv. 85, 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity of Benedict in the 
Arch. f. Lat. Lexikogr. ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521. 

2 Textgeschichte der Regula S. Benedict (Abh. d. 3 Cl. d. k, Ak. d. Wiss, 
vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also Zhe Text of St. Benedict’s Rule by Dom 
C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the Downside Review, December 1899, 


12 pp. 


Julian’s 
Letters. 


Latin New 


Testament. 


174 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


number, he grouped, and then framed his text in accordance - 
with them.t. While his work was in the press, an edition was 
published by C. A. Bernoulli, based on some of the manu- 


scripts that Richardson also had used.? But from the very © 


first sentence onwards, the two editors follow contradictory 
authorities, so that while one gives parvam as the correct 
reading, the other reads xox parvam. But more than that, 


eee 


= 


the same Part of Zerte und Untersuchungen that gave us — 
Richardson’s laborious work contained a second piece of © 


work on the same material—viz., O. v. Gebhardt's edition of — 
the so-called Greek Sophronius, which is an old version of 
Jerome’s book. And the last chapter of this version, which 
is autobiographical, contains indications, according to v. 
Gebhardt’s Introduction, that Jerome issued two editions of 
his book, so that, if this be so, an entirely new grouping of 
the manuscripts becomes necessary. 


In the case of Holl’s researches on the Sacra Parallela of — 
John Damascene, published in the same Collection,’ matters — 
are too complicated for beginners in textual criticism, but of © 


non-biblical texts mention may be made of the Recherches sur 
la tradition manuscrite des lettres de 1 Empereur Julien by 
S. Bidez and Fr. Cumont (Brussels, 1898), as showing how 
much can be attained by combining the internal and external 
history of the transmission of literary texts.4 In the field of 
Biblical texts, and particularly of the New Testament, the 
study of Wordsworth and White’s Epzlogus to the first volume 
of their Novum Testamentum Latine is to be specially recom- 
mended, particularly c. iv. De Patria et [Indole Codicum nos- 
trorum, c. Vv. De Textus Historia, and c. vi. De Regults a nobis 
an Textu constituendo adhibitts. As was said before, Jerome 
undertook his revision of the Gospels in the year 383; his 
work was of an entirely uniform texture, apart from a few 

1 TU, xiv. 1, 1896. 

? Kriiger’s Sammlung, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895. 

3 TU., New Series, i. 1, 1897. 

* Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus, published by 
Niese and Naber. 





CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 175 


passages where a correction may have occurred even in the 
original manuscript ; and there is a sufficiency of manuscripts 
extant, some of them going back to the sixth century. One 
of these, which formerly belonged to the Church of St. 
Willibrord at Echternach, contains a note dated 558, and 
copied into it from the parent manuscript, to the effect : proe- 
mendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca Eugipi 
presbyteri, quem ferunt fuisse sancti Hieronymi. (See above, 
p. 122.) In these circumstances it must surely be pos- 
sible, one would think, to arrive at some satisfactory con- 
clusion. And yet, in spite of all this,and in spite of long 
years of labour, many a problem remains to perplex the 
editor of the Vulgate. To begin with, there is one striking 
circumstance. Jerome executed his work at Rome, in 
obedience to the commission of Pope Damasus. One would 
therefore expect to find the best manuscripts in Rome, or at 
least originating from Rome. But that is by no means the 
case: “praeter expectationem accidit ut pauci vel nulli ex 
codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem Romanam clare 
ostendant.” The manuscript that editors consider the best— 
viz. Codex Amiatinus, now at Florence—was certainly at 
Rome for a long time, but it was sent there as a present from 
beyond the Alps ; indeed, it came from England. And on the 
other hand it was not from Rome that the Latin Bible came 
to England, or to Canterbury in particular, although Augustine 
was sent thither by Pope Gregory the Great, but from the 
South of Italy; in fact, it was from Naples. Codex Fuldensis, 
which may have been brought to Fulda by Boniface, formerly 
belonged to Bishop Victor of Capua; the Echternach manu- 
script referred to above came from the Lucullan Monastery 
at Naples, while the manuscript from which Codex Amiatinus 
was copied was written by Cassiodorus of Vivarium, and 
therefore came from Calabria. The history of the trans- 
mission of the Latin Bible reveals many other facts as strange 
as these in connection with the locality to which manuscripts 
belong. We must be prepared, therefore, for similar surprises 


Families. 


176 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. ITI. 


in the case of Greek manuscripts also, and need not be 
astonished to hear that the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae, so 
much decried as “ Western,” takes us back to Smyrna or 
Ephesus by way of Lyons and by means of Irenzus.! 

It is also very instructive to observe that after long years of 
the most thorough study of their manuscripts, Wordsworth 
and White refrain from constructing stemmata or genealogies 
of these. All they venture to do is to distinguish certain 
large classes or families, and within these again to bring 
certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship with 
each other. They distinguish two main classes. In the first 
they reckon five, or it may be four, Italian-Northumbrian 
manuscripts, A A H* S Y, two Canterbury O X, three 
Italian J M P, the two mentioned already from Capua-Fulda 
F and Lucullan-Echternach EP, and the Harleian Z, so called 
from a former possessor and now in the British Museum. 
To the second class belong five Celtic D E L QO R, three 
French B BF G,and two Spanish C T. After these come 
the witnesses to the history of the text in the stricter sense of 
the term, the recensions made by Theodulf (H* 9) and Alcuin 
(KV MW), and, for the form which the text assumed in the 
later manuscripts and in the printed editions, the Salisbury 
Codex W. We should have great reason to congratulate 
ourselves, could we arrive at like certain results in the region 
of the far older and more diversified history of the trans- 
mission of the Greek text, but there too we shall encounter 
the same general features—viz., a form of the text in the 
printed editions, in the later manuscripts, in the Recensions, 
the dates of which are still to be determined (Lucian, 
Hesychius?, Pamphilus), and in the families, which are only 
to be classified in a general way. 

It is also instructive to find that in the case of several 
manuscripts, Wordsworth and White are obliged to observe 
that they seem to have been corrected from the Greek, H* 


1 See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, Ox ¢he Ztalian Origin 
of Codex Bezae in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 441 fF. 





GHABP./IiI:] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 177 


(p. 709), M (p. 711), EP* (p. 712), D R-L (pp. 714, 716), 
which suggests the possibility of Greek manuscripts also 
having been influenced by one of the versions, be it Latin or 
Syriac. 

Finally, when we enquire as to the relationship between 
Jerome and the Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by 
him, we find that that manuscript must have been most 
nearly related to the Sinaiticus, while it had no sort of con- 
nection with Codex D. Whether this result tells in favour 
of s or the reverse, we will not pronounce at present: Jerome 
certainly avers that he made use of a Graecorum codicum 
emendata conlatione .. . . sed veterum (p. 108), only veterum 
is a comparative term, and it might quite well happen that to 
Jerome that form of text appeared to be the best which was 
most recent or most widely circulated in his neighbourhood, 
and that he would have nothing to do with such a singular 
form of text as D exhibits, even supposing he was acquainted 
with it, a point we cannot decide. The intimate connection 
in various passages between his text and that of the cursive 
473 (2°) is remarkable, and especially the many points of 
resemblance between the Irish manuscripts (D L R) and the 
members of the Ferrar Group. 

And this brings us back from our survey of the history of 
the Latin text to that of the Greek, where we seem to have 
got at least one fixed point to begin with in this perplexing 
chaos, for that is the first impression we gain on glancing at 
the mass of Greek manuscripts before us. But here again 
our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed, and we 
shall learn only too soon that even this is no Archimedean point 
from which we are able to regulate this world of disorder. 

If we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the Ferrar Group, 
passage usually indicated as John vii. 53-viii. 11 occurs in 
Luke, and in exactly the same place in each one—viz. after 
Luke xxi. 38—-we must needs conclude that the manuscripts 
exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately connected 


with each other. . This is the case with the cursives 13, 69, 
M 


Variation. 


178 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP., III. 


124, 346, 624, 626. Whether the others that are reckoned in 
this group have this same peculiarity, I am not perfectly sure. 
Now one would naturally expect that these manuscripts 
would also coincide in the other peculiarities characteristic of 
this group. But on the contrary, they part company over the 
very first and most conspicuous of these—viz. Matthew i. 16. 
Here, unfortunately, 13 and 69 are defective, but we can com- 
pare 124 and 346. And we find that whereas the former has 
the usual text, the latter, with the support of 556, 624, 626, 
exhibits in place of roy avdpa.... Xpioros, the reading 
already mentioned, 6 uryoreveica tap0évos Mapiapy éyévynoev 
‘Incoby Tov Aeyouevov Xpiorov. Which of these readings is 
right, or whether both of them may not be wrong, we need 
not enquire at present. It is sufficient to point out that one 
and the same mother may give birth to very different children. 
The specific difference will be inherited from the other of the 
two parents, in this case represented by the copyist, and will 
depend on whether he is painstaking, careless, violent, arbi- 
trary, well-informed, or the reverse. But the mother herself 
has a great number of hereditary or acquired peculiarities 
which, the latter no less than the former, may be transmitted 
to the children in a variety of ways. There is perhaps no 
manuscript in existence which is entirely free from corrections, 
while, on the other hand, there are many so overlaid with 
corrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognis- 
able. Codex B, on the whole, is in a very good state of 
preservation, but it was supposed lately (see Z/Lz., 1899, 
col. 176) that its first hand wrote in John vili. 57, “and 
Abraham saw thee” instead of “and hast thou seen 
Abraham,” as all our editors read in that passage.! The 
supposition proved to be incorrect, but if that could possibly 
happen with B, what must have happened in the case of 
manuscripts that are so full of corrections as s and D, if they 
came to be copied in later times? Suppose that one scribe 
took the trouble to copy the text of the first hand, while 
1 See below on John viii. 57, p. 280. 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 179 


another thought it his duty to follow the corrections, the 
result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would 
be scarcely recognisable. And in the course of centuries 
how often may not this process have been repeated. No 
wonder, therefore, that so few manuscripts have as yet been 
clearly made out to be the descendants of our oldest codices, 
so as to permit of their being removed from the board with 
one sweep, as having no independent testimony to contribute, 
as is the case with E, which is merely a bad copy of D, 
(p. 77), or that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship 
existing between two manuscripts like F, and G, (p. 77).1 
Nor need we be surprised to find that some of our most 
peculiar witnesses seem to have remained absolutely child- 
less, while a less valuable race is perpetuated in many 
copies. The words of Homer—oty rep pvAXwy yever}, Toin dé 
kal avép@v—may be applied conversely to the leaves to which 
we entrust our immortality: habent sua fata libellii The 
only unfortunate thing is that we are so little able to follow 
the course of these fates by means of external testimony. 
When the Emperor Constantine eg. asks Eusebius to 
supply him with fifty copies of the Scriptures at once, we 
cannot but suppose that these became authoritative over a 
large area. But in which of the classes into which our manu- 
scripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for these 
now?2 And conversely if, in another locality, heathen per- 

1 An instructive discussion of the relationship between D, and E; is given in 
Hort’s Zrtroduction, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one copyist in Rom. xv. 
31-33 took ta % Staxovia wou 7 ets ‘lepoveaAnu . . . . da OeAfpatos Scod, and 
the other kal 7 Swpopopta mov 7 ev ‘lep . . . . 1% OeAhuatos Xpiorov "Incov—z.e. 
two entirely different recensions. 

2 Zahn very properly remarks (7%. Zé/., 1899, 16, 179): “One must not, at 
least as regards the N. T., confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or, if I might say 
so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the fifty Bibles that Eusebius 
provided at the bidding of the Emperor for the use of the churches of the capital 
had contained a text of the N. T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and 
commentaries of Origen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in 
the region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive propagation of the 


Antiochean text, would be perfectly incomprehensible. As in the matter of the 
canon so also of the text of the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the 


External 
testimony. 


Recensions. 


Lucian. 


180 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III 


secution was directed specially against the Bibles of the 
Christians, this cannot have been without some effect. Accord- 
ing to C. Hiilsen (Az/der aus der Geschichte des Kapitols, Rome, 
1899), even the Roman Bishop Marcellinus, with his deacons 
Strabo and Cassianus, in the year 304, burned, in front of the 
temple of Juno Moneta, those Gospels which ten years later 
were made the law of Christian Rome by the Emperor Con- 
stantine. These scattered notices must be much more care- 
fully collected and considered than hitherto, and combined with 
the results obtained from the collation of the manuscripts. 

Most of our information with respect to the reecensions of 
the Bible comes from the Syrian Church, and is concerned 
rather with the Old Testament than with the New; but the 
recensions of the former may throw some light on those of 
the latter. 

(a) As the result of their researches, Westcott and Hort have 
made it very probable, on internal grounds, that a recension 
of an official nature was undertaken in Syria, perhaps at 
Antioch, about the fourth century, and that to this recension 
are due the origin and propagation of that form of the text 
of the New Testament which was widely disseminated in the 
Byzantine Empire, now represented in our,later minuscules, and 
made the ¢ertus receptus by means of the first printed editions. 

Lueian, the celebrated founder of the Antiochean school of 
exegesis, suffered martyrdom in the year 311 or 312, most 
probably the latter. Of all the names that we know, none has 
a better claim than his ‘to be associated with such a recension, 
and the conjecture derives some support from the passage 
of Jerome cited above (p. 85)." It is, perhaps, even better 
supported by what we know of Lucian’s recension of the Old 
Testament. In his preface to the Chronicles, Jerome wrote : 
“ Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat 


school of Origen, and attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this par- 
ticular instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of the 
Bible.” 

1 See Hort, Zetroduction, §§ 188, 189 





CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 181 


auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris 
exemplaria probat, mediae inter has provinciae Palaes<inae 
(v.Z. Palaestinos) codices legunt, quos ab Origene «iaboratos 
Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt ; totusque orbis hac inter 
se trifaria varietate compugnat.” Now it is true that the words 
of aman like Jerome must not be pressed too far, and what 
may have been true in his day might be quite different in a 
comparatively short time—think e.g. of the fifty copies of the 
Bible that Eusebius Pamphili had sent to Constantine, or the 
Bible or Bibles sent by Athanasius to Constans'—at the 
same time it has been established beyond all doubt by Field 
and Lagarde, that it is to Lucian we must refer a peculiar 
recension of the Greek Old Testament preserved in a good 
many manuscripts, the one found in the unfortunately small 
remnant of the Gothic Old Testament and especially in the 
numerous Biblical quotations of the famous theologian John 
of Antioch, better known as Chrysostom of Constantinople, 
who was a pupil of Lucian. The probability, therefore, is 
very great that the same thing will hold good of the New 
Testament portion of the Bible of Ulfilas and Chrysostom. 
As regards the former, Kauffmann has expressed a decided 
opinion to this effect in his work on the Gothic Bible cited 
above (p. 139). The supposition would be converted into 
something like certainty if it could be proved on palazographic 
grounds that this or that New Testament manuscript belongs 
to this or that Old Testament manuscript of Lucianic deriva- 
tion as part of what was originally one and the same complete 
Bible. This is a point which I am not in a position personally 
to investigate, and I must therefore content myself with throw- 
ing out this suggestion, and with adding in support of it that 
we have the express testimony of the Menologies for saying 
that Lucian bequeathed to his pupils a copy of the Old and 
New Testaments written in three columns with his own hand. 


1 Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology: T@ a5eA¢@ cov ov« 
&ypawa H povoy bre... . Kal bre muntia TAY Oelwy yprpav KEeAedoaYTOS avTOU 


Ol KaTackevdoal, Tal’Ta moinoas améaTetAa. 


182 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


There is a statement in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis,’ 
which seems, however, to refer only to the Old Testament 
portion, to the effect that it was discovered in a concealed 
cupboard (xupyicxos) in the house of a Jew at Nicomedia in 
the time of Constantine. Long ago Hug and Eichhorn attri- 
buted the “ Asiatic” or “Byzantine” recension to Lucian, and 
no decided objection can be established to the view of Hort, 
which Gregory also is inclined to accept (77G7., p. 814).” 


1 It is given in Syriac in Abbé Martin’s Zutroduction a la critique textuelle 
du N. T., Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris, 27, f 88 b, and 
also in Lagarde’s Bibliotheca Syriaca, 259, 22-27. From the Greek rupyickos, 
which becomes xpo75 in the Semitic, the Syriac forms another diminutive 
xnpoms, which is still omitted nthe 7hesaurus Syriacus, 3240; of. Bar Bahlul, 
1606, 9 (App..p. 64). In place of xupylaxw, Oikonomos would read the genitive 
mupytokov (rept tay 6 epunvevTwy, iv. 500). 

2 Not only does the Old;Testament promise to shed some light upon an obscure 
problem in the New, but the converse may also be true—viz. that the history of the 
text of the New Testament may contribute to a better understanding of that of the 
Old. It was long observed that many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Sep- 
tuagint occur also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver, 
Notes on Samuel, p. li; Urt., 78). No proper explanation of this phenomenon 
could be given so long as the Old Latin version of the Old Testament was looked 
upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But the New Testament, for which we 
have far more Old Latin manuscripts than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre- 
Jeromic version had a chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a 
revision was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex Brixianus 
(f, see p. 112), and which ‘‘non solum interpretationem veterem stilo elegantiori 
emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista 
emendatione Itala eminere lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum appa- 
rent, guas Recensioni Syrae vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort.” So say 
Wordsworth and White, p. 654. Ifthe same thing holds good of the Old Testa- 
ment, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at once becomes 
evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the marginal glosses of Codex 
Legionensis,* which are particularly striking on this view of the case, may have 
been translated into Latin from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may 
possibly throw fresh light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (U7z., 
p. 78), whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of the 
Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Méritan, in his little book, 
entitled, Za Version grecque des Livres de Samuel, précédée @une Introduction sur 
la critique textuelle (Paris, 1898). On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question— 
whether Lucian knew and used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the 
affirmative: ‘‘It is therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the 
Books of Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did not 


® Called Codex Gothicus in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, iii. p. 504. 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 183 


(2) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out Hesychius, 
how matters stand with regard to the recension of Hesyehius. 
Jerome commends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testa- 
ment, but contemptuously rejects it for the New ; and accord- 
ingly, in the decree of Pope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels “ quae 
falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, 
apocrypha” (c. vi. 14,15). Considering the important position 
of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast number of manuscripts 
referred with more or less certainty to that locality, it is the 
more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have as yet 
been discovered of the recension of which “ Alexandria et 
Aegyptus .. .. Hesychium laudat auctorem,” and that till 
the present moment the most divergent views have been held 
with regard to it. And this is true of the Old Testament no 
less than of the New. One view, for which a good deal can 
be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.)—viz. that we have 
the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. Rahlfs, who was the Codex B. 
first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (220. c7z., 
p. 78, note 7) ; “If we care to trust ourselves to pure hypothesis, 
we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex, mani- 
festly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was 
prepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The 
follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide, but availed himself of 
others also, and that one of those principal authorities was the Syriac version.” 
We often enough find 6 Sdpes cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on 
the Old Testament. Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a 
point that seems not yet to be looked into. 

I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the Zedfschrift fiir kath. 
Theol., iii. 467-469, entitled, ‘‘ Die Lucianische Septuagintabearbeitung nachge- 
wiesen,” by saying : ‘‘In establishing the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for 
the Septuagint, we may be held as settling the question whether traces of these 
may not also be found in the New Testament.” 

In his Zinleitung, ii. 240, Zahn says: ‘‘ Without a doubt many readings which 
had a considerable circulation in the second and third centuries, some of them being 
of no small importance and extent, were gradually ousted from their place in the 
text from the fourth century onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later 
tradition altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were current 
in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But whatever our 


judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a position to support it with 
extant documents.” 


184 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP., III. 


locality in which the manuscript was produced supports this 
conjecture, while the time is not inconsistent with it.” I am 
not aware if Rahlfs knew that Athanasius had executed zukcria 
tov Oeiwy ypapev for Constans, and I am not sufficiently 
acquainted with the minutiz of the ecclesiastical history of 
that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to 
hazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius 
for the Emperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every 
Church History records, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum 
and Italy, and that Athanasius fled to Rome to Julius IL., 
which would help to explain how Codex B comes to be in 
that city. I cannot ascertain however from the books at 
my command, whether any particular resemblance has been 
observed between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical 
quotations found in those writings of Athanasius that belong 
to this period of his life, that is, prior to the year 350. And, 
besides, one has always to take into consideration how very 
little reliance can be placed as yet on the text of the Biblical 
quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In the Book of 
Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text which 
is not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement and 
Origen, nor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was em- 
ployed first by Cyril of Alexandria, and which is the basis of 
the Sahidic version. This fact may have an important bearing 
on the question as to the text of the New Testament as well 
As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion that the Sahidic 
version was the work of Hesychius, but we have very little 
information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in 
particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that 
name. Here also, the evidence afforded by paleography 
would need to be examined with a view to ascertaining 
whether or not any of the manuscripts agreeing with B in the 

} Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing that he regards 


Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon of Athanasius, 
which was not written till the year 367. 


2 See especially Lagarde, Seft.-Studien, 1892, and Moore’s Commentary on 
Judges, 1895, p. xlvi. 


CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 185 


Book of Judges—viz. G (Brit. Mus., 20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58, 
63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena Nicephori—has a 
counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On 
Codex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobschitz 
(T2Lz., 1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts A 
and 566°". (Greg)! According to the latter, the difference 
in size precludes the supposition that A and 566 are the New 
Testament portion of the manuscript described by Rahlfs (Zoe. 
cz.). But if they are not written by the same scribe, they both 
undoubtedly come from the same school of copyists. At most, 
however, A—566 would only possess importance for the recen- 
sion of Hesychius if the text they, or rather it, follows were 
different from that with which it was collated. Its subscription 
shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were collated 
with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important 
bearing on the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, GK. ii. 648. 

(c) We have nearly as little certain information regarding Eusebius- 
the third, and perhaps most important, of the recensions et 
mentioned by Jerome in connection with the Old Testament, 
that of Eusebius and Pamphilus, which goes back to Origen.” 

So far as I know, the references which Origen makes in his Origen. 
extant writings to his own labours in the field of textual 
criticism, relate only to the Old Testament. At the same time 


1 See above under A, p. 72. 

2 There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome in 
his letter of the year 403 io the Gothic priests Sunnia and Fretela, seeing that 
these relate only to the Old Testament. But the words themselves may be 
quoted: ‘‘ Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et 
Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores kowhv, id est communem 
appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Aovxiavds dicitur, aliam septuaginta 
interpretum quae in é£amAo/s codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in latinum sermonem 
fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiae (so Lagarde, Lzbrorum 
V. T. can. pars prior, p. xiii. from Vad/ars?, i. 635?) decantatur .. . . Kowh 
autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest 
inter utramque quod xowh pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum 
vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in €famAo7s et quam nos vertimus, 
ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incorrupta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum 
translatio reservatur ” (zbzd., 637). For Aovxiavés Oikonomos (iv. 499) would read 
Aovxiavis. 


186 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


his complaint as to the evil condition of the manuscripts of 
his day refers to the New Testament, and to the Gospels in 
particular. Nuvi 6 dyAovoTi, he says, in his Commentary on 
Matthew, Bk. xv. 14, ToAXH yeyovev 7 THY ayTLypadwr CLrapopa, 
elTe a0 pabuulas TWaY Ypapéwr, ETE ATO TOAUNS TWOY WLoXOnpas 
Tis diopOwcews THY ypapopméevwr, ElTE Kal ATO THY TA EaUTOIS 
doxourta ev TH OtopPwcre TpocTievTwr 7 apatpoivrwy.! He tells 
us in the same place how, @eov didovros, he found ways and 
means of remedying the evil by the employment of the critical 
symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus and asterisk, 
THY MEV OdY eV TOIS aYTLYpapols THS TaAalds dcaOHKys Ltapwriar, 
Oeot didovTos, evpouev tacac8a. According to his own express 
declaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved, 
for it is only extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism 
at that time at least was confined to the Old Testament : 
in exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me 
posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von Gebhardt 
consequently says (U7z, 25) that this statement from 
Origen’s own mouth should have kept anyone from ascrib- 
ing a formal recension of the New Testament text to him, 
alluding to Hug’s system of recensions; but at the same 
time he will not deny that the works of Origen, who was a 
man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the highest 
importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testa- 
ment. As a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal 
chiefly to Origen’s manuscripts of the Old Testament, but 
several references are also found to his New Testament 
manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii. 418): 
legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit non 
credere veritati? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three 
words only) quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, 
omisimus. The words are a gloss interpolated from ch. v. 7, 
but they are also found in Origen, though only in the Latin 


1 A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading eYre dd poxOnpias ris 
diopbdcews Tav ypahouevwy etre Kal awd TéAUns Tay Tov Td éauTOis SoKodYTA 
(Leiden, Theol. Tijdschr., vii., 1873, 233). 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 187 


translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our Greek 
manuscripts, in C D° E K L P, and likewise in most codices 
of the Vulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The 
same writer says on Matthew xxiv. 36 (ii. I99): in 
quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum est “neque filius,” 
quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplari- 
bus hoc non habeatur additum ; sed quia in nonnullis legitur, 
disserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no 
doubt the Presbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after 
the Diocletian persecution. He was styled “the younger 
Origen” on account of his learning, and was perhaps the 
teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, V7zrz ///, 76; Eusebius, Eecd. 
Hist., vii. 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is a surname 
of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact 
that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen’s 
exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also 
extant only in Latin, and there expounded so fully that 
there,cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his 
text, and, moreover, had no conception of their omission in 
other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this 
fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up 
the question where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars 
of Pierius. I suppose it would be in Caesarea, where he also 
saw the (Bible ?) volumes of Origen transcribed by Pamphilus 
with his own hand, and actually obtained possession of his 
copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets. Even 
supposing that what is meant by eremplaria Adamaniiz is 
not really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply 

1 What he says is (Vird Z//ust., c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii Caesar- 
iensis episcopi necessarius, tanto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, ut maximam 
partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit, quae usque hodie in Caesar- 
iensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in duodecim prophetas vigintiquinque éényhoewy 
Origenis volumina manu eius (z.¢. Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplector 
et servo gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enim laetitia est unam 
epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot milia versuum, quae mihi videntur 
suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson’s text. Bernoulli 


(Kriiger’s Sammlung, Heft xi, 1895) reads habentur, Sed in, and videtur, and also 
omits volumina. 


Euthalius. 


188 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


the copy that Origen used most or used last, that copy 
might have been authoritative for Pamphilus if not for 
Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes necessary for us 
to try and discover the Origenic text in the New Testament 
as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our 
manuscripts go back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of 
the Pauline Epistles. In addition to a very practical 
suggestion as to the lending of books, and a notice of its 
preparation and of the original writer, this manuscript has 
also the following note: dvreBrjOn 6é 4 BiBAos mpds TO ev 
Kaicapia avtiypapoy ths BiBduoOjKns Tod ayiov Iaudirou 
Xeipt yeypaupevoy (a’rov). From this subscription Field 
(Hexapla, i. p. xcix) has concluded that the library of 
Pamphilus was still in existence in the sixth century, but 
it is doubtful whether the subscription may not have been 
found in the original of H and copied into it along with the 
text, as is the case with a similar note copied into the 
minuscules 15, 83,173. In any case this manuscript is our 
principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or, as it 
used to be called, the recension of Euthalius.2 I have no 
intention of discussing the question whether it should be 
Euthalius or Evagrius: Von Dobschiitz (Euthaliusstudien, 
p- 152 n. 1) has promised to give us further particulars 


 Mpoopdynots’ Kopwrts cius doyudrwv Oelwy SiddoKados* Ky tit me xphons 
avt{BiBrov AduBave, of yap amoddra Kakol’ "Avtippacis’ Onoavpdy Exwv oe mveEv- 
Hatika@y ayabav Kal racw dvOporos roOnTdy apyovlats Te Kal moiKiAals ypaumats 
Kekoounuevov—v} Thy GAVetav—ov daw oe mpoxelpws TW odd ad POovécw Tis 
wperclas, xpnow Sé rois Pldots ayTlBiBrAov AauBdvwy. The last seven words, 
which are erased in H, are supplied by the minuscule 93P2"! and the Armenian 
version, On dytlBi:BAoy= ‘‘ borrowing-receipt” or ‘‘ voucher,” see 72Zz., 1895, 
283, 407. See also Robinson, Zuthaliana, Texts and Studies, iii. 3. 

* To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second section of 
Bousset’s Zexthritische Studien (TU. xi. 4, 1894), entitled, Der Codex Pamphili, 
pp- 45-73. Bousset affirms the close connection between the Corrector of 
Sinaiticus indicated by Tischendorf as © and Codex H. I have established the 
connection of this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter’s 
Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to have 
examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. Cf however Bousset, 
ThLz., 1900, 22, 611 ff. 


CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 189 


as to the Syriac texts relating to the subject. I would 
merely call attention to two facts, viz.— 

(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the Harklean. 
exemplar of Pamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean 
Syriac published by Bensly (see above, pp. 79, 106). 

(2) That the name Evagrius, which Ehrhard proposes to Evagrius. 
read in place of Euthalius in Codex H, is actually found 
associated with the library of Pamphilus in another manuscript 
of the Old Testament. In his Notztia editionis codicts Bibliorum 
Stnaitict (Lipsiz, 1860), pp. 73-122, Tischendorf published 
“Ex Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori Siculi; 
Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis.” The latter he took ‘ 
from a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe’s Report 

. on the Greek MSS. yet remaining in the Levant (1858, 
p. 61), professed to contain “ Origenis Hexapla cum Scholiis” 
after the Philocalia. In reality they are Origen’s Scholia on 
the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published in a different 
form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the Mova Patrum 
Bibliotheca, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia 
proper are prefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes on 
the use of the obelus and the asterisk, and on the different 
arrangement of the chapters in the Hebrew and Greek texts, 
followed by another explanation of the same sort under the 
title Evaypiov cxoXov.!. Who they are that are referred to in 
the scholion as having collated the book (ray avTiBeBAnKdT wv 
to (8diov) we learn from the subscription, which says: 
peTeA}POnTay agp’ dv eUpouev ELaTA@Y Kal Tad adTa xeupt (leg. 
avtoxeipt) Laudiros cat EicéBios StopOdcavto. This sub- 
scription, which Oikonomos published fully fifty years ago 

‘It runs: Hioly dca mpotetaypévoyv exovor roy apiOudy Bde, boa ’Opryévny 
emiyeypaumevoy Exer TOUTW TH wovotvAAdBw Q’ «iol be udriora ev 7G "I1SB* boa 
dé wep) diadwrlas pntay twav tay ev TG Cdadlw 7 exddcedy eorw ox6Ata, Grep 
kal kdtw vevevkviay mepieotiymevny exer mporeTtayuerny, TOV avtTiBeBAnnétav 7d 
BiBAloy éotiv’ boa St GudiBorws Ew Kelueva pntda tw veveveviay TEPLEgTIY MEV nV 
exer mporetayuervny, 51a Ta cXOALa mMpoceTeOnaay Kat’ avra Tov Meyddou cipnedros 
didacKdrov tva wh Sdkn Kata Kevod Td oXdALOY péperOat, ev modAors Mev TOY aytt- 


yetpwy trav pntav ottws éxdvtwy, ev Totw 5¢ uy obTws KEemmevwv 7 und? bAes 
Pepopevwy kal dia TvdTo mpoorebévTwyr. 


Later 
revisers. 


190 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


from that Patmos manuscript,! should be added to those 
usually cited—viz. those appended to Ezra and Esther in x, 
to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex Marchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings 
in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in Codex Chisianus 88. 

With what has been said the student should compare 
what Von der Goltz tells us of a critical work upon the text 
of the New Testament belonging partly to the tenth and 
partly to the sixth century.” This, too, goes back to Origen, 
and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part of which 
is unfortunately erased, the work mentions “a manuscript 
written by the hand of St. Eusebius.” As Zahn elsewhere 
shows, the writer of the Athos manuscript did not base his 
own work on this Codex of Eusebius, and in one passage he 
expressly contrasts it with the text of Origen which he follows. 
In spite of this, however, this Athos manuscript must be taken 
into account in dealing with the recension of Pamphilus. Still 
more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according to 
Conybeare and von Dobschitz.? Even the Latin manuscripts 
may contain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has 
shown that the table of chapters in Hebrews given in Codex 
Fuldensis and in a manuscript indicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9, 
is nothing but a translation of the corresponding part of 
“Euthalius.”* Unfortunately the relics of the literary activity 
of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the Scriptures,® are 
exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is extant only ina 
Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt to 
specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible 
by means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless, 

(d) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive 
at the oldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take 


1Tlept twy 6 epunvevtwy, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849. 

2 Texte und Untersuchungen, xvii. (N.F. ii.) 4. See above, p. 90. 

3 Euthaliusstudien, pp. 111-115 ; 115 ff. 

4 Neue Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp. 360-363. Com- 
pare also von Dobschiitz, 7d. cz¢., 111. 

5 uddiota 5& mapa Tov’s Kal? juas mavras diémpewe TH mepl Ta Oeia Adyia 
ynowrdarn «rovdy. Euseb., Zecl. Yest., vill. 11. 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. I9I 


account of the labours of any later individuals in the formation 
of the Greek New Testament. Among these were Emperors 
and Empresses like Constantine and Constans, who exerted 
themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures, and perhaps 
even made copies of them with their own hands, but these 
we may disregard.1. The work of Andreas and Arethas on 
the Apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of 
that book. One naturally turns here to Krumbacher’s 
History of Byzantine Literature, but the index to the first 
edition of that work contains only two references to the New 
Testament, neither of them bearing on our present subject. 
The matter is one which may be commended to those who 
have the time and the opportunity and the willingness to 
investigate it, and considering the ardour with which the 
study of Byzantine antiquities is being prosecuted at present, 
it may suffice merely to throw out this hint. 

(c) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much Pre-Origenic 
uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have ic 
already considered—those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, 
and the Ferrar Group. Considering the amount of evidence 
at our command—how the external testimony points in the 
same direction as the manuscripts themselves, and, indeed, how 
probable is the whole nature of the operation in question—one 
would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of 
all. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks 
without any hesitation of “the official recensions originating 
subsequent to the time of Origen” (7/L0/, 1899, 180). 
The vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these re- 
censions does not look very promising for the result of our 
investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen, when 
activity in this field was more disconnected and might be 
said to run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further 


1 See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and compare Zahn, 
ThL6l,, 1899, 181: Would that some one with the time and opportunity to work 
in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied himself to the Codex written in the 
year 800 by the unhappy Empress Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since 
the above was written the manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltz. 


192 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


difficulty that some of the writers who fall to be considered 
in this period came in later times more or less justly under 
the imputation of heresy, with the consequence that the 
results of their labours were less widely disseminated, if not 
deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like these any 
attempted revision of the text must have been equally mis- 
chievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or 
from the opposite. That there were d:op@wrai who were 
supposed to correct the text in the interests of orthodoxy 
we have already learned from Epiphanius. Indeed, from our 
point of view the action of the orthodox correctors must 
be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the books 
without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange, 
and even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of 
style it seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands 
that the Gospels received that reserved and solemn tone which 
we would not now willingly part with, and which can be 
compared to nothing so much as to those solemn pictures of 
Christ that we see painted on a golden background in 
Byzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the 
slightest doubt that the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly, 
was originally narrated in a much more vivacious style. Just 
consider this, for example. In all our present authorities— 
Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac, Egyptian, and so 
forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception, so 
far as I am aware—we read the beautiful words: “your 
Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask 
Him,” po tov tpuas atrioa avrov (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with 
this what we find singly and solely in Codex D and the Old 
Latin h, zpo Tov avoiéa TO cTowa, antequam os aperiatis, 
“before ever you open your mouth.” To me it is a striking 
indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality 
is wanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott 
and Hort among their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor 
even cited by Baljon in his critical apparatus, and that our 
commentators have not a single syllable about it, so that our 


CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 193 


students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form 
of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New Testament 
did no more than bring such things to the notice of those 
who previously were unacquainted with them, I should 
consider it had done no small service. But take another 
illustration from the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. “ Cut 
it down, why cumbereth it the ground,’—that is how our 
ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant 
husbandman in Luke xiii. 7: &koyrov avtiy: ivari Kal Thy yay 
katapye:. Here again, the great majority of our witnesses 
of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning, except 
that a good many (A L T etc.) insert a very prosy ovyv 
after the imperative, while B 80 read rov rovov for tiv yar. 
And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), “till I shall 
dig about it and dung it,” there is again no various reading in 
our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant in- 
terchange of (Gadw) copra, kompiay, and kérpov. What a differ- 
ence do we find here also in the text of D: “bring the axe,” 
hépe THY a€wny, adfers securem ; and, “I will throw in a basket 
of dung,” Badrtw codwov korpiwy, mittam qualum (=squalum) 
stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff?i1q, from which 
it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the 
Alcuinian recension of the Vulgate written in gold.!. Here 
again, our editors and commentators for the most part take 
no notice. “Bring the axe” is omitted by Weiss, father and 
son, Westcott—Hort, Tregelles, and also by Baljon, while 
Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of 
course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual 
proof of greater originality. But the whole question is raised 
as to the principles by which we are to be guided in esti- 
mating the comparative value of the witnesses. One might 
be inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice 


1 On xkédivov xompiwy, see Chase, Syro-Latin 7ext, p. 135 f. It may be 
observed in passing how variously xatapye? is rendered in the different Latin 
manuscripts—viz. by evacuat in b ff*1q, by detznet in ff** ir, by zztrécaz in e, 


and by occwpat in d and the Vulgate. 
N 


194 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


of some scribe by whom D or its parent manuscript was 
written. Asa matter of fact, Westcott and Hort, and most 
recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite 
the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In 
the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of 
the case, because as yet we have no other testimony to dépe 
ty aginy than Dd. But it is not so likely in the case of 
Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the testimony of D is supported 
by that of h. To justify our neglect of these witnesses, we 
should require to prove either that h is derived from D or D 
from h.! So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet 
maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is 
an impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to 
the fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century 
(see p. 113).2. The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second 
and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date 
the text of Matt. vi. 8 read, “before you open your mouth.” 
But it is quite impossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke 
xiii. 8 (képwoy korpiwy). Here too, of course, one might take 
exception and say that as D is bilingual, its Greek text might 
be derived from the Latin. Fortunately, however, it happens 
that the Latin of D, that is, d, differs from all the other eight 
Latin witnesses in reading not cophinus but gualus, and it is 
cophinus that is a loan word from the Greek*; so that this 
objection, actually raised against D in the case of other read- 
ings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be observed, 
moreover—a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in 
Westcott and Hort—viz., that Origen also seems to have read 
“basket.” The passage is again one that is extant only in 


1 The evidence of d in this passage cannot be had, unfortunately, as eight 
leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2, and the Latin of 
vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing. 

2 Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might simply 
have referred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware if what Words- 
worth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript is still true : Codex hodie, 
ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana inveniri non potest. 

3 See Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 751. 


i 
i 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 195 


the Latin translation of Rufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or. 
3, 452 among the witnesses supporting xorpia; but Westcott 
and Hort expressly mention that Origen’s context appears to 
support the reading xd¢woy (“ Lev. lat. Ruf., 190, apparently 
with context ”). 


Here, then, we have these three stages :-— 

(1) D d alone, gepe tyy a€ivyv—ze. one solitary Greek 
manuscript. 

(2) D supported by h, aot&a ro crdua—i.e. the same 
solitary Greek manuscript with the addition of one 
representative of a version. 

(3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen, 
Kopwov Kompiwv—z.e. the same solitary Greek manu- 
script with the addition of eight representatives 
of one version and one not absolutely certain 
quotation. 


What then? Can it be allowable to judge a reading’s claim 
to be mentioned and considered from the number of the 
witnesses supporting it, and like Westcott and Hort and 
Baljon to mention the third only, and take no notice of the 
other two? I think not. For just as in certain circum- 
stances the correct reading may no longer appear in any 
manuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in 
another case the truth may have only one solitary represen- 
tative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries 
(Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary witness either a manuscript, a 
version, or a quotation. On the other hand, it may have a 
whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and supporting it. 
In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with the 
case whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. The 
true man is willing and able to stand alone, and to many 
a witness of this sort we must apply the words of Socrates: & 
mev cuvika yevvaia: oima de Kat & py ovvnxa. If we have been 
able to verify the word of a witness once, several times, 
frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in cases 


196 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. (CHAP. III. 


where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must 
make allowance for human fallibility—quandoque bonus dor- 
mitat Homerus; least of all in matters of this kind must we 
look for inerrancy. A manuscript whose testimony was 
decisive on every point would be even a greater miracle than 
a book printed without a single error at the time of the 
Incunabula, which the printers of that age would have 
regarded as an eighth wonder of the world. But how to 
estimate the character of such a witness, seeing that the sub- 
jective feeling, the instinctive perception of what is original, 
is as little to be trusted as the number of the witnesses—that 
is the difficulty. And what is the point that our discussion 
has brought us to? From the “official recensions of the 
text” made in the later centuries, we sought to get back to 
similar works of earlier times, and we found that the original 
text may have suffered as much at the hands of orthodox 
revisers and correctors, who toned down and obscured the 
fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands of 
heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements.! 
Unfortunately very little definite information has come down 
to us from those early times, and as that relates more to the 
history of the canon than of the text, reference must be made 
here to the monumental work of Zahn.? Two figures, however, 


1 At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and Acts, 
but in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to present the alternative 
“original or later alteration” or even forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly 
stated. Blass was not the first to express the opinion, ‘*‘Lucam bis edidisse 
Actus.” De Dieu did so before him, and by an examination of those passages of 
the Gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely ‘‘ Western ” 
witnesses Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non-Western 
texts may have ‘‘started respectively from a first and a second edition of the 
Gospels, both conceivably apostolic.” Similarly Wordsworth and White are 
unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manu- 
scripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document 
itself contained certain variants (corrections) in the passages in question. 

2 Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen): I. Band, Das W.7. 
vor Origenes, 1 and 2 Hialfte, 1888-89; II. Band, Urkunden und Belege zum 
ersten und dritten Band, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that the third volume 
will not be long in making its appearance. Along with this we must take his 








CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 197 


emerge from this chaos who have left their traces on the 
history of the text as well, Tatian and Mareion, the former 
chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the 
Pauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more 
than once in the chapter on the “ Materials” (Tatian, p. 97 f. ; 
Marcion, pp. 76, 87), and both will require careful considera- 
tion here in our treatment of the principles involved in the 
reconstruction of the text. How much would be achieved 
could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the 
Gospels, or the Gospel and the Apostle of Marcion ! 

(f) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a 
few less important notices to be gleaned from their own and 
the preceding time. 

Nearly all the hereties were in turn accused of falsifying the 
Scriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true, 
“jedere ketter heeft zijn letter” (every heretic has his letter, 
his text of the Scriptures). In early times Justin charged the 
Jews with such falsification in the Old Testament, and Lagarde 
was sometimes inclined to suspect that the Massoretic 
numbers in Genesis had been manipulated by the opponents 
of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently made 
against the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and when 
we glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseud- 
epigraphical writings, it is abundantly evident that at various 
times there was a good deal of falsification—z.e., a good deal 
written under false names. At the same time it cannot be 
denied that alterations were also made on early Christian 
works and the books of Scripture in the interests of dogma. 
These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from quite harm- 
less changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections, 


Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der althirchlichen 
Literatur, of which six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile 
Zahn’s Einleitune in das Neue Testament (Leipzig, I., 1898 ; II., 1899, 2nd ed., 
1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. _It contains a great deal of valuable 
material for the criticism of the text. Needless to say, textual criticism is the basis 
on which all sound exegesis rests. 

1 A small selection will be found in Preuschen, Aza/ecta, pp. 152-157. 


Heretics. 


198 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


and, it may be, even wilful corruptions.1 But most assuredly _ 


the heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this 
offence: Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra. 

As Julicher (Zzz/., 378) points out, the orthodox Church 
teachers were very fond of making this charge against the 
heretics: tapadXaocewv, Tapaxyapaccew, padovpyeiv, diapBetperv, 
e€apety, apavi€e, katopOovwyr (ironically), azoxorrew, TapakoT- 
Tew, TepikoTTe, meTaTiéval, tpooTOeva, interpolare, adul- 
terare, violare, corrodere, dissecare, auferre, delere, emendare 
(ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere, these are some 
of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion gave 
occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke 
and the Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics, 
especially the Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Nova- 
tians, Arians, and Donatists, and against the Nestorians, the 
same accusation is made as was formerly brought against the 
Jews. Even within the pale of the Church one party attri- 
buted such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster, e,¢., believed 
that in the case of important discrepancies between the Greek 
and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the 
presumption of the Greek writers who had interpolated 
spurious matter. Jerome was afraid this would be said of 
him if he ventured to make the slightest alteration: quis 
doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in vocem, 
me falsarium, me, clamans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid 
in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in 
Apoc. xxii. 18 f. was also referred to the “falsifiers,’ who 
thought it more convincing and more reverent to observe the 
rules of grammar and logic than to abide by all the peculiar 
expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of Cyprian 
bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting 
the verse John v. 8, substituted for cpaBarros the better 
Greek word cxiuzous, another shouted to him in the hear- 
ing of all the multitude, “ Art thou better than he who said 


! Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring to the 
history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon. 





CHAP.*III. | THEORY AND PRAXIS, 199 


xpaGBarros that thou art ashamed to use his words?”! And 
it is a well-known fact that in the time of Augustine there 
was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation over 
Jonah’s “ gourd” (cucurbita) or Jonah’s “ivy” (hedera). A 
few references at least may be collected here :— 


(1) On a certain Sunday? in the year 170 or thereabouts, 
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Rome 
through their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the 
following among other passages (Zec/. Hist., iv. 23) :—EmurroAas yap 
dedAhov dkwodvtov pe ypayar éypaya. Kat ravras oi rod diaBodov 
dméatodo.® filaviov yeyepixav, & pev earpotvres, & O€ mpoorbévres. 
Ofs 7d oval xetrar.t Ob Oavpaordv apa,” «i Kat tov Kupiaxov 
padvovpyjoat tives eryBeBAnvrac ypapav, dor Kai Tals ov ToLavTaLs 
éryBeBovrevcaor. The xvpiaxat ypadai are in all likelihood the 
Gospels (the Syriac renders “the writings of our Lord”), but may 
also include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we are to take 
the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would appear that 
these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted by means 
of “additions” and “omissions.” The last sentence, if it is put 
correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us to infer 
that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his surprise that the 
writings of the Lord should have been falsified. To which Dionysius 
replies that certain letters of his own had been falsified also, and that 
it was therefore no wonder if they did the same to the writings of 
the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or, eve) with those that were 
inferior to them. The simplest explanation of the words is, un- 
doubtedly, that Dionysius sought to console himself over the fate that 


1 Jiilicher, Joc. cé¢., from Sozomen, Hést. Eccl., i. 11. On the Latin form 
grabattum, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, oxiumovs occurs as early as Clem. Al. 
Paed., 1, 2,6. Inthe parallels to Mark ii. 6, Matthew has xAivn (ix. 6), and 
Luke xaividiov (v. 24). Cf the passage cited by Lagarde (De Wovo Test., 20= 
Ges. Abh., 118) from Lucian’s Philopseudes, 11; 5 Midas adtds dpduevos Tov 
oxlumoda ep’ ob éxekdusoto @xeTOo els Gypoy amidy. 

2 Tiv ohuepov oty Kupiaxhy tuepay dinydyouev, ev 7 aveyvwuev buay tiv 
emiotoAhy’ hv Ckouey del mote avaryiveoKovtes vovbeTeiobat, ws Kal Thy ™poTépav 
ju bia KAnuwevtos ypapetoay. 

3 Cf. Matt. xiii. 27, 50A01 Tod olkodeandrov, and also the superscriptions of the 
N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul, where S00A0s *Inood Xpioro is varied 
by amécrodos ’I. X. 

4 is reserved ”—Syr. 5 but ”—Syr. 


Artemonites. 


200 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. 1a OE 


had befallen his letters, by reflecting that it was not surprising that they 
had falsified his letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed 
to do the same evex to the writings of the Lord. On the first inter- 
pretation, one would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger 
expression to describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred 
writings than the mere ot @avpacrév. Who are meant by tues? 
One most naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account, 
Soter, whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed 
a book against the Montanists. 

(2) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical 
History (c. xxviii.), entitled Iept rév tiv “Apréuwvos aipecw eéapyis 
mpoBeBAnpevwv: ool Te Tov TpOTOV yeyOvacl Kal OTws TAS cylas ypadas 
dtapGeipar reroApyKacw, Eusebius quotes the following complaint from 
an earlier source, entitled the Lztéle Labyrinth (+ 235) :—Tpadas pev 
Gelas addBus pepadiorpyyjkacw, mictews dé dpxaias Kavova AOerHKACH, 
Xpirtov b€ Pyvonkacw, ov Ti ai Oelar A€yovor ypadai Lytodvtes, but 
occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry, Euclid, Aristotle, 
Theophrastus, and Galen, tats tév drictwv téxvais, THY aaa TOV 
Gelwv ypapav riotw Karnhevovtes . . . . Oud TOTO Tais Helars ypadais 
apoBus éréBadov tas xeipas, Néyovtes aitas StewpOwKévar. Kat ore 
TOUTO py KaTaPevdopevos aiTdv Aێyw, 6 BovdAdpevos SvvaTar pabetv. Ei 
yap ts OedAnoe cvyxopicas aitév Exdotov Ta avtiypada eerdlew mpos 
adApra, Kata ToAY av evpor duapwvotvta. “Ao’udpwova yorv éoTar Ta 
"Ackhytiddov tots @eoddrov. odrdAgv S& éorw edropnoa Sua 7d 
piroripws eyyeypidbar trois pabytas aitav ra id? Exdotov aitav, os 
aitol Kadovor KatTwpOwpéva Tovtéestw npavicpeva. Tddu 8é rovrous 
7a “Eppodirov ob cvvade. Ta yap “Ato\Awvidov odd aird éavtois éort 
cipdova. “Everts yap ovykpivat Ta mpdotepov ix adtav! KatacKev- 
agGevra Tos vaoTepov waAdw eridvactpadeict, Kal e€tperv KaTa TOAD 
amgdovta. “Oons d€ toApys éott TodTO TO dpdpTypa, €iKds pnd Execvous 
dyvoev. “H yap ov morevovow “Ayiw Ivetpari Ned€xGar ras Oelas 
ypapas, Kal eiow amirrou 7) éavtors yyobvTar Gopwtéepovs Tod “Ayiov 
Ilvevpatos imdpxev, kat ti érepov 7) daipovdow; Ovoe yap apvnoacbas 
dvvavtar éavtdv civar TO TOApNma, SrdTav Kai TH abrdv xeEpl F 
yeypappeva, Kat zap’ ov KatnynOnoav py TovavTas zapehaBov Tas 
ypapds: Kai deta. avtiypada, obey aita peteypdavto, pi) éxwow. 
"Evoc 6€ aitév ovdé rapaxapdooew éiwoav aitas, GAN drdds 


' This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against $m aitod read by 
Christophorson and Savil. 


CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 201 


dpvnodpevor TOv TE VOpov Kal Tos Tpodyras dvopov Kat aOéov didac- 
kadias mpopdcer xapiros, eis Erxatov awXeias dAcHpov Katwd(oOyrav. 
The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the 
writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because 
their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts, 
“each one’s emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are 
corruptions,” as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not quite 
certain that xarwpwpméva really means corrected manuscripts of the 
Bible, and not the heretics’ own works—v.e., whether we should 
understand dyriypada tdv Oeiwy ypadov after ra ’"AokAnmidoov, Ta 
@coddrov, TA ‘Eppodirov, ra ’AvoANwvidov and not rather ypappara or 
owtdypara. In the former case we shall have to search for a 
recension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in 
the case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a 
later. This interpretation of the words does certainly receive sup- 
port from the positive way in which the historian argues from the 
conduct of these heretics, that they either did not believe in any 
inspiration of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better 
themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive ras 
ypadds in that form (rovavras) from their (Christian) instructors, and 
were not able to show any older copies from which their own were 
transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, we 
may conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius 
mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvil. 9, 
Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts i. 22, 
t Tim. ii. 5; while Hippolytus argues against them on the ground 
that in John i. 14, it is not 7o rvetpa but o Noyos capE éyevero. No 
sure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T. 
passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. The 
most probable instance is Luke i. 35. “If we may trust the state- 
ment of Epiphanius,” says Harnack (Monarchianismus, PRE®, x. 188), 
«‘Theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from 
the first (81d Kat 7d yevvespevor x cod dyvov KAnOjoeraL, vids @eod),! as 


1 The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation. 
Bengel punctuates ayov, KAnOhoeTra vids cod, and Westcott and Hort Gay:ov 
KAn@hoerat, vis @cod. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing Bengel 
along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of Tertullian (see Bengel’s 
Gnomon). It will be difficult to prove that Tertullian’s construction is impossible 
‘on account of the position of KAn@joerat.” Westcott and Hort surely know 
Greek, and Tertullian knew it better than any of us. 


Marcosians. 


202 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Ti 


if the words 66 «ai were wanting, which makes the sentence imply 
that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his approving himself. 
But perhaps Theodotus omitted 6:6 xai altogether, just as he seems 
to have read veto kvupiov instead of rved}a &yiov, in order to obviate 
all ambiguity.” The latter reading is not mentioned in Tischendorf, 
and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion amounts to this, that 
whereas he understood dyuov to be the subject of the sentence, 
Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it from yevvepevov.} 

(3) Speaking of the Marcosians,? Irenzeus says (g2):—Eva 8 
kal Tov ev EtayyeNiw Kepevwv eis TodTov Tov yapaxThpa pebapydCovow 
» 1 4 « GANA Kal €v TO eipnkévar + ToAAGKIS ereOvpnoa dKodtoa. Eva TOY 
Aoywv Kat otk exxov Tov épodvra, éudaivovtds fact Seiv dua Tod évds TOV 


* It seems worth while to quote here Harnack’s words on these notices of the 
earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (#é7d., p. 189) : ‘‘ The charge pre- 
ferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner (Theodotus) by the author of 
the Little Labyrinth is threefold. _ He complains of their formal and grammatical 
exegesis of Scripture, of their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the 
extent to which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical Science. 
At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these people had no interest 
to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is the case. The complainant 
himself has to confess that they employed the method of grammatical exegesis 
‘with the object of establishing their godless conclusions,’ and textual criticism 
in order to correct the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the 
allegorical method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we 
have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the original 
instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How inimitable and charming 
really are these notices! . . . . These scholars had to be generals without an 
army, because their grammar and textual criticism and logic might only discredit 
in the eyes of the churches that christological method which long tradition had 
invested with admiration and respect. . . . . As ‘genuine’ scholars—this is an 
exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them—they also took a 
jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his conjectures and emendations. 
No remnants have been preserved of the works of these the first scholarly exegetes 
of the Christian Church (the Syntagma knows of the existence of such ; cf Epiph. 
lv. c. 1). So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is saidin the text of Eusebius 
of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the sentence which 
Harnack renders ‘‘ for their disciples have with an ambitious zeal recorded what 
each one has corrected as they call it, that is corrupted (deleted ?),” :Arotinws 
eyyeypapba is to be understood simply of a diligent record of ‘‘ corrections” 
undertaken solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac 
npavicueva is not to be rendered by “‘ deleted,” but as Harnack translates it: cf 
the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse 16 (SyrP), verses 19 and 20 (Syr?°). 
On the validity of the charge of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, GA. 1, 296 f. 

2 Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff. 








;CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 203 


aAnOas eva Meov. This seems to contain areference to Matt. xill. 17, 
but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words of 
Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text itself! The still 
earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to be taken as referring to this 
practice, ds av pefodev’n Ta Adyia Tod Kupiov zpos tis idias éeriOupias 
kat A€éyyn pate dvactacw pyre Kpiow [elvat], otros mpwrdtoKds éaTL TOD 
arava. For the exposition of the passage see Zahn, GK. i. 842. 

(4) That Basilides? altered the text of the Gospels as received by 
the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical views, 
and incorporated them in their altered form in his Zvangelium, is 
shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (GX. i. 771). He shows also 
that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic narrative may have 
prepared the way for the belief that Simon the Cyrenian was crucified 
instead of Jesus, if this was really his doctrine. 

(5) Hippolytus says of Noétus (Lagarde’s edition, 45, 19): d7drar 
yap GAnocwow ravorpyeverGa, TepLKOTTOVEL TAs ypadds. He means 
by this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quota- 
tions, and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying 
regard to the context. But compare cévd., line 7 ff., ai wev yap ypapat 
6pOas N€yovow, GAG Gv Kat Noytos vo: ovdK Hdn de ei Nonros pi) voet, 
Tapa TOUTO EKBAHTOL at ypadai. 

(6) Heracleon,* the Valentinian, is said to have read zévre instead 
of €£ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration himself or 
found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly made out. 
There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon, or in our com- 
mentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, Zz¢vod., i1. 260, n. 3, where 
reference is made to Lightfoot’s Codossians, p. 336, n. 1. Origen, 
commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in support of the reading 
“ Bethany,” which, he says, ‘‘is found in almost all the manuscripts.” 

In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the 
Scriptures, Irenzeus says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12): scripturas 
quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt, quaemadmodum 
ostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6): Kat od povov éx 
Tov ebayyeAikGv Kal TOV GrooTONiKOV TeLpOVTaL TAs drode(EELs ToLEtoOaL 
TApaTpEeTOVTES TUS Eppyveias Kal padiovpyodvTes Tas eEyynoels, GAAG Kal 
€x vopov kat tpodytov. But ini. 11, 9 he says of them: Illi vero qui 
sunt a Valentino . . . . suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere 

1 Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 310. ? [bid., p. 291. 

3 Tbid., p. 303 ff. Cf. Texts and Studies, vol. i. 4: The Fragments of Heracleon, 
by A. E. Brooke, M.A. 


Basilides 


Noétus 


Valen- 
tinians. 


Gnostics. 


204. GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia, siquidem in tantum processerunt o 
audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim scriptum est, “veritatis evange- _ 


lium ” titulent, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec 
evangelium sit apud eos sine blasphemia. For the continuation and 
discussion of the passage, see Zahn, GX. ii. 748. See also 
Westcott, Canon, p. 298 ff. 

Zahn (GX. ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text 
of the manuscripts, by the omission of irép airéy, e.g. in 1 Cor. 
xv. 29, and the insertion of Geornres in Col. i. 16. 

In i. 8, 1, Irenzeus accuses them of é dypdduwv GvaylvwoKovTes. Kal 
TO 07) Aeyopevov €E dppov cxoivia TAEKEs exiTydevovres- The proverb 
is from Ahikar. 

The well-known charge made by Celsus (Orig. con. Cels., 2, 27; 
Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the 
re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration: Mera radra 
Twas Tov mioTevovTwv pyoiv (Celsus) ds ek pens AKovras eis TO 
edeotdvar avTois meTaXapaTTeLy ex THS TpOTNS ypadys TO edayyeALov 
TPLXT Kal TeTPAXH Kal ToAAaXH, iv’ Exorev Tpds Tors eA€yxous apveio Oar. 
Meraxapaéavtas 5¢ 76 ebayyeAvov GdAovs ovdk ola 7) TOUS ad Mapxiwvos 
Kal Tovs ard Ovadertivov olpar d€ Kal Tovs dd Aovkidvov. Todro dé 
Aeydpevov od Tod Adyov éotiv eyxAynpa GAAG Tov ToApHodVTHOV 
padiovpyjoa Ta evayyéAua. Kai dorep od dirocodias éyxAnud ciow 
ot cogicrat 7 ot “Exuxovpeor 7 of Tepuraryrixot 7) oitwés ror dv dow 
ot Wevdodogodytes, ovTws od Tod GAnOwod xpioTLavicpod eyKAnwa ot 
peTaXapartovTes Ta evaryyédia Kal aipéoeas Sévas erevoayovtes TO 
BovAyjpati tHS “Inood didacKxadéas. 

(7) Clement (.S¢vom., iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics corrupted 
the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing the emphasis 
(in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in copying manu- 
scripts ?) ; see Zahn, GA. i. 424. On Tertullian’s complaint as to the 
way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see below, p. 276. 

(8) Clement (Stvom., iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. 10a, to which he 
annexes the reason found in verse 9/, and then goes on to say, 7 ds 
Twes TOV petaTibevTwy Ta evayyeAta, Maxapuo, dyoiv, ot deduwypevor trép 
THs Sixaocvyys, Ott adtol évovrar TéAcor. Zahn (GK. i. p. 411) makes 
the surmise that when Clement spoke of certain persons who “ trans- 
posed” or altered the Gospels—z.e., took liberties with the text, he 
may have been thinking of Tatian, whose personal intercourse he 
may have enjoyed for a length of time, and with whose Greek writings 
he shows himself to be familiar. 





CHAP. III. | THEORY AND PRAXIS. 205 


(9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene Simon Magus 

Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the Scriptures Ce ae 
by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as addressing 
the Fathers at Niczea, and enjoining them, in dealing with heretics, 
to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the holy Scriptures 
and those who merely interpret them falsely. The arch-heretic Simon 
Magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious Scripture. His sect 
possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which they gave the title 
“Tiber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi.” The Phocalites 
(Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the Church’s 
New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in which 
the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the Marcion- 
ites : Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt addideruntque 
Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in locis, quaedam 
vero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio omnino sustu- 
lerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret opinionibus 
ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt “ Librum propositi finis.” 
See Zahn, GK. ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi, Conc. Col/., 
i. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd. ed., 
1. 361-368, 282 f.; Harnack, Der Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Maruta 
von Maipherkat, TU. (New Series), iv., 1899; ZhLz., 1899, 2. 

(10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (De Sfiritu, iti. 10): Quem Arians. 
locum ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de 
vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de 
Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae infideli- 
tatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupa- 
verat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus suis 
incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium vestrum 
in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc etiam 
in oriente fecistis. 

(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, Greeks. 
xvii. 100 f.): Et tamen sic (¢.e. su) Guaptyoavres) praescribitur nobis 
de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod facit 
studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non 
potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi verba 
legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur. Con- 
stat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus graecis translatos 
(esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit et 
probat: postquam autem a concordia animis discedentibus et haere- 
ticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus coeperunt, multa immutata 


Marcion. 


206 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc contineretur in litteris quod homini 
videretur, unde etiam ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem 
verum arbitror, quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur : 
nam hodie quae in latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur 
a veteribus posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correc- 
tion ‘fhodie quae” for ‘‘hodieque” in the last sentence is due to 
Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as 
being the earliest instance known to me of the collocation of vatio 
and auctoritas as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Com- 
pare the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier 
polemics — e.g. against Prierias, and also later in his protest at 
Worms. 

Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. 11. 1, with reference to Acts 
XV. 20, 29: Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen 
a sanguine abstinendum adw/teran¢t scripturam, quartum mandatum 
addentes “et a suffocatis observandum,” quod puto nec ne Dei nutu 
intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt. 


g) Mareion.—We have more exact information in regard 
to Marcion’s great undertaking than to these slender attempts 
at textual criticism. Here there is a fuller stream of testi- 
mony both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. It must be 
confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been directed 
more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally 
than to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here 
again, the works of Zahn throw most light upon the subject ; 
in other works, like the PRE eg., this side of Marcion’s 
activity is very superficially treated. Several points have 
already been referred to here and there in the previous part 
of this work, but the question must now be treated as a 
whole.* 


1 On the literature of the subject, cf Zahn, GA. i. 585-718, Das MN. 7. 
Marcions ; ii. 409-529, MJarctons N. T. All other works are superseded by 
this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, Das Evangelium Marcions'in 
setner ursprtinglichen Gestalt (1823); Thilo, Codex Apocryphus Nove Testamenté 
(1832: for this work Hahn attempted to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486) ; 
A. Ritschl, Das Evangelium Marcions und das kanonische Evangelium des Lucas 
(1846); Hilgenfeld, in the Z, f. hést. Theol., 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday, Zhe 
Gospels in the Second Century, c. vill. 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 207 


In the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion’s 
New Testament, Zahn avers that no church teacher of the 
second century occupies such an important position in the 
history of the ecclesiastical canon as does that early writer. 
If this is really so, it becomes all the more important for us to 
inquire whether traces of his influence may not be discover- 
able also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament. 

Marcion’s New Testament, which was at the same time his 
entire Bible, consisted of two books of moderate compass— 
viz. a Gospel-Book, which he seems to have called Evayyédcov 
simply, and a collection of tex Pauline Epistles called, prob- 
ably by himself, ro “AwooroNrxor (sc. Bi 3Xiov). The Epistles 
were arranged in an order which was evidently thought to 
correspond to that of their composition—viz., Gal., 1 and 2 
Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos (= Ephes.), Col., Phil., 
Phm. He was unanimously accused by the Church teachers 
of having mutilated the ecclesiastical Bible in the manufac- 
ture of his own, and also of having corrupted the text here 
and there by means of interpolations, particularly in the case 
of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted. They com- 
plained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it 
for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are 
employed nowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted 
not words merely but whole pages. They compared his work 
upon the manuscripts to that of a mouse.’ And as for his 
disciples! Every day they were improving their Gospel. 
Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the 
writings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work, 
and removed whatever did not concur with their views.’ 


1 The proof passages will be found in Zahn, GA’. i. 620, 626, 663: machaera non 
stilo: erubescat spongia Marcionis (Tert., v. 4, p. 282. Is it permissible to infer 
from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the Bible at that time? 
—cf. Augustine, Con. Jui., iii, 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo con- 
vertatur in minium) : non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque 
subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit (con. Marc., 
i. 1): tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus (Adamantius). 

2 See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (sc. evangelium), 
prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius (Psezdo-Origenes, de 
la Rue, i. 887=Lat. in Caspart Anecdota, i. 57) in Zahn, GA, i, 613. 


His New 
Testament, 


208 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP, III. 


But according to testimony extending over a long stretch 
of time, their text of the Scriptures seems to have under- 
gone fewer alterations during that period than that of 
the Catholic Church (Zahn, GX. i. 613). In comparing 


the text of these two collections “it should be clearly. 


understood that the Church’s text, whose treatment by 
Marcion is in question, is not to be identified with that 
of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of Epiphanius, 
but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church 
or in the Roman community about the year 150. The text 
of the ecclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his 
labours can no longer be restored in every word, but sufficient 
means are at our command to give us a general idea of the 
form which the text of the Pauline Epistles presented in the 
second century, and at the same time to ascertain in many 
separate instances what text Marcion had before him. It turns 
out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion’s text 
to one who compares it with the ¢ertus receptus, or with one of 
our modern critical editions, without knowing much about the 
history of the text, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but 
was pretty common in the West in early times. Now it is 
quite inconceivable, in view of the implacable hostility of the 
Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned as it was unceas- 
ingly as being heretical and spurious, should have exerted any 
positive influence on that of the Church! It follows, accord- 
ingly, that all those things in Marcion’s Bible that seem to 
the uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are 
attested by Catholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic 
writers, were not invented by Marcion, but taken by him from 
the Church’s Bible of that time, or from one such Bible at all 
events, and were only gradually ousted from the text used by 
the Church.”? All this, which is taken word for word, with 


1 Cf. also GK. p. 681. 

2 Cf. Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. § 9, Marcion: ‘‘Some of the omissions can 
be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary 
corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest, 





nh 
: 


sr 





CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 209 


the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from 
Zahn’s dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at 
that time have been self-evident, but, like Zahn’s further 
statements in the same place, has not yet been sufficiently 
attended to, especially in our commentaries on Luke and 
the Pauline Epistles. He points out, eg., that Tertullian, in 
speaking of the change of the address “ad Ephesios” to 
“ Taodicenos,” credits Marcion with the intention of being “et 
in isto diligentissimus explorator,” so that it is possible that he 
compared several manuscripts in order to discover the original 
wording.! In such cases, therefore, the question may be asked 
whether Marcion may not really have preserved the original 
text, and whether his text, so far as it is corroborated by any 
independent tradition, should not be estimated much higher 
than it is by the textual critics of the present? Zahn deserves 
all the more credit for giving such careful attention to ques- 
tions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his inves- 
tigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt 
chiefly with those passages in which Marcion’s intentional 
alterations have been preserved. Reference may be made, 
e.g. to the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled 
Minor Emendations, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his His 
hostility to the Old Testament with its God of Righteousness, cee 
omitted the quotations from the Old Testament altogether, or 
dropped the introductory formula of quotation in Rom. i. 17, 
xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; excluded all the references to Abraham 


dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession” 
(p. 315). See also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings 
peculiar to Marcion are cited. : 

1 Cf, also zézd., p. 684, and see below, p. 313.1 

2 Cf also zbid., p. 682: “I repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier 
than Marcion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several 
Catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles 
than has generally been accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain 
whether a certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it 
occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however, the critical 
notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion, not to speak of their 
doing so systematically.” 

O 


Marcion 
and the 
Western 
Text. 


210 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. 108 


in Galatians except in iv. 22; altered ayvootvtes tiv Tov Oeot 
dtxacoovvny in Rom. x. 3 to ayvoovvtes Tov Meov; removed the 
words yevOmevoy ék yuvatkos, yevOuevoy vo vouoy from Gal. 
iv. 4; changed the active construction into the passive in 
1 Cor. iii. 17 ; and elsewhere strove after greater condensation, 
lucidity, and brevity of expression. Marcion, says Zahn, had 
good grounds for believing that the text of the Scriptures 
had not remained unchanged during the century that had 
elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with 
more truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles ; 
but to attempt to rid the Apostle’s text of all supposed cor- 
ruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material what- 
ever, but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive 
sense of what was genuinely Christian and apostolic, was the 
undertaking of a giant, as Irenzeus calls Marcion. And his 
disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have 
exceeded the intention of the master and editor, “just as 
many Lutherans at the present day look upon Luther’s trans- 
lation, with all its faults, as the very word of God, and hardly 
capable of improvement.” 

In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone 
still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism 
of the text.!_ His main conclusions will hardly be contested. 
Among these are the following :-— 

1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although 
his text displays various elements belonging to Matthew and 
Mark; 

2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the 
ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the 
same or similar features ; 

3. That Marcion’s text shows? none of those small “apoc- 
ryphal additions” which we find combined with the contents 
of our Gospels in Justin and Tatian. 


1 Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources; pp. 449-529, the restoration of 
the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the earlier works of Hilgenfeld, 
Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction. * Zahn interjects ‘‘as yet.” 





CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 211 


Zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manu- 
scripts which still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited 
to Marcion, and which are precisely the Western witnesses, 
the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of the Greek.! Compare, 
ezg.,on Luke v. 14, 34, 39; vi. 25 f., 31,37; viii.45; ix. 6, 16,22; 
Bee22, 25), Xi 20, AL; xii, 14°31, 58 fi; xvili?) 35 ; xx 36" 
XXi. 27, 30; xxiv. 6,26, 37. But there are also passages where 
Marcion parts company with D and its associates—e.g., vi. 22, 
26, 29; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages display- 
ing agreement between Marcion and D, G, preponderates: 
renin Ss) tlie PAM WaT. 84,924"; 1. Cor. i. 48:3 ‘2 Cora v4 
Mel nesseiv. LOs epi. 1 O411 3; iil. 103 1vi 6: v.'28 f° Lhe 
agreement between Marcion’s text and that of the minuscule 
157 was previously emphasised by Zahn—e,g., in Luke xvi. 12, 
where the reading ro éuov instead of 70 iuérepor (uérepov BL) 
is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript alone and three 
old Latin (ei1), and in xxi. 30, where only one other of the 
minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading 
TpoBarwaw tov kaprov avtov.2. In Luke xxiv. 26, D and 
Marcion are our only witnesses for the reading $7: instead of 
ovxi. How is this to be explained ? Zahn, ¢.g., holds that it is 
a mere coincidence that Marcion’s reading, “ prophetas suos,” ? 
in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with tovs idtovs tpogpyras read by 
D, E, K, L,, ze., the representatives of the Antiochean recen- 
sion, with which Marcion elsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing 
he founds throughout upon a Western text. In the great 
majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple enough. 


1 We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion’s text. 
The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the hatred with which 
Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain libellatici have been found, 
and also a great part of the Gospel of Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost 
works as well, Codex 604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading, 
€AGEeTw Td mvedud cov ef Huds Kal Kalapiodtw judas, in the Lord’s Prayer, Luke 
xi. 2, The same manuscript omits we Aéyere evar in Luke ix. 20, and a¢youca 
in verse 35. Compare also Jiilicher, Glecchnisreden Jesu, ii, 5 : *‘ Marcion, who 
perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30.” 

* On this passage W.-W. observe: ‘‘ D ex Latinis forsan correctus.” 

* “*Licet seos adiectio sit haeretici.” Tertullian, 


Tatian. 


212 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ CHAP. III. 


Marcion began his career at Rome, so that we may naturally 
expect him to give us a Western text. So far, therefore, one 
might be tempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto, 
although a text attested by Marcion and the Church in 
common is surely entitled, even in respect of its antiquity, to 
much more consideration than has been paid to it heretofore. 
The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of the 
problem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as 
his, or at all events one of a similar sort, represented in a 
totally different quarter—viz. in Tatian.! 

(2) Tatian? has already been referred to in a general 
way above (p. 97 ff.): we shall now give the testimony of 
the early church regarding him verbatim. If we leave 
out of account the somewhat doubtful reference in Hege- 
sippus (p. 96), and an equally uncertain allusion to the 
title of his Harmony in Origen,> the testimony from purely 
Greek sources is confined to a few sentences in Eusebius,* 


1In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number of 
Marcion’s readings from Zahn’s work, with the hope that these will now earn 
a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See ¢.g. on Luke xviii, 20; 
XXIN. 2's XXIV. 37/3 L Cor., vi. 20:5 xiv. 19; 

* See Literature on p. 105f., to which add Westcott, Caso, Part I. c. iv. 
§ Io. 

° Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the Marcionites, he 
sayS: T) GAnOGs 51a Tecodpwy ev eotw evaryyéeAwov (Philocalia, ed, Robinson, 47 ; 
Zahn, GA. 1. 412; PRE®, v. 654). From what Origen says, Contra Celsum, 
vi. 51, it would seem that he himself heard Tatian. 

4 Euseb., Hzs¢. Eccl., iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites: Xp@vta: wey ob 
oro: Néuw kad Upophras kad Evayyedlors (Syriac has 11.9328), iSfws Epunvetovres 
tay lepav Ta vohuata ypapav ... . BAacdnuodytes 5¢ MavdAov toy amdaroAov 
aetovcw avtov Tas "EmotoAds, unde Tas Updters tay amoctéAav Kkatadexduevor. 
6 pevtor ye mpdrepos aitav apxnyds 6 Tatiavds cuvdderdy twa kal cvvaywyhy ovK 
018’ brws tav BiayyeAtwy cvvbels Td Aid Tecodpwy todTo mpotwvduacev® 9 Kal 
mapa tiow eloére pépetat, Tod d¢ ’AmoatdéAov pact TorAujoal Twas adrdy peTa- 
pica pwvas ds emdiopOovmevoy arav thy tis Ppdcews aivtakiv. Katadédorre 
dt ovToS TOAD TL TAHOOS Ypaumdrwy «.7.A. In the Syriac version it runs: But this 
Tatian, their first head, collected and combined and framed a (07, the) rane 
and called it jy100", that is ‘‘ the combined,” which is in the possession of many 
till this day. And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of 
the Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with the object 
of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left many writings, etc. 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 213 


a notice in Epiphanius,! and a scholion in a manuscript of 
the Gospels.” 

For more exact information we are indebted solely to the 
Syrian church. The Greek writer Theodoret gives us most 
details* The notices contained in Syriac and Arabic sources 
are more numerous than the Greek, but they are shorter and 
must be omitted here.t It becomes necessary, therefore, to 
consider very carefully whether any vestiges of Tatian’s work 
are preserved in our witnesses for the text, and how these 
may, and indeed must, be used in its criticism. I assume 
as having been demonstrated by Zahn, that Tatian’s Diates- 
saron was a Syriac work, and I take it as very probable that 
the Curetonian Syriac and the Lewis Syriac present us with 
two works based on, or at least influenced by, that of Tatian. 
To what extent the same is true of the Peshitto as well need 
not be considered here, the main problem being to elucidate 
the connection between Tatian and the Western witnesses. 
And here we are at once confronted with a matter of great 
uncertainty — viz., whether there might not also have 
been a Greek Harmony of the Gospels either antecedent to 

1 Epiphan., Waeret, 46, 1 (Pet. 391): Aéyouor 5¢ 7d id Tecodpwy EvaryyeAsov 
im’ avrod yeyevjoOat, rep Kara EBpatovs Twés kadovor. 

2 Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt. xxvii. 
48: onfuclwoat] br els Td Kad? foroptay edayyeAvoy Aroddpov kad Tattavod Kal 
tAdov diaddpwr aylwv rarépwy Todt mpocxeirat. Instead of Arodmpov, Harnack- 
Preuschen (i. 493), read Acadépov, whether rightly or not I do not know. Noth- 
ing being known of the historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to 
conjecture (Zahn, /orsch., i. 28) that the reading should be 6a 8’, but what becomes 
then of wpov kal? Harnack suggests 8:4 8’ Sdpov Tatavod, but see Zahn, Forsch., 
ii. 298. The omission of the article before 5:4 8’ is a difficulty. 

3 In his Emitouh alpetixijs kakouvOlas (i. 20; vol. iv. 312), written in the year 
453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian:—obros kal rd 61d Tecodpwr 
kadovmevoy ovvtélekey evaryyeduoy, Tas TE yeveadoylas wepiKdas Kal Th UAAG boa 
ek orépuaros AaBld kata capKa yeyevynuevoy Tv Kupiov Jelkvvow, exphoravTo de 
rovTw ov pdvor of THs exelvov cyumoptas, GAA Kal of Tots GmooroAtKois Exduevor 
Sdyuact, Thy Ths cuwvOnKns Kaxovpylay ovK eyvaxdres, GAA’ GamAovoTEpoy ws 
cuvtéum 7 BiBAlw xpnoduevor. Efpoy 5& Kayo wAcelous 7) Siakoolas BiBAous 
rowaras ev Tars wap Huiv exxAnotas TeTLuNLEvas, Kal mdoas Cuvayayov ameGeuny 
Kal Ta TOY TeTTApwy EvayyeALOTOY avTELoNyayor. 


4 See Hamlyn Hill, Zar/iest Life of Christ, etc., p. 324; Hope W. Hogg, Ante- 
Nicene Library, Additional Volume. 


214 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ CHAP. Ill. 


the Diatessaron or contemporary with it, which Tatian him- 
self made or employed. Zahn thinks not, mainly because 
from the side of the Greek Church we have almost no notice 
whatever of the existence of anything of this sort, nor of 
Tatian’s own work either. Harnack seems not to be con- 
vinced of the correctness of Zahn’s position! He even 
declares that Harris’s Preliminary Study * has only confirmed 
his “conviction that Tatian composed a Greek Harmony of 
the Gospels.” That treatise is accompanied by a facsimile 
of the fragment of Mark in Codex W‘, “the contents of which 
display an affinity with the text of the Diatessaron (with the 
original text ?).”* ‘At all events Harnack is of opinion that 
Harris’s conclusions with regard to a Pre-Tatian and a very 
early Harmony of the narrative of the Passion are very 
premature, and in his judgment should either not have been 
put forward at allina Preliminary Study or suggested with 
more deliberation. G. Kriiger also puts “this Combined 
Gospel written in Syriac (Greek ?)” in his Azstory of Early 
Christian Literature, § 37. Onthe other hand, Hogg in § 12 of 
his Introduction,®? NMox-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron, says 
nothing of a Greek text, and in § 19, where he raises the 
question, “ In what language was it written ?”, he speaks only 
of the “view favoured by an increasing majority of scholars, 
that it was written in Syriac,’ and then asks, on this view, 
“was it a translation or simply a compilation?” and lastly, 
which is the main question, “what precisely is its relation to 

. . . the Western text generally ?” 

In his first work, written prior to the publication of the 
Arabic text, Zahn very frequently pointed to the fact that 
the so-called Western witnesses—z.e., Codex D and the Old 


1 See Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, 1882, pp. 196-218, and, 
on the other side, Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 292 ff. 

* The Diatessaron of Tatian: a Preliminary Study, 1890. 

3 See Z2Lz., 1891, col. 356. 

* Tt is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not. For a 
reading of cod. W4, akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark vii. 33, p. 264. 

° Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38. 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 215 


Latin manuscripts, agree so often with Tatian.! His explana- Tatian 
tion of this phenomenon is very simple—viz., that Tatian ao 
returned from Rome to his old home in Syria about the Text. 
year 172, and took with him from the West his text, which 
was just the Western text. This view would present no 
difficulty if it were only the case that the Diatessaron shared 
the peculiarities of the Western text, but is the fact not 
rather the converse of this—viz., that D, the leading repre- 
sentative of that text, shares the peculiarities of a Harmony 
of the Gospels, might we say, in short, of the Diatessaron ? 
Not only are certain readings the same in both texts, but the 
Western text seems actually to exhibit features which can 
scarcely be regarded otherwise than as the outcome of a 
Harmony. I have given expression to this opinion ere now; 
it struck me forcibly when I was collating the Codex Bezae 
for my Supplementum Novi Testamenti Graeci. In order 
to afford a more convenient survey of the vast number of 
variants, I followed the paragraphing of Westcott and Hort’s 
edition. Now look at the variants there. Whereas the 
majority consist of quite separate and disconnected read- 
ings, I was obliged at the beginning of the pericope regu- 
larly to copy half a line or even a whole line from D, its text 
differed so much from that of our present editions at the 
beginnings of the pericope, and there only to the same 
extent. See, 2g., Luke v. 17, 27; vil. 1, 18; 1x37; x. I, 255 
xi. 14; xii. 1 to the end ; xxiv. 13. It is true this phenomenon 
is most frequently observed in Luke, where I had previously 
explained its appearance in another way by supposing like 
Blass that it was due to the author having issued two editions 
of that Gospel. But neither is it altogether absent from the 
other Gospels. It occurs most seldom, as might be expected, 
in Matthew, but examples may be seen in xvii. 22, 24; xx. 29. 
In Mark see iii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 7. There are other features 
besides this which are difficult of explanation on any other 
grounds. For these I may briefly refer to the second of 
1 See Forschungen, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263. 


216 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


the works relating to this part of the subject, Zhe Syro- 
Latin Text of the Gospels, by F. H. Chase} in which a special 
chapter is devoted to the question of “ Harmonistic Influence” 
(pp. 76-100). The writer calls attention there to three points, 
Viz. :-— 

1. “ The text of Codex Bezae shows constant indications 
of harmonistic influence.” This, however, is nothing new. 
Jerome, ¢eg., complains of amalgamations of this sort. But 
then, 

2. “In such harmonized passages readings occur which we 
are justified by other evidence in considering as Tatianic 
readings.” 

3. “ There are other signs of the influence of Syriac phrase- 
ology in, or in the neighbourhood of, such readings due to 
harmonistic influence.” 

I waive consideration of this last point, but as regards the 
second it is noteworthy, and bears out what I have said above, 
that Chase in this connection goes almost entirely by passages 
from Luke with the exception of Matt. xxi. 18; xxiv. 31 f.; 
xxvi. 59 ff.; and Mark viii. 10; xiii. 2; x. 25 ff. From Luke 
he instances iii. 23-38; iv. 31; v. lof, 14 f.; vi. 42; viii. 35; 
4 2K, 205 Ke 7 a. As omy, 

I should like, however, to call attention here to one passage 
to which Chase refers in another connection—viz., the extensive 
interpolation after Matt. xx. 28 (Chase, pp. 9-14). It is true, 
as Zahn expressly points out,? that neither Ephraem nor 
Aphraates, who were our only sources for the Diatessaron 
prior to 1881, “shows any traces of this long and in part apoc- 
ryphal interpolation, nor yet of Luke xiv. 7-10, from which 
the most of it is taken.” But in the Arabic Tatian, Luke 
xiv. 1-6 and xiv. 7-11, 12-15 are found after Matt. xx. 1-16 
at the end of § 29 and the beginning of § 30 respectively. 
The verse Matt. xx. 28, regarding which Zahn was uncertain 

1 London, Macmillan, 1895. 2 Forschungen, i. 179. 


* This will be found most conveniently in Hogg’s translation—Ante-Nicene 
Library, Additional Volume. 


CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 27 


whether it was in Tatian or not, seeing that neither Ephraem 
nor Aphraates mentions it, is found in § 31, 5 between Mark 
x. 44 and Luke xiii. 22, while Matt. xx. 29a (+ Mark x. 462) 
follows a little further down in § 31, 25. So far, indeed, 
this result is not favourable to our theory. But I ask my- 
self in vain how else this interpolation is to be explained 
except as an attempt at harmonising. Now, seeing that its 
text is found in one Syriac, two Greek, and half a dozen Latin 
witnesses (the particulars are given in the critical note, p. 255), 
the further question arises, Whence comes it? The most ready 
answer will be, “it comes from the Greek, whence it passed to 
the Latin on the one side and to the Syriac on the other.” 
As for the Latin, it is certain that the majority, perhaps even 
all, of the Latin forms are derived from the Greek. But are 
the Syriac as well? Or is not rather the converse true, how- 
ever strange it may seem at the first glance, that the Greek is 
atranslation of the Syriac? There is the word devrvo«djrwp, 
ég., which strikes me as it did Chase, as being particularly 
strange. I admit that I should not care to build a hypothesis 
of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage alone. 
I would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept 
in view in further investigations. And I would supplement 
it by another question whether, in the case of the first being 
negatived, it may not be true after all, pace Zahn, that there 
was a Greek Harmony alongside the Syriac and probably 
going back to the same author. May not the close re- 
semblances traceable between Tatian and the Western text 
be also accounted for on the supposition that instead of 
Tatian being influenced by the latter, it really goes back to 
Tatian ? 

I would ask this question specially in regard to the Western 
text of the Pauline Epistles. What is meant by the state- 
ment of Eusebius cited above as to Tatian’s treatment of 
these Epistles? Merag¢paoa may certainly mean to translate, 
but then one translates an entire text and not gwvds tivas 
merely, and, moreover, one does not translate a¢ émidtopOotmevos 


Syro-Latin. 


218 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


auTav THY THs Ppdcews oivtagéw “with a view to improving 
the phraseology and syntax.” Do not our Western witnesses 
present us with a work of this description? I am well aware 
that such hypotheses are like that regarding the author of 
the Nzbelungenlied where there was a great poem without a 
name and one or two great names without poems, and so 
various combinations were made, for each of which something 
could be said, while none of them could be said to be proved. 
That may be the case here too, But at present I feel disposed 
to attribute a considerable share in this peculiar ‘“ Western” 
text to Tatian. And as this name “ Western,” the inappro- 
priateness of which has long been recognised, becomes on this 
supposition more inappropriate still, I am inclined to recom- 
mend the freer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by 
the work of Chase, I mean that of “ Syro-Latin.” In his 
preface Chase puts in a plea for its use, citing a sentence 
from the Dublin Review of July 1894, p. 52, in which H. 
Lucas says: “The time is, we hope, not far distant, when the 
term Western will give place to the term Syro-Latin, the only 
one which truly represents, in our opinion, the facts of the 
case.” Just as when we wish to indicate those languages and 
tribes that extend from the Indian to the German and Keltic 
we say Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Keltic, if we wish to be more 
exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the French, so 
the term Syro-Latin would be the best designation for a form 
of text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among 
the Syrians in the East as among the Greeks in the centre 
and the Latins in the West. But be that as it may, one thing 
is clear, that many problems here await solution. But they 
will not for ever defy methodical investigation. 


The foregoing was all written before I saw the analysis given by 
Zahn in his Geschichte des Kanons, 1. 383 ff. Reading it, I am sur- 
prised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a thorough 
investigation of the subject long ere now. Personally, I am pre- 
cluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this direction. 
Zahn says: “The quotations of Aphraates frequently presuppose a 


CHAP. Ill. | THEORY AND PRAXIS. 219 


different Greek text (of the Pauline Epistles) than that lying at the 
foundation of the Peshitto. The repeated resemblances to Western 
texts, Claromontanus, Boernerianus (D G), Tertullian, and other 
Latin witnesses are particularly striking. In the earliest Syriac 
Gospel the same phenomenon appears even more conspicuously. 
How is it to be explained? Shall we suppose that this type of text 
was dispersed equally throughout a// parts of the Church during the 
second century? In that case we should have to regard it as the 
earliest form at which we can arrive, on the principle laid down by 
Tertullian: quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed 
traditum. But,” says Zahn, ‘even those who venerate the Western 
tradition of the text—vz.e. those who, like myself, are of opinion that 
it does not get nearly its due share of attention from present-day 
critics—will decline to assent to this proposition. Because the result 
of this view would be to establish the rule that the so-called Western 
tradition zzvariably deserves the preference over those others, even 
over our oldest Greek manuscripts themselves. Even if we limited 
it to those elements of the text in which the furthest East agrees 
with the furthest West, the result would still be a text to which no 
cautious critic would pin his faith. A more natural explanation of 
this striking condition of things is required.” Zahn finds this in the 
supposition that there was formerly a close intimacy between the 
Syrian Church and Rome. “Just as the Princes of Edessa had 
much direct intercourse with Rome, so to all appearance had the 
Church there.” In proof of this, he points to the early intrusion of 
Marcion’s doctrines and Bible into Mesopotamia, to the participa- 
tion of the Church of Edessa in the Easter controversy and its 
agreement in that matter with Victor of Rome, and to the Abgar 
Legend which connects Edessa with Zephyrinus of Rome (199-216) 
by way of Antioch, and represents Peter as sending the Epistles of 
Paul from Rome to Edessa. ‘Considering the anachronisms that 
legends usually exhibit, may we not take this to be the expression of 
an historical fact, viz. that a text written in the West formed the basis 
of the earliest Syriac version of the Pauline Epistles? This supposi- 
tion is confirmed by the earliest history of the Gospel among the 
Syrians—viz. by the Diatessaron.”1 After a most thorough discus- 
sion of all the questions relating to that book (pp. 387-422), Zahn 

1 Cf. p. 393: ‘To judge from Ephraem’s Commentary, the Diatessaron con- 


tains scarcely as much apocryphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis of the Gospels 
and Acts.” 


220 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


discovers in this part also (the Gospels) an intimate connection 
between the text on which it is based, and the form assumed by the 
text of the Gospels in the West during the second century. And he 
believes that it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of 
the remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very 
matter of their textual corruption and licence than this, that this 
text came from Rome to Syria. And so the final question arises, 
“‘whether a connection does not exist between the first Gospel and 
the first text of Paul and the Acts in the Syriac, and whether the 
entire N. T., as the Doctrine of Addai says, was not a present which 
Tatian brought with him from Rome to his countrymen, and adapted 
for their use by means of a free translation and revision?” Zahn 
thinks that a positive answer cannot be given, but he refers pointedly 
to what Eusebius says regarding Tatian’s treatment of the Pauline 
Epistles, and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced 
on the occasion and in the form of a translation from the Greek into 
Syriac, and that the reason why Eusebius had such hazy notions 
regarding it as well as the Diatessaron, is most likely that both the 
books were in Syriac, and used only in the Syrian Church. A closer 
investigation of the Pauline Epistles in the Syriac is needed to decide 
these questions. 

To these propositions of Zahn I have but the one objection 
stated above, that the expressions used by Eusebius point far too 
plainly to a revision of the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles, which 
could have been done only on the original Greek.! Zahn himself 
points out that the words of Eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere 
said of the Theodotians (Zcc/. ist, v. 28, 15. 18; see above, 
p. 200).2 


1 In his M. 7. zm 200, p. 108, Harnack treats Zahn’s interpretation of the words 
of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by saying among other 
things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius himself was aware of the double 
meaning of the word petadpdoa: which was employed in the tradition (he says 
gaor) reported to him. He thinks that Rufinus might be said to have “* para- 
phrased ” certain commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology 
in many places. True, but in Eusebius it is wyds tivas tod amoordAov, not whole 
epistles, that Tatian is said to have ‘‘metaphrased.” 

2 On the words of Jerome (ad 777. praef., vii. 686), ‘Sed Tatianus Encratitarum 
patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc 
est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum 
qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt assertionem,” compare Zahn, Forsch, i. 6, 
GK. 1. 426. 





CHAP. III.]} THEORY AND PRAXIS, 221 


(¢) The Western Text.—We thus find ourselves face to face 
with what has been called the only burning question of the 
textual criticism of the New Testament—the question, namely, 
of the place to be assigned to the so-called Western text. 
Our treatment of the external testimony has led us back 
through Lucian, Pamphilus, Hesychius, and Origen, to Marcion 
and Tatian, that is, into the middle of the second century. 
But the question is now whether we must stop here, or whether 
it is not possible to ascend with certainty even somewat higher 
by means of an investigation of the material afforded by the 
manuscripts themselves. The “ Higher Criticism,” ¢g., seeks 
to get behind the Synoptic Gospels to the documents which 
the authors or editors used in their composition; is it not 
possible for the “ Lower Criticism” to recover with certainty 
at least the primitive text of the New Testament books? And 
is that not most readily found in the so-called Western text ? 
We have been obliged to make frequent reference to it already ; 
the question for us now is, “ What is the value of Codex Bezae 
and its associates ?” 

It was observed by Theodore Beza himself, the scholar whose 
name the Codex justly bears, that the text of this manuscript 
differed in so many respects from that of others, especially in 
Luke and Acts, that he could give no explanation of it satis- 
factory to himself. He was not led to suppose that the altera- 
tions were due to heretics ; nevertheless, like a cautious man, 
he thought it more advisable to preserve the Codex than to 
publish it. Eight hundred years before, Bede was similarly 
impressed by the Codex which we now know by the name of 
Laudianus, E,, He indicated “quaedam quae in Graeco sive 
aliter seu plus aut minus posita vidimus.” He was uncertain 
“utrum negligentia interpretis omissa vel aliter dicta, an incuria 
librariorum sint depravata sive relicta . . . . namque graecum 
exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo.”’ When the 
manuscripts began to be more systematically collated, Bengel 
declared that the criticism of the text would be much simpli- 
fied if one were not bound to trouble himself with these 


Western Text. 


222 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


codices, which, as being written in Greek and Latin, he called 
vere bilingues. Old students of the Maulbronn College have 
told me that Ephorus Baumlein the most distinguished 
philologist of our Institute in this century, and editor of Dzs- 
guisitions on the Greek Particles and similar works, was always 
referring to the Codex Cantabrigiensis, though they themselves 
never rightly understood about this Codex, or indeed about 
such things at all. I do not know who it was from whom I 
myself first heard of it; certainly there was no particular 
importance attributed to it in my student days or at the college 
where I was. On the other hand, Tischendorf admitted its 
claims in opposition to all the other Greek manuscripts in 
several passages, such as Mark ii. 22; xi.6; Luke xxiv. 52, 53, 
etc. In other places he did so at first, but changed his opinion 
afterwards—e.g., in Acts xi. 12, while in others again, like 
Acts xiii. 45, he was inclined to accept its testimony, asserting 
expressly : Ceterum D quantopere passim inter omnes testes 
excellat constat. One of the things for which Westcott and 
Hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to 
Codex Bezae and its associates. Some of their remarks upon 
it will be found in the note below.! 


1 [ntrod,, ii. §170, p. 120. On all accounts the Western text claims our attention 
first. The earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it. As 
far as we can judge from extant evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of 
Ante-Nicene times; and sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt 
its influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this 
imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous 
study of its internal character. The eccentric Whiston’s translation of the Gospels 
and Acts from the Codex Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex 
Claromontanus, and Bornemann’s edition of the Acts, in which the Codex Bezae 
was taken as the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have 
ever been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even predominantly, 
Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what the Apostles wrote. This 
all but universal rejection is doubtless partly owing to the persistent influence of a 
whimsical theory of the last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western docu- 
mentary evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained that the 
Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from the Latin ; partly to an 
imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the Western text as revealed 
by Patristic quotations and by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception 
of the facts of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this text, 





CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS, 223 


That peerless scholar, P. de Lagarde, has even greater 
claims to honourable mention in this connection, though but 


as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western readings have long 
been approved by good textual critics on transcriptional and to a great extent insuffi- 
cient grounds ; and in Tischendorf’s last edition their number has been augmented, 
owing to the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting documents. 
To one small and peculiar class of Western readings, exclusively omissions, we shall 
ourselves have to call attention as having exceptional claims to adoption. 

§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D contains, 
these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by other documents derived 
from very ancient texts of other types, render it often invaluable for the secure 
recovery of the true text ; and, apart from this direct applicability, no other single 
source of evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on the 
equally important ground of historical or indirect instructiveness. To what extent 
its unique readings are due to licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful 
reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say ; but 
it is remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially Old-Latin 
evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which D had hitherto stood 
alone. 

§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before intimated 
(§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which we cannot doubt to be 
genuine in spite of the exclusively Western character of their attestation. They 
are all omissions, or, to speak more correctly, non-interpolations of various length, 
that is to say, the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered inter- 
polation in all the extant non-Western texts, . . . . With a single peculiar 
exception (Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words are omitted by the 
Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western non-interpolations are con- 
fined to the last three chapters of St. Luke. 

§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original text in 
exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an exceptional origin. 

In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an Additional 
Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable admission in the same direc- 
tion. It is as follows :— 

Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): ‘‘The Essays of Dr. Chase on The Syriac 
Element in Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1893, and Zhe Syro-Latin Text of the 
Gospels, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important contribution to the solution of a 
fundamental problem in the history of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the 
Sinaitic MS, of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the 
oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the 
primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which Syrs2 and 
k are arrayed against * B, would point to the conclusion.” [The proper title of 
‘Chase’s Essays is The Old Syriac, under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also 
-quotes them (£772/., ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the 
remark made in the Preface. ‘‘ For the rest,” he says there, ‘“‘I may perhaps be 
allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the general 
principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in the Notes since the 
publication of the First Edition, which were not fully considered by Dr. Hort and 


Lagarde. 


Blass. 


Zahn. 


224 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


little regard was paid to his representations during his life- 
time. As early as 1857, he said of Codex Cantabrigiensis : 
facile patet, quum similibus libris careamus et ultra Evangelia 
et Actus nondum cogitem, totius editionis meae quasi funda- 
mentum futurum esse hunc codicem Cantabrigiensem, sed 
eum eis librarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint 
(Gesam. Abh., p. 98). His chief merit, however, lies not in his 
having estimated Cantabrigiensis so highly, but in having 
assigned a lower value to the other manuscripts. By com- 
paring D with the earlier versions, and particularly by 
relying on the testimony of Epiphanius, he recognised in it 
a representative of an “editio emendatorum orthodoxorum 
temeritate corrupta” (zdzd., p. 96). Compare also his Ueder- 
sicht tiber die Bildung der Nomina, p. 213, where he instances 
éraéay avaBaivew of the “emendati” for zapiyyeAay avaBatvew 
(o) tas Be 

General attention was first directed to the question of the 
Western text, when Blass came forward with his view that it 
was quite wrong to present the problem in the shape of an 
alternative between D and A B, because both groups were 
right, D and its associates representing a first edition of the 
Acts and a second of Luke, and the other group conversely. 
I hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a veritable 
Columbus Egg, and to this day I am firmly persuaded that 
Blass’s theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate 
of the Western text. Readers may, perhaps, be struck by the 
fact, which Zahn has since made public (#zvZ, ii. 348), that in 
his practical class at Erlangen, in the winter of 1885-6, he set 
as the subject of the prize essay an “Investigation of the 


materially important peculiarities of Codex D in the Acts,” 


and made a note at the time of the result which he hoped to 
see the investigation arrive at—viz., “either the author’s first 


myself in the long course of our work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately. 
—Auckland Castle, March 27, 1896. B. F. D.” 

1 See my Phzlologica Sacra, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of Lagarde. 
His book may not be very accessible to textual critics. 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 225 


draft before publication or his hand copy with his own 
marginal notes inserted afterwards,’ Zahn himself got no 
further, but he was not surprised when Blass came forward 
with his clearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypo- 
thesis. In one point, certainly, Zahn does not agree with 
Blass, and that is in the application of the hypothesis to Luke. 
He holds that the text which Blass restored as the Roman 
form or second edition of Luke is essentially nothing but a 
bold attempt to restore what is called the Western text ; that 
the question to which such different answers have been made 
as to the value of this type of text—for it is not to be spoken 
of as a recension in the proper sense of that term—is by no 
means confined to the Third Gospel, but touches the others 
as well and the Pauline Epistles also; that the reason why 
the divergence of the Western text from that exhibited in the 
oldest manuscripts and the great majority of Greek witnesses 
is more conspicuous in Luke, is simply that we have the 
additional testimony of Marcion for that Gospel, but the 
question is essentially the same in all the cases ; that whereas 
in Acts we have two parallel texts both possessing equal 
authority, in Luke the case is different, where in determining 
what the evangelist actually wrote, we have to choose one or 
the other of two mutually exclusive propositions; that this 
verdict on the text of Luke, however, in no way invalidates 
the conclusion come to as regards the text of the Acts. But 
further, Zahn, who even before this had avowed himself an 
“admirer of the Western text,” stands up determinedly for 
the view that this same Western text, which I shall, like Zahn 
and Blass, indicate henceforward as (, contains much that is 
original. He says that just as we must beware of a super- 
stitious idolatry of what are styled the best manuscripts, 
which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of much 
older tradition (Marcion, Irenzeus), so we have equally to be 
on our guard against a morbid preference for every interest- 

1 «*Thou shalt worship no manuscripts” was one of the ten commandments 


that Lehrs gave philologists. 
P 


226 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


ing and fanciful excrescence of the riotous tradition of the 
second and third centuries. Such a preference would 
logically imply that the scholars who took in hand to revise 
the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply 
corrupted it, somewhat after the fashion of those who set 
themselves to “improve” our Church hymns in the age of 
Rationalism. More than twenty years ago, when I was a 
Tutor at Tubingen, I had the impression to which I frequently 
enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues, that 
modern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong 
tack. The textual study of the New Testament was out of 
my province at that time, and is really so still, were it not 
that, as Augustine says, it is necessary for everyone who 
devotes himself to the holy Scriptures to take up such studies. 
Nor am I inclined thus far to fall foul of the system to which 
Westcott and Hort devoted the labours of a lifetime, and in 
the building up of which they had at their command such an 
apparatus as is far beyond the reach of a German, especially 
of one who is not attached to any University. And as for 
the results of Zahn’s researches, I prefer to look upon myself 
here as a mere learner and admirer. In the presence of such 
doughty warriors I feel like a spectator upon the battlefield 
of New Testament textual criticism, and I would beg that 
what follows, as well as what has been already said, be re- 
garded as but suggestions, the acceptance or rejection of 
which by others may perchance serve to bring a younger 
generation nearer to the goal. In this spirit I have in my 
Philologica Sacra (1-15th March 1896) taken as a starting- 
point the reading in Luke xxii. 52, \aov=vaov=vepov, which 
is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf, and have sought by 
means of one or two analogous cases to show “how frequently D 
preserves the correct reading.” I have instanced érraz\aciova, 
Luke xviii. 30; gavracua, xxiv. 37; déppw xaurjdov, Mark 
i. 6; yvovyuevous, i. 10, which might, however, be inserted from 
Matt. iii, 16, Luke iii. 21 ; opyso@eds, Mark i. 40; omorage:, Matt. 
vie 73. 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 227 


In the first sketch of this Introduction, written in the year 
1895, I referred to the addition found in Matt. xxvii. 49, 
which is manifestly taken from John xix. 34, and is read by 
many authorities, among these being s B C.' I said then: 
“Only two possibilities are conceivable. Either the passage 
stood here originally, and was removed at an early date on 
account of its variance with John xix. 34, or it is an inter- 
polation, In the latter case, it must have been inserted at a 
very early date, and all the witnesses containing it, which 
elsewhere are so frequently and so widely divergent, must 
then go back to one and the same exemplar. Because the 
third possibility—viz. that the same sentence was inserted 
in different copies in the same place quite independently 
of each other, no one will consider to be at all likely. But 
if the second supposition is to be held as correct, then we see 
just what amount of importance is to be attached to the 
concurrence of our oldest witnesses, particularly our chief 
manuscripts s B C L. They are not streams flowing inde- 
pendently from the same fountain of Paradise: they flowed 
together for a good part of their course, and were consider- 
ably polluted before they parted company.” 

Two years later, when the first edition was issued, I added: 
“This too must now be asserted with far greater emphasis, 
that the concurrence of B s, on which so much stress has 
been laid hitherto by almost all textual critics, proves nothing 
at all. In Sirach the common archetype of B 8 was younger 
than the origin of the Latin version, manifestly a good deal 
younger, because it already contained errors that had not yet 
made their appearance in our other manuscripts (or in their 
sources). Salmon (p. 52) is of opinion that the text which Salmon. 
Westcott and Hort have restored is one that was most in 
favour in Alexandria in the third century, and that came 


1 This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus and 
Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the superb copy 
of Matthew’s Gospel, which had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in the 
reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon the scene, 


228 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


there, perhaps, in the century previous. This is not far from 
Bousset’s view that B perhaps contains the recension of 
Hesychius. Salmon calls the results of Westcott and Hort 
‘an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has 
been stolen.’ Burgon’s paradox, that the reason why B and 
s have survived is that they were the worst, seemed to 
Salmon at first to be a joke, but he now thinks it not improb- 
able that they were set aside on account of their divergence 
from the form of text that acquired ascendancy at a /ater 
time. If that be so, then they met the same fate that they 
themselves prepared for the primitive form they supplanted ; 
and just as they, with the help of Tischendorf and Westcott 
and Hort, dislodged the Zertus Receptus of the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians, and 
made themselves the Zertus Receptus of the end of the nine- 
teenth century, so perchance will Codex D, which the builders 
despised, become the foundation-stone of a new structure. 
In Urtext, p. 54, Oscar v. Gebhardt alludes to the objections 
raised partly against the entire method of Westcott and Hort, 
partly against their particular estimate of Codex Vaticanus, 
and partly also against the position they have assigned to 
what they call the Western text, and he too says: ‘If 
these objections are valid, then the sure foundation which 
they seemed at last to have secured for the text of the New 
Testament begins once more to totter.’” 

Since this was written, my impressions have been greatly 
confirmed, particularly by Zahn’s Ezndettung; only I must 
admit that I am now less in a position than ever to make any 
definite proposals as to the way in which the goal of the 
textual criticism of the New Testament is to be reached. To 
follow one witness or one group of witnesses through thick 
and thin, which would really be the only consistent course, 
will seemingly not do And the “ eclectic method ” to which 


’ Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited 
above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension of the Acts 
in Zahn’s E7in/ectung, ii. § 59, pp. 338-359. See also Burkitt’s Introduction to 


CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS, 229 


Bousset was led in his work on the Apocalypse as the only 
possible one, is surely the opposite of the genealogical, 
which we must acknowledge to be in theory the only 
correct method. But first of all, a fresh application of it 
would require to be made. And as the task is too great for 
any single worker, might it not be well if, in the exegetical 
classes of our Theological Faculties, the separate witnesses 
were either examined anew, or, conversely, selected passages 
of the text, quite small passages—a single chapter, or a single 
epistle like 2 or 3 John or Philemon—were given out to 
different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses for 
each passage, and the results then compared with one another? 
Furthermore, the critical apparatus would require at once to 
be lightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakeably 
recognised to be the representatives of a definite recension, 
and the Lucianic recension printed separately with or without 
an apparatus, just as was done by Lagarde himself for half of 
the Old Testament. Finally, the Western text would require 


to be much more thoroughly examined than has hitherto been. 


the case. It is true that Weiss has given a special part of 
Texte und Untersuchungen to an examination of Codex D in 
Acts, but without prejudice one may be quite sure that a 
solution of the problem is not to be found in the way in 
which Weiss seeks it. No doubt he establishes among other 
things the fact, that in the Speeches of Peter @ displays 
almost no variation, but then he makes no attempt to explain 
this fact or make any use of it. It is an indication of con- 
siderable progress to find Zahn going so carefully into matters 
of the text in an Introduction to the New Testament, and his 
appreciation of the Western text is most gratifying. At the 
same time the reader will naturally ask whether Zahn’s verdict 
on the § text in Luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with 
Barnard’s Bzblical Text of Clement of Alexandria (Texts and Studies, v. 5), 
especially p. xviii: ‘‘Let us come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as 
Clement’s quotations show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether 


the agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a surer 
basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.” 


Luke and 
Acts in D. 


230 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


regard to Acts. Is it not true in this connection that “he 
who says A must also say B”? If you admit that there were 
two editions of Acts, you must make the same admission in 
the case of Luke. And conversely, if there was no second 
edition of the Gospel, must you not then look for some other 
explanation of the variations in Acts? For it seems quite 
certain that the variants in Luke xxiv. are most closely 
related to the text of Acts i. Or how else are the readings 
in Luke xxiv. 51-53 to be explained? Westcott and Hort 
have one way of explaining them. They say that cat avepepero 
els TOV ovpavoy “was evidently inserted from an assumption 
that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel 
must be the Ascension. The Ascension apparently did not 
lie within the proper scope of the Gospels, as seen in their 
genuine texts; its true place was at the head of the Acts of 
the Apostles as the preparation for the Day of Pentecost, and 
thus the beginning of the history of the Church.” That is all 
very well, and it may also be the case that zpooxuw7oartes 
avrov in v. 52 is the natura! result of the insertion of Kat 
avepépero ets TOV ovpavov. But how then are we to account for 
the interchange of evAoyouvres and awvovyTes in the next verse, 
which is found in precisely the same groups of witnesses ? + 

If this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse 53, 
it may be confidently asserted that the omission of the Ascen- 
sion and the Worship of the Exalted Lord by any later scribe 
is all but inconceivable from the moment that Luke was sepa- 
rated from Acts and placed among the Gospels. If such a 

1 Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the 
witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the omission of kal 
avepep. cis T. ovp. 8* D SyrsiMa bde ff l*, Aug. 1/2; verse 52, omit rpockuv- 
a’tév, D Syrsit abd e fil, Aug. 1/1; verse 53, alvodyres for ebAoyotyres Dabde 
ff 1 r (Aug.); (Syrsit here has 72720, not }»n2w> which represents alvodyres in 
Luke ii, 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read edAoyovrres in this passage). 
Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D and its associates in verse 52, 
only to reject it in verse 53? And what amount of weight is added to the testi- 
mony of D by the addition of that of x*? Schiller says in 7e//: ‘‘The strong is 


mightiest alone : united e’en the weak are strong ”—how far are both these notions 
true in textual criticism ? 





CHAP. III] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 231 


thing were possible at all, it would be in the case of zpooxuv7- 
cavtes ator, as there is no express mention in Acts i. of the 
disciples worshipping. On the other hand, the omission 
becomes quite conceivable as soon as the author added a 
devtepos AOyos to the rpe@ros. So far these variants appear 
to me to fit in very well with Blass’s theory and with no other. 
Zahn, as far as I can see, has nowhere expressed any opinion 
regarding them, certainly he says nothing of the variation be- 
tween atvovytes and evAoyourtes, which is the one of most im- 
portance critically, though it is of least consequence materially. 

Graefe, following on the lines of Birt and Riiegg, supposes 
that the shorter form was due to want of space, that Luke 
was glad to get the shorter form all into his roll at the foot 
the first time he wrote it out, and sent off the book to 
Theophilus in that form, hoping to deal with the Ascension 
in the second of his books. In the second edition he had suffi- 
cient space to admit of the insertion of cat avepépero ets TOV 
ovpavoy, then of rpookunjoaytes avtov, and finally of evAoyouvtes. 
These additions he made, feeling, rightly enough, that there 
could be no more fitting conclusion to his Life of Jesus than 
a brief allusion to the Ascension, which he had already 
described more particularly in the Acts. At the same time 
he substituted €ws e’s for &€w mpos. Graefe thinks that all 
these changes are connected with the alterations made also 
in the introduction to the Acts, though he omits to say what 
the connection is. : 

Weiss, father and son, omit the words cai aveépero els TOV 
ovpavoyv as “a gloss derived from Acts i.,” and “likewise ” the 
words rpockuvijcavtes avroy in verse 52 (is this also a gloss 
from Acts i.?). Which text they hold to be correct in 
verse 53 they do not say.” 


1 So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the xal that belongs to this reading 
is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to read aiv. kal eddAoy. 
with the great majority of witnesses, and not edAoy. kal aiv. with the Ethiopic 
version. See 7h. St. Kr., 1898, i. 136f. The passage is regarded by Westcott 
and Hort as a good example of ‘‘ conflation,” § 146. 

2 See now Texthritik der vier Evangelien, pp. 48, 181. 


232 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Ill. 


Aveiv' is the specifically Lucan word for “to praise,” 
while evAoye in this sense does not occur in Acts at all, 
and only in the first two chapters of Luke. Further, as any 
concordance will show, atveiy is the regular equivalent of 5$z 
and evAoyety of 3ra, while aivetv is rarely used for ua or 
evhoyeiv for 44m. This confirms the supposition that aivouvtes, 
which is preferred by Tischendorf but rejected by Westcott 
and Hort, is the original reading. 

In order to show the full extent of the difficulty of the 
problem, we shall take along with this passage from the end 
of the Gospel a single instance from the Acts. How does 
the Apostolic Decree read in ch. xv.? “To judge any matter 
before knowing the facts of the case is inadmissible.” So 
Hilgenfeld says in his magazine, adding that the matter of 
the Apostolic Council, as it is called, and the Decree have 
been so judged. He himself restores the whole text in this 
passage to the form that Blass has adopted as the Forma 
Romana—i.e.,to confine ourselves to this point of main im- 
portance, he omits “things strangled.”* On the other hand, 
Harnack, in the article to which reference will be made below, 
comes to the conclusion that the Eastern, z.e. the common, text 
is the original, and the Western a later correction made sub- 
sequent to the Didache, and not earlier than the first decade 
of the second century.? The same conclusion is reached by 
Zahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question 
(Ezndl,, ii. 344 ff.): “ The two texts are here mutually exclusive, 
and therefore cannot both be derived from the same author 
(Xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25).” But he immediately adds: “The fact 


1 Aiveiy is not given in Cremer’s Dictionary among the synonyms of edAoyew, 
and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading aivotyres Kal evAoyovvres from this 
passage. 

2 See Hilgenfeld, Das Afostel-Concil nach seinem urstriinglichen Wortlaute in 
the Zfw7h., 42 (1899), 1, 138-149. 

3 Harnack, Das Afosteldecret (Acta xv. 29) und die Blass’sche Hypothese, 
Berlin, 1899. From the Sztzungsberichte der preuss. Akad. der Wiss. Noticed 
in the Expository Times for June 1899, p. 395 f. See also the Berliner philolog- 
ische Wochenschrift of the 13th May 1890, 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 233 


that Blass, in this important point, as in many another of 
less consequence, declares a certain thing to be an original 
element of the text which turns out to be simply an early 
corruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his 
hypothesis.” That is quite true and must be borne in mind 
in connection with the objection raised by Wendt, that 
“manifest clerical errors are found in the actual 8 text.” 
The passages are also used by Corssen as an argument 
against Blass. The remarks of the latter in reply to the 
strictures of Corssen (Evang. sec. Lucam, p.xxvi)seem to me to 
be not without reason, but in any case it is strange that altera- 
tions should have been made in an official document like the 
Decree in Acts xv., no matter whether these were due to the 
writer himself or a later intermediary. That there was some 
method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence in three 
places. But again I must emphasise the superiority of Codex 
D. Whereas in ch. xv. 20, 29 the shorter text is represented 
by other witnesses as well, in ch. xxi. 25 it is supported by D 
with the sole addition of Gigas Holmiensis.!. I have not to 
decide the question here ; I simply commend it to a searching 
investigation, in which attention must be paid to the ap- 
parently meaningless differences in the use of particles and 
synonyms, of simple and compound words, and such-like 
seeming minutiz. I can only repeat how frequently the 
thought occurred to me when I was comparing Scrivener’s 
edition with that of v. Gebhardt for my Supplement, that here 
was no alteration of a later scribe, and what then? The 
simplest explanation was that both readings were due to the 
author himself, who on the one occasion purposely set down 
the one reading and on the other the other. 

There is another question in connection with the Western 
text which has been even more neglected than the former— 
viz. the amount of importance to be attached to it in the case 
of the Pauline Epistles. What about Eusebius’s reference to 
Tatian’s work on these Epistles? I frankly confess that not 


1 See critical note in the Axfosttor’s Greek Testament (Knowling), zx Joco. 


Rules of 
criticism. 


Illegibility. 


234 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. HI 


till the printing of this work was begun did I become aware, 
mainly from Zahn’s Ezn/ectung, how many problems are here 
waiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must 
for the present forbear making any attempt in this direction. 

Here I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of 
textual criticism, and thereafter adduce a number of New 
Testament passages which are of interest from a critical point 
of view. 

(£) General Rules of Textual Criticism.—In its essence the 
task of the textual critic resembles that of the physician, who 
must first of all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before 
attempting its cure. Manifestly the first thing to do is to 
observe the injuries and the dangers to which a text trans- 
mitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed. A correct 
treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis. 

The injuries which a text receives will vary according as it 
is multiplied by Dietation or by Copying. The fifty Bibles 
which Eusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be 
written to dictation. In the early times of the Church, copying, 
as has been already mentioned, would doubtless be the more 
usual method of multiplication. Here, however, we must 
make a single exception in the case of Paul, who for the 
most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. He 
evidently dictated them. He certainly did not have them 
simply written out from his own rough draft. 

(1) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though 
not most frequently, in a word or group of letters being 
illegible, or in their being read for some psychological reason 
otherwise than as they were intended. However attentive the 
copyist may be, he may still be in doubt as to the way in 
which a word or passage should be read, and may decide 
wrongly. Proper names, ¢.g., are often very doubtful.t More 
frequently however the mistake will be due to inattention. 
The context may lead the copyist to expect a certain word ; 
he sees one like it, and inserts the former in its place, 

1 Cf. the passage of Hermas cited above, p. 47. 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS, 235 


(2) It frequently happens, particularly in copying the old 
scriptio continua, that the eye of the scribe jumps from one 
word or group of letters to another the same or similar to it, 
either before or after it. In the former case the intervening 
words will be repeated, in the latter they will be omitted. 
Scholars designate these errors as dittography and elision re- 
spectively ; printers know them under the name of a marriage 
and a funeral. The former mistake is not so serious, because 
it is at once detected on reading over the copy. A peep into 
any manuscript will show how frequently this error occurs, 
the repeated words being enclosed in brackets or surmounted 
with dots! In Codex B such passages give us an opportunity 
of observing the beauty of the original writing, because the 
painstaking man who retraced the old writing with fresh ink 
in the eighth, or tenth, or eleventh century, or whenever it 
was, adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks, 
left these untouched. This kind of mistake very often happens 
in passages where a group of characters catches the eye for any 
reason, such as the occurrence of the abbreviation mark, OS, 
IAHM, ANOS, etc., and at the transition to a new page or 
leaf. The omission of a piece of the text of various length by 
homoioteleuton is as common, and is more serious.” Any 
critical apparatus will show the frequency of its occurrence. 
We often find there the note “a voce alterutra.... ad 





1 A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586 a new 
page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence Stauaprupoy ry lepovoadnu tas 
avoulas avTns Tade Acryet Kupios TH IepovcaAn/, With the result that the eight words 
from the first IepovoaAnu to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoio- 
teleuton, while in Codex 62 they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward 
error of the same sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but 
the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony. 
Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff of the Old Latin. In 
the former the passage from vesurrextd to resurrexit is repeated, in the latter it 
is omitted. 

2 Thad a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty in the 
Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by homoioteleuton, We did 
not always agree with him ; he was perhaps a little too ready with this way out of 
a difficulty, but any one with experience knows how very apt this mistake is to 
occur. 


Homoio- 
teleuton. 


Confusion. 


236 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


alterutram desunt” or “a voce 1° ad vocem 2° (3°) transilit,” 
or “vox .... alterutra et intermedia desunt.” Com- 
pare, e.g, Codex D, Matt. xviii. 18 from yj to yc; x. 23; 
xxiii. 14-16. The result is worst when the mistake is not 
discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are patched 
together in some way with more or less success. Lacunz 
that have not been doctored are very helpful in determining 
the relationship between different texts. 

(3) As errors of the tongue and the memory? rather than 
of the eye may be reckoned the Transposition and Confusion 
of particular combinations of letters or entire words. The 
former occurs so frequently in connection with a liquid, that 
in some cases it ceases to be a mistake. Thus we have on 
the one hand the confusion of kcopxodeAos with xpoxoderXos, 
Kapxydwy with Carthago, and on the other, ¢@adov with edaGBor, 
BnPapaBa with ByOaBapa, John i. 28; kipvatw with cpwero, 
movrov with rozrov, 35, talent, Matt. xxv. 14-30, with }379, 
cities, Luke xix. 17, 19. Akin to this is the confusion of 
vowels with a similar sound, to which are to be ascribed all 
cases of itacism, as it is called—éyerpe and éyetpar, —eoOe and 
—ecOai, erTaipors and érépo:s, Xpuoros Oo Kuptos and xpicros 0 
kuptos, 2 Cor. xii. 1; Popéswuey and dopécouer, éxwuey and 
éxouev, Rom. v. 1; eta dwyynov and wera dwwyudv. Mani- 
festly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dicta- 
tion than in copying. 

A third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious 
description is due to the substitution of words or forms of 
similar meaning. Thus, for Xéyes we may have efze or épy or 
a7expwvato, or the simple form may be replaced by the com- 
pound or vce versa, or one preposition may be substituted for 


' This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess’s reprint 
of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet five words have dropped 
out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all the later editions of 1835, 1855 (novis 
curis correcta), 1868, and 1879, and were only supplied by myself in 1887 on the 
occasion of the third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in 
Tischendorf’s first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856. 

* In ancient times people always read aloud, even when reading by themselves, 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 237 


another." Separate words are very frequently transposed 
without seriously affecting the sense. Thus, in Acts iv. 12, 
we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three 
words ovoua eotw erepoy actually represented—viz., in addi- 
tion to this (2) ovoua erepov extw ; (3) erepov ovouma ext; (4) 
ExT ETEPOY OVOKMA; (5) ExT Ovoua eTepov.2. On Luke xvii. 10, 
Merx says (Dive vier kanonischen Evangelien, p. 246): “ Let it 
be observed that the position of aypetor fluctuates between 
(1) dovrAor axpetol eopev; (2) dodrAOL eouey axpeior D, and 
(3) axpetor dovAoi eouev. Such fluctuations are due to the 
different arrangement of a word that did not originally 
belong to the text, but was appended as a note and after- 


? Scrivener would explain the ‘‘ remarkable confusion” of the two prepositions 
mpo and mpoo, when compounded with verbs, which we meet e.g, in Matt, 
xxvi, 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5, 13; xxii, 25, by saying that 


the symbol >, is used indifferently for rpo and mpoo in the Herculanean rolls, and 


here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad habit in 
Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph frostheticum instead of protheticum, and 
that the practice is still defended (Gesenius-Kautzsch™®, p. 64, n. 3, ‘‘rightly 
so”) after my notice of it (Zargznalien, p. 67), I have given some little attention to 
this confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have noticed 
it as well as myself. In his WV. 7., i. 20, B. Weiss says: ‘‘ The compounds with 
mpo and mpoo are interchanged quite heedlessly,” and he cites in proof of this 
eight passages from the Acts. He writes similarly in ii, 34. I shall instance only 
one or two cases in connection with this same word mpd6eois. Pitra on Afost, 
Const. , 5, 17 (p. 325): mpdé@eou restituimus cum Vatican, 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo mpdo0eow; 
Excerpta Mepl Nadav, ed. R. Schneider (Programme of Duzsburg, 1895), where the 
manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp. 5, 14. 20; 6, 5; 13, 7. 13, and we read 
in § 10, aytixerta: 5 mpduBeors wiv apaipeoe, etc., and in § 11, mpdaGeots wey 
ovv éorh mpocOnKn oToixelov Kat’ apxny, oiov ctapts, aoradts Kal doradts. Both 
times, of course, it should be zpé@ects, as the better manuscripts have it. 
Wherever mention is made of the ‘‘shewbread,” D invariably turns it into ‘‘ extra 
bread,” by reading mpoc@écews instead of mpodécews. Tischendorf first called 
attention to this in Luke vi. 4, but it occurs also in Matt. xii, 4. I have no doubt 
myself that in the case of verbal forms, the o was inserted in order to avoid the 
hiatus before the augment. Compare rpoceOnxev for mpo€Onxey, Ex, xxiv. 23; 
mpocé@nxas, Ps. Ixxxix. 8, Symmachus ; tpoave$éuny or mpocavebéuny, Gal. i. 16. 
In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even writes mpoo@hras for 
prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one of Philo’s books is rpora:devuara 
or mpds [ra] matdevuata. Etc. etc. Sapient sal. 

? We find all the possible permutations of the words abrozs éadAnoey 6 "Inoods in 
John viii. 12, See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (N) in Hilgen- 
feld’s Zedtschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 42 (1899), p. 623. 


Additions, 


238 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP Sit: 


wards incorporated with the text. Such fluctuations point to 
the interpolation of the fluctuating word.” This judgment 
has to be accepted with caution. For one thing, it is not at 
all clear which word it is that fluctuates. In this particular 
case, one might say that dovAo fluctuates as much as axpevor, 
and the copula still more. Moreover such an interpolation 
becomes at once an integral part of the text, and its insertion is 
no longer visible. Only if several copies were made of that 
exemplar in which the interpolation was first introduced 
could fluctuation of this sort originate. Such transpositions 
are much more frequently of a harmless order, as each one 
may perceive for himself. The writer's thoughts fly faster 
than his pen and anticipate a word that should not come in 
till later. One of the most frequent cases of transposition is 
that of “Iycovs Xpicros and Xpioros “Iyrots in the Pauline 
Epistles. 

(4) Akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in 
the border region between the unconscious and the conscious 
or intentional—viz. that of Additions. One can readily 
understand how easy it was to insert a xpos Or 6 KuUptos 
Huov, a wou after rwat7p on the lips of Jesus, the subject at 
the beginning of a sentence, especially of the first sentence 
of a pericope, or the object in the form of a pronoun. 
Bengel proposed to omit the name of Jesus in some twenty- 
five places, for which he was ridiculed by Wettstein, as may 
be learned from my work on Bengel, p. 74. Now, everyone 
admits that Bengel was right. Under the head of “ Inter- 
polationes breviores,” Wordsworth and White first give 
examples “de nomine Jesus,” then of “Christus, Dominus, 
Deus,” and then of “ Pronomina.” It is evident that in this 
way the wrong word may be supplied now and _ again. 
Perhaps one of the most interesting cases is Luke i. 46. 
All our present Greek witnesses make Mary the composer 
of the Magnificat, but Elisabeth’s name is attached to it in 
three Old Latin manuscripts, in the Latin version of Irenzeus, 
according to the best manuscripts, and in some manuscripts 





CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 239 


known to Origen (or to his translator, Jerome: the passage, 
unfortunately, is found as yet only in the Latin).! 

(5) To the category of conscious alterations belong first 
of all grammatical corrections, then assimilations to parallel Corrections. 
passages, liturgieal changes introduced from the Evangeliaria, 
as, ¢.g., the addition at the close of a pericope of the words 
6 €xwv Ota axovérw Which occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in 
the most diverse passages, or indications of time, such as éy 
TH Kalpw éxelvy at the beginning of a pericope, and lastly, 
alterations made for dogmatic reasons, if any such can be 
established, It is impossible to deny that dogmatic concep- 
tions had some influence on the propagation of certain read- 
ings if not on their origin—as, eg.,on the form assumed by 
the words in Matt. xix. 17, td we Aéyere ayaOdv, or on the 
omission of the words ouvde 6 vids in Mark xiii. 22 ; compare 
also above, p. 106. On the whole, however, there is no real 
. ground for the scepticism that was for a time entertained with 
respect to our texts in this connection. A sober criticism 
will be able in most cases to restore the correct form. Its 
conditions will be apparent from what has been said in the 
foregoing. 

Gerhard von Maestricht laid down forty-three Critica] Canons of 
Canons, and Wettstein set forth in his New Testament his ea 
Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum 
Nowt Testamenti necessariae (vol. ii. 851-874). In 1755 J. D, 
Michaelis added to his Curae in versionem Syriacam Act. 

Apost. his Consectaria critica de... . usu versionis Syriacae 
tabularum Novi Foederis.? Bengel reduced all the rules to a 
single one. Quite recently Wordsworth and White compre- 


1 See Harnack, Das Magnificat der Elisabeth (Lukas i. 46-55) in the Berliner 
Sttzungsberichte of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good example of how glosses 
may creep into-the text is afforded by Philo ‘‘ Quod det.” 11 (Cohn, 1, 266). 

2 On the influence of a system of pericopze on the text of Codex D, see 
Scrivener’s Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. li, and Zahn, Zzn/., 
ii. 355. 

® See Semler’s edition of 7. J. Wetsteinit Libelli ad crisin atque interpreta- 
tionem N.T,., Halae, 1766. 


240 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


hended the rules they followed in the preparation of the text 
of their Latin New Testament in four sentences. Of these 
the first two apply to a version only, and therefore do not 
concern us here ;+ while the fourth (dvevzor lectio probabilior) 
is but another form of Bengel’s canon, The third alone may 
be regarded as new and deserving of attention—viz., vera 
lectio ad finem victortam reportat. That is to say, if a phrase 
is repeated in several passages in the same or similar terms, 
and displays variants in the earlier passages, the reading of 
the later passage will, as a rule, be the correct one, the 
reason being that copyists are apt to consider a certain 
reading to be an error the first time it occurs, and therefore 
to alter it, but come in the end to admit it as correct. 

I would once more briefly emphasize the following pro- 
positions :— 


(1) The text of our manuscripts must not be regarded 
as homogeneous, but must be examined separately 
for each part of the New Testament. A manuscript 
that exhibits a very good text in one book does not 
necessarily do the same in the others. The same 
thing holds good of versions and quotations. 

(2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the 
versions than in the manuscripts.” 

(3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable 
which differs from that of the parallel passages. 

(4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scrip- 
tures on the text must be more carefully attended 
to than heretofore.” 


1 (1) Lectio quae in veteribus latinis non apparet probabilior est. (2) Codices 
qui cum graecis 8 B L concordant plerumque textum Hieronymianum osten- 
dunt. 

2 In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between 7juay and 
juav, juiy and suiy, etc., it is impossible to adjust their claims on any mere 
arithmetical principle. Zahn (Z27/., ii. 61) calls attention to an important con- 
sideration in support of the reading buy in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other 
passages as well—viz., ‘‘ that when the New Testament epistles were read at divine 
service, jets would very readily and very frequently be substituted for duets, which 





CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 241 


(5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the 
importance of the witnesses is the proper names, 
particularly those of less frequent occurrence. 

(6) “Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.” 


Of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated 
further, particularly the second last. For it is really remark- 
able to what extent this consideration has been neglected 
hitherto. To the best of my knowledge there is as yet no 
monograph in which the proper names are treated from a 
critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic fre- 
quently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness. 
They are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the 
fossil to the geologist. This makes their neglect all the more 
strange. Had there been a systematic examination of the 
proper names of the New Testament, Lippelt’s important 
discovery with regard to the spellings “Iwavys and ‘lwavyys 
might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.). 
Weiss’s critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention 
in this connection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid 
attention to these things with their usual exactitude, were 


excluded the reader or preacher.” Compare Acts iv. 12: ey & Se? cwOjva—, 
Huds or buds? 

It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that particular 
importance attaches to those versions in which the distinction of the persons does 
not depend simply on a single letter but on a separate word (zodzs : vodzs,etc.). In 
versions of this sort the original reading is preserved from the first ; in the case of 
the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission, especially 
when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must also, of course, be 
taken into account. 

A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern 
editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is the tendency 
to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen divided the Greek N.T. 
(1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely the following from the Synoptic 
Gospels—viz., Matt. xviii. 11 (xxi. 44, Tischen.), xxiii. 14; Mark vii. 16; 
ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17 
(xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.). Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark 
Vi. IL; xili, 2; Luke vi. 5; ix. 55; xii. 211; xix. 45; xxi. 38; xaii..19f., 43£, 47; 
Xxili. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53; xxiv. 5, 36,51, 52. In the case of several verses this or 
that part had to be omitted. Luke xx. 30, ¢.g., is reduced to the three words, 
kal 6 devrepos, with the result that it becomes the shortest verse in the N.T. 


Q 


Proper 
names. 


242 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP, Ill. 


simply on the wrong tack in this case when they asked 
whether the various persons who bore this name might not 
have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth, 
Smythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole 
host of problems of which no account has been taken hitherto. 
See above, p. 165, for the reading Zapé exhibited by B in 
Matt. i. 3 ; and compare Sela, given by Syr*™ in verses 4 and 5, 
with Yada in Luke iii. 32. Tischendorf omits the testimony 
in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over both the variants, 
though they are certainly of more importance than the varia- 
tion in the spelling of Boés, Boos, Boog. In Luke iii. 27 the 
word SWS] is converted into a proper name ‘Pyod. From this 
fact some very interesting conclusions might be drawn with 
regard to the sources of Luke’s Gospel, but this is a matter 
lying outside the scope of this chapter. On the other hand, 
the fact that in the fourth Gospel the traitor is called not 
‘Ioxapiorys, or anything like it, but azo Kapveétov by x in 
ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every 
other place in that Gospel (xii. 4; xiii. 2, 26; xiv. 22), raises a 
very strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts 
and indeed of the fourth Gospel. On this see my Phzlo- 
logtca Sacra, p. 14,and my notes, with Chase’s unconvincing 
replies, in the Lafosttory Times for December 1897, and 
January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to see 
that Zahn now inclines to the same view (47m, ii. 561). 
Considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these two 
manuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the 
correct reading in the case of other names as well. 

What is Apollos called in Acts? He is mentioned by D 
only in ch. xviii. 24, where he is called ’AwoANdui0s. N* calls 
him “AveAAjs in xviii. 24 and xix. 1. This reading is sup- 
ported in the former passage by the minuscules 15 and 180, 
and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees with 
Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts 
was ’A7re\jjs, which was altered in the main body of manu- 
scripts in conformity with 1 Corinthians, just as ao Kapvérovu 


CHAP. III.] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 243 


in John was accommodated to ’Icxapiurns given by the 
Synoptics. But what about D? I must ask with Salmon. Even 
Weiss says in this connection (Codex D, p. 18): “ The most 
that can be said for ’AzvroAA dros is that this form, differing as 
it does from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the 
presumption of originality, seeing that there was always a 
temptation for the scribes to accommodate it to the latter.”! 
In his earlier work on the text (p. 9) he seems not to have 
considered this point. 

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain 
‘TwvaOas, which is found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of Iwav(v)ys 
read by the other witnesses, as a “clerical error,” whereas now 
(Cod. D, p. 108) he deems it more natural to suppose that a 
corrector inserted the name of the son of Annas and the 
successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus (A z/zq. xviii. 4, 3) 
in place of that of the entirely unknown John, than that 
the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the 
copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned 
along with him, was replaced by John, which was a very 
common name, the name of the Apostle so frequently 
mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a purely 
accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John 
(Hastings’ Dectzonary of the Bible, ii. 676) seems to know 
nothing of all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page 
of the aforesaid book that the mistake of Johanan and 
Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and remembering Bengel’s 
principle, considers that “Iwva@as is the scriptio ardua, and, 
therefore, the praestantior. 

In 2 Peter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Bocdp, 
which is quite peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in 
their fondness for B, write Bewp. But this is most certainly 

1 The best discussion of the form ’AweAAjs will again be found in Zahn, Ezz/., 
1, 193. 

2 Bee my note in the Axfposztory Tines for July 1900, p. 478, where I have brought 
forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha—viz., Jerome’s Leber tnterpreta- 


tionts Hebraicorum nominum. He explains the word as ‘‘coluwmba dans vel 
colunba ventens,” 


244. GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. Ill. 


a correction which is combined with the original to form 
Bewpodp ins. The only thorough discussion of the passage 
that I know is in Zahn’s Ezulettung, ii. 109. The only thing 
that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, accord- 
ing to Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has viov tov 
Boodp in Jos. xiii, 22. LerPwp, as the name of Beor, has 
crept into various manuscripts in several places from Jos. 
xxiv. 9—e.g. into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi. 32, Codex 18 in 
Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75 has 
LeBewp, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. 1. 43. There seems to me 
to be a confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 (=1 Chr. i. 43) 
and the following verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen. 
xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes, 4 Bocop OAs THs “ApaBias 
i) voy Kadouuern Boopa. Jerome also renders “ex Bosor.”? 
Boocp also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43 ; 
1 Sam. xxx. 9; I Macc. v. 26. On this last passage see 
ZaPV., 12, 51; 13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew 
pronunciation of the Aramaic m7ynb)? see Pole’s Synopses on 
ar Peter 11.005. 

It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close 
agreement with B in other places as well as this. 

On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn, 
Einl. ii. 263 ; on ‘lepovoadnju and ‘leporoAvma, ti. 310 ; on Jesus 
Barabbas, ii. 294; on Barachias in Matt. xxiii. 35, 1. 454, 
ii. 308. On the confusion between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt. 
xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Isaiah in other 
passages, compare Ambrosiaster’s note on 1 Cor. ii. 9 cited 
above, p. 148. 

“‘ He who seeks in the wild fir woad, will still find many a cudgel good.” 








1 Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE®, iii. 227 ff., 
but he says not a syllable about the form Boodp, which is too bad. In Hastings’ 
Dictionary of the Bible it is at least mentioned though not explained. 

2 sy3 is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic nya by C, B. Michaelis 
(De Paronomasia, § 30); Hiller, Oxomasticum, 1706, p. 536; and Bernardus (in 
Marck, Jz praectpuas quasdam partes Pentateuchi Commentarius, Leyden, 
1713, 366). Marck himself makes it the equivalent of 1m. M. M. Kalish, Bzd/e 
Studies,i. The prophecies of Bileam, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the 
solution of the question. 


CHAP. III. ] THEORY AND PRAXIS. 245 


The rule that the shorter text is the more original is a Textus 
subdivision of Bengel’s canon, It is specially the case when "°°" 
two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually ex- 
clusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter. 

As examples of this Zahn adduces, in addition to the double 
conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, the following :— 

John vi. 47: micrevwy, 8 BL T,+“in God,” Syreu. sin, + eg 
eaem€ DEAAME . .\.. 

John vii. 39: wvevua, 8 K TI, + dyoov LXT A A, + dedo- 
pévoy it vgcle, + &yiov ex’ avrois, D f goth, + dy.ov dedouévor, 

B 254 Syrsin. hatloas eae 

James v. 7: zpotuov, B 31, pr. terov AK LP, pr. caprov 8 
9 ff etc. 

It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves 
to be a mixture of two others (conflate readings). The re- 
spective claims of these others must be adjudged on other 
considerations. Thus we have— 


Luke xxiv. 53: atvovyvres, Da be. 
evAoyourtes, 8 B C* L. 
avouvtes Kat evAoyouvtes, AC? XT A A II. 
b) ~ A ) al . 
evAoyourTes Kat atvovvtes, Ethiop. 
Acts vi. 8: 7AHpNS XapiTos, xsABD. 
TANpPNS tiotrews, H P. 
TANPNS XaptTos Kat TisTews, E. 


In general that reading will have the best claim to origin- 
ality which stands first in the combination. Further illustra- 
tions are unnecessary. 

In order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the 
foregoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism 
should be succeeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis. 
Such a part would contain particular illustrations of the way 
in which the criticism of the text has been handled by our 
authorities hitherto and the way in which it must be treated 
in accordance with the foregoing principles. The following 
notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment of 


246 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. III. 


this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we 
were unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism. 
I have therefore contented myself with bringing together a 
series of passages of interest from a critical point of view. In 
doing so I have freely drawn upon Zahn’s Introduction. For 
this I feel sure the reader will thank me, while at the same 
time I trust that the author will pardon the liberty I have taken. 
I have made use, as far as possible, of the additional material 
afforded by editions later than those of -Tischendorf and West- 
cott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collec- 
tion may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our 
commentaries, which, though their merits in other directions 
are to be freely conceded, still leave much to be desired in 
the matter of textual criticism. A purely critical commentary 
on the New Testament is a great desideratum. The follow- 
ing notes are to be regarded not as the commencement of 
such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself felt 
it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the New 
Testament that want of space obliged me to omit all refer- 
ences to the origin and significance of the various readings 
selected from manuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio 
Critica in an Appendix like that in the larger edition of 
v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been sufficient. What 
information, ¢.g., would it have imparted to a reader to have 
given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the 
reading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus 
Criticus or a Commentarius Criticus such as Bengel appended 
to his edition, or like that which Burk published separately 
in his second issue. Ed. Miller has promised to give us one 
for the Gospels, only it will proceed on principles which very 
few of us will be able to accept. 





CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF 
THE NEW TESTAMENT: 


THE GOSPEL. 
Matthew. 


WITH regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (/utroduction, 
§ 423, p. 321): “In prefixing the name EYAITTEAION in 
the singular to the quaternion of ‘the Gospels,’ we have 
wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an 
adequate sense to the preposition KATA in the several titles. 
The idea, if not the name, of a collective ‘Gospel’ is implied 
throughout the well-known passage in the third book of 
Irenzus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations. 
It evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by 
which the term Gospel denotes a single written representation 
of the one fundamental Gospel.” Compare Zahn, GX., i. 106 ff. ; 
Etnlectung, ii. 172 ff., 178 f.: “Of recent editors, Westcott and 
Hort have most faithfully interpreted the original idea by 
setting EvayyéXrov on the fly-leaf, and cara Ma@@aior, etc., 
over the separate books.” I have followed the same principle 
in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart edition of 
the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the 
spelling Ma@@aios, instead of Mar@aios, compare on the one 
hand the LX X. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms Ma@aua, 
Mad0ana, MarO0ana; Marradias, MatOafias, MaOOa@ias (see 
Supplement I. to Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance to the 


248 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT. 


Septuagint), and on the other, Blass’s Grammatik des neutesta- 
mentlichen Griechisch, § 3, 11 conga Trans. by Thackeray, 
1898, p. I1). 

i. 16. There are three forms of the text here— 

(1) "Iwan tov avdpa Mapias, &€ jis eyevijOn “Incovs o 
Neyouevos Xpicros: all our Greek uncials and almost all the 
minuscules. 

(2) "Iwond, © pryorevOeica tap0évos Mapia éyévwnoey Tov 
‘Incotyv (tov Aeyouevov) Xpiorov: most of the Old Latin 
(ad g,kq, with bc similarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, 
and four minuscules—viz., 346, 556, 624, 626, with slight 
divergencies. 

(3) “Iwan: “lwond dé, 6 wrnorevOeion (or meuvyorevpery ?) Hv 
tap0évos Mapia, éyéevyycev Tov Incotv Xpiordy : the form under- 
lying the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac.! 

These readings are discussed in the “ Additional Note” to 
Notes on Select Readings, Westcott and Hort, /xtroduction 
(1896), p. 140 ff. Reading (2) is dismissed on external 
grounds as displaying the characteristic features of the 
“Western” type of text. Reading (3) is regarded as inde- 
pendent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by it. 
Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to the 
received text (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derived 
from (1) than v2ce versa. 

Zahn goes fully into these various forms (Einleitung, ii. 
291-293). He begins by saying that it is impossible, except 
on a very loose view of the facts, to conclude that the Sinai- 
Syriac here preserves the original text, which was gradually 
displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified form pre- 
sented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On the 
contrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form of 
text, and one that had a pretty wide circulation, so that it 
cannot be due to an orthodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac, 


1 See Mrs, Lewis, in the Exfosétory Times, November 1900, p. 56 ff., What 
have we gained in the Sinaitic Palimpsest? I. St. Matthew's Gospel, where a 
number of important variants are cited from that manuscript. 








_MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 249 


“Tf it be the case that the latter, like the former, is derived 
from a Greek original, and that these two earliest versions of 
the ‘ Distinct’ Gospel are not independent of each other but 
are two recensions of a single version, then it follows that the 
recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old 
Greek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the 
original form of the Syriac version; while, on the other hand, 
the one which deviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other 
forms of the transmitted text (in this case the Sinai-Syriac) 
is derived from the other by a process of intentional altera- 
tion.” There would be nothing to object to this reasoning 
were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in the 
second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates 
the conclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac 
and the Curetonian are not independent, but two recensions 
of a single version, but their common original was, as Zahn 
himself was the first to suggest, Tatian’s Diatessaron, which 
did not contain the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. So 
that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek text (such 
as has been discovered in the Dzalogue of Timothy and 
Aquila, see above, p. 9g), and be earlier than the Curetonian. 

Zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying : 
“We may give up all hope of finding in early manuscripts 
and versions any indication that Joseph was regarded as the 
natural father of Jesus by the writers of lost Gospels which 
may have been employed in the composition of the canonical 
Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purpose 
was to silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous 
birth of the Messiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest 
details of an intractable genealogy to this end, cannot at 
the same time have accepted in his narrative statements 
directly contradicting his view of that occurrence. Any 
text of Matthew’s Gospel containing such features would 
be pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in 
a manner contrary to the conception of the author.” 

i. 18. The reading yévesis is now supported by the newly-’ 


250 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT. 


discovered Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the 
text by Vignon (Geneva, 1574). Origen knew no other read- 
ing than yévynow, which is also attested by L (Codex D is 
defective here). Westcott and Hort have accordingly given 
it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an altera- 
tion made in conformity with the verbal forms éyéwyee, 
eyevv7On, occurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn 
(Einlettung, ii. 270, 289) thinks it is probably original. The 
two oldest and the latest Syriac have a different word here 
from that ini. 1. These agree with Irenzus in the omission 
of *Iycov. Zahn thinks this is probably correct. 

i. 25. On zpwrorokoy, see above, p. 166, and the Oxford 
Debate, p. 4, ff. 

v. 25. On artidixos = xomby3, see Lagarde, De Novo, 20 (Ges. 
A bhdl., 188); quem Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret 
Lucianus in Navigio 35, avridtcos non ferebat: éws ér Kal’ odov 
elo of TOAEULOL, ETLXELPOMEV AUTOLS. 

Vi. I. ducatocvvyy, 8* B D Syr*™: éXenmoourny, most authorities : 
doow 8°: “your gifts,” Syr“. Zahn (zw, ii. 311) asks whether 
these variants may not go back to a time when the Aramaic 
Gospel was interpreted orally in these different ways? The 
agreement exhibited between x* and Syr is particularly 
strange. 

vi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity now 
with regard to the doxology which used to be so much dis- 
cussed. Among the witnesses supporting its insertion are 
Syr, which, however, omits cat 7 dvvauts, and the Sahidic, 
which omits cai 7 d0€a. Syr%” is unfortunately lost here. In 
addition to the testimony previously known for the insertion 
of the Doxology, there is now that of the Teaching of the 
Apostles, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very 
fact that the Teaching is a Church work reveals the source ot 
the Doxology—viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early 
added in Church worship from Old Testament analogies ; in 
the First Gospel it is out of place. The Greek manuscripts 
from which Jerome made his version knew nothing of it, and 





MATT. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 251 


accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day. Luther 
also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition 
of the Conclusion is limited to the word “ Amen,’ and says, “ it 
is added that I may have the assurance that my prayer will 
be heard.” In the Greek Church the Amen was explained 
as equivalent to yévorto, “so may it be.” 

viii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of sur- 
prise. This view has been renewed by Zahn (Zzw/,, ii. 307). 

viii. 24. The words “erat enim ventus contrarius eis,” which 
are found in one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-—W after 
“mari,” and in four after “ fluctibus,” are an interpolation from 
Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites two Greek minuscules in sup- 
port of it. Lagarde’s Vienna Arabic manuscript (see p. 143) 
mentions it as an addition of the “ Roman ” version. 

xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation be- 
tween épya and réxva as a confusion of the Aramaic 8739 (ser- 
vant: mais) and SJ2Y (work). See Zahn, E7zw/., ii. 311 f., and 
compare also Salmon, Some Thoughts etc, p. 121 f. It is 
still to be shown, however, that réxva is ever used as the 
equivalent of 872. Hilgenfeld (Z/fwT7z., 42. 4, p. 629) refers 
to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134), where the Latin and the first Arabic 
version read “ quasi suis operzbus,’ the Ethiopic “quasi f/zs 
suis,’ and the Syriac “ quia sevvz eius sumus.” 

miLesOn See Of XVill. 7. 

xiii. 35. dia “Hoaiov rotv tpopyrov is now attested only by 
s*, two members of the Ferrar group, and some other 
minuscules, but Eusebius and Jerome found it in several 
manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a 
proof of Matthew’s ignorance. It is certainly, therefore, 
genuine, although it is omitted by Syr™, Syr, by the 
“accurate” manuscripts according to Eusebius,! and by the 
“vulgata editio” according to Jerome. The conjecture of 
the latter, that "Aca@ was the original reading, which was 
changed to “"Heaiov by some unintelligent copyist and then 
dropped as incorrect, only serves to show what sort of ideas 


1 Corderius (Cazen. Psal., ii. 631) substitutes ‘‘ ancient ” for ‘‘ accurate.” 


252 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT. 


he had with regard to textual criticism. The assertion of the 
Breviarium in Psalmos, p. 59 f., that all the old manuscripts 
read “in Asaph propheta” is pure fiction. Compare ’Iepeutou 
in Matt. xxvii. 9, where one would expect Zayapiov, and 
where we find that “Iepeudov is omitted by some witnesses 
and replaced in others by Zayapiov or “ Esaiam.” “Esaiam” 
has also crept into the Vulgate manuscript rus (W—W’s R). 
On the insertion, omission, and interchange of such names, 
see W-H’s discussion of this passage, and the “Supple- 
mentary Note” by Burkitt on Syr*" in the edition of 1896, 
p. 143. For an interesting exchange of names (Jonah and 
Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8. Asaph is called 6 wpodgijrng in 
2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, Ezw/, ii. 313 f. Weiss? 
would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as 
being simply introduced from iii. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and xii. 17. 

xiv. 3. Zahn (£zv/,, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable 
that D and certain important Latin witnesses should have 
removed the (wrong) name, Philip, from this passage on the 
ground of their better knowledge, while allowing it to stand 
without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes rather that 
they have preserved the original text, and that ®:A/r7ov is 
here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss®, 
on the other hand, sees no reason why it should be either 
bracketed or omitted. The possibility of its being inserted 
is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or seven 
manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is one of 
the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly 
preferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses. 

xv. 40. For Oavatw reXevrarw, Syr™ has wpa, evidently in 
accordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron 
(§ 20, 23) the second half of this verse seems to be replaced 
by Mark vii. 10d. After “morte moriatur” in this passage, 
Ephraem adds “et qui blasphemat Deum crucifigatur,’ which 
Zahn (forsch., i. 157) thinks he must have found in his 
original. This apocryphal addition, which has no other 
testimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like 


MATT. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 253 


a passage that had been afterwards removed from the text of 
the New Testament with complete success (/orsch., i. 241). 
The correct explanation of the words is given by Harris: 
they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi. 23. Compare 
Driver’s Deuteronomy on the passage, and the reference there 
made to Lightfoot’s Ga/atians (Extended Note on iii. 13, 
ninth edition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words: 
“propter blasphemiam Dei suspensus est,’ while Onkelos 
says »ooyN » onp am by, and Siphre own ns Oopw yap. This 
should be noted in connection with Matt. xxvi. 65, and still 
more so with John xix. 7. The only passage usually cited 
there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should have 
been stoned. Our commentators pass too hastily over the 
question why the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of 
stoning. 

xvi. 184, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned, 
there is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether 
this passage, like the one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is 
original or not. There may, however, be cases in which one 
cannot overlook the fact that where the “lower” criticism 
ends the “higher” begins. Compare, on the one side, Zahn, 
Forsch., i. 244 ff, and on the other, Resch, Logia, p. 55; 
Paralleltexte, ii. 187-196, 441. 

xvi. 22. The peculiar reading, “ compatiens,” which is found 
in the Arabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, § 23. 42: Zahn, GX., 
ii. 546), and which Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now 
explained by the Syr*™ of Mark viii. 32: see my note in 
Lewis, Some Pages, p. xiii. The very same play upon the 
words pin, “to pity,” and on, “to be far from,” is found as late 
as in the Histoire de Mar-/Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, 
ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4. For 
a moment I thought of dpyiwOes and ordAayxvcGes in 
Mark i. 41. 

xviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum ra ayaa édOeiv dei, 


pakdpios dé 6’ ob épxerat, Which, according to the Clementine 


Homilies (xii. 29), 6 Tis aAnOetas mpodirns én, was known 


254 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT. 


also to Ephraem (cf Zahn, Forsch., i. 241 f.on § 50. 4). An 
exact parallel to this “harmless expansion of the canonical 
text” is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in 
Codex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium: that “for 
every good word that men do zot speak they shall give 
account” (see Lewis, /z the Shadow of Sinai (1898), pp. 
256-261 ; and thereon, 7/4Lz., 1899, col. 177). 

xviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the 
Oxyrhynchus Logia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), “ ubi 
unus est ibi et ego sum.” Zahn believes that Ephraem found 
this in his text, but that Aphraates, who also has it, arrived at 
it by way of a “spiritual interpretation ” of the canonical words. 
After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these words, 
Zahn says: “It appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates 
did not find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in 
Ephraem, but by way of interpretation reached the same 
thought that Ephraem found in his text as a word of comfort 
spoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces the 
saying with the words: ‘He comforted them in His saying.’) 
The interpretation, which may not have been original in 
Aphraates, became first a gloss and then part of the text of 
Tatian’s Harmony.” This should be noticed in connection 
with the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt in the Introduc- 
tion to Barnard’s Bzblical Text of Clement (Texts and Studies, 
V5), DIN): 

xx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder’s reply given 
in Syr", uy adikee we (Baethgen, uz} wor Komovs mapexe) is 
ignored by Tischendorf. Our commentators also err in not 
taking note of the variant cuvepwvyca cor for suvepovncas 
wot. Compare the similar variation in John viii. 57; also 
Luke xviii. 20, ras évroXas otda, read by the Marcionites instead 
of otdas; and Ephes. v. 14, éeruwaices tov Xpicrov, derived 
through a presupposed reading, érnpaice cor 6 Xpicros. 
Luvepovnca cor in Matt. xx. 13 is also attested by Syr®, 
which agrees with the common text in the first member of 
the verse. It is also found in the newly-discovered purple 





MATT. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 255 


=< 


manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees with the 
usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this 
verse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (éraipe, ovx adixo 
ge améAaBes Ta ca ev TH Cwy cou: vov Gpov TO Gov Kat 
urarye) see Zahn, GK., ii. 445. 

xx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly 
omitted with »s B L Z and the Egyptian versions. All the 
Syriac versions have it, including the newly-discovered Syr*”. 
It is worth observing that the verse with this addition forms 
the close of a lection in Syr®*", 

xx. 28. Westcott and Hort devote one of their “Notes on 
Select Readings” to the addition to this verse, and in the 
edition of 1896 Burkitt adds that it cannot have stood in 
Syr*™, because there was not room for it on the leaf that is 
missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20. According to 
W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D among 
the Greek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions. 
“The first part only, tets—etvar, is preserved in m, ger, and 
apparently Leo, who quotes no more ; the second part only, 
elsepxXouevoi—xpryouov, in ger, and apparently Hilary. The 
first part must come from an independent source, written or 
oral ; the second probably comes from the same, but it is in 
substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10.” Tischendorf states 
that of the Old Latin, four (f g,1q) omit the section, which, 
however, is found in cd e ff, , g, h (m) n, two manuscripts of 
the Vulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon. 
To these W-W add also the Old Latin r, two manuscripts 
of the Vulgate not usually employed by them, and, of 
those forming the basis of their edition, H™* @ O—ze. the 
Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century has 
written on the margin of O, “mirum unde istud additum: 
cum Lucas parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos 
accubitus eligentibus decimo canone, ubi M(atthaeu)s sua 
non communia dicit referat.” This resembles the marginal 
note attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (not 
given by Jos. White, but by Adler, from Cod. Assem., 1): 


256 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MATT. 


Haec quidem in exemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur 
capite 53: inveniuntur autem in exemplis graecis’ hoc loco: 
quapropter hic etiam a nobis adiecta sunt. 

The word demvoxdjtwp, which Resch took from this 
passage into the text of his Logia /Jesu, for 6 ce Kal avrov 
ckaAdéous, found in Luke xiv. 9, should itself have provoked 
investigation. The only Latin witnesses which render it ina 
substantive form are d, which has coenae tnvitator both times, 
and m, which has zzvztator the first time. The others give it 
as a relative clause (guz vocavit, invitavit), so that they may 
have read it in the form in which it stands in our present 
text of Luke.? It is impossible not to believe that some 
connection exists between these substantive expressions 
and the Syriac xnyowms sv, “master of the feast,’ which 
is found in Syr™ and Syr*", and is also given by Aphraates, 
for rw KexAnxote adtov in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr. 388, 12-19; 
Zahn, Forsch., i. 85, note). Syr™ has it both times in this 
passage of Matthew.* 

Bengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the 
interpolation in his Gzomon, and his view with respect to it 


1 Or ‘‘exemplo graeco,” according as the plural points are inserted or not. 
The passage is printed in Syriac by Cureton, p. xxxvi, who says that it is also 
found in the margin of the London manuscript of the Peshitto, 14456. He also 
gives the verses in which Juvencus paraphrases this text. 

2 The other variations of the Latin witnesses are extremely instructive—viz. : 


locis eminentioribus superioribus g, emm. honorificis m 
clarior dignior d mg,emm. honoratior e 
deorsum inferius go emm. infra m 
inferior humilior minor 

superius sursum in superiori loco, 
utilius utile gloriam. 


This variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was translated into 
Latin. 

3 The Thesaurus Syriacus does not contain the word either in col. 1405 under 
xmown, or in col. 2205 under x7». 

It may also be observed in passing, that the passage is one of those whose 
sense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the negative in this or 
that witness (see below on Gal. ii. 5). Instead of ral ek petCovos, Syr™ reads ral 
uh ex welCovos. Moreover, it takes (nre?re as imperative, a fact that Tischendorf 
has failed to notice. 





MATT. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 257 


has, therefore, to be gathered from his apparatus. “ Inter- 
jicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos autem, etc. .... Vid. Rich. 
Simon, Oés. Nouv., p. 31. Et sic fere Cant. (ze, D) cuius 
lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad Latina 
haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit: Latina autem sua, sub 
manu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento licentiae 
suae. Eandem periocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius: habentque 
praeterea codd. Lat. aliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 f, 
interveniente forsan Evangelio Nazaraeorum .... Priorem 
duntaxat partem, ‘Vos autem .... minui’ habet alius cod. 
Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset, non 
scribendum agnosceret: eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Et 
tamen .... porro ab hoc loco ad Luce. xxii. 28, verbum cres- 
cendi protulit Cant. coenaeque invitator ei dicitur decrvoxAjrwp.” 

The truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shown 
by the indicative guaeritis and the imperative of the Syriac, 
which are both derived from the ambiguous (yrefre. There 
cannot be the slightest doubt of this, seeing that the dis- 
covery of Codex Beratinus (#) has added a second Greek 
witness in support of the interpolation. It reads éNatTwv 
(cf. minor, c), omits the cat before éré\Oy just as m does with 
et, has aye in place of aivaye (accede: d, collige), and the com- 
parative ypyomwrepov (utzlzus) for the positive read by D d. 
The word deczvoxdjtwp also occurs in ®.' It is not found 
in Bekker’s Pollux or in Schmid’s Hesychius, and the only 
instance that ancient lexicons are able to cite for its usage is 
that of Athenzeus, who observes (4. 171 B) that Artemidorus 
calls the é\éatpos by that name. The note appended in 
Hase-Dindorf’s Stephanus was not correct at the time of its 
publication: Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef. 
Eust. Od., p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: A. in 
Lex. MS. Cyrilli exp. ésriatwp. In the same work dezvo- 
kAntoptov is cited from Eust., /Z, 766, 58, and as an explana- 


‘ T see that Chase, who discusses the passage in pp. 9-14 of his Syro-Ladzx 
Text, has the same impression : ‘‘ the compound Greek word in D, 6 de:mvoxaAfrwp, 


seems intended to represent the Syriac expression ‘ the lord of the supper.’ ” 
R 


258 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ MATT. 


tion of éatiatopiov from the Lex. MS. Cyrilli. The word 
therefore belongs to the later popular language. The ques- 
tion is whether it may not also belong to the vocabulary of 
Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word 
k7THnTwp in Acts iv. 34. 

On the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn, 
Forsch. i. 85, 179. Onthe questions connected with its inter- 
polation see Chase and p. 216 above. 

xxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference 
caused by the insertion or omission of the article. If we read of 
Aéyovres with x° E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed 
of the Sadducees (“ who say,” Weizsacker: “ members of that 
sect who deny the resurrection,” Stage) ; if we omit of with »* 
B D and Syr*”, we have then what they actually said to Jesus, 
But as this would be the only place where Matthew gave an 
explanation of this sort regarding Jewish affairs, the article 
should be omitted. See note zz loco, Exposttor's Greek Testa- 
ment, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version. 

xxiii. 35. 8! omits viov Bapaxiov, which is replaced in the 
Gospels of the Hebrews by “filium Joiadae.” Zahn (4zw/., 
ii. 308) refers to the view of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and 
many others, that the author, or redactor, or translator of 
Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly called the son 
of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of Barachiah 
in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch, 
who was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, Be//., iv. 5. 4). 
He points out that this would involve a prediction on the 
part of Jesus, and that, moreover, the scene of the murder 
is different in the two cases: that the locality in Matt. 
points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew’s mistake 
in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion 
with the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in 
Zech. i. 1. It should be observed, however, that Lucian 
alone calls the murdered person in Chronicles by the name 
of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah. 

KV; A1..See on Luke xx. 35. 





MATT. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 259 


xxvi. 73. “Omuorager was formerly attested by D alone, but 
has now the further support of Syr". The clause cat 4 AaAua 
gov ouorager has crept into a great number of manuscripts, 
including even A, in Mark xiv. 70. There Tischendorf 
remarks, “Omnino e Mt. fluxit,” in which he is quite right. 
But he is wrong when he says “ipsum ouorager glossatoris est.” 
Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian 
(Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. The 
converse is the truth—viz., that D alone preserves the original 
reading, and that djAov ce zored is the voice of the dropOwrijs. 

xxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in 
some manuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omitted 
only by a b and the two minuscules 33 and 157. Augustine 
also observes that Matthew himself would have noticed his 
mistake or had his attention called to it by others. On this 
compare my notes on ¢Gapuvate in Acts iii. 14, which I have 
explained by supposing that the author read onna> or on735 
instead of onnps (Prilologica Sacra, p. 40; above, p. 170). 
Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome evidently still found ’lepexuéov in 
all the manuscripts. Zayapiov is supplied only by 22 and 
Esaiam by 1. See on Matt. xiii. 35, and compare Exposztory 
Times, November 1900, p. 62. 

xxvii. 16. Zahn (Z£zn/, ii. 294) points out that Origen also 
found /esus given as the prenomen of Barabbas “in very 
ancient manuscripts,” but that in all probability Tatian did 
not have it, seeing that Bar-Bahlul cites it expressly as the 
reading of the “Distinct” (@e, not harmonised) Gospel. 
Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he was called 
by a name meaning “filius magistri eorum,” so that he must 
have been thinking not of Bar-’absam but of Bar-rabbam. 

xxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, Zevrés 
and Studies, Vv. 5, p. X1x. 

xxviii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. 144 (LXX), cat éd00y adto 
é€ovoia, and also Dan. vii. 13 (=Matt. xxvi. 64), vii. 14 f. 
(= Matt. xxviii. 18). See the English Revised Version with 
marginal References (Oxford, 1899). 


260 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MARK. 


According to the subscriptions found in various minus- 
cules, the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek “by 
John,” or “by James,” to which some add “the Brother of 
the Lord,’ or “by Bartholomew, the celebrated Apostle 
(xavevgjuov), but as others say by John the Theologian, o% 
Kat adnOas etpijxacw.” See Tischendorf, and Zahn, E77, ii. 267. 


Mark. 


As if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression 
above (p. 246), there has come into my hands Blass’s 7Jert- 
kritische Bemerkungen zu Markus. lf the statements con- 
tained in the introductory remarks are correct, and scarcely 
any other view is possible in the circumstances described, 
then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is a 
hopeless matter. “An evangelist or teacher who obtained 
possession of the originally anonymous Commentarius could 
not feel bound to respect the external form, but considered 
himself justified in correcting it if it seemed to him to be 
defective, and even felt called to correct or complete its sub- 
ject matter.” Blass reminds us that we have whole classes of 
documents, legends of saints e.g., which were treated with the 
utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in 
this case editors and revisers. But he says that no one has 
treated Mark quite so drastically as all this. His summing 
up of the matter is, that the critic can often do no more 
than recognise and admit the early multiplicity, and that 
in such a case it were best to print the text in parallel 
columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of 
the variants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally 
trustworthy authorities there are none; here one group is 
right, there another, and we no sooner give them credence 
than they mislead us with some fresh error. 

We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed 
by Tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his 
death in 1873 in answer to the question, “ Have we the genuine 


MARK. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 261 


text of the Evangelical and Apostolical writings?” All the 
more urgently, therefore, do we need fresh studies in textual 
criticism, and their appearance in Germany is the more gratify- 
ingon that account. The MWarkus-Studien of Dr. H. P. Chajes 
(Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They 
are purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method. 

leon coe tide sce above: Zahn, “27/.: ii; 220: fh, 235); 
Swete, zz /oco; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the 
Critical Review, April 1899, 206 f.: “We do not see, how- 
ever, why Professor Swete should regard the opening verses 
as probably not a part of the original work. One might say 
the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel opens, 
or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary 
evidence is substantially the same in each case, and the 
internal considerations are much too indeterminate.” It may 
be pointed out, as remotely analogous to this, that before 
Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-—W) contains a note 
in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect, “ genea- 
logia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,” 
while Y has the words “incipit evangelium secundum 
Matthaeum ” in the text, and eight manuscripts begin verse 18 
with capital or red letters. Compare Scrivener, I. c. iii., on 
the divisions of the text in B and other manuscripts. 

For the way in which the opening sentences are to be con- 
strued, reference must be made to the commentaries, It may 
be said here, however, that parallels may be cited from the 
New Testament for each of the three possible constructions. 


These are (1) ’Apxy ...., Kaw... . avrou, eyevero; (2) 
"A pxn pp MeOeng 2 ss %< AUTON. "Hyevero ; (3) "Apxn aetem eee 
Kadws .... avtov, éyévero. For (1) and (2) compare 


Luke iii. 1 ff., and for (3) 1 Tim.i.1 ff. Origen favours the 
first construction (Contra Celsum, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As 
regards the text it need only be said that cai is read before 
eyévero (v. 4) by 8}, and that de is found after it, not only 
in the Coptic, but also in Syr™*", 

i. 2. Origen here read éyw and éumpocer cov (i. 131). But 


262 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MARK. 


the former should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with 
all the good authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. ro is not taken 
from Mark i. 2 (Zahn, Az72/, ii. 316, 332). One can see how im- 
portant the so-called “ lower” criticism may be for the “ higher.” 

i. 11; ix. 7. See on “ Punctuation ” above, p. 52. 

i. 29. “B here has ée€eXOwv #AOev, and D bceq Pesh. have 
substantially the same. This is not an improvement, because 
it excludes Peter and Andrew. The reading of Syr™ is 
peculiar, ‘and He went out of the synagogue and came into 
the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and John 
were with him), and the mother-in-law etc.’” See Zahn, 
Ezndl., i. 252, and below on ix. 14. 

i. 41. The remarkable “Western reading” dpyiets is dis- 
missed by Swete with a reference to W-H, who call it “a 
singular reading, perhaps suggested by v. 43 (éuSpmnoduevos), 
perhaps derived from an extraneous source.” In my Philologica 
Sacra, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion that it is impossible 
to suppose a copyist altered s7Aayyuicbels to dpyioOets, even 
though éuSpiuyocauevos does follow two verses further down.! 
Either opyy, opyt¢eoAa: has another meaning in Biblical Greek, 
which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a differ- 
ence in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, e.g., is very 
common. Compare Ps, xii. 6, m5’, Gr. ya’; Ps. xiv. 6, 3» = 
liii. 6, yan; mow in Isa. xxxix. 2 for you in 2 Kings xx. 13; 
Ps. xxii. 25, niay, where Gr. has déyo1e = miann; Ps. xcvii. 11, 
yu, Gr. dvéretXev =m; and especially Mark ix. 19 in 
the recently-published Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of 
Lewis—Gibson, where Cod. B has nnn for nynn found in A B. 
Compare also 3n, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and sy (p. 135). A 
glance at the Thesaurus Syriacus 3953 shows that oy is used, 
not only for Bpovray, but also for orAayxviger Oa, orépyew, 
and cuu7mabety, while oyins stands for yaderawev, ayavaxreiy, 
and yoyyv¢ew. Payne-Smith gives no instance of dpyifer Oa. 
The usual Syriac word for it even in Syr%™ and Syr™* is 139 


1 The case is quite different in 1 Macc. v. 2, where the first hand of 8 wrote 
wpylcOncay for €BovAetdoavto. Here wpylacbn occurs immediately before it. 





MARK. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 263 


or nonns ; both verbs are found together in 1 Mace. vi. 59 for 
the simple wpyicOycay (WIN INDNNN). It is worth noting that 
in Col. iii. 13, opyjv is read by F G, where D* has péuwu, and 
the other authorities noudiy. 

On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, Fragments etc. 
(1895), p. 6. He shows that Ephraem had opyio@eds in his 
text alongside of orAayyxuoGeis. The Arabic Diatessaron, 
in which the pericope does not come till § 22, follows the 
usual text, and so, too, does Syr*". 

ii. 14. Zahn (ZzwZ, ii. 263) holds that “ Levi son of Alphaeus” 
is the original reading here and not “ James,” and that it was 
taken from Mark into the Gospel of Peter. The reading 
“ Jacobum ” was also taken into the first hand of the Vulgate 
manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124,abcdeff,r. In Koetschau’s 
new edition of Origen, the name is no longer spelt Aefrjs 
but Aeuns (i. 113, 19; Cod. P: Aeuis). 

iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his 
“Bnehargem,” which is retained in the German Revised 
Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome has “Benereem.” I have 
looked in vain in Lyra, Pole’s Syxopszs, Calov, and Wolf. 

iii. 31. We have here to choose between xadovrtes (8 B C L 
etc.), pwvovvtes (D etc.), and ¢yrovvtes (A): A leaves a space. 
I am inclined to think that @wvovrTes is the original reading, 
which was improved by the substitution of the more usual 
word xaNovvres, just as ov dwvetvtos axkovw was altered to 
NaXeovros in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47. Com- 
pare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original 
reading couicapevor (N* P) was thought to be improved by 
the substitution of A\aBovres (N° DE K) or rpocde€auevor (A). 
Here, too, A stands alone. Was it never copied ? 

vi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in 
this verse which has not been explained. Both Tischendorf 


and Wordsworth and White number this verse ae But 


according to the table in 7zGr., p. 152, W—W, p. 10, pericope 
58 belongs to the ¢enth Canon as being one that is peculiar to 


264 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MARK. 


Mark. Asa matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius meant 
akxovoas de at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable 
that Eusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20 
one pericope of the second canon, but numbered 14, 15 as 


a and 17-20 as a He must therefore have found some- 


thing peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58. 

vi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual] point 
of view. Most authorities read that “ Herod had put John 
in prison, heard him and did much,” or “ heard much of what 
he did,” axkovoas avtov moda (a) érote. But in place of this 
last word s BL and the Bohairic version alone read jzepet, 
“was much perplexed when he heard him.” The great 
majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter 
reading, setting aside évolec as the scriptio proclivior. But in 
that case should it not have been y#zopetro? In classical Greek 
it should undoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find jjzoper in 
Wisd. xi. 5, 17, for example, and what is specially worth 
noting, dinwope: in the parallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which 
D, it is true, has #7opetro. The passage may therefore be 
taken as showing that the correct reading has been preserved 
in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would lead 
us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived 
from any one of these three, but that x B L continued childless. 
Is that likely? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of 
emrotet (Otzum Norvicense; see Expository Times, August 1899, 
p- 483), and so, too, does Burkitt (Zerts and Studies, v. 5, 
p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line 8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts 
vary between ueTewpoToAew, —Topev, —roerv, and —Aovyeu. 

vii. 33. Codex W’, published by Harris in facsimile (1896), 
here exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack (7/Zz., 
1891, p. 356) thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads: érrucev 
els TOUs OakTUAOUs avTOU Kat €Barev els TA @TA TOU KwHOU Kal 
iwato Ths yAwoons Tov moytAddov. This gives us quite 
another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities 
do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten the 





MARK. } CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 265 


fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching 
the tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr*", which says 
that “he put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his 
tongue.”+ This manuscript exhibits other noteworthy read- 
ings, which will be found most conveniently in Swete. 


ix. 14. The singular, é\@ov .... eidev, has the support of D, 
while Syr*" takes the side of the plural, é\@dyres . . . . €tdov. 


Zahn decides for the latter. He explains the plural by saying 
that the original narrator was evidently one of the three dis- 
ciples who were with Jesus on the Mount, in all probability 
Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of course, in telling the story, 
used the first person and the plural number, “When we came 
down from the mountain we saw, etc.” Mark, reporting the 
words of Peter, turned the first person into the third, retaining 
the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the some- 
what peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said, 
“we (¢.e. Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into owr house 
with James and John.” In reporting Peter’s words Mark 
paraphrases “we” and “our,” and says, “they came into the 
house of Simon and Andrew with James and John.” See 
Zahn, Ezw/., ii. 245 f. 

x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in 
addition to the readings dwyyuev and dwyuov the singular 
dwwyuou is exhibited by D. Has the mysterious reading ers 
mov in Clem. Alex. (Quzs Dives) anything to do with this? 
It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript 
(Lagarde: Storr) has a note after “post persecutionem” to 


_ the effect that this is the “Roman” reading, 


Xiv. 51. kat veavioxos Tis, S BCL; veavioxos d€ tis, D; Kal 


_ eis Tis veavicxos, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on 


the ground that the text has evidently been accommodated 


_to verse 47, under the false impression that another of the 


disciples is referred to. It is adopted, however, by Tischen- 


_dorf’, and supported by Brandt, Dze Evangelische Geschichte 
etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff. 


! So given in Merx’s edition, but not in Lewis. —7™7. 


266 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [MARK. 


xiv. 65. €\a8ov, s A B and most authorities: é\auBavor, 
D G, I, 13, 69, 2°¢, al: @Baddov, H. . . .: €Badov, EM U etc. 
The simplest explanation of this variety of readings is that 
éA\auGavoy was first, and that it was changed into the more 
common aorist é\aBov, which then became ¢Badoy or €BadXov. 
The converse is not so likely, viz. that ¢BadXov or éBarov 
became first €\a@8ov and then é¢AduBavor, or that é\aBoy gave 
rise directly both to é\au@Bavov and éBadrov or éBadXov. 
On these and also on internal grounds the reading of D G is 
to be preferred: “they began to spit upon him, and con- 
tinued to buffet him.” 

xv. 28. Syr‘™ is now to be added to the authorities that 
omit the interpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham 
and Chammatha, Dysmas and Gestas, Titus and Dumachus 
(z.e. Oeouaxos), see Berger in the notice of Wordsworth, and 
White’s fz/ogus mentioned above, and also J. R. Harris in 
the Expositor, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304. 

xv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in 
Swete’s edition to the very singular reading of Codex D, avidiras 
instead of éyxareAi7es. In addition to the testimony of the 
Old Latin manuscripts c (exprobrasti me), i(me in opprobrium 
dedisti), k* (maledixisti: see Burkitt in the Journal of Theo- 
logical Studies, i. p. 278), this reading is attested in Greek by 
Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it has yet been given 
that is in all respects satisfactory. See Expository Times, 
August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900. 

xvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to 
omit the conclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the 
text, only they separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat 
wider space than usual, and give a note in the margin to the 
following effect — viz. “The two oldest Greek manuscripts 
and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the end. 
Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.” 
The German Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is 
easily accounted for on the principles on which that version is 
made. The most careful discussion of the passage is now that 





LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 267 


of Swete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also Zahn, Z7n/,, ii. 227-235, 237, 
240, and compare the Appendix in Chase’s Old Syriac Ele- 
ment, pp. 150-157, “ Note on Mark xvi. 9-20,” and Arthur 
Wright, Zhe Gospel according to St. Luke, p. xv. 

The subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark’s 
Gospel was written at Rome ten years after the Ascension, 
and delivered to the brethren there by Peter, the zpwroxopv- 
gatos of the Apostles. Others give Egypt as the place of 
origin. It is of more importance to observe that A 20, 262, 
300 contain the note: avreBAnOy Ouolws ex THY éxTrOVdaTMEvwr. 
This refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these 
manuscripts: éypady Kat avteBdHnOn ex Trav ev ‘leporoAvmors 
Tadao avtiypapwv THY év TO Wylw Oper aToKeméevov. A similar 
subscription occurs in 2°*, a minuscule of considerable import- 
ance for Mark (473 in Scrivener ; see above, p. 151, n.). 


Luke. 


Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and 
decided peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a 
great many problems connected with the text of Luke’s Gospel. 

On the supposed title see Zahn, A7zv/, ii. 383. 

i. 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass 
follows certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenzus, 
in giving: in ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, év a’tw de Tw 
katpw. Zahn points out (Z7zw/, ii. 354) that this is the cus- 
tomary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the Lec- 
tionaries, and that while no doubt in the later Greek system 
the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is 
the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case 
the origin of this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which 
here parts company with the Latin witnesses, gives other 
indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system. 
See the Introduction to Scrivener’s edition of the Codex, p. li. 

i. 46. On the reading E/zsabeth, see above, p. 238. 

i. 63. The 8 text inserted the words éAvOn 4 yAdooa 


268 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


avtou before cai éOavuacay wavtes, by way of explaining the 
astonishment of the people. Zahn thinks this an absurd 
misplacement, seeing that the mention of Zechariah’s speaking 
does not come till the following verse, and the people could 
not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him 
speak. Syr‘ accordingly corrects this by putting the men- 
tion of the astonishment after that of the speaking, in which 
it is followed by Blass. 

ii. 4, 5. In the 8 text Blass adopts the reading av’rovs, and 
transposes the clause dia TO eivat avTovs €€ olkov Kal TaTplas 
Aaveié to the end of verse 5. This arrangement is also 
exhibited by D. Syr*” reads “ both.” One Old Latin manu- 
script has essen¢, but as it exhibits the clause in the usual 
place, Zahn thinks that essent is manifestly a clerical error for 
esset. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from Tatian. 
See Ainl., i. 355 5\Lorsch., i. 118: GAG i 561 3 Vetter een 
adritte Korintherbrief (1894), 25. 

ii. 7. One Latin manuscript (e) has obvolverunt and colloc- 
averunt, which may be compared with essent in verse 4. 
Zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection that 
the mother does not usually herself attend to a new-born 
infant. 

ii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels run 
exactly? Is it év avOpwzrors evdoxias, or év avO. evdoxia? The 
question belongs more to exegesis than textual criticism. 
The whole matter turns upon a single letter, but it divides 
Western Christendom in two parts. The Latin Church reads 
it as 22 homintbus bonae voluntatis, “among men of goodwill,” 
or, as modern critics understand it, “among men of God’s 
good pleasure.” The second reading makes it “goodwill to 
men.” Which should it be? The former reading, the geni- 
tive, is supported by x* A B* D, the Latin, and the Gothic, 
whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including the Bohairic, 
the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of the 
Old Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thing 
seems to me decisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely 





LUKE. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 269 


any part of the New Testament is so steeped in the Hebrew 
spirit as the first two chapters of Luke’s Gospel. As Field 
points out in the third part of his Otzum Norvicense, the 
Greek av@pwzo corresponds to the Hebrew expression “son 
of Adam,” which cannot take another genitive after it—‘‘ sons 
of Adam of goodwill.” On the other hand, the word goodwill 
in Hebrew is always followed by the preposition correspond- 
ing to the Greek év. So that, till we have further testimony, 
I would retain the nominative and the tripartite division, 
notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf, Westcott and 
Hort, Weizsacker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way, 
mentions no variants in the 6 text. 

ii. 40. D here reads éy avtw in place of éz avro. The 
difference is slight, but not unimportant from a theological 
point of view. It is not accidental, as is shown by the 
corresponding change of é7’ into eis in ch. iii. 22. 

iii, 22. Zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein D 
and its associates have preserved the original reading. They 
exhibit here éyw onmepov yeyévyyxa ce in place of év coi 
evdoxnoa. He says, moreover, that “those who hold the 
former as original need not lament its disappearance from 
tradition subsequent to the year 300” (zz, ii. 240, 356). 
See Burkitt in Barnard’s Lzblical Text of Clement, pp. 
Xiil. 38. 

iii. 23 ff. May not the peculiar form of the genealogy in D 
be explaimed by the Diatessaron, which originally had no 
genealogy? The index of the Latin edition shows that there 
was none originally, but we find in the text one compiled 
from Matt. i. 1-16, Luke iii. 34-37, Matt. i. 17. The first- 
known manuscript of the Arabic Diatessaron had Matt. i. 1-17 
in § 2,and Luke iii. 24-38 in § 9. The better manuscript, 
discovered later, has no genealogy in the text, but it contains 
one compiled from Matt. and Luke, inserted between the 
close of the work and the subscription by way of appendix. 
See Zahn, C4K., ii, 539; J. H. Hill, Barhest Life of Christ 
etc, p. 3° f. 


270 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


iii. 27. The correct explanation of ‘Pyoa is that given by 
Plummer in his Commentary on Luke, and quoted by Bacon 
in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 140. “ Rhesa, who 
appears in Luke, but neither in Matt. nor in 1 Chron., is 
probably not a name at all, but a title which some Jewish 
copyist mistook fora name. Zerubbabel Rhesa or Zerubbabel 
the Prince (NYS) has been made into ‘ Zerubbabel (begat) 
Rhesa.’” The interpretation of Rhesa as “prince” is, how- 
ever, not new. See Pole’s Syzopszs: it was not safe to use 
the proper name Zerubbabel in Babylon, seeing that it meant 
“ventilatio Babelis,” and the name Sheshbazzar was therefore 
substituted for it. Sic filii eius Meshullam et Hanania, quia 
vix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt Abiud, ze. patris mei 
est gloria, et Rhesa princeps (Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae). 
Reuchlin (Rudimenta, p. 18) gives the explanation 3) (szc) 
qui cognominatur Mesollam. This interpretation, however, 
lends no real support to Sellin’s theory. 

iv. 34. The exclamation éa, which Zahn (GXK., i. 682) says is 
unknown in the New Testament, is omitted by D, eleven Old 
Latin manuscripts, and also by Marcion. It is supported by 
a considerable number of witnesses in Marki. 24. According 
to Zahn, these witnesses took it from Luke, but of this I] am 
by no means certain. Syr*" omits it in both places. In 
Luke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the Vulgate 
mentioned by Wordsworth and White. 

iv. 34. Marcion invariably omits Na€apyvé. There is, how- 
ever, no other authority for its omission. See Zahn, GK,, i. 
685; ii. 456. 

iv. 44. "Iovéalas is the better attested reading, and on 
account of the improbability of its being invented, should be 
regarded as the original. See Zahn, Azn/ectung, ii. 373. 

v. 5. Emirara in the New Testament is peculiar to Luke. 
In place of it D has didacxade here, and xvpie in viii. 24. It 
retains émietatra, however, in viii. 45, ix. 33, ix. 49, and 
XVii, 13. 

v. 14. The long interpolation at the end of the verse found 


LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 271 


in Dd is derived from Mark i. 45 and ii. 1, though there are 
slight differences. It is introduced here for harmonistic 
reasons. Was it taken from Tatian? 

v. 27. After the name of Levi, D inserts tov rod ’AXdaiov, 
which, according to Zahn, is not original. See Ezw/., ii. 263. 

v. 39. Marcion agrees with D in the omission of this verse. 
Syr and Syr are, unfortunately, both defective here. To 
the authorities for its omission should be added r, which 
Weiss does not mention. On the reasons for the omission 
of the verse, see Zahn, GK., i. 681. 

vi. 5. Zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man 
working on the Sabbath is taken from the same source as 
Mark xvi. 9 ff., and the pericope adulterze, John vii. 5 3-viii. 11 
—viz. from Papias, and that it may be historically true. See 
his Eznlectung, ii. 355. Westcott and Hort insert it among 
their “Noteworthy Rejected Readings,’ and Resch puts it 
among the “ Logia Jesu.” The Sinai-Syriac is defective here. 
For a long time it was thought that D and Stephen’s 6 were 
different manuscripts, and they are here cited by Mill as “duo 
codices vetustissimi.” This was shown to be a mistake by 
Bengel. Grotius also speaks of “nonnulli codices,’ and, 
according to Mill, thought the words were “adjecta ab aliquo 
Marcionita.” The narrative seems to have remained quite 
unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between its 
relation by D and its publication by Stephen in 1550. 
According to Scrivener’s edition of Codex Bezae, p. 435, 
none of the ten or twelve later hands that worked upon the 

_ manuscript down to the twelfth century and even later, 
seem to have touched the page on which this narrative 
stands (2050). It would seem, therefore, that no copy was 
ever made of this manuscript either. How much would have 
been lost had it also disappeared entirely ? 

vi. 10. Whether ws xai 7 GAXy is genuine or not is of no 
| material consequence so far as the exposition of the passage 
is concerned, but it is important in connection with the ques- 
tion of the relationship of Luke to the other Synoptics. The 





272 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


words are wanting in Mark iii. 5, but occur in Matt. xii. 13. 
See Zahn, A771, ii. 420. 

vi. 31. Zahn is not sure if Marcion’s text contained the 
Golden Rule in this passage in the negative form. GK., i. 
680 ; ii. 462. 

vii. 27. Zahn thinks that éumpooév cov should perhaps be 
omitted here (Zzw/, ii. 316). 

viii. 43. The words iarpois tpocavaXecaca 6Xov Tov Biov are 
omitted in B D. Zahn holds it to be an “ unworthy insinua- 
tion” to suppose that Luke, being himself a physician, toned 
down the expressions used by Mark as reflecting on the credit 
of his profession. The words are more likely to be a gloss 
from Mark. See Eznleitung, ii. 437. 

ix. I. This verse is written three times over in codex &. 
This cannot be a mistake. It might have been written twice 
by inadvertence, but not three times. The reason lies in the 
fact related—viz., the conferring of the power over evil spirits. 

‘ix. 16. The reading evAdyycev éx aitovs crept into the 
Vulgate manuscript called G by Wordsworth and White from 
the Old Latin. It is now attested also by Syr*™. See Lewis, 
Some Pages, in loco. Zahn thinks it is deserving of special 
attention (GXK., i. 682). In this he is quite right. 

ix. 18. Marcion here had roy viov Tov avOpadrov. See Zahn, 
GK,, i. 686. | 

ix. 52-56. “It is impossible to suppose that the shorter 
form of the text is the original, and the longer due to a later 
interpolation, as this would imply what is incredible—viz., that 
one of Marcion’s most antinomian readings found its way into 
a large number of Catholic manuscripts (D, the Peshitto, 
Harklean Syriac, most Latin witnesses, Chrysostom, etc.). 
The only probable explanation is that the Catholic writers 
objected to 544 and 554 on account of the use made of them 
by the Marcionites, and the apparently Marcionitic character 
of their contents. They were particularly offensive when 
taken together. Accordingly, some manuscripts like e and 
Syr omitted only 544, others, like A C, only 554, while 


LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES, 273 


others again, like B L Syr*, boldly omitted both... .. The 
words were written by Luke and not invented by Marcion.” 
Zahn, GK., i. 681, ii. 468; Ezm/,, ii. 357. 

x. I. Instead of 70, B D, Tatian, the Syriac, and the Latin 
give 72. According to Zahn, the number has nothing to do 
with the Jewish enumeration of 70 Gentile nations, languages, 
or angels, nor the 70 members of the Sanhedrim, the 70 
translators of the Old Testament, or with any other number 
70. These 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and Luke gives 
no hint of the allegorical significance of their number. Any 
such allegorizing was foreign both to himself and Theophilus, 
neither of whom was a Jew. See F7zw/,, ii. 392. 

xi. 2, On Barrodoyeiv ws of Novrol in D, see my Philologica 
Sacra, pp. 27-36. 

xi. 3. There is a certain amount of probability in Zahn’s 
view that Marcion was led to insert cov after dptos ériovctos 
by thinking of John vi. 33 f,, a passage which suggested itself 
to Origen also in this connection. See Zahn (GK,, i. 677, ii, 
471), who thinks it probable that Marcion interpreted the 
words in a spiritual sense (=supersubstantialts). 

x1. 53. The text of D here displays several marked varia- 
tions, which, however, do not affect the sense of the passage. 
Zahn sees in them the arbitrary alterations of a later time; 
but Weiss thinks that in some particulars they may preserve 
the original. 

xii. 1. Marcion, seemingly, and Jerome omit zpwrov, which 
is attested by most of the Old Latin witnesses, with the 
exception of b. See Zahn, GK., i. 692, ii. 474. 

xii, 14. The words 4 uepioryy were omitted by Marcion 
(Zahn, GK., i. 682). They are also wanting in the Sinai- 
Syriac (see Lewis, Some Pages). 

xii. 38. The mention of the éozepivy dvAaxy by Marcion 
and other authorities is due, according to Zahn (GK,, ii. 683 ; 
Eznl, ii. 356), to the “magisterial consideration” that an 
orderly householder would not come home from the festivities 


after midnight or in the early hours of the morning, but at the 
S 


274 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


latest in the first watch of the night, which was still called 
the evening. The reading is also found in Irenzus, but not 
in the Sinai-Syriac. 

xii. 51. Barew (S28) is found here in Syr*™ in place of 
zoujca (D e Syr), mittere (b 1), dodvac (usual text), This 
is interesting in view of Marcion. See Zahn, GX., i. 604, ii. 476. 
Tertullian seems to have been mistaken in thinking that 
paxapay was read in place of dtapepirmor in this connection 
(machaeram quidem scriptum est. Sed Marcion emendat, 
quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae). 

xiii. 8. See above, p. 193 ff. Chase cites this passage as an 
indication of the laxity of transcription of which D was guilty 
in introducing what appears to be a common agricultural 
phrase. In Columella (De Re Rustica, xi. 3) we find “con- 
fecta bruma stercoratam terram inditam cophinis obserat.” 
Chase also cites from the manuscript notes of Hort the refer- 
ence to Plutarch, Vzta Pompeii, 48, avrov 6é Tis KoTplwv Kopwor 
kata keparys Tov BUBXov katecxédace. Better than any words 
of mine are those of Zahn, Ezneztung, ii. 346:—No one with 
any perception of the difference between naive originality and 
a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic con- 
siderations can fail to assent to the following propositions— 
viz., (1) as regards contents and form of expression 6 (ze. the 
text of D and its associates) has preserved much original 
matter, which from the very first was peculiarly liable to 
alteration, and which was set aside by the learned revisers 
from the end of the third century onwards (Lucian, Hesychius, 
Pamphilus), etc. 

xvi. 12. While the common text with Syr“™ reads vuerepor, 
for which B L have xuérepoy, Marcion alone supports 157 
eil in reading éudv. How is this to be explained? Com- 
pare above, p. 211, and Zahn, GK, 1 682: 

xvi. 19. Zahn denominates the introductory words found 
in D, efzev dé kat érépay tapaBorjy, “a liturgical gloss at the 
beginning of a pericope.” Blass, too, omits them from the 8 
text, 





LUKE. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 275 


Xvi. 22, 23. N*, most Old Latin witnesses, and the Vulgate 
omit cai at the beginning of verse 23, and read érady év To 
aoy. This conjunction of the words is attested by Tatian 
and Marcion. The Sinai-Syriac presupposes the form “was 
buried. And being in Hades he lifted up his eyes.” Atten- 
tion may be drawn to the detailed notice of the different 
readings by’Wordsworth and White. They say: Asyndeton 
in Johanne tolerabile, in Luca vix ferendum videtur. . . . Vix 
dubium est quin Lucas ipse scripserit cat éragn’ kal év To 
ay, sed kat secundum in antiquissimis codicibus ut nunc in 
s* casu omissum, ex conjectura tribus modis restitutum 
videtur, sc. kat ev T@ Gdn, et ev de TH dy et ev THO Hbn Kal; 
quae lectiones omnes in codicibus Latinis referuntur, et ter- 
tiam ab Hieronymo ex traditione codicum suorum servatam 
magis quam ex ratione praelatam credimus. See Zahn, GX., 
i. 682, ii. 480. 

xvii. 11. “In all likelihood pécov, without the preposition, 
as given by D, is the original form. This was variously 
replaced by avauéoov (Ferrar Group), which is not amiss, by 
dia pwéoov (A X, etc.), which is not so good, and by dia uécov 
(x B L), which is very bad.” Zahn, Lznlectung, ii. 391. 
Compare, also (for uéoor), Jiilicher, Glecchnisreden Jesu, ii. 516. 

xvii. 21. Marcion inserts (Sov before éxe?Z, which Zahn holds 
to be original. Syr*™ reads “here it is, or there it is,” and 
therefore apparently omits the first ¢?dov as well. See Lewis, 
Some Pages. Wordsworth and White omit Tischendorf’s 
g'? from the authorities given by him in support of the 
omission of the second ecce. 

Xviii. 20. On the alterations made on the text here by the 
followers of Marcion, see Zahn, GX., i. 616, ii. 484. 

xviii. 25. The evidence in support of the readings rpijuaros 
and Bedorns is very strong (s B DL), The choice of the 
terms tpqua for tpvrnua Or Tpuwadria, and Berovy for padis, 
betrays the language of the physician. See The Exposttor’s 
Greek Testament, Acts of the Apostles, Introduction, pp. 9-11 ; 
Zahn, Eznlectung, ii. 427 f., 435 f. 


276 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


xx. 35. With reference to this verse, Tertullian makes the 
following charge against the Marcionites : Nacti enim scripturae 
textum ita in legendo decurrerunt : “quos autem dignatus est 
deus illius aevi”; “illius aevi” “deo” adjungunt ... . cum sic 
legi oporteat,“ quos autem dignatus est,” ut facta hic distinctione 
post “deum” ad sequentia pertineat “illius aevi,” etc. Zahn 
insists, as against Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar, that this 
requires not only the insertion of tro tov Ocov after car- 
afwwévres, but also the active voice instead of the passive, as 
though the Marcionites had read ovs de xatn€iwoev 0 Beds Tov 
al@vos exelvou, TUXEtV Kat Ths avaetacews. A similar change of 
construction occurs in Matt. xxv. 41, where it is quite certain 
that ro #rommacpeévoy is a correction of the stronger expression 
0 Wrolmacev 6 TaT}p jov, found in D, 1, 22, ten Old Latin manu- 
scripts, and the earliest Fathers. 

xxi. 30. The insertion of roy ckaprov a’tovy may be but a 
trifling addition, intended to facilitate the sense (Zahn, GX., 
i. 682), at the same time it is an interesting question how it 
comes to be in D, 157, 572 (see above, p. 211). Wordsworth 
and White say that D here is “ex Latinis forsan correctus.” 
Syr“" agrees with Syr in inserting the words. 

xxii. 16. For zAnpw0y D reads cawov BpwOy. On this see 
my Philologica Sacra, p. 38, where it is suggested that these 
two readings are due to the confusion of nbs and bax. This 
occurs several times in the Old Testament—eg. 2 Chron. 
xxx. 22, where tba) is represented in the LXX by ouwveré- 
Necav. But even apart from the question of a Hebrew foun- 
dation for the variant, I am inclined to regard cawov BpwOy 
as the original, and zAypw6y as the correction. 

xxii. 16-21. The narrative of the Last Supper is extant in 
three forms. There is (1) the common text, (2) that exhibited 
by the two most important of the Old Latin witnesses (b, e), in 
which verse 16 is followed by 19a, after which come 17, 18, 21, 
so that 194 and 20 are wanting altogether. The text of 
Syrs™ and Syr* resembles this. There is further (3) the form 
exhibited by D and four Old Latins, which has the same order 


LUKE. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 277 


as (1), but omits verses 193, 20. Zahn decides in favour of (2). 
See his Eznlettung, ii. 357 ff. It is to be observed that the 
last discovered Syriac omits the nominatival clause ro U7ep 
Yuav exxvvvouevoy after Tw aiuari wov, Which is the only member 
that seems to be derived, not from 1 Cor. xi. 24 f., but from 
Matthew and Mark, and that does not agree in construction 
with the rest. This confirms the supposition that these two 
verses are not part of the original text. See Westcott and 
Hort, Votes on Select Readings, p. 63 f.; Plummer, Commentary 
on St. Luke in the International Series (T. & T. Clark). Com- 
pare also the article by the latter in Hastings’ Dictionary of the 
Bible (Lord’s Supper). 

xxii. 36. On dparw Basil the Great (d. 379) remarks: 
Gpatw row ape otTw yap Kat Ta TOAAG ToY aTLYpapor 
EXEL hfe els [Os My eval mpocTayua adda Tpopytelav mpo- 
Néyovros Tov Kupiov. At present D is quite alone in exhibit- 
ing the reading dpet, which is worth noting in view of ta 
mo\Aa above. 

xxii. 43, 44. These verses, with their mention of the Bloody 
Sweat and the Strengthening Angel, are omitted in A BRT, 
one Old Latin (f), the Bohairic, Sahidic, and Armenian 
versions, and the Sinai-Syriac. On the other hand, they are 
read by the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, by the first 
and third hands of ~ (the second hand enclosed them in 
brackets and cancelled them by means of dots), by D, as also 
by most of the Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate. In the 
Greek Lectionaries they are omitted at the place where one 
would naturally expect them, but are found in the text of 
Matthew xxvi. together with portions of John xiii, in the 
Liturgy for Holy Thursday. This explains their insertion 
after Matt. xxvi. 39 in the Ferrar Group, at least in 13, 69, 
124. The first of these, moreover, repeats the first two words 
of verse 43 (Oy de) in Luke, but no more. The necessary 
inference is that these verses are no part of the original text 
of Luke. They go back, however, to a time when extra- 
canonical traditions from the Life and Passion of Jesus were 


278 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


in circulation either orally or in writing. Zahn holds that D 
here has preserved what Luke wrote. 

xxiii. 2. Zahn (GX., i. 668) expressly points out that Mar- 
cion did not invent the additional words cal cataNvovta Tov 
vOMoV Kat Tovs Tpodyjras, but found them in his exemplar. 
They occur in eight Old Latin and at least five Vulgate 
manuscripts, among which are four of the early codices 
collated by Wordsworth and White. One of them omits e¢ 
prophetas, while some others have xostvam after legem. Weiss 
takes no notice of this addition, nor of the further addition in 
verse 5 of the words aTOoT pepovTa Tas yuvaikas Kat Ta TEKVG, 
supported by at least two Old Latin manuscripts, both of 
which add xox enzm baptizantur sicut et nos, while one of them 
exhibits the still further extension ec se mundant. If the 
addition were really made by Marcion, it would be all the 
more deserving of attention. The omission of the additional 
words in verse 2 is conceivably due to homoioteleuton, the eye 
of the scribe passing from xatadvovra to xwAvovra. In the 
case of verse 5, the mention of the women and children is quite 
consistent with what is said elsewhere in the narrative of the 
Passion, but the reference to baptism and purification is not 
so clear. Codex c has the singular daptizatur, but this is 
merely a clerical error. 

xxiii. 34. The case of the First Word from the Cross is 
remarkable. This verse, containing the words, “ Father, for- 
give them, for they know not what they do,” is bracketed in s 
by an early corrector, and then restored; it is omitted by B 
without being replaced ; it is inserted in D by a hand not 
earlier than the ninth century, and omitted by two Old Latin 
manuscripts, by two Bohairic codices, by the Sahidic version, 
and by the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. Is it possible to 
suppose that a Christian would have cancelled these words in a 
Bible manuscript like s, unless he had valid reasons for doing 
so in the tradition of the Gospel text? Zahn thinks they were 
omitted from D by mistake. On the Order of the Seven Words 
see my note in the Expository Times for June 1900, p. 423 f. 


LUKE. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 279 


xxiii. 38. The notice of the three languages in which the 
Inscription on the Cross was written is taken from the text of 
John, and is read by all the Latin authorities with the single 
exception of codex Vercellensis (a). Syr*" is now to be added 
to the witnesses supporting the omission of the clause. Its 
use of the word spua reveals the ultimate affinity of this 
version with the Curetonian Syriac. The interpolation, as 
Zahn rightly asserts (GX., i. 675), points to the estimation in 
which John’s Gospel was held at an early date. Its insertion 
in Luke is undoubtedly erroneous. 

xxiii. 43. The insertion of tw émimXijocovt: in D, as well as 
the other variants found in this manuscript, viz. €Xevows, which 
is also read by D in Luke xxi. 7, and Oapoet, which is inserted 
by others in Luke viii. 48, is attributed by Zahn (Azn/lectung, 
ii. 356) to some preacher who sought in this way to contrast 
the penitent thief with his comrade. With the substantival 
expression @Aevois, compare derrvoxAijtwp exhibited by D in 
Matt. xx. 28. On the somewhat rare verb émitAjjooev, com- 
pare the new edition of Origen, i. 5,8; also Clement Alex. 
(ed. Dindorf ), i. 186, 188. 

xxiii. 53. After xefwevoc U, with a few minuscules, reads 
Kat mpocextdcev NOov méeyay ert tHv Ovpay TOU prnuecor, 
while three Vulgate manuscripts have a similar addition e¢ 
inpostto eo inposuit monumento lapidem magnum. On the 
other hand D, with its Latin, reads cat Oévros (leg. TeOevTos) 
avtod éréOnkey TH wrnueiw NlOov Sy moryts etkoa éx’Lov. The 
same thing is found in the Old Latin manuscript c, e¢ cum 
positus esset in monumento, posuerunt lapidem quem vix viginte 
volvebant. The Sahidic and Ti exhibit a similar expansion 
of the text. In this addition, which Scrivener thought was 
“conceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit,” Harris detects 
a Latin hexameter which the scribe of Codex Bezae “de- 
liberately incorporated into his text and then turned into 
Greek.” See his Study of Codex Bezae in Texts and Studtes, 
ii. 1, 47-52. Chase, on the other hand, adduces Josephus, 
Bell. Jud., vi. 5, 3 (Syvo-Latin Text, p. 62 ff.). Compare my 
Philologica Sacra, pp. 39, 58. 


280 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [LUKE. 


xxiv. 6. The reading dca (D, c, Marcion, etc.) in place of 
we is now attested also by the Sinai-Syriac. 

xxiv. 32. In place of xatouevyn (a text) and xexadvupevn (D), 
Blass inserts BeSapnuévy in the 8 text on the authority of the 
old Syriac versions, the Armenian, and the Sahidic. But in the 
Syriac this last reading is due to a transcriptional error of ~»p» 
for -»p» (see Blass himself, p. 120, and compare the variants 
‘pro and spy) in Rahmani’s Zestamentum D. N. Jesu Christt, 
p. 112,6); and as the Armenian is derived from the Syriac, 
the only question becomes whether the Sahidic reading is due 
to the same error. Kexadvumévy in D, which has hitherto 
baffled explanation, is shown to be a purely clerical error by 
comparison with Heb. xii. 18, where also xexavuévw becomes 
kexaAvumevw in the Greek of D and in Pseudo-Athan. 57. 

xxiv. 34. For \éyovras D reads Xéyorres, which is simply a 
clerical error arising easily from the influence of the Latin, 
which would be the same in either case. For the conclusions 
drawn from this reading by Resch, see his Aussercanonische 
Paralleltexte, iii. 779 f. Other examples of the same mistake 
(—es for —as) occur in Matt. xxii. 16; Acts vi. I1, xvi. 35; 
Rom. vi. 13. It is interesting to observe that Origen had 
Liuwvos kat Kreora (i. 184, ed. Koetschau). 

xxiv. 37. Zahn (GK., i. 681) rejects the supposition that 
the reading g¢avtacua for zvetua was coined by Marcion and 
taken from a Marcionite Bible into D. That he is right 
in doing so appears from Chase, who shows that gavracua 
here is the same as datmonoy acwuatoy in Ignatius (Ad 
Smyrnaeos, ili. 2). See my Philologica Sacra, p. 25. The 
Semitic equivalent of ¢avracua as well as of damonoy is 
INW, NIN which is used in both the earlier Syriac versions, 


1 See also von Dobschiitz, Das Kerygma Petri, p. 82, where he cites the 
passage of Origen relating to the Doctrina Petri, which is also quoted by Tischen- 
dorf on Luke xxiv. 39, and insists rightly that in the LXX. daiuévioy is never 
employed to represent 9:9. Conybeare’s articles on ‘‘ The Demonology of the New 
Testament” in the Jew7sh Quarterly Review (1896) I have unfortunately been 
unable to consult. Joh. Weiss never mentions ¢aéyracua in his article on Démonen 
und Dimonische in the PRE®, iv. 


JOHN. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 281 


the Curetonian and the Lewis, to represent davracua in Matt. 
xiv. 26 and Mark vi. 49. I find that s1Nw is used for mvevua 
in the translation of Eusebius (Zecles. Hist., v. 16, ed. Wright- 
Maclean, p. 289). 

_ xxiv. 39. All the authorities agree in saying that Marcion 
omitted the words WyAagyjoaré me Kat Were, while Tertullian 
and Epiphanius state that he also omitted capxas kat. See 
Zahn, GXK., ii. 495, who adds that “the longer clause—ze. 
uUmragijoaté pe kat ere—is also omitted by D, it (with the 
exception of Colbertinus), vg, but not Syr, as Tischendorf 
wrongly states.” This however is a misapprehension. The 
om in Tischendorf refers only to me after WyAagijoare. This 
is omitted by Syr™ as well as by D and also by Syr*”. It 
would be more exact to say, however, that the «cai before 
idere is also omitted by Syr. Moreover, Syr“” agrees with 
Syr“ in reading Gru éyo eiue avtos after tere. 

The subscription of certain minuscules states that Luke’s 
Gospel was written fifteen years after the Ascension. Some 
say eis "ANe€avdpelay THy meyadny, Others év ‘Poun, while one 
says very strangely, év ty ’Artixy tis Bowralas, “for Theo- 
philus, who became bishop after divine baptism.” A, 262, 300 
also contain here the notice of careful collation. The chapter 
enumeration in these manuscripts is not the same, being 342, 


349, and 345 respectively. 


John. 


In this Gospel the attention of textual critics was long 
confined to the passage vii. 53-viii. 11. They failed to 
observe that in other places there are clauses and whole verses 
whose omission or interpolation has to be investigated in con- 
nection with vii. 53 ff., as, for example, iv. 9, v. 3, 4, and that 
interesting questions of textual criticism are raised in other 
parts of the book as well. 

Chapter xxi. which the last two verses of the preceding 
chapter clearly show to be an Appendix, is equally well 


282 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JOHN. 


attested by all the authorities, while the omission of xx. 31 
by the first hand of G is just one of those unaccountable 
phenomena which make their appearance so frequently in the 
domain of textual criticism. The same thing is probably to 
be said of the omission in s of the last verse of chapter xxi. 
Tischendorf was of opinion that this last verse in x, together 
with the concluding ornament and subscription, was not by 
the same hand (A) as had written the Gospel of John, but by 
another (D) who had acted as corrector, and had written part 
of the Apocrypha and six leaves of the New Testament. 
Tregelles, on the other hand, who examined the passage in 
Tischendorf’s presence, thought the difference was due simply 
to the scribe having taken a fresh dip of the ink: that at all 
events the scribe who wrote the Gospel (A) did not intend it 
to conclude with verse 24, otherwise he would have added a 
concluding ornament and subscription as in the case of 
Matthew and Luke. The verse is found in all the other 
manuscripts and versions with which we are acquainted, and 
the question with regard to ~ is interesting only from the fact 
that a few manuscripts do contain a scholium to the effect 
that the verse is an addition (zpoo@yj«n) inserted in the margin 
(€€w0ev) by one of the scholars (tivos tov piro7ovey),! and 
afterwards incorporated in the text by another without the 
knowledge of the former (katayévtos (?) dé érw0ev ayvola TuXov 
TOU TpwTOV ypahéws UTO TWOS THY TaAaLeV MEV, OUK aKkpLBov 
dé, Kai fépos THS TOU evayyeAlov ypadhns yevouevov). This 
entire note, however, is evidently no more than an inference 
drawn from the contents of the verse, as the Syriac Com- 
mentary of Theodore shows. See further, Zahn, Azz/ectung, 
ii. 495, and the reference to the Commentary of Ishodad 
in Sachau’s Verzeichnis der syrischen Handschriften in Berlin, 
1p: 307. 

With respect to the pericope adulterze, on the other hand, 
we may be quite certain that it did not originally stand in the 


!This description is elsewhere understood as applying to Theodore of 
Mopsuestia. 





JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 283 


position it now occupies (vii. 53—viii. 11), nor indeed in John’s 
Gospel at all, although the decision of the Holy Office of the 
13th February 1897, which was confirmed by the Pope two 
days later, obliges Catholic exegetes to hold it as genuine. It 
is omitted in a great many manuscripts and versions—e.g. in 
sBLT. A and C are defective here, but the amount of 
space shows that they could not have contained it. It is 
omitted in the Syriac and. Egyptian versions, in the Armenian 
and the Gothic, in some Old Latin codices, and in the earliest 
of the Greek and Latin Fathers. On the other hand it is 
found in all the manuscripts of Jerome and in Codex D, 
which is the only one of the earlier Greek manuscripts to 
contain it. In some minuscules and later Armenian manu- 
scripts it stands at the end of the fourth Gospel, where now 
Westcott and Hort put it. In minuscule 225, written in the 
year 1192, it follows vii. 36; in the Georgian version it comes 
after vii. 44; while in the Ferrar Group—z.e. in minuscules 13, 
69, 124, 346, 556—it is inserted after Luke xxi. 38. Its in- 
sertion after vii. 36 is probably the result of an accidental 
error. In the Greek Lectionaries the liturgy for Whitsunday 
begins at verse 37 and extends to verse 52, followed by viii. 12, 
so that the pericope was, by mistake, inserted before instead 
of after this lection. Its position in the Georgian version is 
the more remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b, 
which contained the pericope by the first hand, the entire 
passage from vii. 44—-viii. 12 has been evased. As a probable 
explanation of its position in the Ferrar Group after Luke 
xxi. 38, it has been suggested that the scribe inserted it there 
owing to the resemblance between Luke xxi. 37 and John 
viii. 1, and also between Luke xxi. 38 (wpOpi¢e) and John 
viii. 2 (Gp9pov). Harris thinks that its proper place is in John 
between chapters v. and vi. because reference is made in 
v. 45, 46 to the Mosaic Law, which is also mentioned in viii. 5. 

But the remarkable thing is that here again the text of D 
differs in a conspicuous manner from that of the other wit- 
nesses. In viii. 2 the words kal xaOicas édidacKev avTovs are 


284 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JOHN. 


wanting: in verse 4 we meet the sentence éxmeipafovtes avTov 
of tepets iva Exwow Katyyopiay avtod, which does not come till 
after verse 5 in the other text: for wovyela D has duapria : in 
verse 5 it reads, Mavoijs b€ €v TO vow ExéXEVTEV Tas TOLAUTAS 
ALOa€evv, for which the other text has éy 6¢é Te vouw Moats 
€veTeiNaTo Tas TolavTas ALOo0Boretc Oar: in verse 11, D has 
umaye where the other text has vropevov. Now, if two persons 
got such an easy sentence as “ Moses. in the Law commanded 
to stone such” to translate from Latin, Hebrew, or any other 
language into Greek, one of them might quite well use cerevew 
and Oakey, and the other évtéAXecPar and ALHoBoreiv.” And 
so the question is suggested whether the two forms in which 
the text exists were not derived from different sources, that of 
D, ¢.g., from its Latin. But on closer examination the latter 
supposition is seen to be impossible. For the Latin corre- 
sponding to éywow xatnyopiav avtod is “haberent accusare 
eum,” showing that the Latin translator read xarnyopeiy in 
his original,’ and for date Twavtas é&eA civ he has “uti omnes 
exire,” where again the infinitive speaks for the priority of the 
Greek. On the other hand, it is to be observed that, accord- 
ing to Eusebius (Eecles. Hist, iii. c. 39, sub fin.), Papias knew 
and recorded an incident wept yuvauxos eri Todas awaptiass 
SiaBrAnGeions él tod Kupiov, iv to Kal’ “EBpatous evaryryédov 
mepieyet. So that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (ze. 
the Palestinian Jewish Christians) contained a narrative 
similar to this, we may say quite confidently, contained this 
narrative. From that Gospel it was taken and inserted in 
some manuscripts after Luke xxi., in others after John vii. 
By the time of Augustine it was so widely propagated in the 
Latin that he thought it had been removed from certain 
manuscripts by people of weak faith, or rather by enemies of 
the true faith, “credo metuentes peccandi inmunitatem dari 
mulieribus suis.” The pericope is no part of John’s Gospel, 
though it belongs to the oldest stock of evangelic tradition. 


1 The same variation occurs in Luke vi, 7, where N* BS X read karnyopeiv 
(katnyopioat D), while N¢ A E F have xarnyoplav. 


JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 285 


On the question whether it may not originally have stood 
between Mark xii. 17 and xii. 18, and so between Luke xx. 26 
ang ox. 27, sce Holtzmann in the 7#Lz2., 1898, coll 536. 
Vide supra, p. 66. 

i. 5. Zahn raises the question what word Ephraem found in 
his copy of the Diatessaron corresponding to caréXaPe, seeing he 
gives viczz. In this connection I might (with the proviso that 
the reading may be more easily explained from the Armenian) 
point out that the Syriac word whbmwn corresponds to «atada- 
Bétwoay in Sirach xxiii. 6. This stands elsewhere for dpyo, 
Seomréfw, eEovordf, KaTakupievw, Kupievw, KpaTa. wad also 
frequently represents the Greek xataXapBavew. The Sinai- 
Syriac for John i. 5 is unfortunately lost. 

iebss De reading Os 1...) éyevvnOn is, so far as is known 
at present, attested by Latin witnesses only, “qui natus est.” 
But as Zahn is careful to point out (#77, ii. 518), it did not 
originate on Latin soil, for Justin presupposes it, and, more- 
over, Irenzeus constantly applies the passage to the Incarna- 
tion, while the Valentinians, who had the usual text, were 
accused by Tertullian of falsification. And it is not proved 
that the two last-mentioned used anything but a Greek Bible. 

i, 17. According to early testimony, this verse, so frequently 
quoted since the time of Ritschl, once ran: “The Law was 
given by Moses, but z/s truth came by Jesus.” See Zahn, 
Horsch. 21) 248: 

i. 18. Zahn agrees with Hort in holding that the originality 
of the reading povoryevis Oeds (without the article) is established. 
See Westcott and Hort, Motes on Select Readings; Zahn, 
Einleitung, ii. 544, 557; Westcott, Commentary on John, tn loco. 
It may be mentioned here that Codex Monacensis of Origen’s 


vids 


5 
Commentary on the Gospel of John has povoyev7s Geos with 
o and vids both written above the line in a later hand, This gave 
rise in the Codex Regius to the reading 6 povoyerns vids Beds. 
i. 28. Is it BnOaBapa or BnPavia? The former is exhibited by 
the Sinai-Syriac, the Curetonian, and the margin of the Hark- 
4 “4 \ 


286 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JOHN. 


lean, and the latter by the other three Syriac, and the Arabic 
Diatessaron. With regard to the former, is it the case, as is 
supposed by many, that it is due simply to a conjecture of 
Origen, and that Syr* and Syr“" took it from him? Accord- 
ing to Zahn (GXK., i. 406), Hilgenfeld pointed in this direction 
in the Z/fwT7k., 1883, 119. See also Lagrange, Origeéne, la 
critique textuelle et la tradition topographique (Revue Biblique, 
iv., 1895, pp. 501-524). Origen explains Bn@avia as oixos 
vmakons, and the Syriac as “place of praise.” Compare on 
this the much-discussed passage in the Gospel of Peter 
(traxon nKoveTo, C. Xi.). BnOaBSapa, on the other hand, he 
interprets as oixos KatacKevns, so that he must either have 
spelt it Bethbara, nn3 ma, as in Jud. vil. 24, or taken it as 
Beth-ha-bara. It is spelt @nOaaPapa in Lagarde’s Onomastica 
Sacra, 240, 12, and Bethabara in 108, 6 (Bethbaara, Codex 
B). Jerome (see Oxomastica Sacra) interpreted the name as 
“ domus humilis (=?) vel vesperae ” in Joshua xv. 6, as “domus 
multa vel gravis” in xv. 59, and as doixntos in xv. 61, follow- 
ing Symmachus. Luther had Betharaba, but in three im- 
pressions of the New Testament and in three of the Postils he 
had Bethabara (according to Bindseil-Niemeyer), and in the 
margin Bethbara, with a note in which reference is rightly made 
to Jud. vii. 24, “ut mysterium consonet.” See my German or 
Greek-German New Testament. It may be asked if “ Ainon” 
in John iii. 23 has any connection with Bethania. Compare 
nay m2 in Jos. xv. 59. For év Aivwy e has zz evemo and f has 
in deserto. How is this to be explained? Compare Zahn, 
Einleitung, ii. 561. 

i. 34. For vios x*, Syr, Syr*", and e read ékXextos. D is here 
defective. Zahn thinks the latter reading is original, and the 
former an example of an early and widely current alteration. 
Westcott and Hort insert é«Xextos among their Voteworthy Re- 
jected Readings. The two readings are combined in some manu- 
scripts “ electus filius Dei.” See Zahn, Az, ii. 515, 544, 557- 

i. 41. Zahn here decides for the nominative wpa@tos. Both 
the disciples of John who attached themselves to Jesus found 





JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 287 


their brother, but Andrew was the first to doso. See Ezn- 
lettung, ii. 477 f. 

ii, 2. In his Commentary on the Gospels, extant in the 
Armenian only, we find Ephraem saying, “Graecus scribit 
recubutt et defectt vinum” (§ 53), which shows that he had a 
Greek exemplar before him containing the itacism é«A/@n for 
éxAnOn. See Zahn, Forsch, i. 62, 127,and compare Luke xiv. 8, 
where Antiochus, Hovzz/,, iii, has cataxdOn¢ for KrnOjs. 

ii. 3. Zahn is perhaps right when he says that no critic 
need doubt for a moment that the original reading is the 
longer, genuinely Semitic text exhibited by »*, the Harklean 
Syriac, and the best Latin manuscripts. D is defective, as 
also Syr™ and Syrs”. 

iii. 5. Bacirelay TOV ovpavov is attested only by s*, a few 
minuscules, by c m, and certain early Fathers, in place of 
Bacirelav Tod Oeod, which has now the support of the Sinai- 
Syriac. Zahn thinks the former reading to be correct (Az7- 
lettung, ii. 294). If that is so, this will be the only place where 
the expression is found in the New Testament outside the 
Gospel according to Matthew, where it occurs some thirty- 
three or thirty-four times. See note on “The Kingdom of 
Heaven” in the Exposztory Times for February 1896, p. 236 ff. 

iii. 24. Zahn (E7zwZ, ii. 515) thinks that the omission of the 
article before guAaxiv shows that there was some uncertainty 
regarding the fact mentioned by John. This, however, is 
open to question. That the insertion or omission of the 
article may be of importance is shown by such examples as 
John v. 1; Matthew xxii. 23; Acts xvi.6; James ii. 2. 

iii. 34. Our knowledge of the text of the Sinai-Syriac here 
rests solely on the last reading of Mrs. Lewis: “ Not accord- 
ing to his measure gave (or, gives) God the Father.” This 
rendering, as well as the insertion of 0 @eds in many Greek 
texts, is due to the fact that wvedua was not taken as the 
subject of the sentence. 

iv. 1. For 6 evpsos Tischendorf reads 6 ’Incods, which is prob- 
ably correct. ‘“O xvpvos is elsewhere found only three times 


288 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JOHN. 


in John—viz., vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20. According to Zahn (Zzw/, 
ii. 391) the first two passages are explanations outside the 
Gospel narrative interjected by the evangelist, while the words 
in the last passage are spoken from the point of view of the 
disciples. 

iv. 9. The words ov yap cvyxpavtat “lovdaior Lapapetrars 
were retained by Lachmann and by Tischendorf in his 
seventh edition, because the only authorities known at that 
time for their omission were D abe. But when the first 
hand of s appeared in confirmation of the testimony of these 
witnesses, the words were dropped by Tischendorf and 
bracketed by Westcott and Hort. Syr™ and Syr*” insert 
them, and perhaps Tatian. Zahn is inclined to admit them. 
“ The classic brevity of the interjected explanation speaks for 
its genuineness.” See his Ezn/ettung, ii. 549. 

v. I. %) €op77 is supported by s C etc., and éopt7 by A B D 
etc. On the chronology, see Zahn, Eznleztung, ii. 516. 

v. 30, 4. After Enpav D alone inserts 7apadvtixav, and then 
adds, with A? C? I T' A A II (this last, however, with asterisks), 
the clause éxdeyouévwv tHv Tov Udatos Kwynow. The shorter 
text is given by s A* B C* L. The whole of the fourth verse 
is omitted by » B C* D, 33, 157, 314. In this case D and A 
change sides. Within the limits of the verse there are a 
great many variations, which show that it is a very early 
addition. Some of the words are hapax legomena, like dirore, 
tapaxy, voonwa. Zahn thinks the gloss may have been one of 
the “expositions” of Papias. According to the Commentary 
of Ishodad, Theodore of Mopsuestia did not consider this 
verse as part of the Gospel of John (Sachau, Verzeichnis der 
syrischen Handschriften, p. 308). See Zahn, Ezndectung, ii, 557. 
Cyril says the incident occurred at Pentecost. 

v. 36. Zahn (Hind, ii. 557) calls wet{wy a difficult reading, 
and one that could not have been invented: “I, as a Greater 
than John, have the witness of God.” 

vii. 8. om has taken the place of ov« in all the uncials 
except s D K M P,a fact which reveals its antiquity. Ov« 





JOHN. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 289 


is retained also by Syr™ and Syr*™. The change was intro- 
duced to obviate the inconsistency between vii. 8 and vii. 10. 
Porphyry (apud Jerome, Contra Pelagium, ii. 17) on the 
ground of ov«, accused Jesus of “inconstantia et mutatio,” 
and Schopenhauer (Grundprobleme der Ethik, 2nd edition, 
p. 225) cited this passage as justifying an occasional falsehood, 
saying that “Jesus Christ himself on one occasion uttered an 
intentional untruth.” See Zahn, Ezzettung, ii. 547. 

vii. 15. See Addenda, p. xvi. 

viii. 57. According to the authority cited in the 7/Lz., 
1899, p. 176, the first hand of Codex B is supposed to have 
written eopaxece: “the final e has been erased, and the e 
preceding it changed into a.” I have examined the photo- 
graph of B in the Stuttgart Library, and can find no trace of 
an e ever having stood after o. The blank space of the size 
of two letters is meant to divide the sentences. It is the 
case, however, though neither Tischendorf, Fabiani, nor the 
pamphlet of 1881 mentions it, that the first hand wrote eopaxes, 
which was then made into ewpaxas by means of a stroke 
drawn through the 0. The matter is not insignificant in view 
of what is said in Westcott and Hort’s Votes on Orthography, 
Appendix, p. 168. Burkitt supposes that eopaxece was the 
reading of the ancestor of s B (Texts and Studies, vol. v. 5. p. ix). 

1 When examining Codex B I took occasion to look at certain other passages, 
and discovered some strange mistakes in Tischendorf’s statements with regard to 
that manuscript, as I did previously in the case of Codex D. In 3 John 13 B has 
&AAG& for 4AA’, on which Tischendorf has no note. Westcott and Hort mention 
the passage in their Wotes on Orthography, ii. p. 153, but say nothing about B. 
On Jude 5 we find Tischendorf saying in his Apparatus: esdoras sine vuas cum 
ABC?.... (Gb) add. vuas cum x K L. But vuas stands quite plain in 
B. Had they known this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort would certainly 
have printed their text differently. How far back this false testimony with regard 
to B extends I am unable to certify. It is found in Tischendorf’s seventh edition 
of 1859, and in Huther’s Commentary of the same date. I repeat my Ceterum 
censeo, that two or three sharp eyes should really revise the statements current 
about B. This one is repeated from Tischendorf by Baljon, Weiss, and all our 
Commentators. At the same time, Weiss has quite properly inserted vuas in his 
text, on the ground that while there was no occasion for its interpolation, its 
omission is quite conceivable. He will, no doubt, be gratified to see his reasoning 


confirmed by this weighty testimony afforded by Codex B, 
Tr 


290 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JOHN. 


xii. 7. Ternpnxev, without iva, has the support of a compara- 
tively large number of manuscripts. Peerlkamp and De Koe 
read a ti... . tetnpnxev; Zahn (Lz, ii. 518) has no 
doubt that the correct reading is wa... . tnpyjon, and that 
it was replaced by ternpnxev (without a) on the ground that 
this Mary was not among the women who came to the 
sepulchre to anoint the body of Jesus. He says that the true 
text presupposes that Mary would like to use the remainder 
of the ointment to anoint the body of Jesus after his death, 
and that the words of Jesus were intended to prevent Mary 
and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of Judas. 

xiii. 2. The change of a single letter here is important from 
a harmonistic point of view. s* BL read deizvou ywwomevon, 
Ze. “during supper,” but x A D have detrvou yevoueévov, which 
means “after supper.” Compare Zahn, Ezn/eitung, ii. 520. 

xiii. 34. On the form in which this saying was cited by the 
Marcionites, see Zahn, GK. i. 678. 

xviii. 12 ff. The Sinai-Syriac, probably following Tatian, 
gives the following arrangement of the verses—viz., 12, 13, 
24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-28. On this see Zahn, Ezw/, 
ii. 521. Spitta would arrange the verses, 12, 13, 19-23, 24, 14, 
15-18, 256, 27,28. See Zahn, Ezm/., ii. 558. It does some- 
times happen that a leaf of a manuscript is misplaced, but it 
is hard to account for such transpositions as these. Compare 
the Journal of Theological Studies, October 1900, p. 141 f. 

xix. 5. Though not properly connected with the criticism 
of the text, the question may be asked here, by way of a 
contribution to a subject much discussed of late, whether 
the expression iéov 0 dvOpwros may not be connected with 
xwy 12. Compare o avOpwmos and 6 vids tod avOpwrov in 
Mark ii. 27, 28. In this passage of John, B omits the article 
before avOpwrros, reading idod dvOpwmros simply. See the 
Expository Times, November 1899, p. 62 ff., “The Name Son 
of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus,’ where 
Schmiedel’s article with the same title in the Protestantzsche 
Monatshefte is noticed. 


a] 





ACTS. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 291 


xix. 37. The quotation, according to Zahn, is made from 
the Hebrew. The LXX has émPBréWovra pds we av’ dv 
catwpxijcavto. The later Greek versions all seem to have kept 
the first three words as in the LXX but to have waniously 
corrected the second clause, for which Aquila gives oy @ 
e€exevtycav, Theodotion ets bv é&exévtnoav, Symmachus 
éutpooOev erre€exevTycav. Compare with this Apoc. i. 7, ofrives 
avtov é&exévtncay; Barnabas vii. 9, dWovra: avrov . . 
kataxevtTicavtes; Justin, Dal. 32, emvyvoocea Oe els Ov €LeKEVTITATE. 
It has accordingly been supposed that John in the Gospel 
and Apocalypse followed some unknown Greek version which 
exhibited the characteristic forms 6Yovra (found only in 
John and Barnabas) and ets ov é€exévrnoay (given by John, 
Justin, Theodotion, and partly by Aquila). But this sup- 
position is simply a proof of unwillingness to admit a palpable 
fact—viz., that in the Gospel and Apocalypse John gives an 
independent rendering of the original text of Zechariah xii. 10, 
and that Barnabas and Justin follow John. See Zahn, 
Einlettung, ii. 563. 

The subscriptions state that the fourth Gospel was written 
thirty or thirty-two years after the Ascension, at Ephesus, in 
the reign of Nero, or, as some say, of Domitian. It is also 
said to have been published by Gaius, the host of the Apostles 
(dca Taioy tov Eevodoxov tov arocroAwy). Others say that it 
was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis the disciple of the 
Apostle. On the alleged autograph ((d:dyerpov) preserved at 
Ephesus, see above, p. 30. 


ACTS. 


It would unduly enlarge the extent of this work,were I to 
go on mentioning all the passages in the Acts that are more 
or less striking from the textual point of view. This book has 
already been more frequently referred to than the others. I 
would again refer the student to Zahn’s /ntroduction. agree 
with that writer in thinking it impossible in many cases to 


292 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ ACTS. 


suppose that a scholiast manufactured the text we now find in 
Codex D with no other material before him save the usual text 
and hisinkhorn. At thesame time there is undoubtedly room 
for much diversity of opinion with respect to many matters of 
detail. I would instance such a simple narrative as that of 
Acts ili. 1-5, and ask what reasonable ground a copyist could 
have had for altering Os into ovrTos, atevicas into éuBrdAbas, 
Pr&fov into arévucov, évetxev into arevicas Or vice versa, or for 
omitting or inserting drapywy or aBetv. Such changes 
might, however, be introduced by an author who writes a 
passage twice over. Without himself being fully conscious of 
his reasons for doing so, he might substitute a final construc- 
tion for a participle, introduce or remove an asyndeton, replace 
one word by its synonym, and make all the striking linguistic 
changes which a comparison of the two texts reveals. 

Time will show whether I am right in my conjecture that 
éBapvvare in iii. 14 is due to an error in translation. In illustra- 
tion of the interchange of Aaov and kdcuov in ii. 47, I have cited 
in Philologica Sacra, p. 39, a number of instances of the con- 
fusion of oy or Noy with ody or xnbdy, to which I would now add 
Daniel viii. 19, Sirach xlv. 7; xlvii. 4; Matt. i. 21 (in the 
Curetonian Syriac). Compare also Eusebius, Eccles. Hist, 
iv. 15, 26; HHzstory of Mary, ix. 17; xiv. 11 (ed. Budge). 
Whether the change in the passage in question is really to be 
explained in this way, or by the supposition of an “anti-Judaic 
tendency,” as Corssen prefers (Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen, 
1896, vi. 444), may be left an open question for the present. I 
would just point to one thing in favour of my view, and in 
answer to what Zahn says in his Azn/eztung, ii. 423. He says 
there: “ Linguistic considerations are against the supposition 
that a puge Greek like Luke, the physician of Antioch, was 

1 Further instances of changes requiring investigation are:—epwray and 
Tapakadew ; opay and dearba ; ayer and depew ; epxerOa and UTQYELV; UTApPKXELV 
and emt; ovy and meta; ess and ev; ews, mexpt and aypi; evwmov and 
eumpoobev ; eTrepos and adAos ; orxos and oiKia 3 mars and waidiov ; moArs and Kaun 3 


Aaos and oxAos; vaos and tepov; peyyos and g@ws; active and middle voice, 
apxerOar, etc. 





ACTS. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIUUS PASSAGES. 293 


able to read a Hebrew book. For a thousand Jews (Syrians 
and Copts) who were able at that time to read, write, and speak 
Greek, there would be at most a single Greek possessed 
of a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And 
I confess that I have hitherto sought in vain for this rara avis.” 
Quite true, but how do we know that the physician of Antioch 
was a pure Greek? All the Prologues to the Gospels unani- 
mously call him “natione Syrus.” I have pointed out in my 
Philologica Sacra, p. 13, what is very generally admitted, that 
in the New Testament “EAAyves denotes simply the “ heathen,” 
whether they speak Greek or not.1. The woman mentioned in 
Mark vii. 26 was a “EAAnvis Lupo-Powikicca TO yévos, and in 
the same way Luke was a“E)Any of Antioch (Acts xi. 20), but 
Xvpos To yévos. He is one of the thousand who could read, 
write, and speak Greek, though he was not above making such 
a mistake in translation when using a Hebrew or Aramaic 
book as I think he certainly does in Luke xi. 41, and as I am 
inclined to think he does in Acts iii. 14, till I find a better 
explanation of the reading éGapvvare than has yet been given.” 
I am glad to see from Zahn that more than seventy years ago, 
in his dissertation entitled De Codice Cantabrigienst (1827), 
p. 16, Schultz suggested that the text of D may perhaps be 

1 See, however, Romans i. 14, and compare Zahn, £272/., i. 263.—77. 

_ 2 Thave already (p. 37) referred to the frequency with which mistakes, often 
quite incredible mistakes, in translation occur. A few additional instances may 
be cited here. 

There is, for example, that of Ephraem in John ii. 2, mentioned above, p. 287. 

According to Aphraates 41, 16, Jesus promised to the mourners JIDW2N) 7177, 
7.€, that they should be evztveated. The writer of the text, therefore, that Aphraates 
used, must have taken mapaxadety here in the sense of ‘“‘to entreat.” See Zahn, 
Forschungen, i. 78. 

The same writer (383, 16) renders the words in Luke xvi. 25 viv 5€ 85€ mapaka- 
Aeira: in the form 739 N'Yd 7 NID", z.2. ** but to-day thou evtreatest of him”, 
where wapakadeiy is again taken in the sense of ‘‘to entreat”, though a different 
word is used for it. See Zahn, zdzd. 

Again, Aphraates (390, 4) renders mapdxAnow (abroy) in Luke vi. 24 INIA, 
‘their prayer, their reguest.” Zahn, zbzd, 

The last clause of John v. 14 is rendered ‘‘ that thou mayest have need of nothing 


else,” where xpefa must have been read instead of yxetpov. Zahn, Forschungen, 
i. 161 f. Compare also the Syriac text of Apoc. ii. 13; viii. 13, etc. 


294 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ACTS. 


derived from a Syriac version. According to what I have 
said above on Tatian, this view must certainly be admitted as 
possible, and I see that it has been revived by Chase. 

A new solution of the textual problem in Acts has been 
suggested by Aug. Pott (Der abendlandische Text der Apostel- 
geschichte und die Wir-Quelle, Leipzig, 1900). He thinks that 
the original narrative drawn up by Luke existed as a separate 
work for some time after it had been worked up into our 
canonical Acts, and that notes were taken from the former and 
inserted in the margin of the latter, and in this way came into 
the text of Codex D and its associates. Against this, how- 
ever, there is the fact that similar problems emerge in the 
Gospel of Luke where this distinction cannot be made. 

For the sake of brevity I append notes to a few passages only 
of Acts. 

But at the outset I must express my surprise that Wendt, 
even in his eighth edition of 1899, repeats the statement that 
the title of the book in D is rpafis amooroXwv. Even without 
the assurance given by Blass in his Grammattzk, § iii. 1, 2, it 
should be borne in mind that “ dwow stands equally for both 
daow and decew,’ and that accordingly rpaés may be either 
mpakes or mpakis. In the case before us it is the former. As 
illustrations take the following from D in Acts :—évvapt, 
ill. 12, iv. 7; wuort, Vi. 73 is, iv. 30; pnvas tpis, vii. 20; and 
conversely O™renfers weyadn, vii. 11; pepess, viii. 21 ; Suvapecer 
and onutous side by side in ii. 22. Compare also Mark vi. 2; 
vi. 14; xiii. 25 ; Luke xxi. 26; Acts viii. 13; (Ovvapus TovravTas ; 
at Suvagts ; Svvapis weyadas). It is true that in every case in 
which the title is written out, which occurs only five times 
altogether, it is mpaés, but this is to be understood as plural, 
like actus in the Latin. It came afterwards to be used as 
singular in the Syriac (Zahn, Ezz/., ii. 370, 383, 388), but that 
is nothing strange. We say “the Times says”; and we 
have an analogy in the use of the word ézé/a in the Middle 
Ages when the neuter plural d¢bia debfiorum became bzblia 
bibliae (singular feminine). 





ACTS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 295 


i, 23. It is a matter of commentary rather than of textual 
criticism, but Wendt, in his eighth edition, asserts that nothing 
further is known of this Joseph surnamed Justus. Eusebius, 
on the authority of Papias, mentions wapado€ov trepi ‘lodorov 
tov émixdnbéevta BapocaBav yeyovos, ws dSydnTnpiov pappaxov 
€umlovtos Kal undev andes Sia tiv ToD Kuplov yapw tropeivavtos 
(Eccles. Hist., iii. 39). The name of Aristion is inserted in the 
margin of this passage in Rufinus’s Latin translation of 
Eusebius. This marginal gloss acquires a peculiar importance 
from the fact that the name Ariston is inserted in the Etsch- 
miadzin manuscript of the Gospels over Mark xvi. 9-20, 
apparently ascribing these verses or their main contents to 
him. Compare Zahn, Ezx/ettung, ii. 231, and see Plate IX. 

iv. 6. On the reading "Iwvafas in D for ‘lwdvyns, see above, 
Pp. 243. 

iv. 24.1 See Harris, Zwo Important Glosses in the Codex 

v.39.)  Bezae, Expositor, November 1900, pp. 394-400. 

xi. 27, 28. In his treatise, “On the Original Text of Acts 
xi. 27, 28” (Berliner Sitz.-Berichte, Heft 17), Harnack comes 
to the conclusion that the Western text here cannot be the 
original. 

xv. 20, 21. On Harnack’s examination of the Apostolic 
Decree, see Selbie in the Exposztory Times for June 1899, 
p. 395. Harnack comes to the same results as Zahn, but 
draws the opposite conclusion from them. See above, p. 232 f. 

xvi. 6. The article is omitted before Tadatixnv yopav by 
s ABCD minuscules. For this Blass, on the authority of p, 
which reads “Galatie regiones,” substitutes tas Dadarixas 
yopas=“vicos Galatiae.” On this see Zahn, Ezn/ertung, 1. 
133. The omission of the article does not necessitate taking 
tv Ppvyiav as an adjective (so Wendt’); it might still be 
rendered “through Phrygia and Galatian territory.” 

xvii. 27. In my Philologica Sacra, p. 42,1 say that it was 
easier to change 70 Oeiov (8) into Tov Oeov (a) than vice versa. 
To this Wendt replies in his eighth edition, p. 294, by saying, 
“Tn all probability offence was taken at the representation of 


206 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ACTS. 


God himself as an object of 7o Wyradav.” Yes, there is a 
considerable difference between Hector alive and Hector dead, 
and of the latter it could be truly said (/%ad, xxii. 372 f.): 


“Ode S€ Tus eltrecxev idw@v és TANTLoV aAXoV" 
“OQ moro 4 dra 62) waraxworepos aupapaacbar. 


But the @etov of which Paul speaks on the Areopagus is most 
assuredly no more and no less a od me tangere than the @eds. 
Among the witnesses in support of 70 Oetov is Clement of 
Alexandria. I can only repeat what Zahn says: “ Whoever 
is careful to bear in mind that our earliest manuscripts are 
some two hundred years later than Marcion, Tatian, and 
Irenzeus, and has any sense of the difference between naive 
originality and a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and 
stylistic considerations,” cannot but judge differently with 
respect to £. 

XVill. 3. ‘See my article“ The Handicrait of St: Paula 
the Amerecan Journal of Biblical Literature, xi. 2, 1892, on 
lorarius as the Syriac rendering of oxnvotrovos = iwavtotopmos, 
oxuToTouos, leather-cutter, and the notes in the Exfosztory 
Times for December 1896, and January and March 1897. 
Chrysostom calls Paul oxvtorowos, and in the J/xventio 
Sanctae Crucis, it is said, “exercebat artem scaenographiam.” 
This last word I have explained as a confusion with ox«nvop- 
padiay, as Professor Ramsay also does. In the Compendious 
Syriac Dictionary of J. Payne Smith (which must not be 
confounded with the Zhesaurus of her father), /orarius is 
explained as “a maker of rough cloth for tents or horse- 
cloths.” But there is nothing said about tents even by the 
Syriac scholiasts. The correct meaning will be found in 
Brockelmann. Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsum, vi. 33) speaks 
of éxetvos amo Kpnuvod Eeppiupévos, 7) els Bapabpov éwopévos, 7 
ayyYovn Temvuypevos, 1) TKUTOTOMOS, %) NOoEGOS, 7) oLdnpeEvs. 
Paul is evidently referred to after Judas Iscariot, but who 
are meant by AwOokdos and oidnpevs? 

xix. 6, I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss D here 


PAUL.|] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 297 


with the remark, “On account of Paul’s express declaration as 
to the desirability of the gift of tongues being supplemented 
by that of interpretation (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 13, 27), this addition 
seemed to be required in this case where Paul communicated 
the gifts of the Spirit” (Meyer-Wendt, eighth edition, p. 312). 

xx. 4. For AepBaios D* has AovBepios or AovSpios, and g 
doverius. Moreover, D* has Bepuiaios, not Bepuaios, as Tischen- 
dorf hasit. Valckenaer and Blass insert a comma after Idios, 
and substitute d€ for cai after AepBaios, with the result that 
Gaius becomes a Thessalonian, and Timothy a Derbean. 
For this Zahn sees no necessity. See his Ezzectung, i. 149. 

xxviii. 16. On otpatomedapyns (8) which Gigas renders 
princeps peregrinorum, see note on xxvii. I, in Knowling’s Acts 
of the Apostles, Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 516; 
article “Julius” in Hastings’ Bzble Dictionary; Ramsay in 
the Expositor, November 1900; Zahn, Eznlectung, i. 389 f. 
Wendt (eighth edition, p. 420) omits the words in xxviii. 16, 
on the ground that their omission either by mistake or design 
is very unlikely, but their insertion, on the other hand, quite 
intelligible. This only shows how little reliance can be placed 
on subjective criticism. 

We are not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the sub- 
scriptions of the minuscules, but it may be cited here that in 
one of them Luke is called cuvéxdnmos IlavXov, and in another 
Oenyopos 0 cvyyparas abtas eumvevoer Oeia. 


PAULINE EPISTLES. 


In the arrangement of the books of the New Testament, 
it has become customary to follow the order adopted by 
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, who place the Catholic 
Epistles before the Pauline. In the Stuttgart edition of the 
New Testament, however, I have, in accordance with earlier 
usage, put the Pauline Epistles after the Gospels and Acts. 
Considering what is said by Hort himself in § 422 of his 
Introduction, and also what we find in No. 6 of Berger’s List 


298 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [PAULINE 


of the various arrangements of the books of the New Testa- 
ment (Hzstotre de la Vulgate, p. 339 f.), it might have been 
more correct to have put Paul immediately after the Gospels, as 
in Codex Sinaiticus. But seeing that the Latin and German 
Bibles at present exhibit the order, Gospels, Acts, Pauline 
Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and that Meyer’s Commentary is 
also arranged on this principle, I have retained this arrange- 
ment for the sake of uniformity. 

Here again I must refer the student for matters of detail to 
larger works, especially to Zahn’s Eznleitung. A few of the 
more important passages will be considered in the sequel, but 
previously something may be said here of the origin and 
circulation of the collective writings of Paul. 

I, Paul, accompanied by Silvanus and Timothy, came from 
Philippi to Thessalonica on his second missionary journey, 
somewhere about the year 54, though Harnack puts it as 
early as 49-50. There he gathered together a church in the 
short space of three or four weeks, if we may credit the 
account given in Acts xvii. 2 in this particular. At all 
events he was not long there. Disturbances similar to those 
in Philippi arose, which compelled him to leave the city. He 
came to Athens. In his anxiety over the internal and 
external circumstances of the newly-founded church at 
Thessalonica, he sent back Timothy from Athens to confirm 
those he had left behind. When his messenger returned he 
wrote to the Thessalonian Church, in all probability not from 
Athens but from Corinth, where he had gone in the interval 
of Timothy’s absence. This letter we know as the First 
Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is uncertain whether the 
apostle, as in most other cases, dictated the epistle, writing 
only the salutation and concluding benediction with his own 
hand (compare 2 Thess. iii. 17: 0 aomacuos TH Eun yeupt 
IlavAov, 6 éoTw onuciov ev Tacn éemiaToAn ovTws ypadw),! or 

2 On the custom of dictating letters, see Norden, Dze antike Kunstprosa (1898), 


p- 954 ff. On the autograph additions to the letters of the Emperor Julian, see 
Bidez and Cumont, Recherches etc., p. 19 (see above, p. 174). 








EPISTLES. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 299 


whether he wrote it all himself in large letters, as he did in 
the case of the Epistle to the Galatians which he wrote 
mmrLKows ypdupace (Gal. vi. 11), either on account of some 
affection of the eyes or because he was a craftsman and had 
little practice in writing. The epistle was intended for the 
entire church at Thessalonica, of which Aristarchus, Secundus, 
and perhaps also Gaius (see above, on Acts xx. 4), are known 
to us by name. It was probably addressed to the oldest, or 
most prominent, or most active member of the Christian com- 
munity. At the close of the epistle, the writer expressly 
adjures them to see that it is read by all the brethren. It 
would, therefore, be read aloud at the next meeting of the 
congregation. There and then, some poor slave or aged 
woman would ask to have the letter for the purpose of 
copying it. What became of the original we do not know. 
In the very first copy that was made, mistakes and alterations 
would make their appearance, and these would be multiplied 
with every fresh copy. 

2. At the close of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 16), Paul 
asks that when they have read it, they will see that it is also 
read in the Church of Laodiceans, and that they themselves 
read the epistle from Laodicaea (tiv é« Aaodixeas). From 
this it has generally been supposed that an epistle of Paul 
to Laodiczea has been lost. An epistle with this title was 
restored at a very early date, in the second century. It is 
no longer extant in Greek, but many Latin manuscripts and 
editions of the Bible contain it, and it is also found in the pre- 
Lutheran German Bibles. But the epistle from Laodicea 
referred to by the Apostle may perhaps have been the 
circular letter which we now know as the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, and which may have been intended to go, among 
other places, to Laodiczea, and from there to Colossae. How- 
ever that may be, we see that at a very early date there were 
epistles of Paul to various places, and that copies of these 
might be made at each place, and still further distributed. 
A parallel case is that of the Koran, the different recensions 


300 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [PAULINE 


of which are distinguished according to the cities whence they 
originated. Even at that time, therefore, the beginnings of a 
collection of the Pauline Epistles might be made. By the 
time that the Second Epistle of Peter was written, it was 
known that “brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to 
him, had written many epistles, in which were some things 
hard to be understood ” (2 Peter iii. 15). 

3. When a great man dies, we have usually a collection of 
the letters he received in his lifetime, but not of those he him- 
self wrote, and to collect these last is frequently a matter 
of considerable difficulty. We have therefore reason to con- 
gratulate ourselves that we have, within the covers of the New 
Testament, epistles of Paul addressed to the most diverse 
regions—to Macedonia (1 and 2 Thess., Philippians), to Achaia 
(1 and 2 Corinthians), to Asia Minor (Ephesians, Colossians, 
Galatians), and to Italy (Romans), not to speak of the so-called 
Pastoral or private Epistles—epistles, moreover, the dates of 
which extend over a period of at least eight years! It is, of 
course, evident that the appearance of an epistle in this collec- 
tion is not in itself a guarantee of Pauline authorship. But 
on the other hand, the collection must have been made at a 
very early date, because we find, almost without exception, 
not only the same number of Pauline epistles, but also the 
same order of their arrangement. There is scarcely any 
evidence of the circulation of a particular epistle by itself. 
True, the order now usually adopted, which has been the pre- 
vailing order from the fourth century onwards and which 
seems, for the most part, to arrange the epistles according to 
their length (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe- 
sians, and so on), is not the original. In the Muratorian Canon 
(so called from its discoverer), which is a very old catalogue of 
the books of the Bible, the Epistles to the Corinthians stand 


1 What an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had Paul been in the 
way of dating his letters exactly, or had the copyists preserved the dates, supposing 
they were there originally! One, but only one, of the epistles of Ignatius bears a 
date—viz. that to the Romans: éypava iuiv tadra tH mpd evvea Kadavdav Len- 
Te“Bplwy (x. 3). 





EPISTLES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES, 301 


at the head of the collection and that to the Romans at the 
end. Tertullian had the same arrangement, while Marcion, 
for dogmatic reasons apparently, put Galatians first, then 
1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. The present condition of our 
Epistle to the Romans is also supposed to point to its former 
position at the end of Paul’s epistles to the churches. In that 
epistle the concluding doxology is found at different places, 
while many look upon chap. xvi. I-23 as a separate document, 
originally intended for Ephesus, which was attached to the 
entire collection at the end. Among other varieties of arrange- 
ment it may be mentioned that Colossians frequently followed 
2 Thessalonians. When and where the first collection took 
its rise, and by whom the second arrangement was introduced, 
can no longer be determined with certainty. Zahn thinks the 
first originated at Corinth about the year 85, his reason being 
that it seems to be presupposed in the Epistle to the Corinthians 
written by Clement of Rome about the year 95. The second 
he would date from Alexandria, between 220 and 260. If we 
might suppose that all our extant manuscripts are derived, not 
from separate copies of the Epistles, but from a copy of the 
earliest collection, it would serve to explain how it comes that 
certain corruptions have found their way into the text of all 
our manuscripts—e.g. in Colossians ii. 18. On the other hand, 
the variations at the end of Romans, ¢.g., are of such a sort 
that their origin seems to be anterior to the formation of the 
collection. 

It is not so difficult to understand how it is that the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, which, it is certain, was not written by Paul, 
varies so much with regard to its position in the collection. 
In the Syriac Bible, and in the majority of later Greek manu- 
scripts, it comes after all the Pauline epistles, the reason being 
that the Syrian Church did not consider it to be really of the 
number of these. (See Westcott, Bzb/e zn the Church, p. 233 f.). 
In the earlier Greek manuscripts, however, it occupies the 
tenth place, standing between the epistles of Paul to the 
churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the early Sahidic 


302 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ROMANS, 


version, and in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
it is found between 2 Corinthians and Galatians ; in the parent 
manuscript of Codex B it stood between Galatians and Ephe- 
sians. In his AHfzstotre de la Vulgate, p. 539 f., Berger gives 
seventeen different ways in which the Pauline epistles are 
arranged in Latin Bibles—viz., Col., Thess., 1 Tim.; Thess., 
Col., 1 Tim.; Phil, Laod., Cols Col., aod. Fhess:> Calm 
Thess., Laod. ; Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Laod. ; Thess., Col., 
Laod. ; Phil., Laod.; Heb. ; Heb., Laed.; Heb., 1, 2 Tim, Dies 
Phil. ; Apoc., Laod. ; Ephes., Col. ; Gal., Laod., Ephes. ; Ephes., 
1,2, 3 Cor., Laod.; Phil, Thess.1 fim: 7 Apoc; 3iGor; Gem 
Phil. 


Romans. 


With regard to the very name and introduction of the 
Epistle to the Romans, it is worth observing, that while the 
words év ‘Pwuy are read in verses 7 and 15 by all our manu- 
scripts, with the sole exception of G, their omission by Origen 
is attested by the critical work discovered by von der Goltz on 
Mount Athos (vde supra, pp. 90, 190), which says that Origen 
takes no notice of the words: ovre év Ty é€nyijoet ovTE ev THO 
puto pynpoveve. The Latin commentary has them, and pre- 
supposes them in the exposition. Our editions of Origen have 
hitherto given them once in the Greek as well (iv. 287), but 
we must wait for the new edition before we can say with 
certainty that this is correct. The matter is not devoid of 
importance. If the omission is original, then it is possible to 
think that Romans, like Hebrews, was originally a circular 
letter; while on the other hand, if the words are an integral 
part of the epistle, we may suppose with von der Goltz that 
they were afterwards dropped when the epistle began to be 
read in church, so as to make it applicable to all Christians. 
See Jacques Simon, Revue a’ Histoire et de Littérature religeuses, 
iv. 2 (1899), 177; Zahn, Aznlectung, i. 278; ThLOL, 1899, 179. 

i. 3. On the Syriac reading “of the house of David,” see 
Vetter, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief, 1894, p. 25,and my 


-ROMANS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 303 


Note in the Lectionary published in Studia Sinaitica, vi. (see 
above, p. 106). 

i. 13. For od 6é&# D* G Ambrosiaster read ovx« olouat, 
which Zahn thinks sounds more natural, and quite likely to be 
replaced by the other expression so common in Paul’s epistles. 
Einlettung, i. 262. 

i. 15. For tuiv D* reads ev vyiv, G ér’ vuiv, g zx vobis. 

i. 16. Marcion was accused of having removed zp@rov or Te 
mpa@tov from his text. This, however, is not so (see Zahn, 
GK., i. 639; ii. 515). It is also omitted in B G, showing, as 
Zahn thinks, that it was regarded as obnoxious at an early 
date (Eznlettung, i. 263). Marcion did, however, drop the 
quotation from Habakkuk in the next verse. 

ii. 16. Marcion in all probability wrote 7d evayyédov with- 
out pov, which is now omitted only by 37 d*. In the time of 
Origen and in the centuries following, Marcion’s disciples 
laid emphasis not on you, but on the fact that edayyéduov is in 
the singular number. They charged the Church with having 
not one Gospel, but several. See Zahn, Azudectung, ii. 171. 

v. 1. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth all 
follow the mass of the uncials in reading éywpev, and I was 
therefore obliged to give this as the text of my Stuttgart 
edition of the New Testament. For myself, however, I hold 
with Scrivener and Weiss that éyowev is certainly the correct 
reading. The same mis-spelling occurs in several manu- 
scripts in John xix. 7, jets vouov éywpev. For the reason of 
it, see Schmiedel’s W2ner, § 19. According to Zahn, éywpev 
must be considered the right reading, and cavy@pela (verse 2) 
taken also as subjunctive. See his Eznleztung, i. 264. 

v. 21. The words tod xupiov nua were omitted by Erasmus, 
and, therefore, also by Luther. This is not noticed by 
Tischendorf, nor by Baljon, who follows him. 

xi. 13. tiv dé is read by s A B P, for which D G L haye tpi 
yap. Zahn thinks it difficult to say which is right, but that 
the sense is much the same in either case. Lzuettung,i. 265 f. 

xiii. 3. The conjecture ayafoepy® is thought by Hort to 


304 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ ROMANS, 


have a certain amount of probability (Votes on Select 
Readings, in loco). Schmiedel also thinks it deserving of 
consideration (Wzner, § 19). 

xiv. 5. On the omission of yap (B D G), see Zahn, 
Einleitung, i. 266. 

xiv. 23. Conelusion of the Epistle. The best discussion of 
the Conclusion of the epistle will now be found in Zahn’s 
Einlettung, vol. i. § 22, pp. 267-298, Dze Integritat des 
Rémerbriefs. Compare also Riggenbach, Kvritische Studien 
ziber den Schluss des Romerbriefs: two treatises published in 
the Neue Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie, Erster Band, 1892. 
Bonn, 1892; Die Adresse des 16. Kapitels des Romerbriefs, 
pp. 498-525 ; Dze Textgeschichte der Doxologie, Rim. xvt. 25-27 
zm Zusammenhang mut den tibrigen den Schluss des Romerbriefs 
betreffenden textkritischen Fragen erortert. Also, F. J. A. Hort, 
Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians, 
1895 ; Sanday and Headlam, Commentary on Romans. 

In certain manuscripts prior to the time of Origen, the 
Doxology was found between xiv. 23 and xv.1I._ It now stands 
after xiv. 23 in A L P and about 200 minuscules, while at the 
same time the epistle is certainly continued to xv. 13. Bengel 
alone has suggested a reason for this. He supposes that the 
solemn words in xiv. 23, 7av 6€ 0 ovK €x TigTEws duapTia éoTiy, 
were felt to form an unsatisfactory close to a church lection, and 
that the doxology was accordingly inserted here. Moreover, 
seeing that no part of xvi. I-25 was included in any lection, 
this would be an additional reason for attaching the doxology 
to the end of chapter xiv., as otherwise this grand passage 
might not be read at all. It must be confessed, however, that 
this explanation is not altogether satisfactory. 

It is further to be observed that the Benediction is found 
sometimes after xvi. 20, sometimes after xvi. 23, and some- 
times in both places. In the last case it is found under three 
conditions: (1) before the doxology, (2) without it, (3) after it. 
With regard to the single Benediction, it is inserted after 
verse 20 in s A B C, and after verse 23 in DG. An explana- 


eae 5 


ROMANS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 305 


tion of these variations has frequently been sought in the 
supposition that chapter xvi. is part of an epistle addressed 
to Ephesus, which has in some way been incorporated in the 
Epistle tothe Romans. On this supposition the only question 
is whether the whole of chapter xvi. belongs to this Ephesian 
epistle or only the first twenty verses, while verses 21-23 
belong to the original Epistle to the Romans. Improbable as 
this may appear at the first glance, it admits of an easy 
explanation. It may be due to the fact that Romans once 
stood at the end of the collection of Pauline epistles. Or we 
may suppose that the commendatory epistle for Phcebe 
addressed to Ephesus and the Epistle to the Romans were 
written at the same time, and that in sending them off, the 
sheet containing the former by some mistake slipped in before 
the last sheet of the Roman epistle. On this view, the first 
benediction in verse 20,7 ydpis . . . . we’ Kuor, would belong 
to the Ephesian epistle, while the second, 7) ydapis . . . . peta 
Tavtwv vuav to the Roman. The uncial L would then be 
right in retaining both, while D E F G will have omitted 
the benediction the first time it occurred, and » A BC 
the second time. 

At the same time it cannot be disguised that there are diffi- 
culties in connection with the close of chapter xv. Minuscule 
48 omits the last verse (33). In verse 32, B reads simply ta 
ev xapa €\Ow, while the other witnesses have é€\@wy, and vary 
between cuvavaravowua vuiv and avaywtw we? tov. Zahn 
thinks that the original position of the Doxology is after 
xiv. 23 and nowhere else. Now the authority for inserting 
the Doxology there only is Land many minuscules, A P anda 
few minuscules having it in both places. If Zahn is right, 
should not the testimony of L be accepted in other places as 

1 On these two verbs compare Exod. xxxi. 17, where the LXX has ératcaro 
and Aquila avépvie; Isa. xxxiv. 14, LXX dvaratvcovta, Aquila dvépute ; 
Isa, xxviii. 12, Aquila aydWutis ; compare also aydmavois, Matt. xi. 293 xatpol 
avavvéews, Acts ili. 20. Weiss, in his Commentary, ignores the reading of B in 
Rom. xv, 32; in his discussion of the text he supposes that the text was mutilated 


by a translator, and that D E F G ‘ sought to restore it in their own way.” 
U 


306 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [1 COR. 


well as this, or at least have more deference paid to it than 
seems now to be the case. The testimony for the omission of 
the Doxology there has recently been endorsed by that of the 
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, published in Studza Sinaitica, vi. 

xv., xvi. Zahn points out that we cannot consistently lay 
stress on the supposed entire absence of these chapters in 
Marcion, unless we are prepared to maintain at the same time 
that the other passages which he fails to mention, such as 
Gal. iii. 6-9, 15-25, iv. 27-30; Romans i. 19-ii. 1, iii. 31-iv. 25, 
ix. I-33, X. §-xi. 32; Coloss. i. 154, 16, were unknown to him, 
and only smuggled into the text afterwards by falsifiers on 
the Catholic side. Zahn thinks it probable that Marcion 
struck out the numerous personal references in chapter xvi. 
as being useless and unedifying for the Church of his day. 

xv. 23, 24. Zahn holds that the later Antiochean reading 
éhevtouat Tpos Lucas (8° L Euthal., etc.) is undoubtedly spurious, 
and the yap as certainly genuine (Ezn/ectung, i. 267). 

xvi. 27. Zahn (Ezulettung, i. 286) is inclined to regard o as 
the correct reading here for two reasons: (1) because the 
incompleteness of the sentence made it liable to correction, 
and (2) because the correction is effected in very different 
ways. In some manuscripts o is changed into avr@ (P, Copt., 
31, 54), in others it is omitted altogether (B F-lat. Syr.), 
while in others again ein takes the place of # 9 (55, 43-scholion). 

Subscription : zpos ‘Pwuatovs simply, s ABCD; others, 
éypapn ard KopivOov dia PoiBys THs duaxovov, to which some 
add ris év Keyypeatis éxxAyatas ; others, eypady dua Teptiov 
erréupOn dé dua Poi Bys aro KopwSiwv. 


1 Corinthians. 


All the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is 
indicated by a word and not by a numeral (a) call it zpary, 
never zpotépa. Origen, however, says éy 77 tpotépa pos 
Kopu@ous 6 Tatas (ii. 347). 

i. 2. The words jyacpuévors €v Xpiotw Inoov are read imme- 





{ COR. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES, 307 


diately after Oeo0 by BD*G. This arrangement is adopted 
by Weiss, and supported by Zahn as undoubtedly genuine 
(Einlettung, i. 210). Heinrici is inclined to regard it as a 
transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in copying 
stichometric manuscripts. But were there stichometric manu- 
scripts antecedent to the time of Codex B? 

iii. 22. Marcion seems to have dropped the name of Apollos 
here. Indeed, there is no trace in Marcion of any of the 
passages where Paul mentions his name. “ What was Apollos 
to the Church of the second century?” (Zahn, GK. i. 649.) 

v. 2. For érevOijoate Naber suggests érevojcare. This is 
not noticed by Baljon, who is elsewhere careful to mention 
the conjectural emendations proposed by his countrymen. 

vi. 20. It was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that 
Marcion read apare between do€acate and tov Oedy. But 
how it originated, whether from apa 6€ = dpa éy or by ditto- 
graphy, it is hard to say. 

x. 9. In place of tov képtov we find tov Xpicrov read by 
DGKL, Marcion, Irenzus (iv. 27, 3), Clement (Ac. Proph., 
49), and the early versions. See above, p. 152, and compare 
Zahn on the reading "Iycovs for xvptos in Jude 5 (Eznlettung, 
i SOL). 

xiv. 19. For vot’ wov Marcion read “per legem” dia Tov 
vouov, which was arrived at partly by a transcriptional error 
and partly by conscious alteration. This could not have 
occurred, however, unless the original reading was dia rov 
voos ov, Which is still found in a good many manuscripts, 
and not tw vot mov, the reading preferred by most of our 
editors. The latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation to 
the construction of yAdooy. 

xiv. 31-34. These verses are variously punctuated by recent 
editors, the main difference being with regard to the arrange- 
ment of the clause we ev macais Tais éxkAnolas Tov Wwyluv. 
This clause is referred to verse 31 by Westcott and Hort, 
who place a comma after zapaxaX@vra and bracket the 
intervening words (32, 33@) as a parenthesis. Tischendorf 


308 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, [I COR. 


and Weiss place a period after elpyjyys, and link the ws clause 
to what follows. This arrangement Westcott and Hort 
indicate in their margin. For details and reasoning, see the 
Commentaries. 

xiv. 34, 35. These two verses follow verse 4o in DE FG 
93, Ambrosiaster, and Sedulius. In Codex Fuldensis, verses 
36-40 are found in the margin after verse 33, where they 
were inserted by Victor of Capua (see p. 122), who did not, 
however, remove them from their place further down. He 
must therefore have had before him a manuscript exhibiting 
this arrangement. We must suppose either that all these 
manuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same 
exemplar, in which this arrangement of the verses occurred, 
or, as Heinrici suggests, that the original document itself gave 
occasion to this variety by having these verses written in its 
margin. Our modern editors are unanimous in following the 
usual order. 

xv. 38. Zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitu- 
tion of zvedua for the first c@ua was due to certain followers 
of Marcion. See his GK.i. 615; also Zeitschrift fiir Kirchen- 
geschichte, ix. 198 ff. 

xv. 47. On Marcion’s reading, 6 de’repos Kiptos €€ ovpavod, 
see Zahn, GK. i. 638, who suggests that this may have been 
an early gloss that Marcion made use of, seeing that it is in 
the highest degree improbable that the heretic and some of 
his most violent opponents should alter the original text in 
exactly the same way. 

xv. 55. Tertullian found vetcos in Marcion, and he therefore 
leaves it an open question whether the word signifies victoria 
tua or contentio tua (v. 10, p. 306). See Zahn, GK, i. 51. 

xvi. 22, On “Maranatha,” see Zahn (Eznlectung, i. 215 ff.), 
who, while admitting that no objection on the ground of 
language or grammar can be made to reading the word as 
NAN JTD=6 KUptos juav FAGev (not Epxerat Or eAevceTat), prefers 
with Halévy, Bickell, and Noldeke, to take it as Sn SIND= 
kote épxov, which corresponds to the Peshitto rendering of 





2 COR. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 309 


Apoc. xxii. 20, mw NV NN (Epxou KUpie "Iycot). See note by 
Schmiedel in the Hand-Commentar on 1 Cor, xvi. 22, and 
the article by Thayer in Hastings’ Déectionary of the bible, 
sub voce. Luther has “Maharam Motha,”’ but whence he 
derived this I do not know. 

Subscription: éypady aro Pidimzev (tig Makedovias) dia 
LYrepava cat Poprovvatov kat Ayaixot (Kovaprov) kat TimoPéov; » 
al. bo ILavAov kat SwoO€vous ; al. awd “Edécov ris Actas. 


2 Corinthians. 


i, 12. Recent editors adopt the reading ay:dry7: on the 
authority of s* ABCKM P etc. Zahn, however (£zz/e- 
tung, i. 243), prefers awAotyTe as given by xe DEG ete. 
Meyer thinks that aaAornrt was substituted for wy:oryte as 
being the more usual expression. Tischendorf is wrong in 
saying: de suo add. syr*" e¢ cum puritate. The Syriac has 
smost sma) Nnyota) smwwas—z.e. ev amAoTyTL Kal év 
et\kpwela! Kat ev xapite [Tov] Oeod avert padyuey ev TH KOT MY 
Al OUK EV.0%. 3 

vii. 2. Zahn (GK. i. 650; ii. 515) thinks perhaps the whole 
section vii. 2—-xi. I was omitted by Marcion: “Let us cleanse 
ourselves from defilement of the flesh and blood .... for I 
espoused you as a pure virgin to one husband, (even) Christ.” 

Subscription: éypagy amo Pitiamwv (+ THs Makedovias) 
+ dia Tirov (+ BapvaBa) cat Aovka. 


Galatians. 


i. 8. As illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be led 
astray by his fondness for conjectural emendation, it may be 
mentioned here that. Hitzig (Das Buch Hiob, 1874, p. 199), 
suggested that H AX® formerly occupied the place of jpeis 
in this verse, and that this means 7) apxcepevs ! 


1 See 1 Cor. v. 8, where the Syriac has NNW IP—z.e. ayidrnTtos—for 
aAngelas. 


310 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [GAL. 


i. 18. For Kygav, as given in our critical editions, Zahn 
(Einlectung, ii. 14) would read Ilérpov. He accounts for the 
remarkable transition from the name IIérpog in ii. 7, 8 to 
Kydas in ii. 9, 11, 14 very well by saying that Paul in the 
latter verses is echoing the language used by the Judaizers 
from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three as 
otvAo. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the name 
Ky@as in 1 Corinthians, a scribe might have introduced this 
name, with which he had become familiar, into Galatians i. 18 
also, just as “Ioxapiwrns was carried over from the Synoptics 
into most manuscripts of John’s Gospel, displacing the title 
a0 Kapuewrov. The following table will show the distribution 
of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings Kydas 
and Ilérpos in Galatians :— 





Kndas. Il érpos. 
Galt. 18, as? A. BAZ 672" 71 af D EEG Ke Tek 
it: 27. omnes. 
ip ese —— omnes. 
i; (0; SB Ce ieee: D E F G(A omits). 
i) ee eae el Oe ni tag DE hiG ie 


ii. 14). (* A,B te, 17, 675%, 137., BG oe 


It will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of s (A) 
B, while in verse 11 P alone does so, and that D E F G are 
the only witnesses that are consistent. 

li. 5. ois ovde is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes 
the negative to Marcion (Adv. Marcionem, v. 3), by certain 
manuscripts known to Victorinus Afer, who says “in plurimis 
codicibus et latinis et graecis ista sententia est dd horam 
cesstmus subjectioni,’ and by the Latin translator of Irenzeus 
(Adv. Haereses, iii, 13, 3). Ambrosiaster calls attention to 
the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin manuscripts: 
“ Graeci e contra dicunt Mec ad horam cesstmus,’ and similarly 
Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to 
insert or omit a negative: “Omnino apud Latinos lubrica 
sub calamo est zon particula..... Saepe etiam in graecis 


GAL. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 311 


aliisque ov omissum.” See Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 31 ff, 
who says that the subject is one deserving of special treat- 
ment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive discussion “ de nega- 
tionibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male additae vel 
detractae sunt,’ but there might be a good deal said on these 
theological Szc e¢ Von also. 

A single letter or little word more or less, and the sense of 
a passage is completely changed. Did Paul say that in his 
contention with the Apostles he gave place “ for an hour,” or 
“ not for an hour,” ois zpos @par, OF ofs ovSE TpOs pay, OY ™pos 
épav simply? In Gal. v 8 is it 97 remruovn ex Tov KaovrTOS 
buds, or ovx ek? In I Cor. v. 6 is it “ your glorying is good” 
or “ zot good,” cadov or ov kadov? In Rom. iv. 19, KAT EVONTEV 
or ov xaréoncev? In 2 Peter iii. 10, evpeAjoera or ovx 
evpeOjcerar, or are both these wrong? Compare, for example, 
the reading paxpav in Matt. viii. 30, where almost all the 
Latin witnesses, and Jerome too, read “zon longe”; and 
John vi. 64, where we have of uy miorevovres, and also of 
marevovres (XG). In this latter passage the reading “ cre- 
dentes” was adopted in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate, 
but “zon credentes” in the Clementine; Wordsworth and 
White decide for the latter against the Sixtine text. In 
John vii. 8, x D R etc., read ovx, for which B and the majority 
of the witnesses have ovzw, but this is manifestly a correction. 
In John ix. 27 we have ov« sjKovocare, where a solitary Greek 
manuscript (22), which, however, has the support of the 
Vulgate and half the Old Latin witnesses, reads #KovcaTe: 
audistis. In Romans v.14 we find both rovs uy auaptavoyras 
and tovs duaptavovras. In I Cor. iii. 7 A reads dare 0 puTrevwn 
éoriy Tt, omitting the negative ; in ix. 8 we have both ravra 
Aéyer and ravra ov A€yer; while in xiii. 5 B and Clement of 
Alexandria actually assert that “love seeketh what is zo¢ her 
own, To wy éavtas”! Again, in 1 Cor. xv. 51 the position of 
the negative fluctuates between the first and second member 
of the sentence, so that we have ravres ev ov and ov travtes. 
Similarly, in Col. ii, 18 we find a édpaxey and & uy édpaker; 


352 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [GAL. 


and in Apoc. iv. II foav kat éxricOnoay and ovk joav Kat 
exticOncav—z.e. “they were called out of nothingness into 
existence.” 

In Codex D seven cases of this variation occur in Acts 
alone—viz.'iv.. 20, ‘vi .26,%28) wile 25; Xixi) 40) = R20; N27. 
Compare, further, Matt. xii. 32, where in place of apeOyoera 
B* reads ov adeOijoera. In Matt. xvii. 25 one Latin manu- 
script makes Peter say “utique non” in answer to the ques- 
tion, “Doth not your master pay tribute?” We have in 
Matt. xxi. 16, axoverg and ovk axovets; XXi. 32, weTeueA/OnTe 
and ov mereueAjOnre; XXiv. 2, ov BAewere and BrezeTe. In 
Mark viii. 14, ovx efxov and efxov; xiii. 19, kat ov uy, ovdE py 
and ovd’ ov. Luke xi. 48, cvvevdoxetre: uy ouvevdoket te ; XXi. 21, 
EKXWPEITWTAY: MI eKXWPELTWOUY. John ii. 12, ov zoAdas: 
ToAXas 3 XV. 19, ovK eo Te: FTE; XX. 8, ErlaTEvTEV : OUK ETITTEUTED. 
Acts xxv. 6, wAelous: ov wAelous. Rom. iv. 5, uy epyalouevw: 
epyalouev (Studia Sinaittica, vi. p. \xvi); x. 3, ody treraynoar : 
uTeraynoay (2bzd.). 1 Cor i, 19, cuveray : acweTov; iv. 6, 
va wy: wa; iv. 19, ov Tov AOyov: Tov AOYov; Vi. 5, ovdEIS 
coos: copos; Vi. 9, OV KANPOVOmjoovaW: KANpOVvOMATOVEW 
(B* 93) and vice versa in verse 10. 2 Cor. v. I, axetporoinros: 
ovUK axetpoTtoinros (zon manufactam). Gal. iv. 14, ovK é€ov- 
Benjoare: e€ovOevjoare (8*). Heb. x. 2, ovk dy: dy: kav. 
2 Pet. i. 12, weAArjow: ovVK aueArow: OV MeAAjowW. I John v. 17, 
ov pos Oavarov: pos Oavarov. Apoc. iii, 8, mexpav: ov 
pxpav.) 

ii. 20. Tischendorf fails to mention that Marcion read 
ayopacavros (redemit) in place of adyamjoavros. The variant 
is of sufficient importance to justify a reference to Zahn, GK. 


1 To these examples, gathered quite incidentally, one might add as many from 
the Old Testament and other books if one paid any attention to them in reading. 
Take, for example, Herodotus i, 24. Was the votive offering that Arion set up 
at Taenarum péya or ob wéya? In the Germania xv, 1 did Tacitus say of the 
Germans ‘‘ zon mudltum venationibus, plus per otium transigunt,” or ‘‘ meltum 
venationibus, etc.”? In the new edition of Origen (i, 87, 16) Koetschau reads 
&xpnhotwa where the manuscript and the earlier editions have xpjoiua, and-he lets 
an ovx stand which others omit, etc. 





EPHES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 313 


ii. 499. I cannot at this moment recall any instance of a 
confusion between dayopacas and wyamjoas, though it is not 
an unlikely mistake to make. In Leviticus xxvii. 19, the 
first hand of B by mistake wrote ayopacas for wyracas. 

v. 9. Epiphanius accused Marcion of having altered (vuoi 
to dodo. See Zahn, GK. i. 639; ii. 503. Cf above, p. 76. 


Ephesians. 


Tertullian says (Adv. Marcionem, v. 17): Ecclesiae quidem 
veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non 
ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare 
gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil 
autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, 
dum ad quosdam. 

iv. 19. For aandynxores D here reads amyAmkortes. A glance 
at AITHATHKOTEC and AIHAIIKOTEC will show how 
easy it was to make such a mistake in the days of uncial script. 

v. 14. The reading éxrfaices tot Xpiorov is attested by 
D*, some Latin manuscripts, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
See above, p. 254. 

Subscription: éypagy azo ‘Pons :+ dca Tuxixov. 


Philippians. 


i. 3. edxapist® TO Oew mov is read by NABDeE*KLP; 
and éyw wey evxapioT@ TH Kupiy jyov by D*E* FG, Zahn 
defends the latter in the Zeztschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft, 
1885, p. 184, and in his Ezn/eitung, i. 376 calls it the “ genuine 
text.” Haupt says (Meyer’, 1897, p. 3): The reading eyw 
uev edxapista, which is commonly ignored, is, it appears to 
me, rightly recommended by Zahn and Wohlenberg. But 
Haupt himself ignores the second half of the reading tw kupiw 
juev (for to Oe pov), which is far more important from a 
theological point of view, and is content merely to explain at 
length why Paul should thank /zs God. Weiss, in his 7ext- 


314 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [ PHIL. 


krittk der paulinischen Briefe (pp. 6, 7), mentions éyw, but says 
nothing about yeév, or the change from xupiw juov to Oem mov. 
But you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. 
If you accept éyw muev evyapicT@ you cannot reject tw Kuplw 
jucev. Haupt, moreover, thinks it is far-fetched to suppose 
with Zahn that éyw wey contains an allusion to something the 
Philippians had said. But that is by no means the case, as 
we may learn from what Deissmann and Harris tell us of 
the epistolary style of those days (see A Study in Letter 
Writeng, Expositor, September 1898, p. 161 ff.). But if the 
Western group preserves the correct text at the very outset 
of the epistle, what about it further down? 

i. 7. For yapiros Ambrosiaster has “gaudii,” so that he 
must have read yapas. J. Weiss proposes to read xpedas 
(7hLz., 1899, col. 263). xapis and yapa are frequently inter- 
changed—e.g. in Tobit vii. 18; Sirach xxx. 16. Xdepov is 
found for yapay in Ps, xxix. (xxx.) 11. The scribes felt a 
difficulty with ypeta in Rom. xii. 13, and still more so in 
Ephes. iv. 29. Ephraem found xpea in place of yxetpov 
in John v. 14 (see above, p. 293, note 2). 

i. 14. Zahn and Haupt omit tov Qeod with D K etc. So 
does J. Weiss, who takes occasion to make certain important 
observations on the attempts hitherto made to restore the 
text; ‘See 2/22. 1860,col 262 

iii. 14. Till lately Tertullian was our only authority for the 
reading “palmam incriminationis” in place of 7rd BpaBetov 
Tis dvw KAnocews (De resurrectione carnts, 23). It was accord- 
ingly supposed that he had read aveyxArjoews instead of aw 
kNijcews. We learn now from the Athos manuscript, dis- 
covered by von der Goltz, that Origen also cited the reading 
aveykAnoias in his commentary as being aveyvwouevoy év Tisw 
avtvypapo. Even supposing that twa avriypada turned out 
to be no more than a single copy, or even Tertullian’s quota- 
tion which Origen had become acquainted with in some 
way, his mention of this reading is in the highest degree 
interesting. 





I THESS. ] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 315 


Subscription: éypadpy azo ‘Pouns:+6e “Exadpodirov :+ dca 
Tyuobéou Kai Exradppodirov. 


Colossians. 


ii, 16. On the reading kipyatw suggested by the rendering 
of the Peshitto, and the Latin version of Ephraem’s Com- 
mentary on the Pauline Epistles, see above, p. 168 f. It was 
advocated by Lagarde in his Prophetae Chaldaice, p. li. Zahn 
rejects it on the ground that it would require wept Bpwcews 
in place of év Bpwce, and also that xpivew agrees better with 
caraBpaGevew in verse 18. 

ii. 18. On this difficult passage see above, p. 168. Zahn 
thinks it quite certain that uy is a later insertion even in the 
Syriac, seeing that Ephraem knows nothing of it. Of the 
various conjectural emendations, he regards that of C. Taylor 
as the most probable—viz. dépa xeveuSarevwr. This is also 
the view of Westcott and Hort. See their /ztvoduction, “ Notes 
on Select Readings,” zz loco; Zahn, Eznlettung, i. 339. 

iv. 14. The words 6 latpos 6 ayamnros were omitted by 
Marcion. See Zahn, GK. i. 647; ii. 528. Two minuscules 
omit the words 6 ayamyros. 

Subscription: éypagy azo Pons dua Tuxikou (+ cat Tiobéov) 
Kat Ovnotmov. 


1 Thessalonians. 


ii. 7. One can easily see how doubt should arise as to the 
correct reading here when we observe the form of the words 
in the uncial script, ECENHOHMENNHIUJIOI. Moreover, 
we must remember that N at the end of a line was very fre- 
quently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding 
letter, thus: ETENHOHME. The same alternative readings 
are presented in Hebrews v. 13, and in Clement of Alexandria, 
ji. 140, 7, where Codex F exhibits jo, and M, which is the 
most important manuscript, has wj7cor in the text and jaro in 
the margin. 


316 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [1 TIM. 


ii. 15. Zahn (GK. ii. 521; cf also i. 644) restores Marcion’s 
text here in the form ray cat Tov kvprov [’Incobv] aroxrewarTwv 
Kal Tovs Tpodytras avtav. Marcion founds throughout upon a 
Western text, and the fact of his agreement in this instance 
with the Antiochean Recension (D, E, K, L,) is declared by 
Zahn to be a mere coincidence, more especially as the latter 
here reads rovs (diovs zpogijras. “Had Marcion,” he says, 
“really written (déovs, Tertullian would have translated the 
passage differently, and would scarcely have applied the term 
adjectio to a qualifying expression inserted Jefore rpodijras.” 
What Tertullian says is, “dicendo et prophetas suos licet suos 
adjectio sit haeretici.” The term Zé10s is employed so fre- 
quently to represent the pronoun when no particular emphasis 
is intended to be conveyed, that there seems to me no neces- 
sity for Tertullian translating rovs (Stoves tpogpytas suos pro- 
Phetas, or rendering the words in any other way than prophetas 
swos. Compare above, p. 211. 

ili. 3. Lachmann here reads udev aoaiverba with Reiske 
and Venema. Beza and Bentley suggested canever Oa, Hol- 
werda avaiverOu, Peerlkamp cmaferOa. Zahn has no hesita- 
tion in adopting pydéva catverOa, which he understands in the 
original (metaphorical) sense of to flatter, to talk over or 
cajole. See Ezulettung, i. 158. 


1 Timothy. 


i. 4. Ockodoulay, or oikodouny, which is attested by Irenzus 
and a good many Latin witnesses, and received into his text 
by Erasmus, is nothing but an early transcriptional error for 
OlKOVOp.ay. 

iii. 1, “ The reading avOpw7ivos 6 Adyos is attested in Greek 
only by D*, but it was the prevailing reading in the West till 
the time of Jerome. When I consider the improbability of 
its being invented, and its liability to alteration in conformity 
with 1 Tim. i. 15, iv.9; 2 Tim. ii. 11; Tit. iii, 8, 1 am compelled, 
in spite of the one-sided nature of the testimony, to conclude 


I TIM.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 317 


that it is original. It is a proverbial expression of general 
application and profane origin” (Zahn, Hznlettung, i. 482). 
This reading is usually ignored by our editors and commenta- 
tors, and yet the passage is one that plays an important part in 
the ordination of the clergy, and therefore one on the correct 
interpretation of which a good deal might depend. Westcott 
and Hort merely mention it in their Votes on Select Readings 
and insert itin their Appendix. It is not cited by von Gebhardt 
in his edition. For my own part I am not quite convinced of 
its originality. At the same time it is hard to understand 
how III[=TO* by any clerical error could be transformed into 
ANINOS, and so become ANOPOIIINO*. 

iii, 16. In his Forschungen, vol. iii, Beilage iv. p. 277, “Zum 
Text von 1 Tim. iii. 16,’ Zahn published two or three lines 
from some parchment fragments in the Egyptian Museum of 
the Louvre, which, he thinks, belong to the IV—VI century. 
The last three lines run—evaeBeras uvornp . . w epavepwOn 
Epieeed | ated 20s ble tsdys,“ The in, the ‘second ‘last 
line is undoubtedly meant for 6. This adds another to the 
Greek witnesses supporting this reading, which has till now 
been attested only by the Latin manuscripts, by other am- 
biguous or doubtful witnesses, and probably by the first Greck 
hand of Codex Claromontanus. The xa in the last line is, so 
far as I am aware, supported by no other evidence.” The 
reading Qeos, which was formerly so much discussed, seems to 
be simply an early transcriptional error, OC being read as 
O@C—z.e. Oeos with the usual mark of abbreviation, The old 
dispute over the reading of the earliest manuscripts (most of 
them exhibit a correction at the place), whether the middle 
stroke of the 9 in the oldest codices AC is by the first or 
second hand, or whether in the case of A it may not be simply 
the tongue of an E shining through from the other side of the 
parchment, cannot seemingly be decided now in the present 
state of the manuscripts! Codex A was examined by 





1 In his Lucian Lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by certain 
letters shining through from the opposite side—e.g. Esther v. 22 and 27. This 


318 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. {2 TIM. 


Scrivener both with and without the aid of a magnifying 
glass perhaps twenty times in as many years. Dean Burgon 
devotes seventy-seven pages of his Reviston Revised to a dis- 
cussion of the reading. The facility with which a variant of 
this sort may arise is shown by the perfectly analogous pas- 
sage, Joshua ii. 11. Here B and F read xupuos 0 O09 vuwv OC 
ev ovpayvw avw, While on the other hand A in place of OC has 
QC, which in this instance is correct. In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the 
other witnesses—viz. the versions and the Fathers—throw 
their weight into the opposite scale. 

iv. 3. Isidore asks whether kwAvovtov .... améxerOat 
Bpwnatwv may not be a cPadua of the scribes for avréyer Oar, 
to which Oecumenius replies that it is no ePadua caddAvypagtKov 
but good Attic Greek for ckwAvew azo Tis Bpwocews. The ex- 
planation of Theophylact, however, is nearer the mark, that 
cuuBovreve is to be supplied from kwAWev. Bentley, 
Toup, Bakhuyzen, and Bois would supply xeAevoytwy before 
aréxerOa, while Hort suggests the substitution of 9 drrecAae 
or cat yeverOa in place of awéyecAa. There seems to be no 
need of such expedients. 

Subscription : éypady aro Aaodtcetas+ijris early untpoTroNts 
Ppvylas THs Karatiavys (lakareavys): al. aro NixoroAews : al. 
amo A@Onvov: al. aro ‘Pouns+ dia Titov. 


2 Timothy. 


iv. 19. After “AxvAavy two minuscules (46 and 10g) insert 
Aéxtpav TH yuvaika avrov cat Xyuwalav (Lymacay 109) cat Zijvwva 
tous vious a’tov. The interpolation is derived from the Acta 
Pault, and is to be connected not with Aquila, but with the 
“house of Onesiphorus.” See Zahn, Aznlettung, i. 411. 

Subscription: éypagy azo Aaodtcelas: al. ad Pons +ore 
ex devtépou tapéaTy IlaiXos To Katcape Népwnt. 
latter is a most interesting case. The following verse begins with uy, and Lagarde 
thought that the first scribe had added another un by mistake and afterwards erased 


it, whereas it turned out that what he took to be MH was nothing else than HN 
shining through from the other side. 


HEB.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 319 


Titus. 


i.9, 11. Considerable additions are made to the text after 
both these verses by Codex 109. This manuscript is num- 
bered 11 in the Library of St. Mark at Venice, and described 
by Gregory as “haud malae notae.” It contains both a 
Latin and an Arabic version, and dates from the thirteenth or 
fourteenth, or, as some suppose, the eleventh, century. After 
verse 9 we read: uy xetpoToveiy dvyapmous wyde dtakdvous avTous 
roleiv, unde yuvaicas éxew ek duyaulas’ unde TpoTepxesOwcay €v 
two Ovo.artypiw Nerroupyey TO Oeiov’ Tovs GpxovTas TOUS adiKo- 
Kpiras Kat dpTayas kat Wevoras Kat aveNenmovas EXeyxXeE ws Feov 
Sutkovos. After verse II we find ta rékva Tous idtous yovets 
iBpt€ovras ) TUTTovTas emaTOMLCe Kat EAeyXE Kal vouBETEL ws 
Tarnp TEKVG. 

Subscription: zpos Titov (+775 Kpytov éxxAnolas tpeTov 
érickoTov xetpoTovyPerTa) éypagn amo Nixotodews THs Maxe- 
Sovias (missa per Arteman: a/. per Zenam et Apollo). 


Hebrews. 


i. 3. Instead of ¢épwv, the first hand of B wrote gavepav, 
which a second hand altered to ¢épwy, while a third restored 
gavepoy, and wrote in the margin apaléeaorare Kal KaKé, apes 
rov [? To] madady, wy metaToie. A great deal of material 
might be collected from the margin of old manuscripts, not 
only for the history of Prayer, as von Dobschiitz recently 
observed, but for other interesting departments of the history 
of civilisation. 

ii. 9. The reading ywpis Oeod instead of yaprTs Meov is now 
found only in M and in the second hand of 67. Origen, 
however, was aware of the various reading: ywpis Qeou 7 O7ep 
y tit avtvypapos xapitt Beov. It seems to be a primitive 
transcriptional error. 

x. 34. We have here to choose between derpois and derptors. 
The latter is manifestly the correct reading. It is attested 


320 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CATH. 


by A D* and certain minuscules, among which are 37**, 67**. 
This last is a Vienna manuscript (Vindob. gr. theol. 302), 
whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely resembling 
that of the uncials B M, which are defective in Hebrews x. 
Aecuois ov is supported by s D°H K L P, Clem. Alex., 
Origen (i. 41, where, however, wov is omitted by M* P, 
according to Koetschau’s new edition), and by d e (wencules 
eorum). Zahn (Eznlectung, ii. 122) thinks that the connection 
of the reading despots mov with the tradition of the Pauline 
authorship of the epistle is suspicious. We find the reading 
adopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted. 
It may, however, have been the means of confirming and 
spreading the tradition, seeing that Clement of Alexandria is 
actually aware of it. Pseudo-Euthalius, ¢eg., employs the 
reading in support of the Pauline authorship (Zacagni 670). 

In this same verse s A H have preserved the proper 
reading éavrous. ‘Eavrois,as given by D E K L, is a would- 
be correction. 

xi. 23. In certain manuscripts (D and three Vulgate 
codices) an entire verse is inserted after verse 23: ore: uéyas 
yevomevos Mwiois avethev Tov AlyyTtiov KaTavoay THY TaTrelYwoLW 
Tov adeAPov avTov. Its position shows it to be an interpolation. 

xiii. 9. The present tense repiratovrvres is exhibited only 
by x* A D*, all the other witnesses having wepizratijoayres. 
The minority are in the right here. A correction is not always 
an improvement. 

xiii. 18. Zahn accepts the cai before wepi yuwy. It is found 
only in D d and Chrysostom. This combination of witnesses 
is very rare. 

Subscription : eypagn (+é8patcri 31) aro ris Iranias dia 
Tiuobéov: al. awd AOnvor: al. avo ‘Poung. 


CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 


The variety in the order of the Catholic Epistles is even 
more significant than that of the Pauline. When the Syrian 


+... mene 


EPIST.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 321 


Church of Edessa obtained the New Testament, it consisted 
only of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Acts. It 
contained neither the Apocalypse nor the Catholic Epistles. 
This is proved among other things by the fact that not a 
single quotation from these writings is found in the Homilies 
of Aphraates, the date of which falls between 336 and 345. 
At a later date the Syrian Church accepted the Epistle of 
James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, but the four so-called Anti- 
legomena—viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude—are to this 
day excluded from their Canon of the New Testament. 
Even in the West, James was not reckoned among the books 
of the New Testament previous to the fourth century. There 
is no mention made of it in Africa about the year 300, 
although it was cited at Rome and Carthage at an earlier 
date. At Alexandria, however, all the seven Catholic 
Epistles were counted in the New Testament as early 
as the time of Clement, and their place in the Canon 
becomes more and more firmly assured from the time of 
Eusebius onwards.2. At the same time, the order of their 
arrangement varies very considerably. Indeed, every possible 
variety occurs, except that Jude seems never to have been 
placed first, nor 2 Peter last. Thus we find James, 2 Peter, 
3 John, Jude; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John; 2 Peter, James, 
Jude, 3 John; 2 Peter, 3 John, James, Jude; 2 Peter, 3 John, 
Jude, James, etc.’ It follows that in the case of this group of 
New Testament writings, as well as in that of the preceding, 
it is necessary and possible to distinguish the three longer 
from the four shorter epistles in tracing the history of the 
text. And we see at the same time what justification Luther 
had in drawing a line between these epistles and the principal 
books of the New Testament as having been held in quite a 
different estimation in early times. 

1 Cf Westcott, Cazon, Part II. ch. ii. § 1, p. 354 ff. ; Bzdle tn the Church, 
Pa OF a Bible in the Church, p. 153 ff. 

% See Article on Zhe Catholic Epistles, by Salmond, in Hastings’ Déctionary of 


the Bible, i. p. 359 f. 
X 


322 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [1 PETER. 


1 Peter. 


iii. 22. After Oeov the Vulgate inserts deglutiens mortem ut 
vitae aeternae haeredes efficeremur, “apparently from a Greek 
original which had the aorist participle catamiwy ; cf 1 Cor. 
xv. 54” (W-H, Notes, 7m loco) See Vetter, Der dritte 
Korintherbrief. 


2 Peter. 


i. 1. Zahn considers ev dicacocvvy the original reading, and 
els Otkatoovvyy a later correction due to taking wiortw év du- 
aocuvy together as “faith in righteousness.” The last two 
words are to be taken with Aayotow. Fznlettung, ii. 59. 

i 2, Zahn agrees with Lachmann and Spitta in holding 
that év érvyvwocet TOU Kupiov juer is the correct text here—that 
is to say, he omits tov Oeo0 cai Iycov. Tischendorf’s Appara- 
tus is very diffuse on this verse, and Baljon’s note, which is 
extracted from it, is accordingly not quite satisfactory! Like 
all the other editors, he gives év érryvece: tov Oeod Kat 
‘Incod Tod Kupiov juov in the text, but the only variants he 
mentions are the insertion of Xpiorov after "Iycov, and the 
omission of juev. There is no notice of the omission of the 
words tov Qeot Kat ‘lyoov by any of the witnesses. They 
are not found in P, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (am 
fu dem harl), Philoxenian and Harklean Syriac, nor in 
minuscules 69, 137, 163. These last, however, the Syriac and 
the minuscules with m, insert “Iycod Xpiorovd after juar. 
Kihl believes that the shorter form is probably due to the 
fact that in the epistle Christ is everywhere regarded as the 
object of éx’yvwors. But this is really very improbable. For 
the scribe could not have been aware of this when he began 


1 Tt is certainly difficult to construct an Apparatus which shall be concise and 
yet clear. In Jude 22 Baljon adopts éAea@re in the text, and yet he leaves the 
apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest that he intended to read éaéyxere 
with Tischendorf. 


n 
ee Le 


2 PETER. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 323 


to write the epistle, so that he must have turned back and 
deleted the words cai Qeod kai “Incod afterwards. At thé 
same time it is a fundamental principle of textual criticism 
that the /ectzo drevior is to be preferred. Reference may be 
made to the Efzlogus of Wordsworth and White, ch. vi., De 
vegulis a nobts in textu constituendo adhibitis, where the very 
title of section 4 implies this principle: “Cum brevior lectio 
probabilior sit, codices A F H* M Y plerumque praeferendi 
sunt,” and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule 
are said to be “ Additamenta nominum propriorum, et prae- 
cipue sanctorum—e.g. Jesus, Christus, Dominus, Deus.’ It is 
true that in the passage before us we have not simply a case 
of the insertion of a word or words understood ; at the same 
time, here if anywhere the text is more likely to have been 
extended than abbreviated. It remains to be seen whether 
P exhibits a good text in other passages of the Catholic 
Epistles as well as this, but so far as the minuscules 69 and 
137 are concerned, they justly bear a good reputation. Hort 
calls 69 one of the better cursives,and 137 has a text so 
closely resembling that of Codices D E as to be of material 
assistance when these are defective. The minuscules are too 
often regarded as mere ciphers ; as if a cipher more or less 
behind a number did not make a vast difference. In the very 
next verse we find 137 supporting s A in reading ra vayra, 
which is accepted by Tischendorf and Weiss, and preferred 
also by Kihl. In this instance it contradicts P, which omits 
va With BC K L. 

i. 12. Here peAdAzjow is given by sABCP, ov pedrjow by 
8 f tol (zon differam), and ovx ayerijow by KL etc. (“the 
Antiochean recension and the Syriac versions,’ Zahn). 
“‘MedAjjow, with the present infinitive, can hardly be simply 
a periphrastic future. The idea is rather that the writer will 
be prepared in the future, as well as in the past and in the 
present, to remind them of the truths they know, whenever 
the necessity arises. As they had no evidence of the fulfil- 
ment of this promise, the copyists and translators found a 


324. GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [2 PETER. 


difficulty with this expression, and hence the variants.” Zahn, 
Einlettung, ii. 53 f. 

i. 15. The reading ozovdagw, found in ss 31, and the 
Armenian, is also attested by the Philoxenian Syriac, a fact 
which Zahn regards as important. “On_ transcriptional 
grounds the reading ozovdasw, preferred by our editors, 
would appear to be confirmed by the reading gzovdacare, 
exhibited by the Harklean Syriac and a few minuscules. 
But in reality both these latter readings merely serve to show 
that a difficulty was felt again in admitting a promise on the 
part of Peter which he seemed never to have fulfilled.” Azz- 
lettung, ii. 54. Compare on peddrjow above. 

i. 21. It is probable that Theophilus of Antioch (Ad 
Autolycum, il. 9) read (of) &ytot (rod) Beod avOpwroat, the form 
exhibited by x and A (“the chief representatives of the 
Antiochean family”), and also by several Latin witnesses. 
See. Zahn, GK. i. -313; Chase on 2 Peter in’ Hastings 
Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 801. 

ii. 13. On this passage Zahn remarks (£zn/ettung, ii. 53): 
“ The similarity of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude was doubt- 
less a source of textual corruption. But it may also aid us 
in correcting the text. Because, whichever of the two we 
regard as the original, in any case the one is our earliest 
witness to the text of the other. If we accept the reading 
ayaras in Jude 12, it follows either (1) that Jude read 
ayatas in 2 Peter, and that this is the original reading there, 
or (2) that Peter, supposing he wrote second, altered Jude’s 
ayatas to ararats, Which it is hard to conceive, the former 
being so unmistakable, and the latter much less suitable to the 
context. In either case, therefore, ayamwa:s would seem to be 
the correct reading in 2 Peter ii. 13.” No doubt the alteration 
of ayaa to amatas is “hard to conceive,” but it is not 
inconceivable. As illustrating how a piece of writing may 
be misread, it is sufficient to pointto Justin’s mistake with 
regard to “ Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio.”! As regards the par- 


' The inscription on a column at Rome dedicated to a Sabine god which Justin | 


2 PETER. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 325 


ticular words before us, I may be allowed to cite my Piz/o- 
logica Sacra, p. 47, where I have referred to the frequent 
confusion of a@yaraw and araraw, @yarn and amrary in manu- 
scripts of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 36, for example, 
out of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been 
collated, not one has preserved the correct reading jrarnoav; 
all have yyarycav. In 2 Chron. xviii. 2 again only one has 
the correct text #ra7a. From a psychological point of view, 
therefore, it would seem more natural to suppose that drarats 
is the original reading in the passage under consideration, 
and ayamas the transcriptional error. The authorities for 
each are distributed as follows :— 


ayarrats. aTarats. 
: is ( AcBmveg, Syr™, NA Ce per pee 
ci: a ee a Syne Me. Sahid. Syrs* Cope; oom: 


Jude 12, 


| s BK Lvg, Sahid., Copt., A Ciudte. 


Syret Syi Arm. 


In the first edition of this work I said it was strange, con- 
sidering the frequent confusion of ayazy and azarn, that 
Tischendorf goes by the majority of his witnesses in the case 
of 2 Peter ii. 13 (Westcott and Hort in their text, Weiss, 
Weymouth, and Baljon all do the same), “whereas the same 
word should be read in both cases, and that ayaa. Other- 
wise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was 
already corrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the 
other, no matter whether Peter or Jude: quod variat, verum 
esse non potest.” I cannot understand an argument like that 
of Kiithl (Meyer®, on 2 Peter ii. 13, p. 428): “dara is pre- 
sumably original in one of the passages, most likely in 
2 Peter, as ayazas goes better with vuoy in Jude 12 than 
with avr@y here. B has ayazats in both places, and C in the 
same way azatas, which is explainable on the supposition 
read as ‘Simoni Sancto Deo,” and understood as referring to Simon Magus. 


See Kurtz, Church History (Macpherson), i. p. 97; Neander, Church History 
(Bohn), ii. p. 123, note. 


326 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [2 PETER. 


that originally the one word stood in the one passage and the 
other in the other. Nearly all recent expositors favour the 
reading azaras in 2 Peter.” Iam glad now to have the power- 
ful support of Zahn in my dissent from that view. Reference 
may be made to the excellent article on Jude by F. H. Chase 
in Hastings’ Dectionary of the Bible, ii. 799-805. His first 
paragraph is on the “Transmission of the Text,” and the 
article is a model of what such things should be! On the 
Philoxenian Syriac see the work of Merx mentioned above, 
p. 106(5). On the rest of the verse, see Zahn, Ezn/ettung, ii. 71. 
He points out that Tischendorf’s apparatus is misleading here, 
as it fails to notice the omission of duty by the Philoxenian 
Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Speculum of Pseudo-Augus- 
tine (m), and by Pseudo-Cyprian. In his opinion it is an 
interpolation due to the cuv— of cuvevwxovuevor. These pro- 
nouns are very liable to be interpolated, as is pointed out by 
Wordsworth and White in their Efz/ogus, p. 729, where 
these “additamenta” come next after “Proper Names”; see 
above, p. 238. 

ii 15. On Bocep, see p. 243 f. 

ii. 226. In Hippolytus, Refutatio, ix. 7, we find: mer’ ov 
ToNU de ext Tov adtov BopBopov avexvNiovro. On the con- 
nection.:of: this with 2, Peter ii., 22; see Zahn, GK. a, 316. 
Wendland tried to make out that it is a saying of Heraclitus. 
Compare also Clement, Adyos Ipotpertixos, X. 96: ves yap, 
pact, i6ovta BopBopw warrAov 7 KaBapo dart, Kat ért PopyTo@ 
hapyatvovaw kata Anpoxpirov. 

iii. 6. The conjectural reading 6¢ oy for 6’ éyv Schmiedel 
thinks well worthy of consideration. See his Wzner, § 19. 

iii. 10. None of the variants here appears to be the correct 
reading (kaTaxaijoera in various forms: agancOjcovta: evpe- 
fijoerat). What is required is a passive form of péw, or one of 
its compounds (? dcappuijererat). 

iii. 16. The article is inserted before éziaroXais by 8 and 
K LP (“the Antiochean recension”), but omitted by A BC. 


* Compare also the articles on 1 and 2 Peter by the same writer in vol. iii. 


eS ee 


I JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 327 


Zahn, who would omit it, points out that év racaw Tals emio- 
toAais would imply a complete collection of Paul’s Epistles, 
and would include all the constituents without exception, 
whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one epistle 
known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had 
written. See Hznlettung, ii. 108. Tischendorf admitted the 
reading now favoured by critics in his seventh edition, but 
rejected it in the eighth. This same thing occurs not 
infrequently. See the article on 2 Peter by Chase in 
Hastings’ Dectzonary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. Sto, 


1 John. 


iv. 3. Von der Goltz has shown conclusively what was long 
a matter of conjecture, that Origen not only knew the reading 
6 Avec Tov Incrovr, but seemingly preferred it ; and that Clement 
also cites the text in this form in his work on the Passover, 
which is all but entirely lost. He has also established anew 
the reliable nature of the Latin version of Irenzeus in the 
matter of Biblical quotations. See Zahn in the 7%L4Z, 1899, 
col. 180; Eznlectung, ii. 574. 

v. 7. The “comma Johanneum” needs no further discussion 
in an Introduction to the Greek Testament, but its history on 
Latin soil is all the more interesting. The fact that it is still 
defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only 
from a pathological point of view. On the decision of the 
Holy Office, confirmed by the Pope on the 15th January 1897, 
see Hetzenauer’s edition of the New Testament, and the notice 
of it by Dobschiitz in the 7ZLz., 1899, No. 10. On the litera- 
ture, compare also Kolling (Breslau, 1893); W. Orme’s Memoir 
of the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 
1 John v. 7 (London, 1830), New Edition, with Notes and 
Appendix by Ezra Abbot (New York, 1866); C. Forster, A 
New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly 
Witnesses (Cambridge, 1867); H. T. Armfield, The Three 
Witnesses: The disputed Text in St. John (London, 1893). 


328 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [JAMES. 


James. 


An Arabic scholion, attributed to Hippolytus, cites this 
epistle under the name of Jude. See Zahn, GA. 1, 320;2; 
323, 3. In two minuscules cited by Tischendorf, ‘laxaé@ou 
is followed by rod adeAgod Oeov or adeAgobeod, and in one of 
the subscriptions by tov adeApobeov. The subscription in ff 
reads “explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei (szc).” See Zahn’s 
Einlettung, i. 75. 

il. 2. cuvaywynv appears without the article in x* BC and 
one of Scrivener’s minuscules. This reading is accepted by 
Zahn, who sees in it an indication that those to whom the 
epistle is addressed were in possession of several synagogues, 
that is supposing the word to mean meeting-place, and not 
simply assembly, as he himself is inclined to believe. See 
Einlettung, i. 60, 66. 


Jude. 


5. This verse exhibits an uncommonly large number of 
variants. Thus eddras occurs with or without duds after it ; 
for wavra we find both zavras and rovro; while the position 
of dzaé varies, the word being found before zavta, ét1, and 
Aaov. But even that is not all. Most recent editors read 671 
Kvpros, but we find also 671 Iycovs: 67t 6 Oeds: and 671 6 Kupros 
(textus receptus). Tischendorf’s apparatus might lead one to 
suppose that the witnesses for "Ijoovs and 6 Oeds omit drx alto- 
gether, but that is not so. The ambiguity is due to the loose 
way in which the note is given. Westcott and Hort think it 
probable that the original text was OTIO, and that this was 
read as OTIC, and perhaps as OTIKC. Kiihl thinks that the 
easiest explanation of the variants is to suppose that xvpuos 
was the original reading, and that Iycovs and Oeds were derived 
from it. But it seems to me that Zahn has better reason on 
his side when he argues for 67: Invovs as the original reading. 





APOC. | CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 329 


He first of all eliminates 6 Qed; as having no great attestation, 
and as being found alongside of xvpios in Clement (domznus 
deus). The choice, therefore, lies between x’pios and “Incovs. 


- The latter has by far the stronger external attestation, it is 


the /ectio ardua, and is, on internal grounds, also to be pre- 
ferred. See Eznleztung, ii. 88. 

22, 23. Zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies 
at the foundation of Didache, ii. 7: ov mioijrets TavTa GVO pwr or, 
GAG ols mev EdXCyE«ts, TEpt Oé GY TpoTEvEN, Os Je KyaTnTELS 
UTep THY Wuxijv cov. If this is really so, we have here a piece 
of very early testimony, not certainly to the actual words, but 
to the thought conveyed. See Eznlectung, ii. 86. 

Subscription: At the end of the Armenian Bible of 1698 
we find a note to the effect that “this epistle was written in 
the year 64 by Judas Jacobi, who is also called Lebbaeus and 
Thaddaeus, and who preached the Gospel to the Armenians 
and the Persians.” 


APOCALYPSE. 


Apart from particular passages, the last book of the Bible 
cannot be unreservedly recommended to the devout laity for 
special study, but it is peculiarly well adapted as an introduc- 
tion to the method of textual criticism, and that for two 
reasons. First of all, because the number of available wit- 
nesses to the text is comparatively small, and, secondly, 
because these are more easily grouped here than in the other 
divisions of the New Testament. Reference may be made in 
this connection to the first part of Bousset’s critical studies on 
the text of the Apocalypse, where the distinction drawn by 
Bengel between the Andreas and Arethas groups of manu- 
scripts is correctly emphasized. At the same time Bousset 
himself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an 
eclectic mode of procedure is all that is possible at present. 
An attempt has been made above (p. 157) with the conclusion 
of the Apocalypse. We shall now try a few further examples. 


330 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [APOC. | 


In order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we 
must select passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of 
meaning with a small variation of form. Such a passage 
occurs in the last chapter. In Apoc. xxii. 14, after the 
words “blessed are they,” we read, in the one class of wit- 
nesses, “that wash their robes,” in the other, “that do his 
commandments.” That is to say, we have in the one case 


OMIAYNONTECTACCTOAACAYTON and in the other 
OIMOIOYNTECTACETOAACAYTOY. The difference is 


exceedingly small, especially when we consider that in early 
times OI was frequently written Y, and EN at the end of 
a line €. I have no doubt that “wash their robes” is the 
original reading here and that “do his commandments” is the 
later alteration, though, of course, others will hold the oppo- 
site view. For the former we have the authority of » A, for 
the latter that of Q (ze, B*?°; see above, p. 80) with its 
associates. The question now becomes: Are there any 
passages where s and A part company, and which are decisive 
in favour of s? It is impossible to say offhand whether y or 
A has preserved the correct text. s contains corrections that 
A does not, and vce versa. Take another example. 

The author of the Apocalypse follows the Hebrew idiom, 
according to which the word or phrase in apposition to an 
oblique case is put in the nominative! Thus we have: 

ii, 20. tHv yuvaica lefaBer 1 Aéyoura. Q makes this 7} Neyer, 
and the corrector of 8 ty Aéyouvcar. Similarly, iii. 12, rie 
cawwns Lepovoadnm 4 KataBatvovea, where again Q has jj cara- 
Baive, and s° tig KaraBawvovens. But it is not only the later 
corrector of x that does this: the first scribe of that manu- 
script does it himself. For example: 

xiv. 12. 8 has tev typovyvtwy instead of of typotvres; in 
verse 14 éxovra instead of éywy; in xx. 2, Tov dw instead of 


‘ See Blass, Grammar of N. T. Greek, § 31, 6, Eng. Tr., p. 80 f. Compare the 
similar German idiom used in the titles of books, ‘‘von X. Y, ordentlicher Professor.” 
How naturally this comes toa Hebrew is shown by the fact that Sal. Bar, in his trans- 
lation of the Massoretic note at the end of the books of Samuel (Leipzig, Tauchnitz, 
1892, p. 158), among other lovely things has ‘ad mortem Davidis vex Israelis.” 





APOC.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 331 


6 ogis, etc. In other places A, in this last A a/one, it appears, 
has preserved the correct text. 

There are other places, again, where the correct reading is 
preserved, perhaps, only in a later manuscript, or in none at 
all. We may compare with the idiom in the Apocalypse 
what we find at the beginning of the book in the passage 
about the seven spirits before the throne of God. 

i. 4. d3o Tov érTa TreymaToy .... everiov Tov Opovou 
avrov. Inthe space indicated by the dots Erasmus has é ecru, 
Codex 36 has é eaw, Q and C have 4, which is adopted by 
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, x and A have trav, which 
is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and 
Hort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All 
these variants are explainable on the supposition that the 
original reading was ra. Exception being taken to this con- 
struction, one copyist made it rév, the other a, the third 
supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped the offending 
word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, 8 alone has pre- 
served the correct reading +0, for which the others have 6 or 
6 éotw. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to 
say, “in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was 
slain.” According to the idiom mentioned above, while “Avtiza 
was in the genitive, 6 waprvs would be in the nominative of 
apposition. But owing to the influence of this nominative, 
"Avtira was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the 
sentence then ran, éy Tats juépas "Avtimas 6 wapTus mou... . 
ds... . Which could not be construed. The consequence 
was corrections of all sorts. The boldest expedient was 
simply to drop the 6s, but other means were adopted to 
relieve the construction. After #uépas some inserted ais or ev 
ais, Erasmus read éuais, 8 has éy rats, and some Latin witnesses 
illis. But read ’Avriza in the genitive and all is in order." 


1 In this (independent) suggestion I am glad to find myself in agreement with 
Lachmann (Studien und Kritiken, 1830, p. 839), and Westcott and Hort (ii., App., 
137). I see that Baljon and Zahn too follow it. But Bousset still writes 7u€pars 


als. 


332 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [APOC. 


The Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages en- 
abling us to distinguish the manuscripts. There is very little 
difference in form between Avcavte and Noveartt (i. 5), aeTou 
and ayyéXov (viii. 13), A¢Aov and Xivoy (xv. 6), but it makes a 
great difference whether we read “who redeemed us” or 


“who washed us,” an “eagle flying” or “an angel flying,” 


“ wearing pure linen” or “ wearing pure stone.” These varia- 
tions are the result of acczdental errors in transcription. But 
we meet an instance of zz¢entzonal alteration in xiii. 18, where 
the number of the beast is variously given as 666 and 616. 
Grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have— 


Las AVecavTL, x A C, Syriac! Armenian. 
AoveavTt, QO P, Vulgate, Coptic, Ethiopic. 
Vili. 13. aerov, x AO, Vulgate; Synac,*) Copite: 
Ethiopic. 
ayyeXou, P, Armenian. 


The two readings are combined not only by certain com- 
mentators, but in some manuscripts, ayyéAou ws ceTor. 

xv. 6. NlOov caBapov, A C, am fu demid tol. 

Alvov kaBapov, P, Syriac) Armenian, Clementine- 
Vulgate. 
Awovv kaBapov is read by Q, and KxaBapovs Alvous 
by ». 

Tregelles and Westcott alone accept the reading \/Oov; all 
the other editors regard it as an early transcriptional error. 
Holtzmann refers to the parallel passages i. 13, iv. 4, vii. 9, 13, 
XVii. 4, XViii, 16, xix. 8, 14, in support of Aivor, but they point 
rather the other way. For “fine linen” Apocalypse has 
Bvcowos five times, but never once Xivos, which means only 
the material, and not the garment made of it. Moreover, we 
find a parallel in the Old Testament, though in another con- 
nection, in Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where we read zavra Bov 
xXpnorov evdéderat, So that A/Oov here must not be so confi- 
dently rejected. A‘@ov was more liable to be changed to 


! Including Gwynn’s Syriac manuscript ; see above, p. 102. 
g y by pt; ’ 


he 





APOC.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 333 


Nivov than vice versa, as the Vulgate shows, in which the 
authorised printed edition has /zteo where the manuscripts 
read /apidem. At the same time one cannot but admit that 
primitive transcriptional errors do occur. The reading wyyéXov 
in viii. 13, to which certain manuscripts prefix évos, seems 
to me to be corroborated by GXXov ayyeXov TeTOmevor in 
xiv. 6. Or are we to read derov there in the face of all 
the witnesses? 

v. I. The correct text here is that adopted by Zahn: 
yeypaumevoy eowbev Kai oricbev Katerppuyiouevor. Grotius, 
though mistaken as to the true text, was the first to give the 
right interpretation of the words by taking éow (€cwev) with 
yeypauuevov, and éwlev (omicbev) with xcarerppayiouevov. 
“Locus sic distinguendus yeypaumévov écw, kai €€w0ev Kateo- 
dpayiruevov.” This combination of the words (“haec nova 
distinctio”) was combated for the reason among others that 
it deprived them of all their force and rendered them super- 
fluous, for who ever saw a roll that was written on the outside 
and sealed on the inside. See Pole’s Syzopszs, where it is said 
of Grotius, “tam infelix interpres Apocalypseos est magnus 
ille Hugo in rebus minusculis.” Zahn (Lzvleztung, ii. 596) 
improves the text of Grotius, but retains his connection of the 
words. He holds that érwOev and dzioGev are not correlative 
terms, and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on both 
sides (67is00ypapov) must be abandoned; compare above, 
p. 43,n.2. The book was, in fact, nota roll buta codex. Two 
things point to this. There is, first, the fact that is said to be 
émt tyv de€vav. Had it been a roll it would have been ey ty 
de€ia. Moreover, the word used for opening the book is 
cvot€at, and not, as in the case of rolls, aveNiooety, dvetdety, OF 
avarticocev. That it was not written on the outside is also 
shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals, the 
purpose of which was to make the reading of the book im- 
possible. Not till the seventh seal is broken is the book open 
and its contents displayed. This Si@Acov is quite different 
from the 6.8Aapisccov mentioned in chapter x. 2,9. See also 


334 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [APOC. 


E. Huschke, Das Buch mit 7 Siegeln (1860), to which Zahn 
refers (/z0. cit. 597). 

ix. 17. For vaxw@ivous Primasius has spzneas (=dxavOivous), 
a reading which neither Bousset nor Baljon, strange to say, 
think worth recording. Bousset rightly observes that in the 
following verse zvp corresponds to zupuvos, and Oetov to Femdye, 
so that cazvos lets us see what the writer understood as the 
colour of hyacinth—viz. the colour of smoke. But the ideas 
of “thorns” (spfzzeae) and “smoke” are even more closely 
related. 

xiii. 18. Irenaeus found 616 given as the number of the 
beast in some manuscripts, which he could only explain as a 
transcriptional error: “hoc autem arbitror scriptorum pec- 
catum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et per literas numeri 
ponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat 
numerum in zo¢fa Graecorum literam expansam.” In reality, 
however, the change from € to « would be a contraction rather 
than an expansion, and the alteration would seem to be 
intentional, seeing that 666 in Hebrew characters gives the 
Greek form Neron Kesar, and 616 the Latin Nero Kesar. 
Irenzus himself, however, appeals to the fact that the number 
666 was found évy ract Tots crovdalots Kat patos GvTvypagots, 
papTupouvTay avTay exelvwy TOV KaT OVW TOV’ lwavyny EwpaKxoToV 
(v. 30, I-3). The opening words in the Latin translation 
run, “in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scrip- 
turis.” The subscription which he himself appended to his 
own principal work (see above, p. 149) shows how scrupulously 
exact he was with respect to avtiypada, so that we may give 
him credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscripts 
of the Apocalypse. The erroneous reading (616) is now found 
only in C and two minuscules (5 and 11). 

xxii. 11. The only authorities cited by Tischendorf in 
support of the reading dawijrw (in place of dixacocivvyy 
TougatTw) are the two minuscules 38 and 79 and the 
Clementine Vulgate. But we find the passage alluded to 
in the epistle which the Church of Lyons wrote giving an 





APOC.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 335 


account of the Martyrdom of the year 177: ta zAnpwOy 7 
ypagij; 0 avoxos avouncatw er, Kat 6 dikatos Stkawbijtrw &rt 
(apud Euseb., Hecles. Hist. v. 1, 58). This lends such support 
to the reading dccaw@j7w in Apoc. xxii, 11, that Zahn not 
unnaturally speaks of it as “certainly the original text” 
(GK. i. 201). E. A. Abbott places the date of the Epistle of 
the Church of Lyons as early as 155 (see Expositor, 1896, 
i, 111-126). Another aspect would be given to the question if 
the Greek form of the Epistle were derived from a Latin, or 
if, as Resch supposed, the words were a quotation of a saying 


of Jesus (Agrapha, § 133, p. 263 ff.). 


I take the opportunity of appending to Resch’s work the fine 
saying which Zahn cites from Augustine’s Contra Adversarium 
Legts et Prophetarum (ed. Bassan. x. 659 ff.) as an otherwise 
unknown Apocryphum. The disciples asked Jesus “de 
Judaeorum prophetis, quid sentire deberet, qui de adventu 
eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putantur.” And He, 
“commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire, respondit : Dimisistis 
vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini.” <A similar 
saying from the Acta Petri Vercell. 10 is cited by Harnack in 
connection with the third of the Oxyrhynchus Logia: “Qui 
mecum sunt, non me intellexerunt.” 


APPENDIX I. 


THE following is a list of writers most frequently cited in critical 
editions of the New Testament. They are arranged chronologically, 
but it must be remembered that the dates are more or less uncertain, 
and that in the case of many writers the pee of activity lies in 
two centuries :— 


First CENTURY. 


GREEK. | LATIN. 
Clement of Rome, 5 ge 
Ignatius, . : rey e | 
Barnabas, . ; : ie) 


SECOND CENTURY. 


Irenzi Interpres (according to 
Tischendorf and Gregory, but 
see below). 


Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 


Didache, : 2 ; ? 
Hermas, . {* “or A 
Marcion (in eeieenes 

and Tertullian), sy AEE 
Aristides, . : 5 aoe SE | 
Polycarp,  . : > ite 
Justin Martyr, . d. 165 
Clementine Homilies an | 

Recognitions, . - Ca. Igo | 
Papias, : , . fl.240.| 
Gospel of Peter, . . €a. 170 | 
Tatian, . . fi. 170 | 
Athenagoras, f..277 | 
Theophilus of Bae d. 182 | 
Celsus (in Origen), . ca, 180 
Hegesippus, : ~ ide | 
Irenzus (see Latin), . d. 202 | Tertullian, . ; ;_ -f. 206 





APPENDIX I. 


THIRD CENTURY. 





LATIN, 


Cyprian, 
Novatian, 


| Lactantius, . 


Arnobius, 
Victorinus of Pettau, 


CENTURY. 


Juvencus, : 

Irenzi eae (ac- 
cording to Westcott 
and Hort). 

Hilary of Poictiers, 

Victorinus of Rome, 

Damasus, Pope, 

Lucifer, 


| Pacianus, 


GREEK. 

Hippolytus, . fl. 220 
Julius Africanus, . +. fe,.220 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, d. 265 
Origen, d. 248 
Dionysius of ees d. 265 
Porphyry, d. 304 
Pamphilus, . d. 308 
Methodius, . d. 310 
Didascalia, . ? 
Apostolic Constitutions 

(and fourth century, 

etc.). 

: FOURTH 
Arius, . d fi. 325 | 
epi Metre Syria). 335 
Eusebius of Cesarea, d. 340 
Aphraates (Syrian), fl. 340 
Eustathius, Bishop of 

Antioch, ‘ paw 1) S50 
Zeno, . fl. 350 
Athanasius, . d. 373 
Ephraem (Syrian), d. 373 
Basil the Great, d. 379 
Evagrius of Pontus, d. 380 
Cyril of Jerusalem, d. 386 
Amphilochius, fl. 370 | 
Macarius Magnes, 1 335) 
Gregory Nazianzen, d. 390 
Gregory of Nyssa, d. 394 
Diodorus of Tarsus, d. 394 
Didymus of Alexandria, d. 394 
Theophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388 
Epiphanius, . . - d. 403 
Chrysostom, fl. 407 
Isidore of Pelusium, fl. 412 





Optatus, 
Philastrius, . 
Gaudentius, . 
Rufinus, 
Ambrose, 


_ Ambrosiaster, 


Chromatius, . 

Tyconius, 

Jerome, 

Priscillian, 

Auctor libri De Rehabies. 
mate. 


My; 


337 


258 
251 
306 
306 
393 


oo me 


368 
360 
366 
371 
37° 
371 
380 
387 
397 
397 
39° 
39° 
39° 
. 420 


Pp. FD FD Eb A. Eb bb Fh pp hp Bb rh Bw 


: 


338 


GREEK. 

Nonnus, 
Theodore of Monsters 
Victor of Antioch, 
Cyril of Alexandria, 
Theodotus of Ancyra, 
Basil of Seleucia, . 
Socrates, 
Theodoret, 

Cyrus, 
Euthalius, 
Sozomen, 


Bishop of 


Candidus Isaurus, 


Severus of Antioch, 
Theodorus Lector, 


Andreas, Bishop of 

Ceesarea, : 
Maxentius, . : 
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 
Eutychius, 


Chronicon Paschale. 


Antiochus the Monk, 
Andreas of Crete, 
Maximus Confessor, 
Modestus of Jerusalem, 


Damascenus, Johannes, 
Nicephorus, 
Petrus Siculus, 


APPENDIX I, 


FirtH CENTURY. 


400 
429 
430 
444 
431 
440 
440 


pb bb pb. A. A, Fb 


- 457 
. 458 
. 440 


rh 





‘LATIN, 
Faustus, 
Hilary of Arles, 
Augustine, 


Prosper of Aquitania, 

Sedulius, 

Leo the Great, 

Petrus Chrysologus, 

Gennadius, . 

Vigilius, 

Auctor libri De Pils 
sionibus, 


SrxtH CENTURY, 


fl. 500 
5 02 
Hab 235 


ca. fin. 
? 


fl. 535 
fl. 553 


fl. 614 


A635? | 
d. 662 


? 





Fulgentius, Bishop of 
Ruspe, 

Justinian, 

Ceesarius of Ayes 

Primasius, 


Victor, Bishop of Tunis, 
Cassiodorus, 
Gregory the Great, 


SEVENTH CENTURY. 


Peter the Deacon, 


EIGHTH CENTURY. 


fi 2730 5|/ eae. 


1. 787 | 


? 


400 
429 
430 
431 
431 
440 
455 
459 
484 


pb rh @. Eb pb rb ©. Oph 


roo. > 2. 
on 

TS 

ae) 


ee 
O1 
“I 
OL 


d. 735 


APPENDIX I. 339 


NINTH CENTURY. 


GREEK. LATIN, 
Photius of Constanti- 
nople, . : pa. (SOL 


TENTH CENTURY. 


Arethas, : : re ? 
Symeon, . : . ? 
CEcumenius, : . ca. 950? 


Suidas the Lexicographer, ca, 980 


ELEVENTH CENTURY 


Theophylact, Bishop of 
Bulgaria, . : + fe O7 7 | 


TWELFTH CENTURY. 


Euthymius Zigabenus, . fl. 1116 
Nicetas of Byzantium, . d. 1206 


APPENDIX AA 
“Avtiypada. 


I HAD intended to give in full those passages of the Fathers known 
to me in which mention is made of manuscripts prepared by them- 
selves or others. In this way I hoped to make a start towards sup- 
plying the desideratum spoken of on p. 154 above. But I feel that 
in order to be anything like complete, this would occupy too much 
space for the present work. Even the passages in which Origen 
speaks of dytiypada, though not “innumerable,” as Zahn says 
with a touch of exaggeration, are yet too numerous to be included 
here. A considerable number of such passages are already given 
in full in Tischendorf’s Editio Octava. I have contented myself 
with giving here an alphabetic list of these, in order to facilitate a 
geographical and chronological survey of the relevant matter. Where 
only one passage is given, it will be found in full in Tischendorf. 
Passages in which the word avr/ypa¢or itself or its synonyms (codex, 
exemplar, etc.) does not occur, but where express mention is yet 
made of readings found in manuscripts, are given in brackets. 

Some surprising facts are brought to light by such quotations. 
Witness the remark made by Basil the Great (ob. 379) on Luke 
xxii. 36, who tells us that in Cappadocia in his time many manu- 
scripts, indeed, if the text is correct the majority of manuscripts (7a 
ToAAG Tov dvtvypapur), exhibited a reading now found in only one 
single manuscript, and that the main representative of the ‘‘ Western ” 
text; I refer to Codex Bezae. See above on Luke xxii. 36. I may 
mention here that a certain ‘‘ Basilius diaconus” was the possessor 
of a magnificent Bible, the cover of the first part of which was 
used for Codex Syrohexaplaris Ambrosianus. The inscription ran : 
+ BIBAOS A TON OEION|TPA®ON IITAAAIAS KAT|| NEAS 
AIA@HKHS AIA®EP|EI| AE BASIAEIO AIAKONOQ7|. See the 


APPENDIX II. 341 


facsimile and description in Ceriani’s edition, JZonuwmenta Sacra et 
Profana, vol. vii., folio. 


Adamantius (¢.e. Origen), see Hieronymus, 

Ambrosiaster, Rom. v. 14; the quotation should be corrected in 
accordance with Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv, 32 ; (Rom. xii. 13); 
Pleor Vag 5 Gal. Ui. 5. 

Ambrose, Luke vii. 35 ; Gal, iv. 8. 

Anastasius, Matt. xxvii. 18. 

Andreas, Apoc. ill. 7. 

Apollinarius, possibly mentioned in the scholia in Codex Marchalianus 

(see Swete’s Septuagint, lii. p. viii), John vii. 53. 

, see Macedonius. 

Apollonides, Eusebius, Zecles. Hist., v. 28. 

Arethas, Apoc. i. 2, 111. 7. 

Asclepiades, Eusebius, Zccles. Hist, v. 28. 

Athanasius (also Pseudo-Athanasius), Matt. v.22; 2 Thess. ii. 9; for 
his mention of the zuxriéa made for the Emperor Constans, see 
above, p. 181, note, and p. 184; Zahn’s Forschungen, iii. 100, 
GAxi. 73. 

Augustine, Matt. xxvii. 9; Luke ili. 22 ; Rom. v. 14; (Rom. xiii. 14) ; 
Hor. sy..55) Phil. iti. 3. 

Basil (the Great), Luke xxii. 36; Ephes. i. 1; Zahn, LZvndeztung, 
1. 345. 

Bede, Acts, passim. 

Chronicon Paschale, John xix. 14 (see above, p. 30). 

Chrysostom, John i. 28. 

Didymus, 2 Cor, i. 1. 

Epiphanius, Matt. i. 8, i. 11 (ras mypas éavtdv, 7 Tors Gnoravpods, ws 
exer €via TOV avTLypdpur, 1. 430, 1085). See Westcott and Hort, 
“Notes,” iz loco; Matt. viii. 28; Luke viii. 26, xix. 41, 
(xxii..43 f.); John i. 28; Ephes. 1. 1. 

Eusebius, Matt. xiii. 35, xxvii. 9; Mark i. 2, xvi. 3, 9 ff.; John 
Mike Tf. 

Euthalius, Jude 25. 

Euthymuus, (Mark xvi. 9); John vii. 53. 

Gregory of Nyssa (Pseudo-), Mark xvi. 2, 9. 

Hermophilus, Eusebius, Zecles. Hist, v. 28. 

Hesychius, Mark xvi. 2, 9. 

Hieronymus (Jerome), Matt. xiii. 35, xxi. 31, xxiv. 17; Mark ii. 17, 





342 APPENDIX. II. 


xvi. 9; Luke il. 33,. (xviii. 30), xxii. 43 f.; John vile 535; Acts 
xv. 29; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Galla.5, mi. 25) Ephesal.o4) mime 
V,-193 Heb. 1. mo: 

Irenzeus, Apoc. xiii. 18 (see above, 77 doco). 

Isidore, Heb. ix. 17. | 

Macedonius (see Draeseke, 72S¢K7., 1890, 12), Rom. vill. 11. 

Marcion, see Epiphanius, Ephes. i. 1. 

Maximinus, 1 Cor. xv. 47. 

CEcumenius, Acts xiv. 26. 

Origen, Matt. ii. 18, viii. 28, xvi. 20, xviii. 1, (xix. 19), (xxi. 15), 
(xxvii. 9), xxvii. 16 ff. (see above, zz Joco); Mark ii. 14; 
Luke i. 46; John i. 28; Rom. iv. 3, xvi. 23 (see Zahn, Ezn- 
LULU. N, 240, 1205) 5 CO, 15. 

Pierius, see Hieronymus. 

Severus, Mark xvi. 9. 

Socrates, 1 John iv. 3. 

Theodoret, Rom. xvi. 3. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Heb. il. ro. 

Theodotus, Eusebius, £ecles. Hist., v. 28. 

Theophylact, 2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. ii. 10, x. 1. 

Victor, Mark xvi. 9. 


Mention is made of évr’ypada in anonymous scholia on Matt. 11. 18, 
xx, 28, (xxii. 12); Mark xi. 13; Luke xvi. 19 (giving the name 
of the Rich Man as Ninive, ze, Phinees; see Rendel Harris in the 
Expositor, March 1900); Luke xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 13; John 1. 29, 
Vil, 53, XxXl, 25, ROM: Vill. 24. 





PN os 


Abbot, E., 9, 58. 

Abbreviation, 48, 315, 317, 330. 

Accentuation, 47, 61. 

Achmim, dialect of, 133, 135. 

Acts, text of, 224, 294. 

Adamantius, 187. 

Additions, 238. 

Adler, 19, 103. 

African Latin, 110, 119. 

Aggaeus, 96. 

Alcuin, 125, 176. 

Aldus, 2. 

Ambrose, 109, 205. 

Ambrosiaster, 148, 205. 

Amélineau, 70, 135, 137- 

Amelli, 113. 

Ammonian sections, 56. 

Andreas, 191, 329. 

Anselm, 7. 

Antilegomena, 12, 95, 32I. 

Anthony, 135. 

Antwerp Polyglot, Io. 

Aphraates, 98, 216, 254, 293, 321. 

Apocrypha, 26, 137. 

Apollonides, 200 f. 

Apollos, 242. 

Apostolicum of Marcion, 207. 

Arabic version, 142. 

Aramaic, 93. 

Arethas, 191, 329. 

Arians, 205. 

Arias Montanus, I0. 

Aristion, 142, 295. 

Armenian version, I4I. 

Artemonites, 200. 

Article, importance of the, 258, 287, 
288, 295, 328. 

Asclepiades, 200 f. 

Asterisks, 101, 186. 

Athanasius, 62, 181, 183. 

Dialogue of A. and Zacchaeus, 
99 n. ; 

Athos manuscripts, 90, 152, 190. 








Augustine, 108, 120, 147. 
Autographs, 29 f, 97. 


Balg, 139. 
Baljon, 24, 168. 


Barabbas, prenomen of, 103, 244, 259. 


Barnabas, 30, 54f. 
Barnard, 154n. 

Basil the Great, 277, 340. 
Basilides, 203. 
Bashmuric dialect, 133. 
Bathgen, 105. 

Batifiol, 73, 75, 139- 
Bebb, 95. 

Bede, 75, 221. 
Bellarmin, 127. 
Belsheim, 112 ff. 
Benedict, Rule of, 173. 
Bengel, 3, 16, 30, 123, 221, 256. 
Bensly, 79, 97, 102, 105. 
Bentley, 16, 77, 83. 
Berger, J. G., 30. 
Berger, S., I1I, 116f., 123, 130. 
Bernhardt, 139. 
Bernoulli, 174. 
Bernstein, 100, 
Bertheau, 18. 

Bessarion, 87. 

Beurlier, 117. 

Beza, 9, 64, 221. 
Bibliotheca, 39, 53. 
Bidez, 174. 

Birch, 19. 

Bianchini, 111 f., 131. 
Blass, 32, 65, 163, 224, 260. 
Bohairic version, 133. 
Boniface, 46, 122. 
Bonnet, 26. 

Bonus, 105. 

Boetticher, see Lagarde. 
Bouriant, 135. 

Bousset, 91, 158, 329. 
Brandscheid, 26. 


344 


Breathings, 47. 

Brightman, 66. 

British and Foreign Bible Society, 4, 
13: 

Brugsch, 137. 

Burgon, 83, 146, 159. 

Burkitt, 97, 104f, 109, 131, 139, 143, 
229. 

Byzantine Recension, 21, 180 ff. 


Canons of Criticism, 16, 234, 239. 

— Eusebian, 56, 263. 

Capitals, 34, 59, 261. 

Cary, I 

Caryophilus, 14. 

Cassels, 106. 

Cassiodorus, 50, 128, 175. 

Castle, 12. 

Catalogus Claromontanus, 76, 162. 

Catenae, 147. 

Celsus, 144, 204, 296. 

Ceolfrid, 122. 

Cephaleus, 7. 

Ceriani, 116. 

Ceugney, 135. 

Chapter division, 8. 

Charlemagne, 125. 

Charles the Bald, 125. 

Charles, R. H., 140. 

Chase, 65, 216, 274. 

Cheikho, 104. 

Chronicon Paschale, 30. 

Chrysostom, 92, 181. 

Ciasca, 135. 

Clay as writing material, 45. 

Clement of Rome, 59, 110, 153. 

of Alexandria, 147, 153, 204. 

Clementine Vulgate, 127. 

Codex, 41. 

Cola and Commata, 49. 

Colineus, 7. 

Columns, 37. 

Comma Johanneum, 4, 26, 30, 86, 327. 

Complutensian Polyglot, 1. 

Conflate readings, 245. 

Confusion of vowels and consonants, 
168, ff., 236, 262. 

Conjectural emendation, 167. 

Constans, 181, 183. 

Constantine, 54, 205. 

Contents of manuscripts, 38, 52. 

Conybeare, 79, 99, 142. 

Copinger, 6 

Coptic dialect, 132. ; 

Copying, mistakes in, 37, 170, 234 ff., 
313; 330. 











INDEX I. 


Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum 
Latinorum, 146. 

Corrections, intentional, 192, 209, 239. 

Corrector (d:op8wrhs), 57- 

Correctoria Bibliorum, 126. 

Corruption of the text, Greek and Latin 
terms for, 198. 

Corssen, 116, 123. 

Cotton paper, 36, 44. 

Courcelles, 14. 

Cozza, 60, 62. 

Credner, 65. 

Criticism, object of textual, 28, 156. 

subjective, 157, 

Cromwell, 12. 

Cronin, 68. 

Crowfoot, 105. 

Crum, 135 f. 

Curetonian Syriac, 97, 104, 248. 

Cursive script, 35, S1f. 

Cursive manuscripts, see Minuscules. 

Cyprian, 117, 119, 147. 

Cyril Lucar, 13, 58. 





Damasus, 107. 

Dated manuscripts, 69, 72, 300n. 

Deane, IOI, 103. 

De Dieu, I01. 

AerrvoxAntwp, 217, 256. 

Delisle, 123. 

Delitzsch, 2, 4, 5. 

Dialects of Egypt, 132. 

— of Palestine, 93, 103. 

Diatessaron, see Tatian. 

Dictation, 234, 298. 

Didascalia, 155. 

Dillmann, 140. 

Dionysius of Corinth, 199. 

Atop$wrfs, see Corrector. 

Aipbépa, 41, 43. 

Dobschiitz, von, 70, 72, 79, 123. 

Dogmatic alterations, 166, 197 f., 200ft., 
209, 239. 

Dutch school of conjectural criticism, 
168. 

Dziatzko, 33. 


Eckstein, 139. 

Eclectic method of criticism, 170. 
Editio Regia, 7. 

Editions, number of, 5. 
collections of, 5. 

size of, 7. 

Catholic, 25. 

Egyptian versions, 132 ff. 
Ehrhard, 79. 














INDEX I, 


Ellis, 16. 

Elzevir, 13. 

Engelbreth, 135. 

Ephraem, 98, 106, 216, 254. 
Erasmus, 3, 146. 

Erizzo, 102. 

Errors, sources of, 234 ff. 

Ess, van, 25. 

Ethiopic version, 140. 
Etschmiadzin manuscript, 142, 295. 
Eugipus, 122. 

Eumenes, King of Pergamum, 40. 
Eusebius of Czesarea, 54, 56, 179, 185. 
Eusebian Canons, 56, 263. 
Euthalius, 78f., 188. 

Evagrius, 78n. 

Evangeliaria, 39 f., 91 f., 106. 


Fabiani, 60, 62. 

Families of manuscripts, 17, 119, 176 ff. 
Fathers, list of. See Appendix I. 
Fayumic dialect, 133, 135. 
Falsification of text by heretics, 197 ff. 
Fell, 15, 133. 

Ferrar Group, 84f., 99, 177. 

Field, 181, 264. 

Ford, 134. 

Froben, 3, 126. 


Gabelentz, 139. 

Gebhardt, O. von, 7, 22 ., 73, 174. 

Gehringer, 25. 

Gelasian Decree, 183. 

Genealogical method, 164, 171 ff. 

Gennadius, 173. 

Georgian version, 142. 

Gibson, 97, 105, 106, 144. 

Gildemeister, 140. 

Gnostics, 203 f. 

Goltz, von der, 90, 190. 

Goodspeed, 91. 

Gospels, collection and order of, 161 f. 

division of, 56, 61. 

title of, 165, 247. 

Gospel-book of Marcion, 207. 

Gothic version, 137 ff. 

Goussen, 135, 137. 

Graefe, 66, 231. 

Grandval Bible, 125. 

Gratz, 25. 

Graux, 48. 

Gregory, Pope, 125. 

Gregory of Nyssa, 87. 

Gregory, C. René, 6, 7, 20, 83, 91, 
Ill. 

Grenfell, 74. 











345 


Griesbach, 18. 

Guidi, 140. 

Gwilliam, 96, 103, 104. 
Gwynn, 102, 106, 


Haase, I14. 

Haberlin, 43. 

Hahn, 206 n. 

Hall, Isaac H., 6, 8, 100, 

Hammond, 159. 

Harding, 125. 

Harklean Syriac, 79, 100, 106, 189, 


255. 

Harmony of the Gospels, 16, 98. 

Harnack, 155, 202, 232. 

Harris, J. R., 30, 44, 65, 74, 86, 91, 
97; 102; 105 f.5 115, 153, 214. 

Haseloff, 73. 

Hauler, 155. 

Haussleiter, 311. 

Hebrew Bible printed, 1, 

Hebrews, Gospel of the, 72, 96. 

Hegesippus, 96. 

Heidenreich, 119n. 

Henten, 127, 128. 

Heracleon, 203. 

Heretics, their falsifications, 197 ff. 

Hermas, 47, 54. 

Hermophilus, 200 f. 

Hesychius, 61, 62, 183 ff. 

Hetzenauer, 25, 132. 

Heyne, 139. 

Hieronymus, see Jerome. 

Hilgenfeld, 26, 116, Addenda. 

Hill, 105. 

Hitzig, 169, 309. 

Hogg, 106, 214. 

Holtzmann, 6, 116. 

Holzhey, 105. 

Homer, manuscripts of, 33. 

Homoioteleuton, 235 f. 

Hoppe, 139. 

Horner, 134, 136. 

Hort, 21, 170f. 

Hoskier, 5, 62, 83. 

Hug, 61, 182. 

Hunt, 74. 

Hyvernat, 135, 136. 


Iberian version, see Georgian. 
Ignatius, 146, 300n. 
Illustrated manuscripts, 51. 
Indiction, 69. 

Indiculus Cheltonianus, 161. 
Ink, 42. 

Interpolation, 238, 241 n. 


346 


Irenzeus, 147, 176, 202 ff. 

Trico, III. 

Irish hands in manuscripts, 77, 113, 129. 
Iscariot, the variants, 242, 

Ishodad, 282, 

Islinger, 79. 

Itacism, 236, 287. 

Itala, 109. 

"Iwayyns, spelling of the name, 162f. 


Jacob, 63. 

Jannon, 7. 

Jaumann, 25. 

Jebb, 16. 

Jerome, 107, 124, 173. 
Jerusalem Syriac, 102, 106. 
Jostes, 139. 

Jovinian, 155. 

julian the Apostate, 144, 174. 
Jiilicher, 116, 198. 

Junius, 10, 


Karkaphensian version, 103. 
Karlsson, 116. 
Kauffmann, 139, 181. 
Kaulen, 123, 130, 131. 
Kenyon, 33, 58, 81. 
Kipling, 65. 

Knapp, 19. 
Koetschau, 149 ft. 
Krall, 135. 

Kroll, 155. 

Kiister, 15. 


Addenda. 


La Croze, 66, 134, 141. 

Lachmann, 19, 83, 123. 

Lagarde, Paul de, 30, 60, 95, 102, 106, 
137, 140, 143, 223. 

de, 106, 

Lake, 66, 73, 91. 

Land, 103n,. 

Langton, 8. 

Laodicza, Epistle to, 77, 114, 1209, 
207, 299, 313. 

Latin versions, 107 ff. 

Laud, Archbishop, 75. 

Lead as writing material, 44. 

Lectionaries, 39, 91. 

Le Jay, II. 

Le Long, 95. 

Leo X., Pope, 2, 3. 

Leusden, 104. 

Lewis, 97, 102, 105, 106. 

Lewis Syriac, see Sinai Syriac. 

Linen as writing material, 45. 

Lines in manuscripts, 37. 

Linke, 112, 














INDEX I. 


Linwood, 168n, 

Lippelt, 162f. 

Liturgical alterations, 91, 239, 267. 
Loebe, 139. 

London Polyglot, 12. 
Louvain Vulgate, see Henten. 
Lohlein, 104. 

Lowe, 140. 

Lucas Brugensis, 127, 146. 
Lucian, 85, 138, 180 ff. 

Luft, 139, 140. 

Luther, 5, 149n., 286, 309. 


Mace, 16. 

Maestricht, Gerhard von, 16, 239. 
Mai, Cardinal, 60, 113, 139. 
Manuscripts, age and locality, 35. 
contents, 38, 52f. 





| —— de luxe, 49. 


—— material, 36, goff. 
number, 33, 81, 89, 90, 92. 
size, 38. 

Marcion, 87, 205, 206 ff. 
Marcosians, 202. 
Margoliouth, 106, 

Marshall, 133. 

Martin, Abbé, 160. 

Martyrs, era of, 136. 

Masch, 95. 

Maspero, 135. 

Masudi, 162. 

Materials for writing, 40 ft. 
Matthaei, 19. 
Maréalos, spelling of the name, 247. 
Mazarin Bible, 126. 
Melanchthon, 86, 140, 159. 
MeuBpdvat, 36, 41. 
Memphitic dialect, 133. 
Mercator, 138. 

Merx, 105, 106. 

Mesrob, 141. 

Michaelis, 104. 

Middle Egyptian versions, 133, 135. 
Mill, 15. 

Miller, 6, 152, 159. 
Mingarelli, 135. 

Minuscules, 34, 82, 83 ff. 
Moldenhauer, 19. 
Montfortianus, 4, 86. 
Morillon, 138. 

Morin, II. 

Morrish, 170. 

Miiller, 139. 

Miinter, 135. 











y abbreviated at the end of a word, 
315, 330. 


—- 


INDEX I, 


Name of Dives, 342. 

Names, importance of proper, 241. 
of the two thieves, 266. 

of prophets confused, 251, 258. 
Negative liable to be omitted, see ov. 
Nestle, 3,:17, 23, 26, 48, 65, 132. 
Noetus, 203. 

Northumbrian manuscripts, 125, 176. 
Novatian, 155. 

Number of words in the N.T., 48. 

of manuscripts. See Manuscripts. 
of Greek editions printed, 5. 

of letters in the N.T., 48. 

















Obelus, 101, 186. 

Oikonomos, 49n., 189. 

Old Latin versionand manuscripts, 110 ff. 
Order of the Gospels, 161 f. 

of the Catholic Epistles, 321. 
of the Pauline Epistles, 300f. 
Order of words, variation in the, 237. 
Origen, 147, 149 ff., 185 ff. 

Orthodox correctors, 192. 

Osgan, I4I. 

ov, omission and insertion of, 310 ff. 
Oxyrhynchus papyri, 74, 80. 








Paleography, 32f., 81f., 181, 184. 

Palestinian Syriac, 102. 

Palimpsest, 37, 51, 63. 

Pamphilus, 57, 78, 185 ff. 

TavoeKTNS, 39, 53> 

Paper, 36, 44. 

Papyrus, 36, 42. 

Parchment, 36, 40. 

Paris Polyglot, 11. 

Correctoria, 126. 

Patricius, 25. 

Paul’s ‘‘ Books,” 45. 

Paul of Tella, 102. 

Pens, 45. 

Pericopz, 39, 91, 239, 267, 277. 

Pericope adulterze, 68, 84, 112, 142, 
177, 282 ff. 

Peshitto version, 95, 103 f. 

Philoxenian Syriac, 100. 

Pickering, 7. 

Pierius, 187. 

Pius V., Pope, 127. 

Plantin, 1o f. 

Pococke, 100. 

Polycarp the Chorepiscopus, 100. 

Polyglots, 1, 10 ff. 

Pott, his view of Acts, 294. 

Praetorius, 140. 

Praxapostolos, 40, 92. 

Preuschen, 161, n. 1. 





347 


Printing of the, N.T., earliest, I, 3. 
Primasius, 119, 148. 


| Priscillian, 119, 








| mpo and mpos, 237n. 


Prologues in Latin Gospels, 115 f. 
Proper names, see Names. 
Provencal New Testament, 117. 


| Psalters, 3, 68. 


Pseudepigrapha, 26. 

Punctuation in manuscripts, 38, 52. 
importance of, 52, 201, 204,261, 
276, 297. 





Quaternio, 41. 
Quotations, 32, 144 ff. 
Quotation, marks of, 38. 


Rabbulas of Edessa, 98, 104. 
Rahlfs, 35 n., 62, 183 ff. 
Ranke, 113, 129. 

Ravianus, 86. 

Reading and writing, Greek termsfor, 46. 
Reed pen, 45. 

Rehdiger, 114. 

Reithmayer, 25. 

Resch, 26, 280. 

Resultant Greek Testament, 22. 
Reuss, 6, II, 159. 

Richelieu, 11. 


| Ridley, too. 


Riegler, 130. 

Rieu, 141. 

Riggenbach, 190. 
Robinson, 79, 106. 

Rocchi, 60. 

Roll, 36, 41, 43. 

Ronsch, 118, 123, 131, 146. 
Rooses, II. 

Rossini, 140. 

Riiegg, 231. Addenda. 
Rules of textual criticism, 234 ff. 


Saalfeld, 131. 
Sabatier, III, 131. 
Sachau, 282. 

Sahak, 141. 

Sahidic version, 134. 
Salmon, 160, 170, 227. 
Saubert, 14. 

Schaaf, 104. 

Schaff, 6. 

Schjott, 24, 165. 
Schmidt, 137. 
Schmiedel, 56n., 117. 
Scholz, 19. 

Schultze, 41 n., 51. 
Schulz, 65. 


348 


Schwartze, 134. 

Scriptio continua, 37, 47, 315, 330. 

Script, various kinds of, 34f., 81 ff. 

Scrivener, 6, 8, 33, 58, 65, 77, 83. 

Sections, 56, 61n. 

Seidel, 66. 

Semler, 18. 

Sergio, 60. 

Simon of Cyrene, 203. 

Simon Magus, 205, 324n. 

Simon, Richard, 15, 95. 

Sinai Syriac, 97, 105. 

Sionita, I1. 

Sitterly, 33. 

Sixtus V., Pope, 127. 

Skeat, 140. 

Speculum Augustini, 114. 

Steindorff, 134. 

Stephen, Henry, 7. 

Robert, 7, 126. 

Stichometry, 37, 48, 49. 

Stilus, 45. 

Strein, 138. 

Stunica, I. 

Stuttgart New Testament, 23. 

Subjective criticism, 157. 

Subscriptions, 57, 69, 72, 78, 122, 188, 
189, 260, etc. 

Sulke, see Euthalius, 

Swete, 26. 

Syllables, division of, 48. 

Synodos, 140. 

Synonyms, interchange of, 236. 

Syriac versions, 95 ff. 

Syro-Latin, 216, 218, 223. 

cwpudriov, 41, 54f. 





Tatian, 97, 105, 212 ff. 

his Diatessaron, 98, 105, 212 ff. 
Tattam, 134. 

Taxvypadot, 50. 

Taylor, Isaac, 172n. 

Tertullian, 29, 119, 146, 147, 276. 
TEvXOS, 53. 

Textual criticism, literature of, 6, 159. 
Textus brevior, 245. 

Textus receptus, 13, 

Thaddaeus, 96, 

Thebaic dialect, 133. 

Theile, 19, 

Theodore of Tarsus, 75. 

-Theodoret, 98, 213. 

Theodotus, 200 f. 

Theodulf, 125. 

Thomas of Heraclea, 100. 
Thompson, E. M., 33, 59 





Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue of, 99n. 





INDEX I. 


Tischendorf, 19, 26, 53, 58, 63. 
Title of the Gospels, 164, 247. 
Tittmann, 19. 

Toinard, £5. 

Trabaud, 65. 

Transcriptional errors, 234 ff. 
Transposition of letters and words, 236 f. 
Traube, 173. 

Tregelles, 6 20, 83, 141, 159. 
Tremellius, Io. 

Trent, Council of, 127. 

okay ates bet 72 


Ubaldi, 60. 

Ulfilas, 137. 

Uncial script, 34, 81f. 
Uncial manuscripts, 53 ff. 
number of, 81. 





Valder, 7. 
Valentinians, 198, 203. 
Valla, Laurentius, 126. 
Vercellone, 60 ff, 123. 
Verse division, 8. 
Versions : 

Syriac, 95. 

Latin, 107. 

—— Egyptian, 132. 
— Gothic, 137. 

— Ethiopic, 140. 
— Armenian, 141. 
— Georgian, 142. 
— Arabic, 142. 
other, 143. 
Victor of Capua, 122, 308, 
Vincent, 160. 

Vogt, 139. 











| Vollert, 34n., 35. 


Voss, 138. 
Vulgate, 25, 109, 122 ff., 127, 132. 


Walton, 12. 

Warfield, 159. 

Weiss, 22, 229. 

Wells, 16. 

Westcott and Hort, their N.T., 21. 
their types of text, 21. 
their method, 171. 
Western text, 211, 214, 221. 
Wettstein, 18. 

Weymouth, 22. 

White, HJ.) 23%. 

White, Joseph, 100. 
Widmanstadt, 95. 

Wilcken, 33, 43. 

Wilkins, 133. 

William of Hirsau, 126. 











INDEX I. 349 


Wobbermin, 90. 

Woide, 134. 

Wolf, J. Chr., 66f. 

Wolfflin, 118, 173. 

Wordsworth and White, 123, 131, 174, 
176. 

Wright, Arthur, 26. 

Writing, styles of, 34f., 81 ff. 

—— Greek terms for, 46. 


Xenaia, see Philoxenian-Syriac. 


Ximenes, I. 
Years, reckoning of, 69n., 100n.,141n. 


Zahn, 160, 196 n. 2, 208 ff., 218, 224. 
Ziegler, 118, 123, 130. 

Zimmer, 77, 118. 

Zoega, 135. 

Zohrab, 141. 

Zwingli, 86. 

Zycha, 130. 


INDEX II. 


Passages of the New Testament referred to. 


Note.—fassages treated in the Critical Notes are not entered here. 
Matthew. 


x; 33; 

Xl. 17, 
XV1. 23, 
XVili, 20, 
IBS Up 
XXZOey 


Mark. 


iit 
vill. 38, 
tere, Ff 
x. 40, 
abt, 242, 
XVISt Ose 


Luke. 


i. 35, 
1. 46-55; 
i. 68-79, 
its Fe 
Lie 27juie 


67, 


PAGE 


165 
165 
166 








PAGE 
Vi Ate, 64 
ibs, AAS), 150 
x25 64, 87 
XA 755 193 
Viel 2s 211 
xvi. 19, 342 
XVll. 10, 237 
25S, BAO), 241 
XXi. 30, 211 
SOK 2s - 226 
xxill. 53, OAS aIaO 
OSHS Cy Se i A Gg ele 
xxiv. 26, : er 
XXIV. 51-53, . 230, 245 

John. 
lela 201 
i. 28, 203 
li. 20, 203 
ili. 6, 205 
v. 8, 198 
vi. 47, 245 
vl. 71, 242 
Vil. 39, , e245 
War Ee} o 5 AS yy, 
OY UE : 2d: 
sab, Ip 30 
XIX. 34, 227 
Acts. 

155 136 
iii. 14, 170 
iv. 6, 243 
iv, 12, 237 


PAGE 

vi. 8, . 245 
Xll. IO, . 64 
XV. 15, . . 5 iyfe) 
XV. 20,29, . . 136,206,232 
xvi. 10, 136 
XV1ll. 24, 242 

|} XIX. I, . 242 
5S, Sy, 232 
see Psat - 9 
xxiv. 19f., 9 

Romans, 

| Mice Hib 205 
XV. 31-33; 179 








1 Corinthians. 


2 Corinthians. 
168 n. 


Sere 


Galatians. 


Weer 
ibbly Te, 


| iv. 3, 


37 
186 


77 


INDEX II. 351 








Colossians. Hebrews, 2 John. 
PAGE PAGE | PAGE 
116, « . cae 9/ a Ie ako Ha : : 2 | 12, . i : 6 
SiGic os. je i6a |” 5 3 
Hero. 7. ; . 168 5 
ames. 
F 3 John. 
1 Thessalonians. Tee ae ' 168 
Spey EG at S| 36 
1 Timothy. 2 Peter. 
gr ie : Le cea ete Sea . » 240 Apocalypse, 
MieLOy - . 6 - Sy 0a) tebe : Pe SOS toe ie . 430. 
| viii. 13, . 101 
2 Timothy. 1 John. XVI. 4, . . 4n. 
Alb (5 A adette 
Rig 75) : 5 UHR |p Weenies : 2 052) xvii a7, : . 168 
Nie Wey : ee 30)|, Vaz, ~ = : = tly teley || Seah Prt, 5 sy 
@EQ AOZA. 





PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO,, LTD,, EDINBURGH. 





= Cin af 
9s 


a 
— 
f * 


- - 7 
Pag. wt ale ties ctor Miz ua an cord Be 


es 
; <= 


a. he! 


a) 





PLATE I. 


hYTOYAINIYX Yn 
KOSAEICTOYCAICD 
N ACTQ)NAIGON QO) 
AM TIN: 
TIAPAIKAAMAEY MA 
RAEADOIANE XE 
COE TOYAOFOYTH< 
TA PAIK AH CEWMCKNO 
AIARPAXKEMNENE: 
CTIAAYMIN 
rEIN@MCKET ETON 
AAKEADON HMON 
TIM O GE ON ANIOX 
AYMENONMNMEOOY 
EAN TAXION EP XH 
COECOYOMAIYMA 
ACIIACACOAIN AN 
TAC TOYCHIOY ME 
NOYCYM ON KAI 
MANTAC TOYCN Vy: 
ACIIAZONTAIYMA 
\Y OLAST OTH Cl TAAIS 
H XAPICM CTAMAN 
TWNYM WNANENY 


SS eo “ 2 
Mpec <KPAILeY: 

cri mao to 
(1) & CODEX SINAITICUS. 


Last column of Hebrews (xiii. 21-25). 


ae 
Eg «one 
pERES 
I: 
EPESA 
422% 
Tara: 
OSE IG? 
SUES? 
Ras 
gvb= Q 
ePeis: 
R= O27« 
BAG 
vad 
D245 45 
Ds Cae 
zEEP 


DEX ALEXANDRINUS. 


Cc 


(2 


Acts xx. 28, showing the reading «vptov in line 5 








[AGEs 


kar. Yeap Ans 


CHMENCONTIOIWOANATWAOZA CEITONGH 

KAITOY TOE MWNAETL EGIAVYT OH AKOAVDYGEIMO! 
EMCTPAd €1cAE ONE T POCBAETIEITON MACHT 
ONHTATIA IRC AKOAOYCOY NTA 
OCKAIANCTIECENENTOWAEITIN GD 
EMmITOCT HEOCAY TOY KAIE ME NAY TU 

KE TICe€C TIN OTA pAAIAW NCE 

“TOY TONOYNELAWNOTTETPOCcAEreidy Tap HY 
KE OY TOCAET?: AETEIAYTWOIHC 
EANAYTON @GAC MENEIN OY THC 
Ecw CEPAOMAITITIPOCCE CY MOIAKOAOY 6Ei 
EZ HAGE NOY Noy TOCOANT OC EIC TOY C 


(1) D. CODEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS. 


John xxi. 19-23 


OYIKACXHM ONE} 
OYZHTEITAGAYTAC 
OYTIAPOZYNETAI 
OYAOLIZE TAITOKAKON 
OY XAIP ETE NITAAAIKIA 
Cy AXATPEIAETHAAHONA 
NANTAC Tere 
NANTANICTEYEI 
MANTAGANIZE 
TTIANTA YNOMENE!) 
HATANH 
OYAENOTEEKNINTE) t 


ul 
(2) DP". CopEX CLAROMONTANUS. 


1 Corinthians xiii. 5-8. 


PEATE. Li. 


see Bhan, 


< 










SICNIFICANS GUAMORT E€HONORIFICAGITIGM 
rhoccuMad Wisgser dicipill 1 seqguereme 
CONU AUTEQpETRUSUidEe TAdiycipulum 
quemdiscebatihs sequenrem 
qUIE TRE CUDUITINCENA 
superpecruselus erdocarils 
GME qQuisEesTqurTcRACid iT TE 
HUN CEKRGCOUVIGENS peTRUSAdiIcITAdInM 
dmeéhicauTremquid-: Geaprillihs 
HVNEUMVOlLOIFS IC MANERE 
USFUECUMUENIO GuidAdTETUMESEY UERE 
EXIUITERCOHICUERDVS. APUTFRAT RES 
{1)d CODEX BEZAE CANTABRIGIIENSIS 

John xxi. 19-23 
NO NAMMb1T10 SKEST 
NONQUAERITQUAGES UAS UN T 
NONINRITATUR 
NONCOCIDATMALUM 
NO NCAUCE TSUDE RINIGUITATEM 
CONCAU GETAUTEMVERITATI 
OMNASUFFERIT 
OMNMCREMCIT 
OMNNMS PERXAT 
OMNMASUS TENET 
CARITAS | 
NUMQGUAM ExcIidE T 


suk : 
(2) d". CoDEX CLAROMONTANUS. 


1 Corinthians xii. 5-8 








PLATE IV. 


MIN TONAI@ONEK THE 
OY PACTOYMNHE Meloy 
KAIANARAE fpacaioeu 
poycinOTiaAnakeky 
AIC TAIOAIGOCHNTAL 
ME6ErACCS OAPAKAIEA 
edycaié CTOMNHME: 
ON ElAONNEANTCKON 
KAO HMENONENTOIC 
AERIOICMEPIRERAHME 
NON CTO KHNAGCYKHN 
KAIEZEOAME HOEHCAN 
OME AETEIAY TAICMA 
En OAMBEICOEINZHTE 
We 1c0'N NA ZAPHNONTS- 
ECT AY PWMENONA Sep 
@HOYKECTINMAE Ibe 
OTONOCONoyéenKé 
RY TON KAA AYTIATE TE 
EINATETOICMACHTAIC 
Ay TOY KAITD NE T poe 
OT! Mpoarerymsceic 
THNCAAIASIANE KEIAY 
pou EC OEKAOWCE! 


Ny 1N KAIE 2EAQ° ¥. 


ome YronAno Toy 
MNHMEIOY EIKENTAP 
Ay ERT OMmoCKAIEK 
% CTACIC AIOYAENIOY 
7 AENEIMONEPOBOYN 
 orap: <i 
CER caste 
e- 


Fo ear 
*UKP KON 2» 


B. CODEX VATICANUS. 


Last column of Mark (xvi. 3-8), showing the absence of wv. ¢ 








PLATE V. 


SINAITIC SYRIAC PALIMPSEST (Lewis). 


[2-27]. 


Matthew xv. 








PLATE VI. 






SEHocigmaD a vals 


NO are 


DUNOIS ETEXCUNT 


Loaratar parcel Lo 
een Locuiad RECIONTS 
NSAUTED OESYNACOCA 

























RUS AUITECD SIMONTS 
TENEBATUR CACNIS PEBRILS* 
eTROGAdERUNT I La proear 
ARTSTANSSUPER ILL AD IW PERs 
‘arrpesrt etonsit Lica: 
SE TOONTINGO SURSENS 
— aminis RABAT ILLis | 
» Camsebagtea ocgdiseT 

— OmNes QUIHABCBANTINEIR 
Ms UXRIS LANCUORIBUS 
— . dauceprnt iLLos eum 
=. ATILLEsINGULIS MANUS:AHpPo 
Ben = NENS CURABAT EOS - 

Ba EXIEBANT CTIACD QACMONTA 
| amulagscLamanrieror 
- CENTIA Guvpetdes piliasor 
ETINCREPANS NONSINCBAT 
 @LOQUy ~~ Bane 


2 


pe wae 7) 


am. 


Luke iv. 36-41 ; 


TROLGIT INSOMUMD SIMON 


SECUSSTACNUCD 
DISTATORCS AU TED OISCeENe - 
RANT ETIACABANT RETIA 
ASCENDENS AUTEM INUNAOD 
NAU COD GUACERAT 
SIQDONIS 
LOCAUITAUTE) ATERRA 
2eOucerE pasil | aay 
ETSEOENS OOCERAT 
». . SENAUICALATURBDS | 
wk Ircessxcurr Aue Logal 
- OIXITASSIQIONCAD 
Suc walrucd ETLAXXRET”A 
UESTRA INCADTURAG? 
ETRESPONDSENS SKDON 
oxi il- 
PRACCEPTOR PER TOTAD 
NOCTED LABORANTES 
Nihil ceprepas » 
INGERBO ACTEM TUO ‘ 
LAXABO RETC 
ETCUAY HOC FECISSCNT 


CONCLUSERUNT PISGFIUD 9” 


mularrud ine? COPIOSAD) 
| RUA PEBATUR AATED RETECORY 


CODEX AMIATINUS, circa 700 A.D. 


Vin2—O- 


(reduced. ) 





PEATE Vil 












Coartate Secquimanecincartmcrindomar Aner ede 


qneo-J InboepfeemecuieMs nobifeum uzfducir babea 


a mufindieradier -uiaficurile &ecnoffumafinboc } 


; mundo- Timor non: eancritace {ed perfeccrcanttayy | 


forsfimecxtecimore qnmamor pened ie | 

fs qumnecnon epfecmfinewiace Nofererdilig: 

bs dinqnmdfpriom dilexnof a en 
ligodm ecfracrefiniodertzmenda AX-C © utaurnen 

fe diligre Pracrefiaqueutder-dmquenonurdeequome | 

F 2 dopocetedsligerc echocmandazuado babonufie 

bo quidiligredmdilegne awaits fiuum- | 






foheccognouxmatgrnadilg eimut na ccordretden esp 
ey andazaeiuffrcumat hace’: Seni carta | 

> diurmandacacwufca ftodiamuf cemandazaemf 
gyaiianon furrcanmomnequodnant ce exdoumer | 
munda-ecbawe- MICTOPIAGUAL UNCLE unda ifidef | 
nraquifequiuinarmundind squicredizgnm Hie | 
frlrat AT hice. O-Gfu ese nie peraquaerfanguinewnt 
pinonmaquatolu fedinaguxecfs nguine = extpr 
efequicefaficazurdnm pre uerit Fqnmoret Yard 
<u fccorefunufune 


Ss ttefame ntti borne: ences 777 ionuidimauy | 





urtcefamonwmdasl {Pi AqurLe} 5.924 


~ ee 


fegnm hocé zefamonutdiquodr neuter quiaceta 
frazuve dcfilrofize. ‘Glareredicin filrodibabereet | 
amonuidinfe g ainonemediz fii o-mendacem facte | 
en qnm non creceinzefamomoquodseaficeure 
. Afdefilofio- echocrefamomu: egm 7 LTARCTET NA, ng 





“ CHARLEMAGNE'S BIBLE,” or BIBLE OF GRANDVAL, of the ninth century, in the 
British Museum (reduced). 
1 John iv. 16—y. 10, showing the omission of the “ comma Johanneum,” v. 7. 








» 
; ' - 4 | 
) 7 ! 
uf 
1] 
/ 
Z 
” 








PLATE VIII. 


CE CRACP AE toy 
OND RIPRA Angee? 
oyrreys OCAFHE 
PIXQB ELC TIRT CINA 
PAM PETIIAZT NAY 


ae 
| 


OPA NT Pore Lap 
“TEPRICO ON RIXE 
O)G) EM XAGYNZEPIN 
“PADI REE PORE 
»X.CRATERIA’ PAW 


| GRFC] ZA PE ZEyarin N21 THON oY 
 ~BPSIORLH PoC ra OA FRI Kayo Fie 
 RRRS TEA OR AIS “SPQ PRICE TRU ROY 
BRRZA POTN x ee x AKA A CN OY2I 


NOYES CAR ISA 
| Bs ake AS PRICE 
| 


CH APRA OY RAIS Ba 
P2G)K KPTEYG) Hae 


"PT NAAVYAYOO1) En fhe2aO0YX FRINEN 
stpes4 RAOBOYVYAVOS 2pon FOYA RAMa 
LOPE TIARAY 1ixo TAT’ FKORANKE 


Set CAFE CLE Caoy 
| NANA OTN OH 
#2 OY KI ETA arte 
ke bhiniory VEAY~ 
BEF ON SIGRAONEIM, 
F¥EXC * "FBATIARA: 
les FPA GA FN EIN NE 
I" SONY SU pare: 
| 
; 





HEN XOFEIC IC INE 
KO ETAZ ETI 
FROANCORINGS 54 


RAN TAR TES OC 
ARAM AY AARAE | 
KZCAACEN EF TRAN * 
ME TNNTAAOTE | 
TRON ELS Baek 
VALURPE NORTE 
ees mal: NEN A 
PALE TA CREPE REAY 
aa ‘SM EPTE TENG 
OFA) P2ia5 RAB OY’ 
AK pire «yoy 


YE RAO GO) EX? ® @ resvTNi Coon TMIAap 
NIP OCAVGI ERY 4K PREC OLIN EX FE 
ATE OCKQOARE EE: spa’ pA Med EMT UY 


PIXE DEE “fl ia, 
ies | MM 
} x 


iM A TARO LM 


~ ~ 


SAHIDIC MANUSCRIPT, probably ox the fifth century, in the British Museum. 
2 Thessalonians iii. 2~11. 





ULUNOD Ul §g “LAX ‘9 aye “layAqsa.g 9Y} UO}SIIY JO ,, 9JOU oY} SuIMoys “YAV_ JO puy 


“Z auy ‘z 
‘NIZGVINHOSLY AO Ld MOSANVIN NVINGAINNY 


7996 “av 








’ 





SS aNascauuedl: vr 
| OECTA: Panic 
a9 awe t natstieatene - bg - BAVA. ena 








7 Z 
2 VAG EMI PyGagadnuanaaliy 
= -4 DS ia AU thi! NEY 7) Ee i 
5 3 TOD NUS “HA TaN eI AY 2 ei 


: i “ATTN TIEE HA) ~ = a i At Bee. md “y? ri te Li : 
i ton, | NS ou a usiese : = io: | 
| ICE PS ios -a0ab.0 


MY WEN IRM ID Se... 
SAID AG 4: LETC ALATA Lo". 
an DALLA: Ad 





HVLOMICIKED oa tr) Fy 
aS nGae yhtatt’ 4 
a: ic fap Nand VI PRN Loan 

2 OFF F TL aie HEME OE Tend, 
1 a el 


S Perea tbitshoan at 
VOICI. TUL Titi eles SES ccd wil ae ea 





| 














PLATE. X. 
Re 
Kap cures pop eAd ochre {rar ro fon 
porto o eee oe a oe. ae | 
erp 0 and Uuoe ot ert Peay Net au CE ae 
Ee mop Oo tor 86 Ie artes of dart <p Y th 


]{ ot beytoy mar eee ee 


= 


ee ZS Var jurraie Tp OHO Le 6K a 


Eos Teepe TT B Cw : An ae BO ferrite ee 
fo ey eee deere ce Gast Trp oo os we ry 5 
We “ash thir 6 aA ewe 
ae Ee: WAL Guns Aan we Y aode bid pb Sa 
IT op Gu Of om Cer muri Mey amie whine 
au Voy o teens an p tovet Lon frst 
y oot py Be po SAS ae sal sh 
cAS kor & 6a Bh rary rhe fired qheaps 
M Gad soir Mery 63 gr v mw oe 
rove) 6 Say Gp os th fy adpas por bi 
‘ fro p 6-0 0 pbnoie fodkypotm kected yes 
=f aA roe air os mung Alay Tore Korn eing 
items SERRE aon Gat qusoyp sou 
YS OIG WIS by ke Re 
‘EP op Ep oo Hh Idan cy fda ety hus 
ee nO SE liar off Ano o lap dA op 
3 Fa aAwic Poaoapdy oto surre p Slip eye 
cAt ou Ki mM gh cap an fart CADIS aro 
en ae On he ena Oe en 
ee 


5< nec ONENNTTOMWCE AEC e1Aan. MEARE TAN Tals. 
= AN TOCOLCATIOANATTORWN, ASAXPIANLEWC. EFAMEC 
% Boa ea 


so. rey Aya TON TTOLEP ONY: AOS PA PTON Ic py rLL 
Ss THEMLWMiey EF epic = ae t ‘a ? 


x MawraceTanapn CREAWEMATTOLEN TON 


nw 
MINUSCULE Evy. 274 (Par. Nat. Suppl. Gr. 79) of the tenth century. 


Mark xvi. 6-15, exhibiting the shorter conclusion in the lower margin 











14 DAY USE | 
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED | 


LOAN DEPT. 


This book is due on the last date stamped below, or | 
on the date to which renewed. | 
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 








Genera: 
University of California 
Berkeley 


LOAN — 
LD 21A—45m-9,'67 
(H5067s10)476B 





| HED : 
VEE 


CObLY4YO9151 





ie diate aaa