HANDBOUND
AT THE
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO
DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO
THE BEGINNINGS
OF CHRISTIANITY
PART I
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
EDITED BY
F. J. FOAKES JACKSON, D.D.
AND
KIRSOPP LAKE, D.D.
VOL. Ill
THE TEXT OF ACTS
BY
JAMES HARDY ROPES
HOLL1S PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY
*
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED
ST. MARTIN S STREET, LONDON
1926
Bw
COPYRIGHT
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
TO
MY WIFE
FIERI autem omnino non potest ut unius hominis industria
editio novi testament! historiae ut ita dicam fide adoniata
perficiatur. nam etiam libris edendis earn legem scriptam
esse didici ut lente festinetur, ne dum omnia simul assequi
veils nihil assequaris.
Id ago ut theologis apparatum non quidem locupletem
sed pro humanarum virium infirmitate certissimum
congeram.
PAUL DE LAGARDE (1857).
VI
PREFACE
THE study of the textual criticism of the New Testament, like
that of the kindred science of palaeontology, rests on morphology,
but necessarily expands into an historical inquiry. Without an
adequate history of the text the determination of that text
remains insecure. But textual history has also intrinsic value,
for it is a true, though minor, branch of Church history. As an
account of the development of one phase of the life and activity
of the Church it is significant for its own sake, and not unworthy
to take a place beside the history of liturgies or creeds or vest
ments. Not only does it abundantly illustrate the history of
biblical exegesis, but in it many characteristic traits of the
thought and aspiration of successive ages may be studied from
original sources.
These considerations have been in mind in preparing the
present volume, and especially in the Introductory Essay ; and
a summary sketch of the textual history of the Book of Acts, so
far as present knowledge permits, has been offered on pp. ccxc-
ccxcvii. Every part of the section on the Sources of Knowledge
for the text will reveal how wide is the range of general history,
both sacred and secular, into contact with which the student of
textual history is brought. Some of the specific tasks as yet
unperformed which are requisite to a completer knowledge of
textual history and a securer confidence in the results of textual
criticism are mentioned at the close of the Essay.
The large space occupied in this volume by the discussion of
the text called Western (for which it is unfortunate that no
better name should be at hand) might seem excessive in view of
vii
viii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
the conclusion here presented that that text is inferior to the
text found in the Old Uncials, or even in the mass of later manu
scripts. But in fact the creation of the Western text was the
most important event in the history of the text of Acts, and the
recovery of it, so far as that is practicable, from the many corrupt
documents in which its fragments now repose is an essential
preliminary to a sound judgment on the textual criticism of the
book. That the Western text, if, as I hold, not the work of
the original author of Acts, was a definite rewriting, rather than
an accumulation of miscellaneous variants, ought not to have
been doubted, and that for two reasons. In the first place, it has
an unmistakably homogeneous internal character. Secondly, its
hundreds or thousands of variants are now known to have arisen
in a brief period, scarcely, if at all, longer than the fifty years
after the book first passed into circulation. In that period a
pedigree of successive copies was short, and to produce so many
variants the mere natural licence of copyists would be insufficient.
And since one rewriting would suffice, any theory that more than
one took place in those years would seem to fall under the con
demnation of Occam s razor. Of course the * Western text,
once produced, was liable to modification and enlargement, and
the Bezan form, in which it is most commonly read, while in
valuable, is full of corruptions, but a full study of the evidence
contained in this volume and elsewhere is likely to bring con
viction that a definite Western text, whether completely
recoverable in its original form or not, once actually existed.
If the Western text had never been created, the problem
of the textual criticism of the New Testament would have been
relatively easy, and the variants not unduly numerous. Textual
history, in nearly all its more difficult phases, is the story of a
long series of combinations of the Western text with its rival,
the text best known to us from the Old Uncials and the Bohairic
version. One of these combinations, for which I have used the
name Antiochian, became the text most widely employed
throughout the later Christian centuries. Nevertheless, if the
PREFACE ix
Western text had not been created, although the critic s task
would be easier, we should be the poorer, for those fragments of
its base, which it enshrines like fossils in an enveloping rock-mass,
would probably have perished, and we should have lost these
evidences of a good text of extreme antiquity, vastly nearer
in date to the original autographs than any of our Greek
manuscripts.
With regard to the Western text itself the most interesting
idea that I have been able to bring forward seems to me one
worthy of further discussion, but hardly susceptible of direct
proof, although it may be possible to show that as an hypothesis
it fits well all the known facts, and would elucidate some other
wise perplexing problems. I refer to the suggestion that the
preparation of the * Western text, which took place early in the
second century, perhaps at Antioch, was incidental to the work
of forming the collection of Christian writings for general Church
use which ultimately, somewhat enlarged, became the New Testa
ment ; in a word, that the Western text was the text of the
primitive canon (if the term may be pardoned in referring to
so early a date), and was expressly created for that purpose.
Such a theory is recommended by its aptness to explain both the
wide spread of the Western text in the second century, as if
issued from some authoritative centre, and its gradual disappear
ance from general use thereafter, as well as its inferiority, when
judged by internal evidence. That this conception would throw
a direct light on certain dark places in the history of the New
Testament canon is at once manifest. It is probably inconsistent
with some current hypotheses and conclusions in that field, since
it would require the admission that at the date of the rewriting
those rewritten books already formed a collection ; but it may
be remarked that in any case the very act of making a rewritten
text of these books must of itself have produced a kind of
collection. On the side, however, of the history of the canon
by virtue of which it appears as a topic in the history of Christian
dogma rather than of Christian antiquities and usages, the theory
x THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
here proposed does not seem to run counter to any views
commonly held by scholars.
If the Western text was a revision made in the first half of
the second century, it is a monument of the life and thought of
that period, an historical source, although one not easily recon
structed with completeness and accuracy. It is more difficult
to study than the contemporary Apostolic Fathers, but not less
worthy of attention than they are.
The plan of the text and apparatus of this volume is set forth
fully in the Explanatory Note following the Introductory Essay.
What is offered is neither a fresh text nor a complete apparatus,
but rather a selection of important material and a series of in
vestigations in the form partly of apparatus, partly of textual
notes. The time for making a satisfactory new critical text
does not appear to me to have yet arrived, and although often
with reasons given I have fully stated the readings in which,
with varying degrees of confidence, I am disposed to believe
Codex Vaticanus wrong, that is a very different thing from pro
pounding a complete new text, with the necessary decision of
innumerable questions of orthography, punctuation, and typo
graphy, as well as of the body of words to be included. In the
nature of the case a new text could not at present lay claim to
finality, and the only certainty about it would seem to be that
it never existed until its author, the critic, created it.
In the several apparatus the aim has been clearness and
simplicity, and with that in view much has been omitted that
finds appropriate place in a complete thesaurus of readings.
Even so, the apparatus are complicated enough. They are
intended to afford a knowledge of the variation within limited
range manifested by the chief Greek Old Uncial authorities,
and a definite notion of the oldest form of the Antiochian text,
preserved as it is with singular exactness in the manuscripts.
For the Western text, in consequence of the highly mixed
character of nearly all the witnesses, equal completeness in the
apparatus of these pages is impracticable. Whether there ever
PREFACE xi
was an Alexandrian revision of the text of Acts is uncertain,
but that question also can be studied in the Old Uncial apparatus
and in the exhibition of the Bohairic version given in Appendix V.
To the Appendices, in which the ingredient readings of the
four chief versions are set forth in full, special attention is asked.
These tables give in a different arrangement, and with careful
analysis of relevant attestation, most of the information about
the four versions which is usually included in a textual apparatus
to Acts, and they will serve some purposes of study better than
the ordinary plan. It is a pity that the Armenian and Georgian
and Ethiopic versions could not also have been analysed.
The concluding portion of the volume consists of a translation
of the full Commentary of Ephrem Syrus on the Book of Acts,
made for the present use by the late Dr. Frederick C. Conybeare,
whose acuteness and learning detected the existence of this work
in an Armenian MS. at Vienna. The lamented death of this
eminent and beloved scholar prevented him from seeing his work
in its final printed form, but the first proof had been revised
by him, and I am confident that what is here offered is not
unworthy of the memory of the generous friend who so often, as
here, put other scholars under obligation. The translation both
of the Commentary and of the accompanying Catena-extracts
has been compared with the original Armenian by the self-
denying labour of my colleague, Professor Robert P. Blake of
Harvard University.
It remains to express gratitude to many who have helped me.
The Editors of The Beginnings of Christianity have followed the
preparation of the work with constant and sympathetic aid, and
I am indebted to my colleague, Professor Lake, not only for
the original proposal and for a large share in the development
of the plan, but for innumerable valuable suggestions, incisive
criticisms, wise counsels, and cheerful encouragement. Sir
Herbert Thompson s characteristic kindness and accurate
scholarship have supplied, through his collations of the Sahidic
and Bohairic versions, knowledge which was not otherwise
xii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
accessible, and the Appendices drawn from his work make it
possible to approach the Egyptian versions with confidence in a
way which has not hitherto been open to New Testament scholars.
My colleague, Professor Henry J. Cadbury, has rendered admir
able service in the laborious task of collating the Vulgate and
the Peshitto. From Professor F. C. Burkitt, Professor Alexander
Souter, and Professor Charles C. Torrey I have received much
valuable aid, and likewise from Professor Paul Diels of Breslau,
Professor James A. Montgomery and Professor Max L. Margolis
of Philadelphia, and Professor J. E. Frame of New York. To
the great courtesy of Mgr. G. Mercati I owe information which
he alone could give. For wise advice, which contributed
fundamentally to better the general plan of the volume, I have
to thank honoured friends Professor von Dobschutz, Professor
Julicher, Dean H. J. White of Christ Church, Dean J. Armitage
Robinson of Wells, Professor George Foot Moore ; and to Pro
fessor C. H. Turner and the Oxford University Press I owe
the kind permission to use the text of Novum Testamentum
Sancti Irenaei.
To the devoted and efficient aid of Miss Edith M. Coe, who
has assisted in the work through its whole progress, every reader
will be indebted as long as the book is used ; and it would be
ungrateful indeed not to express appreciation of the remarkable
skill and large knowledge which have enabled the printers to
solve the complicated problem of clear arrangement of the pages
of text and apparatus.
In spite of the accurate work of the printers and of much
pains taken to secure correctness of statement and of citation,
it is inevitable that a work like this should contain errors.
I shall be much obliged to any reader who may find such and
will take the trouble to send them to me.
JAMES HARDY ROPES.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
May 25, 1925.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE . vii
INTRODUCTORY ESSAY: THE TEXT OF ACTS
I. THE SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE FOR THE TEXT
1. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
1. LISTS
(a) Uncials ...... xvii
(6) Minuscules ...... xxii
Von Soden s Classification . . . xxiv
(c) Lectionaries ..... xxx
2. CODICES BtfACDE . . xxxi
B. Codex Vaticanus .... xxxi
K. Codex Sinaiticus .... xliv
A. Codex Alexandrinus li
C. Codex Ephraemi . . . Iv
D. Codex Bezae . . . . Ivi
E. Codex Laudianus . . . Ixxxiv
3. THE TEXT OF CODICES BtfAC IN THE OLD TESTA
MENT ..... Ixxxviii
2. VERSIONS
1. LATIN
(a) Old Latin Texts cvi
(6) Vulgate ..... cxxvii
(c) Versions made from the Latin . . cxxxv
1. Provenal .... cxxxv
2. German .... cxxxviii
3. Bohemian ..... cxl
4. Italian ..... cxlii
xiii
xiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
PAGE
2. EGYPTIAN ....... cxlii
(a) Sahidic ..... cxliii
(6) Bohairic ...... cxlv
3. ETHIOPIC ...... cxlvi
4. SYRIAC
(a) Old Syriac ..... cxlviii
(6) Peshitto . . . . . cxlviii
(c) Philoxenian .... cxlix
(d) Harclean . . . . . .civ
(e) Palestinian ..... clxxxi
5. OTHER VERSIONS
(a) Armenian ..... clxxxi
(b) Georgian ..... clxxxii
(c) Arabic ..... clxxxiii
3. GREEK FATHERS
(a) Epistle of Barnabas ; Polycrates of Ephesus ;
Justin Martyr ; Didache . . clxxxv
(b) Irenaeus . . . . . clxxxvii
(c) Clement of Alexandria . . . clxxxviii
(d) Origen . . . . . clxxxix
(e) Didascalia Apostolorum ; Apostolic Constitu
tions i.-vi. ..... cxci
(/) Eusebius ; Cyril of Jerusalem ; Epiphanius cxcviii
(g) Athanasius ; Didymus ; Cyril of Alexandria ;
Cosmas Indicopleustes . . . cxcviii
(h) Chrysostom . , . . cc
II. THE CRITICISM AND HISTORY OF THE TEXT
1. INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS .... ccii
2. PAPYRI AND OTHER FRAGMENTS
1. Papyri and Egyptian Fragments . . . ccx
2. Other Fragments . . . . ccxii
3. THE WESTERN TEXT
1. Witnesses ....... ccxv
2. The Text . . . . . ccxxi
Note on Von Soden s View of his supposed I-text of Acts ccxlvii
CONTENTS xv
PAGE
4. THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT . . . . ccl
5. THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT .... cclxxvi
6. THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT ..... ccxc
7. THE METHOD OF CRITICISM .... ccxcviii
8. TASKS ....... ccciii
EXPLANATORY NOTE ...... cccvii
ABBREVIATIONS .... . cccxix
TEXT, APPARATUS, AND TEXTUAL NOTES . . 1
DETACHED NOTES
On i. 2 256
On xiii. 27-29 261
On xiii. 33 263
On xv. 29 265
On xv. 34 269
APPENDICES
I. PAPYRUS WESS 237
II. THE VULGATE LATIN VERSION ....
III. THE PESHITTO SYRIAC VERSION.
IV. THE SAHIDIC VERSION .....
V. THE BOHAIRIC VERSION .....
THE COMMENTARY OF EPHREM ON ACTS.
FREDERICK C. CONYBEARE .....
INDEX
By
271
276
291
317
357
373
455
THE TEXT OF ACTS
I. THE SOUECES OF KNOWLEDGE FOR
THE TEXT
1. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS *
1. LISTS
(a) UNCIALS 2
Century III. or IV.
Pap 29. Oxyrhynck 1597.
Acts xxvi. 7-8, 20. Text in Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. xin.,
1919.
Century IV.
B (8 1). Codex Vaticanus. Rome, Vatican Library, gr. 1209.
Pap 8 (a 8). Berlin, Altes und Neues Museum, Aegypt. Abth., P
8683.
1 In the account of the Greek manuscripts of Acts here given it is not
intended in general to repeat the information given in Gregory s Prolegomena
to Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, editio octava, Leipzig, 1894, and
in the same writer s Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1900-1909.
In referring to minuscule codices, and to the less familiar uncials, the later
numbering of Gregory will be followed, as found in his Oriechische Handschriften
des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1908, and (less conveniently) in his Textkritik,
vol. iii., 1909. The earlier numbering, from the list in the Prolegomena, will
sometimes be indicated, with the word formerly. The numbers of von Soden s
list, when referred to, are recognizable by the prefixed Greek letter 8 or a, or
the symbol or A*? with a superior figure.
a The determination of the century is in some cases open to doubt. For
instance, V. Gardthausen, Griechische Paldographie, 2nd ed., vol. ii., 1913,
pp. 122-134, holds confidently, against many other scholars, that Codex
Sinaiticus was written in the fifth, not in the fourth century.
VOL. Ill xvii b
xviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Acts iv. 31-37 ; v. 2-9 ; vi. 1-6, 8-15. Text in Gregory,
Textkritik, pp. 1087-1090.
057. Berlin, Altes und Neues Museum, Aegypt. Abth., P 9808.
Acts iii. 5, 6, 10-12.
Century IV. or V.
X (8 2). Codex Sinaiticus, Petrograd, Public Library, 259.
0165. Berlin, Altes und Neues Museum, Aegypt. Abth., P 271.
Acts iii. 24-iv. 13, 17-20. Text in Gregory, Textkritik, pp.
1369 f.
Century V.
048 (l ; a 1). Rome, Vatican Library, gr. 2061.
Acts xxvi. 4-xxvii. 10; xxviii. 2-31. Palimpsest. Written
in three columns.
066 (I 2 ; a 1000). Petrograd, Public Library, gr. VI. II. 4.
Acts xxviii. 8 1/05 Lepo<ro\vp,wv 17. Palimpsest. Text in
Tischendorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, vol. i. pp. 43 f .
077. Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine. (Harris, No. 5.)
Acts xiii. 28-29. Text in Studia Sinaitica, L, 1894, p. 98,
No. 5.
0166 (a 1017). Heidelberg, Papyrus-Sammlung, 1357.
Acts xxviii. 30-31. Text in A. Deissmann, Die Septuaginta-
papyri und andere altchristliche Texte der Heidelberger Papyrus-
sammlung, 1905, p. 85.
0175. Florence, Societa Italiana. Oxyrhynchus fragment.
Acts vi. 7-15. Text in Papiri greci e latini, vol. n., 1913,
No. 125.
Century V. or VI.
A (8 4). Codex Alexandrinus, London, British Museum, Royal
Library I. D. V-VIII.
C (S 3). Codex Ephraemi, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, gr. 9.
Acts i. 2 TTvev/jbaro^ et9 rrjv iv. 3 ; v. 35 eiTrev /cat,
vercpcov x. 42 ; xiii. 1 09 /j,avar)v ev eiprjvrj xvi. 36 ; xx. 10
avrov ai Ovpai, xxi. 30 ; xxii. 21 tcai enrev Trpos rov
LISTS OF GREEK MSS. xix
xxiv. 15 7ria e%a)v aTreiO^ rrj xxvi. 19 ; xxvii.
16 </>?79 j]v apavres ovrc eiacrev xxviii. 4. Not quite two-
thirds of Acts extant. Palimpsest. Text in Tischendorf,
Codex Ephraemi Syri, Leipzig, 1843.
D (8 5). Codex Bezae. Cambridge, University Library, 2. 41.
Graeco-Latin. Acts i. 1-viii. 29 ; x. 14-xxi. 2 ; xxi. 10-16 ;
xxi. 18-xxii. 10 ; xxii. 20-29. Reconstruction from trust
worthy sources of xxi. 16-18 (and the Latin of the obverse)
in J. H. Ropes, Three Papers on the Text of Acts, Harvard
Theological Review, vol. xvi., 1923, pp. 163-168, see also pp.
392-394.
076. Norfolk, England, Collection of Lord Amherst of Hackney.
Acts ii. 11-12. Text in Grenfell and Hunt, The Amherst
Papyri, i. No. VIII.
Century VI.
093 (a 1013). Cambridge, University Library, Taylor-Schechter
Collection.
Acts xxiv. 22-26, 27. Palimpsest. Text in C. Taylor,
Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests from the Taylor-
Schechter Collection, 1900, pp. 94 f.
Wess 59c . Vienna, parchment fragment, partly Sahidic, partly
Greek.
Acts ii. 1-5. Text in C. Wessely, Griechische und koptische
Texte theologischen Inhalts ii. (Studien zur Palaographie
und Papyruskunde, Heft 11), 1911, No. 59 c.
Century VI. or VII.
E (a 1001). Codex Laudianus. Oxford, Bodleian Library,
laud. 35.
Acts i. 1 rov fjuev TrauX-09 xxvi. 29 ; xxviii. 26 jropevd^n
a/c&&gt;Xi;Tft)? xxviii. 31. Contains Acts alone (Greek and Latin).
Text in Tischendorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, vol. ix., 1870.
Pap 33 (Pap Wess 190 ). Vienna, leaf from papyrus codex.
Acts xv. 22-24, 27-32. Text in C. Wessely, Griechische und
xx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
koptische Texte theologischen Inhalts iii. (Studien zur Palao-
graphie und Papyruskunde, Heft 12), 1912, No. 190 (Lit-
terarischer theologischer Text No. 25).
Century VII.
095 (G ; a 1002). Petrograd, Public Library, gr. 17.
Acts ii. 45-iii. 8. See Tischendorf, Notitia editionis codicis
Sinaitici, 1869, p. 50, and Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum
graece, ed. octava, apparatus, ad loc.
096 (I 5 ; a 1004). Petrograd, Public Library, gr. 19.
Acts ii. 6-17 ; xxvi. 7-18. Palimpsest. Text in Tischen
dorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, vol. i. pp. 37 f ., 41 f.
097 (I 6 ; a 1003). Petrograd, Public Library, gr. 18.
Acts xiii. 39-46. Palimpsest. Text in Tischendorf, Monu
menta sacra inedita, vol. i. pp. 39 f .
Century VIIL
0123 (formerly Apl 70 b ; a 1014). Petrograd, Public Library,
gr. 49.
Acts ii. 22, 26-28, 45-47 ; iii. 1-2.
Century VIIL or IX.
S (049 ; a 2). Athos, Laura, A 88.
Mutilated in Acts i. 11-14, xii. 15-19, xiii. 1-3. Photograph
in the J. Pierpont Morgan Collection, Harvard College
Library.
(044 ; 8 6). Athos, Laura, B 52 (earlier, 172). 1
Photograph in the J. Pierpont Morgan Collection, Harvard
College Library.
Century IX.
H (014 ; a 6). Modena, Biblioteca Estense, [CXCVI] II. G. 3.
Acts v. 28 Kai /3ov\e<rde iracrai ix. 39 ; x. 19 avBpes
1 On Codex ^ see K. Lake, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i., 1899-1900,
pp. 290-292 ; Texts from Mt. Athos (also in Studia Biblica et Ecdesiastica, v.,
1902, pp. 89-185).
LISTS OF GREEK MSS. xxi
xiii. 36 ; xiv. 3 yweo-Oai, rv^eiv xxvii. 3. Contained
Acts alone, without Catholic Epistles, which have been
supplied in hand of fifteenth or sixteenth century. Readings
in Tregelles apparatus.
L (020 ; a 5). Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, A. 2. 15.
Acts viii. 10 /,u9 rov Oeov a/ca)\vra)<i xxviii. 31. Readings
in Tregelles apparatus.
P (025 ; a 3). Petrograd, Public Library, 225.
Palimpsest. Acts ii. 13 eicri, cucwXvrws xxviii. 31. Text
in Tischendorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, vol. vi. pp. 89-248.
0120 (G b ; a 1005). Rome, Vatican Library, gr. 2302.
Acts xvi. 30-xvii. 17 ; xvii. 27-29, 31-34 ; xviii. 8-26.
Palimpsest. Text in J. Cozza, Sacrorum bibliorum vetustis-
sima fragmenta Graeca et Latina e codicibus Cryptoferratensi-
bus eruta, iii. Rome, 1877, pp. cxxi-cxxxiv ; and Gregory,
Textkritik, p. 1078.
1874 (formerly Apl 261 ; a 7). Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine,
273.
Century X.
056 (formerly 16 ; O 7 ). Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, coisl. gr.
26.
0140. Sinai, Monastery of St. Catherine. (Harris, No. 41.)
Fragment. See Studia Sinaitica, I., London, 1894, p. 116.
0142 (formerly 46 ; O 6 ). Munich, Staatsbibliothek, gr. 375.
Century XL or XII. (?)
Pap Wess 237 . Vienna, K 7541-7548.
Acts xvii. 28-xviii. 2 ; xviii. 24-27 ; xix. 1-8, 13-19 ; xx.
9-16, 22-28; xx. 35-xxi. 4; xxii. 11-14, 16-17. Eight
leaves of Greek and Sahidic bilingual papyrus codex. Text
in C. Wessely, Griechische und koptische Texte theologischen
Inhalts iv. (Studien zur Palaographie und Papyruskunde,
Heft 15), 1914, No. 237 ; also below in Appendix I., pp.
271-275.
xxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
(b) MINUSCULES
The above-named MSS. of Acts are all uncials. Four are
papyri. In addition, the following minuscules may be specially
mentioned :
33 (formerly 13 ac ; 8 48). Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, gr. 14
(formerly colbert. 2844).
Ninth or tenth century. " The queen of the cursives."
Readings in Tregelles apparatus.
81 (formerly 61 ac ; a 162; p scr ). London, British Museum,
add. 20,003.
A.D. 1044. Acts i. 1-4, 8 ; vii. 17-xvii. 28 ; xxiii. 9-28, 31.
About three-quarters of Acts extant. Another portion of
this codex, containing the Catholic and Pauline epistles, is
1288 (formerly 241 ac 285 paul ; a 162), Cairo, Patriarchal
Library, 59 (formerly 351). Readings of Acts in Tregelles
apparatus, and in Scrivener, Codex Augiensis.
462 (formerly 101 ac ; a 359). Moscow, Synodal Library, Wladimir
24, Sabbas 348, Matthai 333.
Thirteenth century. Readings in Matthai, S. Lucae Actus
Apostolorum graece et latine, Riga, 1782, with the symbol f .
614 (formerly 137 ac ; a 364). Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, E.
97 sup.
Thirteenth century (eleventh century ?). Photograph in
the J. Pierpont Morgan Collection, Harvard College
Library.
383 (formerly 58 ac ; a 353). Oxford, Bodleian Library, dark. 9.
Thirteenth century. Readings of Acts in A. Pott, Der
abendldndische Text der Apostelgeschichte und die Wir-quelle,
1900, pp. 78-88.
102 (formerly 99 ac ; a 499). Moscow, Synodal Library, Wladimir
412, Sabbas 5, Matthai 5.
A.D. 1345 (1445 ?). Collation in Matthai, S. Lucae Actus
Apostolorum graece et latine, Riga, 1782, with the symbol c.
LISTS OF GREEK MSS. xxiii
69 (formerly 31 ac ; B 505 ; m scr ). Leicester, England, Library of
Town Council.
Fifteenth century. Readings in Tregelles apparatus.
The minuscule Greek manuscripts which contain Acts number
upwards of 500 copies. The following tables (which include also
most of the uncial codices and fragments) are drawn from the
classification reached by Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften des
Neuen Testaments, I. Teil : Untersuchungen, 1902-1910, pp.
1653 f ., 1686-1688, 1760, 2162 f ., 2172-2174, From this classi
fication must proceed all future investigation of the text found
in the minuscules. In the enumeration the numbers preceded by
the Greek letter B (for Smtfr;*:??) refer to manuscripts containing
the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles (with or without the Apocalypse).
Numbers without preceding Greek letter do not contain the
Gospels, and are those to which in von Soden s catalogue
(pp. 215-248) the Greek letter a is prefixed. The designation
A. np refers to manuscripts in which the text of Acts is accompanied
by the catena of Andreas. O np designates a manuscript
containing with the text the commentary ascribed to Oecu-
menius.
In the columns headed * Formerly are given the numbers (in
the list of MSS. of Acts and Catholic Epistles) of Gregory s Pro
legomena to Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum graece, editio
octava, 1890, pp. 617-652, and Gregory s Textkritik des Neuen
Testamentes, vol. i. ? 1900, pp. 263-294 ; in the columns headed
4 Gregory the numbers of Gregory s final list, to be found in his
Griechische Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, 1908, as well as
in the Nachtrag which constitutes Textkritik, volume iii., 1909.
These last-mentioned numbers are employed consistently in the
present volume to designate the minuscules and all except the
better known of the uncials.
Brackets are here used to connect the numbers of manu
scripts said by von Soden to be closely akin to one another,
or even in some cases to constitute pairs of sister manuscripts.
xxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
It will be remembered that von Soden s system of enumera
tion is as follows :
1-49 " before end of ninth, century
a 1000-1019 before end of tenth century
8 50-99
a 50-99
8 100-199
a 100-199
a 1100-1119
8 200-299 ]
a 200-299 > twelfth century
J
eleventh century
a 1200-1219
8 300-399
a 300-399
a 1300-1319
-
J
thirteenth century
and similarly for later centuries.
VON SODEN S CLASSIFICATION
H (Hesychius)
(arranged approximately in order of date)
von Soden.
8 1
32
83
34
86
8
8 48
1002
1004
74
103 }
104 /
162
257
8 371
Formerly.
B
X
C
A
13
G
I 5
389
25
89
61
33
290
Gregory.
03
01
04
02
044
Pap 8
33
095
096
1175
104
459
81
326
1241
LISTS OF GREEK MSS.
XXV
I (lerosolyma)
Von Soden s designation of P forms the largest division of the
I-group ; I bl and I b2 are two sections of a distinct sub-group
P ; likewise I cl and P 2 are sections of an equally distinct sub
group P. In each list the MSS. are arranged approximately in
the order of their value as preserving in von Soden s opinion the
original type of their section.
P
Formerly.
D
apl 261
233
83
231
505
40
E
391
271
195
265
65
202
104
96
179
395
239
142
51
5
308
156
1
95
93
Gregory.
05
1874
917
88
915
1898
181
08
1873
927
489
808
218
547
241
460
177
1245
2143
1270
618
337
5
1827
623
1
209
205
1 Codex S 254 is the one described by von Soden, p. 104, under the designa
tion 5 50 ; see his volume i., * Erganzungen und Verbesserungen, p. xi.
xxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
von Soden.
Formerly.
Gregory.
554
238
2288
1100 )
310
1829
55 J
236
920
8 180 )
1319
1319
8 355 J
19
38
8 505
31
69
502
116
467
552
217
642
251
326
1843
175
319
1838
192
318
1837
170
303
1311
464
218
1522
8 454
262
794
172
73
436
3 156
108
226
1202
249
1526
56
316
1835
64
328
1845
152
388
1162
168
226
910
202
309
1828
361
248
1525
S 268
180
431
A*" 10
502
1895
A" n 1
15
307
A ^P2o 1
36
36 a
A TP 12
74
437
A *P21
130
610
A-P^O
81
453
A*" 41
1678
pi
62 498 1891
602 200 522
365 214 206
396 \ .. 1758
472 I 312 1831
LISTS OF GREEK MSS. xxvii
von Soden.
Formerly.
Gregory.
398
69
429
B 206 |
105
242
B 264 /
201
536
S 414
. .
2200
B 152 \
B 368 [
196
266
491
823
270 j
306 J
54
119
43
469
253 1
2
2
B 600 j
124
296
161
173
635
8 360
197
496
368
344
1099
490
382
1868
461
163
630
275
. .
2194
567
207
592
78 1
1739
171 J
7
2298
157
29
323
B 260 1
469 J
111
215
440
216
B 356
6
6
209 \
B 370 J
386
288
1872
1149
76
403
1880
B 309
14
35
550
27
322
I b (not identifiable as I bl or I b2 )
1000 I 2 066
1003 I 6 097
rcl
208 307 1611
370 353 1108
xxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
von Soden. Formerly. Gregory.
116 .. 2138
551 216 1518
pe
364 137 614
353 58 383
S 299 . . 2147
466 302 257
470 229 913
486 . . 1765
258 56 378
487 . . 1717
506 60 385
69 221 221
169 192 639
114 335 1852
174 252 255
8 101 199 506
154 381 1867
471 I 313 = 1832
356 J 224 876
503 ) 139 616
8 298 I 43 76
F (not identifiable as I cl or I c2 )
0^ 20 232 916
K (koine)
Virtually all the Greek MSS. of Acts not comprised in the
above lists (types H and I) are known, or believed, to present
in greater or less purity the K-text. Some of these contain in
varying degrees a weak infusion of I-readings. Two groups,
distinguished by special selections of such readings as well as in
other ways, are designated K c ( complutensis ) and K r (* revi-
dierte ). The following lists, arranged approximately in order
LISTS OF GREEK MSS. xxix
of date, include the oldest codices of the K-type and the K r -type,
and all those assigned by von Soden to the K c -type. Mention of
many others will be found in von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen
Testaments, pp. 1760 f., 2162 ., 2172-2174.
K
von Soden. Formerly. Gregory.
h 093
2 S 049
3 P 025
5 L 020
6 H 014
47 323 1841
48 112 2125
50 . . 1760
51 17 93
52 86 456
53 160 627
54 384 1870
61 122 602
67 87 457
72 334 1851
75 394 1244
S 95 41 175
8 97 285 1073
and upwards o f 250 other codices of the eleventh and later
centuries.
K c
107 42 42
186 223 223
8 255 35 57
271 .. 2115
S 359 193 479
8 364 32 51
8 365 ^ 57 234
8 375 . . 1594
S 376 J 194 483
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
von Soden. Formerly. Gregory.
8 366 164 390
366 228 912
395 . . 1753
8 410 206 582
450 . . 1766
555 305 1405
557 331 1848
The above list includes all the codices assigned by von Soden
to the group K c .
K r
8 269 300 1251
8 304 260 757
& 357 92 204
8 378 1400 1400
8 390 . . 1622
8 393 >. 1490
358 38 328
362 . . 1752
371 356 1140
372 360 1855
373 361 1856
380 378 1865
385 . . 1725
and many other codices of the fourteenth and later centuries.
(c) LECTIONARIES
Many lectionaries containing lessons from Acts are known,
and are catalogued in Gregory s lists. Of these I a 171 is of the
ninth century, I a 59 and P173 of the ninth or tenth ; I a 156 is
of the tenth century, and I a 597 and I a 1316 of the tenth or
eleventh. From the eleventh century on many extant lection
aries are assigned to each century. The text of the lectionaries
has never been investigated.
CODEX VATICANUS xxxi
2. CODICES BKACDE
A discussion of the history and peculiarities of some of the
chief manuscripts named above is more conveniently placed
here ; the character of the New Testament text in the several
documents will be treated later in connexion with the history
and criticism of the text of Acts.
B. CODEX VATICANUS
Codex Vaticanus is mentioned in the catalogue of the Vatican Histc
library of the year 1475. 1 Whence it came into the library is
1 The catalogue of 1475 (Vat. cod. lat. 3954) made by Platina, the librarian,
is printed in full by E. Miintz and P. Fabre, La Bibliotheque du Vatican au XV*
siecle, Paris, 1887. It is arranged in two parts (Latin and Greek) and by subjects
in each part. At that date the books had no fixed places (P. Fabre, La Vaticane
de Sixte IV [Melanges d Archeologie et d Histoire, xv.], 1898, p. 473). In the
list of Greek MSS. is included under the heading Testamentum antiquum et
novum (Miintz and Fabre, p. 244) the entry * Biblia. Ex membr. in rubeo.
This IP the only Greek MS. mentioned which purports to contain the whole
Bible. This entry can hardly refer to any other than our Codex Vaticanus
1209, for in a shelf -list, or catalogue arranged by the book-cases of the several
rooms of the Library, made by Platina with the aid of his subordinate Demetrius
Lucensis in 1481 (Vat. codd. lat. 3952 and 3947, the latter MS. being a copy of
the former ; see Miintz and Fabre, pp. 142 f., 250 f.), the statement is found,
relating to the left side of the library, as you enter : In primo banco bibliothecae
grecae. Biblia in tribus columnis ex membranis in rubeo (I. Carini, Centralblatt
fur Bibliothekswesen, vol. x., 1893, pp. 541 fL). This unmistakably refers to
Codex B ; and that it is a fuller description of the same Bible which the catalogue
of 1475 designated more summarily is not only made probable by the identity
of the binding in bo Ji notices (in rubeo), but is clearly shown by the fact that
no other book mentioned in this later inventory can be the same as the Bible
of the earlier ono. In the inventory of 1481 the only other Bible mentioned is
described as bound in black (in nigro) ; this was in fact a copy of part of
the Old Testament (Vat. gr. 330), afterward lent to Cardinal Ximenes for the
Complutensian Polyglot. The information with regard to the inventory of
1481 I owe to the kindness of Mgr. G. Mercati, of the Vatican Library. For
the former controversy on this subject see The Academy, May 30 and June 13,
1891 ; Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, vol. x., 1893, pp. 537-547 ; F. G.
Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed., 1912, p. 77.
The position of B as Cod. graec. 1209 in the enumeration of the Vatican MSS.
throws no light on the source from which it came into the Vatican library
(founded about 1450). The present numbering is due to the brothers Rainaldi
about 1620, and in the list Codex B is preceded by codices known to have been
acquired as late as the years 1594 and 1612 ; see P. Batiffol, La Vaticane de
Paul III a Paul V, pp. 82 f. ; J. B. De Rossi, De origine, historia, indicibus
xxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
not known, but it has been observed that the hand which has
written extended scholia on fol. 1205 V , 1206, 1239, and elsewhere
in Codex B, resembles a Greek hand of the thirteenth century,
" easily recognizable by its ligatures as well as by the greenish
ink which it employs," which annotated two codices formerly
belonging to the library of the abbey of Rossano, one containing
Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians (Vaticanus, gr. 1648, tenth century)
and one Gregory Nazianzen (Vaticanus, gr. 1994, eleventh
century). 1 That Codex B had previously been in the possession
of Cardinal Bessarion (f 1472) has sometimes been suggested in
view of the fact that in Codex Venetus, Marc, graec. 6, which
was probably written for the Cardinal, several Old Testament
books are copied from it, 2 and it would not be unnatural to
suspect that the MS. was found by him in one of the Greek
monasteries of South Italy, oversight of which was entrusted to
him by the Pope in 1446, and from which many of his manuscripts
are said to have come. 3 But it is hard to believe that so eager
scriniae et bibliothecae sedis apostolicae, in Codices palatini latini bibliothecae
Vaticanae, vol. i., Rome, 1886, pp. cxiii-cxvii.
1 This observation was made by P. Batiffol, L Abbaye de Rossano, 1891, p. 49
note 1. Codex Vat. gr. 1648 was at Rossano in the fifteenth century, later at
Grotta Ferrata. For the statement found, for instance, in P. Batiffol, La Vaticane
de Paul III a Paul V, Paris, 1890, p. 82, that Codex B was in South Italy in the
tenth and eleventh centuries, positive grounds are not given. The restoration
of the codex by retracing the letters, etc., is commonly associated with the
work of a certain corrector who occasionally lapsed into minuscules that
betray his date as the tenth or eleventh century (Tischendorf, Novum Testa-
mentum Vaticanum, p. xxvii) ; but as to the locality where these corrections
were made there seems to be no evidence. The Roman editors, Prolegomena,
1881, p. xvii, hold the re-inking and the addition of breathings and accents to
be the work of the scribe (Clemens monachus) who, they think, supplied the
missing portions of the codex in the early fifteenth century.
2 Bessarion s manuscripts as a whole, however, were given by him in 1468
or 1469 to the Library of San Marco in Venice. The source from which
a fifteenth-century hand supplied Gen. i. 1-xlvi. 28 in B is said by Nestle
(Septuagintastudien [i.], Ulm, 1886, p. 9) to be the Roman twelfth-century
Codex Chisianus R. VI. 38 (Rahlfs 19). No one seems to have discovered the
source of the addition by the same hand which now fills the second lacuna,
Ps. cv. 27-cxxxvii. 6. Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 359, states that the source
from which the later part of Hebrews and Revelation were added was a manu
script belonging to Bessarion.
3 G. Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Altertums, 3rd ed. vol. ii., 1893,
pp. 123 ff., esp. pp. 130 f. ; Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul III a Paul V, p. 82.
CODEX VATICANUS xxxiii
a collector as the Cardinal would have given up voluntarily his
greatest treasure. In any case he would not have given it to
the Vatican Library at any period after the date at which he
fell out of favour at Eome.
If it is proper to hazard a conjecture as to the earlier history
of Codex B, it would be that the codex was brought from Alex
andria to Sicily by fugitives from the conquering Arabs, in the
seventh century, and thence to Calabria. 1 Nothing is known
which suggests that it remained in the East until the fifteenth
century and was then brought to Rome under the influence of
the revival of letters. 2
The date of the Codex Vaticanus is admitted to be the fourth Date
century. From the peculiar selection and order of the books
included in the Old Testament and the order in the New Testa
ment it is evident that the manuscript is to be associated with
the influence of Athanasius ; 3 but it is not certain that it need
have been written after his 39th Festal Letter of 367, for the
Patriarch s views on the canon there stated, although perhaps
original with him, were doubtless formulated before that date.
1 The ancient Hellenistic character of the civilization of Magna Graecia
had substantially disappeared by the time of Procopius (f ca. 562) and Gregory
the Great (f 604). On the movement from Alexandria to Sicily in the seventh
century, and from Sicily to Calabria in the ninth and tenth centuries, and on
the fresh hellenization of South Italy in the seventh and subsequent centuries,
see below, pp. Ixiv-lxvii.
2 A partial parallel to the history here suggested may be seen in the history
of the Codex Marchalianus of the prophetic books of the Old Testament (Vatican,
gr. 2125), which was written in Egypt in the sixth century, shows annotations
made there at some time not later than the ninth century, was then brought to
South Italy, perhaps before the twelfth century, and there received further
annotations. As in the case of B, but in much less degree, Codex Marchalianus
has suffered re-inking. It came later to Paris, and was bought for the Vatican
Library in 1785. A. Ceriani, De codice Marchaliano, Rome, 1890, pp. 34-47.
3 This was first fully shown by A. Rahlfs, Alter und Heimat der vatika-
nischen Bibelhandschrift, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 1899, pp. 72-79. Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften
des Neuen Testaments, 1808, 50, had observed that Athanasius and B agree
in the position of Hebrews ; and Grabe, Epistola ad Millium, 1705, pp. 41 f.,
thought himself to have proved that the translation of Judges found in B
was the same as that used by Athanasius, Ep. I. ad Serap. p. 651, as well as
by Cyril.
VOL. Ill C
xxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Egyptian The place of origin of B has now been established as Egypt
oriffin.
in spite of the contention of some earlier scholars (R. Simon,
Wetstein, Ceriani, Corssen, Hort) that it was written in Rome
or in southern Italy. 1 Even under the dubious guess which
attempts to identify B with the copy (or, possibly, one of several
copies) prepared for the Emperor Constans by Athanasius in the
earlier years (339-342 or 340-343) of his exile at Rome, 2 it would
have to be admitted that the scribes, the composition, and the
text of B were Egyptian, so that the manuscript could in no way
claim to be a product of the West or to show Western practice. 3
Among the reasons which have led to the conclusion that
B is Egyptian are the following. They depend in part on the
assumption that a codex of that period giving the characteristic
text of a locality was written in the locality.
% 1. Its relation to Athanasius.
2. The fact that in the exemplar from which the Pauline
1 The chief reasons given by Hort ( Introduction, pp. 265 f.) for suggesting
such a conclusion are these : (1) The spellings Kra/c and KrrpaTjXfetrT/s] or
Kr5/>a7?X[eiT?7s]. On the former word see Thackeray, Grammar of O.T. in
Greek, vol. i. p. 100 ; on the latter J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard, Grammar
of N.T. Greek, vol. ii. part i., 1919, p. 103, and Lake, Codex Sinaitiais
Petropolitanus, p. xi. The spelling t<ra/c is found in the early fourth - century
Oxyrhynchus papyrus 675 of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; see Oxyrhynchus
Papyri, iv. pp. 36 ff. (2) The wrong substitution in B, especially in the
Pauline epistles, of xP to " r s i^trous for itjirovs xpicrros. (3) The chapter-
enumeration of 69 chapters in Acts ; on this see below pp. xli, xliv. No one
of these reasons remains even partially convincing. For Ceriani s judgment
see his Monumenta sacra et prof ana, iii. 1, 1864, p. xxi, and the utterance
reported in Epistularum Paulinarum codices . . . Augiensem, Boernerianum,
Claromontanum examinavit ... P. Corssen, ii. (Jever programme), Kiel, 1889,
p. 3 note, together with Ceriani s reaffirmation in Rendiconti, Reale Istituto
Lombardo, Series II. vol. xix., 1886, pp. 212 f . ; cf. vol. xxi., 1888,
pp. 540-549.
2 Athanasius, Apol. ad Constantium 4 (i. p. 297) T$ d5eX0y crou OVK cypa\f/a
T) pbvov #re ol irept Eua^/Stop ^ypa^av avrt^ /car e/uou /cat dvdyKtji tayjov en <jj/
iv rfi A\^av8pei(f, aTro\oyr)(raff6ai, KO! 6 re irvKria r&v detuv ypa<()ui> Ke\eiJcravTos
CLVTOV fj,oL Karatr/cei dcrat raura Trot^tras aTr^crretXa. As Zahn points out
(Gesch. d. Neutest. Kanons, i., 1888, p. 73, note 1; Athanasius und der Bibelkanon,
1901, p. 31 note 56), the context shows that the Bible (or Bibles) must have
been dispatched within the first three years of Athanasius s exile.
3 The old uncial numeration on the verso of each leaf, perhaps inserted
before the issuance of the codex, was believed by Gregory to be by an oriental
hand ; Prolegomena, p. 450.
CODEX VATICANUS xxxv
epistles were drawn Hebrews immediately followed Galatians, a
singular order strikingly like that of the Sahidic version, in which
Hebrews is found between 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
3. The close relation of the text to the Bohairic version, and
in a less degree to the Sahidic.
4. The type of text to which B belongs was current in Egypt,
being that employed by Athanasius and Cyril. The Egyptian
fragments of the Gospels designated as T show a text closely
related to B, though not perfectly identical with it, and the same
is true of most of the papyri. 1
5. The occurrence in Heb. i. 3 of the singular reading (pavepcov
for fapwv, elsewhere found only in the Egyptian monk, Serapion ;
together with the singular readings in Heb. iii. 2, 6 found only in
papyri. 2
6. The presence in B of a translation of the Book of Judges
which is of Egyptian origin.
7. A more doubtful line of evidence is the occasional, but
rare, occurrence in B of spellings which are believed to proceed
from peculiar Egyptian pronunciation. Thus /cpavrj for /cpavyrj,
Is. xxx. 19, Ez. xxi. 22, and a few cases of the omission of %, r, X,
and a- between vowels, together with the confusion of K and y
and of the dental mutes. 3 But these phenomena are notably
less frequent in B than in other old uncials.
8. The close resemblance of the text of B, at least in 1-4
Kingdoms, to the non-hexaplaric text found in some of Origen s
quotations, and to the text underlying the Ethiopia 4 The
1 Bousset, Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (Texte und Unter-
suchungen, xi.), 1894, * Die Recension des Hesychius, pp. 74-110 ; Burkitt, in
P. M. Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria (Texts and Studies, v.),
1899, pp. viii f., x f. The Egyptian LXX - fragment (fifth or sixth century)
designated Z m also shows striking agreement with B ; see Rahlfs, Lucians
Rezension der Konigsbucher, 1911, p. 193 note 2. See also below, p. xxxvi
note 1.
2 J. Armitage Robinson, in P. M. Barnard, op. cit. p. x ; G. Wobbermin,
Altchristliche liturgische Stiicke aus der Kirche Agyptens (Texte und Unter-
suchungen, xvii.), 1899, p. 23.
3 Thackeray, Grammar of the O.T. in Greek, vol. i. pp. 101, 103 f., 111-114.
4 Rahlfs, Origenes Zitate aus den Konigsbiichern, Septuaginta- Studien, i.,
1904, pp. 82-87.
xxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Const an -
tine s fifty
copies.
KO.I
Ethiopian Church was dependent on Egypt, and would
naturally acquire thence its text of the Bible.
These indications all point to Egypt, and the palaeographic l
and linguistic characteristics of the manuscript include nothing
which is not consistent with this conclusion. 2 No evidence
which in the light of present knowledge continues to be valid
tends to indicate an origin in the West. If the codex had its
home in Egypt, it was probably written in Alexandria.
The suggestion has, however, often been made that Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus formed two of the fifty copies
of the Bible 3 prepared by Eusebius, doubtless in Caesarea, by
order of the Emperor Constantine about the year 332 (Eusebius,
Vita Constantini, iv. 35-37), which Eusebius describes as [avri-
<ypa(f)a] rpio-aa KOI rerpacrcrd. But this theory has no inherent
strength sufficient to overthrow the positive reasons for assigning
an Egyptian origin to B. On this point some further discussion
is necessary.
The expression rpicrcra xal rerpaao-a has received many inter
pretations. 4 (1) The rendering terniones et quaterniones, found in
the Latin translation of Valesius edition and accepted by Mont-
faucon (Palaeographia Graeca, p. 26) is probably impossible
in itself, and is not well suited to the context, as, indeed,
Valesius observed to say nothing of the fact that ternions seem
never to have been a usual form of gatherings. (2) The meaning
1 On the resemblance of the uncial writing of both B and ft to Papyrus
Rylands 28 see Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, p. xi. The Greek hand
of B is extraordinarily like the Coptic hand of a papyrus MS. of the Gospel of
John ; see H. Thompson, The Gospel of St. John according to the Earliest Coptic
Manuscript, London, 1924, p. xiii.
2 V. Gardthausen, Griechische Paldographie, ii. pp. 248 fif., has, however,
shown that the so-called Coptic form of M cannot be used as positive evidence
of Egyptian origin.
3 That the books ordered by Constantine were copies of the whole Bible is
not certain, although the language of Eusebius makes it probable. E. Schwartz
(art. Eusebios, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie, vi., 1909, col. 1437)
thinks that they were copies of the Gospels only, some containing three, others
all four. The meaning of rpiffaa. /ecu Terpa<r<ra required by this theory makes
it impossible. See also John Lightfoot, Horae hebraicae, on John viii.
4 K. Lake, The Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts and the Copies sent by
Eusebius to Constantine, Harvard Theological Review, xi., 1918, pp. 32-35.
CODEX VATICANUS xxxvii
1 three and four at a time would suit the verb ^la jre^dvrwv, but
not the proper sense of the adjectives themselves, for these latter
are virtually synonymous with rpi7r\a and rerpaTrXa, and mean
that the copies themselves had * three and four of something.
(3) Having three and four volumes in each copy would make
sense, but nothing in particular tends to confirm this interpre
tation. (4) The meaning having three columns and four
columns is said to have been a conjecture of Tischendorf, 1 and
is probably to be accepted. 2 It suits the natural meaning of the
terms, and can be accounted for in the context from the author s
manifest desire to emphasize the splendour of these copies. 3
Manuscripts in three or four columns would certainly be large
and costly. A similar desire to emphasize the large size and
dignity of the book seems to be present in the following interesting
passage (Menaea, October 15), where rpio-a-os is used in describing
a fourth-century codex of the whole Bible, written with three
columns to the page by the famous martyr, Lucian of Antioch :
rfj
rpel? 0-7-77X0.9 Siyprj/jLewr)? TTJS ereX/So9), Trepie^ov Traaav TTJV
TraXaLav re /ecu rrjv veav SiaOrj/CTjv. 1 *
The word Terpacrcros is used in Eusebius, H.e. vi. 16, 4
(Schwartz s text ; v.l. rerpa-TrXofc) to refer to the Tetrapla of
1 Gregory, Prolegomena [1884], p. 348 ; but in Novum Testamentum
Vaticanum, 1867, p. xviii, Tischendorf still followed the explanation of Valesius.
The earliest mention which I have met with of the interpretation in three
and four columns is by W. Wattenbach, Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter,
1871, p. 114. C. Vercellone, in a paper read before the Pontifical Academy,
July 14, 1859, and published in his Dissertazioni accademiche, Rome, 1864,
pp. 115 ff., connects Codex Vaticanus with the fifty manuscripts of Eusebius,
but does not seem to have thought of the aptness of the word r/)to-<rd to
describe the three columns of that codex. So also Scrivener, A Full Collation
of the Codex Sinaiticus, 2nd ed., 1867, p. xxxvii, with reference to K.
2 For a good, but exaggerated, statement see F. C. Cook, The Revised Version
of the First Three Gospels, 1882, pp. 162 f. note.
3 So Wattenbach, op. cit. p. 114, 3rd ed., 1896, p. 181.
4 This is found in a somewhat different form, containing, however, the word
in question, in Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Propylaeum ad
Acta Sanctorum, Novembris [vol. Ixi. bisj, 1902, p. 139.
xxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Origen ; but no other occurrence of the word, except the
one under examination, has been produced, r/otcrcro? is a not
uncommon word.
The notion, often brought forward, that the three columns
of Codex B and the four columns of Codex K show that one or
both of these splendid manuscripts made a part of the shipment
with which Eusebius filled Constantine s order, would only be
justified if confirmed by the resemblance of their text to that
used by Eusebius. 1 This is not the case in the New Testament,
and still less in the Old. There were rich patrons of churches in
the fourth century in other places besides Constantinople, and
no trait of the text of either B or K, or known fact of their
history, serves to connect either of these codices with that city. 2
Scribes. Codex B was written 3 by either three or four scribes : B 1 (pp.
1-334, Gen. to 1 Kingds. xix. 11), B 2 (pp. 335-674, 1 Kingds. xix.
11-Ps. Ixxvii. 71), B 3 (pp. 675-1244 [?], Ps. Ixxvii. 72-Matt. ix.
5), B 4 (pp. 1245-fin., Matt. ix. 5-fin.). Of these B 2 and B 4 may
be the same. The frequently repeated opinion of Tischendorf
that the scribe (now believed to be two scribes) who wrote the
New Testament of B was also one of the scribes of X has been
shown by Lake to be an error.
Ortho- B was very carefully written, and its orthography is more
rap y * correct than that of most other uncials. 4 The common confusion
of vowels is relatively infrequent. The most noteworthy pecul
iarity is the strong preference for et where earlier usage and the
practice of the later grammarians wrote i. This was not by
1 On the text probably used for Eusebius s fifty copies see Streeter, The
Four Gospels, 1924, pp. 91 f., 102-105.
2 Hort, * Introduction, pp. 74 f. : " The four extant copies [B^AC] are
doubtless casual examples of a numerous class of MSS., derived from various
origins, though brought into existence in the first instance by similar
circumstances." The fifth-century palimpsest Codex Patiriensis (3; 048)
was written in three columns.
3 L. Traube, Nomina sacra, 1907, pp. 66 f.
4 Thackeray, Grammar of the O.T in Greek, vol. i., 1909, p. 72 : " The
generalization suggested by the available evidence is that B is on the whole
nearer [than A and ft] to the originals in orthography as in text," cf. pp. 78,
86 ; H. von Soden, Schriften des N.T. p. 909.
CODEX VATICANUS
inadvertence, but represents a deliberate attempt to convey
the sound of long I by e*,. 1 Perfect consistency, however, was
not attained, and some mistakes can be pointed out. 2 The con
fusion of CLL and e occurs only occasionally, and testifies to the
absence in the fourth century of a fixed standard of spelling. 3
Letters are occasionally omitted (sometimes perhaps in conse
quence of dialectal pronunciation). In the present edition of B
the spelling of the manuscript has been followed, except where
it is manifestly a case of clerical error and in a few places where
the strange spelling causes undue difficulty to the modern reader.
In all cases where a change has been made, the spelling of the
manuscript has been indicated in the line next below the text.
The aim has been to leave in the text (with a very few exceptions)
all those spellings which the scribe himself would probably have
been disposed to defend as tolerable. The notion that B is full
of bad spellings is unjust.
Although the general correctness of B is thus very great, yet, Errors,
as will appear below in the discussion of the criticism of the text,
it shows in Acts a considerable series of singular, or virtually
singular, readings. Of these hardly any can be accepted as
superior to the rival readings of the Old Uncial group, so that the
great body of those others which are not susceptible of judgment
on transcriptional grounds (as well as those judged to be tran-
scriptionally inferior) are to be rejected. Striking peculiar read
ings (like Krjpvypa for {3a7mo-/jLa Acts x. 37) are rare among these ;
there are some omissions of necessary words (such as K\av$iov t
xviii. 2 ; fyv, xxv. 24), a few repetitions (like /j,6ja\rj rj
a/>re/u9 efaaitov, xix. 34). Stupid blunders, yielding no in
telligible sense, are extremely rare, apart from a moderate number
of cases where letters or syllables are omitted (as e/Qacrrafe for
e/Baara^ero, iii. 2 ; ryevos for 76^0/46^09, vii. 32 ; eipijv for
1 On the systematic use of a to represent long i in the Michigan papyrus
of the Shepherd of Hermas, probably written not later than A.D. 250, see
C. Bonner, in Harvard Theological Review, vol. xvin., 1925, p. 122.
2 Thackeray, pp. 85-87.
3 F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 1896, pp. 6 f.
xl THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
eipyvrjv, x. 36 ; tceicpei for /ce/cpLKei, xx. 16). An instructive
classification of such, individual errors of B is given by von Soden. 1
Codex B has been corrected at more than one date, but the
discrimination of the several correctors by Fabiani (Roman
edition, vol. vi. 1881) is unsatisfactory, and a critical investiga
tion of the corrections throughout the manuscript is much to be
desired. 2 Some revision of the Roman editors results is to be
found in Tischendorf s apparatus. The designations are to be
regarded as referring to groups of correctors, rather than to
individuals. The earliest corrections (B 1 and in part B 2 ) are doubt
less those of the diorthotes, added before the codex was sent out
from the scriptorium. 3 Others (B 3 ) are commonly ascribed to a
hand of the tenth or eleventh century, 4 who added the breathings
1 Pp. 907-914, 1655-1657. Von Soden s combination of this list of individual
errors with groups of readings which he ascribes to the influence of the K-text,
the I-text, and the Egyptian versions, tends to blur the important distinction
between the * singular readings of B and those which B shares with other
authorities. His description of the scribe of B is interesting (p. 907) : " Der
Schreiber von 51 scheint ein Schonschreiber von Beruf gewesen zu sein, der
mechanisch abschrieb, obgleich er gut verstand, was er schrieb." Gregory s
statement (Prolegomena, p. 359), " erroribus scribae scatet," can only be pro
nounced obsolete. One interesting piece of evidence is the fact that the spelling
ovflets, which was already expiring in the first century after Christ, and was
wholly extinct after about A.D. 200, is found seven times ; cf. Thackeray, pp. 62,
104 1, Moulton and Howard, Grammar of N.T. Greek, vol. ii. p. 111. In Acts
xv. 9, ovdev, as found in B, has passed into the Antiochian text, against ovftev in
KACD 81.
2 See A. Ceriani, Rendiconti, Reale Istituto Lombardo, Series II. vol. xxi.,
1888, pp. 545 f.
3 Hort, Introduction, p. 270, says of B 2 , the corrector : " Among his
corrections of clerical errors are scattered some textual changes, clearly marked
as such by the existence of very early authority for both readings : the readings
which he thus introduces imply the use of a second exemplar, having a text less
pure than that of the primary exemplar, but free from clear traces of Syrian
influence. The occurrence of these definite diversities of text renders it unsafe
to assume that all singular readings which he alters were individualisms of the
first hand, though doubtless many of them had no other origin." Many
scholars would now hold that more of these singular readings are " individual-
isms of the first hand " than Westcott and Hort allowed, and that too many of
them were admitted into the text of those editors.
4 The date (tenth to eleventh century) is assigned to B 3 chiefly because of
the character of the minuscules into which he occasionally lapses. On the
correctors see especially Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, 1867,
pp. xxiii-xxviii.
CODEX VATICANUS xli
and accents, and re-inked the already faded letters of the text,
leaving untouched letters and words which he disapproved. It
is only in these latter (for instance, 2 Cor. iii. 15, where nearly
the whole of four lines had inadvertently been written twice)
that the fineness and beauty of the original work can now be
observed. This work of B 3 , it should be noticed, in all its
branches is held by Fabiani to have been done in the early
fifteenth century, and to have included long Greek interpretative
scholia, Latin notes in Greek letters, and the sixty-two supple
mentary pages, but this is doubtful. 1 A hand later than the
tenth or eleventh century added liturgical notes, which do not
seem to have been carefully studied by any scholars in recent
times.
As B in the Gospels has peculiar chapter divisions (Matt., Chapter
170 chapters ; Mark, 62 ; Luke, 152 ; John, 80), marked on a divisions
system elsewhere used only (and but in part) in Codex 3 (eighth
century), so in the Book of Acts two noteworthy sets of chapters
are indicated. One of these divides the book into 36 chapters,
the other into 69.
The former (36 chapters) is by a hand of early, but uncertain,
date, possibly as old as the codex itself but quite as possibly later, 2
and is also found for substance (von Soden, p. 440) in connexion
with the Euthalian material in codices 1874, 1898, 1175, 1244,
181, 1162, 917 (?), 1248 (?), ranging from the ninth to the four
teenth century and representing many types of text. Von Soden
has shown (pp. 442 fL) that this system is closely related to the
division into 40 chapters, which constitute the KefyaXaia, or main
sections, of the Euthalian system. Whether the 36 chapters or
the 40 chapters represent the original system which was altered
so as to create the other, has not been determined.
The other system (69 chapters) was inserted in B by a some
what later hand, and also in K, chapters i.-xv., it is found for
substance, introduced by a hand described by both Tischendorf
1 Note Batiffol s observation, mentioned above, p. xxxii.
a J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana (Texts and Studies, iii.), 1895, p. 36.
xlii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
and Lake as " very early." x By Lake (and apparently by
Tischendorf also) the tituli, or chapter-headings, are attributed
to the same hand. Tischendorf held that this was not the same
as any of the correctors designated by him by the symbols X a
and K b , but Lake is disposed to identify it with K a>2 and to think
that the tituli and chapter-numbers were introduced before
the manuscript left the scriptorium. In K the system is only
incompletely entered, and in B there are some manifest errors, 2
but the origin of this chapter-division can be made out with
reasonable certainty. It is a slightly altered, probably corrupt,
form of a combination of the 40 sections (Kefyakaia) and 48 sub
sections (uTroStat/oecret?) of the system attributed to Euthalius,
belonging to the earliest stratum of the Euthalian material, 3
and found in many manuscripts of Acts. The 40 sections and 48
subsections (probably the latter were originally designated by
asterisks, not by numbers) were counted in one series, making 88
in all, but in the corrupt (perhaps altered) form found in B
omissions (chiefly of very brief subsections) have reduced the total
to 69. That the division into 69 and that into 88 chapters are
not independent of one another is demonstrated by the nature
of their distinctive and complicated agreement, which cannot be
accidental. 4
1 Tischendorf, Nov. Test, graece ex Sinaitico codice, Leipzig, 1863, p. xxiv ;
Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, 1911, p. xxi.
2 Notably the omission of a division at xv. 1, which causes a difference of one
number between B and K in the numbering of the subsequent chapters, as far
as the end of the enumeration in K. Other differences between B and fc< are
unimportant.
3 Robinson, op. cit. pp. 21-24, 36-43. The Euthalian problem cannot be
discussed here, and, indeed, cannot be satisfactorily treated at all without a
much larger collection of data than has yet been published. See von Soden,
pp. 637-682 ; E. von Dobschiitz, art. Euthalius in Protestantische Realencyklo-
pddie, vol. xxiii., Erganzungen und Nachtrage, pp. 437 f. The Euthalian
sections and subsections, and the full rtrXot in which the contents of Acts are
summarized, will be found in von Soden, pp. 448-454.
4 See von Soden, pp. 444-448 ; Robinson, op. cit. p. 42. The " surmise "
put forward by Hort ( Introduction, p. 266) that the resemblance between the
system of division in Codex Amiatinus of the Vulgate (and other Lathi codices)
and the system of 69 chapters of B and K tends to indicate that the two latter
codices were both written in the West, may, in the light of the knowledge now
available, be left out of account.
CODEX VATICANUS xliii
B and (for chapters i.-xv.) K agree in omitting certain of the
Euthalian subsections, and so betray the fact that while their
independence of one another is shown by certain differences
between them, they are both derived from the same corrupt, or
altered, form of the system. Now some codices which have the
Euthalian material (notably H paul , 88 [formerly 83 ; Neapol.
II. Aa. 7], and Armenian codices) also contain colophons, both
to the Pauline epistles and to the Acts and Catholic epistles,
stating that the manuscript in question (that is, probably, in
many or all cases one of its ancestors) has been compared with
the copy at Caesarea written by Pamphilus. In consequence of
this some scholars have suggested that B and N each lay during
some period of its history at Caesarea, and there received the
numbers of the 69-fold system of chapters in Acts. 1 But it is
difficult to follow this inference. If the 88-fold system of
Euthalius was contained in a standard manuscript at Caesarea,
it would seem unlikely that the corrupt form of it with only 69
chapters, now found in these two costly manuscripts, was drawn
from a codex of that library. It is much more likely that the
corrupt form was that current in some other locality, for instance
Alexandria, and that B and K received it in such a locality.
Moreover, the two colophons which mention Caesarea are prob
ably not an integral part of the work of Euthalius, and in fact
nothing at present known seems to connect the author of the
Euthalian material with Caesarea. 2
In the present edition of B the chapter divisions of the codex
1 Robinson, op. cit. p. 37. J. R. Harris, Johns Hopkins University Circulars,
vol. iii., March-April 1884, pp. 40 f., and Stichometry, 1893, pp. 71-89 ( The
Origin of Codices tf and B ), urged a similar conclusion as to the common
relation of B and X to Caesarea on the ground that the other division, that into
36 chapters, is found both in B and in the Euthalian material, and further
that there is a connexion between B and K and between a corrector of K and
Caesarea. But Robinson, p. 24, pointed out that the 36 chapters in the
Euthalian material are a later addition in the apparatus ascribed to
Euthalius. He states : " There is no ground at all for connecting it with the
original edition of Euthalius " ; and it may be added that in fact there seems
no particular reason for associating with Caesarea in any way the Euthalian
testimony to the 36 chapters. 2 See Robinson, op. cit. pp. 34 f.
xliv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
have not been printed, because the division into 69 chapters
represents neither the original form nor the full later develop
ment of any system ; while the division into 36 chapters is very
likely not the original form of its own system, but rather a cor
ruption, and in any case is not unique but is abundantly found
elsewhere. The study of the relations, history, and origin of
these divisions would be instructive, but it requires a special and
comprehensive apparatus in tabular form. The facts relating
to B are elsewhere easily accessible, 1 and by themselves are
incapable of yielding much fruit.
The pre-eminence of B among the manuscripts of Acts is due
to the current acceptance by scholars of the type of text to
which it belongs as generally superior both to the Western and
to the Antiochian recension, and also to the absence in B, at least
as compared with other codices of its type, of influence from
these divergent and inferior types. Apart from this superiority
B, while a good manuscript, carefully written, has its own due
proportion of individual errors. This general character of B
for Acts applies also to the Gospels and to the Catholic epistles,
but not wholly to the epistles of Paul. In many books of the
Old Testament a corresponding character has been determined
for B by recent study of the text of the Septuagint.
K. CODEX SINAITICUS
Codex Sinaiticus is the only one of the four great Bibles of
which we know with certainty the locality in the East where it lay
in the period immediately preceding its emergence into the light
of Western knowledge. But whence it was brought to Mount
Sinai, and how long it had been there when in 1844 Tischendorf
first saw some leaves of it, we do not know. Tischendorf s
own elaborate and protracted study has now been supplemented
by the investigations of Lake, as reported in his Introductions to
1 For instance, in the convenient table printed by Robinson, Euthaliana,
pp. 39 f. Both systems are entered on the inner margin of Nestle s text, 7th
edition, 1908.
CODEX SINAITICUS xlv
the photographic facsimiles published in 1911 and 1922. 1 The
most important contribution there made is the demonstration
that Tischendorf was wrong in supposing that the scribe D of
K was the same hand that wrote the whole (or, rather, nearly
the whole) New Testament of Codex Vaticanus. 2 This mistaken
theory has had such far-reaching consequences in critical dis
cussion that any treatment of these two codices in which it is
even mentioned as probably correct needs to be carefully scrutin
ized to make sure that the supposed connexion in origin of the
two manuscripts has not somewhere affected or warped the judg
ment of the critic. Even Lake s opinion (p. xii) that the two
codices probably came from the same scriptorium, in support of
which he adduces the similar character of the subscriptions to
Acts, ought not to be used as the foundation of any inferences,
for such resemblances may well be due merely to a tradition per
sisting for a long period among Alexandrian calligraphers of
different workshops. The writing of K is much less elegant
than that of B.
On the history of the codex light is thrown chiefly by the
corrections made at some time in the period from the fifth to
the early seventh century to make the text agree with the codex
at Caesarea corrected by the hand of Pamphilus the Martyr.
The notes appended to Nehemiah (2 Esdras) and Esther 3 seem
to indicate (although not quite indubitably) that the codex was
actually taken to Caesarea and the corrections made on the spot
from the original Codex Pamphili, not merely introduced in some
other locality from a copy of that codex. The hand by which
these notes are written is, according to Lake, probably not the
corrector known as K c>a but another of the group that Tischen
dorf designated as K c . In the Old Testament prophets the
corrector N Ctb seems actually to have followed a standard which
1 K. Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, Oxford, 1911 ; Codex Sinaiticus
Petropolitanus et Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis, Oxford, 1922.
2 Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, 1911, pp. xii-xiii, xix, Illustrative
Plate III.
3 For the text of those notes see below, p. c note 6.
xlvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
corresponded to what we should expect Pamphilus s copy of the
fifth column of the Hexapla to contain. The significance of the
corrections of K is a complicated question which has not been
fully elucidated for either Testament. In the New Testament
we do not know what was the text of Pamphilus.
Codex Sinaiticus was written by several hands, 1 but the New
Testament is all by the same scribe except for seven leaves
(three and one half sheets, not including any portion of Acts)
written by a different scribe, who was also employed in the
correction of the New Testament. These seven leaves were
probably substituted for the corresponding cancelled pages of
the work of the original writer. A good deal of work was
evidently done on the manuscript before it was regarded as
complete, and several persons employed in perfecting it for
issuance from the scriptorium.
The date of K is ordinarily given as the fourth century, 2 but
palaeographical reasons make it wholly probable that it repre
sents a later style than that of B. In the Gospels the Eusebian
sections and canons have been entered, not by the original hand
but apparently by one of the same date, so that Lake believes
this to have taken place before the codex was issued. But the
earliest date at which this could have taken place is uncertain ;
Eusebius died in 339-340. A later date for K has been urged
by Viktor Gardthausen, who in an elaborate discussion con
fidently assigns it to the early part of the fifth century. 3
For determining the place of origin of K less evidence is
available than in the case of B. Hort, relying on a part of the
same grounds as in the case of B (see above, p. xxxiv note 1),
argued for the West, probably Rome. Ceriani, who had previously
thought of Palestine or Syria, 4 later decided for South Italy on
the ground both of the palaeographical and the textual character
1 See Traube, Nomina sacra, pp. 66-71 ; Lake, op. cit. pp. xviii f.
2 F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed.,
1912, p. 67 ; Lake, op. cit. pp. ix f.
3 Oriechische Palaographie, 2nd ed. vol. ii., 1913, pp. 122-134.
4 Monumenta sacra et prof ana, iii. 1, 1864, p. xxi.
CODEX SINAITICUS xlvii
of K. 1 For the suggestion of Caesarea, urged by J. K. Harris,
no convincing arguments have been presented. 2 For an origin
in Egypt (doubtless Alexandria) speaks the fact that in spite of
noteworthy differences X exhibits beyond question, in a large
part of those books of the Old Testament which it contains (see
below, pp. xcviii f.), and in the New Testament, the same type
of text as B, and one closely related to the Egyptian and Ethiopic
versions, which were derived from Egyptian sources. 3 To this
is to be added the evidence that the writing of K is " closely
akin to that of the older Coptic hands," and that certain pecul
iarities of spelling are regarded as characteristic of Egypt. 4 The
force of these technical arguments is less than that drawn from
a consideration of the text itself, since we have little parallel
knowledge of what scribes in other centres of book-manufacturing
were capable of producing, but, as in the case of B, the palaeo-
graphical and linguistic phenomena present, at any rate, no
1 Eendiconti, Reale Istituto Lombardo, Series II. vol. xxi., 1888, p. 547.
2 J. B. Harris, Johns Hopkins University Circulars, vol. iii., March- April
1884, pp. 40 f., and Stichometry, 1893, pp. 74 f. Harris s often-quoted geo
graphical argument from the reading avrnraTpida for TrarptSa, in Matt. xiii. 54,
which he thinks shows that the scribe lived somewhere in the region of Anti-
patris, has enlivened criticism but cannot be accepted. The motive for the read
ing, as Hilgenfeld suggested (Zeitschr.f. wiss. Theol. vol. vn., 1864, p. 80), is plain.
The scribe, in order to avoid calling Nazareth the native place of Jesus, coined
a word (or else used a very rare one) to mean foster-native-place. Cf. avr nro\i s,
rival city ; avrL/ut-avTis, rival prophet ; avdinraros, pro-consul, etc. etc.
dvTiiraTpos itself seems to mean foster-father, or one like a father. As
Kenyon points out (Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed. p. 83),
" The fact that K was collated with the MS. of Pamphilus so late as the sixth
century seems to show that it was not originally written at Caesarea ; otherwise
it would surely have been collated earlier with so excellent an authority."
Indeed, if written at Caesarea, K ought to show the text of Pamphilus. To the
reasons for Caesarea given by Lake, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford,
1900, pp. 14 f., was later added the point that the Eusebian canons might have
been inserted in Caesarea, but no one of the arguments holds, nor do all of them
together constitute a cumulative body of even slight probabilities. For Lake s
statement of his change of view in favour of Egypt see his Introduction to the
facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus, pp. x-xv.
3 The resemblance of the text of the Psalms in X to that which underlies
the Coptic Pistis Sophia is one piece of evidence ; cf. Harnack, Ein judisch-
christliches Psalmbuch (T.U. xxxv.), p. 13.
4 Thackeray, Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek, vol. i. pp. 72, 112-115,
147. See also above, p. xxxv note 3.
xlviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
obstacle to the conclusion to which the textual relations clearly
point, namely, that K was written in Egypt. 1 Nevertheless the
inclusion of Barnabas with Hernias as the books to be added to
the New Testament seems to show that K was not written, as B
has been thought to have been, under substantial control of
the views of Athanasius, expressed in his Festal Letter of 367. 2
Errors. Codex Smaiticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of
spelling due to the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, 3 and
many plain errors and crude vagaries. 4 Omissions by homoeo-
teleuton abound, 5 and there are many other careless omissions.
All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the
manuscript does not stand by any means on the same high level
of workmanship as B. ( Singular readings of K hardly ever
commend themselves. On the other hand, readings of X which
1 V. Gardthausen, Griechische Paldographie, 2nd ed., 1913, vol. ii. pp. 122-
134, holds strongly to the Egyptian origin of K.
2 Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1924, pp. 129 f. Athanasius
expressly names the Didache and the Shepherd, with certain of the Old Testa
ment apocrypha, as books not included in the canon but ancient and suitable
to be read by catechumens.
3 Thackeray, passim (cf. above, p. xxxv note 3).
4 For instance, i. 9 enrovruv for enruv ; iii. 13 -rrpa for TrcuSa, a,Tro\\veu> for
aTToXveiv ; v. 1 Tra/ut,<t>ipTj for <ra7T0eip?7 ; vii. 35 diKacrTT)! for XvTpwrjv ; viii. 5
/caitraptas for cra^aptas ; viil. 26 rrjv Ka\ov/j.evr)v Kara^aivovaav ; xi. 20 evayye-
Xtcrras for eXX^iucrras ; xiv. 9 OVK yKovffev for yKovo ev ; xv. 1 edvei for e#et ;
xv. 33 eaurous for aurous ; xvi. 23 7rapayyei.\as re for 7rapa776tXaj>res ; xviii.
24 ctTreXX^s for aTroXXws ; xxi. 16 iacrovi for nvavovi ; xxvii. 43 /Scares for
/3ov\r)/u,aTos ; xxviii. 25 Trept for 5ta ; xxviii. 27 e^apwdrj for eTrax^vdrj, etc.
etc. Whether the preference shown by X for ets as against ev is to be reckoned
here or shows fidelity to the archetype, is a question ; cf. ii. 5, iv. 5, ix. 21, xvi.
36. For a summary of the tendencies to error in X and lists of errors see H. von
Soden, Schriften des N.T. pp. 917-921, 1657-1659 ; also P. Buttmann, Bemer-
kungen iiber einige Eigenthiimlichkeiten des Cod. Shiaiticus im N.T., Zeitschrift
fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. vii., 1864, pp. 367-395 ; vol. ix., 1866,
pp. 219-238 ; Hort, * Introduction, pp. 246 f. That the vagaries are not the mere
ineptitudes of an ignorant monk may be seen, for instance, from James v. 10,
Ka\oKayadLas for KaKoiraOeias. In the Epistle of Barnabas, Gebhardt concluded
that X unsupported by other witnesses is nearly always wrong ; Gebhardt,
Harnack, and Zahn, Patrum apostolicorum opera, i. 2, 1878, p. xxxvii.
6 Especially in John, but not there alone. There are said to be sixty such
omissions hi the Gospels. See H. S. Cronin, An Examination of some Omis
sions of the Codex Shiaiticus in St. John s Gospel, Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. xm., 1912, pp. 563-571 ; von Soden, p. 920.
CODEX SINAITICUS xlix
at first sight look like errors are sometimes confirmed by other
and better witnesses, and prove to be right. But K does not
seem to preserve earlier and perhaps original spelling so faith
fully as B. 1
In the text of Revelation it is recognized that K is perhaps
the least trustworthy of all the chief manuscripts. 2 In the
Gospels the text has suffered much from harmonization, both in
passages where other manuscripts share the defect and in other
cases where the harmonization is peculiar to K.
The correctors of X are numerous, and deserve more com- Correctors,
plete study than they have received hitherto. They are
classified by Lake (on the basis of Tischendorf 3 ) as follows :
Fourth century. K a . Various hands employed in the scrip
torium, together with others of about the same time, all of
whom probably worked in the locality where the codex was
written. K a>1 and K a-2 are probably the same hand, and denote
the diorthotes (Tischendorf s scribe D), who was likewise the
writer of the substituted leaves, or cancel - leaves, referred to
above (p. xlvi).
Fourth and fifth centuries. N b , K b a , and possibly others.
Locality unknown.
Fifth to seventh century. K c , together with K c>a , K Clb , and
a number of others. The view that one set of these corrections
was made in Caesarea has led Lake to connect the whole group
with that place, but in the LXX prophets the standards
followed by K c-a and K c-b are said to be opposed to each other.
On the work of this group in the Old Testament see below,
pp. xcix-c. From one or more of this group (designated merely
as K c by Tischendorf) proceed many corrections in the New
Testament, often such as to bring the manuscript into harmony
with the Antiochian revised text. In Hernias, K c a introduced
1 Thackeray, Grammar, vol. i. pp. 72, 86.
2 See R. H. Charles, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation
of St. John, vol. i. pp. clx-clxxxiii, especially the tables on pp. clxiv and clxxxi.
8 Tischendorf s mature views on the several hands and correctors are most
conveniently learned from his Novum Testamentum graece ex Sinaitico codice,
Leipzig, 1865, pp. xxvi, xxx-xl, Ixxxiii.
VOL. Ill d
1 THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
corrections from another copy of the book. 1 So also K c>c in
Barnabas. 2
Eighth to twelfth century. x d K e . At least two unimportant
correctors, who were perhaps monks on Mount Sinai. K d did not
touch the New Testament.
In Acts corrections are found from K a and N c>a .
and B. The text of K, as has already been said, is much like that of B,
and the two manuscripts in both Old and New Testaments largely
represent in different examples the same general type, a type
current in the fourth century in Egypt. Not only do they often
agree (a circumstance which might merely indicate that both are
often true representatives of the remote original), but they seem to
rest on a common base, containing a definite selection of readings.
This base was subjected to different treatment in the ancestors
of the two manuscripts respectively, and has suffered deteriora
tion in both. But it was in most books a good text ; in the New
Testament (apart from Revelation) it was an excellent one and
X and B rarely agree in detectable error. The one striking
instance which Westcott and Hort thought to be a manifest
blunder found in K and B, and not due to coincidence (James i. 17),
has in recent years received confirmation from a papyrus, and
can be confidently accepted as giving the true reading of the
author. 3 But K and B also show great differences in every part,
and Hort s elaborate argument 4 to prove that they are not
descended from a common proximate ancestor is substantiated
by later criticism. Apart from their text itself, the difference
of origin of the two codices may be inferred from their difference
in the contents and arrangement of the Old Testament, and in
the order of books in the New Testament (in K the Pauline
1 O. von Gebhardt, in Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn, Patrum apostolicorum
opera, iii., 1877, pp. vi f.
2 Ibid. i. 2, 1875, p. xxxiii.
3 The difficulty disappears with the correct interpretation of the unaccented
text ; not Trapa\\ayr) ^ rporr^s d,7rocr/acicr / uaTOS, but TrapaXXayi] TJ rpoTrrjs d,7ro<r/ad-
a-yaaros (BJ< Pap. Oxyrh. 1229). See J. H. Ropes, Commentary on the Epistle
of St. James, 1916, pp. 162-164 ; Hort, Introduction, pp. 217 f.
4 Hort, Introduction, pp. 212-224.
CODEX ALEXANDKINUS li
epistles immediately follow the Gospels ; in B they follow the
Catholic epistles).
A. CODEX ALEXANDRINUS
Codex Alexandrinus seems to have borne that name from History,
about the time of its arrival in England (1628) ; l it gained
it, however, not from any certainty as to its place of origin, but
only because it had lain in Alexandria while in the possession of
the Patriarch Cyril Lucar, who presided over that see from 1602
to 1621, and by whom, while Patriarch of Constantinople, it was
offered to King James I. in 1624-1625, and actually given to
King Charles I. in 1627. A series of notes in the codex, two in
Arabic, two in Latin, make the following statements : (1) An
Arabic note of wholly uncertain date affirms that the manuscript
was written by Thecla the martyr. 2 (2) A Latin note in the hand
of Cyril Lucar himself says that current tradition declares the
codex to have been written by Thecla, a noble lady of Egypt in
the fourth century, whose name the tradition also declares to
have stood formerly at the end of the book on a page torn away
by the Mohammedans. 3 (3) An Arabic note says that it belonged
to the Patriarchal cell (i.e. residence) in Alexandria. 4 This is
signed by Athanasius, who has commonly been identified
with the Patriarch of Alexandria, Athanasius III. (fca. 1308),
1 The name Alexandrinus and the designation A are used in Walton s
Polyglot, 1657.
2 This Arabic note reads : " They relate that this book is in the hand
writing of Thecla the martyr."
3 " Liber iste script ae sacrae N. et V. Testam 11 , prout ex traditione habemus,
est scriptus manu Theclae, nobilis feminae Agyptiae, ante mile et trecentos
annos circiter, paulo post concilium Nicenum. Nomen Theclae in fine libri
erat exaratum, sed extincto Christianismo in Agypto a Mahometanis et libri
una Christianorum in similem sunt reducti conditionem. Extinctum ergo et
Theclae nomen et laceratum sed memoria et traditio recens observat. Cyrillus
Patriarcha Constantin."
4 The note reads : " Bound to the patriarchal cell in the fortress of
Alexandria. He that lets it go out shall be cursed and ruined. The humble
Athanasius wrote (this)." A cross (of a shape found elsewhere as late as
about 1600) is added at the right of this note. Both Arabic notes may well be
by the same hand, according to Burkitt.
lii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEISTIANITY
but may at least equally well have been some otherwise
unknown librarian of Cyril Lucar, bearing the same distinguished
name. (4) A Latin note on a fly-leaf, in a hand of the late
seventeenth century, states that the codex was given to the
Patriarchal cell in the year of the Martyrs 814 (A.D. 1098). l
The source of this information (or conjecture) is not known.
It thus appears that the evidence from tradition for any
Alexandrian connexion for Codex Alexandrinus cannot be traced
with certainty farther back than Cyril Lucar. 2
On the other hand, Wetstein (Novum Testamentum Graecum,
vol. i., 1751, p. 10) quotes two letters of his great-uncle, J. R.
Wetstein, dated January 14 and March 11, 1664, both stating
on the authority of his Greek teacher, one Matthew Muttis of
Cyprus, a deacon attached to Cyril Lucar, that Cyril procured
the codex from Mount Athos, where he was in 1612-13. In
that case it would be not unnatural to suppose it to have come
from Constantinople.
Palaeographical and orthographical evidence has generally
assigned A to Egypt, 3 but it is doubtful whether our knowledge
of the difference between the uncial hands of Alexandria and of
Constantinople in the fifth or sixth century is sufficient to justify
confident assertion here. 4
The very mixed character of the text of A in both Old and
New Testaments (see below, pages ci-ciii) ; its use in many
1 " Donum datum cubiculo Patriarchal! anno 814 Martyrum."
2 F. C. Burkitt, Codex " Alexandrinus," Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. XL, 1909-10, pp. 603-606.
3 Thackeray, Grammar, vol. i. p. 72 (kinship to older Coptic hands), pp. 100-
105 (interchange of consonants), p. 110 ; Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual
Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed. p. 76, on the forms of A and M in a few instances
in titles and colophons (but not in the text itself), but see Gardthausen, Grie-
chische Paldographie, 2nd ed. pp. 248 ff., on the widespread use of the Coptic
M, also H. Curtius, in Monatsbericht of Berlin Academy, 1880, p. 646.
4 For palaeographical and historical discussion see the introductions to the
facsimile editions, by E. Maunde Thompson (1881) and F. G. Kenyon (1909).
G. Mercati, Un oscura nota del codice Alessandro, in Melanges offerts a M.
Smile Chdtelain, Paris, 1910, shows that a note on fol. 142b (417b) together
with the form of the table of contents make it plain that the codex originally
consisted of two volumes, the second of which began with the Psalms.
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS liii
parts of the Septuagint of a text distinctly different from, and
sometimes, though not always, superior to, the special type of
B and K ; the presence in the Apocalypse of a text different
from, and far superior to, that of K ; the large amount of hexa-
plaric influence in the Old Testament, and of influence in both
Testaments from the Antiochian recension (to which in the
Psalter and the Gospels, though somewhat mixed, it is the oldest,
or one of the two oldest, of extant Greek witnesses) all these
facts would probably be more easily accounted for if A could be
referred to Constantinople rather than to Alexandria.
The date assigned to A is the first half, the middle, or the Date,
close of the fifth century ; but no strong reason seems to be
given why it could not have been written as late as the first
half of the sixth century.
Two hands are distinguished in A in the Old Testament, and Scribes,
three in the New, writing as follows : (1) Matthew, Mark, and
the Pauline epistles from 1 Cor. x. 8 on ; (2) Luke, John, Acts,
the Catholic epistles, and Rom. i. 1-1 Cor. x. 8 ; (3) Apocalypse.
The Clementine epistles were written by the same scribe who
wrote the earlier historical and some other books of the Old
Testament. 1 The codex has received various corrections ; A 1
was probably the original scribe, A a perhaps a diorthotes of the
scriptorium. In the New Testament " other corrections are
very much fewer and less important." 2
Codex Alexandrinus is written with a fair standard of accuracy, Ortho-
as may be seen in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, g
where the proper names are usually given without monstrous
distortion, and where ancient errors, which might easily have
been corrected, have generally been allowed to stand. 3 It
contains in the New Testament relatively few readings peculiar
1 Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed., 1912, p. 74 ;
but cf . Traube, Nomina sacra, pp. 72 f.
2 Kenyon, op. cit. p. 74 ; cf. Kenyon, Introduction to facsimile (1909),
Swete, Introduction to the O.T. in Greek, p. 126, and especially Rahlfs, Der Text
des Septuaginta-Psalters, pp. 58 f.
8 Torrey, Ezra Studies, 1910, pp. 91-96.
iiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
to itself, and those wliicli it does have are mostly unimportant. 1
Its orthography in the LXX is probably largely that of later
copyists and not of the date of the autographs ; even where
ancient forms are found they are in many cases to be referred to
literary correction ; skilful conjectural emendations of the Greek
are sometimes detected. 2
The most striking characteristic of A among the chief uncials
is its plainly heterogeneous composition, which has been referred
to above (p. Hi), and which marks both Testaments in ways
partly different, partly parallel (see below, pp. ci-ciii). In the
New Testament the Gospels show a mixture of the Antiochian
revision with an earlier (chiefly * Western 3 ) text, in which the
former strongly predominates. Its ancestor here was probably
a text of ancient type which was systematically, but not quite
completely, corrected in conformity with the Antiochian type
which later became current. 4 In Acts and the Pauline epistles
the Western element is smaller ; and in Acts, at least,
correction from the Antiochian cannot be affirmed. For the
1 Von Soden, Schriften des N.T., vol. i. pp. 877, 1662-1664, 1928.
2 Thackeray, Grammar, vol. i. pp. 65, 72, 98, note 3.
3 Hort, Introduction, p. 152.
4 Von Soden, p. 877. Von Soden, pp. 878 f., 1662, gives some interesting
instances where the reading of A seems to be due to the misunderstanding of
corrections in the archetype, in which an Antiochian reading (as he thinks, of
the type K a ) was intended to be substituted for an earlier one. For instance,
Luke xi. 42 (I follow von Soden s notation) H irapewai, K afaevai, 54 (i.e.
Codex A) Trapa(piei>at. ; xix. 23 H av avro CTrpafa, KK a av e7rpaa airro, 54 av
avro aveirpa^a ; xxiv. 53 KK a add aivovvres /ecu after ev TW tepo;, 54 aivovvres KO.L
instead of et> rw tepw ; Acts iii. 18 Trader rov xP Lffrov O-VTOV, K avrov ira6eiv rov
XpiffTov, 54 omits iradeLv TOV xpicrrov ; and many others. The view of von Soden
that an older text has been corrected by the Antiochian rather than vice versa
receives strong support from some of the cases noted in the pages referred to,
and is inherently more probable than Hort s idea (if he meant it in an historical
and not merely a logical sense) of " a fundamentally Syrian text, mixed occasion
ally with pre-Syrian readings, chiefly Western " ( Introduction, p. 152). Hort
called attention to the striking agreement of A and the Latin Vulgate in some
books. Von Soden, in his Erster Theil : Untersuchungen, 172-182,
designated the Gospel text of A (together with about one hundred other codices)
as K a . Later in the same volume, 235-237, in consequence, it would appear,
of some alteration of judgment as to the significance of the older element in the
text, he includes it under the I-form, and in the text- volume the group
appears as 7*.
CODEX EPHRAEMI Iv
Apocalypse, as in some parts of the Old Testament, it is the
best of all extant manuscripts. The usefulness of A for the
reconstruction of the text of the New Testament is considerably
limited by the circumstances here mentioned.
C. CODEX EPHRAEMI
Of the earlier history of this codex before it came into the History,
possession of Cardinal Ridolfi of Florence (f 1550) nothing is
known. It was broken up and the parchment rewritten with
Greek tracts of Ephraem Syrus in the twelfth century, perhaps
at Constantinople. 1 The manuscript is written carefully and
accurately, by a different hand in the New Testament from that
which appears in the Septuagint fragments ; and possibly a
third hand appears in Acts. 2 There seems to be no sufficient
reason for any confident assertion that it is of Egyptian origin.
The chief ground adduced for ascribing C to the fifth century Date,
is its resemblance in writing (and to some degree in text) to
Codex Alexandrinus (see above, p. lii). It has been corrected
by a hand C 2 , assigned to a date perhaps one century later than
the original, and again by a later hand, C 3 or C c , deemed to be
not later than the ninth century.
The text of the Gospels in C is fundamentally of the type of Character
B and K, but has probably been affected by the influence
of the Antiochian revision, and contains some Western read
ings. There are but few individual peculiarities. In the Pauline
epistles the character of the text is the same, but with less in
fluence from the Antiochian ; and the same may be said of the
text of Acts, as more fully discussed below, although in Acts von
Soden estimates the Antiochian and Western influences as
about equal. In some cases in Acts the same Antiochian reading
1 Tischendorf, Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus sive fragmenta Novi Testa-
menti, 1843, p. 16. Ceriani, Rendiconti, Reale Istituto Lombardo, Series IT.
vol. xxi., 1888, p. 547, expresses doubts as to the accuracy of Tischendorf s
edition of C.
2 Traube, Nomina sacra, pp. 70-73.
Ivi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
lias been adopted by A and C, but the two manuscripts do not
seem to be derived from any common mixed original. 1
D. CODEX BEZAE
History. Codex Bezae (graeco-latin 2 ) was obtained by Theodore de
Beze, the French reformer of Geneva, from the monastery of
St. Irenaeus at Lyons, where it was found during the civil
commotions of 1562, doubtless at the sack of the city by
Huguenot troops in that year. 3 A few years earlier it had been
taken to the Council of Trent by William a Prato (Guillaume
du Prat), Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne, and used there in
1546 as evidence for several unique or unusual Greek readings
relating to matters under debate by the members of the
council. 4 While it was in Italy a friend communicated many
1 Von Soden, pp. 935-943, 1659-1662, 1928.
2 Codex Bezae appears to be the oldest known graeco-latin MS. of any part
of the New Testament. Other early graeco-latin codices are the Verona Psalter
(R, sixth cent.), Codex Claromontanus (D? aul , fifth or sixth cent.), Codex
Laudianus (E ac , sixth cent.) ; many graeco-latin Psalters and New Testament
MSS. were written in the ninth and following centuries until the invention
of printing. See E. von Dobschiitz, Eberhard Nestle s Einfuhruny in das
griechische Neue Testament, 4th ed., 1923, pp. 58 f.
3 For Beza s letter of gift to the University of Cambridge, containing his
statements as to the source from which he acquired it, see Scrivener, Bezae
Codex Cantabrigiensis, 1864, p. vi. In the annotations to Beza s edition of the
New Testament, 1598 (notes on Luke xix. 26 ; Acts xx. 3), the editor refers to
the codex as Claromontanus. This may be due to some knowledge on his
part, not now to be recovered, or perhaps to a mere confusion between
the Lyons MS. and the similar, but Pauline, Codex Claromontanus (DP aul ), then
at Beauvais, the readings of which he had been able to adduce as early as his
second (third) edition, 1582. Beza was not aware that the MS. from which the
readings designated /3 1 in Stephen s apparatus were drawn was the same as his
codex ; J. R. Harris, Codex Bezae : A Study of the So-called Western Text of the
New Testament (Texts and Studies, ii.), 1891, pp. 3-6.
4 Our knowledge here comes from the statements of Marianus Victorius,
Bishop of Amelia and later of Rieti (f 1572), in the notes to his edition of the
works of St. Jerome, first published at Rome, 1566. They are as follows :
(1) Note on Adv. Jovinianum, i. 14, with reference to John xxi. 22 (oirrws),
Antwerp ed., 1578, p. 570, col. 1 ; Paris ed., 1609, p. 509 F ; Cologne ed., 1616,
vol. iii., Scholia, p. 33, note 32 : sicut habet antiquissimus quidam Graecus
codex, quern Tridentum attulit Claramontanensis episcopus anno domini 1549
[so Cologne ed. ; apparently mistake for 1546].
(2) Note on Adv. Jov. i. 18, with reference to Matt. i. 23 (/caAecreis) ; Cologne
CODEX BEZAB Ivii
readings of D to Robert Stephen, the Paris printer and editor,
and they were included (to the number of over 350, with
some inaccuracies) in the apparatus to his first folio edition of
1550. 1 The Bishop of Clermont evidently returned the manu
script to its owners at Lyons. In 1581 Beza presented it to
the University of Cambridge, as he says, * asservandum potius
quam publicandumJ 2
Codex Bezae has commonly been assigned to the sixth century, Date,
but there seems no good reason for refusing it a place in the
preceding one, 3 and a date even at the beginning of the fifth
ed., 1616, vol. iii., Scholia p. 34, note 40 : et ita etiam scriptus est in antiquissimo
codice Lugdunensi.
(3) Note on Epist. 146, ad Damasum, with reference to Matt. ix. 13 (ets
fj^eravoLav); Cologne ed., 1616, vol. iii., Scholia, p. 89, note 4: desunt \Jiaec verbal
etiam apud Graecum codicem Vaticanum qui scriptus est iam sunt anni mille et
ultra, et apud alter um antiquissimum librum Graecum Claremontensem.
The first of these notes has been well known since the seventeenth century ;
the other two were noticed by H. Quentin, Note additionnelle to Le Codex
Bezae a Lyon au IX e siecle ? (Revue Benedictine, vol. xxin., 1906, pp. 24 f.).
As Queutin observes, all doubt as to the accuracy of Beza s statement about
Lyons is removed by the second of these notes. See also J. R. Harris, Codex
Bezae, pp. 36-39. It was natural that Marianus Victorius, who was present at
the council, should have described a codex brought from Lyons by the Bishop
of Clermont, now as Lugdunensis now as Claremontensis ; his variation
throws no light on Beza s above-mentioned references to its readings as from a
Claromontanus.
1 For the evidence that the authority designated /3 1 in Stephen s editio
regia, 1550, was actually our Codex Bezae see Scrivener, Bezae Codex Canta-
brigiensis, pp. ix-x. Stephen s statement in his Epistle to the Reader is rb
d ft ecrrl rb ev IraXta virb rCov -rj/mer^puv avTif3\7]6i> 0Aa>p. The identification
with D was made as early as Wetstein.
2 Since the arrival of the codex at Cambridge, it has suffered at least twice
by mutilations of the bottom of folio 504, succeeding an earlier cut or tear
which may have taken place before 1581. The missing text, however, both
Greek and Latin, can be securely reconstructed, mainly from early collations ;
see below, pp. 202-5, and J. H. Ropes, The Reconstruction of the Torn Leaf
of Codex Bezae, Harvard Theological Beview, vol. xvi., 1923, pp. 162-168. It
may be fitting here to call attention to F. Blass, Zu Codex D in der Apostel-
geschichte, Theol Studien und Kritiken, vol. LXXI., 1898, pp. 539-542, where will
be found some corrections of Scrivener s edition of the manuscript in Bezae Codex
Cantabrigiensis, 1864, in difficult places which Blass personally examined.
3 F. C. Burkitt, * The Date of Codex Bezae, Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. in., 1901-2, pp. 501-513, partly in reply to Scrivener, who had presented as
the chief argument against the fifth century " the debased dialect of the Latin
version " surely an unconvincing reason.
Iviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
century has been urged. 1 Palaeography, whether Latin or Greek,
has so far given little aid toward a definite solution of the problem
of its date and origin. 2 Various characteristics, such as the
ornamentation, subscriptions, titles, the numbering of the quires,
and the form of the letters betray the training of the scribe in
Latin methods, 3 and the presence, by inadvertence, of occasional
Greek words and letters on the Latin side is no proof to the
contrary. 4 It cannot be maintained that the codex originated
in a centre of strictly Greek writing, where Latin was a wholly
foreign language. On the other hand, it certainly did not
1 J. Chapman, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. vi.,
1905, pp. 345 f.
2 The writing of Codex Bezae shows marked resemblances to that of Codex
Claromontanus of Paul, but the hand of Codex Bezae is less skilful and regular.
The many points of contact of the two MSS. make it hard to believe that they
are not to be associated in origin. The peculiar Latin text of the Pauline
epistles in Codex Claromontanus is practically the same as that of Lucifer of
Cagliari, a fact which has led Souter to suggest that Codex Claromontanus (and
consequently also Codex Bezae) was written in Sardinia ; see A. Souter, The
Original Home of Codex Claromontanus (DP au1 ), Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. vi., 1904-5, pp. 240-243. The remarkable list (Canon Claromontanus)
of the books of the Old and New Testaments which in D? au1 follows the
thirteen Paub ne epistles, as if the exemplar had lacked Hebrews, must be
taken into account in any theory of the origin of both Codex Bezae and Codex
Claromontanus.
3 G. Mercati, On the Non-Greek Origin of the Codex Bezae, Journal of
Theological Studies, vol. xv., 1913-14, pp. 448-451. This article was in reply
to E. A. Lowe, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xiv., 1912-13, pp. 385-388,
who had urged that the Latin uncials employed in D are of a grecizing type,
used in Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and North Africa, and such as would probably
have been used in Latin law-books written in Byzantium, and further that
sundry Greek practices are exhibited by the manuscript, so that all these facts
together would suggest an origin in a non-italian centre. But in a later article,
* The Codex Bezae and Lyons, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xxv., 1924,
pp. 270-274, Lowe admits the conclusive force of Mercati s rejoinder, and with
draws his theory.
4 Against the suggestion of South Italy, Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual
Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed. p. 92, remarks, " The chief objection to this theory
is that Greek was so well known in that region that we should have expected
the Greek part of the MS. to be better written than it is. In point of fact, the
Greek has the appearance of having been written by a scribe whose native
language was Latin ; and some of the mistakes which he makes (e.g. writing
I for X or c for K) point in the same direction. We want a locality where Latin
was the prevalent tongue, but Greek was still in use for ecclesiastical purposes,
for the liturgical notes are all on the Greek side."
CODEX BEZAE lix
proceed from any centre of the trained Latin calligraphy of the
period.
Of the earlier history of the codex the work of the successive Correctors
1 1 C IT aU( ^ an
correctors and annotators has left a partial record if we could tatora.
only interpret correctly the lessons to be drawn ! Some twenty
successive hands can be distinguished, but their approximate
dates are disputed, with a tendency on the part of palaeograph-
ical experts to assign them to more and more early periods. 1 No
one of the correctors was probably the regular diorthotes of the
manuscript. Nearly all were much more interested in the Greek
text, and touched the Latin pages but little ; but one corrector
(G, assigned to the seventh century, or even to about the same
time as the original scribe 2 ) concerned himself mainly with the
Latin. The annotators include more than half of the improving
hands ; in two cases the same hand undertook both kinds of
addition. The Greek annotators were formerly thought to have
begun with the ninth century, but recently have all been assigned
to the period before 800. 3 Their work includes the marginal
indication of lessons both in the Gospels and in Acts, drawn from
the usual Byzantine system, 4 with modifications by other cor
rectors ; titloi in Matthew, Luke, and John, in a form somewhat
divergent from that commonly found ; 5 the numbers of the
1 On the correctors and annotators see Scrivener, op. cit. y 1864, pp. xx,
xxiv-xxix ; F. E. Brightman, On the Italian Origin of Codex Bezae. The
Marginal Notes of Lections, in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. I., 1899-1900,
pp. 446-454 ; F. G. Kenyon, ibid. pp. 293-299 ; J. R. Harris, The Annotators of
the Codex Bezae (with some Notes on Sortes Sanctorum), 1901 ; F. C. Burkitt,
The Date of Codex Bezae, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. in., 1901-2,
pp. 501-513; E. A. Lowe, The Codex Bezae, ibid. vol. xiv., 1912-13, pp. 385-
388. It is surprising that the perfect accessibility of the codex, now available
also in facsimile, the valuable foundation laid by Scrivener sixty years since, and
the highly stimulating inquiries of Harris more than twenty years ago should
not yet have led to the production of an adequate account of the facts as to these
matters.
2 E. A. Lowe, I.e. p. 387. So also F. C. Burkitt, I.e. pp. 511 f., who suggests
that " G is the handwriting of the Bishop of the church for which Codex Bezae
was originally prepared," and that the corrections were made before the manu
script was considered to be issued for use.
3 So A. S. Hunt, as quoted by Lowe, I.e. p. 388.
* Brightman, I.e. 5 Harris, Annotators of the Codex Bezae, p. 41.
Ix THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Ammonian sections ; and in the margin of the Gospel of Mark, by
a hand formerly assigned to the tenth century, but perhaps earlier,
a set of seventy-one ( sortes sanctorum, or soothsaying sentences
in Greek. These last are closely like the more complete Latin
series in the (Vulgate and Old Latin) Codex Sangermanensis
(G) of the eighth or ninth century, probably written in the
neighbourhood of Lyons.
No one of the annotators appears to have been a scholar. 1
The holy days for which lessons are marked include the Assump
tion of the Blessed Virgin, and the feasts of St. George and
St. Dionysius the Areopagite, all of these by relatively late
annotators. 2
In the eighth or early ninth century 3 a single Latin scribe
supplied the missing portions of both the Greek and Latin text
of the Gospels, adding to the codex leaves of which nine are
still extant. His Latin text was derived from the Vulgate. 4
Use by One other highly instructive piece of possible evidence as to
the history of the codex before the sixteenth century remains to
be mentioned, and is due to the critical acumen and the learning
of H. Quentin. 5 It is drawn from the Martyrology of Ado of
Lyons (later Bishop of Vienne), written in 850-860. In his
summary accounts of the several martyrs Ado both makes
allusions to the New Testament and draws quotations from it in
abundance. These are ordinarily taken from the Old Latin
1 Harris, Annotators, p. 75.
2 Ibid. p. 105.
3 Lowe, I.e. p. 388. Lowe describes the Greek of this hand as Western
imitation uncials. Scrivener, p. xxi, had assigned the supplementary
leaves to the hand " of a Latin of about the tenth century." Harris, Anno
tators, pp. 106-109, observes that the hand is not Calabrian, and argues that it
is that of a scribe unacquainted with spoken Greek.
4 A parallel to the succession first of Greek and then of Latin annotators
and correctors of Codex Bezae may be seen in Codex Marchalianus (Q) of the
LXX, where the Greek correctors end in the ninth century, and later corrections
are Latin (see above, p. xxxiii note 2).
5 Le Codex Bezae a Lyon au IX e siecle ? in Revue Benedictine, vol. xxin.,
1906, pp. 1-23. On Lyons in the ninth century, see S. Tafel, The Lyons
Scriptorium, in Palaeographia Latina, edited by W. M. Lindsay, Part II.,
London, 1923, p. 68.
CODEX BEZAE bd
fourth-century recension known to us from Codex Gigas and other
sources, which was evidently the most widely used form of the
Latin translation in the period just before the introduction of the
Vulgate, and continued to be employed in various parts of the
West for centuries after that date. But in seven instances he
departs from the recension of gigas. Three of these l are cases
where the gigas-recension lacked the reading, and in all of these
unique or extremely rare readings Codex Bezae is a source from
which the reading of Ado could be drawn. In one of the three
the Greek of D is the only possible source known to us ; in the
second the only other Latin witness is the African text of h, which
Ado is hardly likely to have known ; in the third the only other
Latin is the mysterious margin of the Bible de Rosas. In three
other cases 2 Ado has twice combined renderings from the gigas-
recension and the Vulgate with a third rendering found only in
d, while for the third, and similar, case of this group he has taken
one rendering from the gigas-recension and combined with it
another found in both the Vulgate and d. In the seventh passage 3
1 (1) Acts xi. 28 conversantibus autem nobis (no Latin evidence) for crui/eo-T/m/ci-
IJLtvuv de rjfj.uv D, apparently a direct translation, skilful, very apt, and not
naturally suggested by the parallel Latin rendering (congregatis) otherwise
known to us ; d has the erroneous rendering revertentibus autem nobis.
(2) Acts xviii. 2 in Achaiam, d h only among Latin MSS. ; so D hcl.mg.
(3) Acts xix. 1 cum vellet ire Hierosolimam, dixit ei spiritus sanctus ut rever-
teretur in Asiam, only d and second hand in margin of Bible de Rosas (eastern
Spain, tenth cent.), with slight variations in both ; so D hcl.ra<7. It will be
observed that in Acts xviii. 2 the addition, omitted in the gigas-recension, is
African (codex h), and the same origin may be assumed for a reading of the
Bible de Rosas.
2 (1) Acts vi. 9, for <rwfr}TowTes, disputantibus (vg e t p m s) et conquirentibus
(gig g 2 p) atque altercantibus (d only).
(2) Acts xviii. 3, for 5ia TO o^ore\vov eivai (D 5ta TO ofjiorexvov without
eivai), propter artificium (d only, incomplete to correspond with the number of
words in D) erant enim ejusdem artis (gig vg quia ejusdem erat artis), id est
scenophegiae (vg erat autem scenofactoriae artis ; so e, with variations). The
strange error scenophegiae is an obvious reminiscence of John vii. 2.
(3) Acts vi. 12, for aweKivrja-av, concitato (cf. gig g 2 h) populo ac senioribus
scribisque adversus eum commotis (cf. vg e p t ; d).
3 Acts vi. 9 qui erant (d only) de synagoga quae dicitur Libertinorum. Qui
erant, to which nothing corresponds in any known Latin text, is the character
istically exact rendering in d of TWV (e/c rr/s aw 0,70)7775) found in D and nearly
all Greek MSS. (except N). For quae dicitur (d h p ; TTJS \eyo[j.ei>rjs D B C
Ixii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Ado s text gives the exact reading of d. He seems to have brought
it in in part (quae dicitur) in order to make the language conform
to the usual Greek text, but in effecting this has not followed the
Vulgate rendering, though equally available for the purpose.
Another phrase (qui erant) common to d and Ado is unique in
d among Latin texts, and may well be one of the cases where the
Latin of Codex Bezae (possibly without any predecessor) has been
brought into agreement with the Greek opposite page.
The inference drawn from these intricate facts is that the text
of Codex Bezae has influenced the language of Ado s Martyrology.
Quentin finds reason to think that an intermediate stage was
a copy of the gigas-recension, which Ado used, equipped with
marginal notes drawn from Codex Bezae. And he attributes the
learning and critical interest here displayed not primarily to Ado,
but to Florus, Bishop of Lyons (*) ca. 860), of whom it is known
that he cherished these interests and that he had correspondents,
also interested in the text of the Bible, in Italy. A further, and
natural, step is the suggestion that to the instigation of Florus
may be due the coming of Codex Bezae to Lyons. That event
naturally brought to an end the long line of Greek correctors
and annotators of the codex, of which it is now held (see above,
p. lix, note 3) that all were, or may have been, earlier than
Florus, although formerly scholars ascribed some of them to
later centuries.
The subtle and carefully considered theory thus put forward
by Quentin may well be correct, provided the dates of the Greek
correctors do not stand in the way. 1
Antiochian), the Vulgate (with e t) has quae, appellatur (appellabatur) ; while
the gigas-recension (gig g 2 ), alone among Latin texts, has qui dicuntur (for TWV
Xe7o / ue^wf KA minn). Ado has here deserted the gigas-recension, not for the
Vulgate, but to adopt a reading conforming to the Greek text with the singular,
and he has used for this purpose the Latin form found in d (and in h p, to neither
of which does Ado s text show specific kinship).
1 E. A. Lowe, The Codex Bezae and Lyons, Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. xxv., 1924, pp. 270-274, accepts as convincing Quentin s arguments, and
adds striking confirmation from two observations : (1) Blue ink occurs in the
colophon to the added pages of Mark in Codex Bezae (ninth century). The
use of this ink in Latin MSS. has been observed elsewhere only in a ninth-
CODEX BEZAE Ixiii
From the whole body of facts here summarized it is a fair
inference that at an early time, certainly as early as the seventh
century, and for a long period, the codex lay in a place or places
where Greek was both the ecclesiastical language and was also
(for long, at least) understood and used by the people, but where
Latin was also familiarly known to a greater or less extent, a
place that is, which was distinctly " not a Latin centre where
Greek was merely read and written." 1 Where such a place is
to be sought will be considered presently. Soon after the
beginning of the ninth century the MS. lay in a strictly Latin
environment.
On the question of where Codex Bezae was written the char- Theory of
acter of its Latin pages, and of their dialectal and vulgar
peculiarities, whether as respects pervading linguistic traits or
isolated phenomena, has hitherto thrown no light. Since it was
found at Lyons in the sixteenth century, the suggestion has often
been made that it was written and had always remained in the
south of France, where in the second century the Christians of
Lyons and certain other towns of the Rhone valley were Greeks.
But this Greek life continued for only a limited period, and it is
wholly improbable that Greek was the common language of this
population or of these churches in the fifth, still less in the sixth,
century. In Gaul of that period Greek was the cultivated art
of the few. 2 Moreover, the place of origin of the codex would
naturally bear a close relation to the scene of work of the early
correctors and annotators of the seventh and eighth centuries,
who clearly belong in Greek surroundings, to be found nowhere
century Lyons MS. (Lugd. 484), which is perhaps in Florus s own hand, and in
one other MS., probably written at Luxeuil. (2) A peculiar interrogation mark,
found in these added pages, is found also (and hitherto only) in five MSS., all
of the ninth century, and all perhaps written or annotated by Florus himself.
See also E. A. Lowe, Codices lugdunenses antiquissimi, Lyons, 1924.
1 Harris, Annotators, p. 75.
2 On the very limited amount of Greek ecclesiastical life in Gaul see
Brightman, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i., 1899-1900, pp. 451-454 ;
C. P. Caspari, Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte
des Tauf symbols und der Glaubensregel, iii., Christiania, 1875, pp. 228-231.
Ixiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
in Gaul. The ninth-century revival of letters in Lyons, under
Bishop Agobard (814-840) and his successors of the days of
Florus and Ado, would explain the addition by an undoubtedly
Latin hand of the supplementary pages already referred to, but
the predecessors of these men in the two preceding centuries were
far removed from the attainments, capacity, and interests of the
earlier annotators of the codex. And fatal to the whole theory of
Southern France is the insertion of the Byzantine lesson-system,
which was not used in Gaul. 1
The other suggestion most often made is that Codex Bezae
was written in South Italy, which in ancient times, as Magna
Graecia, had been a recognized part of the Greek world. Here,
it is true, in Reggio and the district nearest to Sicily, Greek seems
to have been dominant at the beginning of the eighth century ;
and in that and the following centuries Greek customs and the
use of the Greek language made steady progress in all Calabria,
in consequence of the incoming of immigrants religious and
secular from Sicily and from the East. But in fact the origin
of the codex in the fifth or sixth century, and its earliest use, fall
in the intervening time between the ancient and the mediaeval
Greek periods of Southern Italy.
At the end of the fifth century what Greek civilization and
ecclesiastical life had survived there from a happier period
disappeared, largely in consequence of the barbarian invasions.
Even the remotest part of Bruttium, close to Sicily, seems to
have become Latin in institutions and language, save for the
cosmopolitan meeting-place of Reggio. In the middle of the
sixth century the implications and explicit statements of
Procopius, and at the end of that century the letters of Gregory
the Great, make clear the same state of things in spite of the
reconquest of Italy under Justinian, and it is likewise revealed
by the evidence of the South Italian inscriptions of the fifth and
sixth centuries. Cassiodorus himself (f 562), with his native
Calabrian aristocratic origin, and as well the Latin monastery
1 F. E. Brightman, op. cit. pp. 446-454.
CODEX BEZAE Ixv
which he founded, are characteristic for his time. The Roman
ecclesiastical system and Latin monasteries seem to have supplied
substantially all there was of higher intellectual and moral forces.
The second hellenization of Southern Italy, which issued in
the flourishing Greek civilization of the eleventh century, was
due to a variety of causes. In the seventh century the advancing
victories in Syria and Egypt, first of the Persians, then of the
Mohammedans, led to the migration of oriental Christians to
Italy and still more to Sicily. Toward the end of that century,
and increasingly thereafter, measures were taken by Byzantium
to consolidate its power in Southern Italy and to defend Sicily
against Mohammedan invaders from Africa, and these steps must
have caused a growth of the Greek population of Southern Italy,
as they certainly enlarged the channels of Greek influence, both
ecclesiastical and secular. In the eighth century Greek clergy
and monks fleeing from the persecuting rigor of the imperial
iconoclastic policy may have come in considerable numbers to
Italy, where they were able to find a friendly theological environ
ment ; while at the same time the administrative connexion of
these South Italian dioceses with Constantinople was knit closer.
In the early ninth century, when the Saracens conquered most of
Sicily (taking Palermo in 831), many Sicilians fled to Italy, and
Greek Sicilian monks began to wander through the wilderness
and to be seen in the towns of Calabria. Before the middle of
the tenth century St. Nilus appears, Greek monasteries are
numerous, and the copying of Greek manuscripts is common.
With the Norman rule great monastic centres of Greek intellectual
life were constructed, and prospered, until, two centuries later,
they shared in the general decay of civilization consequent upon
the overthrow of the Normans, and at last fell into the wretched
state in which the humanistic ecclesiastics of the fifteenth century
found them. Fortunately these houses still had Greek books,
many of which were brought at different periods to securer
centres and incorporated in the great collections to which modern
scholars resort.
VOL. in e
Ixvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
In considering the origin of Codex Bezae this sketch of the
progressive re-hellenization of Southern Italy from the seventh
century on is necessary, because the abundant Greek life of
Calabria in later ages is often assumed to have been present in
the earlier period in which the codex was written and in which
it had its home in a community using Greek as well as Latin.
While, under the limitations of our knowledge, there is a bare
possibility that in the fifth or sixth century some place existed
in Southern Italy where it could have been written, nevertheless
no such place is known, and the general conditions which we do
know make such an origin unlikely. This unlikelihood is raised
to a very strong improbability by the difficulty of supposing that,
even if the codex was written in South Italy, any locality there
in the sixth or seventh century (and with some restrictions
conditions were similar for a great part of the eighth) would have
provided the background of church life implied by the extra
ordinarily numerous correctors and annotators. 1 South Italy
certainly does not seem to offer a probable birthplace and still
less a probable early home for this codex. 2
1 The suggestion that the writing of the annotator M resembles a Ravenna
hand of the year 756 (Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. m., 1901-2,
p. 505 note) rests on a confusion. The hand in question (shown in E. M.
Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 144 ; Introduction to
Greek and Latin Palaeography, pp. 26, 184) is, in fact, from the imperial chancery
in Constantinople. The document is part of the original of a letter from the
emperor to a French king, probably from Michael II. or Theophilus to Louis
the Debonnaire, and brought by one of the embassies known to have been sent
in the period 824-839 ; see H. Omont, Revue Archeologique, vol. xix., 1892,
pp. 384-393, with facsimile.
2 The disappearance of the ancient hellenism of Magna Graecia and the
fact that the mediaeval Greek civilization of Calabria was due to a fresh
rehellenization several centuries later was brought out in the IraXoeXX^t/cd
of Spyridion Zampelios (Athens, 1864), and emphatically presented by
F. Lenormant in La Grande-Grece, 1881, vol. i. p. vii ; vol. ii. pp. 371-382,
395. An illuminating sketch of the history is given by P. Batiffol, UAbbaye
de Rossano, 1891, pp. i-xxxix. See also Jules Gay, Ultalie meridionale et
V empire byzantin, 1904, pp. 5-24, 184-200, 254-286, 350-365, 376-386; Charles
Diehl, Etudes sur r administration byzantine dans rexarchat de Ravenne
(568-751), 1888, pp. 241-288 ; K. Lake, The Greek Monasteries in Southern
Italy, in Journal of Theological Studies, vol. iv.. 1902-3, pp. 345 ff., 517 ff. ;
-/., 1903-4, pp. 22 ff., 189 ff.
CODEX BEZAE Ixvii
On the other hand, what is known of Sicily corresponds very Probable
well with the requirements for Codex Bezae. Greek was the siciiy.
language of Sicily under the Koman emperors, and never
succumbed to the Latin influences which Roman rule brought in.
In Sicily, unlike Magna Graecia, the landowners were a Roman
aristocracy residing in a country with which they did not fully
identify themselves. Latin was the official language, but the
mass of the people, although affected by Latin culture, continued
to speak Greek. At the end of the sixth century, under Gregory
the Great, the clergy were largely Latin, but included Greeks,
and from the beginning of the seventh century Greek language
and culture made rapid progress among the Sicilian clergy, and
there were strong personal relations with the churches of the
Orient. By the middle of the century Greek was preponderant,
and in the eighth century the clergy were firmly attached to the
Eastern Church. By this time the same had become true of
Calabria. During these centuries there seems to have been a
steady influx of Greeks, especially in consequence of Persian and
Saracen attacks on various centres of Christian life in the Greek
world. In the early years of the ninth century came acute and
persistent disturbance from Arab invasion. 1
All this would well account for the origin of Codex Bezae and
for its use for centuries in a locality or localities where the Greek
language and Greek customs were continuously in vogue, but
where Latin was also known. The disturbed condition of the
country early in the ninth century would likewise explain the
acquisition of the manuscript by scholars of Lyons at about that
date.
Nothing, indeed, forbids the suggestion that emigrants or
refugees from Sicily carried Codex Bezae with them to Calabria
1 On the history of conditions in Sicily and the relation of Sicily to Calabria,
see, besides the works of Batiffol, Gay, and Lake, mentioned in the preceding
note, Adolf Holm, Oeschichte Siciliens im Altertum, vol. iii., 1898, Buch ix.
pp. 220-337 ; Josef Fiihrer, Forschungen zur Sicilia sotteranea (Abhandlungen,
Munich Academy, vol. xx.), 1897. On early monastic life in Sicily see
D. G. Lancia di Brolo, Storia delta Chiesa in Sicilia nei died primi secoli del,
cristianesimo, vol. i., Palermo, 1880, chapter xx.
7
Ixviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
in the eighth century, but no fact as yet known requires this
assumption.
It thus seems likely that Sicily was the place of origin of
Codex Bezae and of its mate Codex Claromontanus (D paul ), and
that the correctors and annotators of the earlier period, who
were chiefly concerned with the Greek pages, were Sicilians.
Yet some of these latter may, for aught we know to the contrary,
have been Calabrians. Somewhere about the year 800 the codex
was probably sent to Lyons. Its history, partly conjectural,
partly known, presents a remarkable parallel to that of the Codex
Laudianus, written in Sardinia in the sixth or seventh century,
brought (by way doubtless of Italy) to England in the seventh,
to be used in the eighth by the Venerable Bede, and finally
destined, like Codex Bezae, to pass into the hands of modern
scholars in consequence of the looting of a monastery by
Protestant soldiers in a war of religion.
But we must turn from the history of Codex Bezae to its
internal character. The four Gospels stand in the order, Matthew,
John, Luke, Mark. This is the order of many Old Latin MSS.,
and is often called Western/ but it is also followed in W
(Egyptian), X, the Apostolic Constitutions, and other Greek
witnesses, and does not imply anything as to the place of origin
of D. 1 Between the Gospels and Acts three leaves and eight
quires are missing, to judge by the numbering of the quires.
Since all quires contain eight leaves (except one which has six),
the lost leaves must have numbered sixty-seven, of which perhaps
the whole of one was filled by the close of the Gospel of Mark.
The remaining sixty-six included at least some of the Catholic
Epistles, for one page containing the closing verses of 3 John still
immediately precedes the first page of Acts. Even all the seven
Catholic Epistles, however, would not suffice to fill sixty-six
1 J. Chapman, Zeitschrift fur die mutest. Wissenschaft, vol. vi., 1905, pp.
339-346, argues from various indications that the order of the Gospels in
the parent MS. of D was Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, as in Mommsen s Canon
and the Curetonian Syriac. This he holds to have been the original Western *
order, for which is substituted in Codex Bezae the characteristic Latin order.
CODEX BEZAE Ixix
leaves, and what these pages contained has been the subject
of much conjecture. The space would about suffice for the
Apocalypse and the three Epistles of John. 1 Such a corpus
johanneum would account for the unusual position of the Epistles
of John, at the end of the collection of Catholic Epistles, which is,
however, found in Codex 326, in the Muratorian fragment, and in
Rufinus, and perhaps was the order of the Old Latin translation
of Cassiodorus. The arrangement by which the Catholic Epistles
preceded Acts is that of the Egyptian translations, and seems to
have been not uncommon in the Latin world.
The codex seems to be the work of one scribe, and the Greek Errors.
and Latin pages have a general aspect of deceptive similarity to
one another. 2 It is badly written. On the Greek side the scribe
is guilty of many obvious blunders and misspellings on nearly
every page. Such are, for instance, Matt. vi. 7 ftXaTTo\oyr)aeT(u,
Mark xii. 17 eQavfjia^ovro, Luke xii. 35 \v^\ot, for Xv^vot, xxiii.
26 O7ri,a-o0i>, John i. 3 eveyero, xvii. 25 o #007*0? TOVTOS (for
oi>ro9, itself probably due to imitation of the Latin rendering
of o /COCT/AO? by mundus hie), Acts i. 4 crvvaXia-tco/jievos, iii. 10
e/cracrea)? for e/ccrTacreays, viii. 5 Ka\e\dcov for /care\6(ovj and
many others. Many of these can be seen in the plain and trouble
some errors which have been excluded from the text as printed in
the present volume, but are given in the lines immediately below
the text. In innumerable instances the endings are wrong,
so that nonsense results, or, for instance, a pronoun does not
agree in gender with the noun to which it refers. This is some
times due to thoughtless assimilation to the ending of a neighbour
ing word (for instance, Matt. iv. 18 {3a\\ovra<i a^i/BXyo-Tpos,
Acts i. 3 oirravo^evoi^ avrois), sometimes it may be attributed
1 F. C. Burkittr, Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1903, col. 4997 ; J. Chapman, The
Original Contents of Codex Bezae, Expositor, 6th series, vol. xn., 1905, pp. 46-53.
2 The Latin page has at first glance a likeness to Greek writing somewhat
like that which is found in a page of ancient Coptic, and rather greater than that
of modern Russian. But see the articles of Lowe and Mercati referred to above.
Such resemblance of the two sides in a graeco -latin MS. is not without parallels ;
the Coislin Psalter of the seventh century (Paris, Bibl. nat., coisl. 186) is an
example.
kx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
to the influence of the corresponding Latin word (thus, Acts
xviii. 2 /oV<zvSto9 for K\CLV$IOV, cf. d Claudius). It has been
suggested that many of these errors may be due to some stage
in the ancestry of the codex in which a copy was made from a
papyrus text with easily misunderstood abbreviations for termina
tions (T for TTJV, etc.). 1 Nothing forbids this suggestion, but it
likewise implies an ignorant, if not a careless, scribe, and many
mistakes thus made ought subsequently to have been corrected
by any competent later copyist. Mistakes in gender, as Matt.
iv. 16 <&&gt;9 /jieyav, Luke ix. 1 jracrav Sai/jLoviov, are not infrequent,
especially in pronouns. Semitic proper names receive strange
forms. Good examples of some of these classes of error occur in
Acts iii. 26, where D reads ev\o<yovvTas for ev\oyovvra, r a?ro-
<7Tp<f)6iv for TO) aTTOGTpefyeiv, 6Ka(7To<; for eKaarov ; xiv. 20,
KVK\co(TavT<; for /cv/cXcoaavTcov, avrov for avrov, rrjv eiravpiov
for T?? eTravpiov. Blunders such as these sometimes give the
impression of a writer who understood Greek imperfectly, and
some of them suggest that the look of a Greek word did not
infallibly present to him a combination of sounds with which
he was familiar. 2 Nevertheless his ignorance of Latin is also
extraordinary.
In view of this character of the codex the frequent departure
which it shows from other manuscripts in the omission, or (what
is more common) the addition, of the Greek article will in many
cases have to be attributed to eccentricity, not to a sound or
ancient tradition.
1 Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the N.T., 2nd ed., pp. 96 f.
2 The most complete account of these blunders (and the other peculiarities)
of D will be found in von Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, pp. 1305-1340,
1720-1727, 1814-1836. But even in the paragraphs devoted to unintentional
errors von Soden has too little distinguished between actual errors and what
may be called antiquated irregularities, such as would have been deemed
tolerable, or even respectable, in a manuscript of the third or fourth century,
before the reforming efforts of the grammarians had come to dominate the copy
ing of books. Singularities of this latter type should be treated separately ;
they may well have been derived from an exemplar of a remote antiquity,
several stages back, and so testify only to the fidelity, not to the debased con
dition, of the copy which we have.
CODEX BEZAE Ixxi
Besides these disfiguring blunders, the usual confusions of
vowels and consonants, due to itacism and the like, occur in
abundance, as well as the miscellaneous omissions and errors to
which scribal frailty is prone ; and the well-known grammatical
peculiarities of the older codices, especially in the forms of verbs,
are constantly encountered. Peculiar, or antiquated, spellings,
such as Matt. ii. 11 ^vpvav for o-fivpvav ; xii. 20, xxv. 8 f/3ej>-
VVJJLI, for o-/3evvvfjLL ; Luke xiii. 34 opvi% for opvis, frequently
attract the attention of the reader. All these singularities are
found in greater abundance than in perhaps any other New
Testament manuscript. 1
Harmonization of parallel passages as between the several
Gospels, and in the parts of Acts which strongly resemble one
another, are numerous, and often do not agree with the similar
harmonizations of the Antiochian text. 2 Omissions, by homoeo-
teleuton and otherwise, are relatively abundant, much more so
in the Gospels than in the Acts. A considerable group of these
omissions consists of the evident omission of whole lines, for
instance Acts ii. 31, where TrpoiScov e\a\rfcrev Trepi TT;? has fallen
out in both D and d ; more complicated cases are Luke viii. 41,
Acts v. 29. In some instances the misplacement or omission of
1 For classified lists of these see Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis,
pp. xlvi-xlviii. An adequate linguistic investigation of Codex Bezae (or indeed
of the other oldest New Testament manuscripts) seems never to have been
attempted. G. Rudbe r g, Neutestamentlicher Text und Nomina Sacra, Upsala,
1915, has a valuable discussion of the errors and confusions of spelling in D,
and is led to emphasize the conservative character of the copying. On the
peculiar variation in spelling, twav^s almost always in Matt., Mark, John i.-v. 33,
but iuavri<; (with negligible exceptions) in Luke, Acts, see von Soden, pp. 2100 f. ;
J. Chapman, Zeitschrift fur die neutest. Wissenschaft, vi., 1905, pp. 342-345 ;
Rudberg, pp. 13 f. The phenomenon can be accounted for in more than one way,
and does not necessarily indicate (as sometimes supposed, see Nestle, Einfuhrung
in das griech. N.T., 3rd ed., pp. 175 f.) that we have here a survival from the
period when Luke and Acts circulated together as two books of a single
history. The regular use of nomina sacra in D (62^ KS, fH2, XPS, UNA) is
about as in B, while K, A, and C show a much more fully developed system ;
see Rudberg, pp. 49-52.
2 For some examples of such assimilation see E. von Dobschutz, E. Nestle" s
Einfuhrung in das Neue Testament, 4. Aufl. p. 29 ; see also H. J. Vogels, Die
Harmonistik im Evangelientext des Codex Cantabrigiensis (T.U. xxxvi.), 1910.
Ixxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
lines on one side or the other was either corrected by the original
scribe or noted by him in the margin by numeral letters.
Scrivener has been able to show from such cases that the exemplar
had lines like those of Codex Bezae, but was not identical with it
in the contents of the pages. 1
influence of Reference has already been made to the influence of the
Latin on T . . . . f . n . . ,
Greek. Latin page in causing errors, for instance in endings, in the
Greek text. This latinizing influence has produced a far-
reaching effect on the Greek text, the precise range of which is
difficult to determine. The Latin rendering (due to the poverty
of Latin in participial forms) of a Greek participle and finite
verb by two finite verbs connected by and is probably the
cause of the unusual number of corresponding variants in the
Greek D. In some cases KCU, alone has been introduced from the
Latin, without change in the Greek participle. Thus Mark vii. 25
6\0ov<ra Kai TrpoaeTreo-ev (intravit et procidit), xi. 2 \vaavres
avrov icai ayayere (solvite ilium et adducite), xiv. 63 Siapprjgas rov ?
^eirayva^ avrov KCLI \eyei, (scidit vestimenta sua et ait), Acts xiv.
6 avvibovres Kai /caretyvyov (intellexerunt et fugerunt). The
necessary addition of a copula in rendering into Latin by a rela
tive sentence has produced an inept imitation in the Greek, e.g.
Matt. xi. 28 nravre^ 01 KOTriwvres K,ai Trecfroprio-fjievoi, ecrrat [for
ecrre] (omnes qui lavoratis [ ] estis) ; Acts xiii. 29 Travra ra
ire pi avrov yeypa^eva eiaiv (omnia quae de illo scripta sunt) ;
xvii. 27 fyreiv TO Qeuov ecrnv (quaerere quod divinum est) ; xxi.
21 rou? Kara eOvrj eicriv wv&aiovs (qui ingentibus sunt judaeos) ;
so also xi. 1 01 (qui) added before ev TTJ tovSaia. Not so grotesque,
but probably due to adjustment to the Latin, are cases where
an otiose but not incorrect participle is added ; so in Mark v. 40
Tou? /Jier avrov is expanded by the addition of ovras to corre
spond with qui cum illo erant, and similarly Mark ii. 25 ; and with
these may be mentioned the frequent supplying of the copula,
as in Mark x. 27 rovro aSvvarov eanv (hoc impossibile est). In a
smaller number of cases the attempt to equalize the Greek and
1 Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, p. xxiii.
CODEX BEZAE Ixxiii
Latin lines has caused not the addition but the omission of a word.
These attempts at assimilation have sometimes led to secondary
complicated, but plainly detectable, corruptions of the Greek.
A few other instances out of many that have been collected 1
will serve to suggest the great variety of ways in which latinizing
assimilation may reasonably be accepted as the corrupting force
at work : Matt. xi. 22, 24 avetcrorepov ecrre (for ecrrat) ev rifjuepa
Kpicrews r)v VJACIV, for 77 vptv (quam vobis, misunderstood as if a
relative) ; Matt. v. 24 Trpocr^e/jet?, for irpocrfape (offeres, itself
probably corrupted from offers) ; Acts xiii. 10 vioi (fili) for uto? ;
Matt. xv. 11, 18, 20, Acts xxi. 28 Koivwvelv for KOIVOVV (com-
municare, which means not only share/ but also, in Tertullian,
pollute ). 2 Examples, taken from countless others, of words
which owe to the Latin either their presence in the text or
their form are Matt. xxvi. 6 \eirpwa-ov for \67rpov, Acts ii. 11
apaftoi, for apaffes, v. 32 ov (referring to Trvevpa) for o, vii. 43
p/jL,(j)afji, for pe/j,<f)av, xvi. 12 Kefya\7] (caput) for Trpcorvj, xvi. 13
e&o/cei, (bidebatur, i.e. videbatur) for e^o/ufero, xix. 14
(sacerdos, a common Latin rendering of ap^uepev^) for
In many cases there will obviously be great difficulty in deciding
whether the corrupting force lay in the Latin or in a similar
motive, independent and earlier, within the Greek text itself, but
the presence of some degree of latinizing must be admitted in
many expressions, and of the great range in which this can be
surely assumed the above examples can give but an imperfect
notion.
The types of latinizing described above have almost all been Omissions
such as can be detected from traits present in Codex Bezae. Latin?
But it is also probable that sometimes the striking omission
from D of words and clauses found in other well-known, but less
1 See J. R. Harris, Codex Bezae, 1891, esp. chaps, viii., ix., and x. ; von
Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, pp. 1323-1337 and pp. 1815-1821, cf. also
pp. 1802-1810. For Harris s later view see his Four Lectures on the Western
Text, 1894, p. viii.
2 In Codex D KOLVUVCIV for KOLVOVV is found uniformly in Matthew, never
in Mark, and in one case out of three in Acts.
Ixxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
continuous, witnesses to the Western text is to be associated
with the fact that these glosses are not found in all or most
of the Old Latin witnesses known to us. Thus in the compli
cated passage Acts xviii. 21, 22, the important sentences rov Se
y A/cv\av eiacrev ev Ece<r&), avros Be ava%0els rf\6ev are found
in 614, hcl.ww/, and in part in other Greek minuscules and in the
Peshitto, but not in D d, nor in any Latin text whatever. It is
natural to suppose that the words belonged to the fundamental
Greek text from which D is drawn, but were omitted because
nothing in the Latin version corresponded to them. The alter
native supposition of an excision in order to conform to the
Antiochian text is rendered unlikely by the number of Western
readings remaining in the immediate context of D d. Similarly,
at the close of Acts xiv. 18 the words a\\a TropevecrOai, etcaarov
et? ra i&ia are found translated in ~h.cl.mg, and have survived in
Greek in C 81 614 and many minuscules ; but they are lacking
in D d and all Latin texts (except that h contains a clause
vaguely resembling the Greek, perhaps a loose paraphrase of it).
Other examples of the same phenomenon could be collected
(cf. some of the omissions mentioned below, pp. ccxxxvi-viii).
That the Greek text of Codex Bezae has been influenced from
the Syriac has also been strongly urged, 1 and some of the facts
can be explained thereby, just as they can from the Latin, and
in some instances ingenuity can point out with considerable
plausibility that a possible confusion in the Syriac text would
account for the variant in the Greek. But whereas influence
from Latin is naturally indicated as likely to take place in a
graeco-latin codex, the theory of Syriac influence has no such
1 F. H. Chase, The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae, 1893 ;
The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, 1895 ; cf. J. R. Harris, Codex Bezae, pp. 178-
188. A similar view was favoured many years earlier by J. D. Michaelis,
Einleitung in die gottlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes, 3rd ed., 1777, pp. 503 f.
(but cf. pp. 336-340), and David Schulz, Disputatio de Cod. D Cantabrigiensi,
Breslau, 1827, p. 16 ; but Chase was the first to undertake to explain com
pletely and in detail the Western text as the product of influence from the
Syriac version. For criticism of Chase s theory see J. R. Harris, Four Lectures
on the Western Text of the New Testament, 1894, pp. 14-34, 68-81.
CODEX BEZAE Ixxv
prima facie probability, and in order to be accepted requires
telling instances of demonstrative force, such as are actually
found in some of the instances of latinizing cited above. This
proof, however, is not forthcoming, and the point is well taken
that for some of the frequently occurring characteristics of D
the Syriac offers no explanation whatever. Thus the addition
of the copula is against Syriac idiom, and such a variant as the
addition in Acts xiv. 2 o Se icvpios tbwicev ra^v eipTjvrjv cannot
have been drawn from a Syriac expansion, for the corresponding
Syriac would mean, not give peace, but say farewell. x
There are in D some Semitic traits, such as the use of Hebrew,
instead of Aramaic, in the words from the Cross in Matt, xxvii. 46,
Mark xv. 34 ; the readings cnro fcapvcorov John xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26,
xiv. 22 (also in K John vi. 71), aa^ovpeiv for e^pcu^, John
xi. 54, and perhaps ov\a/jL/jiaov$ for e/^aof?, Luke xxiv. 13. 2
Also the otiose aurofc Acts xiv. 2 might be Semitic ; pera rcov
^jrv^cov avrwv Acts xiv. 27 sounds more Semitic than Greek. But
these are isolated phenomena, and a better explanation of some
of them will be found below (pp. ccxlii-iv). The theory of
systematic or continuous Syriac influence does not furnish a
satisfactory solution of the problem of Codex Bezae.
It is not to be supposed that all the peculiarities and errors Successive
of Codex Bezae were introduced at the latest, or at any single
earlier stage. Much of the orthography is doubtless very ancient,
or possibly original. Scribal errors of the various usual types
may have been introduced at each copying, including that which
produced the codex itself. The adjustment of the Greek to the
Latin and the converse (of which something will be said later)
may well have taken place, in part at least, in different periods.
An interesting illustration of a succession of corruptions which
must have preceded the present text is the unique reading
1 Harris, Four Lectures, pp. 69 f. It is to be observed that Chase s theory
was quite as much intended to explain the variants of the Western text as
the eccentricities of Codex Bezae.
2 Cf. E. von Dobschutz, E. Nestle s Einfiihrung in das griechische N.T.,
1923, p. 5.
Ixxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Luke xxii. 52 o-rparrjyov^ rov \aov (for tepov, d praepositos
populi). Here \aov seems clearly a corruption for vaov, and that
again a substitute (intelligible, but incorrect in point of technical
usage) for tepov of all other witnesses. In general, if at first the
Latin was made approximately to correspond with the Greek,
the widespread assimilation of the Greek to the Latin may have
been due to the pains of a later scribe ; or both assimilations may
have been made concurrently now from one side, now from the
other when this bilingual edition was first constructed. One
stage in the ancestry of our codex may have been an interlinear
graeco-latin text, like the Codex Boernerianus (G paul ).
The general relation of the Greek text of Codex Bezae and
the Latin version associated with it has long been the subject of
discussion. 1 The two texts, as they stand, bear intricate relations
of likeness ; yet they are by no means identical, 2 and the differ
ence between them cannot as a whole be accounted for by later
correction of one side or the other from the Antiochian text. 3
The older debate revolved about too simple a formulation of the
question, and was too much interested in proving or disproving
the worthlessness of the codex for the practical uses of textual
critics. The seventeenth - century scholars, from Erasmus to
Grotius (except Morinus 4 ), seem to have held that the Greek
text of D had been so adapted to the Latin version as to be
practically worthless. A more moderate view was that of Mill
(1707), who deemed the Greek text to have been copied from a
1 See Harris, Codex Bezae, pp. 41-46.
2 Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, pp. xxxix f., states that nearly
2000 divergencies are found between the Greek and the Latin. Of these Acts
contains 631, of which 285 are "real various readings" of some consequence,
on the Latin side not infrequently showing agreement with the Vulgate.
3 See, for instance, how the Antiochian (or Old Uncial) correction in chap,
xviii. has affected both Greek and Latin equally. But some cases of one-sided
correction can be pointed out ; thus Acts xix. 39 Trepi erepwv seems to be a
correction in accord with KA Antiochian, while the corresponding Latin ulterius
has retained the Western reading, as found also in gig.
4 J. Morinus, Exercitationes biblicae de hebraei graecique textus sinceritate,
Paris, 1660, lib. i., exerc. ii., c. iii., pp. 47-54. Morinus, convinced of the
superiority of the Latin Vulgate, rejoiced to find Vulgate readings confirmed
by Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus.
CODEX BEZAE Ixxvii
Greek original, similar to that from which the Latin version was
made, but later to have been altered in conformity to the Latin
at a few points here and there (" paucula hinc inde "), and who
gives well-chosen examples of such readings. 1 Wetstein (Pro
legomena, 1751) agreed with Mill ; and Middleton (1808) 2 urged
with much vigour the latinizing tendency of D as evidence (and
as one cause) of its worthlessness. Meanwhile, however, J. D.
Michael is 3 had pointed out that this tendency, if it existed,
explained but a small part of the peculiarities of D, and Gries-
bach 4 protested that the conformation to the Latin was negli
gible, and that the Greek text itself was of Greek origin and a
witness to a very ancient stage of the text of the Gospels and Acts.
With Griesbach agreed Marsh in his notes to the translation of
Michaelis s Introduction (1793), and this general view appears
to have held the ground through the greater part of the nineteenth
century. Hort ( Introduction, 1881, pp. 82 f.) regarded d as of
little practical value for Old Latin evidence, because it had been
" altered throughout into verbal conformity with the Greek text
by the side of which it had been intended to stand " ; again
(p. 120), he refers with contempt to the " whimsical theory " that
" the Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation
from the Latin " ; in his account of Codex Bezae (pp. 148 f.) he
makes no reference whatever to any latinizing tendency in the
MS. Similarly Burkitt regards Codex Bezae as a Greek book
with a Latin version. 5 But in the meantime J. E,. Harris, in
his Codex Bezae, 1891, presented at length the opposing theory
that " the major part," or (p. 203) nine-tenths, of the variants
in the Acts of D are due to the attempt to make the Greek text
conform to the Latin, and drew attention to a great body of
1 Prolegomena, par. 1282.
2 T. F. Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article, 1808, Appendix, pp.
677-698.
3 Einleitung, 4th ed., 1788, pp. 582 f.
4 Symbolae criticae, vol. i., 1785, pp. cx-cxvii.
5 Journal of Theological Studies, vol. in., 1901-2, p. 505. Scrivener, Bezae
Codex Cantabrigiensis, p. xxxii : " The Latin version is little better than a close
and often servile rendering of the actually existing Greek."
Ixxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
evidence in support of this claim. 1 Von Soden assigns a large
place to latinization.
Relation of The result of this debate has been to establish that D can
Latin shies, neither be rejected as worthless, on the ground that it is secondary
and dependent throughout on the Latin, nor yet used, in a fashion
which has been all too common, as in every respect a trust
worthy witness, as it stands, to the Western text. The Latin
d, while it has no doubt been affected in countless readings by
its Greek partner, is yet by no means a mere literal translation
of the Greek D, but neither is D a mere late construction designed
to give Greek support to d. Both sides are mixed texts, and
this is exactly what our knowledge of other manuscripts written
with parallel columns would lead us to expect. Indeed, the inter
action is probably less marked in Codex Bezae than in cases
where the single lines are shorter. In the very short lines (one
to three words each, on the average) of Origen s Hexapla the order
of words in the LXX column is believed to have been altered
to match the others. 2 In many graeco-latin Psalters from the
sixth to the tenth century the Greek text has been altered to
conform to the Latin. 3 Codex Boernerianus (G paul ) is said to
show conformation in both directions. 4 Codex Claromontanus
(D paul ) probably shows correction of the Latin to agree with
the Greek. 5 The case of Codex Laudianus (E ac ) is discussed
below. 6 From a much later date (fourteenth or fifteenth century)
1 Searching criticism of Harris s views were contained in two excellent
articles by A. S. Wilkins, The Western Text of the Greek Testament, Expositor,
4th series, vol. x., 1894, pp. 386-400, 409-428. Wilkins admits the existence of
latinizing influence, but points out that many of Harris s examples are not
convincing, and that in many cases variation common to D and d " may have
originated in either."
2 A. Rahlfs, Studie uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, 1922,
pp. 69 f., n. 3.
3 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, 1907, pp. 94-101.
4 E. Diehl, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. xx., 1921,
p. 107 ; Hort, Introduction, p. 82. 6 Hort, Introduction, p. 82.
6 Julicher, Zeitschrift fur die neutest. Wissenschaft, vol. xv., 1914, p. 182,
speaks of the " Unmoglichkeit," that D and E should have been conformed to
d and e, but the author informs me that the word is a mistake of the press, or
the pen, for Moglichkeit.
CODEX BEZAE Ixxix
Codex 629 (Vat. ottobon. 298, see Gregory, Prolegomena, p. 635)
has a Greek text extensively accommodated to its parallel Vulgate
columns. The Latin codex f of the Gospels is thought to be
drawn from a bilingual Gothic-Latin codex in which the Latin had
been altered to correspond with the Gothic. 1 Even the editors
of the Complutensian Polyglot transposed the Greek to make it
agree in order of words with their Hebrew column. 2 Apart from
the other kinds of corruption, the latinized element in D must
always be kept in mind in using Codex Bezae. In such cases
the only safe or possible method is by comparison with other
witnesses to the same type of text. It cannot be admitted that
a Latin influence is accountable for the Western variants
found equally in other Greek, Syriac, and Sahidic sources. 3
Where such evidence is at hand, we may accept the text of D
as free from influence from d. Contrariwise, the renderings of
d can be supposed to be directly translated from D only where
no other Old Latin witness attests them. Within the field thus
narrowed, where either D or d can be a direct translation from
the other, many cases will be so related to Latin or to Greek
idiom, or to the recognizable characteristics of the Greek Western
reviser, as to point convincingly to a conclusion ; many others
will not. Often doubt will remain. In considering this question
it must never be forgotten that the process of mind of a scribe
improving the text is in many respects essentially the same as
1 Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. I., 1899-1900, p. 131 ; vol. XL,
1909-10, p. 613 ; Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum Latine, Evan-
gelia, 1889, pp. 653 f., held f to represent substantially the Old Latin text on
which the Vulgate revision was founded.
2 Flaminius Nobilius, in Veins Testamentum secundum LXX latine redditum,
1588 (fourth page of Praefatio ad lectorem ), cited by G. F. Moore, The
Antiochian Recension of the Septuagint, American Journal of Semitic Languages
and Literatures, vol. xxix., 1912, pp. 57 f.
3 It is for this reason that the striking contentions of Harris with regard
to the reading, Luke xxiii. 53, /ecu devros avrov eireOriKev TW fivrj/j^enij \eidov ov
/j.oyts eiKcxri CKV\IOV, remain unconvincing. Since the Sahidic, and not merely
some Old Latin texts, bears witness to it, it must be supposed to have arisen in
Greek, and the imperfect Latin hexameter, imposuit lapidem quern vix viginti
movebant, must be accounted for, as it can be, by assuming it to be the work of
an ingenious Latin translator from the Greek.
Ixxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
that of a translator into another language. That d has affected
D seems beyond doubt in view of such facts as those adduced
above (pp. Ixxii-lxxiv) ; but the proof is in most cases demon
strative only for details, many cases must remain doubtful, and
in a great mass of instances, including most of the larger and
more interesting readings, Codex Bezae has certainly preserved
approximately the Greek text of the Western recension. 1
Latin text ^e Latin text of d is not carefully written, but offers to the
of Codex student of late and dialectal Latin a great storehouse of facts
which seem to have been but little used by philologists. 2 The
obstacles to the use of it for the Old Latin have already been
sufficiently indicated. That it has been extensively corrected
to correspond to the Greek text would be expected, and is
altogether probable. 3 Undoubtedly the Greek text from which
was made the Latin version on which d rests was a Western
text closely akin to the fundamental text which appears in
corrupt form in D. Of the character of the Latin rendering
found in Codex Bezae more will be said below in connexion with
the Old Latin version in general (p. cxi).
Contamina- An extensive influence of capital importance which came in
after the fundamental text of Codex Bezae was formed, but early
western enough to control also the Latin side, was the introduction,
Text.
sometimes by conflation, sometimes by substitution, of readings
not Western, but drawn from the rival type of text. 4 Whether
1 With Codex Laudianus (E) the situation is different, as will be shown
below.
2 The chief study of these is to be found in Harris, Codex Bezae, chaps, iv.,
v., xii., xix., xxvi. Of. K. S. de Vogel, Bulletin Rylands Library, viii., 1924,
pp. 398-403. On nomina sacra in d see Traube, Nomina sacra, pp. 178 f.
3 So Hort, Introduction, p. 82 ; but the arguments and illustrations put
forward by Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis, pp. xxxi-xxxiv, do not
prove this, as is shown by Wilkins, Expositor, 4th series, vol. x., 1894, pp. 390-
392. The proof can be brought by a collection of instances where readings of
d not attested elsewhere in Latin correspond to readings of D that are shown by
other evidence to be genuine Greek variants.
4 Especial attention was called to this phenomenon by the memorable essay
of P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Ada apostolorum, Berlin, 1892 ; see
also Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1901, pp. 9 f. Blass, Acta apostolorum,
editio philologica, 1895, p. 25, admits this contamination ; as does B. Weiss, Der
CODEX BEZAE Ixxxi
these came from the Old Uncial text of B and its associates or
from the Antiochian text has not been fully determined, although
an answer to that question could probably be found. 1 In some
cases the source seems to be the Antiochian text, 2 and this would
be what the general history of textual succession and contamina
tion would lead us to expect. As a striking and representative
example of such conflation reference may be made to Acts xviii.
3-6 (see Textual Note), where the original Western text without
conflation is found in the Syriac hcl.mg and the African Latin h.
A remarkable instance of the contamination is Acts iv. 13-15,
where in D one small addition is almost the only indication that
its fundamental text once possessed widely different readings
which are still in large measure recoverable from the Latin h and
the Peshitto. Sometimes in the process of such conflation a
necessary word was accidentally omitted (so 77 o-wrrjpia in Acts
iv. 12 ; see Textual Note), but the student has no right to assume
this except where other reasons show that such a process of
substitution or insertion has taken place. In some cases the
omission in D of words still found in other witnesses to the
Western text is doubtless due to deliberate conformation to
the rival text. 3
Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte (Texte und Untersuchungen, xvii.), 1897, pp.
15 f., albeit on a small scale. The latter gives some examples ; he assumes that
the source of the mixture was the Old Uncial text.
1 In the Textual Notes below, when such conflations are discussed, the term
B-text has often been used for convenience of brevity without regard to the
distinction pointed out here, and without prejudice to the question of whether
the contamination came from the Old Uncial text or from the Antiochian text
which had been developed from it.
2 See von Soden, pp. 1309-11, 1722 f. For Acts he adduces the Antiochian
readings in x. 46-xi. 2, xi. 3-20, and finds instances here, as in the Gospels, of
the misunderstanding of corrections from the Antiochian text on the part of the
scribe of D or its ancestor. Von Soden (p. 1310) is of opinion that these intru
sions in the Gospels are the work of more than one of the successive owners and
copyists.
8 Von Soden, p. 1723. In such cases as xvii. 17, where a misplacement of
lines occurs only in d, this is probably due to the misplaced substitution of the
non-western text for the original Western. The observation is confirmed
both by the fact that rots (before ev TTJ ayopa) added to the usual text in
D hcl.mg sah seems to imply an original Traparvxavinv instead of -rrpos roi/y
ruxofras and by the form his in company with (twice) hiis in d.
VOL. Ill f
Ixxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
It would be tedious to multiply illustrations of this charac
teristic of Codex Bezae. The facts can be properly weighed only
after a careful study of the instances themselves and of the
outside evidence bearing on them ; many of them are touched
on in the Textual Notes. But the fact plainly advises wariness
to every student of the Western text, and the following list of
passages (but a small part of the whole number) where con
tamination of this sort is probably present in D may be useful,
and is certainly instructive : i. 2, 9 ; ii. 14 ; iii. 8, 11, 13 ; iv. 5,
10, 12, 34 ; v. 26, 27, 28, 29 ; vii. 26, 43, 55 ; xii. 5 ; xiii. 3, 4,
27-29, 44 ; xiv. 5, 15, 18, 19, 21 ; xv. 5, 18 ; xvi. 4, 38, 39 ; xvii.
1 ; xviii. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 19, 21, 22 ; xix. 8, 20, 29 ; xx. 7, 18, 35 ;
xxii. 6. In the study of such cases as these it must be borne in
mind that agreement between the text of D and the Antiochian
may be due to the adoption of Western readings by the Anti
ochian, not to contamination of D from the latter. A decision
will have to be reached in each case partly by considering the
outside evidence for the reading, but partly also from the intrinsic
character of the reading itself. The two texts have each its own
distinctive character, which the student learns in a measure to
recognize. It is likewise to be observed that the agreement of
D and one or more of the Old Uncials may either have arisen
from contamination or be due to participation in the same ancient,
perhaps original, text. No mechanical rule, such as critics have
often attempted to frame, can be applied in these cases.
Use of ix The proper mode of using Codex Bezae is determined by the
characteristics which have been described. Its Greek side is
unique in furnishing a continuous * Western text of Acts. But
that Western text was copied with many scribal errors, has
been conformed to the parallel Latin in details on a large scale,
has probably suffered the excision of clauses not found in the
Latin used to make the bilingual, while in many striking instances,
and doubtless in many others not so easy to recognize, it has been
altered, at some time before the present copy was made, so as to
agree either with the Antiochian text or with the text of B and
CODEX BEZAE Ixxxiii
its associates. All these various sources of corruption must be
constantly borne in mind, and only when their distorting effects
have been recognized in every case can the fundamental Greek
text be discovered of which D is a broken light. In other words,
D, although the oldest Greek text of Acts containing many
Western readings, and the only one possessing anything like
continuity, is, like the other witnesses, but mixed after all. 1
Nevertheless, the antiquated character of some of the spelling, 2
as well as other traits, give confidence that where the well-known
sources of corruption have not been at work, the copying has been
highly faithful, in the sense that the form of the Western text,
so far as it has been preserved at all, has not been modernized. 3
Another aspect of this consideration is the warning that extra
ordinary readings of D ought never to be neglected as insignificant.
Senseless as they seem, they sometimes prove to be not mere
blunders of a thoughtless scribe, but genuine survivals of an
ancient text. For instance, in Acts xiii. 29 the meaningless /JLCV
probably represents /juera of the fundamental Western text, as
discoverable from a comparison of D with the astericized and
marginal readings of the Harclean Syriac ; in Acts iv. 18 Trap-
r)yyi\avTo Kara TO represents the reading TraprjyyeiXav TO
Ka6o\ov found also in A and the Antiochian text. The
text of Codex Bezae is far more than an accumulation of
scribal errors combined with the influence of the Latin
version.
What has been said will have already made abundantly clear
the important distinction, not generally sufficiently noticed,
between the text of D and the Western text. Each of these
constitutes a problem for itself, and these two problems must, so
1 The large number of agreements, often small but nevertheless significant,
of pesh and h, and of pesh and gigas, against D also seem to show that the
text of D has been corrected, and true Western readings eliminated, to a
greater extent than would otherwise be suspected.
2 Cf. what is said on the use of u and f/3 for 07* and <rf3 in J. H. Moulton
and W. F. Howard, Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. ii., 1919, p. 107 ;
Thackeray, Grammar, p. 108 ; and Rudberg (above, p. Ixxi note 1).
3 On the nomina sacra in D see Traube, Nomina sacra, pp. 78 f.
Ixxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
far as possible, be kept separate. 1 The discussion at the present
point of this Essay is intended to relate to the problems of Codex
Bezae ; the questions relating to the Western text (to which
it is only one, although the most important, witness) will find
their place at a later stage of the discussion. 2
Of a different nature from the excellent edition of Codex
Bezae by Scrivener (1864) are a succession of New Testament
texts mainly or largely founded on this MS. : Bornemann, Acta
apostolorum ad Codicis Cantabrigiensis fidem recensuit, 1848 ;
Blass, editio philologica, 1895, and in smaller form with a some
what different text, 1896 ; Hilgenfeld, Acta apostolorum, 1899.
Whiston published an English translation in 1745 ; J. M. Wilson
another in 1923. Zahn s reconstruction of the Greek * Western
text in his Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas (For-
schungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der
altkirchlichen Literatur, ix.), 1916, uses all the available evidence,
and is a work of permanent importance. Nestle s collation of D
in his Novi Testamenti graeci supplementum, 1896, will be valuable
to the student for some purposes, but no presentation of the
variants, however complete, can take the place of the use of
the continuous text of D.
E. CODEX LAUDIANUS 3
History. Codex Laudianus (graeco-latin, containing Acts only) was in
Sardinia at some date after the year 534, as is shown by a note
1 The theories of Blass, von Soden, Harris (Montanistic), and A. C. Clark
pertain to the Western text in general rather than to Codex Bezae in par
ticular, and are accordingly reserved for later mention. On the theory of Credner,
adopted by Alfred Resch, that the text of Codex Bezae was of Jewish-Christian
(Ebionite) origin, it is sufficient to refer to the crushing criticism of J. R. Harris,
Credner and the Codex Bezae, in Four Lectures on the Western Text, pp. 1-13.
2 The term Bezan text, by which it was sought to avoid the fallacy (or at
least the petitio principii) implied in the name Western text, has done more
positive harm than the latter.
3 For a more extended discussion of E see J. H. Ropes, The Greek Text of
Codex Laudianus, Harvard Theological Review, vol. xvi., 1923, pp. 175-186,
from which some paragraphs and sentences are here used without substantial
change. Much additional material is also to be found in von Soden, pp. 1717-
J720, 1811-18H,
CODEX LAUDIANUS Ixxxv
in the volume, and may well have been written in that island in
the late sixth or early seventh century. The opening years of
the eighth century found it in England at Jarrow, for it is the
Greek codex abundantly referred to by the Venerable Bede in
his commentary on Acts. It is likely that it was brought to
England from Italy by Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid not long
after 650 (rather than by Theodore of Tarsus in 668, for the
latter is not recorded to have brought any books). 1 The scribe
of Codex Amiatinus (shortly before 716) seems here and there to
have drawn readings from its Latin side.
At a later date the codex was in Germany, doubtless trans
ported thither by one of the English missionaries, Willibrord or
Boniface, or some one of the latter s disciples. 2 Its home may
have been the monastery of Wiirzburg, and it may have come
to that house, like many other manuscripts, through Burchard,
whom Boniface consecrated bishop of Wiirzburg in 741 or earlier. 3
In 1631, during the Thirty Years War, Wurzburg was sacked
by the Swedish army, and Codex E was somewhere obtained
by the agents employed in Germany by Archbishop Laud to
purchase manuscripts which became available through the dis
orders of the time. Laud gave it to the Bodleian Library in
1636.
The scribe of E was a Greek, who knew his own language
better than Latin, although he wrote both with reasonable
accuracy. The manuscript was copied from a similar bilingual
predecessor. 4
As between the Latin and Greek columns there are some Depend
differences, enough to show that the Latin is not a mere rendering oJceko
1 J. Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, 1908, Latin
pp. 158, 160.
2 The proof that the codex was in Germany before it fell into the hands of
Laud was, it would appear, first observed by E. W. B. Nicholson, Librarian of
the Bodleian Library.
3 C. H. Turner, art. New Testament, Text of, in Murray s Illustrated BibU
Dictionary (ed. W. C. Piercy), 1908, p. 586 ; A. Souter, The Text and Canon of
the New Testament, 1913, p. 29.
* A. Jiilicher, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. xv.,
1914, pp. 182 f.
Ixxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEISTIANITY
of this Greek text ; but they consist in most cases of trifling
variations in a single word, while agreement has been secured
by systematic adjustment of the two columns to one another.
The Latin text shows many instances of Latin solecisms, and
strange expressions, plainly due to imitation of the Greek, and
not drawn from the Latin gigas-recension, which was used as
the foundation of the text. 1 The Greek, on the other hand, has
been modified to make it agree with the Latin. Thus, Acts vi. 7,
the old Latin translation discentium for rwv /jLaOrjrcov has
evidently given rise to the Greek TWV pavOavovTwv, which is
quite as impossible Greek as the learners for the disciples
would be in an English translation ; so also, xii. 14, the Latin
januam for rov TrvXcova, evidently the cause of the unique Greek
reading rqv 6vpav ; xxiv. 25, /caipay Be eirir^io) for Kaipov Be
/j,Ta\a/3cov, and other cases.
In a considerable series of instances where even the partly
expurgated Latin version used for this codex had retained
* Western enlargements, it was necessary to translate these
into Greek in order to equalize the two columns, and that this
took place is made certain by the difference in the Greek form
from the corresponding Western reading in D. Thus, to cite
a few of the instances :
e E D
iii. 13.
iv. 32.
in judicium
etnoneratsepa-
/cat OVK t]v xupifffnos ev KOLL OVK t]v ta/cpi<ns ev
ratio in eis ulla
aurois rts avTots ou5e/xta
v. 15.
et liberarentur
Kai pvffQuaiv OTTO Traces a-mjXXacro-ovTO
yap airo
ab omni vali-
aax^ftas 175 eixov Traar/s acrdevias
us etX ei/
tudine quam
CKa&TOS aVTUV
habebant
vi. 10.
propter quod
dtori rjXeyxovTO VTT avrov Sta TO e\ey%t
adai av-
redarguerentur
fj.Ta Tra<rr]s irapp rjffia.s TOUJ CTT ayroi* ^tera Traces
ab eo cum omni
eiridi>) OVK rjSvvavTO avTi- ira.pp-qai.as U.TI
5vvafJ.evoi
fiducia : cum
\ryiv TT) a\i]6eia oi/O^ avTofida
\/j.eiv TTJ
ergo non pos-
a\-r)6ei.a
sent contra-
dicere veritati
1 Tischendorf, Monumenta sacra inedita, Nova collectio, vol. ix. pp. xvi f. ;
Julicher, op. cit. pp. 183-185.
CODEX LAUDIANUS
Ixxxvii
E
eyevero Be Kara -rraaav
iro\iv ^r/fj.Lffd rjvai. TOV
\oyov
D
eyevcro Se Kad 0X775 TTJS
TToXews 8ie\0eiv TOV \oyov
TOV dv
TTl TTJ l-
5a%77 avTWv. o Se TrauXos
/cat /3api>a/3as dieTpi/Bov ev
/cat KLvr]di] o\ov
TT\r)9oS TTL Tt]
o 5e iravXos /cat
ep \vffTpois
xiii. 43. factum est
autem per uni-
versam civi-
tatem diffa-
mari verbum
xiv. 7. et commota
est omnis multi
tude in doctrina
eorum. paulum
autem et barna-
bas moraban-
tur in lystris
In many of the simple phrases and words the appropriate
Greek rendering was inevitable, and could not fail to agree with
the original, as found in D or elsewhere, but in the more compli
cated instances (a few of which are given above) the well-educated
Greek to whom we owe the retranslation was forced to go his
own way, and produced a different text from the parallel in the
Greek authorities, with which he would seem not to have been
acquainted. In some few cases the readings of E may possibly
be due to sporadic Western readings in the Greek codex from
which it is derived, but the observed facts cause the presumption
in any single case to be against such an origin. The text itself
bears hardly any, if any, resemblance to D, except in readings
which are probably the result of retranslation from the Latin.
It is not to be regarded as in any sense a witness to a Greek
Western text, although of course its Latin column (e) rests
in part on such a text. The Greek text properly so called from
which E (or, rather, its ancestor x ) was taken was one of the Old
Uncial type which had been extensively corrected to the Antioch-
ian type. To judge by an incomplete examination, perhaps in
somewhat more than two-thirds of the cases where an Antiochian
variant might have been introduced, the corrector who effected
that ancient mixture has actually introduced it. Codex Laudianus,
apart from Latinisms, thus gives substantially an Antiochian
text of Acts, and is the oldest extant codex of any degree of com
pleteness which does so. Its Western readings on the Greek
1 Jiilicher, Zeitschr.f. d. neutest. Wissenschaft, vol. xv., 1914, pp. 182 f.
Ixxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
side can teach us nothing, and may rightly, as mere curiosities,
disappear from the apparatus to Acts. The Greek of Codex
Laudianus is therefore not included in any apparatus of the
present volume, although its readings are sometimes adduced,
for the sake of completeness, in the Textual Notes. 1
3. THE TEXT OF CODICES BtfAC IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT
Bearing of From the beginning the Greek-speaking Christian Church
New read the Old Testament in Greek translations, and from these
Testament were ma j e the early versions of the Old Testament into Latin,
textual
criticism, the Egyptian vernacular dialects, and Ethiopic. The text of the
Greek Old Testament was consequently subjected to some of the
same influences, and underwent in part the same history, as the
text of the New Testament. The four oldest extant New Testa
ment manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and
Ephraemi) are pandects which originally contained the whole
Bible in Greek ; and other manuscripts contain, in whole or in
part, both the Old and New Testaments. Especially the Psalter
was in ancient times, as to-day, included in the same volume with
the New Testament. Not only do the results of textual criticism
of the Greek Old Testament reveal a parallel to the process of
New Testament textual development, but they throw light on
the specific character and value of the New Testament part of
the four great Bibles. The use of these results, however, calls
for discriminating judgment : for the history of the Septuagint
contains elements wholly lacking in that of the New Testament ;
the character of any great Bible is likely to vary in different
parts ; and it would be easy to draw utterly wrong conclusions
by making direct inferences, not independently supported, from
one field to the adjacent one. Nevertheless, both the guidance
1 For substantially the same conclusion with regard to Codex E see
H. Coppieters, De historia textus Actorum Apostolorum, Louvain, 1902, pp. 68-71;
F. C. Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 4996 ; F. Blass, Acta apostolorum,
1895, pp. 28 f.
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Ixxxix
and the confirmation furnished by Septuagint criticism are to be
highly prized. With these considerations in view it has seemed
worth while at this point to interrupt the account of the sources
for the text of Acts with a summary of the main results thus far
reached in the investigation of the four great Bibles which origin
ally contained both the Old and New Testaments in Greek.
Of the Septuagint the two great editions by which a wide Hexapia
influence was exerted were the fifth column of Origen s Hexapia
(completed A.D. 240-245) and the edition of Lucian of Antioch
(died at Nicomedia in 311 or 312). In Origen s edition stood a
text drawn by him from some previous copy, which he approved
but modified in three ways : (1) by slight tacit improvements,
and by occasional rearrangements (in detail or on a larger scale)
for the sake of agreement with the other columns ; (2) by pre
fixing obeli, and appending metobeli, to Greek words to which
nothing in the original Hebrew corresponded ; (3) by the inter
jection of Greek words, phrases, and passages, not found in the
LXX-text on which in the main he drew, but required in order
to supply the plus of the Hebrew. These intruded words and
portions were marked by asterisks and metobeli, and were them
selves usually drawn from the version (made from the Hebrew)
of Theodotion or of Aquila. 1 From the huge series of codices
which were part of Origen s legacy to the library at Caesarea,
his fifth column was copied, with the critical marks, in the early
fourth century, under the supervision, partly perhaps by the
hand, of Pamphilus (f 309) and his venerator Eusebius the
church historian, and was doubtless used in various ways in the
formation and correction of other copies, so that it produced a
definite edition, large knowledge of which is still recoverable in
greater or less accuracy and completeness from many manuscripts.
The edition of Lucian of Antioch had in part the same
purpose as that of Origen, to bring the current Greek translation
1 H. B. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, 2nd ed., Cambridge,
1914, pp. 59-78.
xc THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
of the Old Testament into closer harmony with the Hebrew
original ; in part his aim was to produce a more polished, and
otherwise improved, translation. But Origen mainly limited
himself to creating an instrument for the use of scholars ; while
Lucian s edition was merely a new text, not provided with
critical apparatus. A fair number of extant MSS. can be identified
as giving, often in corrupt form, this edition. The shadowy
Hesychius. figure of Hesychius, whose text, we are told by Jerome, was used
in the fourth century in Egypt, must also be mentioned here, but
it constitutes a problem of critical inquiry, not a starting-point
of further investigation. He has been thought to be a contem
porary of Lucian, but all that is known of his work is that it
can have affected but little the previously existing text. 1
The first task of Septuagint textual criticism is thus to deter
mine as perfectly as possible from MSS., versions, and patristic evi
dence the exact form of the hexaplaric and of the Lucianic
texts, and then to inquire how far either or both of these two
great sources of influence have affected the several copies of the
Septuagint which we possess. In the MSS. which include several
groups of Old Testament books, the inquiry has to be made for
each group separately, and sometimes different books of the same
group are found to vary in their type of text within a single
manuscript. Recent critical investigations cover a part of the
Old Testament. The most elaborate and instructive so far
published are those by Alfred Rahlfs and the scholars who, under
his incentive and supervision, and following the traditions of
Lagarde, have issued preliminary studies for the edition of the
Septuagint planned by the Gottingen Academy. But other
scholars in their measure have made important contributions. 2
Codex For a series of books it has been shown that Codex Vaticanus
Vaticanus.
1 A. Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta- Psalters, 1907, pp. 226 f.
2 See F. C. Burkitt, Fragments of the Books of Kings according to the
Translation of Aquila, 1897, pp. 18-20 ; L. Dieu, Les Manuscrits grecs des livres
de Samuel, Le Museon, xxxiv., 1921, pp. 17-60. Other studies are mentioned
in the notes below.
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT xci
gives a text nearly akin to that which Origen found in exist
ence and adopted as the basis of the fifth column of the
Hexapla, 1 and that B itself has been influenced by the Hexapla
in but small degree, in some books perhaps not at all. This is
the case in Joshua, Ruth, 1-4 Kingdoms, Psalms, Ezekiel, and
apparently Esther. 2 In probably all of these books B (with, or
more often without, support from its closest adherents) shows
some peculiar readings, which are usually to be rejected. 3 Of
the influence of the Lucianic recension B shows no trace in these
books.
In these instances, with which could doubtless be associated
other books of which no thorough investigations have yet been
produced, B represents a very old LXX-text, which can some
times be distinguished from other extant strains of pre-origenian
text. It contains, however, errors, as compared with these, and
1 The idea apparently intended by Lagarde, Anmerlcungen zur griechischen
Ubersetzung der Proverbien, 1863, p. 3, that Codex B was drawn from an edition
of the fifth column of the Hexapla with the astericized portions omitted (a view
followed by Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 5022, cf. Torrey, Ezra Studies,
pp. 96 f.) has been abandoned by Rahlfs in the books treated in his monographs
in favour of the conclusion stated in the text. Rahlfs scrupulously formed
judgment may be received with the more confidence in that his work has all
been conceived and executed in pursuance of the plans marked out by the master,
to whose memory the first instalment of Rahlfs Septuagint Studies is dedicated.
For Ezekiel the view suggested by Lagarde was strongly maintained by C. H.
Cornill, Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel, 1886, pp. 80 f., 94 f., but after criticism
by Lagarde himself (Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1886 ; reprinted in Mit-
theilungen, ii. pp. 49 ff.) and by Hort (The Academy, December 24, 1887) it was
withdrawn by Cornill (Nachrichten, Gottingen Academy, vol. xxx., 1888, pp.
194 ff.).
2 For Joshua I owe this information to Professor Max L. Margolis. For Ruth
see Rahlfs, Studie iiber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth (Mittheilungen
des Septuaginta-Unternehmens, vol. in., Heft 2), 1922, pp. 60, 119; for 1-4
Kingdoms, Rahlfs, Studien zu den Konigsbuchern (Septuaginta-Studien i.),
pp. 85-87 ; for the Psalter, Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuagintu-Psalters, p. 228 ;
for Ezekiel, 0. Procksch (cited below) ; for Esther, L. B. Paton, Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Esther (International Critical
Commentary), 1908, p. 31.
8 So, for instance, Ruth, Rahlfs, Studie uber den griechischen Text des
Buches Ruth, pp. 120 f . ; Kingdoms, Rahlfs, Studien zu den Konigsbuchern,
1904, pp. 83 f. ; in Kingdoms the Ethiopic text sometimes gives the means of
restoring the true reading of the type, when B has departed from it (Rahlfs,
p. 84).
xcii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
may be the result of a recension. Rahlfs is disposed to regard
the text of B and its congeners as due to the recension of Hesy-
chius. This may be a sagacious conjecture, but seems to furnish
no aid to the actual investigation, and there is danger of pro
ceeding as if the conjecture were a ground for inferring the date
and Egyptian origin of the text, instead of being itself an infer
ence from the conclusions reached by study of the text itself.
Nothing points to influence from any locality outside of Egypt.
The great significance of B lies in the general soberness of its
text (except in the proper names) and its relative freedom from
deliberate revision.
Daniel. The text of Daniel in B, as in all Septuagint manuscripts
with the exception of the hexaplaric Codex Chisianus, gives the
version of Theodotion, and is the best extant copy of that text,
with valuable support from the Old Latin and Sahidic, which
occasionally provide means for the correction of the text found
in B. B shows in Daniel but few mistakes or interpolations, but
displays some tendency to abbreviation. 1
Psalms. In the Psalms the situation is in some respects peculiar, and
is full of interest for the New Testament critic. The relation,
indeed, of the Psalter to the New Testament is unique among
Old Testament books, for the liturgical use of the Psalms by
Christians, and perhaps also the occasional practice of combining
the Psalms with a part or the whole of the New Testament, has
led to an agreement in the textual history of the two not found
elsewhere. 2 More than one striking illustration of this can be
pointed out. 3 Thus the Antiochian (Lucianic) recension of the
Psalms, like the corresponding Antiochian recension of the New
Testament, became the prevalent form in the Greek-speaking
1 This statement about Daniel I owe to Professor James A. Montgomery.
2 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, p. 237.
3 Somewhat similar is the preservation of Coverdale s English Psalter in the
later editions of the Great Bible and in the Prayer Book ; also the fact that the
Latin text used for the Psalter of the French translation of the thirteenth century
was a compilation, not the University of Paris text from which all tho rest of the
translation was made (S. Berger, La Bible franpaise au moyen dge, 1884,
p. 155).
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT xciii
world, while in the rest of the Old Testament the prevalent later
Greek text was of a different type. 1 Again, in the Psalter the
Syrian translator Paul of Telia deliberately deserts the hexa-
plaric Greek which he elsewhere translates, and follows an
entirely different type of text, 2 while similarly Codex Alex-
andrinus, which in most of the other important books is strongly,
and sometimes almost completely, under hexaplaric influence,
is not reported as showing any trace of this in the Psalms, but
seems to be wholly a combination of pre-origenian and Lucianic
elements. It is no accident that both in the Psalms and in the
New Testament Codex Alexandrinus is one of the two oldest
extant witnesses to the revised Antiochian text, although in
both cases in a mixed form.
To return to the matter under discussion, the various extant
documents for the Psalter not only exhibit the Lucianic revision,
the Hexaplaric text, and the pre-hexaplaric text found in B,
the Etbiopic, the Bohairic, and the non-hexaplaric citations
of Origen, but also reveal the existence of two other divergent
pre-origenian types of text. One of these is found in the Leipzig
papyrus L (Universitatsbibliothek, pap. 39) from the southern
border of Middle Egypt, in the London papyrus U (Brit. Mus.
pap. 37) from Thebes, and in the Sahidic version. 3 It receives
some support from Clement of Alexandria, as well as from
Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Justin, and Irenaeus. It is not a
text of great correctness, but shows a tendency to unrestrained
variation, to careless errors due to resemblance of sound and
form, to influence from neighbouring and parallel passages, and
to licence in making additions, in part prompted by Christian
motives (e.g. Ps. 1. 9 airo rou aiparos rov v\ov added after
Ps. xcv. 10 airo rov %u\ov added after o
1 On the reasons why the Lucianic Old Testament failed to gain the same
acceptance as the corresponding Antiochian text of the New Testament, see
B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924, pp. 42 f.
2 Rahlfs, op. cit. pp. 122-124.
8 Rahlfs, op. cit., passim, esp. pp. 5, 141-164, 209, 211 f., 219-225.
xciv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The other noteworthy divergent text of the Greek Psalms is
that underlying the Old Latin. 1 Many manuscripts of one or
another form of this are known, including those of the so-called
Roman Psalter of Jerome, and it was used by certain Latin
church fathers. This Latin translation in a modified form has
continued in liturgical use until modern times in Rome (until
nearly 1600), Milan, Venice (to 1808), and Spain. It bears some
slight relation to the text just mentioned from Upper Egypt
(L U Sahidic), and like that text is to be distinguished from the
text of B (with Bohairic and Ethiopic), but it is more restrained
in character than the Upper Egyptian, and sometimes stands
quite alone in offering the original Septuagint reading.
The parallel in some respects to the Western Text of the
New Testament offered by these two types is at once apparent,
and does not need to be set forth in detail. The two types of
the Psalter are alike ancient and both diverge from the text
commonly used in the third and later centuries in Lower Egypt
(B) ; one of them was the text from which the early Latin version
was made, while the other appears in Upper Egypt, and was an
ingredient of the text used by Clement of Alexandria. In the
nature of the case, the completeness of the parallel to the New
Testament is limited by the fact that the old Syriac fathers used
in their Peshitto a version of the Psalms translated directly
from the Hebrew, not drawn from the Greek rendering. 2
The text of the Psalms in B (with which the Bohairic is almost,
though not quite, identical, and to which the Ethiopic is only a
little less similar) is clearly pre-origenian, being not at all
affected by the Hexapla ; and probably it is substantially the
1 Rahlfs, op. cit. esp. pp. 25-31, 61-101, 225 f. ; Capelle, Le Texte du psautier
latin en Afrique, pp. 195-211.
2 A similar parallel to the * Western Text of the New Testament, at least
in the branch of that text found in the Old Latin version, seems to be indicated
by the fact that the Greek text of the Books of Kingdoms on which rest the
Latin translations given by Tertullian and by Cyprian (whom Lactantius
followed) is unlike any type of Greek text known to us, and in at least one case
a Greek reading is implied of which we have otherwise no knowledge whatever ;
cf. Rahlfs, Lucians Eezension der Konig$]bucher, 1911, pp. 138-143.
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT xcv
text used by Origen as the basis of his fifth column. 1 In the
text of B here (as in all other books) are included a number of
peculiar readings, which may well be due to later revision and
consequently be wrong. 2 In a few instances we find the distinct
ive reading of the Upper Egyptian (L U Sah) text. 3 It does
not appear that B has anywhere been influenced by the Lucianic
text.
In certain other books of the Old Testament the relation of i Esdras,
texts seems to be quite different. In 1 Esdras, and Chronicles- Ezra
Ezra-Nehemiah, Torrey has shown that B, whose text in these Nehemiah -
books he finds to be very corrupt, is similar to Origen s fifth
column, but without the astericized portions and with badly
damaged forms of the proper names. But the evidence which
he presents does not seem to justify his conclusion that B is
derived from the Hexapla column, and the facts, so far as given,
especially the considerable divergence of B from the Syro-
hexaplaric text, suggest rather that here, as in the books referred
to in preceding paragraphs, B s text is pre-origenian, and closely
similar to that which Origen took as the basis of his LXX-
column. The fact that the Hebrew-Aramaic counterpart of
1 Esdras seems to have perished before the later Greek ver
sions were made, and that the Greek version of Chronicles-
Ezra-Nehemiah appears to be Theodotion, 4 necessarily restricts
the field from which evidence on this point can be drawn.
1 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, p. 228. The determination of
the exact character of Origen s text in the Psalter is made difficult through the
defection of the Syriac translation of Paul of Telia, which here did not follow
the Hexapla but took a wholly different text. This procedure is itself instruct
ive. The Greek hexaplaric fragments are important but meagre. Rahlfs, op.
cit.pp. 122-124, 109-111.
2 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, pp. 228 f., regards these as
probably the work of Hesychius. Rahlfs conclusion that the text of B gives
the Hesychian recension is drawn from the agreement of B with Cyril of Alex
andria and the Bohairic version (op. cit. pp. 183 f., 197, 226-229, 235 f.). See
also Rahlfs, Studie uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, p. 148.
3 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, p. 163.
4 Charles C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910, pp. 66-82 ; cf. Thackeray,
Grammar, vol. i. pp. xx, 13 ; F. C. Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 5019 ;
but see also Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, p. 85, note 2.
xcvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The monstrous corruption of the proper names may have taken
place at any period, and need not have been limited to the
years between Origen and Athanasius ; while the supposition that
a copy of Origen s column was ever made with the astericized
portions (not merely the asterisks themselves) accurately excised,
lacks support, so far as appears, from any extant manuscript
or text, and is improbable in view of the practice that we
do know. 1 Important observations of Torrey are that B
and the others of its group were copied from their archetype
with extraordinary fidelity, as is shown by the numerous
" glaring blunders " which they have preserved in common ;
that deliberate revision is rarely to be detected in their text ;
and that B itself is frequently disfigured by omissions due to
carelessness. Torrey connects the text of B with Egypt.
Judges. In the Book of Judges, B gives not the Septuagint proper but
a different translation, found in a number of other MSS. and made
with the aid of an Egyptian form of the LXX-text. This version
was used by Cyril of Alexandria (f 444), and is that rendered by
the Sahidic version but by no other. 2
1 Torrey, op. tit. chap. iv. pp. 62-114 (first published in Studies in Memory
of William Rainey Harper, vol. ii., Chicago, 1908). Torrey s conclusions as to
the hexaplaric character of B were probably affected by his understanding that
the subscription to Nehemiah in ft is from the original scribe of the MS. On
this point we must take the judgement of the only two scholars who have studied
the original codex itself, Tischendorf and Lake, both of whom hold the sub
scription to be the work of one of the correctors known as K c . It is to be noted
that one of these correctors, ft c - b (from whom this subscription may come),
perhaps followed in general in his corrections a hexaplar text ; cf. 0. Procksch,
Studien zur Oeschichte der Septuaginta : Die Propheten, 1910, p. 85 ; also G.
Bardy, Notes sur les recensions hesychienne et hexaplaire du livre de Nehemie
(II. Esdras), in Revue Biblique, vol. v., 1918, pp. 192-199. But the practical
difference between Torrey s view of the relation of B to the Hexapla and that
suggested above is in most respects not so great as might at first appear.
2 G. F. Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, 1895, pp. xliv-
xlvi, and The Anticchian Recension of the Septuagint, in American Journal
of Semitic Languages, vol. xxix., 1912, pp. 41 f. The discovery of a sixth-
century papyrus of Cyril shows that his Old Testament text was even closer to
B than could be known from the altered form of the later MSS. of Cyril s works,
in which the Old Testament text quoted resembles rather that of codices F
(fifth cent.) and A ; see D. Serruys, Un " codex " sur papyrus de Saint Cyrille
d Alexandrie, in Revue de Philologie, vol. xxxiv., 1910, pp. 110-117.
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT xcvii
Of the prophetic books apart from Ezekiel (of which mention Prophets,
has already been made) it is to be said that in Isaiah, Jeremiah,
and the Twelve, the text of B is more affected by hexaplaric
influence, although not a direct copy of the fifth column of the
Hexapla, and is less valuable. 1 Nevertheless the basis of B
seems to have been, as in so many books, the same text as that
chosen by Origen for his textual work. 2 The tendency of B is
not so much to expand the Greek text by large additions of a
translation of the plus of the Hebrew, as to improve it in detail
by the aid of the Hexapla, and especially to omit words and phrases
not found in the Hebrew and therefore usually marked by Origen
with the obelus. The text of B shows many peculiar readings,
not shared by other uncials, and these are usually wrong wher
ever a decision is possible ; 3 on the other hand, B is at least
nearly free from any influence of Lucian. 4 In the Minor Prophets
B (with K) is not the text followed by Cyril, so far as our manu
scripts of Cyril can be depended on. 5 Daniel has already been
mentioned above.
In Job, B follows the Hexapla, with its supplementary addi- job.
tions from Theodotion, as against the abridged text of the Septua-
gint, which can be reconstructed with the aid of the Sahidic
version and those hexaplaric manuscripts which have retained
Origen s diacritical marks. 6
1 0. Procksch, Studien zur Geschichte der Septuaginta : Die Propheten
(Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament, edited by R. Kittel, 7), 1910.
For the character of BKA in the prophetic books other than Ezekiel, I am
mainly dependent on the monograph of Procksch, with reference to which see
the review by Rahlfs, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, vol. CLXXII., 1910, pp. 694-
705. Compare the remarks of F. C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius
(Texts and Studies, iii.), 1894, p. cxvii, who finds that in most cases B is free
from the hexaplaric insertions, but occasionally contains them, especially in
Isaiah. See also P. Volz, Studien zum Text des Jeremia, Leipzig, 1920, p. xiv.
2 Procksch, pp. 68, 112 ff.
3 Procksch, pp. 52-54, 113.
4 Procksch, p. 85.
5 Procksch, pp. 100 f . ; but cf . the article of Serruys mentioned in a previous
note.
6 A. Ceriani, Rendiconti, Reale Istituto Lombardo, Series II., vol. xxi., 1888,
p. 543 ; Edwin Hatch, Essays on Biblical Greek, 1889 ; Dillmann, Textkritisches
zum Buch I job (Sitzungsberichte, Berlin Academy), 1890 ; Burkitt, Encyclo-
VOL. Ill g
xcviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
In Ecclesiastes, B is like all the other MSS. in having a text
which shows many of the characteristic traits of Aquila s version ;
B s text is better than that of any other uncial, but is inferior
to the closely kindred Codex 68 (fifteenth century ; copy probably
made for Bessarion), which " has the excellencies of B without
some of its defects." In Lamentations the text of B is non-
hexaplaric ; it shows peculiarities not found elsewhere and
perhaps ultimately due to Aquila. 1
In the books of the Old Testament to which no Hebrew corre
sponds, the texts of the different Greek manuscripts sometimes
show strong divergences. In the absence of probability that
these books (except 1 Esdras and Baruch) were included in
Origen s Hexapla, one of the chief instruments of criticism else
where used is lacking. Also the question of the Lucianic text
does not seem to have been worked out here. In Wisdom the
text of B is often inferior to that of A ; in Ecclesiasticus it differs
widely from most others, and is inferior ; in Tobit, although the
form of the book given in K may be nearer to the Semitic
original, yet it is held that the text of B (with A and the Syriac
of Paul of Telia) is probably a more correct form of the Alex
andrian version. 2
Of Codex Sinaiticus in the Old Testament only great frag
ments remain. The Octateuch (except for a few scraps), the
books of Kingdoms, 1 Esdras, 2 Chronicles, Ezekiel, Hosea,
Amos, Micah, are all lacking, not to mention minor defects. Of
what remains, the text is in large measure akin to that of B, but
paedia Biblica, 1903, cols. 5027 f. (Burkitt, Ency. Bibl, cols. 5022, 5027 f.,
withdraws the view stated in his The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896, p. 8, that
the original state of the Greek translation survives in the Sahidic.)
1 On Ecclesiastes see A. H. McNeile, An Introduction to Ecclesiastes, Cam
bridge, 1904, pp. 135-168; on Lamentations, F. C. Burkitt, Encyclopaedia
Biblica, cols. 5018, 5022.
2 J. R. Harris, The Double Text of Tobit, in American Journal of Theology,
vol. in., 1899, pp. 541-554. That the text of B in Tobit is certainly an abridg
ment, is maintained by C. C. Torrey, Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. XLI.,
1922, pp. 237 f., 239, 241 f.
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT xcix
nowhere without marked differences from that manuscript. In
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, X belongs to the same group with
B, and gives a better text than that or than other of the
witnesses to the group. 1 In Esther, K is much like B, but shows
some hexaplaric influence. 2 In the Psalter also its text is much
like that of B (but less so than is the Bohairic version) ; it often
shows hexaplaric influence, and has in some cases readings drawn
from the Lucianic revision. 3 In the Prophets (Ezekiel is lacking)
it forms part of a group with B, and shows as its base a pre-
origenian text, similar to that used by Origen for the construc
tion of his fifth column; 4 in common with B it has been spor
adically subjected to hexaplaric influence, but reveals on the
whole less of this than B and is in general better than B, 5 although
it shows Lucianic influence, as B hardly does. 6 Of the revision,
whatever it be, that has given B in a series of readings in the
Prophets an isolated position X of course shows no sign ; 7 and
it stands alone among the uncials far less often than does B,
although it contains many orthographic errors. 8
In Tobit, K (with the Old Latin) gives a different recension
from B.
The extensive corrections of K known as K c>a and K c-b and Correctors.
K c , made in the fifth, sixth, or seventh century, are important.
For the individual discrimination of them, scholars are mainly
dependent on Tischendorf s minute study of the codex, supple
mented by Lake s observations. First, as to K c-a . This corrector
in Nehemiah has introduced the plus of the Hebrew, and made
extensive insertions from the Lucianic text (of the doublets), as
well as other corrections. 9 In the Psalter he has systematically
tried to make the text conform to the Lucianic standard, although
1 Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 91 f.
2 L. B. Paton, Commentary on Esther, p. 32.
8 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, pp. 54, 134 note, 137 note, 217,
235.
4 Procksch, Studien zur Geschichte der Septuaginta : Die Propheten, pp.
49 ff., 68.
5 Procksch, pp. 51, 59. 6 Procksch, p. 85.
7 Procksch, pp. 46, 54 (cf. pp. 52-54).
8 Procksch, p. 49. 9 Torrey, pp. 96, 97, notes.
c THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
he overlooked some readings. 1 In the Prophets also his standard
is close to Lucian, 2 as appears to be the case in Job to a large
extent, 3 but in Esther it is hexaplaric. 4 A (probably) different
corrector of the same period 5 has added notes at the close of
Nehemiah and of Esther stating in each case that it (that is,
apparently, Codex K) has been compared with " a very old
copy " which had been corrected by the hand of Pamphilus the
Martyr. 6 The note to Esther states that the copy used as a
standard for correction began with 1 Kingds. and ended with
Esther. The natural understanding of this is that the corrector
himself made the comparison ; although conceivably he might
have copied the note from an exemplar which he used for
correcting x and which had itself been compared with the
codex of Pamphilus. With regard to K c b in the Prophets,
the standard by which he worked may be hexaplaric. 7
1 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-P sailers, p. 57. 2 Procksch, p. 84.
3 L. Dieu, as cited below, pp. 272 f. 4 Paton, op. cit. p. 35.
5 It appears to be impossible to determine which of the correctors known
collectively as X c wrote these notes ; but in any case they are probably not
from X c - a ; see Lake, Codex Sinaiticus, New Testament, pp. vii f., Old Testa
ment, pp. x f. Tischendorf, Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, vol. i.,
1862, p. 13*, seems to ascribe them to either K c - a or K c - b ; cf. N.T. graece ex
Sinaitico codice, 1867, pp. Ixii f.
6 Note at the end of Nehemiah :
ai>Tej3\r}0 r) Trpos iraXai&rarov Xi av dvriypatpov 8e8iOpd<i)fj,&ov %etpi rov aylov
/A&prvpos Ha/J.<pi\ov, oirep avriypatyov Trpos r<$ r^Xei inroffrj/jLeitatrLs rts t5t6%etpos
atirou VTT^Keiro ^x ovffa ovrws
/j.T\r)/j.(f)d r) teal diopduffij Trpos ra Ea,TrXa
Note at the end of Esther :
OLvre^iK fiOfi Trpos TraAcuiiraroj \iav avriypatyov dediopdufAevov Xpt rov ayiov
pdprvpos Tlafj.<j)l\ov ?rp6s 5^ ry rAei rou aurou TraXaiwrdrou /3t/3Xt ou, oVep dpxw
fjikv elxev OLtrb T?)S Trpc6rr;s r&v BacriXeicDi cts 5 rT\v T&crdijp ^yyev, Toicujrrj rts
tv TrXdret t Stoxetpos UTrocrTj/ieiaxriS rov avrov /adpriipos VTrttceiro $xov<ra
fj.Te\ri/ji(j>dT) Kal Siopd&dT) Trp6s TO. E^aTrXa Opi^^vous UTT avrov
6^10X0777x775 avrt (3a\v . IId/i0iXos dtopducraro reuxos v ry <pv\aKri.
rov deov -rroXXrjv Kal xdpu> Kal Tr\arvff^bv Kal ctye ^7) jSapi) diretv
avTLypa,<pq> TrapaTrXTjcrlov evpeiv avrLypa<pov ov pdoLOv.
8e rb avrb TraXaiwraro* fiifBXtov Trpos r65e rb TeO%os ei s ra Kvpca ovb/J-ara.
7 Procksch, p. 85. But is the remark of Procksch more than an inference
from the subscriptions to Nehemiah and Esther ?
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ci
Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament, with Codex
but a few leaves lacking. Its text, as in the New Testament,
is not homogeneous, and shows remarkable phenomena of
mixture from widely divergent sources. In Joshua it combines
hexaplaric elements with others from " the common text and a
residue of readings which seem to rest upon the Palestinian Koine
which served as a basis for Theodotion." l In Judges it gives
the older Greek translation, in a form similar to that which
Origen adopted for his fifth column. 2 In Ruth the basis of its
text is pre-origenian, but corrected unsystematically from the
Hexapla and influenced by other texts. 3 Esther is similar. 4 In
1-4 Kingdoms A is purely hexaplaric. 5 In 1 Esdras and
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah (Theodotion) the text of A is pre-
origenian, and here, although somewhat corrupted in trans
mission and (in the latter group) with the transliterations of
Theodotion occasionally altered to translations, it gives a text
distinctly better than that of any one of its own group of accom
panying minuscules, as well as much better than that shown in
B and others and adopted by Origen for his Hexapla. In these
books it represents a text, probably Alexandrian, different from
that used as the basis of the Lucianic recension. 6 In Job the
text of A, which has not hitherto been found attested in any
minuscule, 7 is probably Lucianic. 8
1 This statement I owe to Professor Max L. Margolia.
2 G. F. Moore, Commentary on Judges, p. xliv ; Rahlfs, Studie uber den
griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, p. 122.
3 Rahlfs, op. cit. pp. 122 f. * Paton, op. cit. p. 32.
* Rahlfs, Studie uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, p. 122 ; Lucians
Rezension der Konigsbucher, p. 6 ; Studien zu den Konigsbuchern ( Origenes
Zitate aus den Konigsbuchern ), p. 48 ; S. Silberstein, Uber den Ursprung der
im Codex Alexandrinus und Vaticanus des dritten Konigsbuches der alexandri-
nischen (Jberset/ung uberlieferten Textgestalt, in Zeitschrift fur alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, vol. xm., 1893, pp. 1-75 ; xiv., 1894, pp. 1-30.
8 Torrey, pp. 79, 92-96, 101.
7 A Jerusalem palimpsest fragment, published by E. Tisserant, Revue
Biblique, vol. ix., 1912, pp. 481-503, has a similar text to that of A, but less
fully Lucianic ; the corrections of N c - a in Job largely follow the same text
as A.
8 L. Dieu, Le Texte de Job du Codex Alexandrinus, Le Museon, vol. xm.,
1912, pp. 223-274.
cii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Psalter. In the Psalter the case is quite another. The text of A
proves to be a clean mixture of the B-type with Lucian, in
about equal proportions, but irregularly distributed. No hexa-
plaric influence or kinship appears to be present (on this striking
circumstance see above, p. xciii). A is here the earliest
extant Greek witness to the Antiochian revision. 1
Prophets. In the Prophets, Ezekiel stands somewhat by itself. Here
the base of the text of A is pre - origenian, of a type different
from that of B, but has been very strongly influenced by the
Hexapla, more so than B. 2 In this book the Old Latin, Bohairic,
Ethiopic (older form), and Arabic (older form as found in the
Paris Polyglot) follow A closely, and especially the Bohairic
sometimes provides the means of recovering the text of this
type where A (which contains not a few wrong singular readings)
is in error. 3 In Jeremiah, likewise, A often shows a different type
of pre-origenian text from that of B (and x), but here, too, it
has often suffered through correction from the Hexapla, although
less severely than in Ezekiel. 4 In Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets
we find a similar condition, but in these books it is B and K
which have been most corrected, and the text of A is less hexa-
plarized than is theirs ; 5 the text of A is not the basis used by
Lucian, who employed rather a text akin to Btt. 6 On the other
hand, the text of A seems itself to have been somewhat
affected here by Lucian s recension. 7
Daniel. In Daniel, A is said to give a revision of the hexaplaric text,
made with the use of the pre-origenian text, but is an inferior
representative of this revision, being itself full of gross errors.
It is suggested that the revision was that issued by Eusebius, and
1 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, pp. 54, 56 f., 235, 236 ; Studie
uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, p. 122.
2 Procksch, pp. 46 f., 48, 57 ; C. H. Comill, Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel,
pp. 67, 71, 73, 76.
3 Cornill, pp. 32-35, 36, 42, 55, 67 ; Procksch, p. 59.
4 Procksch, pp. 56 f .
5 Ibid. ; Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius, 1894, p. ex note 1, says that
B has " a worse text in Isaiah than in the rest of the Prophets."
6 Procksch, p. 79.
7 Ibid. p. 86.
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ciii
that it constituted a kind of received text of Constantinople.
It appears to be the basis of the Bohairic and of the Arabic
(Melchite) version. 1
Of the other books it is possible to say that in Wisdom Wisdom;
A is sometimes better than B, 2 and that in 1 Maccabees it is JjJ,* 00 *"
generally not so good as K. 3
The relation of the LXX-text of A to the New Testament Relation to
has not been fully elucidated. The New Testament quotations ^n t T6
from the Old Testament tend to agree with the text of A, especi
ally in the Gospels, where, however, the question is complicated
by the possibility of fresh translation from the Hebrew, with or
without LXX influence. Yet in certain cases the text of A
seems unmistakably conformed to the New Testament standard,
for instance, in Isaiah xl. 14, where A (with K minn) has inserted
Job xli. 3, evidently because the two verses are combined in
Kom. xi. 35. 4
Of the text of Codex Ephraemi (C) in the Old Testament Codex
nothing can be said ; only sixty-four leaves have been preserved, p r
scattered through Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job (nine
teen leaves), Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (twenty- three leaves).
When the forms of the two recensions (the Hexapla and Principles
Lucian) which chiefly influenced our Old Testament text have Lptuagint
been determined, 5 and their relation to the extant individual criticism -
1 This statement I owe to Professor James A. Montgomery.
2 C. H. Toy, Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. Wisdom (Book), col. 5348.
3 C. C. Torrey, Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. Maccabees (Books), col. 2867.
4 Procksch, pp. 56, 89-98, 133 ; W. Staerk, in Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche
Theologie, vol. xxxvi., 1893, p. 98 ; Swete, Introduction, pp. 395 f., 403, 413,
422, 489. Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta- Psalters, p. 198, refuses to use the
New Testament quotations at all as evidence for the text of the Septuagint,
because of the doubt which he thinks is everywhere present as to whether the
New Testament was the receiver or the giver. Torrey holds that in the passages
quoted in the Gospels the Old Testament text of A has been systematically
made to agree with the text of the New Testament.
5 The recension of Hesychius was a vera causa, and it is not unlikely that the
Bohairic version was largely, if not wholly, made from it. Perhaps to some
extent his recension can be identified among the forms of the Greek text known
to us. But Hesychius, as has been pointed out above, does not seem to have
civ THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
manuscripts discovered and worked out in detail, a body of
readings remain, most of which are pre-origenian in date, and
which can be grouped as belonging to different types by studying
the groups of the uncial and minuscule manuscripts which con
tain them. One of the chief problems concerns the basis of the
Lucianic recension, and the extent to which readings of that
recension can be accepted as probably inherited, not pro
duced, by Lucian and his fellow-workers. That some ancient
readings otherwise unknown can be recovered from Lucianic
manuscripts seems to be admitted, and Lucianic evidence is
sometimes valuable in supporting the testimony of the non-
lucianic manuscripts. Finally, with the pre-origenian readings
from all sources before him, the critic will determine the relative
value of such pre-origenian types as can be elicited, and choose
among the readings they offer. Hort s statement, 1 that B " on
the whole presents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively
oldest form," has been substantiated for many books, but in
others A will have to be preferred ; and not infrequently, in
those parts where X represents the same type of text as B, the
better reading is found in X rather than in B. The groups of
minuscules, too, are held to constitute the most trustworthy
sources of knowledge for some parts of the Old Testament. 2
The rules for the criticism of the LXX were formulated by
Lagarde ; 3 they are governed by the character of the Septuagint
made far-reaching alteration in the Egyptian text on which he worked, and the
precise text which left his hands is so tenuous and uncertain a magnitude that
to operate with any theory of what it was is an embarrassment rather than an
aid to the investigation, and does not tend to clarity of thought on the subject
in general. See Rahlfs, as cited above on p. xc note 1.
1 Quoted in Swete, Old Testament in Greek, vol. i. pp. xi f. ; Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 486 f. 2 Procksch, pp. 102 f.
8 Anmerkungen zur griechischen Vbersetzung der Proverbien, 1863, p. 3 ;
Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior, 1883, p. xvi. Lagarde s
statement of principles is cited in full by Swete, Introduction, pp. 485 f., and
more briefly given by Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. Text and Versions,
col. 5021. For qualification of Lagarde s third axiom, that the Greek reading
which departs from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew is to be accepted as
original, see Torrey, Ezra Studies, p. 109 note 56; Rahlfs, Der Text dea
Septuaginta-Psalters, p. 231.
BKAC IN THE OLD TESTAMENT cv
as a translation, and are consequently of a different nature from
those by which the New Testament critic must be guided, although
they ultimately rest on the same simple notion, namely, the
inquiry as to how alteration of text will betray itself. What is
most instructive for the New Testament critic is the determina
tion of the principles which controlled the formation of the text
of those copies which contain both Old and New Testament.
But, as has been said above, only with the aid of insight, and
never by mechanical transference of conclusions from one field
to the other, can the knowledge so gained be successfully used.
2. VERSIONS
1. LATIN
(a) OLD LATIN TEXTS
Codices. UNDER the Old Latin are included all Latin texts which are
not mainly composed of Vulgate renderings. Latin codices
which contain the whole, or fragments, of a text of Acts sub
stantially non-vulgate are known as follows :
h. Paris, Bibl. nat., 6400 G, formerly 5367. The Fleury
palimpsest (Codex Floriacensis). Sixth century. 1 The frag
ments (printed in the present volume) contain about one quarter
of Acts. 2 For a table of the more important differences of
scholars in deciphering this palimpsest see below, pp. cccxiv-xv.
1 The over- writing (eighth century) is Isidore of Seville, De mundo. On the
date and origin of h see Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, 1923, p. clxxxv ;
E. Chatelain, Uncialis scriptura, Paris, 1901, tab. xv., and p. 28 ; D. de Bruyne,
Les Fragments de Freising (Collectanea Biblica Latina v), 1921, p. xxiii note 1 ;
L. Traube, Nomina sacra, pp. 191, 200 f. ; also S. Berger (see following note).
It is believed that h was copied, possibly in Africa (so also k), from an exemplar
giving the text of Acts, Catholic epistles, and Apocalypse, as used in some
African church in the fifth century. This text was Cyprianic for Acts and
(according to de Bruyne) the Apocalypse, but the Catholic epistles had been
revised at some time subsequent to the date of Cyprian. The text of the
Apocalypse is discussed by H. J. Vogels, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
lateinischen Apokalypse-ubersetzung, Diisseldorf, 1920, pp. 93-98. Vogels holds
that in the Apocalypse the text of h probably shows some influence from the
Vulgate.
2 S. Berger, Le palimpseste de Fleury, Paris, 1889 ; E. S. Buchanan, Old-
Latin Biblical Texts, No. V., Oxford, 1907. Wordsworth and White s citation
of h is dependent on Berger alone. For further discussion of the readings, with
corrections and conjectures, see P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Ada
apostolorum, 1892, p. 20 ; S. Berger, Un ancien texte des Actes des Apotres,
Notices et extraits, vol. xxxv., 1896-97, p. 181 note 3 ; E. S. Buchanan, Journal
of Theological Studies, vol. vm., 1906-7, pp. 96, 100; vol. ix., 1907-8, pp. 98-100;
cvi
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cvii
The text of li is shown by comparison with the Testimonia
of Cyprian, 1 as well as by internal characteristics, to be of
African origin. In the passages where comparison is possible,
it differs hardly at all from Cyprian and represents the African
translation current in the early third century with but little
variation in Latin expression and virtually none in under
lying Greek text. 2 The manuscript is written with many
errors. 3 The rendering into Latin is often very free, although the
Greek text followed can usually be discerned. In particular the
omissions of words and phrases are not wholly due to the under
lying Greek text, so that inferences have to be drawn with
caution; thus in the narrative of Paul s voyage, Acts xxviii. 1-13,
we seem to have a corrupt form of an abridgement made by the
translator. 4 In Acts iii. 11 the words et concurrit omnis populus
ad eos [in porti\cu quae vocatur solomonis stupentes agree sub
stantially with the usual Greek text against D d, and are appar
ently due to a later correction based on that text ; in vss. 12,
vol. x., 1908-9, p. 126 ; Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. VI., 1911, * Addenda et
corrigenda, p. 197 ; F. C. Burkitt, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. ix.,
1907-8, p. 305 ; A. Souter, ibid. vol. XL, 1909-10, pp. 563 ff. ; Th. Zahn,
Urausgabe, 1916, pp. 114, 138, 172. These have all been considered in pre
paring the text of h printed in the present volume. References to the earlier
scholars who deciphered and published portions of the MS. are given by
Buchanan, Old- Latin Biblical Texts, No. V., p. 97.
1 The resemblance of the two texts was apparent to Sabatier from the small
fragments of h (Acts iii. 2-12, iv. 2-18) known to him, but the comparison was
first made with thoroughness by P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta
apostolorum, Berlin, 1892.
2 About 203 verses of Acts are extant in h, and in these but 10 differences
from the Cyprianic text of the Testimonia appear ; see Hans von Soden, Das
lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians (Texte und Unter-
suchungen, vol. xxxm.), 1909, esp. pp. 221-242, 323-363, 550-567. That
at least some parts of the African Bible existed from an early time
in varying forms and that the text underwent natural modification and
development (apart from certain definite recensions) is shown by P. Capelle,
Le texte du psautier latin en Afrique, Rome, 1913. Von Soden, pp. 238 f., gives
examples of Degeneration der Africitas in h ; but these changes of Latin
phraseology do not pertain to the Greek text underlying the codex.
3 Hans von Soden, op. cit. pp. 234-236.
4 Instances of omission in h are the following : ix. 12 (the whole verse) ;
xxvi. 22 a%/H TTJS rj/mepas Tavrrjs ; xxvi. 26 Trapp^triafo/xej oj, ov 7ret#o/ucu, ov yap
CCTTLV ev yuvia TreTrpay/j.evoi TOVTO ; for many others see below, pp. ccxxxvi-viii.
cviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
13, and 14 further readings occur in which h agrees with B
against D. In several of these latter Irenaeus agrees with h.
Other cases of agreement of h with B against D are iv. 6, where
h reads Johannes/ not, like other Western witnesses, Jona
than ; v. 36 Sie\v6v](Tav ; xi. 6 hos (cf. quos d). But such
instances are extremely rare. In iii. 4 aspice et contemplari
might be a conflation due to the rival Greek readings ffXe-^ov
and arevicrov, 1 but may equally well be accounted for from
arevio-ov alone by the African tendency to translation by
two words. 2
The Old African Latin text gives the Western recension
in the purest form known to us in continuous sections, and con
stitutes a source of knowledge for that recension of equal value,
so far as it is available, with Codex Bezae and the Harclean ap
paratus. In not a few instances h provides conclusive evidence
of the conflate character of the text of D (so, for instance, v. 29,
xviii. 5).
perp or p. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 321. Thirteenth century.
A manuscript from Perpignan, near the Spanish border, and
probably written there. 3 In Acts i. 1-xiii. 6, xxviii. 16-31, the
text is Old Latin. The corrections of perp come from a pure
Languedocian Vulgate text, and this is also the source of the
part of Acts which is drawn from the Vulgate. This type of
Vulgate text is characterized by the inclusion of many isolated
Old Latin survivals ; but the line is perfectly distinct between the
Vulgate section and the Old Latin sections of the MS., which is
properly described as containing not a mixed, but a divided,
text. 4
1 So Jiilicher, in Zeitschrift filr die neuteslamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. xv.,
1914, p. 168.
2 Harris, Codex Bezae, p. 254 ; cf. h, Acts iii. 14 vivere et donari, xiv. 9
damans dixit. This tendency is also found in the Peshitto.
3 S. Berger, Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apotres retrouve dans un
manuscrit provenant de Perpignan, Notices et extraits des MSS. de la bibliotheque
nationale, xxxv., Paris, 1896, pp. 169-208, prints the two Old Latin sections in
full ; F. Blass, Neue Texteszeugen fur die Apostelgeschichte, Theol. Studien
und Kritiken, LXIX., 1896, pp. 436-471.
* Zahn, Urausgabe, p. 15 ; Berger, op. cit. p. 187.
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cix
Jiilicher s analysis of perp is of much interest. 1 The text
in the Old Latin chapters is related to nearly all the known
types, to the Cyprianic text, to gig d e m t (but not to s), and to
the Vulgate. Carefully formed as a recension, not a mere con
glomeration of readings, and bearing a uniform character, with
a distinct standard both of lucidity and of taste, it is punctili
ously literal, strives to omit nothing (hence its many Western
additions, besides which it has others of Latin origin), strictly
eliminates foreign expressions (an African trait), 2 is old-fashioned
in the choice of words. Comparison with gigas and the Vulgate
leads on the whole to the conclusion that the editor was not
acquainted with those ancient texts, although perp and gig may
well be thought to show common dependence on an earlier re
cension. The late date of the actual manuscript need not lead
us to assume that many readings have intruded themselves into
the text of these chapters at a period more recent than the fourth
century.
To this Souter 3 adds that perp " has points of contact with
the quotations in the homilies of Gregory of Elvira " (that is,
the fourth-century pseudo-origenian tracts, De libris sacrarum
scripturarum, see below, p. cxvii), and that Augustine s readings
so often agree with perp as to suggest that perp is a Spanish
revision of the Old African text.
gig or g. Codex Gigas. Thirteenth century, not earlier than
1239. Complete. 4 Brought in 1648 from Bohemia to Stockholm
(hence called Codex Holmiensis ; now in the Royal Library).
1 Jiilicher, op. cit. pp. 180-182.
2 Thus evayye\lea6ai. is rendered bene (ad)nunciare ; ffwayuyrj conventio ;
sXeTlfMoavvai misericordiae ; ^/ccrrao is mentis alienatio, stupor mentis ; eupoD^os
spado, Eunicus (!) ; yd fa, diviciae.
8 Text and Canon of the New Testament, 1912, p. 45.
* Continuous text, J. Belsheim, Die Apostelgeschichte und die Offenbarung
Johannis in einer alien lateinischen Ubersetzung, Christiania, 1879 ; for certainty
as to readings use must be made of the apparatus of Wordsworth and White s
Vulgate, for which a fresh collation was made. On the date see Belsheim, p.
vii, and especially B. Dudik, Forschung in Schweden fur Mdhrens Geschichte,
Briinn, 1852, where a detailed history of this extraordinary codex will be found
(pp. 207-235).
ex THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The text of gig in Acts can be used with confidence as repre
senting a Latin text widely current in the fourth century, as is
shown by its close agreement with the abundant quotations
(more than one-eighth of Acts) of Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia,
who wrote in exile in the East in 355-362, and must have brought
his Latin Bible with him from the West. Lucifer s text is
as yet known through a single MS., of the ninth or tenth century. 1
Where gig and Lucifer differ, comparison shows that they are
about equally liable to go wrong. Lucifer shows no trace of
the use of any Greek text with different readings from those of
gig. Both he and gig are very rarely affected by the Vulgate. 2
g 2 A fragment of a lectionary, now at Milan, containing
Acts vi. 8-vii. 2 ; vii. 51-viii. 4, in a text substantially identical
with that of gig. Tenth or eleventh century. 3
t. Liber comicus. Paris, Bibl. nat., nouv. acq. lat. 2171.
Eleventh century. Lectionarius missae, as used in the church
of Toledo in the seventh century. 4 Of the fourteen lessons from
Acts, seven contain an Old Latin text, freely handled and
corrupt but similar to gig. 5 The Old Latin lessons comprise
Acts i. 1-11, 15-26 ; ii. 1-21, 22-41 ; iv. 32-v. 11 ; vi. 1-vii. 2
with vii. 51-viii. 4 (partly Vulgate) ; x. 25-43. Occasional Old
Latin readings are also found in the Vulgate lessons.
s. Codex Bobiensis. Vienna, Imperial Library, 16. Fifth
or sixth century. Palimpsest, formerly at Bobbio. 6 Acts xxiii.
15-23 ; xxiv. 6, 8, 13-xxv. 2 ; xxv. 23-xxvi. 2 ; xxvi. 22-24, 26-
xxvii. 32 ; xxviii. 4-9, 16-31.
d. Codex Bezae (see above, p. Ixxx). Fifth or sixth
century.
1 The agreement of Lucifer with gig was mentioned by Hort, * Introduction,
1881, p. 83. A second MS. of Lucifer has been found in the Library of Ste.
Genevieve, Paris ; see A. Wilmart, Un Manuscrit de De Cibis et des ceuvres
de Lucifer, Revue, Benedictine, vol. xxxin., 1921, pp. 124-135.
2 Julicher, pp. 169-171.
3 Text in Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, i. 2 (1865), p. 127.
4 Text in G. Morin, Anecdota Maredsolana, i., 1893.
5 The significant variations of t from gig seem to be due in part to the Vulgate,
in part to ancient survivals ; cf. Jiilicher, pp. 172 f.
6 H. J. White, Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. IV., Oxford, 1897.
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxi
The Latin side of Codex Bezae has been so extensively altered
to make it agree with its Greek partner that it can seldom be
used as a witness to the Old Latin text except where that text
is known from other sources. It seems, however, that a text
akin to, but not perfectly identical with, that of gig was used
as the basis of d ; the text of d is farther removed from the
African Latin than is that of e, gig, perp, or the Vulgate ; I in
the Gospels d has sometimes preserved readings found else
where only in k and a, which are the chief sources respectively
for the African and European Gospel text. 2
e. Codex Laudianus (see above, pp. Ixxxiv-viii). Sixth or
seventh century.
The Latin of Codex Laudianus, like that of Codex Bezae, has
been brought into conformity with the Greek text, but it seems
to have retained its own character much more fully than d, and
was often the dominant member of the partnership. The editor
of this bilingual text, evidently a Greek of good education, seems
to have understood Latin, but hardly to have mastered it for
the purposes of composition. The Latin text which he took as
a basis for his work had a resemblance to gig and also to the
Vulgate, and may have been the common precursor of both of
these, but shows a less close resemblance to d. The suggestion
has been made that it may be the nearest extant representative of
the text which Jerome used as the basis of the Vulgate. But few
survivals of distinctively African renderings occur in e. 3
Many other Latin codices contain Old Latin readings mixed
with a prevailing Vulgate text, and these readings are valuable
as evidence of the Greek text from which the Old Latin was
drawn. The mixture in most cases was made from either
Spanish (whence the characteristic Languedocian mixed Vulgate
text) or Irish Old Latin sources. Of these codices the following
are notable, but not the only, examples, and are sometimes
counted as Old Latin :
1 Jiilicher, pp. 182, 185. 2 Souter, op. cit. p. 42.
3 Jiilicher, pp. 182-185.
:
cxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
c. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 254. Codex Colbertinus. Twelfth
century (second half). Believed to have been written in Lan-
guedoc.
dem. Codex Demidovianus (now lost). Twelfth or thirteenth
century. 1 Formerly at Lyons.
r. Schlettstadt, Stadtbibliothek, 1093. Seventh or eighth
century. Lectionary. 2 The Old Testament lessons are from th
Vulgate ; but the New Testament lessons, fourteen in number,
all from Acts, are Old Latin, with a text much like that of gig
but also showing some resemblance to perp.
w. Wernigerode, Library of Graf Stolberg, Z.a. 81. Fifteenth
century. Contains a partial interlinear version in Bohemian. 3
R. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 16. Bible de Rosas. Tenth or
eleventh century. Written in eastern Spain. In Acts xi. and
xii. another text has been written in the margin, and Old Latin
readings, often agreeing with perp, are found in these chapters,
sometimes in the main text, sometimes in the margin. 4
D. Dublin, Library of Trinity College. The Book of Armagh. 5
First half of ninth century.
lux. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 9427. The Luxeuil lectionary.
Eighth century. 6
Latin Of Latin ecclesiastical writers significant for the Old Latin
ers text mention may be made as follows :
TERTULLIAN of Carthage (ca. 160-ca. 240). The chief cita-
1 The text was edited by Matthai, Novum Testamentum XII. tomis dis-
tinctum Graece et Latine, vol. ix., Riga, 1782.
2 Text in G. Morin, fitudes, textes, decouvertes, vol. i. (Anecdota Maredsolana,
ii.), 1913, pp. 440-456, cf. p. 49. Readings from this lectionary will be found
in the apparatus of Zahn, Urausgabe, but not in that of Wordsworth and White.
3 F. Blass, Theol Studien und Kritiken, LXIX., 1896, pp. 436-471 ; for further
remarks on this MS. see below, pp. cxxxv-cxxxvi.
4 For the readings of R see Wordsworth and White ; on the codex and its
illustrations see W. Neuss, Die katalanische Bibelillustration um die Wende des
ersten Jahrtausends und die altspanische Buchmalerei, 1922. The Bible de Rosas
was probably written at the monastery of Santa Maria de Ripoll, which had a
famous library and scriptorium.
6 J. Gwynn, Liber Ardmachanus, The Book of Armagh, Dublin, 1913.
* Readings of lux are given by Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae ver- \
siones antiquae, vol. iii., Paris, 1751.
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxiii
tions from the Acts found in the writings of Tertullian are
printed in full in the apparatus of the present volume. 1 His
text was of the Western type. 2 That at least one Latin trans
lation of the Bible existed in his time in Africa is clear. 3 In
Tertullian s use of 1-4 Kingdoms the Greek text on which his
Latin version rests is different from any known to us, and in
particular shows no close relation to the Antiochian (Lucianic)
text. 4 In the Psalms the Greek text underlying the Old African
Latin was Old Antiochian mingled with Egyptian elements and
others more primitive (see below, p. cxxvi). The Acts of Perpetua
and Felicitas may have been written by Tertullian ; in them
several passages seem to show dependence on Western read
ings in Acts (notably Acts ii. 17 awrwv for vpwv, twice ; iv. 24,
xvi. 10). 5
CYPEIAN (f 258 ; literary activity chiefly after 249). The
citations of Cyprian from Acts are chiefly contained in the collec
tion of Biblical texts arranged by topics, Ad Quirinum testimonies,
for which Codex L (Laureshamensis, formerly at Lorsch) must
be used. 6 These and other scattered quotations are printed in
1 The text followed is that of the Vienna edition so far as the latter is
available, elsewhere that of Oehler. Mere allusions of Tertullian are generally
not reproduced in the present volume.
2 F. H. Chase, The Syriac Element in Codex Bezae, 1893, pp. 103-105, has
collected some good illustrations of this fact, which are supplemented with
examples elicited by characteristically subtle reasoning in J. R. Harris, Four
Lectures on the Western Text of the New Testament, 1894, pp. 55-59. The most
striking cases are the text of the Apostolic Decree (Acts xv. 28 f. ; see below,
pp. 265-269) and of Acts xiii. 33 * in primo psalmo (see below, pp. 264 f.).
3 This is convincingly argued afresh (against Zahn s view), and illustrated
from the Psalter, by P. Capelle, Le Texte du psautier latin en Afrique, 1913,
pp. 1-21. See also P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de V Afrique chretienne, vol. i.,
1901, pp. 105 f. ; Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, vol. ii.
pp. 296-302 ; Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei
Jahrhunderten, 4th ed., 1924, p. 800. Of Marcion s Bible also it is clear that
Tertullian had a Latin text ; Harnack, Marcion, 1921, pp. 46*-54*, 160*-163*.
4 Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 141-143.
5 Harris, Codex Bezae, pp. 148-153 ; J. A. Robinson, The Passion of S.
Perpetua (Texts and Studies, i.), pp. 48-50.
6 Unfortunately the collation of Codex L in Hartel s edition (Vienna corpus,
1868) is not perfectly accurate ; see P. Capelle, op. cit. p. 24 ; H. L. Ramsay,
Journal of Theological Studies, vol. in., 1901-2, pp. 585 f. ; C. H. Turner, ibid.
vol. vi., 1904-5, pp. 264-268.
VOL. Ill h
cxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
the apparatus below, and from them a considerable part of the
Old African text of Acts can be recovered in substantially trust
worthy form. 1 It was an almost pure Western text. On
the Old Testament text of Cyprian the same statements can
be made as in the case of Tertullian.
SPECULUM, or Liber de divinis scripturis (cited as m ).
This collection of Biblical passages arranged by topics is known
from a number of MSS., of which the oldest is of the eighth or
ninth century. Formerly ascribed to Augustine, it has been
included in the edition of Augustine s works in the Vienna Corpus
(ed. F. Weihrich, 1887). The text of Acts (the longest quotation
being Acts ix. 36-42) shows kinship to perp. It appears to be a
Spanish form of the African text, probably dating from the
fifth century. 2
LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI, who wrote in 355-362, used in Acts,
as has been pointed out above, the same Latin version which
we find in gig. It is worth noting that Lucifer s text 3 in Luke
is substantially (perhaps in an earlier stage) that of b (Codex
Veronensis, fifth century) ; in John that of a (Codex Vercellensis,
fourth century) and e (Codex Palatinus, fifth century) ; in Paul
that of d paul (Codex Claromontanus, fifth-sixth century), except,
of course, in those epistles where this MS. on its Latin side is
conformed to the Vulgate ; and that in the Old Testament it !
agrees with the Vienna palimpsest fragments (fifth century ; !
Genesis and 1 and 2 Kingdoms). In 1-4 Kingdoms Lucifer s ;
quotations have been shown to come from a text corresponding |
partly to the Lucianic Greek, partly to the (older) non-lucianic. 4 !
1 Hans von Soden, Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika zur Zeit Cyprians \
(Texte und Untersuchungen, xxxm.), 1909, pp. 550-567.
2 P. Capelle, op. cit. pp. 47-50. Jiilicher, op. cit. p. 180, thinks the text of
m to be a true recension, with a mixture of the textual types represented by h
and gig.
3 Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, cols. 4994 f., 5023 ; Sanday, Old-Latin
Biblical Texts, No. II., 1886, p. 140. On the quotations of Lucifer from Lukej
and John, see Sanday, Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. II., 1886, p. 140 ; H. J.j
Vogels, Theologische Quartalschrift, vol. cm., 1922, pp. 23-37, 183-200.
4 Rahlfs, Lucians Eezension der Konigsbiicher, p. 161 ; Burkitt, Fragment
of the Books of Kings according to the Translation of Aquila, 1897, pp. 19 f. ;|
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxv
In Lucifer s quotations from the Bible, however, attention must
always be paid to the fact that he, like Lactantius and others,
often derived them from the writings of Cyprian and not from
his own reading of the biblical text. 1
AMBROSE (f 397). Ambrose must have used an Old Latin
text of Acts, but his works are so largely founded on Greek
sources that its nature can hardly be determined.
AMBROSIASTER (fl. 375-385) used in Acts the gigas-recension,
and his text is " almost to a letter identical with that of gig
itself." In the Gospels the text of Ambrosiaster is to a consider
able extent that of b (Veronensis), but sometimes departs from b
and agrees with some other of the European witnesses, especially
fE 2 . In the Pauline epistles Ambrosiaster used a text " closely
related " to that of Lucifer, but apparently more polished. 2
AUGUSTINE (baptized 387 ; f 430). Augustine knew and
used for certain purposes the Vulgate of Acts, for instance in
the Speculum 3 and in debate with Jerome (Ep. 82, 9, Acts xxi.
20-25). The text of Acts, however, used in the church of Hippo
was Cyprianic, and Augustine quotes from this at length in De
actis cum Felice Manichaeo, i. 4-5 (A.D. 404), in Contra epistulam
Manichaei quam vacant Fundamenti (397 ?). In these his text is
almost identical with that of Cyprian s Testimonia. In De
consensu evangelistarum (A.D. 399) the influence of the African
text of Acts is plain, but the quotations show traces of the
Vulgate rendering, and were perhaps made from memory. The
most important of these Old Latin quotations are printed in this
volume ; but others will be found in the apparatus to the Latin
see also L. Dieu, Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille
version latine (I et II Samuel), Revue Biblique, vol. xxvin., 1919, pp. 372-403.
1 Dombart, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, vol. viu., 1888, cols.
171-176.
2 A. Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster (Texts and Studies, vii.), 1905, pp.
205-214.
3 That the use of the Vulgate in the texts from both Testaments formally
quoted in the body of the Speculum (A.D. 427) was in accordance with the
purpose of Augustine himself has been made plain by Burkitt (against Weihrich),
Saint Augustine s Bible and the Itala, in Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. XL, 1909-10, pp. 258-268.
cxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
text of Zahn s Urausgabe. A complete investigation of all
Augustine s quotations from Acts has never been made. The
agreement which he shows with perp is probably due to the Old
African element in that manuscript. 1 In some cases Augustine s
text of Acts seems due to dependence on Ambrosiaster. 2
This use of the Vulgate for learned and critical purposes and
of the African version on other occasions accords with Augustine s
practice as seen in his use of the Psalms (see below, pp. cxxiv f.)
and of the Gospels, 3 although in the Gospels he appears to have
adopted the Vulgate for habitual use about the year 398. 4 In
the Apocalypse Augustine uses the African text, closely resembling
that of Cyprian, cited in the Commentary of Primasius (sixth
century) and found in the fragments of h, while in the Catholic
epistles his text is a late African revision, also found in h and in
r. 5 For the Pauline epistles, likewise, the revised African text
of r (the Freising fragments, probably Spanish) is that employed
by Augustine in Africa from 389 on. He may, indeed, himself
have made this revised text ; and it is not improbable that the
Epistle to the Hebrews as found in r was Augustine s own render
ing from the Greek. While still in Italy (early in 388) he had
used a different text, similar to, and probably a precursor of,
the Vulgate. 6
Other writers who used an Old Latin text must be briefly
1 Souter, Text and Canon of the N.T. p. 45.
2 So in Acts xv. 29, see below, p. 266 ; A. J. Smith, Journal of Theological
Studies, vol. xix., 1917-18, pp. 170, 176; vol. xx., 1918-19, p. 64.
3 The Old Latin text of the Gospels used by Augustine in his earlier period
is substantially the revised African type found in e (Codex Palatinus, fifth
century) ; Souter, op. cit. p. 89.
4 Burkitt, Saint Augustine s Bible and the Itala ; II. The Gospel Quota
tions in the De Consensu, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xi., 1909-10,
pp. 447-466, esp. p. 449.
5 Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 89 ; Burkitt, Encyclo
paedia Biblica, col. 4997. De Bruyne, Les Fragments de Freising, 1921, p.
xxxviii, says : " II ne serait pas difficile de montrer qu Augustin cite pour les
Cath. un texte revise qu on ne trouve pas avant lui et dont il est sans doute
1 auteur."
6 D. de Bruyne, Les Fragments de Freising (Collectanea Biblica Latina v.),
1921, pp. xviii-xlviii. On Augustine see also P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische
Text der Ada apostolorum, pp. 24 f.
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxvii
mentioned. 1 The anonymous (pseudo-origenian) tracts De libris
sacrarum scripturarum (edited by P. Batiffol and A. Wilmart,
1900) of the fourth century, perhaps from Spain (? Gregory of
Elvira f 392) ; the anonymous Propheliae ex omnibus libris
collectae of the ninth-century St. Gall Codex 133, 2 probably
African from the years 305-325 (the text is surely corrupt) ; the
third-century pseudo-cyprianic tract De rebaptismate, with a
remarkable text of Acts, " a third-century African text as far as
regards renderings, but without the Western glosses " ; 3 the
tract Contra Varimadum, formerly attributed to Vigilius of
Thapsus ; 4 the Liber promissionum et praedictorum dei, formerly
attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine, but now known to be by an
African, possibly Quodvultdeus, Bishop of Carthage, and to have
been written in 440-450. 5
The following names may be added. From Africa : Optatus
of Mileve (fl. ca. 368) ; Petilianus, Cresconius, and Tyconius the
Donatists (at the close of the fourth century) ; Fulgentius of
Ruspe (f 533). From Spain : Pacianus of Barcelona (fl. ca. 370),
( Priscillian (later fourth century), and the Priscillianist tract
De trinitate. 6 From Italy : Gaudentius of Brescia, Jerome, 7
Philastrius of Brescia, Zeno of Verona (all these are of the
middle or late fourth, or early fifth, century), with Paulinus
1 On their significance for the text of Acts see Zahn, Urausgabe, pp. 17-25.
2 A. Amelli, Miscellanea Cassinese, n. vi., 1897, pp. 17 ff. ; Zahn in Oeschicht-
liche Studien Albert Hauc^, zum 70. Geburtstage dargebracht, 1916, pp. 52-63.
3 F. C. Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. Text and Versions, col. 4996 ;
Burkitt is inclined to the view " that it was not originally composed in Latin,
and that we possess only the Latin translation."
4 Perhaps Spanish in origin. See G. Ficker, Studien zu Vigilius von Thapsus,
1897, pp. 42-50 ; Capelle, op. cit. p. Ill note 2.
6 Capelle, op. cit. p. 87. The text of the Psalter used by the Liber pro
missionum was substantially that of the Verona Psalter (R) and of the Old
Latin Psalter of Carthage, as quoted by Augustine ; Capelle, pp. 87-169, 227-
233. On the attribution to Quodvultdeus see P. Schepens, Recherches de science
religieuse, vol. x., 1919, pp. 230-243 ; D. Franses, Die Werke des hi. Quodvultdeus
(Veroffentlichungen aus dem Kirchenhistorischen Seminar Miinchen, iv. Reihe,
Nr. 9), Munich, 1920 ; Theologische Quartalschrift, vol. cm., 1922, p. 129.
8 G. Morin, Etudes, textes, decouvertes, vol. i. pp. 151-205.
7 Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 89. In at least one
instance, Ep. 41, 1, 2, Jerome quotes Acts (ii. 14-18) from a text "related to
gig and p."
cxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
of Nola (I 431), Valerian of Cimiez (near Nice ; middle of fifth
century), and Cassiodorus (f 575). From Gaul : Hilary of
Poitiers (f 367), Gregory of Tours (f 593), and Ado of Lyons and
Vienne (f 875) ; from the British Isles, Pelagius (ca. 409) ; l from
Dacia, Niceta of Remesiana (fl. 400). To these should be added
the tract De trinitate ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus, the Acta
Archelai of Hegemonius, and the Latin version 2 of Irenaeus. 3
The quotations from Acts of nearly all these writers are few,
and sometimes brief, but the list, which is not exhaustive, shows
the abundance of available material for illustration of the history
which awaits the student who will approach the Latin text of Acts
with sound method, adequate knowledge, and historical sense.
History of On the complicated history of the Old Latin text of Acts
Old Latin
version. two recent studies, one by Jiilicher, the other by Capelle, have
thrown fresh light, the one by direct approach, the other
indirectly. 4 Jiilicher, in an essay resting on thorough study of
the documents considered, and no less full of learning and
insight than it is delightful and sympathetic, has investigated the
character of the six chief witnesses, and traced in this way the
history of the text. 5 On his guidance the following account is
largely, but not wholly, dependent.
1 On Pelagius s text of Acts see A. Souter, Pelagius s Expositions of Thirteen
Epistles of St. Paul : I. Introduction (Texts and Studies, ix.), 1922, pp. 169-171 ;
" the evidence suggests that the British text was related to those used in
Africa and Spain rather than any others " (p. 169).
2 The biblical quotations in the Latin version of Irenaeus generally follow
Irenaeus s Greek text, but in the form of language adopted for this purpose a
fourth-century revised African text seems to have been in the translator s mind ;
see A. Souter in Novum Testamentum S. Irenaei, pp. clxiii, clxv ; cf . pp. xvii f . ;
see below, pp. clxxxvii-clxxxviii.
3 These Latin writers are nearly all used in the apparatus of Zahn,
Urausgabe ; most of the quotations are given by Sabatier.
4 In addition to the investigations of Jiilicher and Capelle here referred to
see Paul Monceaux, Histoire litter air e de VAfrique chretienne depuis les origines
jusqu d ^invasion arabe, vol. i., 1901, chap, iii., La Bible latine en Afrique.
This comprehensive exposition by Monceaux is of great value, in spite of some
misapprehensions with regard to the textual criticism and history of the Greek
Bible, and although some matters would require restatement in the light of
more recent studies.
6 Adolf Julicher, Kritische Analyse der lateinischen Ubersetzungen der
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxix
The earliest evidence of the translation, or translations, of
parts of the Bible into Latin comes from Africa through Ter-
tullian, whose text, so far as we can learn it, was * Western. The
text of Cyprian and Codex h was that of the church of Carthage, 1
for we find it in that church, with virtually no change, cited at
length by Augustine in the report of the debate with Felix the
Manichee in 404, as well as elsewhere in Augustine s writings.
That the earliest form of this version was native to Africa, not
brought from Europe or the East, is altogether probable, although
the other view has been held. What was its further history has
not been determined. 2 The analogy of the African text of the
Psalter suggests some development of the text of Acts in the
later centuries, both in Africa and when it was transplanted to
Spain, but of the course of this nothing definite can at present
be affirmed. Such a development would doubtless show the
softening of African crudities under foreign influences from
Italian texts and then from the Vulgate ; it would probably in
certain types include the elimination of Western traits and
some degree of approximation to the Greek texts later current.
One example of such a later Spanish-African text, retaining a
strong Western character, is probably what we find in the Old
Latin portions of the Perpignan codex (thirteenth century) from
South-western France (see above, pp. cviii-cix).
The few fragments of Donatist quotations, chiefly in passages
which we are unable to compare with an earlier African
text, are insufficient to show the nature of the Donatist text
(after 330). They exhibit a certain contact with gig d e and the
Vulgate, 3 and doubtless represent a type marked by similar
Apostelgeschichte, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. xv.,
1914, pp. 163-188.
1 The translation in h, Acts xviii. 2, of 0,71-6 TTJS PW/ATJS by ab urbe (so also d
ex urbem) does not imply Roman origin. See Zahn, Geschichte des neu-
testamentlichen Kanons, vol. ii. p. 132 note 1, for evidence from many parts of
the empire .
2 The uncertainty as to the origin of De rebaptismate (see above, p. cxvii)
makes it impossible to draw inferences therefrom with regard to a later form of
the African version. 3 Julie her, p. 180.
cxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
qualities to those found in Donatist texts from the Psalms,
namely a high degree of conservatism together with some
innovations.
Whether versions of the Latin Bible were made in Italy in
independence of the African version is not known, but there is
clear evidence that texts early used in Italy were strongly in
fluenced by the labours of the African church in translating the
Bible. 1 Intercourse between Italian and African Christians was
active at all times ; the need of a translation into Latin would
be felt less early in the Greek-speaking church of Rome than in
Africa ; a new translator is commonly wise enough to avail him
self of the aid of his predecessors renderings, and the line between
an independent translation in which such aid has been used and
the revision of an earlier translation is hard, indeed impossible,
to draw. Even if the line could be drawn in theory, it would
be hard from any actual facts to gather which of two so nearly
related processes had been employed. As time went on, however,
Italian Christianity gained pre-eminence, and, moreover, the
biblical text current in Italy, whatever its ultimate origin, came
to present a better and more modern literary form than the
African Bible, which must have sounded odd and archaic to the
educated Christian in either land. Meantime Spain seems to
have drawn its earliest text of the Bible, as it did its liturgy,
from African sources. 2 This interplay of influences proceeding
in the earliest period from Africa to affect Spanish and Italian
Bibles (followed by a development in Italy), and then, at a later
time, of counter-influences proceeding from Italy to affect the
text of Africa 3 and Spain, goes far to account for the mingled
elements which we actually find in most of the extant witnesses
to the Old Latin text.
1 Cf . Sanday and Turner, Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, pp. xvii f.
2 Capelle, op. cit. pp. 44 f., 118 f. note, 222 ; Cabrol, art. * Afrique (Liturgie),
in Dictionnaire d archeologie chretienne, col. 613 note 1. On the service ren
dered by Spain in preserving and transmitting something of the secular
literature current in Africa, see L. Traube, Einleitung in die lateinische Philologie
des Mittelalters (Vorlesungen und Abhandlungen, ii.), Munich, 1911, p. 126.
3 Capelle, p. 45.
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxxi
The great event in the history of the Old Latin Acts was a
revision which must have taken place as early as the year 350,
and which speedily became widely influential. Well preserved
in Codex Gigas and the ample citations of Lucifer, this revised
text also appears in a fragment for liturgical use known as g 2
(tenth or eleventh century) ; it was used in s, perhaps as the
basis of the editor s work ; and its influence appears in the
lectionary of Toledo (t) in the seventh century, as well as probably
hi perp. Further, we find it employed by Ambrosiaster (fl.
375), by Niceta of Remesiana in Dacia (fl. 400), 1 and by Jerome
himself. 2 Even in the ninth century it was the chief text relied
on by Ado of Lyons. Where it was made is not known, 3 but it
was intended to provide the educated reader with a text suited
to his needs, conformed to Latin idiom, and clearly intelligible.
African peculiarities are largely avoided ; Greek barbarisms have
been dropped ; and its Latin is sometimes, because a less literal
rendering, better than that of the Vulgate. It was plainly made
with the use of a Greek text of non- western type, 4 and has been
partly freed from Western readings, especially Western
additions. Earlier revisions in the same direction may have
preceded it ; on such perhaps e and the Vulgate were founded ;
but this revision, made before 350, is the source of what has
come in modern times to be called the European Latin text
of Acts. Its publication meant a much closer approximation
than heretofore of the most widely used Latin text to the current
1 Burkitt in A. E. Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, pp. cxliv-cliv.
2 Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament, pp. 44, 89, who cites
Jerome, Ep. 41. 1, 2 (p. 312, Hilberg), a letter believed to be from the
year 384,
3 Jiilicher, p. 188, speaks of the recension as made neither in Africa nor in
Rome. Africanisms have been eliminated more thoroughly than in the African
revision of the Psalms of about the same date which produced the version of the
Psalter used by Augustine. Doubtless the ground for supposing it to have
originated outside of Rome lies in the fact that the text used as the basis of the
Vulgate differed from the gigas-text.
4 Jiilicher, pp. 177-180, 185 f., from which has been learned most of what is
said above about the gigas-recension. On Lucianic elements in later Old
Latin texts of the Old Testament, see Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 6 ;
Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 93.
cxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Greek manuscripts of the period. In considering this recension
of the Latin Acts, we may recall that the fourth century was a
period of increasing contact of Western and Eastern Christian
leaders, and that Athanasius resided at Rome from 339 to 342
(or 340 to 343). 1
Among the Old Latin texts that of the fragments of the last
chapters known as s (Codex Bobiensis, fifth or sixth century)
occupies a place somewhat apart. It is allied to gig, and perhaps
based on a slightly different form of that recension, and is related
to the Vulgate in such a way as to suggest that its editor has also
used an older text on which the Vulgate rests. Yet that it was
directly influenced by the Vulgate is not impossible, although it
does not seem to have been proved. It is the work of a competent
scholar, who has tried to produce a text in good Latin idiom
which should be wholly conformed to the Old Uncial Greek text,
both in omitting longer Western additions and in details. The
date of this work must lie in the fourth or fifth century. 2
It thus appears that the two well-established landmarks (at
least in the Book of Acts) for finding our way in the wilderness
of the Old Latin version are the Cyprianic text, current by
240, and the gigas-revision, made before 350. 3
1 Abundant evidence (Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine) shows that in
the fourth century Greek texts of the Old Testament were used in the West ;
Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbilcher, p. 153 ; Der Text des Septuaginta-
Psalters, pp. 75-79 ; Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, p. 8.
2 For the above account of s, I am wholly dependent on Jiilicher, op. cit.
pp. 173-177.
3 The Gigas-revision, as I have ventured to call it, produced much of the
text which appears in the European representatives of the Old Latin. I
have, however, ordinarily refrained from applying to it directly the term
* European, because the latter covers so many different forms of text, and is in
itself likely to mislead by reason of its direct parallelism to the term African.
The term Italian is also to be avoided. It was used by Augustine only with
relation to the Old Testament. That he used it there to denote Jerome s transla
tion must be accepted, especially since the remaining difficulties left by Burkitt s
fundamental discussion in The Old Latin and the Itala (Texts and Studies, iv.),
1896, and Corssen s clear and instructive review in Oottingische gelehrte Anzeigen,
1897, pp. 416-424, seem to have been once and for all removed by the acute study
of De Bruyne, L ltala de Saint Augustin, in Revue Benedictine, vol. xxx., 1913,
pp. 294-314, where it is conclusively shown that these difficulties were due to
the fact that the final edition of Augustine s De doctrina Christiana differed sub-
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxxiii
The other study mentioned above is that of Capelle on the The Psalter
Latin text of the Psalter in Africa, already often referred to, 1 a
treatise distinguished by a great elegance of method, a striking
sense of the concrete reality of events and circumstances, and a
comprehensive grasp of all the facts bearing on the author s field.
The history of the African Psalter is made out as follows.
By the time of Tertullian, or earlier, various local translations of
the Psalms were current in Africa in written form. From one
of these, not identical with that of Tertullian himself, grew up
the Psalter of Cyprian, of which we have much knowledge from
the Testimonies (Codex L). From one of the MSS. of the Testi-
monia (Codex V, known only from the collation of Latini), and
from the African writings prior to and contemporary with
Cyprian, it appears certain that the African Psalter was by no
means uniform in the time of Cyprian, and that a variety of
kindred but varying texts were in use. Later in the same
century the text of the Testimonies followed in the quotations of
Lactantius (who had probably lived only in Africa up to the date
of the composition of his Divinae institutions, about 290) shows
some modification of the original African (for instance \0709 is
verbum, no longer sermo). If one MS. of Lactantius (Codex H)
gives a text which seems even more archaic than that of the
original Testimonies, that fact bears witness to the persistent
vitality of the Latin text in Africa, which had by no means
stiffened into uniformity at the end of the third century or even
later.
In the fourth century, about 330, the Donatist party became
organized, and the controversies of that period, resting on
biblical proofs, stimulated attention to the biblical text. In
accordance with their theological character, the Donatists used
stantially from the form in which it was first published. An earlier suggestion
of the explanation now convincingly elaborated by De Bruyne was made by
Paul Wendland, Zur altesten Geschichte der Bibel in der Kirche, Zeitschrift
fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. i., 1900, p. 289 footnote.
1 Paul Capelle, Le Texte du psautier latin en Afrique (Collectanea Biblica
Latina cura et studio monachorum S. Benedicti, vol. TV.), Rome, 1913.
cxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
a Psalter of a generally archaic type but yet containing some
innovations as compared with Cyprianic standards. About
350, perhaps partly in consequence of the Donatist controversy,
there was made in the orthodox African church a revision of
the Psalter in which European influences and a more culti
vated Latinity were brought into the African text. This was a
revolutionary, and must have been a sudden, departure from the
Cyprianic text, even in the modified forms in which the first half
of the fourth century had known that text. It may have been
called out by the desire to unify the varying texts current among
the orthodox. In a form which had been subjected to a further
special revision (of but limited range) this text was that which
Augustine found in use when he came to Africa in 388, and which
was employed by the churches of Carthage and Hippo. It was
the text of the Psalter which Augustine always continued to
quote, except when for certain more learned purposes he used the
translation of Jerome.
A little earlier than Augustine s arrival in Africa, Optatus
of Mileve s quotations (about 370) show that he had entirely
broken with the Cyprianic Psalter. The change was due to
the same revision of which we see the later results in the text
of Augustine. Closely related to the transformed African Psalter
used by Augustine is the text of the Psalms in the African Liber
promissionum et praedictomm dei (440-450). l It passed over
to Italy also, and was long used there, for a continuous Psalter,
a sister type of the same special revision used by Augustine,
appears as the Latin side of the bilingual Verona Psalter (R)
of the sixth century, where it has perhaps even had its effect
on the Greek text opposite.
The text of Augustine and the Verona Psalter is in its whole
fabric a thoroughly African text, well mixed from various
African sources, " not merely a text with an African base, still
1 A similar relation is found to subsist between Augustine s text of the
Pauline epistles (extant in Codex r) and the text of the Liber promissionum et
praedictomm ; De Bruyne, Les Fragments de Freising, 1921, pp. xxxv f.
VERSIONS : OLD LATIN cxxv
less a foreign text africanized," * but the revision was made
with, the aid of European texts, although the precise type of
these latter is impossible to determine. Vigorous and skilful
African hands succeeded in producing a revision of the Psalter
distinguished by homogeneity, by a certain purity and uniformity,
by originality of apt rendering as compared with the European
texts, and by great fidelity to the Greek text. 2 Perhaps St.
Augustine himself had a share in perfecting the work. 3
In addition to his use of this fourth-century African revised
Old Latin, Augustine also used, especially for purposes of learning
and criticism, a copy of Jerome s Gallican Psalter (made from a
hexaplaric Greek text ; now included in the Vulgate). He seems
to have drawn this not directly from a manuscript of the true
Gallican version but from a gallicanized African Psalter.
Meantime the African text had been carried to Spain. Pacian
of Barcelona (360-390) used a Psalter closely akin to that of
Cyprian. 4 The pseudo-augustinian Speculum ( m in the New
Testament) and the text of Cyprian s Testimonies (Codex A)
found with it in the same MS. (Sessorianus) show kindred, but
not identical, mixed texts of the Psalter, in which the Old African
type current in Spain has been nearly, but not quite, supplanted
by the text of the Mozarabic liturgy. This mixture of texts in
Spain probably took place in the fifth century. The Mozarabic
Psalter itself was not devoid of survivals of the Old African
text, foreign to its main sources (which were the Roman Psalter
and in less degree the Hebrew Psalter of Jerome).
For the rest of the fifth century and the first half of the sixth,
the evidence of Victor of Vita (486), Vigilius of Thapsus (fl. 484),
and Fulgentius of Ruspe (468-533) gives a just notion of what
was taking place in Africa. Various texts were in use, but the
Gallican Psalter was extending its sway. Yet it did not succeed
in completely eliminating all Old African readings from the text
1 Capelle, p. 116.
2 Capelle, pp. 120, 129-131. On all these points Capelle furnishes
illustrations.
3 De Bruyne, op. cit. p. xxxviii. 4 Capelle, pp. 44 f., Ill note.
cxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
of these writers, while Fulgentius perhaps shows some traces of the
influence of Jerome s Roman Psalter. But Christian Africa was
already decadent, and by 700 was in the hands of the Saracens.
It has seemed worth while to give at some length this sketch
of the history of the Psalter in Africa, as worked out in the
admirable book of Capelle, for although no direct application
of his results to the text of the New Testament can at present
be made, it is highly suggestive for New Testament textual
history, both in method and conclusions. As, in the case of
Acts, Cyprian and the gigas-recension form two trustworthy
landmarks, so in the Psalter two fixed points stand out to our
view, the one again the text of Cyprian, the other an African
revision of about 350 which strongly reminds us of the gigas-
revision of not far from the same date. These two fourth-
century revisions, however, can probably not be brought into
close relation, for so far as we know the gigas-revision was
European, not African. Likewise, both in the Psalter and in
Acts, texts passed from Africa to Spain and in that land mingled
their readings with others coming from Italian or Gallic sources.
And finally the work of Jerome, although only after a plainly
discernible struggle, won virtually the whole ground.
Greek text As to the Greek text which underlay the African Psalter, that
Psalter. ^ Tertullian s and Cyprian s Latin versions seems to have been
an Old Antiochian text (hence it sometimes agrees with the late
Antiochian revision of Lucian, but never where the hand of
Lucian himself is apparent), combined with readings derived
from Egyptian texts, especially that of Upper Egypt, and some
other ancient elements. 1 The respective relations of Tertullian
and of Cyprian to these several constituent elements were in
part, but only in part, the same. 2 The revised African Psalter
1 A similar conclusion as to the African Latin text of the Prophets is stated
by Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius (Texts and Studies, vol. iii.), pp. cxvif.
2 Capelle, pp. 200-207. Capelle (p. 203 note 1) adds a discreet warning
against the too confident assumption that these Antiochian and Egyptian
readings originated in those regions, or that the text containing them was
derived from those regions by the Christians of North Africa.
VERSIONS : VULGATE cxxvii
of 350 seems to show no large influence from any other type of
Greek text than that observable in the Old African.
(6) VULGATE
The Vulgate translation of the Gospels was presented to Character
Pope Damasus by St. Jerome in 384 ; the rest of the New Testa- Vulgate.
ment followed, but perhaps only after several years. In Acts
Jerome s revision rested on an Old Latin basis, which may have
been an ancestor of gig. In some cases he preserved African
renderings foreign to gig (for instance xx. 17 major es natu for
TTpeo-pvrepoi, where d gig have presbyteri ; or xxvii. 3, where the
peculiar reading of vg ad amicos ire et curam sui agere recalls
h amicis qui veniebant [ad eum\ uti curam ejus agerent, while gig
reads ire ad amicos et curam sui habere), and he may well have had
at his disposal a variety of manuscripts. At any rate he has
retained a very large measure of Old Latin readings. But he
brought in some renderings of his own, and he purged the text
by the aid of a Greek text like that of the Old Uncials, 1 although
peculiarities of no single one of the extant uncials are reflected
in his translation. 2 Jerome s skill in departing as little as
possible from Old Latin renderings, while by slight changes and
rearrangement of words he yet attained, even in order, extra
ordinary exactness of agreement with his Greek standard, and
produced an excellent translation, is worthy of the greatest
admiration. Wordsworth and White believe that a series of
renderings which they collect show that his Greek text differed
somewhat from any known to us, 3 but on a close scrutiny these
instances, with hardly an exception, do not seem to require this
supposition.
The text of the Vulgate became mixed with the Old Latin
at an early date, and suffered from other corruption, as it was
1 Jiilicher, op. cit. pp. 167 f., 185-188 ; Wordsworth and White, Actus
Apostolorum, pp. x-xiii.
2 Wordsworth and White, pp. xii f.
3 Ibid. p. xi.
cxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
copied and when it was carried to distant lands. Important
events in its history were the attempts of Alcuin (801) and of the
Spaniard Theodulf (early ninth century) to establish a corrected
text.
Codices. The primary codices of the Vulgate which Wordsworth and
White have selected as the basis of their text are G C A F D,
named in order of excellence, and chosen as independent repre
sentatives from five distinct types and from widely distant
localities. The agreement of these five, when it presents itself,
is taken as decisive ; when they differ, the internal probability
of readings is invoked. The chief rules followed by the editors
are that that reading is to be accepted which (1) agrees with the
Greek, especially with the Old Uncials ; or (2) renders the Greek
best ; or (3) is not found in the Old Latin ; or (4) is supported
by a family of codices whose readings are approved as right
in the immediate context ; or (5) is shorter. Attention must
also be paid to obvious scribal errors. The five primary MSS. are
the following :
GCAFD G. Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 11,553. Codex Sangermanensis.
Ninth century (first half). This MS. came from Southern Gaul,
perhaps from Lyons. 1
C. La Cava 14. Codex Cavensis. Ninth century. Probably
written in Castile or Leon. C is the best representative of the
Spanish family, and probably represents the edition of Peregrinus
(450-500) ; it is superior to T (Codex Toletanus, eighth [tenth]
century), which seems to give the text of Isidore of Seville (560-
636). 2
A. Florence, Bibl. laur. 1. Codex Amiatinus. Ca. 700 A.D.
Written in Northumbria ; shows traces in Acts of influence
1 G is distinguished not only by the singular excellence of its text in some
parts of the New Testament, but by containing (in expanded form) at the close
of the Old Testament a colophon, elsewhere known only in the Bible de Rosas
(R), which claims to be by Jerome, and may be genuine ; see D. de Bruyne,
Un nouveau document sur les origines de la Vulgate, Revue Biblique, vol. x.,
1913, pp. 5-14.
2 D. de Bruyne, Etude sur les origines de la Vulgate en Espagne, Revue
Benedictine, vol. xxxi., 1914-19, pp. 373-401.
VERSIONS : VULGATE cxxix
from the Latin (e) of Codex Laudianus (E). The text is of
Neapolitan origin, and probably drawn from that of Cassio-
dorus. 1
F. Fulda. Codex Fuldensis. Ca. 545 A.D. Written at Capua.
On the text of F, which lay in Northumbria in the late years
of the seventh and early years of the eighth century, is closely
dependent the revision of Alcuin.
D. Dublin, Library of Trinity College. The Book of Armagh.
First half of ninth century. D contains many Old Latin readings
which survived from the text earlier current in Ireland. 2
The other codices used by Wordsworth and White fall into
groups :
(1) Codex I (luveniani ; Rome, Santa Maria in Vallicella, I M
B 25 2 ; now in Biblioteca Vittorio-Emanuele ; eighth or ninth
century) and Codex M (Monacensis ; ninth or tenth century)
represent the same type as Codex A.
(2) Codex S (Sangallensis ; eighth century) and Codex U S U
(Ulmensis ; ninth century), both Iro-gallic and written at St.
Gall, largely agree with Codex F, but contain some of the
additions current in the work of Celtic scribes.
(3) Codex T (Toletanus ; originally from Seville ; now at T
Madrid, Bibl. nac. ; eighth [tenth] century) 3 belongs with Codex
C, but shows a later form of the Spanish text, probably that of
Isidore of Seville (560-636).
(4) Codex (Oxoniensis-Seldenianus ; sometimes designated O
x of the Old Latin ; seventh or eighth century, written in the
Isle of Thanet, Kent, England) has a peculiar text related both
to the Irish and to the Northumbrian forms.
(5) Codex B (Theodulfianus ; early ninth century, probably e
copied at Fleury under the direction of Theodulf himself) best
1 J. Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, 1908,
chap. ij. ; and his article, Cassiodorus and the Echternach Gospels, Revue
Benedictine, vol. xxvm., 1911, pp. 283-295.
2 John Gwynn, Liber Ardmachanus, The Book of Armagh, Dublin, 1913.
3 E. A. Lowe, On the Date of Codex Toletanus, Revue Benedictine, vol.
xxxv., 1923, pp. 267-271.
VOL. Ill t
cxxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
represents the Theodulfian recension, which rested on a Spanish
(or, rather, Languedocian) text akin to that of C T.
K B V R (6) Codices K (Karolinus, British Museum, add. 10,546 ;
ninth century, script of Tours), B (Bambergensis, ninth century,
script of Tours), V (Vallicellanus, B. vi., ninth century), R (Bible
de Rosas, tenth century) ; written in eastern Tarragonian Spain ;
named in order of excellence, are the best representatives of the
recension of Alcuin, 1 and are consequently closely related to
F and, less nearly, to S U.
W (7) Codex W (William of Hales, A.D. 1254) is taken as a good
representative of the text current among scholars in the later
Middle Ages.
History The relation of these MSS. and groups is to be accounted for
VoSate ky the history of the Vulgate, in so far as that has been made
out by the researches of scholars. 2
Naples. Good copies of St. Jerome s translation, or of large parts of
it, were early in use in Italy and Southern Spain. At Squillace
in South Italy in the sixth century Cassiodorus obtained from
Naples an excellent text of the Gospels and a less good one of
other parts of the Bible, He seems to have used these to correct
an Old Latin text, from which some, though few and unimportant,
survivals remained in his text. 3 From this text proceeded that
brought to Northumbria, probably by Ceolfrid or Benedict
Biscop about 680. Among many copies of this Northumbrian
text Codex Amiatinus (A) is the best.
Also in the neighbourhood of Naples at Capua, in 541-546
1 Codex V in Acts i.-ii. follows the family of Codex Amiatinus rather than
the Alcuinian text ; Wordsworth and White, pp. viii, xv ; cf. Berger, Histoire
de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen age. pp. 197-204, 242. On
this MS. see also P. Corssen, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1894, pp. 855-875 ;
H. Quentin, Memoire sur V etablissement du texte de la Vulgate, I 6re partie,
Octateuque (Collectanea Biblica Latina, vi.), 1922, pp. 266 ff.
2 S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, 1893 ; H. J. White, art. Vulgate in
Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv., 1902 ; John Chapman, Notes on the
Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, 1908 ; id. l Cassiodorus and the Echternach
Gospels, Revue Benedictine, vol. xxvm., 1911, pp. 283-295; H. Quentin, op. cit.,
1922.
3 Chapman, Revue Benedictine, vol. xxvm., 1911, pp. 286-288.
VERSIONS : VULGATE cxxxi
was written Codex Fuldensis (F), which, was brought to England,
perhaps by the same hands as A, given to Boniface, and by him
to the monastery of Fulda in Germany. 1 The resemblance of
the text of A and F in the Gospels is thus easily accounted
for by their common dependence on the text of Naples ; the
divergence of the two texts in other parts of the New Testament
has not been definitely explained.
From Italy also, and perhaps from Rome, copies of the England
Vulgate, which were independent of the Northumbrian text, Ireland,
came to England with the mission of Augustine of Canterbury
(596) and with his successors in the following century. Roman
Christianity, advancing from England into Ireland, gained
dominance over the earlier Irish Christianity, introduced probably
in the fourth century, which had maintained itself during the
centuries of heathen aggression. But this Irish church of
earlier foundation had used the Old Latin version of the Bible,
and was strongly attached to it, so that one product of the
new Roman mission in Ireland was a combination of the Old
Latin with the new Italian Vulgate text brought by the new
leaders. The Irish text which thus resulted was distinct from
the Northumbrian ; in the great series of superb products of
Irish scribes in Ireland and on the continent it had a long history
and far-reaching influence, and in one of its forms it is found
in the Book of Armagh (D).
On the history of the Vulgate text in Italy recent researches Italy.
have thrown but little light. A Roman type must have existed>
and one stage of it may be represented by the English manu
scripts of the Gospels traditionally connected with Canterbury
and Gregory the Great ; of Acts nothing can be said. The
difficulty of the problem and meagreness of the evidence are
perhaps due to the long-continued use in Rome 2 and North Italy
1 J. Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, pp. 157 f.,
160 f., 188.
2 Gregory the Great (f 604) says that both the Old Latin and the Vulgate
were alike in use at Rome in his time, Expositio in librum B. Job (Moralium
libri), Epistola ad Leandrum, 5, Migne, vol. Ixxv. p. 516 : Novam vero trans*
cxxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
of the good revised form of the Old Latin (the so-called Euro
pean ), as well as to the successive and terrible disasters which
befell the city of Rome. 1 In Northern Italy, in the province of
Milan, a definite type of text established itself as early as the
eleventh century, based on texts immediately or more remotely
of Spanish origin but with combination of the text of Alcuin.
It appears in MSS. of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and may
have had its origin at Rome. 2 Another group in the Octateuch
comprises chiefly MSS. written at Monte Cassino in the tenth,
eleventh, and twelfth centuries, which have a text derived from
Spain. 3
Africa. Of the history of the Vulgate text of the New Testament in
North Africa very little is known. The Vulgate Gospels and
St. Jerome s Gallican Psalter (in a slightly modified form) were
in use there in the time of St. Augustine. 4
Spain. l n Spain the text of the Vulgate had its own development.
As in Ireland, it came into rivalry, and then entered a com
bination, with the African Latin texts of earlier and of later
type which had come across the Mediterranean from Africa, and
with the revised European text which reached the peninsula
from Italy and perhaps from Gaul. At first in southern Spain,
then, at the coming of the Mohammedan Moors in the eighth
century (battle of Xeres de la Frontera, 711), driven to the north
lationem dissero, sed cum probationis causa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem,
per testimonia assumo ; ut quia sedes apostolica, cui deo auctore praesideo, utraque
utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulciatur.
1 Codex luveniani (I) and Codex Monacensis (M) may represent an Italian
text akin to that of Codex Amiatinus. It does not seem to be suggested that
either of them is dependent on the text of Northumbria. The participation of
the text of Codex Fuldensis in the composition of Codex Sangallensis and Codex
Ulmensis may be due to an Italian strain in these latter manuscripts. But in
the case of Alcuin s revision the close connexion with the Italian Codex F
would seem more probably due to the relation of the two, each in its own
way, to Northumbria.
2 H. Quentin, Memoir e sur T etablissement du texte de la Vulgate, I 6re partie,
pp. 361-384.
3 H. Quentin, op. cit. pp. 352-360.
4 On Augustine s use of the Gallican Psalter see above, p. cxxv ; cf. also
P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de VAfrique chretienne, vol. i., 1901, pp. 150 f.
VERSIONS : VULGATE cxxxiii
and maintaining themselves in the kingdoms of Leon and Castile,
the Visigothic Christians produced many copies of the Latin
Bible, of which some, from the seventh century on, have come
down to us. Some of these show that the Vulgate element in
these mixed and interpolated texts was of excellent quality,
faithful to the original which had earlier reached Spain. Codex
Cavensis (C ; ninth century) seems to represent the edition of
Peregrinus (probably northern Spain, 450-500), Codex Toletanus
(T ; eighth century, perhaps completed in the tenth century)
that of Isidore of Seville (560-636). From Leon and Castile
(especially Toledo), and Catalonia, these texts made their way
into Languedoc and up the Rhone valley to Vienne and Lyons,
ancient seats of second-century Christianity which in the inter
vening centuries had, like Rome, exchanged Greek for Latin as
the language of the Church. Spanish texts were carried even
farther, to North Italy (Bobbio and the province of Milan) and
so to Switzerland.
Corresponding on the other side to the entrance of the France
Spanish text of the Vulgate into France was the bringing in of
Irish and Northumbrian texts by innumerable missionaries who,
from the seventh century on, worked in to a cordon of stations
on the north and east and south-east, some of them following up
the Rhine. From these centres Irish scribes and Irish texts pene
trated into the very heart of the country. To name only points
where the scribes or the texts are actually known, we find them
at Tours and Angers, perhaps coming by way of Brittany, and
in the neighbourhood of Lyons ; in Normandy, at Fecamp and
St. Evroult ; on the east at Echternach, Wiirzburg, Metz ; in
Switzerland, at St. Gall, the neighbouring Reichenau, and Pfafers ;
in Northern Italy, at Bobbio, founded by St. Columban.
In France itself no earlier type of Vulgate text had been
current indeed the Vulgate itself, especially for the New Testa
ment, had but slowly and gradually superseded the Old Latin
in the course of the fifth and sixth centuries ; but endless
varieties of French text resulted from the conflict of Spanish
cxxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
and British (Irish and English) influences. The most distin
guished example of this mixture is the Codex Sangermanensis
(G ; ninth century ; probably from near Lyons), in which a text
largely, in the Old Testament almost wholly, of Spanish origin
has been mixed with an Irish strain and with a European
Old Latin text (especially in the Gospel of Matthew). The
Acts of Codex G present a text of which neither its composition
nor the ground of its excellence is fully explained, but which,
on internal grounds, is accounted the best extant representative
of the Vulgate of St. Jerome. Even in the Gospels those readings
of Codex G which are not otherwise accounted for often possess
almost unique value as survivals of the original Vulgate text.
In Acts G agrees more often with A than with F. 1
Toward a better text two attempts were made about the
year 800. That of Theodulf (f ca. 821), himself a Visigoth, was
mingled of various elements, Spanish and British, but in Acts
substantially reproduced the text of Languedoc. Far more
powerful in its effects was the text of Alcuin, presented to Charle
magne in 801. For the formation of this, copies were brought
from York, where he had been brought up from infancy. In
the ninth century this text was multiplied in a great number of
copies, but in these was immediately and progressively modified
and depraved. Attempts to secure uniformity of use by a fresh
revision of the text of the Bible often produce at first a new
confusion, but they often mark an epoch. It was so here ;
Alcuin s text, in the main of Northumbrian origin, was the
signal for the final disappearance of any considerable Old Latin
influence in the French text.
In succeeding centuries a succession of scholars endeavoured
to establish more correct texts than those current, until the
thirteenth century witnessed the rise into leadership of the
University of Paris, and with it, centring in Paris, an activity
never before equalled in the production of Bibles, many of them
1 Wordsworth and White, Actus Apostolorum, pp. vi, xiii f., xvi ; Quattuor
Evangelia, Epilogus, p. 717.
VERSIONS : PROVENQAL cxxxv
characterised by their handy form and beautiful execution. The
text of the later Middle Ages was this Paris text, and from some
of its forms was drawn the chief part of the modern printed text
of which the Clementine edition of 1592 constitutes the standard.
From this sketch it will be apparent that the grouping of
Wordsworth and White s classification is due to the real working
of comprehensible historical forces, although not all of these can
be traced in detail.
(c) VERSIONS MADE FROM THE LATIN
Interest and some importance attaches in Acts to certain
daughter-versions of the Latin Vulgate, because they contain
many Western readings. These are the two Provenal versions
(of Provence and of the Waldensian valleys), the German version
made from the Provengal, the Waldensian Italian version, and
the Bohemian version. 1 Their origin is but imperfectly known,
but they are bound together by the heretical or sectarian character
of the Christians (except the Italians) among whom they severally
circulated and whose need of a translation of the Bible into the
vernacular they served. In particular they illustrate the wide
range of Waldensian activity in all southern Germany before
the period of John Hus. 2
1. Provencal 3
In Languedoc a Latin text was current throughout the Latin text
Middle Ages in which an important element containing many ued oc"
1 The translation into the Catalan dialect of north-eastern Spain is in some
of its forms partly based on a text containing Western readings (e.g. Acts xi.
1-2), as would be expected, but its complicated history is not well understood ;
see S. Berger, Nouvelles recherches sur les Bibles proven?ales et catalanes,
Romania, vol. xix., 1890, pp. 505-561, especially pp. 514 f.
2 S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 74 : " Deux pays seulement, a notre
connaissance, montrent, en plein moyen age, un attachement obstine aux textes
anterirurs a saint Jerome : ce sont les pays albigeois et la Boheme, terres
d heresie et d independance religieuse autant que de particularisme fier et
jaloux."
3 S. Berger, Les Bibles provengales et vaudoises, Romania, vol. xvm.,
1889, pp. 353-422.
cxxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Old Latin readings had been drawn from Spain. 1 A noteworthy
example of such a MS. is the Codex Colbertinus from Languedoc
(Paris, Bibl. nat., lat. 254, twelfth century). In this the Gospels
are mostly Old Latin (c), with some African readings. Another
MS. showing considerable resemblance to Codex Colbertinus
in the mixed Vulgate part of the latter, was the Codex Demi-
dovianus (twelfth or thirteenth century), now lost, but published
by Matthai, 1782-1788, which came from the Jesuit house
at Lyons. Still another pure copy of this text (but not from
this region) is the Codex Wernigerodensis (Library of Graf
Stolberg, Z.a.81), containing interlinear Bohemian glosses, and
written in Bohemia very early in the fifteenth century. 2 Other
manuscripts from Languedoc date from the tenth to the four
teenth century, 3 when this text disappears in fusion with the
ordinary text of Paris. The revision of Theodulf (ninth century)
probably rests in part on the Latin text of Languedoc.
From this Latin are derived two types of translation into
Proven9al. 4 (1) The first is a version found in two MSS. :
one now at Lyons (Bibliotheque du Palais des Arts, No. 36), of
the thirteenth century, 5 probably written in the modern Depart
ment of the Aude, not far from Carcassonne ; the other an inferior
1 S. Berger, Hist, de la Vulgate, pp. 72-82 ; Romania, vol. xvm., 1889, pp.
354-356. It is necessary to remark that the Latin text so used was Catholic, not
heretical or schismatic, although its wide spread in southern and eastern Europe
was due to the fact that Languedoc was a centre from which pioneer movements
spread. It is an error, although a natural one, to say that " only among heretics
isolated from the rest of Western Christianity could an Old Latin text have
been written at so late a period " (sc. the twelfth century).
2 Berger, Revue historique, vol. XLV., 1891, p. 148 ; Histoire de la Vulgate,
1893, p. 80 ; W. Walther, Die deutsche Bibeliibersetzung des Mittelalters, Braun
schweig, 1889-1892, p. 190 ; readings given by Blass, Studien und Kritiken,
vol. LXIX., 1896, pp. 436-471, and in Wordsworth and White. The Latin Bible
of the abbey of Werden (Rhenish Prussia) referred to by Berger, Revue his
torique, 1886, p. 467, may be another similar copy.
3 " Un texte ancien disperse dans des manuscrits recents," Berger, Histoire
de la Vulgate, p. 82.
* Besides the references given in the following notes see E. Reuss, art.
Bibeliibersetzungen, romanische, in Protestantische Realencykl., vol. iii., pp.
139 f.
5 According to Paul Meyer, between 1250 and 1280.
VERSIONS : PROVENAL cxxxvii
MS. at Paris (Bibl. nat., fr. 2425), of the first half of the fourteenth
century, written somewhere in southern Provence. The Lyons
codex l appears to have been copied directly from the interlinear
Provengal gloss of a Latin MS., probably itself not much older
than this extant copy. By the Catharist (Albigensian) liturgy
which forms a part of it, appended to the New Testament, it is
shown to have been written for the use of that sect. The Paris
MS. gives a free and abridged version, by descent akin to the better
translation of the Lyons MS. The margin is full of marks calling
attention to the passages of Scripture especially valued by the
Waldensians, and it seems to have been used by a Waldensian
colporteur. 2 These Proven9al texts both represent the same
dialect. Of the origin of the translation nothing is positively
known ; no taint of heresy has been discovered at any point
in it.
(2) The second Provengal version is in the dialect of the
Vaudois valleys of Piedmont, and is found in copies used by the
Waldensians who dwelt there. The oldest and best MS. is that
of Carpentras (Bibl. municipale, 22), in a southern French hand
of the fourteenth century. Other important copies are at
Dublin (A.4.13, written in 1522, but almost identical with the
Carpentras MS.), Grenoble (about 1400), Cambridge (University
Library, Dd 15.34 ; early fifteenth century), and Zurich (six
teenth century). Many other late copies are also known.
These two Provengal versions 3 are probably, though not
certainly, derived from a common original translation into
1 Facsimile in L. Cledat, Le Nouveau Testament, traduit au XIII e siecle en
langue proven$ale suivi d un rituel cathare, Paris, 1887. See E. Reuss, Les
versions vaudoises existantes et la traduction des Albigeois ou Cathares, Eevue
de Theologie (Strasbourg), vol. v., 1852, pp. 321-349 ; Versions cathares et
vaudoises, ibid. vol. vi., 1853, pp. 65-96 ; S. Berger, Romania, vol. xvin., 1889,
pp. 357-364 ; Paul Meyer, Recherches linguistiques sur Forigine des versions
provencales du N.T., Romania, vol. xvm., 1889, pp. 423-429. Readings in
Acts are collected by Blass, Studien und Kritiken, 1896, pp. 436-471.
2 Berger, Revue historique, vol. xxx., 1886, p. 168.
3 See the clear brief statement of the process of events in Berger, Nouvelles
recherches sur les Bibles provensales et catalanes, Romania, vol. xix., 1890,
pp. 559-561.
cxxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
ProvenQal. At any rate, although their readings are not
everywhere identical, both are derived from the Latin text of
Languedoc of the thirteenth century, and hence in Acts contain
many Western readings of Old Latin origin. Indeed, " the
Provenal versions form the best witness to the [mixed Vulgate]
text of Languedoc," which " goes back directly to the ancient
text of the Visigoths." l It is not to be supposed that the
Waldensians, Catharists, and Bohemians deliberately adopted a
text of Acts because they knew it to be different from that used
by the orthodox Catholics. On the contrary, the translators of
these texts merely used the text of Languedoc current in their
own day and locality, which happened (through contiguity to
Spain) to be widely mixed with Old Latin readings ; 2 the
translators themselves may or may not have been sectaries.
Nevertheless, it is for the most part because these translations
were used by sectaries that they have been preserved for us.
2. German 3
The German translation of the New Testament which was
printed, with some variations, in many editions from 1466 to
1518, was probably translated in the fourteenth century in
southern Bohemia from a Provencal text 4 brought to Bohemia
1 Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 73.
2 This fact is in itself an interesting illustration of the peculiar persistence
in Africa and Spain of the Western African text of Acts side by side with
later renderings of other books (thus in the Liber promissionum et praedictorum
dei, about 450 ; codex h of the sixth century).
3 S. Berger, Revue historique, vol. xxx., 1886, pp. 164-169 ; vol. xxxn.,
1886, pp. 184-190 ; vol. XLV., 1891, pp. 147-149 ; Romania, vol. xvm., 1889,
pp. 407 f. ; W. Walther, Die deutsche Bibelubersetzung des Mittelalters ; 0. F.
Fritzsche and E. Nestle, art. Bibeliibersetzungen, deutsche, in Protestantische
Realencyldopddie, vol. in., 1897, pp. 64-69 ; Karl Muller, Studien und Kritiken,
vol. LX., 1887, pp. 571-594; and, on Miiller s article, Berger s comments in
Bulletin de la Societe d Histoire vaudoise, No. 3, Torre Pellice, December 1887,
pp. 37-41.
4 Th. Zahn, Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas, 1916, p. 16 ;
Berger, Revue historique, 1891, pp. 448 f. The translator may have had the
aid of a Vulgate text and of another German translation, but the instances
adduced by Berger and Zahn seem to leave no doubt as to the fundamental
VERSIONS : GERMAN cxxxix
perhaps by Waldensians or Cathari. In any case it represents
a Latin text of the type current in Languedoc in the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries, containing many Western readings
in Acts. It is found in several MSS., of which two, the Codex
Teplensis and the Freiberg MS., contain Acts.
The Codex Teplensis l (Library of the Praemonstratensian Codex
monastery, Tepl, in Bohemia, ty. VI. 139) is a little copy, with
pages hardly more than two inches by three. It was evidently
meant to be carried in the pocket of a Waldensian missionary, for
whose use a great number of marks in the margin direct attention
to useful passages, while other appropriate matter is added at
the end, including a German translation of a Waldensian cate
chism. It was written, probably, toward the end of the four
teenth century.
The Freiberg manuscript 2 (Library of the gymnasium, Frei- Freiberg
berg in Saxony, I. Cl. MS. 18) closely resembles the Codex Teplensis
in size and hand, as well as in text, and is to be assigned to a date
not far removed from that MS. It is not, however, derived from
the same immediate exemplar, and its history seems to have
been different, for soon after it was written it was in the posses
sion of a Catholic pastor, who gave it in 1414 to a monastery,
probably one of those from whose books the Freiberg Library
was brought together. 3
With these two MSS. is to be associated the text of the first
German Bible (Strassburg, Joh. Mentel, 1466), which is drawn
from a different, but similar, German MS.
The peculiar readings of all these texts in Acts, often
relation to the Proven9al. That Latin MSS. containing this text were actually
brought to Bohemia from Provence may be inferred from the Codex Wernigero-
densis (see p. cxxxvi). Codex Gigas and the Bohemian version make it clear
that the Latin copies which the Bohemians had were of various types.
1 [Klimesch], Der Codex Teplensis, enthaltend die Schrift des newen
Gezeuges, Munich and Augsburg, 1884 ; readings are given by Wordsworth and
White.
2 M. Rachel, Die Freiberger Bibelhandschrift (programme), Freiberg, 1886 ;
facsimile and comparison with Codex Teplensis in W. Walther, Die deutsche
Bibeliibersetzung des Mittelalters, 1889-1892, cols. 154 ff.
3 K. Miiller, Studien und Kritiken, vol. LX., 1887, p. 517.
cxl THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Western, go back (partly at least through, a Provencal
version) to the mixed Vulgate text of Languedoc of the thirteenth
century, which is adequately known from Latin MSS. The text
of the German New Testament is closely related to that of the
Lyons Provengal MS., but also shows relations to the Paris MS.
and to the Vaudois MSS., especially that of Grenoble. These
German texts are historically interesting, and throw light on the
presence in Bohemia l of Old Latin texts and readings (for instance,
Codex Gigas, Codex Wernigerodensis) ; but, since their Latin
sources are adequately known, their direct contribution to
textual criticism is but small.
3. Bohemian 2
The New Testament was translated into Bohemian, the
several books by different hands, in the course of the fourteenth
century. As might be expected from the circumstances men
tioned in the preceding paragraphs, the text of Acts in at least
some forms of the version shows Western readings, 3 but the
version has not been sufficiently studied to permit confident
statements as to the channel through which these readings came
to Bohemia, or even as to the particular form of Old Latin which
they represent.
Some noteworthy readings from the Old Bohemian were com
municated to Griesbach by Joseph Dobrowsky, the founder of
Slavic philology (1753-1829), 4 and from Griesbach s New Testa
ment (2nd ed., 1796, 1806) Tischendorf introduced them into his
1 Yet the earlier Bohemian version (fourteenth century) does not seem to
be founded on the text of Languedoc (see pp. cxxxv-vi).
2 Leskien, art. Bibelubersetzungen, slavische, in Protestantische Real-
encyJclopddie, vol. in., 1897, pp. 161 f. ; Gregory, Prolegomena, 1894, pp. 1127 f.
3 Bohemia, " la patrie de la diversite religieuse et des textes bibliques les
plus incoherents," S. Berger, Revue historique, vol. XLV., 1891, p. 148.
4 J. Dobrowsky, Uber den ersten Text der bohmischen Bibeliibersetzung,
nach den altesten Handschriften derselben, besonders nach der Dresdener,
Neuere Abhandlungen der koniglichen bohmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften,
diplomatisch-historisch-litterarischer Theil, vol. in., 1798, p. 260 : Griesbach,
Novum Testamentum Graece, 2nd ed.. vol. I., 1796, pp. xci, xcvii.
VERSIONS : BOHEMIAN cxli
apparatus. The readings in Acts xxiv. 24, xxv. 24, xxviii. 31
are striking Western readings, all having parallels in the
margin of the Harclean Syriac. The first is otherwise not attested
(unless perhaps by Cassiodorus), the second only by the Book
of Armagh (Codex D), the third (imperfectly, however) by
Spanish MSS. For other Bohemian readings see Acts xi. 17 (cf.
D hcl * p Aug vg.cod.ardm. etc.) ; xxii. 28 (only in vg.cod.ardm.,
paris. 17250 2 Bede). The readings of the Bohemian do not seem
to be drawn from the usual text of Languedoc. but from some
other Western source. Since they come from chapters of Acts
where Codex Bezae is lacking, they are of importance in them
selves, and they create the expectation that a complete know
ledge of the Old Bohemian Acts might yield results of much
importance for the Western text of Acts.
Such a knowledge would not be difficult to secure, and it is Codices.
not to the credit of New Testament scholarship that nearly a
century and a half has passed without any use being made of
sources easily accessible in Germany and Bohemia. The most
important MSS. are the following : l
1. Dresden, Staatliche (formerly Konigliche ) Bibliothek.
Ca. 1410. From this copy Dobrowsky probably drew the read
ings which appear in Griesbach and Tischendorf. The MS. has
been injured by fire, but not destroyed.
2. Leitmeritz, Czecho-Slovakia (Bohemia), Episcopal library ;
and in collection of Prince Schwarzenberg, Wittingau, Trebon,
Czecho-Slovakia. 1411-1416.
3. Prague, University library. 1416. Written in Glagolitic
script by the Benedictines of the Emmaus Monastery in Prague.
Only preserved in part.
1 For information with regard to these MSS. I am indebted to Professor Paul
Diels of Breslau ; see also Dobrowsky in the article (1798) referred to above,
pp. 242 f . J. Schindler, professor at Leitmeritz, examined certain Bohemian
MSS. of Acts from the first half of the fifteenth century with a view to Western
readings, but reported that he found but little. One interesting Western
reading from a MS. of the year 1429 is cited by him, and will be found below in
the Textual Note to Acts xvi. 40 ; see Osterreichisches Litter aturblnM, vol. vi.,
1897, cols. 163 f.
cxlii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
4. Olmiitz, Czecho-Slovakia (Moravia), Studienbibliothek.
1417.
These MSS. are all believed to give the oldest recension of
the Bohemian text. Still older is :
5. Nikolsburg, Czecho-Slovakia (Moravia), Chapter library
of the Collegiate Church of St. Wenzel. 1406. But this is said
to give a revised form of the version. 1 Whether the underlying
Latin text may be the same is not known.
In the fifteenth century further revisions were made, of
which many MSS. are known.
4. Italian 2
A translation of the New Testament into Italian was made,
probably in the thirteenth century, from a Latin text like that
of Languedoc, and under the influence of the Provengal New
Testament. It includes, like those texts, some * Western read
ings in Acts. That it was made by a Waldensian is not im
probable, but it circulated among Catholics and was revised
with glosses by Domenica Cavalca, a Dominican of Pisa (f 1342),
as well as by others. From the translation of Cavalca the
Waldenses took over the Book of Acts and rendered it into their
own dialect, and in this guise it is still found for the second half
of Acts (from the middle of chapter xvi.) in the Grenoble and
Cambridge Vaudois MSS. mentioned above. Truly a strange
piece of history, and instructive in more than one aspect !
2. EGYPTIAN
The complicated textual history of the Sahidic and Bohairic
versions has never been investigated. The material at hand,
however, makes it possible to know with tolerable certainty
what forms these translations respectively had at relatively very
1 Leskien, I.e. p. 162.
2 S. Berger, La Bible italienne au moyen age, Romania, vol. xxin., 1894,
pp. 358-431, cf. especially pp. 387, 390-395, 418.
VERSIONS : SAHIDIC cxliii
early dates, forms not much altered from that of the original
rendering.
(a) SAHIDIC 1
The Sahidic version of Acts is found in a large number of Codices.
MSS. and fragments, from which substantially the whole book is
known. A full list will be found below, pp. 322 if. The most
important MSS. are the following :
B. London, British Museum, 7954. A.D. 350. Papyrus.
V. Vienna. A.D. 400. Parchment.
W. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. huntington. 394. Twelfth-
thirteenth century. Paper.
The other MSS. are to be dated in the seventh (?)-thirteenth
centuries.
The analysis of the collation of the Sahidic with the Greek Underlying
of Codex B given below (pp. 325 ff.) shows that the Greek text text.
on which it rested consisted largely of the readings of the Old
Uncials, but also contained, besides some other elements, a distinct
Western strand. 2 Since the c Western readings with but few
exceptions are small unimportant variants, it seems likely that
the Greek from which the Sahidic of Acts was translated was a
copy of a MS. in which a Western text had been almost com
pletely corrected by a standard of the B-type. It is hardly
conceivable that these trifling Western variants should have
been specially selected for introduction into a non-western text
and the great mass of interesting and important variants passed
by. And indeed this current from * Western to B text must
1 [G. Homer], The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern
Dialect, otherwise called Sahidic and Thebaic, vol. vi., Oxford, 1922; with list of
MSS., pp. 666-672.
2 Cf. Burkitt, Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 5010. A peculiarly instructive
case is to be found in Acts x. 33, where the Sahidic (Codex V )reads to us
for 7T/)os ere. This is evidently a fragmentary survival from irapaKaXuv f\dei.v
irpos Tj/icij, which the Western text (Codex Bezae perp hcl -X-) added to
the sentence. In the process of correcting the Greek MS., or of using it after
the correction, the wrong prepositional phrase was taken over ; and so this
passed into the Sahidic without the accompanying verbs, which were necessary
in order to justify its presence.
cxliv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
have characterized the adaptation and production of Greek MSS.
in Egypt and elsewhere from the third century on. The Sahidic
gives perhaps the most striking exhibition of it to be found in
the New Testament.
Date. Nothing seems to prevent the assumption that the Sahidic
version of Acts was made in the third century, 1 but a date
earlier than 300 is not indicated by any decisive positive evidence.
The fact that the "White Monastery" (der el-abjad) was
founded about 350 is perhaps not without significance in this
connexion.
Character. The Sahidic translator frequently added personal pronouns
not found in Greek, often made small omissions, and had a
curious habit of reversing the order of two words in a composite
phrase (for instance, Acts i. 7, seasons and times ; xxviii. 2,
cold and rain, for rain and cold ). As for the order of words
in general, " Coptic grammar requires a word-position of its own,
and the translation is rarely of any use in such a case." In the
use of the collation printed below, it is to be borne in mind that
it is made with Codex Vaticanus, but that no distinction is made
between the renderings which positively imply the text of that
codex and a certain number of neutral readings which might have
proceeded equally well from that Greek text or from one of the
known Greek variants. Thus, the Sahidic always writes the
name Jesus with the definite article, so that in Acts i. 1 no
inference can be drawn as to whether the Greek text before the
translator read LTJO-OVS (BD) or o irjaovs (tfA 81). Similarly,
in Acts the Sahidic " never uses any form but iepovo-aXr]^ (other
wise in the Gospels)." Again, " Coptic has no word for re when
used with following /cat, and does not reproduce re itself except
very rarely ; it is merely omitted." 2 Other remarks and warn-
1 So J. Leipoldt, according to Zahn, Die Offenbarung des Johannes, 1924,
pp. 63 f. note 14, on the ground of the old-fashioned linguistic forms employed ;
but in Church Quarterly Review, 1923, p. 352, Leipoldt refers the Sahidic trans
lation of Acts to " the time about A.D. 300."
2 The statements about Coptic idiom here made are from Sir Herbert
Thompson.
VERSIONS : BOHAIRIC cxlv
ings with regard to the use of the Sahidic for textual criticism
will be found in the paragraphs introductory to the Tables.
(6) BOHAIRIC 1
The Bohairic version of Acts is known from eleven MSS. Codices,
(besides some others), of which six are from the twelfth, thirteenth,
and fourteenth centuries, and five from the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries (see below, pp. 357 f.).
The MSS. of chief importance for the text are :
A. London, British Museum, or. 424, A.D. 1307, said to be
copied from a text written ca. 1250. From this codex Homer s
text is printed and translated.
B. Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana. Fourteenth century.
F. Deir el Muharrak, Egypt. Twelfth century.
" A is an eccentric MS., with many peculiar and often corrupt
readings " ; " B is a very close follower of the Greek Codex
Vaticanus." The text of F belongs to a different family, which
" seems to be somewhat influenced by the Sahidic version." 2
A digest of the collation is given below (pp. 360 if.). It Character
will show the extraordinary fidelity of this version to the text &1
of the Old Greek Uncials, which extends in some cases to Codex
Vaticanus in particular. The date of the version is variously
estimated by different scholars. It was made later than the
Sahidic, and a date as late as 700 is possible, although a date
earlier in the seventh century, not too long after the Mohammedan
conquest, is not unlikely. 3 The earliest Bohairic MSS. (fragment-
1 [G. Homer], The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Northern Dialect
otherwise called Memphitic and Bohairic, vol. iv., Oxford, 1905 ; for the list of
MSS. see vol. iii. pp. x-lxviii.
2 H. Thompson.
" Erst als sich Agypten von dem grossen Reichsverbande loszulosen
begann, waren die Bedingungen gegeben, unter denen eine volkstiimliche
Litteratur auch im Delta entstehen konnte," Johannes Leipoldt, Geschiehte
der koptischen Litteratur, in Brockelmann, Finck, Leipoldt, and Littmann,
Geschiehte der christlichen Litteratur en des Orients (Die Litteraturen des Ostens
in Einzeldarstellungen, vol. vn. 2), 2nd ed., 1909, p. 179.
VOL. Ill
cxlvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
ary) of any part of the New Testament date from the ninth
century. Certain counsels of prudence, in view of the nature of
Bohairic idiom, with regard to the use of the Bohairic for textual
criticism, are given in connexion with the Tables.
3. ETHIOPIC
Codices. Of manuscripts containing the Ethiopic version of Acts
thirteen are mentioned in Gregory s list. No date is assigned
to four of these ; of the others, one (Paris, Bibl. nat., aeth. 26
[Zotenberg 42]) is of the fifteenth, one of the sixteenth, four of
the seventeenth, and three of the eighteenth century.
Editions. The Ethiopic New Testament was published at Rome, 1548-
1549 (reprinted in Walton s Polyglot, vol. v., London, 1657),
and by the British and Foreign Bible Society, London, 1830
(edited by Thomas Pell Platt). The manuscript of Acts used
for the Roman edition was defective, and the editors were com
pelled to translate from Latin into Ethiopic considerable parts
of the book. The edition of Platt was made, doubtless from
the manuscripts in London, for missionary rather than critical
purposes.
History. The Ethiopic version was made from the Greek (both in the
Old and New Testaments) in the period from the fourth to the
seventh century. In more recent times (perhaps in the fourteenth
century) it was revised by the aid of the Arabic (the Alexandrian
Vulgate ), through which a Syriac influence recognizable in the
later text may have been introduced. 1 Most MSS. are of very
late date, and give a revised form of the text, in various types
of combination with the earlier form.
Character. An analysis of the Ethiopic version of Matt, i.-x., as found in
the oldest and best MS. (Paris, Bibl. nat., aeth. 22 [Zotenberg
32], thirteenth century), shows that it contains a combination of
Western and Antiochian readings. 2 The Old Testament text
1 J. Schafers, Die dthiopische Ubersetzung des Propheten Jeremias (Breslau
dissertation), 1912, p. 14.
2 L. Hackspill, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, xi., 1897, pp. 117-196, 367-388.
VEKSIONS : ETHIOPIC cxlvii
in Genesis agrees largely with the Sahidic and Bohairic ; 1 in
Joshua it has a text like Codex Vaticanus for its basis (as does the
Coptic) ; 2 in Judges it follows the older Greek version, not that
found in Codex Vaticanus ; 3 in Ruth it is in the main pre-
hexaplaric, and resembles Codex B, but has been subjected to
hexaplaric and other later influences. 4 In the four Books of
Kingdoms, the Ethiopic text is specially valuable, for it forms a
compact group with B and the non-hexaplaric quotations of
Origen ; in cases where B and Origen differ, the Ethiopic stands
almost always on the side of Origen, and it gives in some respects
a better text than does B. 5 In 1 Esdras the Ethiopic generally
agrees with B, the Syro-hexaplaric version, and Codex 55, as
against A and the minuscule text. 6 In the Psalter the Ethiopic
stands closer to B than any other witness except the Bohairic
and Codex X ; in its original form it may have been even
nearer. 7 In Jeremiah the oldest form of the Ethiopic belongs
to the type of Codex K. 8 In Ezekiel it largely agrees with the
oldest and best MSS. of the Septuagint. 9
The excellence and usefulness of at least many parts of the
Ethiopic text of the Old Testament and the character of its New
Testament readings in Matthew i.-x. justify the expectation that
an investigation of this version in Acts and in other parts of the
New Testament would produce interesting and valuable results.
1 A. T. Olmstead, The Greek Genesis, American Journal of Semitic
Languages, vol. xxxiv., 1918, p. 153 ; O. Procksch, Die Genesis (Sellin s Kom-
mentar zum A.T.), 1913, p. 14. Codex Vaticanus is lacking for nearly the whole
of Genesis ; the Ethiopic closely agrees with the group f (53), i (56), r (129).
Professor Max L. Margolis.
G. F. Moore, Commentary on Judges, 1895, p. xlv.
Rahlfs, Studie ilber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, 1922, pp. 134 f.
Rahlfs, Studien zu den Konigsbuchern, 1904, pp. 79, 84 f.
Torrey, Ezra Studies, 1910, pp. 100 f.
Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, 1907, pp. 37, 56.
Joseph Schafera, op. cit. p. viii.
Cornill, Das Buck des Propheten Ezechiel, p. 42.
cxlviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
4. SYBIAC i
(a) OLD SYRIAC
The existence of an early translation of Acts into Syriac is
known from the Armenian translations of two works of Ephrem
Syrus (Nisibis and Edessa ; f 373), namely, his Commentary on
the Acts, of which a translation is printed below, pp. 380 fL,
and his Commentary on the Epistles of Paul. 2 These have to be
employed with caution, since the Armenian translator may have
made Ephrem s quotations conform to the Armenian Vulgate ;
nevertheless it is clear that the Syriac text used by Ephrem was
distinctly, and doubtless thoroughly, Western. The few slight
allusions to Acts found in the Homilies of Aphraates do not
permit any inference as to the character of the Syriac text which
he used. There seems nothing to show that the Syriac transla
tion may not have been made before the end of the second
century. The most natural source from which the Syrians could
draw the Greek manuscripts they used would perhaps be Antioch,
but it might have been Palestine, or possibly Rome. 3
(6) PESHITTO
Under Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411-435), a great re
organizing churchman, the Syrian New Testament was made
more complete, and the translation thoroughly revised, both
1 For detailed information of every sort relating to Syriac literary history
reference can now be made to an invaluable thesaurus, A. Baumstark, Geschichte
der syrischen Liter atur, mil Ausschluss der christlichpaldstinensischen Texte,
Bonn, 1922.
2 Ephraem Syri Commentarii in epistolas Pauli ex Armenia in Latinum
sermonem a Mekitharistis translate, Venice, 1893.
3 On the evidence of the use of Acts in the Syrian church, see Zahn, Die
Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas (Forschungen zur Geschichte des
neutest. Kanons, ix), 1916, pp. 203-220. Zahn s view (p. 205) is that Tatian
brought from Rome not only the Gospels, but also the Acts and the Epistles
of Paul. The Doctrina Addaei (ed. Phillips, p. 44) refers to " the Acts of the
Twelve Apostles, which John, the son of Zebedee, sent us from Ephesus " ;
this would seem to indicate that in circles which still knew the Diatessaron
(p. 34) Acts was believed to have been in the possession of the Syrian church
from the earliest times.
VERSIONS : PHILOXENIAN cxlix
with reference to the Syriac form and by the aid of Greek MSS.,
the latter probably being drawn from Antioch. The resulting
Peshitto text of the Acts is analysed below (pp. 292 if.), and
shows considerable survivals of a more primitive Western Old
Syriac, in the midst of a text substantially like that of the Old
Uncials. The rendering is often very free, somewhat after the
manner of the * Western text (cf . for instance Acts xii. 6 in the
Peshitto) ; the translator has a habit of expressing one Greek
word by two Syriac ones. He but rarely omits anything that
was in his Greek text. The readings which depart from the Old
Uncial text and follow the Antiochian are usually also found in
Western witnesses, and there seems no trace of the peculiar
and distinctive selection of readings which is the chief recognizable
characteristic of the Antiochian text.
The text of the Peshitto itself has been preserved with extra
ordinary fidelity from the earliest times ; moreover, at least one
MS. of Acts is extant, and used for Gwilliam s text (1920), which
may have been written in the very century in which the version
was made.
(c) PHILOXENIAN
As the influence of a great Syrian ecclesiastic of the first half Origin.
of the fifth century, Rabbula of Edessa, had produced the
Peshitto in Edessa, so, a little less than a century later, the next
important revision of the Syriac New Testament was due to the
instance of a great and militant leader of the Eastern mono-
physite Christians, Philoxenus (Mar Xenaia, f 523), bishop of
Hierapolis (Mabog, Bambyce), who, with his contemporary,
Severus of Antioch, founded Jacobite Monophysitism. The
work of translation was performed in 508, in the period when
the prestige of Philoxenus was at its height, by Polycarp, chor-
episcopus in the diocese of Mabog ; it included, apparently for
the first time in Syriac, the four minor Catholic epistles (2 Peter,
2 and 3 John, Jude) and the Book of Revelation. 1 These the
1 John Gwynn, art. Polycarpus Chorepiscopus, and Edmund Venables,
ar t. Philoxenus, in Dictionary of Christian Biography ; Gwynn, Remnants of
cl THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
church of Edessa in the days of Rabbula, following its Greek
authorities, had not accepted, and they had accordingly not
formed a part of the Peshitto. This enlargement of the canon
was in itself an indication of monophysite accessibility to Greek
influence and of alienation from the old-fashioned Syrian ways
of the Nestorians. It is instructive to observe that Philoxenus
himself did not know Greek, 1 while Severus of Antioch, who was
in manifold communication with the Alexandrian monophy sites,
was a Greek. What parts of the Old Testament were comprised
in the revision is uncertain, although certain fragments of Isaiah
found in a British Museum MS. (Add. 17,106) have been somewhat
doubtfully supposed to be from this version, partly on the ground
of a scholion in the Milan Syro-hexaplar codex. Even of the
New Testament the only books which seem to have come down
to us in the Philoxenian version are the five which it added to
the Syriac Bible. 2
The four minor Catholic epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude)
in Syriac were first published by E. Pococke in 1630, from a MS.
now in the Bodleian Library (Or. 119, Catal. 35), were inserted
in the Paris Polyglot of 1645, and have since appeared in all
editions of the Peshitto. They were recognized by John Gwynn
the Later Syriac Versions of the Bible, London, 1909 ; Gwynn, The Apocalypse
of St. John, in a Syriac Version hitherto Unknown, Dublin, 1897. The argu
ments of Gwynn must be accepted in spite of the contentions of J. Lebon,
Revue d histoire ecclesiastique, vol. xir., Louvain, 1911, pp. 412-436. Lebon s
view rests on the articles by H. Gressmann, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, vol. v., 1904, pp. 248-252 ; vol. vi., 1905, pp. 135-152, who tried
to draw from the Syriac (Karkaphensian) masora evidence that the express
ascription of the version in the MSS. to Thomas of Harkel is a mistake. Adequate
replies to this view are given in the criticism of Lebon (by Lagrange ?)
in Revue Biblique, vol. ix., 1912, pp. 141-143, and the article of L. J.
Delaporte, * L fivangelaire heracleen et la tradition karkaphienne, ibid.
pp. 390-402.
1 J. Lebon, Revue d histoire ecclesiastique, vol. xii., 1911, p. 417 note 1
(with references).
2 N. Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, Rome, 1828, pp. 178 f. note, cites five brief
passages from Romans, Corinthians, and Ephesians, which are ascribed to the
Philoxenian in a MS. of the Karkaphensian material. The renderings closely j
resemble those of the Harclean, but are not identical with the text of our
Harclean MSS.
VEKSIONS : PHILOXENIAN cli
as drawn from the Philoxenian. 1 The Apocalypse in the Phil-
oxenian was discovered by Gwynn in the Crawford MS. now
in the John Ry lands Library, Manchester. 2
The earliest extant notice of the Philoxenian version of the Moses of
New Testament is that of Moses of Aghel 3 in a letter prefixed
to his translation of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, a
work containing interpretations of passages in the Pentateuch :
And I ask the reader to attend to the words of this book, for they
are deep. And when he finds quotations from the Holy Bible which
are cited in this translation, let him not be troubled if they do not
agree with the copies of the Syrians, for the versions and traditions 4
of the Bible vary greatly. And if he wishes to find the truth, let
him take the translation of the New Testament which [and of David] 5
Polycarp the chorepiscopus made into Syriac (rest his soul !) for
the worthy and for good works ever memorable Faithful man
and teacher, Xenaias of Mabog. He will be astonished at the differ
ences which exist in the translation of the Syriac from the Greek
language. But as for us, inasmuch as we are now translating from
the Greek language into Syriac (with the aid of Christ), we here
indicate the word as it is in the Greek, by the hands of the brethren,
our young pupils ; and when they make mistakes in the syllables
or the points, and are observed, well-instructed readers will correct as
the text ought to read.
1 Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv., 1887, pp. 432 f. ; Hermathena,
vol. vii., 1890, pp. 281-314.
2 Gwynn, The Academy, June 18, 1892, p. 592 ; Transactions of the Royal
Irish Academy, vol. xxx., 1893 ; Apocalypse of St. John, 1897.
3 Assemani, Bibliotheca orientalis, ii. p. 83. The Syriac text is printed
by I. Guidi, in the Rendiconti of the Accademia dei Lincei, ser. 4, vol. n., Rome,
1886, p. 404. The sole MS. known (divided between the Vatican and the British
Museum) is of the sixth or seventh century. Evidence for dates in the life of
Moses of Aghel is meagre. His prefatory letter above mentioned was written
after the death of Philoxenus in 523. One of his other works was probably
already current in 570, since it is included in a collection made at about that date.
4 Translated by Merx: Ausgaben und Recensionen.
* The words and of David (we-dauid), here put in brackets, are to be
regarded either as an interpolation or as a corruption of some other word. Not
only do they stand in a wholly unnatural position, but it is doubtful whether
in any case the Psalms could be called David in such a context as this. They
constitute, it may be noted, the only known ground for supposing that the
Philoxenian version included the Psalms except for an allusion in a Syriac
Psalter belonging to the Harvard Semitic Museum (No. 133).
clii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The differences here referred to seem plainly to be those
readily observable between the Philoxenian version, conformed
to a different Greek text, and the Peshitto. But the statement
of Moses throws no direct light on the reason why Philoxenus
instituted a new translation. 1 We may assume that, incidentally
to his general labours in consolidating the monophysite Syrians,
he wished to provide them with a translation according both in
text and in contents with approved Greek copies. But the
meagre evidence does not point to an agreement in the Greek
text used with that employed by Cyril of Alexandria.
The other chief evidence relating to the Philoxenian version
is found in the subscriptions to the Gospels, Acts and Catholic
epistles, and Pauline epistles, of the later revision by Thomas of
Harkel (616). Reference is there made to the version (on which
that of Thomas is founded) made from the Greek at Mabog in
the year 508 in the days of Philoxenus, bishop of that city. In
the subscription to the Pauline epistles it seems to be stated that
the Philoxenian version of that portion rested on a Caesarean MS.
written by Pamphilus with his own hand. 2 The subscription to
the Gospels directly states, and that to the Pauline Epistles
implies, that the Philoxenian version was made from the Greek.
Later Syriac writers, Bar Salibi (f ca. 1171), Bar Hebraeus
1 The view of Gwynn, Apocalypse of St. John, p. Ixxi note (cf. Diet, of
Christian Biography, iv. p. 432), that Philoxenus was led to have the new version
made because he observed " discrepancies between the Peshitto text and that
of the citations of Cyril of Alexandria from LXX and N.T.," rests on a different
understanding of the participle translated above he will be surprised. Gwynn
took this as a causal participle referring to Polycarp, but the interpretation
followed above is better. The latter interpretation is also followed by A. Merx,
Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, vol. xn., 1898, p. 350 note.
2 In view, however, of the details of the form of statement employed in the
colophon, it is probable that here, as in Codex HP aul , the reference to the codex
written by Pamphilus was drawn from the well-known statement to the same
effect in the Euthalian material, and cannot be taken as evidence for the
actual Greek text used by Polycarp ; cf. Corssen, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen,
1899, pp. 670 ff. That the Philoxenian of the Pauline epistles was supplied
with Euthalian apparatus is shown by E. von Dobschiitz, Euthaliusstudien,
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, vol. xix., 1899, pp. 115-154. See also
F. C. Conybeare, On the Codex Pamphili and Date of Euthalius, Journal of
Philology, London and Cambridge, vol. xxui., 1895, pp. 241-259.
VERSIONS : PHILOXENIAN cliii
(f 1286), and an anonymous life of Thomas of Harkel of uncertain
date, make similar statements about the Philoxenian version,
but seem to have had no further knowledge than could be drawn
from the Harclean subscriptions.
Of the greater part of the Philoxenian New Testament, that, style and
namely, in which it was possible for the reviser to use the Peshitto,
nothing has been surely recognized in existing Syriac texts.
It would be possible, however, to draw some safe inferences
from the character of the four smaller Catholic epistles and the
Apocalypse, of which a fresh translation had to be made. The
style of these books is a free and fluent Syriac idiom, not slavishly
conformed to the Greek, and clearly showing the influence of
the style and diction of the Peshitto. 1 With regard to text,
in the four epistles the Philoxenian does not seem to belong
with B or with KLP (Antiochian). 2 But an adequate study of
the Philoxenian text of these epistles remains to be made. In
the Apocalypse the Philoxenian text contains a considerable
Antiochian element in agreement with Q (046 ; formerly B) and
the minuscules, but apart from that it gives an ancient text of
mixed character, in part agreeing with the best uncials, not
infrequently in accord with peculiar readings of N, and showing
a striking measure of agreement with the distinctive readings
of the African Latin of Primasius.
Since the version was made at Mabog, a place of Syrian
speech, and for practical ecclesiastical use, not for learned
purposes, it is more likely that an existing Greek text was obtained
and translated than that a new one was constructed out of varied
1 Gwynn, Apocalypse, p. cv: "We justly claim [for the Philoxenian], as regards
its general tone and manner, that it approaches the excellence of the Peshitto ;
and in point of force, directness, and dignity, that it gives worthy expression
to the sublime imagery of the Apocalyptist. It has strength and freedom such
as few translations attain." Cf. also the interesting general descriptions in
Gwynn, Remnants, Part I., pp. xxxii f. ; Apocalypse, pp. xvii-xxxviii. Phil-
oxenus himself is said to be " one of the best and most elegant writers in the
Syrian tongue " (Gwynn, Diet, of Christian Biography, iv. p. 393, citing Assemani).
* Gwynn, Remnants of the Later Syriac Versions, Part L, p. Ixx. Merx s
idea, Zeitschrift filr Assyriologie, vol. xn., 1898, p. 358, that the true Philoxenian
text gives the text of Lucian, is not well founded.
cliv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
materials assembled for the purpose. Consequently it may well
be that the text of the four epistles and the Apocalypse, the
latter evidently containing a remarkable Western element,
would, if studied in the light of the knowledge now available,
acquaint us with a highly archaic Greek text, 1 and throw im
portant light on the history of the text.
For the rest of the New Testament there is no means of
reconstructing the lost Philoxenian version. It must have shown
an affinity to the Peshitto at least as great as that to be observed
in the choice of language found in the books not previously
translated. 2 It would be natural to expect it to stand somewhere
between the Peshitto and the final Harclean revision.
One circumstance is noteworthy. Wholly unlike the Peshitto,
the Philoxenian, like the Greek texts, was subject to much scribal
modification and corruption. For the four epistles Gwynn used
twenty different MSS., the oldest being dated 823. They fall into
two groups, an older (ninth- twelfth century), and a later (fifteenth-
seventeenth century ; from this the usual printed editions have
been taken), besides several of intermediate character. There
is also an Arabic version of the Philoxenian, contained in a ninth-
century MS. from Mt. Sinai (Catalogue, No. 154), which mainly,
but not exclusively, agrees with the later group of Syriac MSS. 3
1 On the suggestion that the Philoxenian derived archaic elements from the
Old Syriac, see below, p. clxxvii note 1.
2 Gwynn, Apocalypse, pp. xix-xx. Burkitt is disposed to think that the
Philoxenian version made very few changes in the Peshitto, and that Polycarp s
work consisted almost wholly in adding kephalaia to the Gospels and
equipping the Acts and Epistles with Euthalian apparatus. Such a sub
stantial identity of text with the Peshitto is believed to account for the remark
able disappearance of all MSS. of the Philoxenian except for the five freshly
translated books. This theory makes it necessary to suppose that Moses of
Aghel, in referring to the translation made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, really
had in mind the Harclean version of 616. But in view of what is known of
the period of Moses activity, it is difficult to believe that his letter prefatory to
the Glaphyra could have been written at so late a date.
3 As between the two families, Gwynn has argued for the older, while A.
Merx, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, vol. xn., 1897-98, pp. 240-252, 348-381 ;
vol. xiii., 1898-99, pp. 1-28, relying especially on the evidence of the Arabic
version, thinks that the later family (which is in less close agreement with the
Harclean version) better represents the original Philoxenian.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN civ
No reason exists for supposing that the Philoxenian version
was supplied with marginal readings, or other critical apparatus
except the Euthalian material. 1
(d) HARCLEAN
In the period following Philoxenus of Mabog and Severus of Origin.
Antioch the monophysite churches of Syria were subjected to
stern imperial persecution and were rent by internal theological
faction. From the state of weakness and disintegration which
resulted they were rescued by the untiring apostolic labours of
Jacob Baradaeus (b. before 500, f 578), honoured from that day
to this by the monophysites of the East Syrian, Coptic,
and Abyssinian. The later years of the sixth century, however,
witnessed the rise of grave quarrels between the Syrian and
Alexandrian monophysites, which were not healed until early
in the seventh century, when the hostile advance of the Persians
under Chosroes II. ravaged the chief seats of the monophysite
Syrians in Mesopotamia and northern Syria. At that time the
monophysite titular " patriarch of Antioch," Athanasius I.
(Camelarius ; 595-631), whose actual residence had been at a
monastery near Callinicus on the Euphrates, more than once
visited Alexandria in the interest of peace ; and about 613,
when the Persians were in full occupation of his own country,
he came again, with five of his bishops. Welcomed by the
* Faithful of Alexandria, they seem to have consummated
their ministry of reconciliation between the two branches of the
1 Considerable fragments of a reconstruction of the Euthalian material
for the Pauline epistles are found in the Peshitto manuscript, Brit. Mus. add.
7157, and are probably derived from the Philoxenian. The Harclean Codex
Ridleyanus (Oxford, New College, 333), used by White, contains a Euthalian
apparatus to these epistles, drawn from the same Greek text as is the Phil
oxenian and not independent of the latter in rendering, but brought closer
to the Greek original in arrangement and expression, and supplied with an
apparatus of asterisks, obeli, and marginal notes. This seems to be the revised
form by Thomas of Harkel. See White, Actuum apostolorum et epistolarum . . .
versio Syriaca Philoxeniana, vol. ii., 1803, pp. ix-xiv ; E. von Dobschutz,
Euthaliusstudien, Zeitschriftfiir Kirchengeschichte, vol. xix., 1899, pp. 107-154.
clvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
monophysite church, and some at least of the visitors remained
for several years. 1
Among the monophysite bishops whom Athanasius brought
with him, or found, as fugitives, already at Alexandria, 2 were
Paul, bishop of Telia, and Thomas of Harkel, 3 bishop of
Mabog, who had been expelled from that see in 602 by
Domitian of Melitene. Athanasius, Paul, and Thomas lived
together for a considerable period in the monastery at the nine-
mile relay - station (Enaton) near Alexandria. 4 Here, at the
1 A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, pp. 185-189 ; J. Gwynn,
articles Paulus Tellensis and Thomas Harklensis in Dictionary of Christian
Biography.
2 That Thomas had come to Alexandria earlier is the view of Jean Maspero,
Histoire des patriarches d Alexandrie (518-616), Paris, 1923, pp. 316, 322, 329-
332, on the ground of positive Syriac testimony.
3 The Greek for Harkel seems to be Heraclea ; the place may have been
a town east of Antioch mentioned by Strabo xvi. p. 751 ; but see Georg
Hoffmann, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, xxxn.,
1878, p. 740, who thinks it was an outlying village of Mabog.
4 The meaning of the name * Enaton, much discussed in the past, has now
been more fully elucidated by F. M. Abel, TO ENNATON, Oriens Christianus,
vol. i., 1911, pp. 77-82. The term (or its equivalent Nonum ) is found
in various parts of the world (Italy and Gaul, as well as Syria and Egypt)
denoting one of the relay-posts (mutationes) established for remounts and
changes of beasts of burden at suitable intervals on the road between two main
* stations (mansiones). The mansiones were usually at larger towns, and
distant from one another about one day s journey. Between them relays
(mutationes) were strung along at an average distance of twelve Roman miles,
but in a number of instances, apparently as a matter of habitual regulation,
the first mutatio is known to have been situated nine miles from the mansio.
Around the stables and stable-men s quarters of such a relay-post would spring
up a small village with taverns and shops, sometimes with barracks, and (as is
known from a variety of other definite testimonies) at the Alexandrian Nonum
a monastery was situated. It may be noted that in 613 Athanasius s host, the
monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, Anastasius Apozygatius, was not allowed
within the city limits, and is stated to have received his guests " in a monastery
by the eastern seashore." Other views are mentioned in Gwynn s full note in
art. Paulus Tellensis, Diet, of Christian Biography, vol. iv., 1887, p. 267.
For references to the Nonum, or Ennaton, of Alexandria, see H. Rosweyd,
Vitae patrum, Antwerp, 1628, lib. V, libell. vii., par. 7 ; libell. xi., num. 11 ;
libell. xii., num. 9. It was by Professor Burkitt that my attention was called
to Rosweyd, who (pp. 1043 f., cf. pp. 1028 and 1055 f.) was himself in complete
confusion as to the meaning of the term. See also Wright, Catalogue of Syriac
Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1870, Part I., cols. 34, 586, 641, where
will be found convincing evidence that the Syrians knew the correct vocaliza
tion and aspirate of the Greek word. J. Maspero, op. cit. p. 48 note 3, points
VEKSIONS : HARCLEAN civil
instance of Athanasius, Paul with assistance from others
translated the Old Testament from the Greek hexaplaric and
tetraplaric text of a copy made by Eusebius and Pamphilus.
Successive parts of the translation are dated in the years 616
and 617. A certain Thomas (doubtless Thomas of Harkel) was
his chief assistant in translating Kings. We may assume that
it was likewise at the instance of Athanasius, and as part of a
comprehensive plan for a new translation of the Bible, that at
the same date Thomas of Harkel with certain associates produced
his revision of the Philoxenian New Testament (including all the
twenty-seven books), which was completed in 616. The two
Testaments are translated in exactly the same manner * a
painfully exact imitation of Greek idiom and order of words,
often in disregard of Syriac modes of expression, and so com
pletely and conscientiously carried through that doubt scarcely
ever arises as to the Greek text intended by the translator. 2
The purpose of this great undertaking must have been to
provide for Syrian monophysites a Bible agreeing with that
used and approved by their Greek fellow-believers. Made with
this intent it was a fitting part of the policy of reconciliation
which Athanasius is known to have been pursuing at this time.
out that another monastery referred to by the same term seems to have been
situated within Alexandria in the Ninth Quarter ; but the famous and im
portant monastery, so often mentioned in the sources, was the one (El Zadjadj)
nine miles out from the city. Hither, on a 6th of December, were trans
ferred the venerated remains of St. Severus, patriarch of Antioch (f538), and
here dwelt the monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, Peter IV. (575-577), as
well as his vigorous successor Damian (578-604), himself a monk of the
Enaton. On the identification of the monastery and the Arabic references,
see J. Maspero, op. cit. pp. 158-160 note 5; cf. also Enaton in his Index;
also Evetts and Butler, Churches and Monasteries of Egypt, 1895, p. 229 n. 1.
1 Other Jacobite works, such as the Hymns of Severus, as revised in 675
by James of Edessa, are translated in much the same way. See E. W. Brooks,
James of Edessa : the Hymns of Severus of Antioch and Others (Patrologia
Orientalis, vi. 1 ; vii. 5), Paris, 1911. In this collection of hymns the text
of Acts used was not the Peshitto, and deserves investigation. This reference
is due to Professor Burkitt.
2 For a detailed account of this peculiar Harclean style, see Gwynn, Apoca
lypse, pp. xxvii-xxxv ; Diet, of Christian Biography, vol. iv. p. 1016 ; Marsh s
transl. of Michaelis s Introduction to the New Testament, 1802, chap. vii. sect. xi.
clviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The Harclean Syriac of the Gospels is found in many manu
scripts, including several of great relative antiquity, at least one
being ascribed to the seventh century itself, while another is dated
757. A critical examination of all these MSS. ought to be made,
and White s edition (1778, based on the two New College, Oxford,
MSS.) supplemented by the additional knowledge now available.
Of the Acts and Epistles (the seven Catholic as well as the
Pauline) two manuscripts are known : x
*.
Oxford, Library of New College, 333 (now deposited in the
Bodleian Library). Eleventh century. Lacks Heb. xi. 28-
xiii. 25 and the subscription to the Pauline epistles. This
was the source of White s edition (1799, 1803). 2
Cambridge, University Library, add. 1700. The "Mohl
Manuscript." A.D. 1170. From this the missing close of
Hebrews and the subscription to the Pauline epistles have
been published by Bensly. 3
These two copies do not appear to differ substantially in
text, but the Cambridge copy lacks the diacritical signs and the
marginal readings with which the Oxford copy is furnished.
In addition a twelfth-century fragment, containing Acts i.
1-10, is included in Codex canon, or. 130 of the Bodleian Library,
Oxford.
For the Apocalypse several MSS. (all late) are known, from
one of which (Leyden, University Library, cod. scalig. 18) the
1 In addition one MS. (belonging to Dr. J. Ren del Harris) contains the four
minor Catholic epistles in the Harclean, and one other (British Museum, add.
14,474 ; eleventh or twelfth century) contains 2 Peter in that version. In
both cases the rest of the text is Peshitto. Gwynn, Remnants of the Later
Syriac Versions, Part I., Appendix II. pp. 146-153. Gregory s statements about
the Harclean MSS. of Acts and Epistles are beset with inextricable confusion.
2 So far as is known, this New College, Oxford, MS. is unique for the Book
of Acts, and a facsimile publication is highly desirable. A complete set of
photographs of the pages containing Acts, of full size, is in the Library of
Harvard University.
3 R. L. Bensly, The Harklean Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. xi.
28-xiii. 25, now edited for the first time with Introduction and Notes on this Version
of the Epistle, Cambridge, 1889.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clix
text was published by De Dieu in 1627, and has thus passed into
all later editions of the Peshitto.
Subscriptions by the editor have been preserved for three of
the four sections of the New Testament in one or more of the MSS.,
and there is convincing evidence that a similar subscription once
existed for the Apocalypse. 1 To these the statements of Bar
Salibi (who used the Harclean version as the basis of his com
mentary on the Apocalypse, Acts, and seven Catholic epistles 2 ),
Bar Hebraeus, and other Syriac writers add scarcely anything
for our present purpose.
The subscription to Acts, substantially in the translation of
White (pp. 274 f.), is as follows :
Explicit liber sanctus Actuum Apostolorum et Epistulae Catho-
licae septem. 3
Descriptus est autem ex exemplari accurate eorum qui versi sunt
diebus (memoriae piae) sancti Philoxeni confessoris, episcopi Mabog.
Collatus est autem diligentia multa mea Thomae pauperis ad
exemplar Graecum valde accuratum et probatum in Enaton Alex-
andriae, urbis magnae, in monasterio Antonianorum, sicut reliqui
omnes libri, socii ejus. 4
The other subscriptions are to the same purport, 5 but con
tain some further statements, including the date 508 for the
1 J. Gwynn, On the Recovery of a Missing Syriac Manuscript of the
Apocalypse, Hermathena, vol. x., 1898, pp. 227-245.
2 The commentary of Bar Salibi is edited with translation by J. Sedlacek
in Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, Series II., vol. ci., 1909, 1910.
An examination of it with reference to the text of Acts might be instructive ;
cf. Gwynn s observations, Apocalypse, pp. Ixxxiv f.
3 These last three words do not seem to be in the genitive in the Oxford MS.
as published by White.
4 The other associated books seem to be the other sections of the New
Testament. A similar reference to the associates of the section in hand is
found in the Harclean subscription to the Gospels in several MSS. (not, as it
happens, in that followed by White in his edition, but see White, pp. 644 f.,
647, 649 f.). Likewise in the subscription to the Pauline Epistles express
mention is made of the work of Thomas and his associates on " the Gospel and
Acts." On the interpretation of these subscriptions see J. G. Eichhorn, Uber
den Verfasser der hexaplarisch-syrischen t)bersetzung, in Repertorium fur
Biblische und Morgenlandische. Litteratur, Theil vii., 1780, pp. 225-250.
6 The subscriptions to the several parts of the Syro-hexaplar Old Testament
of Paul of Telia are of the same general type.
clx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Philoxenian version and 616 for the work of Thomas. While Acts
and the Catholic Epistles were compared with one accurate copy,
the Gospels are stated to have been compared with three (other
MSS. read * two ), and the Pauline epistles with two. In the sub
scription to the Pauline epistles it is said that the present edition
has been made " for the study and use ... of those who are
zealous to learn and preserve the accuracy of the apostolic (that
is, the divine) words and meanings." *
Text. These subscriptions make it clear that the Harclean Syriac
text was a revision of the Philoxenian, and was made in 616 with
the aid of accurate and approved Greek copies accessible at
Alexandria. The Harclean text itself, in so far as it has been
studied, does not belie this. In the Apocalypse it has been
largely, though not completely, conformed to the Antiochian
text (represented by Q and most minuscules) ; in the Gospels 2
and Acts, likewise, apart from certain words and phrases marked
with an asterisk, it appears to give substantially the Antiochian
text ; 3 and this seems to be the view of Hort with regard to the
epistles also. 4 It would thus appear that the accurate and
approved Greek copies (which, be it noted, are nowhere said to
have been ancient) were manuscripts of the Antiochian text.
Nothing in Thomas s statement implies that they were used for
1 Similar phrases are found in the subscription to the Gospels, as given in
some MSS. ; see J. G. C. Adler, Novi Testamenti versiones Syriacae, Copenhagen,
1789, pp. 46 f.
2 Gwynn, Diet, of Christian Biography, vol. iv. p. 1018 : in the Gospels
" the text represents (on the whole) a Greek basis akin in the main to the Con-
stantinopolitan or Received Greek text, while the margin inclines strongly
to the Western Greek text, as represented by D and the Old Latin, and not
seldom (though less decisively) towards that of the other older uncials, mostly
B and L, sometimes A, C, and others."
3 For instance, in Acts i., of all those departures of the Antiochian text from
that of Codex Vaticanus which are capable of ready expression in Syriac, only
one (vs. 14, the addition of /ecu rrj deijaei) fails to appear in the Harclean. More
over, in so far as I have made examination, the departures of the Harclean from
the text common to the Old Uncials and the Antiochian are few and trivial,
although occasionally a striking ancient reading, not marked (in our single
annotated copy) by an asterisk, will stand out conspicuously against the general
Antiochian background.
* Compare what is said by Hort, Introduction, p. 156.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxi
any other purpose than to bring the Syriac text into substantial
conformity with that current and approved in the seventh century
in Alexandria. No hint is given which suggests that they were
made a source for marginal glosses or for the insertion of asterisks
and obeli.
The evidence of the four minor Catholic epistles and the
Apocalypse, where the two versions can be compared, makes it
probable, as is explained below, that in the Harclean text not
only turns of Syriac expression, but also renderings which imply
a non-antiochian Greek text, have in some cases survived from
the Philoxenian. The general style, however, of the peculiar
Harclean mode of expression has been imposed by the reviser
upon the whole, including asterisked phrases.
The influence of the Peshitto, clearly observable even in the
extant books of the Philoxenian, where no direct dependence
was possible because the Peshitto did not contain them, was un
doubtedly strong in those parts where the Peshitto had preceded
the Philoxenian ; and through the latter, and perhaps directly
also, it reached the Harclean. But, for these books, it is im
possible to say how far the Harclean version was derived from
the Philoxenian.
As merely reproducing an Antiochian text, mixed with some Asterisks
ancient (often Western ) readings, the Harclean version can marginal
claim but little interest, far less than the Philoxenian (if that n
could be recovered). But the apparatus which was attached to
it by Thomas has made it, at least for the book of Acts, one of
the most important witnesses to the Western text that have
come down to us. This apparatus consists of two parts. (1) In
the text itself many words, parts of words (such as pronominal
suffixes), and phrases, with a few longer sentences, are marked
with an asterisk (><) or with an obelus ( ), the termination of
the reference being exactly indicated by a metobelus (^). The
probable significance and origin of these will be discussed pres
ently. (2) In the margin, with points of attachment in the
text marked by various characters, are found a great number of
VOL. in I
notes.
clxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
notes. 1 These vary in nature. Some are variant renderings
not affecting the Greek text. In the four minor epistles and the
Apocalypse several cases of this kind occur, where the Harclean
margin seems to give the rejected rendering of the Philoxenian
(notably 2 Peter ii. 4 ; 3 John 6), 2 and that may well be the
source of the marginal variant renderings in other books. In
Acts i. 25 the margin renders \apelv by the use, characteristic
of the Philoxenian, of the future with the prefix >, while the text
uses the infinitive with the prefix ii in accordance with the
regular Harclean custom. 3 In Acts i. 3 the margin gives ^9JL ^ for
Sid as a substitute for the unidiomatic and literal f -> of the text.
In other cases the margin gives explanations or statements of
various kinds. Thus on Acts i. 20 the margin gives a reference
to Psalm Ixviii. (i.e. according to the Syriac enumeration) and
quotes the verse in question in a text corresponding, as would
be expected, not to the Peshitto but to the Syro-hexaplar of Paul
of Telia, from which it differs only in a more pedantic imitation
of the Greek than is exhibited by the extant Syro-hexaplaric MS.
On Acts x. 1 the note gives the derivation of the name Kopvrj\Los
as Koprjv TJ\LOV. Sometimes a Greek word, rarely a Hebrew one,
is written in the margin or between the lines, to justify the
rendering or explain a transliteration, but these may not all be
from the same source as the other notes, and are negligible for
any further critical purposes. 4 Other notes are of what may be
called a Masoretic character, and relate to deliberate omission of
plural points, to spelling, and to pronunciation.
Longer Longer notes sometimes occur, some of which are instructive.
1 The best account of these notes is that given by G. C. Storr, Von der
philoxenianisch-syrischen t)bersetzung der Evangelien, in Repertorium fur
Biblische und Morgenlandische Litteratur, Theil vii., Leipzig, 1780, pp. 15-48.
On the Harclean see also G. C. Storr, Supplemente zu Wetsteins Varianten
aus der Philoxenischen Ubersetzung, Repertorium, Theil x., 1782, pp. 1-58.
2 Gwynn, Remnants, pp. xxxvii f., Apocalypse, p. Ixxxiv.
3 Gwynn, Apocalypse, p. xxix.
4 G. C. Storr, in Repertorium, vii., 1780, pp. 15-18, gives a list of many of
these, and points out that in some cases in the Gospels the Greek notes do not
correspond with the actual Syriac of the text.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxiii
In quoting these and the words from the continuous text with
which they are connected by the scribe, it will be convenient to
use White s Latin translation (slightly corrected).
Matt. ii. 17. The text reads per Jeremiam, to which a note is
attached : Graecum dicit a Jeremia, non per.
Matt. xxv. 1. The text reads -x- et sponsae ^. On this the
note : Sponsa non in omnibus exemplaribus invenitur, et
nominatim (A~*J^-M*) in Alexandrino.
Matt, xxvii. 35. The continuous text includes the quotation
from Psalm xxii. 18, with the marginal note : Haec periocha pro-
phetae non inventa est in duobus exemplaribus Graecis, neque in
illo antiquo Syriaco.
Matt, xxviii. 5. The text reads Jesum -x- Nazarenum ^, with
the note : In tribus exemplaribus Graecis et uno Syriaco, illo
antiquo, non inventum est nomen i Nazarenum
Mark viii. 17. The text reads : -x- in cordibus vestris pusilli
fide ^, with the note : In cordibus vestris pusilli fide non in
ventum est in duobus exemplaribus Graecis neque in illo antiquo
Syriaco.
Mark x. 48. To the words fill Davidis of the text is attached
the note : In duobus exemplaribus Graecis fili filii Davidis in
ventum est.
Mark xi. 10. The text reads : patris nostri Davidis * pax in
caelo et gloria in excelsis </. hosanna in excelsis, with the note
attached at the word pax : Pax in caelo et gloria in excelsis non
in omnibus exemplaribus Graecis invenitur neque in illo Mar
Xenaiae ; in nonnullis autem accuratis, ut putamus, invenimus
illud.
Mark xii. 14. The text reads * die nobis igitur ^, with
he note : Die nobis igitur non invenimus in Graeco.
Luke vi. 1. To the words sabbatho secundo primi of the text is
attached the note : Secundo primi non in omni exemplari est.
Luke viii. 24. The text has tranquillitas -x- magna ^, with
he note : Magna non in omnibus exemplaribus invenitur.
Luke viii. 52. The text reads non -x- enim ^ mortua est
clxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
x- puella v% with the note: Enim, paella* non in omni
exemplari invenitur.
Luke ix. 23. The text reads -x- quotidie </, with the note :
Quotidie non in omnibus exemplaribus invenitur.
Luke ix. 50. The text reads -x- non enim est adversus vos ^,
with the note : Non enim est adversus vos non in omnibus
exemplaribus invenitur.
Luke xix. 38. The text reads * benedictus est rex Israelis x%
with the note : Benedictus est rex Israelis non in omnibus exem
plaribus invenitur.
Luke xix. 45. The text reads * et mensas numulariorum effudit
et cathedras eorum qui vendebant columbas ^, with the note :
Et mensas numulariorum effudit et cathedras eorum qui vendebant
columbas non in omni exemplari est ita Me.
Luke xx. 34. To the woidfilii of the text is attached the note :
In exemplari antiquo est gignunt et gignuntur et in Graeco
non est.
Acts iv. 30. To the words per nomen of the text is attached
the note : Sunt exemplaria in quibus non est no-men. 9
Acts ix. 4. The text reads : -x- durum est tibi calcitrare ad
stimulos ^ with the note : Durum est tibi calcitrare ad stimulos
non est Me in Graeco sed ubi enarrat Paulus de se.
Jude 12. To the words in refectionibus of the text is attached
the note : ez> rats ayaTraw. In Graeco * in dilectionibus est.
Philippians iii. 18. The text reads aliter ^ ambulant, with
the note : In duobus exemplaribus accuratis Graecis non invenitur
f aliter.
Colossians ii. 1. The text reads Us qui Laodicaeae -x- et Us qui
Hieropoli v with the note : ev lepoirdXei, Qui Hieropoli non
in omni exemplari invenitur.
In these careful notes the editor calls attention to differences
between the reading which he has allowed to stand in his text
(usually with an asterisk) and some or all of the Greek copies
which he is using for correction. In some instances he also refers j
to " the old Syriac," " the old copy," phrases which are to be
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxv
interpreted in the light of the note on Mark xi. 10 as referring
to the Philoxenian basis of his revision. Nothing in these notes
need suggest a direct comparison with the Peshitto ; any
agreement with the Peshitto in readings adopted or referred to
is fully accounted for by the fact that the Philoxenian must have
derived many of its renderings from that translation, and at
many points may well have coincided with it in underlying Greek
text. Every one of the notes (except those on Mark x. 48,
Luke vi. 1, and Acts iv. 30, and the exegetical note on Jude
12) relates to a reading allowed to stand (usually under
asterisk) in the Harclean text but at variance with the
Antiochian Greek text to which the great mass of the
Harclean version corresponds. In nearly all the cases the
word or phrase is found in the Harclean and absent from the
Antiochian. The very close similarity of the Greek copies
used by Thomas as a standard may be seen from the fact
that the readings in Mark x. 48 and Acts iv. 30 which he
attributes respectively to two copies and some copies are
not found in any Greek MS. known to us.
In other cases, not very numerous, the margin adds a word or other
phrase, not attested in other versions or in any Greek text, such
as might naturally be supplied by a translator to complete the
sense in Syriac a pronoun with its preposition (so Acts iii. 6 ad
eum), or a word amply suggested by the context (for instance,
vi. 7 evangelii, vii. 60 Jesu). These are closely similar to
the words and phrases marked in the text by obeli and to the
lesser portion of those marked by asterisks, as will presently be
explained.
But more numerous than the various types of notes hitherto
mentioned (especially in Acts) are the great number of marginal
notes which simply give without comment the Syriac rendering
of a Greek reading different from that followed in the continuous
Syriac text of the editor s version. In the Book of Acts these,
taken together with the portions of the continuous text marked
with an asterisk, constitute a delectus of Western readings of
clxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
great purity and of a value for the reconstruction of the Western
recension second only (and in some respects superior) to Codex
Bezae. The question why in a few cases the editor chose to add
a special comment to these variants cannot be answered. Before
discussing further their significance and origin it is necessary
to speak of his use of asterisks and obeli.
Asterisks The meaning of these signs has been much discussed ever
since the publication of White s edition, which contains them.
The earliest assumption that the signs indicated some relation
to the Peshitto was mistaken, 1 and made satisfactory conclusions
impossible, in spite of a great amount of careful work ; and the
observation that the Peshitto should be left wholly out of account
in the study of the signs has greatly facilitated the investigation.
Difference A further embarrassment arose from the supposition that the
Eaxapia signs were used by Thomas in exactly the same way as by Origen
in the Hexapla. That Thomas was familiar with the hexaplaric
signs is unquestionable, and from them he probably derived the
suggestion for his own practice ; but it is not certain that he
understood the purpose of Origen exactly as we do, and indeed
Origen s own use is not perfectly simple. 2 In any case the
different conditions prescribed some differences of application. 3
As his subscriptions show, the primary task of Thomas, unlike
that of Origen, was to revise the existing translation so as to
bring it into accord with the best current MSS. of the original.
The Philoxenian version can have inspired no such reverence as
Origen seems to have had for the LXX, 4 and to have followed
1 A good example is Acts xxviii. 14, where Harclean reads -X- apud eos /.
The phrase is also found in the Peshitto, but that such asterisks as this were
meant to indicate cases of agreement with the Peshitto would be obviously
an absurd hypothesis. In fact this asterisk calls attention to the retention of
the older reading (Trap airrois) in addition to eir avrois of the Antiochian text.
That Hcl. text has also retained eiri/ieiyajres (614, cf. gig) for the Antiochian
eTTi/uieivai is not brought to the reader s notice.
2 Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 71.
3 An interesting attempt by a mediaeval Lathi editor to use Origen s signs
for a similar purpose in a different way is described by Rahlfs, Der Text des
Septuaginta-Psalters, pp. 130-134.
4 Origen, Ad Africanum, 4 f.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxvii
Origen s example by trying to record all the points at which the
Syriac exemplar of Thomas had been improved would have been
a useless, as well as a desperate, undertaking. His asterisks and
obeli are to be interpreted, as well as may be, from the facts,
not from the rules followed by Origen. 1
Such an examination of the facts shows certain general
tendencies for both margin and signs, but some confusion. The
latter, although it must probably fall in part to the account of
Thomas, is partly to be explained by our lack of a critical edition
of the Harclean Gospels, where alone the available material
makes such an edition possible. Concerning the two Oxford
MSS. of the Gospels much information is given in White s Notes,
and something is known of the Paris MS. It appears that not
seldom text and margin have exchanged places in one or another
MS. (so Luke xviii. 9 ; John xix. 3), while in some cases the fact
that the margin offers a stricter rendering than that of the text
gives rise to the suspicion that such an exchange has taken
place. Occasionally the Western character of the reading in
the text, where the Antiochian reading is given in the margin,
suggests the same conclusion. 2 In the Paris MS. at Matt. i. and
Luke iii. 23 ff. it is expressly stated that the grecizing readings
there found in the margin are the Harclean. 3 It is also possible
that some inconsistencies in the use of asterisks and obeli are
due to a scribe s lack of care in a very complicated matter. 4 It
would be almost a miracle if no signs had been omitted from the
text ; and what were originally marginal notes may now appear
1 Storr s painstaking and instructive discussion, Repertorium, Theil vii.,
1780, pp. 1-77, which is still valuable, is vitiated by both the errors mentioned
above. The view of Wetstein, who supposed a comparison with the Peshitto
to be indicated, was effectively disproved by White in the Praefatio to his
edition of the Gospels, pp. xxvii ff., but White was himself led astray by his
use of Origen s practice as a guide.
2 So, for instance, Acts xviii. 5, where the marginal reading in spiritu is
Antioc-h n.
3 Storr, I.e. pp. 22-26, from J. G. C. Adler, Novi Testamenti versiones
Syriacae, pp. 56 f.
4 In some MSS. of the Syro-hexaplar Old Testament asterisks have been
substituted for obeli and vice versa ; Gwynn, Dictionary of Christian Biography,
vol. iv. p. 1018.
clxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
in the text designated with an asterisk or obelus. 1 The MSS.
also vary greatly in the completeness with which the apparatus
is supplied. In the very carefully written Cambridge MS. of the
Acts and Epistles there is no vestige of it. 2 Moreover, some of
the marginal notes may be (in a few cases they certainly are)
from a date later than that of Thomas.
Between the marginal notes and the words in the text dis
tinguished by an asterisk, or even all of the words marked with
an obelus, it is not possible to make a complete distinction.
Obeli in In the Book of Acts obeli are found in about forty-five in
stances in chaps, i.-xviii. (none in chaps, xix.-xxviii.), marking ofi
a single word, or in a few cases two words. In virtually every
case 3 the word or words are mere supplements required by
Syriac idiom or desirable in order to complete the phrase
exactly like the italicized words of the English Bible. The
obelus is, indeed, here used, as by Origen, to denote words of the
version to which nothing in the original corresponds, but it is
negligible for textual criticism. One half of the cases are single
pronouns, and although many of these find parallels in one
or other Latin or Egyptian version, only seldom does any
Greek MS. show the same expansion of phrase. Three-quarters
of these little supplements are found in the Peshitto also, and it
may be assumed that most of them stood in the Philoxenian.
Asterisks Asterisks B.IQ found in the Book of Acts in about 150 places,
in Acts.
1 A case where this seems almost demonstrable is Acts ix. 6. Here the long
gloss in the text under asterisk ends with surge, followed by the metobelus.
The continuous text then proceeds, sed surge,, etc. The gloss is plainly in
tended as a substitute for these following words of the text, not as a part of the
same continuous text with them.
2 For similar confusion and omission in the hexaplaric signs see Rahlfs,
Studie uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, pp. 54-67.
3 Two exceptions only appear. In Acts x. 25 we read : et procidit ^ ad
pedes ejus. This is evidently a mistake of some kind, for the words are in
dispensable to the sense, and no text in any language omits them. Perhaps the
sign originally applied only to the conjunction et. In Acts xiii. 25 we read :
calceamentum pedum ipsius / solver e. For this (on which no Greek text or
version throws any direct light) no explanation is forthcoming, although it is
worth mentioning that the Peshitto here reads, by harmonization with Mark i. 7
and Luke iii. 16, the thongs of his shoes instead of the sandal of his feet.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxix
and are applied usually to a word or brief phrase, but sometimes
to a long sentence. In all but two cases (xix. 35, where * civi-
tatis ^ and * ejus ^ are fragments of the free rendering of the
Peshitto that have survived in the Harclean) they indicate
what is, or might be, a variation of underlying text, not merely
of rendering. But on scrutiny it appears that about 30 of the
additions thus marked are small expansions, chiefly pronouns,
made incidentally to the translation for the sake of smoothness
of Syriac idiom, so that in these cases the use of the asterisk is
not to be distinguished from the characteristic use of the obelus
just described, and is equally negligible for our purpose. 1 All
but four of the cases of this type were already present in the
Peshitto. This use of the asterisk does not seem to yield any
parallel whatever to Origen s practice. 2 But the large bulk
about 95 of the words or phrases marked with an asterisk are
substantial additions to the editor s Antiochian text, and are of
* Western origin.
Rarely the words under asterisk have been so introduced as
to make a conflation with the neighbouring continuous text ; 3
for the most part they are sheer additions, and the glosses which
are direct substitutes for words of the text are commonly relegated
to the margin.
Again we see that the Harclean use of asterisks 13 not the same
1 A. V. V. Richards, in a valuable review (Journal of Theological Studies,
vol. IL, 1900-1, pp. 439-447) of A. Pott, Der abendldndische Text der Apostel-
geschichte und die Wir-quelle, 1900, points out (p. 443) the suggestive fact that
the obeli do not occur in our MS. after the close of chap, xviii., and that all but
a small number of the asterisks used in the same way as obeli are found after
that point.
2 A few of these little additions are also attested in Greek or in some version,
and might be regarded as the product of Greek variants. The two processes of
translating and of corrupting a text work alike at this point, and either might
be responsible for the result ; and translators into different languages will
independently duplicate each other. It is safer to ascribe the whole of these
thirty cases to a translator s activity.
3 For instance, xiii. 19 eorum -x- alienigenarum yf ; xvi. 39 ; also xii. 21 and
xv. 11, in both which passages the repeated autem makes an awkward succes
sion. In xv. 5 the difficulty created by the mention of the Pharisees in both
vs. 1 and vs. 5 lies deeper, for it is present also in Codices 383 and 614. On
Acts ix. 6 see above, p. clxviii note 1.
clxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
as that of the Hexapla. The more common use of the Harclean
asterisks, as just described, is not to show the excess of the
original over a standard translation, but to preserve on the page
of the translation those readings of another (the Western ) type
of text side by side with those of the (Antiochian) standard
adopted by the editor. It is also evident that the obeli and the
greater part of the asterisks pertain to two wholly distinct systems
of annotation, each having its own purpose the obeli to exhibit
differences of the version from the original, the asterisks to record
differences between two types of the original. This is well
illustrated by xi. 1, where, in the middle of a long passage covered
by an asterisk, a single word (et, evidently added in the trans
lator s reconstruction of the sentence) is marked with an obeli
That in thirty cases the force of the asterisks does not diffei
from that of obeli is either a mark of inconsistency on the editor s
part, not surprising in so elaborate an undertaking, or the result
of the work of copyists, who through failure of understands
confused what may originally have been an integral system. 11
is to be borne in mind that we are dependent on a single MS. of
a date more than four centuries later than that of Thomas oi
Harkel.
But besides the two classes of asterisks already explain(
nearly twenty cases remain which show various peculiarities.
Of these seven (ix. 37, xv. 30, xv. 36, xv. 37, xxi. 31, xxvii.
41, xxviii. 7) are glosses similar to the Western, and may b<
true Western additions which have survived only here. In
eight other instances (vii. 10, xxv. 10, xxv. 16, xxvi. 30, xxvii. 7,
xxviii. 16, xxviii. 29, xxviii. 30) we find under asterisk readings
of the Antiochian text which are absent either from B and other
Old Uncials or from some of the witnesses whose peculiarities
are usually Western. This phenomenon may be due to the
fact that Thomas had a slightly different Antiochian text from
ours, or it may be that in these cases he had no other way of
indicating that his standard contained what others omit or
some other explanation may be the true one. The two or three
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxxi
still remaining instances of peculiarity in the use of the asterisks
need not be discussed.
Finally, our attention is again claimed by the marginal Marginal
readings. The bulk of these, as described above (pp. clxv-vi),
cannot be distinguished in character from the ninety-five aster
isked phrases of the text. This conclusion is unavoidable, as is
made especially clear in such a passage as Acts xviii. 26, 27,
where Codex Bezae has a long expansive paraphrase. The
greater part of this expansion is found in the margin of the
Harclean, but the words et? rrjv A^aiav (in the later position,
vs. 27), which plainly belong to the same paraphrastic text, are
included in the Harclean continuous text under an asterisk, with
the result that the same phrase occurs twice in the same verse.
Similarly, in Acts xxiii. 24 a long addition in the text under an
asterisk is a part of the same reading as the marginal gloss to
vs. 25, which gives a brief paraphrastic substitute for the first
words of that verse.
The exactness of the translation of these Western readings
and their large extent make them, next to Codex Bezae, the most
important single witness to the Western text of Acts. With
the aid of the parallel, less complete, witnesses, chiefly Greek
and Latin, it is almost always possible to make a trustworthy
reconstruction of the Greek from which the Harclean asterisked
and marginal readings were drawn. In many instances the
Harclean evidence is better than that of Codex Bezae. Not
only does it cover the whole book, including the long sections
lacking in D, but it gives a text free from conflation with the
Antiochian or Old Uncial text and from adjustment to a parallel
Latin those two traits which everywhere mar the text of Codex
Bezae and diminish the student s confidence in its witness.
Examples of Western fragments lacking in D but attested by
the Harclean apparatus and confirmed by Greek mixed MSS. may
be found in xii. 12, xii. 25, xiii. 43, xiii. 47, xv. 23, xx. 32, and
many other places. In other instances, such as xi. 17, the
Harclean apparatus has preserved Western readings attested
clxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
in no Greek MS., but in the Old Latin rendering. In such cases
as xvi. 4, xvi. 39, it gives the Western text in a form free from
the conflation found in D. In a large number of these cases
the Greek corresponding to the Syriac of the Harclean apparatus
is found in Codex 614 or in others of the group of minuscules
which contain Western elements, and in the parts where D is
lacking nearly every gloss of the Harclean, as will be seen in
the text of the present volume, can be matched from these
codices by the corresponding Greek. With what degree of com
pleteness the Harclean apparatus gives the Western readings,
and what relation its selection of these readings bears to the
selection found most fully in 614 but in parallel fashion in other
minuscules, is a problem which could be worked out. Thomas
clearly had at hand a larger body of * Western readings than is
found in any one of the extant mixed MSS. so far examined. The
study of these questions would throw light on the dissemination
and locality, and possibly on the origin, of the Western text.
In this connexion it is not to be overlooked that a number of
Western readings are to be detected in the continuous text
of the Harclean unmarked by any sign. Such cases as I have
observed will be found mentioned in the Harclean apparatus of
the present volume. There are doubtless many others which I
have not noted. Possibly some of these readings were once
marked by asterisks now omitted, but this can hardly be true
of all.
The important question which now presents itself is what
was the source from which these Western readings came into
the Harclean. An answer commonly given is that Thomas of
Harkel found these readings in the " accurate and approved
copy " of the Greek text of Acts and the Catholic Epistles (or,
respectively, in one or more of the two or three " approved and
accurate copies " of the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul) which
he mentions in his subscriptions as having been used for his work.
But this view is forbidden by several decisive objections. In
the first place, the language of the subscriptions does not natur-
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxxiii
ally suggest it. The verb used (^ ~ Q?)) means made like,
f compared, collated, and seems to refer to the construction of
his text, 1 not to the apparatus of variants, of which the subscrip
tion gives no definite explanation. The statement of Thomas is
fully accounted for by the observation of his procedure, demon
strable in the Apocalypse (where we have at hand for com
parison the Philoxenian text which he was revising) and in the
other books made probable by the character of his continuous
text ; he was revising the older text to bring it more closely into
agreement with the Greek Antiochian text used in the seventh
century. Moreover, the approved copies are nowhere stated
to be old, and it is difficult to believe that a scholar writing
in 616 in Alexandria would have described copies of the New
Testament containing a Western text as notably approved
and accurate. The presumption from his language is that
these were good current MSS., such as were produced by the best
scriptoria of the period.
A further reason against the explanation mentioned is to be
drawn from the express statement of the note to Philippians iii. 18,
already cited (p. clxiv), that a certain reading (aliter) put under
an obelus in the text (and not, in fact, found in any other witness
known to us) was not found "in (the) two accurate Greek copies."
The two copies are therein implied to be those used for comparison
(as stated in the subscription to the Pauline Epistles), and we find
that they are expressly not used for the apparatus but that the
apparatus here represents a reading drawn from another source.
From this it may be inferred that " the Greek copies " or " the
Greek " referred to in other notes means the copies used for com
parison and mentioned in the subscriptions. Of the twenty-one
notes cited above, all but two 2 refer to the absence of the reading
in question (almost always a reading under asterisk) from " the
Greek," or from some of the Greek copies. In four notes it is
1 This corresponds to the regular use of dvre^\r]drj by Greek scribes.
2 That on Mark x. 48, which relates to a meaningless corruption of the Greek
text, and that on Jude 12, which gives a different and more exact rendering of
the same Greek word translated differently in the Syriac continuous text.
clxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
stated that the reading is also absent from the Syriac (always
described as " the old Syriac " or as " the copy of Mar Xenaia "),
and in one that the reading is found in " the old copy " (i.e.
the Syriac). These notes make it practically certain that the
apparatus of margin and asterisks was not constructed in order
to contain the readings in which the Greek " approved copies "
departed from the text adopted by Thomas, but rather to exhibit
readings known to him, of which he wished to preserve some
record, but which were not found in the approved copies/
and therefore not adopted into his continuous text. As Corssen
points out, the reference in the note on Matt. xxv. 1 to " the
Alexandrian copy " (and general probability as well) makes it
altogether likely that these notes all proceed from Thomas
himself.
If the Harclean apparatus was not drawn from the approved
copy, the obvious alternative suggestion is that it represents
rejected readings of the Philoxenian, which Thomas was revising
and to which several of the notes cited above (pp. clxiii-iv) refer,
expressly or probably. 1 This view is on the whole supported by
what can be observed in his treatment of the four minor Catholic
Epistles and the Apocalypse, although the light they shed is less
abundant than could be desired. In the four epistles the amount
of text is small, and the inquiry is embarrassed by the lack of a
clearly defined Western text in these books for comparison,
but the Harclean is clearly dependent on the Philoxenian, and
seems to have been in some cases assimilated to the Antiochian
text. The apparatus (including both asterisks and margin)
contains several readings which seem certainly to have come
from the Philoxenian, and in nearly all cases its readings (with
some of the variant marginal renderings) are capable of such an
explanation. 2 In the Apocalypse the text of the Philoxenian
1 This is the conclusion which seems to be suggested by P. Corssen in his
acute and instructive article, Die Recension der Philoxeniana durch Thomas
von Mabug, Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, vol. n., 1901, pp.
1-12. Corssen, however, inclines to the unlikely view that the readings now
found under asterisk in the text originally all stood in the margin.
2 Gwynn, Remnants of the Later Syriac Vertioris, Part I. pp. xl-xli.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxxv
includes two elements, one, less extensive, agreeing with the
presumably Antiochian text of 046 (formerly B, or Q) and most
minuscules, the other, more pervasive, agreeing with the Old
Uncials, and in a conspicuous degree with the very ancient
African Latin ; x that the two elements had already been com
bined in the Greek copy used by Polycarp for the Philoxenian
would seem to me a likely supposition. The Harclean has
extensively revised this Philoxenian text so as to produce a
Syriac version largely agreeing with the Antiochian. In the
Apocalypse but one marginal reading of the Harclean has been
reported ; yet that gives a variant known elsewhere only in
the Philoxenian. 2 For the asterisks no full statement is avail
able, 3 but Gwynn observes : "In much the greater part of the
places where the asterisk occurs in 5 I [i>e- the Leyden MS. of the
Harclean Apocalypse], it can be understood as referring to
something inserted in, or omitted from, the text of 2 as compared
with that of S [i.e. the Philoxenian Apocalypse of the Crawford
MS.]. In one or two of these places it cannot be accounted for
by comparison with any other known textual authority." 4
At least once in the four epistles (2 Peter ii. 13), where the
Harclean margin seems to represent the Philoxenian, the facts
show that the later (Harclean) translator was guided in his work
by a Greek text which also contained the reading ; and in two
of the three reported cases of asterisks in the Apocalypse the
Philoxenian reading preserved under asterisk has plainly been
1 Gwynn, Apocalypse, pp. Ixx-lxxi.
2 Rev. i. 10 *% A -s f ~~j_ which seems to refer to the unique reading
of the Philoxenian | ** ^ **> r ~~j ; cf. Gwynn, Apocalypse, p. Ixxxiv, who
also points out that the comments of Bar Salibi on the Apocalypse seem
occasionally to rest on Philoxenian renderings learned from the now lost
Harclean margin. The Dublin MS. contains a few marginal notes ; a
marginal apparatus is found in the Florence MS. and in the Vatican MS. ;
see Gwynn, Hermathena, vol. x., 1898, p. 227.
8 About forty asterisks are present in the Leyden MS. ; the British Museum
MS. (Nitrian) contains one asterisk.
4 Gwynn, Apocalypse, p. Ixxxiii. The three cases mentioned by Gwynn are as
follows : Apoc. viii. 9, t /^X^ -x- (Philoxenian,
(Philoxenian, 1); v. 5, ^^.J9J OOf-x- (Philoxenian, ^
clxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
modified to conform to the grecizing manner of the Harclean.
In the two cases last mentioned this can have been done without
any actual reference to a Greek manuscript.
The evidence from the books in which the Philoxenian is
extant is thus in accord with the supposition that the Harclean
apparatus in the other epistles and in the Gospels and Acts is
largely derived from the Philoxenian ; but the array of facts is
too meagre to furnish convincing proof. 1 If this view be held,
however, it does not follow that the Western material, liberally
assembled in the Harclean margin and under the asterisks, came
ultimately from the Old Syriac used by Ephrem nearly two
1 The interesting view adopted by Theodor Zahn and made the basis of his
treatment of the text of Acts in Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas
(Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ix.), 1916, would
accept the apparatus of the Harclean as giving direct information of the Old
Syriac text which preceded the Peshitto. Zahn thinks that a copy of this lay
before Thomas, and was the one referred to in his notes as " the old Syriac."
This conception of the matter rests chiefly on the view that the work of Thomas
was to copy exactly, and annotate, the Philoxenian Syriac text, not to revise it.
This view, however, which was that of White and other older scholars, is not
required by the language of the subscriptions. Especially the subscription to
the Pauline Epistles shows the non- technical character of the expressions
employed ; the same word ( ^Q. ^K| collatus est) is there used to denote
Thomas s use both of the Philoxenian from which, and of the Greek MSS. according
to which, his text was written. Moreover, the idea that the Philoxenian and
Harclean texts were substantially identical is contradicted by Bar Hebraeus,
who speaks of the Harclean as the third translation, the Peshitto and Phil
oxenian being the first two. And, finally, the idea is made impossible for all
who have been convinced by the patent evidence adduced by Gwynn that the
Philoxenian is still extant for the four minor epistles and the Apocalypse,
and that the Harclean was a drastic revision of it. That Zahn s discussion of
the purpose and nature of the Harclean apparatus is thus at many points open
to criticism does not diminish the great value of the textual discussions in
connexion with which he uses it, although it often influences the form in which
he couches these. Zahn s theory that the Harclean marginal and asterisked
Western readings were drawn from the Old Syriac direct can, indeed, be
held even on the usual view that a considerable revision of the Philoxenian
was made by Thomas and appears in the Harclean text. But under such a
theory it has to be assumed, as explained below, that the Old Syriac renderings
were completety reconstructed and grecized by Thomas, so that the free style
of the Old Syriac has disappeared. For this process it is probable that he
would have required the aid of a Greek MS. containing these readings. That
being so, the theory that Thomas used also an Old Syriac MS. becomes otiose,
for he could equally well have drawn his Western * readings from his Greek
MS. alone.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxxvii
centuries before the time of Philoxenus. The probability
would rather be that Polycarp had made his translation from
a Greek MS. either completely Western in character or else
combining, as does 614, much Western matter with a text of
the more usual type. 1 That such a manuscript should have been
found in Mesopotamia at that period does not seem to be rendered
impossible by anything that is known.
A natural interpretation, then, of the facts would be as
follows : (1) The Philoxenian translation of the New Testament
of 508 was made at Mabog from a Greek text containing a great
number of Western readings, the question being indetermin
able whether the copy from which Acts was drawn was con
sistently and completely Western or contained a mixed text.
The translation was written in free and idiomatic Syriac. (2)
Thomas of Harkel revised it in 616 by the aid of Greek MSS. of
the Antiochian type, putting into his margin or marking with an
asterisk some of the Syriac renderings, together with many words
and sentences which were inconsistent with the Greek copies
used for his revision. Although he and his associates did not
succeed in making their main text (apart from the asterisked
portions) in all respects a perfect equivalent of their Greek
standards, yet an essential part of their aim was to make the
Syriac represent in detail with slavish literalness the Greek
Itext, including the order of words. Where Syriac idiom seemed
jto require an added pronoun or other word, Thomas marked
these with an obelus, or sometimes (if our MS. of Acts can be
1 That the Western readings of Acts now found in the Harclean apparatus
jvere, if contained in the Philoxenian, drawn by the latter from the Old Syriac
ather than from a Greek MS. used by Polycarp, is unlikely. For (1) the
tent Syrian tradition, beginning within a century of the date at which
he Philoxenian version was made, held that Polycarp made it from the Greek.
2) In the books not previously translated, Polycarp clearly had for the
pocalypse a Greek MS. containing a strong Western element and for the
3ur Catholic epistles a Greek text that was at any rate unusual. It is natural
suppose that the Greek text he used in the other books was of similar
bancter. In our ignorance of the actual Philoxenian text it is impossible to
i iy with confidence what sources besides the Peshitto (with which he was
i horoughly imbued) and a Greek MS. Polycarp may have used, but nothing at
mt known seems to point to his use of the Old Syriac Acts.
VOL. in m
clxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
trusted) with the same asterisk ordinarily used by him for a
different purpose. Of this threefold apparatus a large part has
been preserved for us in one of the two known MSS. of his Acts,
how accurately and completely we cannot fully judge. The
conditions in the other books show that there the apparatus was
only imperfectly transmitted in the copies now known, although
the oldest copies of the Gospels do not seem as yet to have been
studied with reference to this question.
Such a view as this would entitle us to regard the Western
readings in the margin and asterisked portions of the Harclean
Acts as derived from a Greek MS. used in Mabog in 508. 1 But to
this conclusion a serious objection presents itself. The Western
glosses of the Harclean apparatus are written, at any rate in
certain details, in the same peculiar grecizing style as the Harclean
text itself. It is evident that in the form which they now wear
they could not have stood in the original Philoxenian. One of
the most pervasive traits of Thomas s mode of translation is the
use of of \M, etc., for avrov, etc., instead of the mere pro
nominal suffix. This separate genitive pronoun is, indeed, found
in the Philoxenian correctly enough where special emphasis is
intended, and an appeal to that explanation would account for
many of the cases where it appears in the Harclean margin, but
it is also there found in contexts where no emphasis at all is
required or permissible (e.g. Acts xii. 3). Similarly, the use of
fL L ~-^ for Sid in Sia VVKTOS, Acts xxiii. 24 margin, and in Sia
Ltcavov %povov, Acts xi. 1 -x-, is a glaring grecism. And the
characteristic preferences of the Harclean appear in the apparatus.
In Acts xvi. 39 * ^ Ao) ; ^OOJL^^) ; 5 . alof all belong
to the expressions which in the Apocalypse Thomas regularly
substitutes for the corresponding words of the Philoxenian.
In Acts xix. 1 mg \ with the infinitive is used, rather than j
with the finite verb, just as in the Harclean Apocalypse. So, Acts
xi. 5 mg, ***. J is used for \a/jiirp6<;, just as, in the Apocalypse,!
1 With such a view would agree the facts relating to the Syriac Euthalian :
apparatus to the Pauline epistles mentioned above, p. civ note 1.
VERSIONS : HARCLEAN clxxix
Thomas has substituted it for the Philoxenian *-+o)\ as the
rendering of that Greek word ; and likewise, Acts xiv. 1 mg,
)Ll - ^ is used, not the Philoxenian f ^^ ^ In the margin of
Acts xiv. 18 et? ra ISia is represented by oofiX^ ^.i\<H\ and
xiv. 19 \ ^**i\ . oJy seems intended to imitate the Greek article
in rovs o^Xof9. In Acts xxiv. 14 the Harclean attaches a mark
to the word ^.jkJo); and in the margin writes e>, evidently with
reference to a Greek reading Xeyovcrw KCLI (so the Greek codex
1611) ; in Syriac idiom the meaning of the Greek could not be
so expressed, but .3) ( also ) would be required. These are but
illustrations. 1
This evidence of grecizing, however, which has been sufficiently
illustrated in the last paragraph, does not positively prove that
the Harclean apparatus was merely added by Thomas from
Greek sources, independently of the Philoxenian. Our best guide
is to be found in the facts of the Philoxenian books which have
come down to us. In the four minor epistles and the Apocalypse,
although the material is meagre and the apposite cases few, yet
it is clear that the Harclean margin and asterisked words in many
cases certainly do, and in nearly all cases may, owe their origin
to the Philoxenian text, and at the same time that some among
them, whose Philoxenian origin is unmistakable, have been
grecized. The grecizing process in those five books may have
been applied either under the influence of a corresponding Greek
MS. or, without the use of such a MS., merely by making the
language conform to the general principles of Harclean grecizing
style. 2 Whether the far more extensive Harclean apparatus in
Acts requires the assumption that Thomas used a Greek MS. in
preparing it is a question which can only be answered by Syriac
scholars. There are three possibilities : Either (1) this apparatus
1 Some of these illustrations I owe to Professor F. C. Burkitt and Mr. Norman
[ c Lean.
2 In one of the cases from the Apocalypse (Rev. v. 5) tho grecizing seen in
addition of OO}, avros, is unmistakable, but seems not to have been guided.
ay a Greek MS., for no known Greek MS. has that reading.
clxxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
consists of Philoxenian readings transformed into the Harclean
grecizing style on general principles, without the aid of a Greek
MS. ; or (2) the readings of the Philoxenian adopted for preserva
tion in the apparatus were modified by the aid of a Greek MS. ;
or (3) the readings in question were not in the Philoxenian, and
are drawn solely from collation with a Greek MS. of utterly
different type from that " accurate and approved copy " which
Thomas adopted as a standard for his text. Whether the first
or the second of these three possibilities is to be adopted is not
certain. The third, however, I am disposed to reject, and that
for two reasons : first, because of the facts observable in the case
of the Apocalypse and the four epistles, and secondly, because it
is hard to see why Thomas in the seventh century in Alexandria,
having adopted the Antiochian text as a standard, should have
gone out of his way to preserve in Syriac a record of Western
readings, unless something in the Syriac version which he was
revising suggested such a procedure and made it seem desirable.
Harclean Interesting as it would be to have this question settled, an
reading answer to it is not an indispensable prerequisite to the use of
^ readings. They are certainly Western, and were
certainly in existence in the early seventh century. Yet they
do not testify to a text used by Alexandrians. There is no
evidence, and it is not likely, that Poly carp s Greek MS. was
produced or preserved in Alexandria ; and, since the source of
the Harclean apparatus of Acts was not the Greek MS. referred
to in the subscription, and since thus no evidence exists that the
1 Western readings of Thomas s apparatus were drawn from any
MS. which he obtained in Alexandria, the Harclean version
indicates nothing as to the currency of the Western Greek text
in Alexandria in the early seventh century. Thomas s Western
Greek MS., if he had one, he may have brought with him from
Mesopotamia ;. for aught we know, it may have been the identical
copy used a century earlier by Poly carp.
VERSIONS: PALESTINIAN, ARMENIAN clxxxi
(e) PALESTINIAN
In (probably) the sixth century, pursuant to the proselytizing
activities begun by the Emperor Justinian, translations from
the New Testament, intended for the use of Aramaic-speaking
Christians of Palestine, were made into the dialect used by
Palestinian Samaritans and Jews. A few fragments of Acts in
this translation, doubtless made from the current Greek text of
Byzantium, have come down to us in the form of church-lessons,
in MSS. of which the oldest are ascribed to the sixth century. 1
The published fragments from Acts cover i. 1-14 ; ii. 1-36 ;
xiv. 5-13, 15-17 ; xvi. 16-35 ; xix. 31-xx. 14 ; xxi. 3-14, 28-30,
38-39 ; xxiv. 25-xxvi. 1 ; xxvi. 23-xxvii. 27. 2
5. OTHER VERSIONS
(a) ARMENIAN 3
An Armenian version of the New Testament is said to have
been made not later than A.D. 400. A translation of the Gospels
may have been in existence in the days of St. Gregory the
Illuminator (f 332), but it would not follow that the Acts had
been translated at that time. As might be expected, the trans
lation of the Gospels, Pauline epistles, and Acts was made from
1 F. C. Burkitt, Christian Palestinian Literature, Journal of Theological
Studies, vol. n., 1900-1, pp. 174-183 ; cf. also ibid. vol. vi., 1904-5, pp. 91-98.
2 The texts are to be found in J. P. N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iv., Ley den,
1875, Syriac p. 168 ; G. Margoliouth, The Liturgy of the Nile, Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1896, pp. 702 f., 718-720 ; A. S. Lewis, A
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary (Studia Sinaitica, vi.), London, 1897, pp. 131-135 ;
H. Duensing, Christlich-paldstinisch-aramdische Texte und Fragmente, Gottingen,
1906, pp. 149-151 ; A. S. Lewis, Codex Climaci Rescriptus (Horae Semiticae,
vui.), Cambridge, 1909, pp. 84-101.
3 F. C. Conybeare, art. Armenian Version of N.T., in Hastings s Dictionary
of the Bible, 1898 ; F. C. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament, 2nd ed., 1912, pp. 172-174 ; J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana (Texts and
Studies, iii.), 1895, pp. 72-98 ; H. Gelzer, art. Armenien, in Protestantiache
Realencyklopddie, vol. ii., 1897, pp. 75-77. F. Macler, Le Texte armenien d apres
Matthieu et Marc (Annales du Musee Guimet, Bibliotheque des etudes, xxvni.),
Paris, 1919, presents new materials and fresh views for the Armenian text of
the Gospels ; cf. R. P. Blake, Harvard Theol Review, xv., 1922, pp. 299-303.
clxxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
the Syriac, which in Acts presented, at any rate largely, a
form of the Western text. Later, after the Council of
Ephesus (431), the Armenian version was revised by the aid of
Greek MSS. brought, it is said, from both Constantinople and
Alexandria, and this revision is doubtless the version known to
us from later copies. 1 The revision, it is clear, left unchanged a
large number of ancient Western readings.
The Armenian Bible was edited by Oscan, Amsterdam, 1666,
and again by Zohrab, Venice, 1805. The latter edition is the
source of the readings cited by Tischendorf , who obtained them
from Tregelles. An edition with critical use of older MSS. than
those employed by Zohrab, or at least with a critical investigation
of the MSS. and a comparison with his edition, is greatly needed ;
all the more because of the importance of the Armenian transla
tion of the Commentary of Ephrem on Acts, of which a translation
is printed in the present volume.
(b) GEORGIAN
Another version, neighbour to the Armenian, from which
also, if it were adequately studied, profit might be derived for
the textual criticism of Acts, is the Georgian, as used by the
Georgians (also called Grusinians and Iberians) of the Caucasus,
north-west of Armenia. 2 The Christian Church of Georgia is
alleged to date from the early fourth century, the first translation
of the Bible from the fifth. The translation has been subjected
to later revision, and moreover the printed editions do not well
1 The present Armenian text is said to show that the revision was made
with the use of a Greek text resembling that of BK ; F. C. Burkitt, Encyclo
paedia Biblica, col. 5011. Compare what is said below of the Georgian version
of Acts.
2 F. C. Conybeare in The Academy, February 1, 1896, pp. 98 f. ; id., The
Georgian Version of the N.T., Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft,
vol. XL, 1910, pp. 232-249 ; id., The Old Georgian Version of Acts, ibid.
vol. xn., 1911, pp. 131-140 ; Theodor Kluge, Die georgischen Ubersetzungen
des "Neuen Testamentes," ibid. vol. xn., 1911, pp. 344-350; H. Goussen,
Die georgische Bibeliibersetzung, Oriens Christianus, vol. vi., 1906, pp.
300-318 ; Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 4th ed., vol.
ii., 1924, pp. 761 f.
VERSIONS: ARABIC clxxxiii
represent the oldest extant MSS. Whether the version was
originally made from Armenian or Syriac is disputed, but at
least in certain parts of the Bible it is closely akin to the
Armenian, although in its present form bearing evident traces of
revision from the Greek. 1 The text of Acts in older MSS. seems
to be very close to the Old Greek Uncials, with occasional
Antiochian divergences. In a minute proportion of instances its
departures from the Old Uncials may possibly be derived from
a Western text, but the small number of these, and the
intrinsic unimportance of most of them, make it impossible to
draw any inference whatever from them. 2
(c) ARABIC 3
The Arabic versions, although found in many MSS., apparently
yield but little for the purposes of textual criticism. All are
comparatively late. " It was not till after the success of the
Koran had made Arabic into a literary language, and the con
quests of Islam had turned large portions of Christian Syria
and Egypt into Arabic-speaking provinces, that the need of
translations of Scripture in the Arabic vernacular was really
felt." 4
Of the Acts the following versions are known :
(1) A Sinai MS. of the ninth century contains a text which
is a free translation from the Peshitto ; published in Studia
Sinaitica, No. VII., Cambridge University Press, 1899.
(2) A version in two different recensions is found in the
1 See the important article of F. C. Conybeare, The Growth of the Peshitta
Version of the New Testament illustrated from the Old Armenian and Georgian
Versions, American Journal of Theology, vol. I., 1897, pp. 883-912.
2 The portions examined on which these statements rest are Acts v. 37-vii. 23,
vii. 38-viii. 20, as rendered into Greek by Conybeare from an Athos MS. of
A.D. 965 (not 13th century as Conybeare supposed), together with Acts xviii.,
of which Professor Robert P. Blake has furnished me with a translation from a
tenth-century Tiflis MS. (Library of the Georgian Literary Society, No. 407).
3 F. C. Burkitt, art. Arabic Versions, Hastings s Dictionary of the Bible,
vol. i. pp. 136-138 ; Gregory, Prolegomena, pp. 928-932.
4 Burkitt, op. cit. p. 136.
clxxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Arabic New Testament of Erpenius, Ley den, 1616, and in that
of Faustus Nairomis, Rome, 1703. The former was chiefly drawn
from an Egyptian MS. dated 1342-43 ; the latter was derived
from a MS. brought from Cyprus, is in the Carshunic writing,
and was intended for the use of the Maronites. This version is
said to be from the Coptic, supplemented by readings drawn from
the Peshitto and from the Greek.
(3) The Arabic text printed in the polyglots (Paris, 1645 ;
Walton s, London, 1657) is said to be taken from a MS. brought
from Aleppo, and to be a version made from a Greek text.
3. GREEK FATHERS
THE chief Latin and Syriac writers whose quotations come
under consideration for the text of Acts have already been dis
cussed in connexion with those versions. It remains to speak
of the early Greek writers. For many of them no thorough
investigation of their biblical text is available, and although the
material to be examined is abundant, the student has at present
to content himself with incomplete, merely general, or tentative,
statements.
(a) EPISTLE OF BARNABAS ; POLYCRATES OP EPHESUS ;
JUSTIN MARTYR ; DIDACHE
Barn. 5, 8-9 Trepa? ye TOI bibdaicwv TOV 1 Icrpar)\ xal Barnabas.
Trj\L/cavra repara Kal arjjjLela TTOL&V e/crjpvo-crev, Kal virep-
rjyaTrrjo-ev avrov. ore Se TOU? tStov? a r jroorro\ov<; row?
(jL6\\ovra<; tcrjpva-o-ew TO 6vayye\iov avrov efeXefaro, 6Wa9
Traaav aftaprlav avo/juwrepov^, Iva Selgrj on ov/c rj\6ev
t/catou? d\\a d/j,apTCt)\ov<>, Tore <j)avepa)crv eavrov
vlov eov.
It seems likely that this is an allusion to the * Western text
of Acts i. 2, which (as retranslated from Augustine s quotation
in Contra Felicem) seems to have read : eV rjpepa rj
aTTOo-ToXou? e ^eXefaro 8ta TrvevfAaros dyiov /cal
Krjpva-creiv TO
In the letter of Polycrates of Ephesus on the paschal contro- Poiycrates.
versy, written in the last decade of the second century (Eusebius,
1 This was pointed out by J. Chapman, Barnabas and the Western Text
of Acts, Revue Benedictine, vol. xxx., 1913, pp. 219-221.
clxxxv
clxxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
H.e. v. 24, 7), the sentence from Acts v. 29 is quoted in the usual
form TreiOap^elv Bel 6e<*> fjia\\ov rj avOpMTrots, not in the
interrogative form of the Western text (fully attested only in
Latin witnesses, see Textual Note, below, pp. 50 f.).
Justin. Justin Martyr has left no express quotations from Acts, but
his references to historical events and certain apparent reminis
cences of phrases confirm the presumption afforded by his
abundant use of the Gospel of Luke that he was acquainted with
the book. Since in the Gospels he uses the Western text, 1
the same would be expected in Acts, and some measure of
evidence of this may perhaps be found in the circumstance
pointed out by Zahn 2 that (Apol. i. 40) he treats Psalms i. and ii.
as a single piece (cf. Acts xiii. 33, Western ), and (Dial. 87 fin.)
cites Joel ii. 28 f. as eV erepa Trpo^reia, without naming the
prophet, as in the Western text of Acts ii. 16. 3 Justin s
well-known practice of drawing his Old Testament quotations
from Paul without acknowledgment lends probability to the
view that in these instances he is dependent on the Western
text of Acts.
Didache. In the Didache the (negative) Golden Rule is quoted (Did.
1, 2) in a form corresponding not to Tobit iv. 15 but to the
Western text of Acts xv. 20, 29 : irdvra Be oora lav 0e\tfo-r)<i
/jurj yiveorOai aoi /cal av a\\<p /JLTJ iroiei (cf. also Theophilus, Ad
Autol. vi. 34, and the conflate form in Const. Apost. vii. 1). It
is not unlikely that the .Didache drew the Rule from Acts ;
similarly Didache 9 corresponds with the Western (and
1 E. Lippelt, Quaefuerint Justini Martyris A.irofj.vrj/j.ovev^aTa quaque ratione
cum forma evangeliorum syro-latina cohaeserint (Dissert, philol. Halenses xv.),
1901.
2 Zahn, Urausgabe, pp. 234-236. For Justin s use of Acts see Zahn,
Oeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. i. 2, 1889, pp. 579-581.
8 It should, however, be noticed that our text of Justin, Dial. 87, has the
addition to the Old Testament of the words /ecu Trpo^revcrovo-i (as in Acts ii.
18), which are not found in D or in Old Latin witnesses, nor in the chief
LXX MSS., and which may be a Western non-interpolation ; see Textual
Note, below, p. 17.
GREEK FATHERS clxxxvii
probably original) text of Luke xxii. 17-19 in putting the cup
before the bread at the Lord s Supper. 1
(6) IRENAEUS (ca. 185)
The copy of Acts used by Irenaeus was, like his copies of the
Gospels and the Pauline epistles, a Greek manuscript with a
thorough-going Western text, showing but few departures
from the complete Western type. If we can trust the present
text of the Latin translation of Irenaeus, his copy occasionally
omitted a Western gloss, for instance, x. 39, the Jews rejected
and ; x. 41 KOI o-vvavedTpa^jjiev, r^epa<; reacrepaKovra ;
xv. 26 et? TTCLVTCL TreLpacrfiov ; xvii. 28 TO Kaff rjpepav *, and in
rare instances contained a reading positively of the non-western
type, as in iii. 8, where airibulans et saliens et does not belong
to the * Western text, or in iii. 17, scio for eVtcrrayLtefla of D h
arm. codd.
The date of the Latin translation of Irenaeus s great work is
disputed, as between the second or early third century and the
latter half of the fourth or early fifth, but probability seems to
lie with the view that it was made between 370 and 420, in North
Africa. 2 The first writer who certainly used it is Augustine. In
the citations from the Bible the translator, as has been proved,
followed closely the Greek text as quoted by Irenaeus,
but is thought to have aided himself by the use of an
Old Latin version, which in Acts appears to have been " a copy
closely related to h, which had sustained revision and had also
1 Lake, Classical Review, vol. XL, 1897, pp. 147 f.
2 So A. Souter in Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei (Old-Latin Biblical
Texts, No. VII.), 1923, see esp. pp. xv-xviii, Ixv-cxi. In this work will
be found full discussion from various points of view of the questions relating to
the Latin of Irenaeus. The quotations of Irenaeus from Acts are given in full
in the present volume from the text of Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei,
through the generous courtesy of the surviving editor, Professor C. H. Turner,
and of the publishers. See B. Kraft, Die Evangelienzitate des heiligen Irendus
(Biblische Studien, xxi.), 1924, who is inclined to assign the translation to
about the year 300 (p. 47), and points out certain precautions which need to
be observed in the use of the biblical quotations of Irenaeus.
clxxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
been later to some extent brought into line with gig." * It
is, however, relatively seldom that the translator is generally
believed to have been drawn away from the biblical text of
Irenaeus s Greek by that of the Latin Bible which he used.
With regard to Irenaeus s text of the Old Testament, all that
is known seems to be that in 1-4 Kingdoms, for which the evidence
is meagre but distinct, Irenaeus goes with B, the Ethiopic, and
the ancient base of the Lucianic text, against both the hexaplaric
text and the common text of the later MSS. 2
(c) CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (ca. 150-ca. 215)
The few, but distinct, direct quotations from Acts found in
the writings of Clement of Alexandria follow a text substantially
like that of BK, but with occasional variations from those nss. 3
In several instances of divergence Clement s text had a reading
similar to, though not always quite identical with, that attested
by one or more of the extant Western witnesses. Thus, Acts
x. 11 (Paedag. ii. 1, Potter, p. 175), e/cSeSepevov (where the
Western text seems to have read SeSe/Aevov), xvii. 23 (Strom.
i. 19, Potter, p. 372), Icrropwv for dva0ecap)v (D Bita-Topwv) ,
xvii. 26 (ibid.), 761/09 (614 minn), xvii. 27 (ibid.) TO Oelov (D gig
1 Souter, I.e. pp. clxiii-clxv. Souter suggests (p. xcvi) that the translation
of Irenaeus is by the same hand (a Greek) from which we have the Latin of
Origen s Commentary on Matthew. J. Chapman, Did the Translator of St.
Irenaeus use a Latin New Testament ? Revue Benedictine, vol. xxxvi., 1924,
pp. 34-51, holds that the translator always rendered the Greek text as quoted
by Irenaeus, and never altered the text under the influence of any Latin version,
although he knew a Latin version (but one wholly indeterminable by us), and
it " occasionally, but rarely, ran in his head " ; our MSS. of Irenaeus, according
to Chapman, have all been somewhat influenced by the Vulgate.
2 Rahlfs, Lucians Eezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 116-118, 138.
3 P. M. Barnard, The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four
Gospels and the Acts of tJie Apostles (Texts and Studies v.), 1899, with * Intro
duction by F. C. Burkitt (esp. p. xvii) ; the passages from Clement are given
in full, pp. 62-64. The quotations by Clement on which the statements in the
text above are founded are Acts i. 7 (Strom, iii. 6), ii. 26-28 (Strom, vi. 6), ii. 41
(Strom, i. 18), vi. 2 (Paedag. ii. 7), vii. 22 (Strom, i. 23), x. 10-15 (Paedag. ii. 1),
x. 34 f. (Strom, vi. 8), xv. 23 (Paedag. ii. 7), xv. 28 f. (Paedag. ii. 7 ; Strom, iv.
15), xvii. 22-28 (Strom, i. 19, v. 11-12), xxvi. 17 f. (Strom, i. 19).
GKEEK FATHERS clxxxix
Iren). The most noteworthy citation is that of Acts xv. 28 f .
(Paedag. ii. 7, Potter, p. 202 ; Strom, iv. 15, Potter, p. 606),
where Clement s text is closely like Bs* and almost identical
with A. This passage is the earliest witness to the inclusion of
Kal TTVIKT&V, and seems to show that Clement did not read in
his text the (negative) Golden Rule.
In the Gospels Clement s text was predominantly, but not
completely, Western, not that of BK ; l in the Pauline epistles,
as in Acts, it corresponds in general with the type of Bx. 2
For the Old Testament, in Judges Clement follows the older
text of A, not the Egyptian revision found in B ; 3 in 1-4 King
doms his text has close contact with B ; 4 in the Psalter his text
shows clear agreement both with that of Upper Egypt (see above,
pp. xciii-v) and with B, although, as found in our MSS. (tenth
and eleventh centuries), it seems also to have been in part
corrected to agree with the Psalter of the later minuscules. 5
Since the text of Upper Egypt in the Psalter bears somewhat the
same relation to the text of B as does the base of the Western
text in the New Testament (see above, p. xciv), the analogy
of the combination of ancient elements in Clement s Psalter with
the well-known corresponding combination in his Gospels is
striking. 6
(d) OEIGEN (ca. 185-254)
Origen s text of Acts 7 was that of the Old Uncials (Btf AC 81).
1 Burkitt, I.e. pp. vii-xix.
2 Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 81.
3 G. F. Moore, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, p. xlvi.
4 Rahlfs, Lucians Eezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 118-122, 138.
5 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta- Psalters, 1907, pp. 208-210.
6 The general conclusion of Otto Stahlin, Clemens Alexandrinus und die
Septuaginta, Nurnberg, 1901, p. 77, is : " Durchweg zeigt sich eine Verschieden-
heit zwischen dem Bibeltext bei Clemens und dem Codex B." Of this conclusion
Rahlfs would make some qualifications for certain books of the Old Testament.
7 The evidence as to Origen s text of Acts can be gathered by the aid of the
full indexes of the Berlin edition and of De la Rue. It is carefully given by
Tregelles ; Tischendorf s statements are not always coi rect. The observations
of von Soden (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, pp. 1836 f.) are not substan
tially different from the judgment stated above, when translated into language
not framed from his own theory. He holds that Origen in the Acts (as in the
cxc THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
This is clear, notwithstanding his freedom of citation l and the
brevity of most of his citations from Acts. Thus (Contra Celsum,
ii. 1) he quotes Acts x. 9-15 in a text which consistently follows
BttAC 81 against both Western and Antiochian readings,
and numerous other citations and allusions, mostly brief but
occurring through a wide range of his works, evince the same
source.
A few cases of trifling importance where his citation agrees
with the Antiochian text (for instance, Comm. in Matt. x. 18,
Acts i. 8 fjboi for pov, Trdcrrj for eV irdarj ; De oral, xxvii. 12, Acts
x. 12 epTrera KOI Orjpia) are not significant exceptions; they
sometimes stand in free summaries, and may be explained on
any one of several theories. His text shows no specific Western
character, although here and there it agrees with D or d against
the Old Uncials (for instance, Contra Celsum, i. 5, vi. 11, Acts
v. 36 /jLeyav , Horn, in Jerem. xiii. 3, Acts vii. 39 om avrwv), but
these agreements are very few in number, and most of them are
explicable as inaccuracies of quotation or the combination in
memory of two parallel passages. Moreover, the currency of
such a reading as Acts v. 36 ^&^ a v was by no means limited to
the circle of Western authorities (cf. A corr minn Cyril Alex.).
As between the texts of the several Old Uncials, no close
relation of Origen to any one can be certainly shown in view of
the scantiness of the evidence. But his reading frequently
agrees with B.
Gospels, pp. 1510-1520) used the I-H-K text, that is (p. 1520), the text current
in the third century, in distinction from the special recensions which can he
recognized.
1 The idea of differences of text in the copies of the Bible used by Origen s
several amanuenses has been shown by E. Klostermann, Gottingische gelehrte
Anzeigen, 1904, pp. 267-269, to lack the support which E. Preuschen, Zeitschrift
fur die neutesl. Wissenschaft, vol. iv., 1903, pp. 67-74, and Origenes Werke,
IV. Der Johannes kommentar, 1903, pp. Ixxxviii-ci, thought he had found
for it ; and it is in itself highly improbable that a critical student of the text
like Origen should have failed to regulate the copies provided in his own scrip
torium for his assistants, or their practice in the use of them. Streeter s
discovery (see below) of the use of two distinct texts by Origen (Old Uncial
and Caesarean) has put this whole matter in a new light.
GREEK FATHERS cxci
A few instances are here given, of which the most noteworthy
is the first :
ii. 44 (Comm. in Matt. torn. xv. 15) om rjo-av, om
/cai before el^ov . . . . B min
:vi. 17 (Comm. in Joh. torn, xxviii. 16) om T&&gt;
before TLav\rp . . . . . B
xxi. 23 (De orat. iii. 4) a$ for e</> . . . Bx
vii. 43 (Contra Celsum, v. 8) om VJL&V . . . BD
po/ji<f)a . . BS
xii. 13 (Comm. in Matt. torn. xiii. 28 ; De la Rue,
iii. p. 608) 7rpoo-^\0v .... B*A 81 D
ii. 44 (Comm. in Matt. torn. xv. 15) TncrreiWre? . AC 81 D
In the Gospels Origen used for some purposes an Old Uncial
text, but for others, after his removal from Alexandria, employed
the Caesarean text (the so-called fam J. 1 In the Old
Testament, in so far as Origen does not quote his own hexa-
plaric text, he uses in 1-4 Kingdoms a text closely like that
of B (with which agree the Ethiopic, the ancient base of the
Lucianic, and in a less measure the Sahidic), 2 in the Psalter a
text like that of B (and the Bohairic). On the text used by
Origen as the basis for the Septuagint column of the Hexapla,
see above, pp. xci-xcvii.
(e) DIDASCALIA APOSTOLORUM ; APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS i.-vi.
The Didascalia Apostolorum (third century ; Syria or
Palestine) is the source which has been expanded, interpolated,
and corrected by a writer of ca. 400 (Syria) to produce Books
I.-VI. of the Apostolic Constitutions. 3
1 See the highly significant investigation of B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels :
A Study of Origins, 1924, pp. 78-102, 585-589 ; also Souter, Text and Canon of
the New Testament, p. 83. E. Hautsch, Die Evangclienzitate des Origenes (Texte
und Untersuchungen, xxxiv.), 1909, p. 4, from a study of the Gospel quota
tions, reached the conclusion that in his several works, written under varving
conditions, Origen used different copies of the New Testament.
2 Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 129 f. ; Studien zu den
Konigsbuchern (Septuaginta-Studien, i.), pp. 47-87.
3 F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutions Apostolorum, Paderborn, 1905,
contains a full index of Scripture passages.
cxcii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The Didascalia contains a number of citations from Acts, of
which the most important occur in vi. 12, where the writer has
curiously interwoven parts of Acts x. and xv. His text of Acts
was plainly not the Antiochian. Thus for xv. 17 f., xv. 23, he
clearly is not using that text, and he nowhere uses any reading
certainly distinctive of the Antiochian text. Of Western
readings positive traces are to be observed, for instance :
Acts x. 11 the omission of Karaftalvov from its proper place early
in the phrase ; 1
xv. 1 e except ye be circumcised and walk according to the
law of Moses (D hcl.mg sah) ;
xv. 10 * the necks, plural (d vg. codd) ;
xv. 11 through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ (CD) ;
xv. 23 writing by their hands this letter (cf . D hcl.mg sah) ;
xv. 29 Trpdgare for Trpafere (CD).
It must not be overlooked that virtually all our knowledge
of the Didascalia comes from a Syriac, and from a fragmentary
Latin, translation of a Greek text, and that the amount of
evidence is small at best. Occasional non- western readings are
found in the Syriac Didascalia, but in at least three such passages
(and those the most important), Acts x. 9, 11, xv. 1-5, and xv. 20
(all found in Didascalia vi. 12, where the Latin is not available),
there are reasons for suspecting that the original reading of the
properly belongs only in the text (Old Uncial) in which the
sheet-like vessel is said to be lowered by the four corners. In the Western
text the vessel was said to be tied by the four corners and lowered (jcaftl/teiw).
This latter was clearly the basis of the text found in the Didascalia, but from
the other text the word Karafialvov (with the necessary Kat preceding) has been
added redundantly after Ko.6t.tiJ.evov in the Didascalia. By the Antiochian
revisers, with a similar, but different, conflation, .the Old Uncial text adopted
by them as their basis was modified by adding the Western dede/me vov (with
following KCU) before Ka.8itfj.evov. It would seem that the reviser of the Didas
calia whose hand we detect in the Syriac version, did not venture completely
to substitute the Antiochian text (with its wholly different structure) for the
Western which he found in his exemplar, but tried by his addition to produce
a text which should be in substantial (although not formal) agreement with
the Antiochian. The method which he employed made it impossible to com
plete the process by inserting the en avrbv with which the Antiochian revisers
had supplemented Kara^alvov. See below, pp. cxciii, cxcviii, 93.
GREEK FATHERS cxciii
Didascalia has been modified so as partially to accord with a
non-western (probably Antiochian) text.
These reasons depend on the well-established fact that the
Didascalia is the source which the author of the Apostolic Con
stitutions has expanded to form Books I. -VI. of his comprehensive
work, and may be presented as follows :
(a) In Acts x. 11 such tampering with the text is disclosed
by the fact that the present text of the Didascalia is not the
true non- western, but is both defective (in omitting &&gt;? oOovrjv
/jLejaXrjv) and confused (through the introduction of /caraffalvov
not in its proper place, but after KaOie^evov, as has been
explained at length in the note on p. cxcii). 1
(b) Acts xv. 1-5. The facts here can best be made clear by
parallel columns.
1 In view of the other instances it is natural to suspect that when the Syriac
Didascalia reproduces Acts x. 9, I went up on a roof to pray, in language
closely like that of the usual text, the original form was, as in the Constitutions,
fy tv T$ U7i ept6y Trpoo-evxbM-evos (or something closely like it), but of this hypo
thesis no particular confirmation suggests itself from eithre document.
[TABLE
VOL. ni n
f
b
1
rl-f
M ^N
H b
H J=-
s.
3
sr
"
S s.
1C b
i
Ti
-d
I..
It
O
**
Xe
" 5 h
1 ii
|T2tj
fe o.^
3 I
s^
14 N
GREEK FATHERS cxcv
Here for Acts xv. 1 the Didascalia has a free paraphrase,
obviously based on the expanded Western text, but still
further enlarged by the noteworthy phrase and be cleansed from
meats and from all the other things, this being apparently the
original (and not at all unsuitable) addition of the writer of the
Didascalia himself. The author of the Constitutions, with his
summary /cal rot? aXXot? eOeo-iv ot? Sterafaro, made this more
conventional and less striking, and further, in conformity to
his Antiochian standard, connected TG> eOei, Mwvcrecos with
irepiT^rjOfiTe (notice, however, the aorist tense, as in the Old
Uncials and D), but has not wholly eliminated the influence of the
Western text due to the Didascalia. At the opening of verse 5
the Syriac Didascalia (like Codex Bezae) has added (doubtless
from the Antiochian text) the reference to the converted
Pharisees, which the Constitutions do not have and which (see
below, p. 140) probably was not a part of that verse in the
Western text. Further, in verse 5, where the closing phrase
of the Didascalia is and to keep the law of Moses, just as in the
ordinary text of Acts (except for the omission of
the Constitutions present the remarkable paraphrase -ra?
dyveias TrapafyvKaTrew (without TrapayyeXkeiv). These words
are in no way derived from the Antiochian, or any other, text
of Acts, and hence are unlikely to be an original alteration
by the author of the Constitutions ; their obvious resemblance
to the enlargement introduced at verse 1 in the Didascalia
gives the key. Probably words closely like those now found
in the Constitutions originally stood in the Didascalia, and were
left with little or no change by the author of the Constitutions,
while in the Didascalia itself the Syriac translator (or possibly a
preceding Greek reviser) substituted for the original paraphrase
a phrase drawn from the current biblical text of his day.
(c) In the reproduction of Acts xv. 20 in the Didascalia, and
what is strangled stands in its usual (third) place among the
four provisos, while the Constitutions, by the unusual position of
Kal TTVLKTOV at the end of the list, betray that these words are
cxcvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
an addition. 1 It is impossible to suppose that the order of the
Didascalia, which is in accord with the general custom, was altered
by the Constitutions so as to produce a unique text. We must
conclude either that the peculiar order was found in the original
Didascalia and taken over by the Constitutions, or else (what is far
more likely) that the Didascalia originally contained the * Western/
text with only three provisos, and that this was modified by the
author of the Constitutions, who made the sentence conform in
substance, though not in order, to the Antiochian text that he
was following as his standard. In either case the text of the
Syriac Didascalia is seen to be an alteration of the original Greek.
Thus every one of these passages leads to the conclusion that
the text of the quotations from Acts in the Didascalia was
originally completely Western, and has been occasionally
modified in our Syriac version. The conclusion needs to be
further investigated as to its applicability to quotations drawn
from other books of the Bible. 2
In the Old Testament the Didascalia in 1-4 Kingdoms likewise
shows itself not under the influence of the Lucianic text, and
here again the Constitutions have in one case (4 Kingdoms
xxi. 13) preserved portions of the old text which are not certainly
to be identified in the Syriac and Latin Didascalia. 3 The
Didascalia quotes Ezek. xxxiv. 4 from Theodotion, doubtless from
an hexaplaric Greek manuscript. 4 The quotation is not changed
in the Constitutions (ii. 18 and 20).
1 Later (vi. 12, 15), in quoting the words of the decree itself, Acts xv. 29,
both Didascalia and Constitutions observe the usual order of the four
specifications.
2 Flemming, in H. Achelis and J. Flemming, Die syrische Didaskalia
ubersetzt und erkldrt (Texte und Untersuchungen, xxv.), 1904, p. 251, expresses
the conviction that in not a few cases, other than in biblical quotations, it is
possible to emend the text of the Didascalia from the corresponding reading
of the Constitutions. This method was employed in an exaggerated manner
by Lagarde in his reconstruction of the Greek text of the Didascalia in Bunsen s
Analecta Ante-Nicaena, vol. ii., 1854, but the validity of it within suitable
limits has not been sufficiently recognized by many later scholars.
3 Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 130-137, esp. pp. 136 f.
4 E. Nestle, Zeitschrift fur die neutestameniliche Wissenschaft, vol. i., 1900,
pp. 176 f.
GREEK FATHERS cxcvii
In the Apostolic Constitutions, Books I.-VL, evidence as to
the text of Acts employed by the interpolator and editor is to be tions.
found in some briefer citations, but especially (as in the Didas-
calia) in the extensive quotations from Acts x. and xv. in Const,
vi. 12, where the interpolator has added much biblical matter
not found in the Didascalia which he had before him. The
interpolator lived in a time and country in which, we are told by
St. Jerome, the Lucianic text of the LXX was dominant, and it
is natural that his work should show that he had at hand an
Antiochian text of Acts, for instance, in Acts xv. 18 (eVrt rw Oew
irdvra ra epya avrov, where the Didascalia rests on a text that
lacked the sentence). But other passages of the Constitutions,
probably derived from the Didascalia, show the influence of the
Western text. In Acts x. 11 the Constitutions (vi. 12, 6) quote
in full, and almost exactly, the Western text which, in agree
ment with d, must have stood on the lost page of D. 1 Other
specifically Western readings (see above) are :
viii. 19 wa + /caya> (Const, ap. vi. 7, 3 ; D perp) ;
viii. 21 TW \6<yw rovrw] rrj Trio-ret, ravry (Const, ap. vi. 7, 4 ; cf.
perp gig Aug pesh).
xv. 1 Mojucreo)? + /cal rot9 d\\oi<> eOeaiv 0*9 Stera^aro irepi-
Trarrjre (Const, ap. vi. 12, 2 ; cf . D hcl.mg. sah).
xv. 20 The very unusual, and probably unique, position of /cal
TTVIKTOV (note the singular, which is Antiochian) at
the end of the list in Const, ap. vi. 12, 13 suggests
that it may have been added to a Western text
including only the three provisos.
In its abridgment of Acts xv. 1-5 the account in the Con
stitutions (like the Western text) does not involve the incon
sistency of the ordinary text (here by contamination found
also in Codex Bezae), in which the controversy seems to be
initiated first at Antioch (v. 1) and again independently at
Jerusalem (v. 5).
1 See Textual Note, below, p. 93.
cxcviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The most natural explanation of all the facts is clearly that
stated above, that the Western readings and allusions of the
Constitutions are due to Western readings in the underlying
Didascalia (of the original Greek of which we have but imperfect
knowledge) which the interpolator, using for himself the Anti-
ochian text, failed to eliminate. 1 This fully accounts for the
otherwise most surprising citation of the pure Western text
of Acts x. 11 by the Constitutions alone among Greek sources.
But the evidence is meagre.
(/) EUSEBIUS ; CYRIL OF JERUSALEM ; EPIPHANIUS
These three writers show, at least in some parts of the New
Testament, a certain relation to the Western text, but evidently
in a weakened form.
Eusebius (ca. 265-340), who used in the Gospels a text with
distinctly Western character, 2 had a text of Acts lacking
Antiochian tendency, but for the most part (so far as his quota
tions permit a judgment) agreeing with one or more of the Old
Uncials against the Western in both these respects much
like the text of Origen.
Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315-386) is said to show for Acts the
use of a text of Western affinities. 3
Of Epiphanius (ca. 315-403) the same can be said, but his
text occasionally agrees with the Antiochian readings. 4
(g) ATHANASIUS ; DIDYMUS ; CYRIL OP ALEXANDRIA ;
COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES
Of these writers all except Cosmas are known to have had their
birth, education, and activity in Alexandria, while the merchant,
1 A similar situation seems to be present in the Old Testament citations
from the books of Kingdoms ; Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher,
pp. 136 f. 2 Hort, Introduction, p. 113.
3 Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, p. 1759.
4 Ibid. It is not impossible that a renewed study of the text of these writers
would throw fresh light on the locality and history of the text contained in
the various groups of manuscripts designated as I by von Soden.
GREEK FATHERS cxcix
and later monk, Cosmas, chiefly notable as a traveller, was
perhaps a native of that city, at any rate found in it the stable
centre of his roving earlier period, and spent his later years of
devout retirement at no very great distance from it. All four
used an Alexandrian text of the Bible similar to that of our Old
Uncials, and from their citations, if these are ever thoroughly
studied, fuller knowledge than is now at hand may be expected
with regard to the history of that text. Such knowledge would
furnish instruction for the study of the codices themselves, and
ought to throw light on the very important questions of how far
the text of the Old Uncials and their minuscule successors is to
be attributed to learned recensions, and of the significance of
Antiochian readings in the Old Uncials.
The demonstrated relation of Codex Vaticanus to Athanasius
(295-373) invites the hope that a study of his citations, made
with due regard to the problem of the text of Athanasius s own
writings, would be of value. He uses for Acts, as elsewhere, the
Old Uncial text, in clear distinction from the Antiochian and the
* Western. Of his relation to our several extant codices nothing
appears to be known. 1 The same statement seems to be the only
one that can be made at present with regard to his contemporary
Didymus (313-398), and to Cyril of Alexandria (f 444). 2
Cosmas Indicopleustes (wrote 547) likewise uses a text of the
Old Uncial type in his extensive quotations from Acts. The copy
from which these were taken was not specially related to any
one of the group BttAC 81, and shows nothing whatever of the
peculiarities of B, with which he never agrees except in company
with one or more of the other members of the group. Antiochian
readings seldom occur except when they are found in one or
1 Von Soden, pp. 1672 f. Von Soden s mention of Migne s edition ol
Athanasius seems to imply that he used that only in his study ; if so, this puts
an unfortunate limitation on the sufficiency of his results. A similar question
arises with reference to Didymus and Cyril.
2 Von Soden, pp. 1673 f. Hort, Introduction, p. 141, says : " At Alexandria
itself the Alexandrian tradition lives on through the fourth century, more or
less disguised with foreign accretions, and then in the early part of the fifth
century reappears comparatively pure in Cyril."
cc THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
another of the Old Uncial group. For the Gospels Cosmas is
said to have used " a late Alexandrian type of text, like L." *
Early in the seventh century Alexandria became the prey of
the Arabs, and Greek Christian writers, who might have used
the text of the Old Uncials, no longer appear.
(h) CHRYSOSTOM
The text of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles used by
Chrysostom was substantially, but not exclusively, Antiochian.
The other element seems to have come from the late text (the
I-text of von Soden) found in mixed minuscules, 2 not from the
Old Uncial text (the * H-text ). In the Acts, Chrysostom s text
is likewise mainly Antiochian, 3 but his homilies on Acts (delivered
ca. 400) show abundant reference to characteristic Western
glosses.
The homilies are found in two forms, and these may go back
to distinct originals ; it is possible that we have reports written
down by two different hearers. One form is found in the New
College, Oxford, MS., used by Savile for his edition (1612, vol. v.) ;
the other was printed by Fronto Ducaeus and his successors
(Paris, 1609-1636), and reprinted by Montfaucon (Paris, 1718-
1738, vol. ix.) and Migne. The excerpts from Chrysostom of the
Armenian Catena on Acts (Venice, 1839) 4 represent the same
text as the New College MS., possibly somewhat reinforced by
Western readings drawn from Ephrem. This text contains
more allusions to * Western readings than does that of Fronto
Ducaeus. The text used by Chrysostom as found in the homilies
calls for further investigation. 5
1 Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 85.
2 Von Soden, pp. 1460 f.
3 Hort, * Introduction, p. 91.
4 The same Catena of which the sections drawn from Ephrem are printed in
the present volume, pp. 381 ff.
5 F. C. Conybeare, On the Western Text of the Acts as Evidenced by
Chrysostom, American Journal of Philology, vol. xvn., 1896, pp. 135-171. In
this article (pp. 149-170) the full evidence from the Armenian Catena and
from Savile s Greek is given in the case of many readings of Acts. See also
GKEEK FATHERS cci
The text of Acts used by some others of the Greek fathers
would doubtless, if better known, give aid in understanding the
relations of our best MSS. and in determining their value. The
most ancient of these MSS. are hardly, if at all, older than the
works of Alexandrian, Palestinian, Antiochian, and Constantino-
politan writers whose works are extant but whose evidence as
to the New Testament text has been largely neglected. The
Cappadocian fathers, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and
others, 1 as well as those of whom something has been said above,
need to be investigated in order that the history of the text after
the rise of the Antiochian recension in the fourth century may be
understood. Only through knowledge, or at least through a
detailed and well-grounded theory, of that history can the
wilderness of the later New Testament MSS., into which von
Soden s great work has now cut some vistas, be adequately
explored and mapped.
Conybeare s notes to the translation of the Commentary of Ephrem, below.
It is to be observed that the views presented by Conybeare in 1896, that
Chrysostom used the commentary of an older father to whom the Western
readings were due, and that the Armenian rests on a fuller text than that of the
New College MS. and Savile, are withdrawn in his later discussion, as now
published.
1 Possibly Eustathius, patriarch of Antioch, ca. 323-330, used a Western
text ; see H. C. Hoskier, Concerning the Date of the Bohairic Version, London,
1911, pp. 118 f.
II. THE CRITICISM AND HISTORY OF THE
GREEK TEXT
1. INTRODUCTORY CONSIDERATIONS
THE witnesses to the text described above fall naturally, for
Acts as for the other chief books of the New Testament, into
three major groups, the members of each of which so often agree
with their fellows within the group as to make it certain that the
group draws its text largely from a common Greek ancestor. The
three texts to which these groups point are called in this volume :
(a) the Old Uncial text ;
(b) the Western text ;
(c) the Antiochian text.
The first two take their name from the most important extant
representatives of the text ; the third from the place where the
text was definitely formed. The term Old Uncial is used to
cover what Westcott and Hort included in their " Neutral " and
their " Alexandrian " text ; the term Antiochian has been
preferred to their name " Syrian " as less likely to cause confusion.
The unsatisfactory nature of the term Western is acknowledged,
but a more convenient, and at the same time exact, name for the
text in question does not present itself.
Within each of these major groups sub-groups disclose
themselves, marked by participation in definite series of variant
readings. To elicit these sub-groups and determine their relation
to one another constitutes a large part of the work (much of it
not yet performed) of preparing the material for the history of
CRITICISM AND HISTORY OF GREEK TEXT cciii
the text of the New Testament. Fortunately textual criticism
properly so called, the determination of what are to be accepted
as the original words of the authors, can generally be pursued
with sound results by observing merely the major grouping of the
witnesses. With hardly an exception the difficulty arising from
the mixed character of the text in our witnesses of older and
middle date is to be met, as Westcott and Hort pointed out, by
dealing primarily with the common readings of notable groups,
not with the evidence of single witnesses. But in order that
criticism may be thoroughly convincing, it requires to be rein
forced by a well-established view of textual history, adequate for
the rational explanation of the origin of the various types and of
their relation to the supporting witnesses. The task will not be
completely absolved until in this way the whole history of the
text has been elucidated, including the later development down
to the period of the printed New Testament. Only when all the
late witnesses are fully understood and explained will the study
of textual criticism lose its significance. The practical import
ance, however, of the study of the later forms of the text is chiefly
to ensure that all out-of-the-way survivals of ancient texts which
may conceivably be genuine readings, have been discovered and
registered.
In the text of the Greek Bible, in both Testaments, the forces Phases in
at work in producing the existing situation have been two : (1) of^h
free variation (both accidental and deliberate) and rewriting ; text *
(2) learned recension intended to produce a definite, and in some
cases an authoritative, text, together with the influence of
scholars who have preferred some definite type of text and pro
moted its use. In both Testaments some of these recensions or
preferred texts can be recognized and identified ; others will no
doubt be determined by future inquiry. From the point of view
of the study of these forces the following brief sketch of the
listory of the text of Acts is here outlined. The aim is to direct
attention in the history to the succession of what may be called
phases of the text. These are not exactly chronological stages
cciv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
or events, following one another (although they correspond in
part to such stages), for the documents in each group in many cases
had their actual origin at dates separated by long intervals of time.
Many strokes in such a picture have to be guided by knowledge
as yet imperfect, and in its details the sketch is presented with due
reserve. Yet the general lines are, I believe, true to the history.
It differs from Westcott and Hort s account chiefly in its method
of grouping, rather than in the judgments of fact on which it
rests.
For other books of the New Testament than Acts the sketch
would require some modification. It will be observed that the
classification reached in this way is different from that stated
above, and it is presented as historically significant and suggestive,
not as a practical classification of texts, adapted for direct use in
textual criticism proper. For the latter purpose the familiar
distribution into families noted by Bengel designated by
Griesbach as Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine, and carried
further by Westcott and Hort through their division of the
Alexandrian family into Neutral and Alexandrian is appropriate
and, indeed, necessary.
(1) The Primitive Phase. In this phase the text was subject
to free variation, both accidental and deliberate, and to elaborate
rewriting ; many variants were present in different documents ;
and the actual copying was far less subject to control than at a
later time, and was often very inaccurate. 1 Here substantially
belong most of the papyrus fragments, Codices BtfD, the Greek
1 J. L. Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 4th ed., 1847,
pp. 121-127, recognized this phase of the history of the text, and applied to it
the term KOIVTJ &c5o<ns, which he drew from the Alexandrian grammarians (cf.
also Jerome, Ep. 106, ad Sunniam et Fretelam, 2). To it he referred Codex Bezae,
but he failed to see that D represents a rewriting (though not in the proper sense
a learned recension ) within this primitive phase and period. The term KQIVT]
properly designates the unrevised text (like Westcott and Hort s name,
neutral ) in contrast to a definite recension or recensions. The use of K(oine)
by von Soden to denote the Antiochian text was not in accord with ancient
usage, although, as it happens, Jerome (Ep. 106) states that many applied the
name Lucianic to the common text of the LXX, both terms alike serving to
mark a distinction from the hexaplaric recension ; see Rahlfs, Der Text des
Septuaginta-Psalters, pp. 170 f.
CRITICISM AND HISTORY OF GREEK TEXT ccv
text underlying the African Latin, the text, partly conformed to
a standard, from which the Sahidic was drawn, and the text used
by Clement of Alexandria and (in somewhat less degree) that of
Origen. 1 Attempts at recension were doubtless made within
the limits of this phase ; in some centres standard copies were re
cognized ; and the early mixture which is unmistakable thus arose.
But such early recensions have not as yet been identified by clear
evidence. The Western text is included in this phase ; it was
an ancient rewriting, not, like the later recognizable recensions,
an attempt to select the best among extant variants, only inci
dentally accompanied by occasional improvement on the editor s
own part. The * Western text and what may for convenience
be called the B-text are two divergent types of this phase, and
both go back to a very remote antiquity.
This phase of the history of the text was not brought to
an end by the Antiochian recension. The most valuable single
representative of it is Codex Vaticanus, which, with the Bohairic
version, offers in Acts a non-western text of great freedom
from Western readings, and, on the other hand, shows fewer
traces than any of its kin probably, indeed, none of influence
from the Antiochian text. On these two characteristics, as has
already been remarked above, not on any unique purity within
its own non-western and non-antiochian field, rests, in Acts, the
pre-eminence of this codex. Its relation to early, free, non-
western variation, and the question whether its text was created
by a recensional process in which the shorter reading was con
sistently preferred, have not as yet been determined. This
position of Codex B both explains its superiority and accounts
for its many recognizable individual faults. Many other faults,
shared with other MSS. of its own type, it may also be suspected
;o contain, but no internal criticism enables us to detect
hem.
1 Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta- Psalters, p. 201, remarks that the evidence
f Clement of Alexandria shows that in ancient times a greater number of
lifferent types of text of the Greek Psalms were current than have been
reserved for us.
ccvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
(2) The Antiochian Recension and its Successive Modifications.
The formation of the Antiochian recension in the fourth century
constituted a fateful epoch in the history of the text both of Old
and New Testaments. Through all the centuries beginning with
the ninth the great bulk of Greek MSS. contain this text, mostly
in a fair degree of purity. The most important question with
regard to it is how far it has preserved non-western readings
derived from the earlier stage of free variation and otherwise
unknown to us or insufficiently attested.
(3) The Phase of Later Mixture and Supplementary Recension.
Here belong Codices AC 81, most of the MSS. assigned by von
Soden to his H-text and I-text, and probably the Greek copies
underlying the Latin gigas-recension and the Latin Vulgate.
Whether the Greek MS. from which came the marginal and
asterisked readings of the Harclean Syriac was of this nature
or was a pure Western text cannot be determined in the present
state of knowledge. The extant Greek MSS. here mentioned show
a character of their own. They make the impression of having
been written under definite control of various kinds ; in ortho
graphy and grammar they are more accurate by the standards of
the grammarians than those of the earliest phase ; and, apart from
mere accidents, they contain relatively few individual readings
peculiar to the several codices.
In this great and heterogeneous mass many distinct types of
mixture can be identified, and now that the fundamental spade-
work of von Soden has been done, their relations and history will
probably be more and more accurately and instructively elucidated
as the laborious research required for this study makes further
progress. Within this phase will probably be discovered the text
of Pamphilus and Eusebius ; if so, that will form an excellent
illustration of what took place at many centres. Some of these
texts had as one of their component elements noteworthy readings
of great antiquity in considerable abundance, and it is here that
the chief use of the minuscule codices, when fully investigated, i
will lie. Which are the useful minuscules will appear when all j
CRITICISM AND HISTORY OF GREEK TEXT ccvii
those codices that are incapable of such use (constituting, in fact,
the great majority) are removed from the critic s horizon.
The textual history of the New Testament and that of the Comparison
Septuagint have been parallel. In both Testaments the period of old Testa-
Origen and that of Lucian of Antioch are the great landmarks. n
In both, a phase, or period, of free variation was interrupted, but
not fully terminated, by the effect of great recensions ; and in
both the critic s task is to determine the best extant text which
preceded these recensions, and, as well, to discover and adopt any
sound readings preserved in the recensions, though lacking strong,
or even any, attestation outside them. In both cases the con
clusion of criticism advises the adoption of Codex Vaticanus as in
large measure, but only in large measure and to a degree varying
greatly in different groups of books, the best single survivor of
the earliest phase of textual development.
But there are important differences. Thus in the Septuagint
the Lucianic text appears to contain many precious readings
drawn from its ancient base and sometimes known to us from no
other source, while in the New Testament it is capable of rendering
a similar service, if at all, only within narrow limits. 1
Moreover, Origen made no recension of the New Testament,
and the difference between the fortunes of the Septuagint and of
the New Testament in his period is the cause of a far-reaching
difference in the later history of the two texts. The outcome may
have been partly due to Origen in the New Testament as well as
in the Old, but in the latter case his new and powerful recension
entered at this time on its career as an active power, whereas in
the New Testament what happened was that an ancient but
neglected type of text was brought to new prominence, and the
primitive phase of the text prolonged. In the Septuagint,
well before the middle of the third century the recension put
forth in the fifth column of the Hexapla provided a restrictive
1 Even von Soden s method of criticism, which allows one vote out of three
to the Antiochian text, does not permit that text to outweigh the combined
votes of the H-text and the I-text.
ccviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
force to check free variation, although it became in itself the
source of a fresh type of mixture. No similar great repressive
force was at work in the New Testament at anything like so early a
date. For the Book of Acts, to limit the statement to the special
field of our present inquiry, what we seem to see is that not long
after Origen s date a change in usage took place. In the second
century the text of Acts commonly used had been the Western.
It penetrated to the Latin - speaking world and to the Syrian
church, was long used in Palestine, and is found in Egypt at
Oxyrhynchus in the third or fourth century, while the traces of it
in the copy from which the Sahidic was made likewise attest its
use in Egypt. But under some influence (we may guess that this
was not unconnected with Origen), and before the time of Athana-
sius, the old B-text won the day in Alexandria over the old
Western text, was used as the chief basis of the recension made
at Antioch, was employed by Jerome for the revision of the Latin
translation, and later showed its position of full authority in
Egypt, where it provided the copy from which the Bohairic version
was made. One effect of this change of public favour must have
been that many Western copies were corrected over to a B-
standard, and so gave rise, by reason of incomplete correcting, to
a progeny of descendants with a mixed text. In the codex from
which the Sahidic was translated many remnants of the f Western
base survived here and there, chiefly in unimportant minor details,
amid the general mass of B-readings.
Another fact of Septuagint history to which the New Testa
ment offers no counterpart is that the influence of the Hexaplaric
and of the Lucianic recensions in the Old Testament can be easily
detected. Their readings stand out conspicuous against any
alien background. In the New Testament the Western text
has something of that quality, but it belongs to the phase of
primitive, free rewriting, not to that of learned recensions.
Hardly any other type can be recognized by familiar features in
any single sentence taken alone. The Antiochian selection of
readings is, indeed, easily recognized in any considerable passage,
CRITICISM AND HISTORY OF GREEK TEXT ccix
but for a given single reading it is hardly ever possible to say
whether it is Antiochian or merely a part of the older text
( Western or, more often, Old Uncial) which the Antiochian
revisers used. No one will be able to tell what the text of the
Codex of Pamphilus, followed in Eusebius s copies, was like, until
by some external evidence it shall be determined what that text
was. 1
Other important differences between the two Testaments can
be pointed out. Except in the Psalms, nothing in the textual
history of the Old Testament corresponding to the Western text
of the New Testament is known to us. And in the later phases of
the Old Testament text the most commonly adopted type was not
(again with the exception of the Psalms) the Lucianic recension,
but rather a modified form of the older current text.
1 Hesychius need not be mentioned here. He is a figure shadowy enough
even for the Old Testament, and for the New Testament we know nothing
whatever about his work.
VOL. Ill
2. PAPYRI AND OTHER FRAGMENTS
ALTHOUGH no essential difference separates papyrus MSS. from
others, yet in the present state of our knowledge of the text the
papyri and certain associated fragments require separate mention.
This is partly because a large proportion of them are of great
antiquity, partly because their place of origin or currency is in
most cases known to be Egypt.
1. PAPYKI AND EGYPTIAN FRAGMENTS
In the Acts the following fragments from Egypt come in
question (for fuller statements see pp. xvii-xxi). Only the four
specifically so designated (Pap.) are papyri.
Pap. 29 (Oxyrhynchus 1597 ; third or fourth century).
Pap. 8 (Berlin, P 8683 ; fourth century).
057 (Berlin, P 9808 ; fourth century).
0165 (Berlin, P 271 ; fourth or fifth century).
0166 (Heidelberg 1357 ; fifth century ; bought at Akhmim,
but of uncertain provenance).
0175 (Florence, Oxyrhynchus fragment, vol. ii. No. 125 ; fifth
century).
076 (Amherst VIII ; fifth or sixth century).
Wess 590 (Vienna ; Sahidic and Greek ; sixth century).
Pap. 33 (Vienna ; Pap Wess 190 ; sixth or seventh century).
Pap. Wess 237 (Vienna ; graeco- sahidic ; eleventh or twelfth
century).
Of these the earliest (Pap. 29) is certainly older than our oldest
codices. The text of the fragment is given in full below, pp.
235, 237 ; its chief variants from B are :
PAPYRI AND FRAGMENTS ccxi
xxvi. 7 eAm^ei] eAm8t. This implies a finite verb instead of
Xarpevcov B ; so deserviunt in spe pervenire gig ; whether in Pap. 29
the noun was preceded by ev cannot be known.
8 Seems to have omitted /3acriAeu TI CLTTLCTTOV Kpiverai Trap v^iv.
20 le/oo cro Allots] + /cat. The editors suggest, in view of the space,
that what followed was rrj touSata for nacrous re rrjv ^ajpav TT]S
touSata? B ; the reading judaeis of c and perp corr suggests also the
possibility of tou8atot?.
aTn^yyeAAov] Kr]pva (cf . praedicavi h, annunciavi gig, instead
of the usual annuntiabam).
These indications are meagre, but decisive ; they prove the
presence of * Western readings in Oxyrhynchus as late as the
third or fourth century. The rest of the MS. would beyond reason
able doubt furnish abundant parallels to D and the Old Latin.
The fragment includes only verses which ,are now lacking
inD.
The other nine fragments mentioned above represent texts
current in different centuries, from the fourth to the seventh, and
in various Egyptian localities. For all except 057 the text is
known, and so far as practicable their readings are included at
the proper places in the apparatus below. In view of the broken
condition of most of them, inferences from the silence of the
apparatus in any verse need to be verified from the published
texts of the fragments (see above, pp. xvii-xx).
No one of the fragments (except the minute bit designated
1066) agrees perfectly with any known MS., but it is nevertheless
plain that all of them, except Pap. 29, represent forms of what
in this volume is called the Old Uncial text. They are con
spicuously different from the Antiochian type of text, and show
hardly anything that is capable of being ascribed even to sporadic
Antiochian influence. In several cases (notably Pap. 8, 0165, 076)
their readings show special agreement with B, but none of them
shares any of the peculiar idiosyncrasies of B against all other
uncials. In Pap Wess 237 (from the Fayoum, eleventh or twelfth
century) a distinct Western element is included in the text.
ccxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The fragments are too limited in extent to justify at present
any conclusions as to the history of the Old Uncial text in
Egypt from the time of Athanasius to the date of the Arab
conquest.
From the study of the Gospel papyrus fragments of the third
and fourth centuries (mostly from Oxyrhynchus) it has been
observed that, although these conform to the Old Uncial type,
they never agree perfectly with any one uncial, and that in the
passages (brief as those are) where the fragments overlap, they do
not agree perfectly with one another. 1 It is further remarked
that most of the papyri contain some unique readings, as well
as not a few which elsewhere find support only in very late
copies. 2 With these findings the facts of the Egyptian frag
ments of Acts, so far as they permit a judgment, are not out of
accord.
2. OTHER FRAGMENTS
Ten other fragments of varying date, origin, and character
are known as follows (see pp. xvii-xxi).
At Petrograd are three palimpsests, the upper writing being
Georgian :
066 (P; fifth century),
096 (I 5 ; seventh century),
097 (I 6 ; seventh century).
1 Victor Martin, Les papyrus du Nouveau Testament et 1 histoire du texte,
Revue de TMologie et de Philosophic, N.S., vol. vin., 1919, pp. 43-72.
2 A similar situation is found in papyrus MSS. of classical writers ; B. P.
Grenfell, Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xxxix., 1919, pp. 16-36 ; The Oxyrhyn
chus Papyri, vol. iii., pp. 119 f. ; vol. v. pp. 243 f. ; vol. xi. pp. 156-164. Grenfell
says that the changes took place before the second century after Christ, and to
but small extent after that. On the corrupt text of a papyrus of the Phaedo of
Plato written within a century of Plato s death, as compared with the Bodleian
Plato dated 895, and the causes of the superiority of the later manuscript, see
H. Usener, Unser Platontext, Nachrichten, Gottingen Academy, 1892, pp. 25-
50, 181-215. For a like view for the New Testament see E. von Dobschiitz,
Eberhard Nestle s Einfiihrung in das griechische Neue Testament, 4te Auflage,
1923, p. 8.
PAPYRI AND FRAGMENTS ccxiii
Also at Petrograd :
095 (G ; seventh century ; from the binding of a Syriac MS.),
0123 (Apl 70 b ; eighth century).
At Sinai are :
077 (fifth century),
0140 (tenth century).
There remain :
048 (i ; fifth century, palimpsest, from Rossano),
093 (sixth century, from the Cairo genizah),
0120 (G b ; ninth century, palimpsest, from Grotta Ferrata).
Of the above the text of 0140 and 048 has not been published ;
0123 and 077 are too fragmentary to be used.
The Petrograd fragments from Georgia, 066, 096, 097, come
from texts of varying type. 066 (fifth century) has an Old Uncial
text, which, so far as revealed by the fragment, is virtually
identical with that of 81 (von Soden, p. 1672) ; 096 is Old Uncial
with a slight Western trace (von Soden, p. 1672) ; 097 is from
a mixed text including a strong Antiochian element, and is
assigned by von Soden to his I - group (p. 1687). The other
Petrograd fragment 095 has an Old Uncial text, with noticeable
resemblance to AC. The most instructive observation at present
to be made on these oriental fragments is of the contrast their
variety affords to the distinctive, relatively homogeneous, Old
Uncial character of most of the fragments found in Egypt.
The two remaining fragments 093 and 0120 both give the
Antiochian text. 0120 is of the ninth century, and adds nothing
of consequence to the testimony of the other Antiochian MSS. of
the same period, although it occasionally departs from them to
agree with the Old Uncials. But 093, though but a single leaf,
is of great value, for, being of the sixth century, it is the oldest
known piece of pure Antiochian text of Acts. 1 The fragment
1 Codex Laudianus (E) of about the same date is mainly Antiochian, but has
a Greek text largely conformed to its parallel Latin columns.
ccxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
was found in the genizah at Cairo, but need not have been
produced in Egypt.
The main use of these fragments is to enrich the background of
knowledge in which the oriental non-antiochian MSS. of Acts
are to be set. From the earliest of the fragments, with the
similar fragments of the Gospels, we can see that in the third
century the New Testament was copied with constant minor
variation, so that hardly ever can two copies have been identical.
The tendencies of variation perceptible are those commonly
attributed to copyists, and due to carelessness in omission and
alteration, and to small additions, rearrangements of order, and
other changes, in accordance with personal taste. Yet in Egypt
from the earliest time known to us and during the whole period of
Christian domination of that country, and indeed for long after
the Arab conquest, a definite but not rigidly fixed type of text
was widely used by Greek - speaking Christians. Our oldest
example of this text, and probably our best, is Codex Vaticanus.
The type as a whole does not show signs of being a recension,
although doubtless recensions were from time to time attempted
within it, and from one or more of these some of our extant
witnesses may come. Mingling with this text are traces of the
ancient Western text, of which purer copies lingered here and
there, such as Pap. 29, perhaps of the third century, from
Oxyrhynchus ; and of the Antiochian recension also copies were
brought to Egypt. For no other region is an equal amount of
evidence available.
3. THE WESTERN TEXT
1. WITNESSES
OF the Western text of Acts we have no pure representative
for any large part of the book, if indeed any one of our witnesses
can be called pure. The authorities may be arranged in three
groups : 1. The chief witnesses, with a substantially Western
text. 2. Mixed texts with definite and considerable * Western
elements. 3. Mixed texts with occasional Western survivals.
1. Codex Bezae stands alone as the only continuous Greek MS. Codex
containing nearly the whole book in a substantially e Western
text ; but the defects and limitations of D have already been
sufficiently illustrated in the general description of the codex Latin;
(above, pp. Ixix-lxxxiii). It is disfigured by errors ; and in using it
the possibility of conformation to the accompanying Latin and of
contamination from the non-western text must be kept in mind
at every stage. Such facts as the frequent agreement against
D of Peshitto and h, or Peshitto and gig, seem to show a greater
degree of degeneration in the ( Western text of D than has
usually been suspected. Next in importance to D are the readings
under asterisk and in the margin of the Harclean Syriac. These
are almost purely Western, are sometimes obviously better than
the readings of D, and come in some cases from chapters where
D is defective ; but they are not continuous, although they
contain a very large proportion of the most important Western
variants, especially in the way of addition. The African Latin
version, again, was almost purely * Western, and where we have
the evidence of Codex h, Cyprian, or Augustine, the critic is on
ccxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
firm ground, but this is the case for only a small part of the
book.
These three D, Harclean apparatus, African Latin may be
called the chief witnesses to the Western text, and their read
ings, in the absence of special indications to the contrary, are
generally to be taken as representing it. With them may be put
the readings implied in the Armenian version of the commentary
of Ephrem Syrus, as printed below (pp. 380 ff.). The use of
these is subject to some limitations because of the probability of
influence from the Armenian New Testament, but they serve at
least to confirm readings known from other and more trustworthy
sources.
The papyrus MS. from which the fragment Pap. 29 (Oxyrh.
1597) has been preserved would probably also show itself as
belonging to this group, if we had more of it.
2. Next to these chief witnesses come two groups of mixed
documents, Greek and Latin, which also contain definite Western
elements of great importance.
(a) A large number of Greek MSS. are included by von Soden
in his I-group, and many of these, especially those of the sub
groups I C1 and F 2 , contain a larger or smaller number of Western
readings. The codex containing the largest number appears to be
614 (formerly 137 ; a 364), now at Milan, which is included in the
apparatus of Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld, and von Soden. Of im
portance is also 383 (formerly 58 ; a 353 ; Oxford, Bodleian
Library, clark. 9), in which the Western readings are found
almost exclusively in chapters xvii.-xxii. 1 The other codices of
the groups I cl and P 2 are named above (pp. xxviif.) in the order of
value assigned by von Soden. A full investigation of these mixed
texts containing Western readings, most of which are easily
1 August Pott, Der abendldndische Text der Apostelgeschichte und die Wir-
quelk, Leipzig, 1900, has tried to explain the Western readings of 614 and
383 as due to the persistent influence of the We -source on the text of the
completed Book of Acts. For effective criticism of his theory see H. Coppieters,
De historia textus Actorum Apostolorum, Louvain, 1902, pp. 60-68, and A. V. V.
Richards, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. H., 1900-1, pp. 439-447.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxvii
accessible, is one of the greatest needs of the textual criticism of
Acts. 1 The impression made by them, so far as they are known,
is that their character is due to the introduction of striking
Western readings into an Antiochian text, while they also show
a certain Old Uncial element of which the precise nature and
channel has not been at all determined. 2 That the minutiae of
the text are almost perfectly Antiochian makes it difficult to
believe that we have the remains of a Western base incom
pletely corrected to an Antiochian standard. Such a theory
would imply an Antiochian corrector meticulously careful about
introducing every minor detail of his new text and yet so careless
as to leave standing a great number of glaring readings of a
character obviously foreign to it. 3 In some cases, for instance
in codex 614 in Acts xxii. 29 f., xxiii. 24 f., 34, xxiv. 27, the
Western reading stands by conflation side by side with the
other reading for which it was intended as a substitute. In such
a case as xix. 9 the Western addition rwv eOvcov, properly
attached to rrkyOovs in D e pesh hcl *, is in 614 383 misplaced
and connected with the previous rtz/e?. 4 These Western
readings might have stood in the margin of the exemplar, which
would thus have been a copy constructed somewhat after the
ashion of the Oxford MS. of the Harclean Syriac.
1 It is understood that Mr. A. V. Valentine Richards of Christ s College,
Cambridge, is engaged on an edition and investigation of 614. His work will
hrow greatly needed light on the origin and significance of this group of Greek
MSS. A. Schmidtke, Festlegung der Evangelienausgabe Zion, Neue Frag-
mente und Untersuchungen zu den judenchristlichen Evangelien (T.U. xxxvu.),
911, pp. 1-21, is an instructive discussion of one group of I-codices of the Gospels.
A. Vaccari, La Grecia nelV Italia meridionale (Orientalia Christiana, iii.), Rome,
925, treats of the Calabrian MSS. of LXX and N.T.
2 Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924, pp. 79-107, 572-584, has shown that for
he Gospels Caesarea was probably the centre of diffusion of at least one type
)f the I-text (that chiefly used by Origen in his later period). So perhaps
with Acts, for which Origen does not supply much evidence. On this text in
the Gospels see also K. Lake and R. P. Blake, The Text of the Gospels and
he Koridethi Codex, Harvard Theological Review, vol. xvi., 1923, pp. 267-286.
3 Cf. H. Coppieters, op. cit. pp. 60-68 ; also A. V. V. Richards, I.e. p. 445.
4 What has happened is made specially evident in 614, where rorc follows
Qvw in the gloss although it would be appropriate only if ruv edvuv stood in
he later position which the words actually occupy in D.
ccxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The Western fragments contained in these mixed codices
represent a line of transmission of Western readings wholly
distinct from that represented by D, and the I-manuscripts often
agree with the Harclean apparatus against D. 1 As has been seen
above, this does not imply any connexion of the I-group with
the Old Syriac of the second, third, and fourth centuries, but
rather that either the Philoxenian revision of the sixth century
or the Harclean of the following century, or both, used a Greek MS.
containing I-readings. On the other hand, D belongs to the same
line of transmission which has produced the Old Latin Western
text. Both lines, that of D and that of the Harclean apparatus
and the I-group, go back to a common * Western original, but
the two lines show types of mixture of quite different characters,
and independent the one of the other. 2 Among the questions
which cry for an answer are those as to the components of the
non-western element of the text of the I-manuscripts, and as to
their grouping, their centre (or centres) of dispersion, and the later
history and locality of their text. A primary question is whether
they represent a single mixture, which has been disfigured and
partly obliterated by later conformation to standard types, or
whether they represent several similar mixtures of * Western
readings with a non-western text, made from similar motives but
at different places and times. This ought to be discoverable from
the relations subsisting between the selection of Western
readings still found in the different codices. It would require as
complete as possible an assembling of the I-texts for comparison,
1 Examples of agreement of 614 or kindred texts with the Harclean
apparatus against D are to be found in the following places among others:
v. 33 ; vii. 43 ; xii. 11, 12, 25 ; xiii. 43, 47 ; xiv. 18, 19, 25 ; xv. 1, 23 ; xvi.
39 ; xvii. 11 ; xx. 32 ; xxii. 5, 7. Similarly, where D is lacking, hcl.mg some
times agrees with minuscules of the I-groups in Western readings for which
no Latin attestation presents itself, e.g. Acts xxiv. 27.
2 A certain analogy may be seen here, valuable in principle but incom
plete, to Burkitt s observation of the sharp distinction between the Old Syriac
and the Old Lathi (and Bezan) Western text of the Gospels, as seen in the two
different series of interpolations which these have received. In Acts the salient
characteristics of the Western text in the two lines of transmission go back
to a single common origin more definitely and completely than in the Gospels.
See Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, pp. 17, 46-53.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxix
, but this would now present no insuperable difficulties, except for
s a few hardly accessible codices.
Valuable use can, even at present, be made of these Western
readings, many of which will be found recorded in von Soden s
! apparatus. In the passages where Codex Bezae is mutilated,
! they are given in the pages below, and throughout the rest of Acts
they can be used both to confirm and to supplement Codex Bezae.
; Comparison with the Harclean apparatus and with the Old Latin
jand the other versions throws into clear relief much of the
Western element of the Greek I-codices ; in some cases, the
positive character of readings serves even by itself as a criterion. 1
The Western readings of these MSS. are not infrequently better
than those of D, which has suffered by scribal corruption and
otherwise, and from which, in particular, Western glosses not
represented by the Latin text used in constructing the MS. were
likely to be omitted (for instance Acts xviii. 21, 22, and elsewhere).
JI apparatus showing to just what extent these Greek readings
onfirm, correct, or supplement the continuous text of Codex
Bezae would not be difficult to print and would be highly instruct-
ve. It is one of many supplements for which, it is hoped, the
resent volume will offer a convenient instrument and an incentive.
(6) The Old Latin and mixed Vulgate manuscripts described Old Latin.
Dove (pp. cvi-cxii) may be classed with the Greek I-codices, for
icy all contain definite Western elements, and are important
urces of information as to the Western text. In nearly every
nstance, however, they seem to have acquired their Western
ement by a process the opposite of that which has produced the
codices. The latter may be thought to represent a non-western
ext into which Western readings of interest have been intro-
uced. The Latin MSS., on the other hand, represent the remains
; a sound Western base which has gradually lost by correction
1 Examples of readings which look Western but have only isolated
testation, and may be merely similar expansions by a later hand, are
cts viii. 36 + ffvfrrovvTes per aXA^Xow 467 ; xxiii. 27 clamantem et dicentem se
se civem romanum gig. Others could easily be gathered by a little research
i the apparatus of von Soden and of Wordsworth and White.
ccxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
its Western character, and been assimilated to the ordinary
Greek text. In Spain and Languedoc and in Ireland the
Western readings of Acts were valued, and the sharp conflict of
various types of text yielded highly composite mixtures retaining
various proportions of Western survivals of every sort. The
daughter versions into several vernaculars preserved this character,
and owe to it alone their interest for our investigation.
It thus appears that the I-codices and the Latin version have
like uses. Of mixed ingredients, they are ordinarily incapable,
each by itself, of furnishing any presumption in favour of the
Western character of readings, but their Western elements
can be elicited by noticing variation from the non-western text
and observing the groups of witnesses which support such variants.
To careful critical judgment they offer a large and trustworthy
supply of knowledge of the Western text.
other 3. In addition to these two classes of witnesses those of
survival" tolerable purity and the mixed sources numerous other witnesses
contain occasional Western elements, the channels for which
sometimes can be guessed, sometimes elude our inquiry. This is
true of the Old Uncial codices A and C. Thus A has the
Western reading in Acts viii. 39, xv. 18, xx. 4, 18, xxi. 22, to
mention but a few examples. C seems to be still more tinctured
with Western colour both in minor details and in longer glosses ;
thus Acts ix. 22, x. 32, xiv. 10, xiv. 18 f., xv. 4, 23 f., xx. 16,
24, xxi. 22, 25. In xiv. 18 f., xv. 24, C has the Western
reading where D has received the non- western. These illustrations
can easily be supplemented from the apparatus and notes of the
present volume, where further evidence as to the more restricted j
Western elements in K and 81 will be found. These Western
readings of the Old Uncial group have as yet received no adequate
study or explanation. It does not seem certain that Codex
Vaticanus has any strictly Western readings in Acts, but it has
many in the Pauline epistles, and no one ought to be surprised if
some appear elsewhere. Finally, it is not to be forgotten that
the Antiochian text contains a distinct Western element (see
THE WESTEKN TEXT ccxxi
below, pp. cclxxxv-vii) ; something of it can perhaps be elicited
by the aid of the versions.
The Sahidic version contains frequent Western readings,
especially in minor details. The Greek MS. which it carefully
followed seems to have been derived, as stated above, from a
Western MS. which had been corrected to the Old Uncial
standard. The Peshitto exhibits many Western readings in
: spite of its general non- western colour. 1 The Armenian also
shows Western readings ; and some are found unmarked by
any asterisk in the continuous text of the Harclean Syriac.
A systematic and judicious comparison of the Sahidic, Peshitto,
and Old Latin versions with one another, with A and C, with
the Antiochian text, and with the I-manuscripts, would yield
evidence of many Western readings hitherto unrecognized,
especially in the portions of Acts where Codex Bezae is defective. 2
In addition to these witnesses, Greek MSS. here and there
ontain many isolated Western readings, as do the patristic
writings, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Armenian. They are of
ttle service in constituting a text, but they indicate the range
f Western influence, and, meagre as they are individually,
eserve close study, for they provide the means of understanding
lie history of the text contained in the manuscripts and versions.
2. THE TEXT
A careful reading of any approximate form of the Western The
ext of Acts, such as that of Codex Bezae, or of the reconstruc-
ion by Zahn, will be likely to convince the student that on the definite
J origin.
1 In such a case as Acts iv. 13 f. the Peshitto has retained fragments of the
Western text found in full in the Latin h, while D has nothing but the non-
western text. This is a good example of the kind of use to which this whole
lass of witnesses can be put.
a The evidence of Peshitto and h, of Peshitto and gigas, and perhaps of
ahidic an.l Latin, seems to be valuable. The agreement of Peshitto and
Vntiochian also may prove valuable as a guide to Western readings, at least
n Acts, in spite of the common assumption of a different origin of their
ommon element. So far as I have observed, the agreements of Peshitto and
ahidic are not very fruitful of results. The other possible combinations
eserve careful study.
ccxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
whole, and apart from inevitable minor blemishes due to later
hands, he has before him a definite integral text, not explicable as
the mere accumulation of scribal errors and incidental modifica
tions. 1 That such a text would have been modified in divers
ways in its early history is to be expected, and we can assume
that it varied from copy to copy, as did the rival text, but the
great mass of the variations which we can identify as belonging
to it show unmistakable signs of proceeding from a single
hand with his own characteristic method of work. 2 More
over, the period before ca. 150 is too brief to have permitted
the great number of successive copyings which have to be
assumed under the theory that the c Western text owes its
origin to the fortuitous assemblage of natural variants. Either
the Western text represents substantially the original, from
which the text of BtfAC 81 as a definite recension was derived,
or vice versa the Western is a rewriting of the original Old
Uncial, or else they are both from the original writer, different
stages of his own work. To suppose that the bulk of the varia
tions proceed not from one but from many hands is a wholly
unnecessary complication and multiplication of hypotheses, and
runs counter to the clear indications of unity furnished by style
and method in each text. Regarded as a paraphrastic rewriting
1 Like others in the past (especially J. L. Hug, Einleitung in die Schriften
des Neuen Testaments, 4th ed., 1847 ; B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostel-
geschichte [T. U. xvii.], 1897, pp. 2-4), E. von Dobschiitz, Literarisches Central-
blatt, 1895, col. 605, held that the Western text was an archaic text
now " in einem Zustande naturwuchsiger Verwilderung," and due to mere
accumulation, of corruptions, not to a rewriting ; and he seems to hold sub
stantially this view in his fourth edition of Eberhard Nestle s Einfilhrung in das j
griechische Neue Testament, 1923, p. 28. These views receive more support in
the facts of the Western text of the Gospels, for which it must at least be
admitted that several types of Western text were current at a very early
date. The relation of the text used by Irenaeus in the Gospels to other
Western types is here instructive ; see B. Kraft, Die Evangelienzitate des
Heiligen Irendus (Biblische Studien, xxi.), 1924, pp. 69-112. Cf. also F. C.
Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896, pp. 16 f., 46-53. For references to
the views of various critics on the unity of the Western text see H. Coppieters,
op. cit. p. 76.
2 A good example of one sort of unity of method may be seen by comparing j
the Western text in Acts xiv. 7 and xv. 34.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxiii
of the original, the Western text, indeed, would in kind
not be different from the free divergence of early copyists, 1
although a highly exaggerated example of that freedom ; but
it must in the main have been due to a single editor trying to
improve the book on a large scale.
With due qualifications, then, the Western text of Acts can Date,
be treated as a real entity, which came into being at some definite
place and time, was diffused from some single centre, had its own
history, became mixed with other texts by various processes,
some easily intelligible, others more mysterious, and was finally
embodied in the many documents from which we try to recover it.
Its date of origin must have been very early. It may have been
used by the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, and so perhaps
before the middle of the second century. It certainly was the
text in the hands of Irenaeus about 185, and presumably the one
which as a young man he learned to know in Asia Minor before
L50. That he had at first used a different text which at some
time he exchanged for the Western text of the later part of his
ife is not intrinsically impossible, but with such a man we should
expect the change to betray itself somewhere, in his numerous
quotations or elsewhere in his voluminous work, and such a
suggestion is in fact made impossible by the emphasis with
which he expresses confidence in the unfalsified text of the
Scriptures (Contra haer. iv. 33. 8). 2 Before the time of Tertullian
the African Latin seems to have had a considerable history, and
already to have attained some fixity of rendering for various
Greek words in their Christian use. 3 Tertullian s intense
asseveration of the trustworthiness of the text used by the
Church (De praescriptione haereticorum 38) would have been
mpossible if the Greek text which he used had been known
bo him as a new edition introduced within his lifetime or within
1 On the parallel to be seen in the highly divergent Greek text of the Psalms
current in Upper Egypt, see pp. xciii-xciv.
2 See Zahn, Oeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. i. pp. 1 15 note, 441 f .
3 H. J. Vogels, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der lateinischen Apokalypse-
ubersetzungcn, 1920, p. 130.
ccxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
any period of wliicli he had knowledge. In the Gospels the
Western text, which can hardly be dissociated in origin from
the corresponding text of Acts, appears about the middle of
the second century in Marcion and Tatian. Thus the date of
origin of the Western text of Acts must be set as early as the
first half of the second century. At a very early time it was
present in Egypt and was brought to Africa and to Syria. As to
its place of origin there is no knowledge ; of possible conjectures
something will be said below.
inferiority The differences between the Western and the Old Uncial
Western ^> QX ^ are so extensive and complicated that it is possible to make
instructive comparison only by large sections ; the question of
whether the * Western form as a whole represents the original
type or a rewriting of it cannot be decided by comparing single
readings and summing up the results. 1 It is the general effect
which counts. And here the Old Uncial seems decisively to
evince itself as on the whole the original and the Western as on
the whole due to recension. The Western fulness of words, the
elaboration of religious expressions, such as the names for Christ
and the plus of conventional religious phrases, the fact that the
difference in language and mode of narration can often be ex
plained as due to superficial difficulties in the other text, occasional
misunderstanding, as would appear, or at least neglect, of the
meaning of the other text (for instance Acts xx. 3-5), the relative
colourlessness and a certain empty naivete of the Western, all
contrast unfavourably with the greater conciseness, sententious-
ness, and vigour, and occasionally the obscurity, of the Old Uncial
text. 2 And even more decisive is the fact that in all the excess of
matter which the Western text shows, virtually nothing is to
1 On the importance in textual criticism of considering a larger context, see
the instructive observations on Zusammenhange unter den Lesarten by H. J.
Vogels, Handbuch der neutestamentlichen Textkritik, 1923, pp. 204-224. Vogels
adduces Acts v. 22 f. and xi. 1-2 as good illustrations.
2 An interesting contrast is offered by the abbreviation of the Syriac
Didascalia in Codex h (Harris s MS. of 1036), where the abridging process results
in a thinner and less clear sense ; see Flemming, Die syrische Didaskalia (Texte
und Untersuchungen, xxv.), 1904, p. 255.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxv
be found beyond what could be inferred from the Old Uncial
text. Of the small number of substantial additions mentioned
below, three may be original, lost from the other text, the
rest, few as they are, are all capable of explanation under the
theory that they proceed from an editor later than the author.
If a reviser had had the Old Uncial text of Acts at his disposal,
and had wished to rewrite it so as to make it fuller, smoother, and
more emphatic, and as interesting and pictorial as he could, and
if he had had no materials whatever except the text before him
and the inferences he could draw from it, together with the usual
religious commonplaces, it must be admitted that moderate
ingenuity and much taking of pains would have enabled him to
produce the Western text. On the other hand, the reverse of
this process is difficult to make reasonable. We should have to
suppose that a reviser, having the Western text, undertook to
condense it, and in so doing was prepared to make some sacrifice
of easy pictorial amplitude of expression and of the current,
favourite religious names and phrases, but was determined to
omit nothing that later generations were likely to value as con
taining substantial information, or that could not be inferred
from what he left standing. In some cases, we should have to
conclude, he modified the picture ; often he made it less complete
and superficially less consistent ; the general effect of his work
was to deepen the intensity of colour by compression of style,
never to heighten it by addition, and he strangely succeeded in
giving a false semblance of archaic brevity and compactness.
If this account of the matter be just, it can hardly be denied
that the former process supposed is one easily comprehensible
under the conditions of the second century, but that the latter
one is, to say the least, highly improbable. It would be tedious
to try to prove by illustrations the justice of the contrast here
drawn ; to reach a decision the student must make a broad
comparison of the two texts as wholes ; 1 to provide the means
1 As a single good illustration of some of these characteristics reference
may be made to Acts xiii. 38 f., where D and the Harclean apparatus, with
VOL. Ill p
ccxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
for such an examination, not otherwise so easily obtainable, is the
purpose for which the present volume exists. If choice has to be
made between the theory that the Western text was the original,
later condensed and altered so as to produce the Old Uncial text,
and the theory that the Old Uncial was the original, later ex
panded so as to produce the Western, the answer seems to me
clearly in favour of the latter.
This does not exclude the occurrence of Western readings
still recognizable, in spite of the rewriting, as having been part of
the very ancient base on which the Western reviser worked,
and which evince themselves by internal evidence as superior to
those of the Old Uncial text. The surprising fact is, not that
these exist, but that in Acts they are so few. 1
In connexion with the conclusion thus reached it may be
appropriate to mention here the view of A. C. Clark, which was
suggested to that scholar by certain analogies in the transmission
of the Latin text of Cicero. 2 He holds that since, at one period,
the Gospels appear to have been transmitted in manuscripts
written in columns with very short lines of 10-12 letters each,
and the Acts in columns written in irregular sense-lines, most of
the cases where one form of the text has a shorter reading are
to be accounted for by the accidental omission of such lines or
of groups of them. Consequently the Western text, being
longer than the B-text, is to be regarded as the original, which
fragmentary Latin support, agree in adding jut-erdvoia, odi>, and Trapa 6eu, all
part of the same process and producing a painful weakening of the sense. Good
examples of weakening of expression, and padding, are Acts xv. 38 f., xvii. 15,
but these are mere random illustrations, not more worthy of note than in
numerable others. Acts ii. 37 is a good example of a Western change made
in the interest of greater definiteness and clarity ; Acts x. 24-27 has been re
written with a view to a more complete continuity of the narrative. In both
cases it would be difficult to find a motive for changing the Western to pro
duce the usual text. For the harmonizing with parallels characteristic of the
Western text see the description of Codex Bezae, above, p. Ixxi.
1 The readings of this class which, with more or less confidence, I have
thought myself able to recognize, are mentioned in the Apparatus of * Editors
attached to the text of Codex Vaticanus in the present volume.
2 Albert C. Clark, The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 1914.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxvii
has suffered accidental mutilation on a great scale in the texts
which prevailed after the second century. But, apart from the
inherent improbability of such an explanation for the compli
cated and various phenomena of the New Testament text, the
theory, so far as Acts is concerned, does not account for the facts,
as stated above, which show a rational, not merely an accidental,
difference between the two types of text. The plus of the
Western text, if due, in accordance with the view which finds
it to be secondary, to addition to the original, would necessarily
often consist of phrases and clauses naturally constituting single
lines and groups of lines in a MS. written in sense-lines ; but, as
every page of Codex Bezae shows, the vast majority of the
peculiarities of the Western text are not of this nature.
But a third theory has been proposed which is not open to all Biass s
of the objections which make it impossible to regard the Old
Uncial text as a revision of the ( Western by a later hand. Since
the latter part of the eighteenth century it has more than once
been suggested that we have for Acts two editions, both alike
from the original author of the book. 1 This view was again
urged with great energy and acumen by Blass, beginning in 1894,
and was adopted by Zahn and made the basis of his monumental
work, Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte des Lucas, 1916. A
priori it is indeed well imaginable that the original author might
have done what would be inconceivable for any one else. He
might first have written the book in the * Western form, and
then been led to revise his work so as to give it greater conciseness
1 Semler, /. /. Wetstenii libelli ad crisin atque interpretationem Novi Testa-
menti, Halle, 1766, p. 8 (cited in full by Blass, Acta Apostolorum, 1895, p. viii) ;
J. B. Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the New Testament, 1871, p. 29 ; Hort,
* Introduction, 1881, p. 177 (where the idea is rejected). Biass s successive
writings in advocacy of the view are named by J. Moffatt, Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament, 1911, p. 310, and M. Goguel, Introduction au
Nouvean Testament, t. iii., Le Livre des Actes, 1922, p. 79 (neither list is
complete). For mention of many discussions of the theory see Moffatt, I.e.,
Goguel, pp. 81 f., and Engelhard Eisentraut, Studien zur Apostelgeschichte,
Wiirzburg, 1924. Eisentraut has gathered interesting facts with regard to
the view of Clericus, tending to show that that scholar at any rate did not
take very seriously the theory of a double edition, ascribed to him by Semler.
ccxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
and vigour. Understanding, as he would have done, exactly what
it was necessary to say and what was unimportant elaboration,
he could have produced a form of the book having the general
character of the Old Uncial text. And he alone could have
done this. Instances of sections where the two forms are well
explicable by this theory are pointed out and urged with much
plausibility by Blass and others.
Nothing in this theory is inherently unreasonable. Many
cases of two differing editions of ancient works, both proceeding
from the author himself, are known to us. A writer of taste
might well have seen that compression could, with advantage, be
applied to the Western form, and might have applied it in the
partial way here supposed. It is, to be sure, a little strange that
both editions should have circulated side by side, but it is by no
means impossible, and Blass provided an ingenious and perfectly
admissible conjecture to account for this. Nor is it an insuper
able objection that in the Gospel of Luke the critic found the
relation of the two types of text reversed, and that several
scholars who accepted the theory for Acts rejected it for the
Gospel, although Blass had been able to find an equally ingenious
and admissible conjecture to account for the facts there. But
at least two considerations present themselves which seem to me
to be fatal to the theory.
In the first place, a considerable number of the variants of the
8 Western text, which are supposed to have been excised by the
author in his revised copy, fall into groups with a common
character. 1 Thus, whereas in the non- western text the journey
of xvi. 6 is said to have been guided in its course by the Holy
Spirit, the i Western text similarly mentions divine guidance for
journeys at xvii. 15, xix. 1, xx. 3. Again the l Western text
repeatedly has in excess, as compared with its rival, such phrases
as $ia TOV ovofAdTos rcvpiov Irjcrov ^LpicrTOv, ev T&&gt; OVO^CLTI
so vi. 8, viii. 39, xiv. 10, xvi. 4, xviii. 4, xviii. 8,
1 See the brief but weighty criticism of Blass by T. E, Page, Classical
Review, vol. XL, 1897, pp. 317-320.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxix
cf. also viii. 37. Likewise, the simple name Jesus is found
expanded into Irjaovv rov Kvpuov (vii. 55), rov tcvpiov Irjaovv
Xpio-rov (xiii. 32), Irjaov Kpca-rov (xx. 21). And repeatedly a
reference to the Holy Spirit is found which the non- western text
lacks ; so viii. 39, xv. 7, xv. 29 fyepopevot, ev ro> ay la Trvevfjuan,
xv. 32 7rX?7pefc9 Trvevfjuaros ayiov, xx. 3, xxvi. 1. These several
groups of generally harmless variants seem to be intended to
heighten, and perhaps in some cases slightly to alter, the religious
colour of the narrative. That they could be added is easy to see,
and this might conceivably have been done by the original author,
although such a habit would be a curious trait ; but Blass s
theory requires us to suppose that at these points the author was
led in his revision to reduce to a lower degree the serious and
religious tone which at first he had adopted. This seems so un
likely as to approach the impossible. A similar, but perhaps less
convincing, argument may be found in the great number of
Western variants which have for their plain purpose to give a
good connexion between phrases or sentences, to strengthen
emphasis, to make a statement or reference quite explicit, or to
provide not wholly necessary explanations. Examples of all
these can easily be gathered from almost any chapter of the book.
The motive for removing them would seem to imply a positive
change of literary taste and preference of ear on the part of the
writer, and is not easily attributable to the mere purpose of
condensation.
The other, and decisive, argument against Blass is that in
many passages the conception of the event described, the mental
picture of what took place, is different in the two forms of the text,
and that in some the Western text plainly rests on a mis
understanding of the non-western.
Of this the following examples may be given. 1 On some of
them the Textual Notes may be consulted.
1 For discussion of cases where Blass s theory does not explain the variants
well or at all, see M. Goguel, op. cit. pp. 85-104 ; P. Corssen, Gottingische gelehrte
Anzeigen, 1896, pp. 425-448 ; and especially H. Coppieters, op. cit. pp. 125-206.
Among the chief discussions of Blaas s theories that of P. W. Schmiedel, art.
ccxxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
xi. 17. After the reference to the gift of the Holy Spirit by
God to these Gentile converts as actually accomplished, the
suggestion that the refusal of baptism by Peter would have
prevented God from giving them the Holy Spirit is inappropriate.
xiv. 2-5. According to the non-western text there was one
outburst of persecution, according to the Western two such.
xv. 1-5. According to the Western text not the Antiochian
church, but the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, urged Paul and
Barnabas to go to Jerusalem ; and at Jerusalem it was these
same persons, not a new group, who made trouble for the
missionaries.
xv. 20, 29 ; xxi. 25. The two inconsistent forms of the Apos
tolic Decree can hardly have been transmitted by the same writer.
Zahn is able to escape this consequence only by supposing the
Western reading to be no part of the original Western
text.
xv. 34. The * Western text is more complete, but seems
inconsistent with the briefer text.
xvi. 8. The Western SteX&We?, after going about in, is
the exact opposite of Trape\96vTe<;, l neglecting, unless SteX&Wes
is used without understanding of the specific meaning which it
commonly has in such statements in Acts, and should here be
taken as meaning passing through. Under either explanation
Blass s theory is unacceptable, for the author is not likely to
have substituted the difficult TrapeKdovres for the unobjectionable
xvii. 4. The non- western text speaks of two classes of persons :
(1) godfearing Greeks and (2) leading women ; the Western
contemplates three : (1) * godfearing persons, (2) Greeks/ and
(3) wives of the leading men.
xviii. 7. For e/ceWev, referring to the synagogue, the Western
text, by a misunderstanding, has CLTTO rov A/cv\a.
xviii. 19-22. The non -western text is unskilfully arranged
Acts of the Apostles, Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. i., 1899, cols. 50-56, is of
importance for the whole problem of the Western text.
THE WESTEKN TEXT ccxxxi
but perfectly intelligible ; the Western text (as reconstructed)
is complete and regular. It cannot have been an earlier form
which the same writer deliberately and without motive partly
disorganized.
xviii. 18, 26. Some reason led to putting the name of Priscilla
first, and the divergent practice of the two types of text in this
respect is not easily explained by Blass s theory.
xix. 6. The whole conception of speaking with tongues found
in Acts ii. makes it hard to think that the writer of that chapter
would have introduced here the idea of the * interpretation of
the tongues by the speakers.
xix. 9. In the non-western text rov 7r\r)0ov<? refers to the
congregation in the synagogue. In the l Western text, TOV
ir\ri6ovs TWV <i6vwi>, the reference is to the body of heathen
in the town.
xx. 3-5. The two texts give very different accounts of the
motives of Paul in planning his journey, and appear to have
understood in quite different senses the movements of his travelling
companions ; see the Textual Note.
xxiv. 6-8. The presence of vs. 7 ( Western ) makes a differ
ence in the antecedent of Trap ov in vs. 8 ; in the Western
form the relative probably refers to Lysias, in the non-western
definitely to Paul.
The facts thus seem to show that the Western text is not
from the hand of the same author as the non- western text, and
that it is a rewritten text, in general inferior to the other text.
If these conclusions may be taken for granted, it is possible to
treat more definitely of the character of the Western text, and
to speak further of its origin.
The purpose of the Western reviser, as shown by his work, Literary
was literary improvement and elaboration in accordance with his western
own taste, which was somewhat different from that of the author. rewri ting.
He aimed at bettering the connexion, removing superficial in
consistency, filling slight gaps, and giving a more complete and
ccxxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
continuous narrative. 1 Where it was possible he liked to intro
duce points from parallel or similar passages, or to complete an
Old Testament quotation. 2 Especially congenial to his style were
heightened emphasis and more abundant use of religious common
places. This effort after smoothness, fulness, and emphasis in his
expansion has usually resulted in a weaker style, sometimes show
ing a sort of naive superabundance in expressly stating what
every reader could have understood without the reviser s diluting
supplement. Occasionally it relieves a genuine difficulty and is
a real improvement. In the speeches he naturally found less
scope, on the whole, for extensive addition than in the narratives.
His text is nearly one-tenth longer than that of the Old Uncials.
In his language he uses a vocabulary notably the same as that of
the original author, but with a certain number of new words
about fifty. 3 One trick of his style is the frequent introduction of
rore as a particle of transition an observation which may convey
useful warning against accepting these added words as cases of
original Aramaic colour lost in the non- western text. The
debasement of the Western text in Codex Bezae, from which
our impressions of it are primarily and chiefly derived, advises
caution in judgment, but to most modern readers the Book of Acts
in its Western dress will seem inferior to the original in dignity,
force, and charm. That the rewritten form so promptly gained
popularity in the second century is perhaps not surprising for a
1 For detailed description of the Western text see the instructive and
careful classification of its glosses in H. Coppieters, op. cit. pp. 77-92 ; also, for
the added notes of time and place, Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte (Beitrage
zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, in.), 1908, pp. 50-53, 97-100. Complete
discussion of all the readings of D will be found in B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der
Apostelgeschichte (Texte und Untersuchungen, xvii.), 1897. Weiss s criticism
is acute, but he does not always do justice to the great complication of the
history of the text as now found in Western witnesses.
2 Yet the Western reviser by no means follows the principle of bringing
the text regularly into closer conformity to the LXX. He is more interested
in his own improvements, as is illustrated, for instance, in Acts ii. 17-20,
xiii. 47.
3 On the vocabulary of the Western text see the Index Verborum in
Blass s larger edition, 1895, pp. 301-334, also his Evangelium secundum Lucam,
1897, pp. xxvii f., and Schmiedel, Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. i. col. 55.
I
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxxiii
generation which in many regions seems to have preferred the
Epistle of Barnabas to the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1
Of any special point of view, theological or other, on the part Emphasis
of the Western 5 reviser it is difficult to find any trace. In one interests.
or two passages (notably xiv. 5 where for op/jur) r&v eOvwv re
real lovSaioov is substituted ol lovSaioi crvv rot? Wvecnv) the
hostile attitude of the Jews receives special stress, and xxiv. 5,
in the speech of Tertullus, the change from KLvovvra ardo-eis
Trdo-Lv ro9 louSduot? To?9 Kara rrjv oLKovfjbevrjv to concitan-
tem seditiones non tantum generi nostro sed fere universo orbe
terrarum et omnibus Judeis (gig) betrays a Gentile s feeling that
any statement is inadequate which implies that Christianity in
the Apostolic age was limited to Jewry. 2 This motive may also
have been at work in ii. 17, where a certain emphasis attaches to
the Western change of V/JLWV to avrcov in two instances, and to
the omission of the pronoun altogether in the other two. The
reference is thus thrown back to Trdcras o-dpKas (D), and the
universal purpose of God for all mankind, in distinction from
Israel, is brought into the prophecy. Perhaps the substitution
of KOCT/JLOV for \aov, Acts ii. 47 (D d), is to be included here as a
further illustration.
Another trait, possibly connected with the motive just men
tioned, which deserves to be broadly investigated and more fully
studied, is the tendency seen, for instance, in Acts xx. 21, where
TTLarLv Bid rov KvpLOv rj/jicov Irjcrov Xpicrrov is substituted for
TTLGrLV 669 rOV KVpLOV Ij/jLWV IrjCTOVV ; Xvi. 15 TTLarrjV TO) 06(f)
for TTicrrrjv rti Kvpla). These variants, though often small, do
not all lack purpose ; they suggest a desire on the part of the
editor to indicate that the sebomenoi won by the apostles
were converted from the status of heathen to the true God
through Christ, not merely from Jewish faith to Christianity.
1 J. Armitage Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas, and the Didache, 1920, pp. 1-5.
2 The same motive lurks in the substitution of eireidev 5^ 01) povov lovdaiovs
dXXo, Kai"E\\yi>as for ZireiQtv re lovdaLovs /cat "EXX^vaj in Acts xviii. 4. For dis
cussion of some other possible instances (ii. 47, iv. 31, xiv. 19, xvii. 12, xviii. 4,
xix. 9, xxiii. 24) see Corssen, Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1896, p. 444.
ccxxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
Not Mon- That a considerable part of the variants and additions of the
Western text are due to a Montanist has been strongly urged,
chiefly on the ground of their relation to the Acts of Perpetua and
their repeated emphasis on the activity of the Holy Spirit and
His presence in Christians. 1 But in fact the Western text of
Acts is what we should expect to find used in Africa in the year
203, and there is no reason to suppose that Perpetua s text
differed from that of her Catholic contemporaries. The emphasis
on the Holy Spirit (in itself wholly in accord with the ideas and
habit of the author of the book) can equally well have proceeded
from an early second-century reviser who was untouched by any
sectarian movement. 2 And the supposed indication of Montanist
tendency is more than matched, and is perhaps actually disproved,
by the somewhat clearer, though slight, indication of what may
fairly be called anti-feminist tendency in the variants of xvii. 12
and of chapter xviii.
Made in The theories of a Latin and of a Syriac origin of the Western
text have been discussed above, pp. Ixxii-lxxx, in connexion with
the description of Codex Bezae. The dependence of both the Old
Latin and the Old Syriac, as well as, in part, the Sahidic, on the
* Western revision, and the presence of a great number of the
most characteristic Western readings in Greek MSS. of all ages
from the third or fourth century on (including perhaps the copy
used by Philoxenus in Mesopotamia in 508) makes it impossible
1 So J. R. Harris, Codex Bezae, 1891, pp. 148-153, 221-225. P. Corssen,
Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1896, pp. 445 f., rests the case for a Montanistic
reviser chiefly on rjv d iro\\r] dya\\taa-is in Acts xi. 2, 7, but is unconvincing.
It may be mentioned here that J. R. Harris, New Points of View in Textual
Criticism, Expositor, 1914, vol. vn., pp. 318-320, urges that the omission by
Codex Bezae of avaTe0pa/j./j.evos and avru in Luke iv. 16 is a Marcionite alteration.
2 The later use by schismatics of Latin texts, and of versions dependent on
the Latin, which had a definite Western character, was not due, as some
might suppose, to a schismatic or heretical interest in a non-ecclesiastical text,
but to the fact that the geographical relations of these movements led them
to use the current Latin text of Languedoc, which by reason of its subjection
to Spanish, and so to African, influence was impregnated with Western
readings. These late Western texts, Latin, Romance, and Germanic, have
been transmitted to us both through correct ecclesiastical and through schis
matic channels. See above, pp. cxxxv-cxlii.
1
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxxv
to accept either of these inherently improbable theories. The
revision was certainly made in Greek. 1
It has already been observed that Western readings are Genuine
sometimes to be recognized as superior to their rivals. A few
times it is possible to detect in Western readings words probably text<
contained in the original which have disappeared in other wit
nesses, thus Acts xx. 15 KOI fjielvavTes ev Tpayyv\ia ; xxi. 1
KOI Mvpa (of Greek MSS. only in D) ; xxvii. 5 Si r)fjiepa)i>
SeicaTrevTe (614 minn hcl -x-). There may be others.
On the other hand, since the * Western reviser s regular habit
was to expand, and since in his expansion he usually shows him
self punctilious to represent somehow every element of the text
before him, any omissions in the Western text of what the other
text contains deserve special attention, and sometimes give
evidence, more or less conclusive, that the text of B, on its side,
has suffered expansion. The most widely recognized instances of
this sort in the New Testament are the Western non-interpola
tions in the Gospels pointed out by Westcott and Hort, 2 chiefly
from the last three chapters of Luke. In Acts i. 2 the Western
text is plainly related to the non-interpolated text of Luke
xxiv. 51. A striking example in Acts is the reading (with three
instead of four " provisos ") in Acts xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25. It must
1 On the basis of isolated readings, and in disregard of general probabilities,
a case could perhaps be made for the origin of the Western text by retransla-
tion from the Coptic. Thus, Acts xvi. 29 D (d) adds irpos rovs irodas to irpoeireffev,
and a similar addition is found in perp gig vg. many codices Lucif hcl. with obelus
sah. Now " the Coptic word requires a preposition to follow the word meaning
before, and the one regularly used in this connexion means, literally, at the
feet of. " Again, Acts xx. 28 Iren (sibi constituit) vg. one codex boh sah add
eauTw to 7repte7roi??(raTo, and in Coptic this addition is necessary in order that
the verb (properly meaning produce ) may mean acquire. Acts xx. 38, the
change to the second person found in gig and perhaps in D is " quite in accord
ance with Coptic idiom." Acts xx. 13, daa-ov (Antiochian pesh) for aaaov might
have originated from a misunderstanding of the Coptic feminine article, which
is actually found prefixed here in the Sahidic. Such an asyndeton as that of
D in Acts xvii. 2 agrees with Coptic idiom. Note also the frequent confusion
of re and 5^, the addition of said and of the oblique cases of airr6s, and
many small additions and omissions. These examples are mentioned as a
warning, not an incentive.
* Introduction, pp. 175-177.
ccxxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Abbrevia
tion and
omissions
in
Western
text.
never be forgotten that the basis of the Western revision was
a text far more ancient than any MS. now extant or even any
considerable patristic testimony still accessible to us.
In drawing inferences, however, from Western omissions
caution is necessary, because occasionally the Western text
omits something which can hardly have been lacking in the
original ; and this uncertainty is increased by the circumstance
that not infrequently, where the question arises, our knowledge
of the Western text is derived from a single source, so that the
omission may be due to an idiosyncrasy of the sole witness. 1
Noteworthy instances, apart from those mentioned above (pp.
Ixxiii f.), are the following :
Acts iii. 16, r) BL avrov, om h.
iv. 5, ev lepovo-aX.rjfj,, om h pesh.
ix. 12, where h omits the whole verse, this page of D being no
longer extant.
xvii. 18, on, Ivjcrovv KOI rrjv dvdaTao-iv evrjyyeXi^eTo, om
D d gig Aug (h is lacking).
xviii. 3, rjcrav jap aK-qvoiroiol rrj Te^vrj, om D d gig (h has
the sentence).
xxi. 39, OVK do-rjjjiov 7roAe&&gt;9 TroAtV???, om D (partly contained
in d ; h is lacking).
xxvi. 22, a%pi rfjs rj/jbepas ravrr]^ om h.
26, Trapprjcria^o/jLevos, ov TreiOo/jiai,, ov <ydp eamv ev rycovia
TreTTpay/jievov TOVTO, om h.
xxvii. 1, crTreipTjs 2e/3ao--n}9, om h (the words are included
in the paraphrase of the hcl.mg).
2, 6t9 TOU9 /cara TTJV Acrtav TOTTOVS, om h.
2, eo-aa\ovi,Kea>s. Nothing corresponds to this in h.
3, ry . . . erepa, om h.
6, Ka/cel. eKL is not represented in h.
6, 6t9 avroj om h sah.
7, yu,oXt9, om h.
7, pi) TrpoaewvTos 77^9 rov dvepov, om h. On this and the
1 On these omissions see H. Coppieters, op. cit. pp. 201-205.
THE WESTEEN TEXT ccxxxvii
following reading note the words of h, inde cum tulissemus, which
may be an undecipherable survival of the translation of some
Greek words.
7, /cara ^ahjAtovijv, om h.
8, /^oXt? re Trapa^yofjLevoi avrrjv ij\6ofjLV, om h.
8, Aacrea, om h.
10, rov <f)opTiov tcaij om h.
12, avevOerov be TOV Xt/xez/o? v7rdp%ovTo<; Trpbs irapa-
^eifjiacriav ol vrXetoz/e?, om h.
12, /3\e7rovTa Kara Xt/3a KOI Kara yfopov, om h.
13, So^avres TT)? Trpodeae&s Ke/cparrjKevai,, om h.
Other omissions, not too numerous, can be gathered from the
collation of Codex Bezae and from the apparatus of Wordsworth
and White s Vulgate, and some are noticed in the Textual Notes
below. On the instances given above the following comments
may be made.
The omission (D d gig Aug) from xvii. 18 is probably an
accident, which may be suspected to have affected the African
translation, and in D may be due to the influence of the Latin side.
In xviii. 3 the omission (D d gig, but not h) is probably due to an
oversight in the process of combining the non- western and
Western texts, a process which is here observable both in D d
and gig, and may or may not have taken place independently in
the two. In xxi. 39 the omission (D) is probably accidental.
For the omissions of h (which nearly all happen to lie in sec
tions where D is defective) confirmation would seem to present
itself in only two instances. The omission of the whole verse
ix. 12 cannot give the original text, for irpocrev^erai is almost
meaningless without it. 1 On xxvi. 22 there is nothing to say. In
xxvi. 26 the whole verse appears in an abridged form, and a
similar abridgment seems to be the cause of most of the omissions
in xxvii. 1-13. The strange text, indeed, of the latter section
can be excused by the difficulty of the geographical and other
1 But for a different view see P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta
apostolorum, 1892, pp. 22 f.
ccxxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
technical expressions, which have also led to extraordinary later
corruption in the Latin text itself. For the omissions by h in
chapter xxvii a Western non-interpolation can be seriously
suspected only in the case of Qeo-o-ahovifcecos, vs. 2, and of et?
avro, vs. 6. In vs. 2 ecrcraXo^t/cea)?, the complicated evidence is
not easy to interpret satisfactorily, and Acts xx. 4 can have served
as the source for an interpolation in the B-text, as it certainly has
for the longer one found in some forms of the l Western text.
In vs. 6 sah coincides with h in omitting et? avro. In connexion
with the omissions here commented on it should be mentioned
that the best text of the Vulgate omits the whole verse xviii. 4,
probably through some accident in connexion with the change
from the Western to the very different non - western form of
the verse. 1
Substitu- Western substitutions of one word or phrase for another
Western rare ty commend themselves as probably right. Yet there are a
text. f ew acceptable cases. So perhaps i. 2 ev riftepa fj (Augustine)
for a%pi rjs r)/j,epas ; iv. 6 IwvdOas for Icodvvrj? ; xiii. 33 Trpcora)
for Sevrepw. The instances of all kinds where the Western *
reading seems to me preferable to that of Codex Vaticanus are
mentioned in the Apparatus to the text below.
Western Emphasis has been laid above on the lack of positive substance
^th sub- m most f ^ e variants of the * Western text. To this observa-
stantiai ^ion there are exceptions, mostly additions, in which a substantial
content. *
statement is made, or at least the Western text is characterized
by greater vigour and boldness than usual, but the fewness of these
cases is impressive. 2 In several instances, as we have seen, iv. 6
(IwvdOas], xv. 20, 29 and xxi. 25 (the omission of things
strangled ), xx. 15 (Trogylia) and xxi. 1 (Myra), xxvii. 5 ( for
1 On the tendency of the African Latin text of k (Matthew and Mark) to
omit, see Sanday, Old-Latin Biblical Texts, No. II. p. 121 : " There seems to
be a certain impatience of anything of the nature of a repetition. Asyndeton
is affected ; and there is a fondness for reducing a sentence to its simplest
and barest form without any of those heightening expressions that are found in
most other MSS."
2 On some of the more substantial additions of Codex Bezae see B. Weiss,
Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte, pp. 107-112.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxxxix
days ) the corruption is probably on the side of the non-
estern text. Apart from these the following are among the
ost notable cases ; except where otherwise indicated they occur
D, sometimes with further Latin and Syriac attestation :
Acts xi. 28. The introduction of TJ^WV in the expansion. For
other sporadic instances of the introduction of the first person in
various witnesses cf. xvi. 8 (Irenaeus), xvi. 13 (BAG 81 sah), xxi.
29 (D), xxvii. 19 (Antiochian). The converse change of the first
person to the third is more common ; cf. xvi. 17 (L etc.), xx. 5
(D, cf. cod. 2147), xx. 7 (Antiochian), xxi. 1 (cod. 255), xxi. 8
(Antiochian), xxi. 10 (K), xxvii. 1 (P etc.), xxviii. 1 (Antiochian),
xxviii. 16 (H).
xii. 10, rov? f ffaOfiovs.
xiv. 20, et [cum disce]ssisset populus vespere, h.
xv. 2, e\eyev yap o IlaOXo? jJLeveLV O{/TO>? Ka@(o<; ejrl-
xv. 20, 29. Besides the absence of things strangled, 5 the
addition, in the later form of the Western text, of the
(negative) Golden Rule.
xviii. 21 f., Set Be iravra)^ rrjv eoprrjv rj/Aepav
et? \epoao\vfJLa.
xix. 1, de\ovTO<$ Be TOV Tlav\ov Kara Trjv IBbav
et? lepocroXty-ta elirev avrw TO irvev^a v
et? T7]v Aa-iav.
xix. 9, a? w^a? e e<w?
xix. 28, SpafjLovres et? TO a
xx. 5, 7rpoe\66vT6<$ for
xx. 18, rf fcal irXeiov.
xxiii. 23, * they (or he) said : They are ready (or let them be
ready) to go, hcl. mg.
xxviii. 16, 6 eKarovrap^o^ TrapeBcoKe rot>? Beo-fiiovs rc5
o-rparoTreBdp^rj rc5 Be TlauXco eTrerpaTrrj 614 etc.
Others might be added to the above ; it is a question of the
impression of boldness made by the variant. Comments will be
found in the Textual Notes below. Nearly all of the variants just
ccxl THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
cited fall fairly within the range of the reviser s habit of work.
Two only stand out from the others as perhaps implying real
additional knowledge : xix. 9 ( from the fifth to the tenth hour ),
which may, however, come from a knowledge of the usual custom
in such a room as the School of Tyrannus, and xii. 10 ( the seven
steps ) which has so far defied satisfactory explanation.
The basic The Western text thus includes two elements : an ancient
the re- base, which would be of the greatest possible value if it could be
mg * recovered, and the paraphrastic rewriting of a second-century
Christian. In the Acts, variants not represented in any of the
Old Uncial group but probably drawn from the ancient base have
so far been found in but few instances, and even in the case of
variations between the Old Uncials the Western text seldom
provides the clear and useful evidence which might have been
expected. B. Weiss l finds about ten cases where D agrees with
wrong readings represented otherwise by B alone, and about
twenty where D and B agree, without other support, in what
appear to be the right readings. It is possible that further
detailed study might lead, within limited range, to valuable con
clusions, but the investigation is made difficult because Codex
Bezae has been so much conformed in detail to the non-western
Greek and to the Latin. In the Gospels, the Western text appears
to include the same two elements an ancient base and a para
phrastic rewriting, and there it is not unlikely that the ancient
base is to be detected in a larger proportion of cases than in Acts.
Date. On the date of the Western rewriting of Acts the evidence
which carries it back as early as the first half of the second century
has already been discussed (above, pp. ccxxiii-iv). Any closer
estimate does not seem possible, although an early date in the
period is probable on general grounds.
Place of Equally impossible to determine with certainty is its place
of origin and centre of diffusion. It was brought to Northern
1 B. Weiss, Die Apostelgeschichte ; textkritiscke Untersuchungen und Text-
herstellung (Texte und Untersuchungen, ix.), 1893, p. 67 ; Der Codex D in der
Apostelgeschichte (Texte und Untersuchungen, xvu.), 1897, p. 107.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxli
Africa and to Lyons in Gaul in the second century, and at least
the Western Gospels came to Rome (Justin Martyr, Hippo-
lytus) at not far from the same date. In the same century the
Western Gospels were used by Clement of Alexandria, and the
papyrus of Acts of the third or fourth century, as well as one of
the strands woven into the Sahidic version, indicate that in the
third century the Western text of Acts was current in Egypt.
The Diatessaron in Syria, perhaps based on a Greek text brought
from Rome, and likewise the separate Syriac Gospels, show
Western character, and the same was true of Marcion s Greek
text of Luke, perhaps brought from Pontus, perhaps acquired at
Rome. In Syria, again, the first translation of Acts into the
vernacular (of unknown, but certainly very early, date) was made
from a thorough-going Western text and continued in use
beyond the fourth century. In the third century the Didascalia
vidences the use of the * Western text of Acts in Syria or
^alestine. It would seem probable that at the end of the
econd century no region of the Christian world was unacquainted
with the Western text of Acts.
For the source of this wide diffusion we should naturally look
o some central locality. For those who do not hold Blass s
leory nothing points with any decisiveness to Rome. Even if
le Carthaginians received their Christianity and their first copies
f the Greek New Testament from Rome (which is by no means
ertain *), this would not lead to the inference that Rome was the
entre of diffusion of the Western text to any other region,
east of all to the Orient. 2 The analogy of the sources of the
1 A. von Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den
rsten drei Jahrhunderten, 4th ed., 1924, p. 891, note 2, calls attention to the
onstant intercourse between Carthage and the East both through direct
hannels and by way of Rome, and refers to Tertullian s excellent and detailed
cnowledge of events and conditions in the Greek-speaking churches of the East,
>ut concludes that whether Christianity had actually been brought to North
frica from Rome or directly from the East is wholly uncertain.
2 Strzygowski remarks that in respect to early Christian art Rome was
"sponge"; and it seems doubtful whether in other aspects of Christian
lought, except in administration, the early Roman Church proper, as distinct
rom heretics and schismatics, showed any considerable originating capacity.
VOL. Ill
ccxlii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
African text of the Psalter (above, p. cxxvi) is ambiguous. The
source to which the Syriac-speaking Christians first looked for
their Greek MSS. may have been Antioch or Caesarea or even
Alexandria, although a certain presumption would hold in favour
of Greek-speaking Syria or Palestine. The evidence upon which
Ramsay relies for his belief that the Western reviser was
peculiarly familiar with the geography and customs of Asia Minor
is inconclusive. 1 No one of these lines of inquiry or general
probabilities leads to any conclusion.
Knowledge One small group of facts, however, especially if it can be
andof re extended by further observations, is suggestive. While, as has
Palestine. b een shown above (p. ccxxxiu), the Western text seems to have
come from a Gentile Christian source, yet in at least two instances
it shows dependence on the Hebrew Old Testament. In the
utterance of Jesus on the cross Codex Bezae reads, both Matt,
xxvii. 46 and Mark xv. 34, r)\i 77X66 \afia ^a^Oavei in the first
and last words, at least, showing that the writer is transliterating
the Hebrew of Psalm xxii. 1, not the Aramaic equivalent to be seen
in the Old Uncial eXou eXwt Xe/u,a aafta^Oavei. That this is not
a mere peculiarity of Codex Bezae is shown by the similar reading
of various Old Latin MSS., as well as by the readings of Greek
MSS. 2 Again, in Matt. xiii. 15, a k Irenaeus (Latin translation
* Nihil innovetur* was, rather, its motto. See G. La Piana, The Roman
Church at the End of the Second Century, Harvard Theological Review, 1925,
vol. xvm. pp. 201-277.
1 W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, chap. ii. 3, chap,
viii., and elsewhere. In St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1896,
p. 27, Ramsay says of the Western text : " The home of the Revision is along
the line of intercourse between Syrian Antioch and Ephesus, for the life of the
early Church lay in intercommunication, but the Reviser was connected with
Antioch, for he inserts we in xi. 28." A list of the passages containing the
readings relied on by Ramsay is given by Coppieters, op. cit. pp. 216 f., classified
as follows : " not significant," xi. 27-28, xvi. 7, xviii. 21, xix. 1, 28 ; " more
of the nature of evidence," xix. 9, xx. 15, xxi. 1 ; " likewise noteworthy,"
xviii. 27, xx. 4 ; " most nearly convincing," xiii. 14, xiv. 19. The claim made
by Ramsay that the Western text shows ignorance of Macedonia and Achaia
is not found to be substantiated in xvi. 12, xvii. 12.
2 From the confused mass of readings collected in the apparatus to Matt.
xxvii. 46 and Mark xv. 34 it appears that (1) D is uniform in both Matthew and
Mark, and has good Latin support ; (2) in Matthew, BK 33 boh follow the Aram-
THE WESTEKN TEXT ccxliii
only) substitute imperatives for eTra^vvOrj, r)Kov<rav,
showing unmistakable dependence on the Hebrew, in distinction
from the LXX, of Ps. vi. 10. 1 In the latter passage (Matt. xiii.
15) the possibility is, indeed, present that the Western text of
the Old Latin and Irenaeus represents the original readings of
the Greek Matthew, lost in the other witnesses, in all of which a
correction from the LXX might be supposed to have been intro
duced. If the case stood alone, this would perhaps be the better
inference. But in the words from the cross such an explanation
is not admissible, for here there is no room for LXX influence.
The non-western texts are probably original, for an alteration,
under the influence of the Hebrew Bible, from Aramaic to Hebrew
is more easily conceivable than the reverse movement ; but in
either case contact with Semitic centres would be indicated. 2 To
aizing form substantially as given above ; (3) in Mark, NCLA boh do the
same, but B shows Western traces, reading \a/j.a with D, and further recalling
D by the ambiguous fafiatpdavei. The later (Antiochian) uncials in Matthew
follow D in reading TJ\L, but approximate to the Old Uncial text in \ei/j,a (Xt^a),
and agree with it in cra/3ax^a^t ; in Mark they go with the Old Uncial text,
except in reading Xet/xa (Xt/za) for Xe^a. Minor variations and inconsistencies
in individual MSS. abound. The Hebraizing word most characteristic of the
Western text and most consistently rejected by all others (except partly in
the monstrosity found in B) is fafiOavei.
1 Hans von Soden, Das lateinische Neue Testament in Afrika (Texte und
Untersuchungen xxxm.), pp. 213 f.
2 On certain strange readings in the Gospels, perhaps of Semitic origin,
see F. H. Chase, The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, 1895, pp. 109-111. In
John xi. 54 ^a^ovpetv D, Sapfurim d, is the name of Sepphoris, about ten miles
south of which lay a Galilean town Ephraim ; the closer identification of the
town called Ephraim, as in the country of Sepphoris, though doubtless
mistaken, would thus testify to the knowledge of Palestinian geography
possessed by the editor of the Western text. There is no sufficient reason
for suspecting here the echo of a Semitic shem. See Zahn, Neue kirchliche
Zeitschrift, 1908, pp. 38 f. ; Schurer, OescMchte des judischen Volkes im
ZeitalterJesu Chrisli, 2nd ed., vol. ii., 1886, p. 121, note 358; 4th ed., vol. ii., 1907,
p. 210, note 490, " Hier ist, wie die Namensform zeigt, sicher Sepphoris
gemeint." Of ov\a/j.fj.aovs D, for efj.fj.aovs, in Luke xxiv. 13 (cf. Gen. xxviii. 19)
no convincing explanation has been offered. Chase, The Old Syriac Element
in the Text of Codex Bezae, 1893, pp. 138-148, quotes a large part of
a review by Sanday, in The Guardian, May 18 and 25, 1892, in which
the following evidence is adduced for Antioch as the birthplace of the
Western text: (1) Luke iii. 1, eirirpoTrevovTos is correctly substituted
for "the vague and general" r]yfj.ovevovTos ; Mark xii. 14, the correct
ccxliv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
these examples the form Bapi^c-ova, Acts xiii. 6, may be added,
for the additional (fourth) syllable, attested by several witnesses,
seems clearly due to an attempt to give a Greek transliteration
of the Semitic r ain by a method which implies knowledge of
Semitic sounds. Similarly the second vowel of the Western
form StXea? for Silas seems intended to represent a Semitic
guttural (see below, pp. 269 f.). Knowledge of Hebrew, and of
Semitic forms of names, on the part of Greek-speaking Gentile
Christians, is more readily accounted for if the Western text
arose in Palestine or Syria. 1 Nor is it wholly without significance
that in xiii. 33 the (probably original) reading TT^WTW, which
accorded with Jewish usage, did not give the offence which early
caused it in Alexandria to be altered to Sevrepco under the
influence of the LXX. In Acts iii. 11 the Western reviser
seems to show independent knowledge of the plan of the
temple -area at Jerusalem (see the Exegetical Note on that
passage).
Our conclusion, then, is that the Western text was made
before, and perhaps long before, the year 150, by a Greek-speaking
TTLK<pa\aLov for Kr)v<roi>. (2) Matt, xxvii. 46, Mark xv. 34 (as above);
Mark v. 41, the fuller form KOV/JH, as written but not spoken in Aramaic (not
peculiar to Western witnesses) ; Luke xvi. 20, the Semitic eleazarus (c e C T)
for \afapos, and John xi. 14, lazar (b d) ; John v. 2, (3rja6a or the like (not peculiar
to Western witnesses, but intelligently preserved by them). These readings
are certainly in accord with the attribution to Antioch, but Sanday s further
argument that the Latin version itself was made there does not have adequate
support either from the fact that in Luke xx. 20 e (Codex Palatinus) renders
riyeij.wv by the appropriate Latin legatus or from the more general considera
tions presented (Chase, op. cit. pp. 141 f.).
1 Several other Semitisms pointed out in the Western text have no
bearing on the matter discussed in the text, and are to be ascribed to a variety
of causes. The frequent use of rbre as a particle of continuation is probably
not significant as indicating translation from the Aramaic ; for a list of instances
see Zahn, Kommentar, p. 263, note 85. Nestle s explanation (Studien und
Kritiken, vol. LXIX., 1896, pp. 102-104) of ii. 47, Koa^ov for\aov, from a confusion
of Aramaic alma and amma ; and of iii. 14, efiapware for ypvriffaffde, from
Aramaic kebar and kebad, does not commend itself as probable. The theory
of Aramaic sources of Acts does not throw light on the two forms of the Greek
text, except in so far as one of these latter may have corrected awkwardness
of Greek expression which had been originally occasioned by excessive literal-
ness of translation of an Aramaic original.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxlv
Christian who knew something of Hebrew, in the East, perhaps
in Syria or Palestine. The introduction of we in the Western
text of xi. 27 possibly gives some colour to the guess that the
place was Antioch. 1 The reviser s aim was to improve the text,
not to restore it, and he lived not far from the time when the
New Testament canon in its nucleus was first definitely assembled.
It is tempting to suggest that the Western text was made
when Christian books valued for their antiquity and worth were
gathered and disseminated in a collection which afterwards
became the New Testament, and that the two processes were
parts of the same great event, perhaps at Antioch in other
words, that the Western text was the original canonical text
(if the anachronism can be pardoned) which was later supplanted
by a pre-canonical text of superior age and merit. 2 But such
1 Hort, Introduction, p. 108, says : " On the whole we are disposed to
suspect that the Western text took its rise in North-western Syria or Asia
Minor, and that it was soon carried to Rome, and thence spread in different
directions to North Africa and most of the countries of Europe. From North
western Syria it would easily pass through Palestine and Egypt to Ethiopia."
2 Ambrosiaster (375-385), who believed the Latin Scriptures, as used by
Tertullian, Victorinus, and Cyprian, to represent the uncorrupted Greek
original, may have had some historical knowledge of the process which had
actually taken place, when he so confidently asserted that the non-western
Greek text was introduced by " sofistae Graecorum" (Cf. likewise Dionysius
of Corinth ap. Eus. h.e. iv. 23, 12.) The passages are as follows :
On Romans v. 14 : Et tamen sic praescribere nobis volunt de Graecis
codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent ; quod fecit studium conten-
tionis. quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non potest ad victoriam, verba
legis adulterat, ut sensum suum quasi verbis legis adserat, uti non ratio sed
auctoritas praescribere videatur. constat autem quosdam Latinos porro olim
de veteribus Graecis translates codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum
servavit et probat : postquam autem a concordia animis dissidentibus et
hereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestiones coeperunt, multa ininutata sunt
ad sensum humanum, ut hoc contineretur litteris, quod homini videretur.
unde et ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. hoc autem verum arbitror,
quando ft ratio et historia et auctoritas conservatur : nam hodie quae in
Latinis reprehenduntur codicibus sic inveniuntur a veteribus posita, Ter-
tulliano et Victorino et Cypriano.
On Galatians ii. 1-2 : Praeterea, cum legem dedissent non molestari eos
qui ex gentibus credebant, sed ut ab his tantum observarent, id est, a sanguine
et fornicatione et idolatria, nunc dicant sofistae Graecorum, qui sibi peritiam
vindicant, naturaliter subtilitate ingenii se vigere, quae tradita sunt gentibus
observanda. quae ignorabant, an quae sciebant ? sed quo modo fieri potest
ut aliquis discat ea quae novit ? ergo haec inlicita esse ostensa sunt gentibus,
ccxlvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
a theory involves many considerations, and would have grave
consequences for the earliest history of the New Testament
canon ; and it cannot be discussed in the present Essay. 1
The reconstruction of the Western text of Acts in a Greek
form which shall be superior to the confused and altered text of
Codex Bezae is a task which is capable of only approximate
execution. Blass s text (Ada Apostolorum, sive Lucae ad Theo-
philum liber alter, secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, 1896)
was constructed under the influence of his theory of two editions
from the same author ; it suffers from the influence of that theory,
from insufficient weighing of the precise character of all the
heterogeneous witnesses, and from arbitrariness of judgment.
Hilgenfeld s text (Acta apostolorum graece et latine, 1899) is
founded on the editor s judgment of the superiority of the
Western text, but is inadequate. 2 Zahn agrees with Blass s
theory, and his Greek text (Die Urausgabe der Apostelgeschichte
des Lucas, 1916), with its admirable apparatus, is of great and
permanent value, and approaches the ideal much more closely
than either of the other reconstructions, but at many points other
scholars will find occasion to reach a different conclusion as to
what the original Western text probably read.
quae putabant licere. ac per hoc non utique ab hornicidio prohibit! sunt, cum
jubentur a sanguine observare ; sed hoc acceperunt quod Noe a deo didicerat,
ut observarent a sanguine edendo cum carne. nam quo modo fieri poterat
ut Romanis legibus imbuti, quorum tanta auctoritas in servandis mandatis est,
nescirent homicidium non esse faciendum, quippe cum adulteros et homicidas
et falsos testes et fures et maleficos et ceterorum malorum admissores puniant
leges Romanae ? denique tria haec mandata ab apostolis et senioribus data
repperiuntur, quae ignorant leges Romanae, id est ut observent se ab idolatria
et sanguine, sicut Noe, et a fornicatione. quae sofistae Graecorum non intel-
legentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum, adulterarunt scripturam,
quartum mandatum addentes, et a suffocate observandum (v.L abstinendum) ;
quod, puto, nunc dei nutu intellecturi sunt, quia jam supra dictum erat, quod
addiderunt.
1 A certain approach to the general view here suggested is made in the
important article by J. Chapman. The Earliest New Testament, Expositor,
1905, vol. xii. pp. 119-127, the theme of which is " the contents of the Western
New Testament."
2 See Corssen s review, with much instructive discussion of the general
subject, in Gottingische gelehrle Anzeigen, vol. 163, 1901, pp. 1-15.
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxlvii
NOTE ON VON SODEN S VIEW OF HIS SUPPOSED
I-TEXT OF ACTS
Von Soden has tried to show that the witnesses to the
Western text owe their peculiarities to a variety of causes, at
work in various ways in the individual cases, and that the I-text
as a whole, when properly clarified and recovered, is closely akin
to the H-text and to the base of the K-text. Under his view
the ordinary conception of the Western text as a strikingly
divergent text, which may have been due to a rewriting, largely
disappears. Comment on this view is in place here.
As a rule, though not quite always, the mixed character of
the witnesses to the Western text of Acts, and the fragmentary
nature of many of them, make the positive fact of the presence
of a Western reading in one or more of them much more
important than the absence of any given * Western reading
from the great mass of them. That von Soden missed this is the
great source of weakness in his treatment of the Western text.
The original Western text must be regarded as a paraphrastic
text which differed from the Old Uncial text more radically and
completely than any of its descendants, and which in a long
course of history in widely distant localities has been combined
by various mixtures with the competing texts, so that in the
extant Greek documents it nowhere exists in its purity, but only
in a weakened form or (in most cases) in isolated fragments.
Through the recognition and combination of these survivals,
now found in strangely scattered places, the text which once
existed in unity can be measurably recovered. Von Soden,
on the contrary, took as the primary subject of his study not
the scattered * Western fragments, recognizable even though
attested by only one or two of the witnesses, but the agreements
between the main types of Western witnesses ; thus he hoped
to arrive at their common base. So in D he not only first purges
the text of its obvious latinizations, and of the conflations and
substitutions from the non-western text, and of its own individual
ccxlviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
vagaries, as every student must do before using it as a Western
witness, but carries this process to an unreasonable extreme, by
the use of the I-codices, so that all that is left for his I-text is
a comparatively harmless body of readings capable of serving as
a common base for all the I-codices, and from which nearly all
the readings that make the group interesting have been dropped
as later corruptions of the original I-text. This means in practice
that the weaker representatives of the * Western textual tradi
tion are taken as the standard, and that from the more charac
teristic members of the group (like D) only those parts are used
which stand on this lower level. The result is the supposed
discovery that for the most part the I-text was merely one
particular selection and combination among others, all drawn
from the variant readings which circulated in the second and
third centuries. That may have been the case with the text of
Eusebius, with which von Soden identifies his I-text, but the
* Western text as found in the African Latin or, in damaged
form, in Codex Bezae is not to be explained from such an origin.
The list of readings in which von Soden finds that the I-text
differed from the H-text is a short one, covering barely a page
and a half (pp. 1756-1758), and, apparently, in not a single case
among these few is the reading ascribed to the I-text foreign to
the H-text, or at least to some one or more of the H-codices.
The I-text, as a really distinct form of text, has evaporated. In
von Soden s apparatus (in his volume ii.), in Acts, chaps, i.-v.,
I in black-faced type occurs about thirty-eight times, indicating
cases where the editor thinks he has surely identified the I-
reading (cf. vol. ii. p. 25). Of these, twenty-eight agree with the
black-faced H, two more with Codex B, four more with black-
faced K. In the face of these facts there can be little confidence
that what von Soden calls the I-text in Acts represents any real
entity that ever actually existed. At best it would seem to be
merely a mixed text of late date. At the close of his discussion
the really interesting readings, which successively, one class after
another, have previously been thrown to one side as not a part
THE WESTERN TEXT ccxlix
of the I-text, are brought to the front again, and von Soden
argues (pp. 1833 f.) from the diversity and kaleidoscopic com
binations of the witnesses that these have all " enriched " their
text from a common source. That is perhaps true of most or
all of the mixed I-codices (including Codex Laudianus) which,
with Codex Bezae, make up von Soden s lists of I-groups ; but
for Codex Bezae and the manuscripts containing Old Latin read
ings (but not for Codex Laudianus) the process seems to have
been the reverse of this. Rather, by gradual stages and under
the intricate working of various forces, a Western archetypal
text has been impoverished, and the resulting text brought to
correspond more and more closely to the types which became
prevalent in the fourth century and thereafter. Von Soden s
assemblage and grouping of the numerous I-codices was novel,
and possesses great permanent value ; and all who study the text
of any section of the New Testament have occasion for gratitude
to its author ; but in his attempt to recover an I-text, his treat
ment, at any rate for the Book of Acts, has confused two wholly
different phenomena, and has thus led him to entirely wrong
conclusions.
4. THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT
witnesses. J F we may conclude that the Western text of Acts was due
to a rewriting which took place early in the second century, it
follows that the original text in greater or less purity has been
preserved for us by the witnesses here termed the Old Uncial
group. The chief of these are BtfAC 81 and other minuscules
(von Soden s H-group ; see above, p. xxiv), together with
many of the papyri and other ancient fragments, the Sahidic,
and especially the Bohairic version. 1 Probably the oldest form
of the Georgian version belongs with these, as does the Latin
Vulgate. The meagre citations of Clement of Alexandria and
Origen are sufficient to justify the inclusion of those fathers in the
list, and here belong also the later Alexandrian writers Athana-
sius, Didymus, Cyril of Alexandria, Cosmas Indicopleustes.
Nearly all of this evidence can be traced to Alexandria, or at
least to Egypt. That country seems to have been the place of
origin of codices Btf 81 ; and the papyri are all Egyptian, as
are most of the other early fragments (fourth to seventh century)
which show the characteristics of this text. The Alexandrian
writers who quote this text in Acts cover the whole period from
the end of the second to the middle of the sixth century, and no
Alexandrian writers appear in those centuries who used any other
text for our book. The two vernacular Egyptian versions speak
for themselves ; and Jerome was dependent on Alexandrian learn
ing. Of the codices, however, the provenance of A and C is
1 The Bohairic version is an excellent representative of the Old Uncial text,
so far as the nature of the Coptic vernacular permits. Ittt precise relationship
to the several witnesses of its group can be studied in the Appendix, below
(pp. 357-371).
ccl
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cell
doubtful ; as we have seen, A may have come from Constantinople.
Two fragments containing this text (fifth century and seventh
century) have come through Georgian hands, 1 one (seventh
century) through Syrian ; but these indications throw little light
on the earlier use of the Old Uncial text. We have at present no
direct knowledge as to what type of Acts was current in the
Greek-speaking regions of Palestine and Syria in the second
century, or in Asia Minor or Greece in the second and third
centuries, before the rise of the Antiochian revision in the fourth
century and the spread of that revision and of mixed texts in the
subsequent period. As for the Latin-speaking Christianity of the
West and the Syriac-speaking Christians of the East, no evidence
has as yet been adduced to show that any other Greek text than
the Western had made its way into these lands earlier than the
fourth century in the West and the fifth century in the East.
On the other hand, against the supposition that the Old
Uncial text remained through the centuries the only text known
in Alexandria, we may take warning from the fact that the "very
accurate and approved " copy from which the Harclean Syriac
was revised in Alexandria in 616 was of the Antiochian type, and
from the discovery in the Genizah at Cairo of a sixth-century
palimpsest fragment (093) with an excellent Antiochian text. Of
the later diffusion of the Old Uncial text something could be
learned by study of the minuscules belonging to this group and
named above (p. xxiv). Such a study might possibly throw
light on the earlier history as well. If Hesychius prepared
a recension of the New Testament, it was before the time of
Jerome, and would have to be looked for somewhere among
the Old Uncial witnesses, but, as has already been sufficiently
emphasized, this elusive personage constitutes a problem, not a
datum, of criticism. 2
1 On the relation of Georgian Christianity to the monastery at Mount Sinai,
see Robert P. Blake, The Text of the Gospels and the Koridethi Codex,
Harvard Theological Review, vol. xvi., 1923, pp. 277-283.
2 See above, pp. xc, xcii, xcv note 2, ciii note 5. Bousset, Die Recension
des Hesychius, Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (Texte und
cclii
THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Greek
codices.
Codex
Vaticanus.
As documents of the Old Uncial text of Acts in Greek, codices
BxAC 81 are chiefly to be considered. Next to them, but at a
considerable remove, and much more mixed in character, would
probably come M* and 33 (" the queen of the cursives "). Von
Soden states (pp. 1668 f.) that 326 (Oxford, Lincoln College, E.
82 ; formerly Gregory 33 ac ; a 257) is akin to 33, and that the
text of their common ancestor, which can be reconstructed,
would probably be found as good as that of A or C. Also the
Patmos manuscript 1175 (Monastery of St. John, 16 ; formerly
Gregory 389 ac ; a 74) appears from von Soden s statements to
be of equal excellence with 8 1. 1
In the case of all these MSS. it is necessary to ask whether
their text has been in any degree contaminated from the Western
text or from the Antiochian recension. Their dates do not in any
instance exclude the possibility of Antiochian influence. But
this inquiry meets grave difficulties. Not only is the { Western
text imperfectly known to us, and its chief Greek representative
positively known to be contaminated from the non-western side,
but both in the Western and the Antiochian text a large pro
portion of the readings were not newly coined and peculiar to
these texts, but ancient readings derived from their bases, so that
the presence of such readings in one of the Old Uncial group need
not imply contamination.
Bearing these considerations in mind, we turn to the five chief
MSS. of the Old Uncial group BxAC 81. From them in the
main must be elicited by critical processes knowledge of the text
of Acts as it existed apart from the Western rewriting and
before the Antiochian recension.
First to be considered is Codex Vaticanus. Here four questions
arise :
Untersuchungen, xi.), 1894, pp. 74-110, thinks that in the Gospels B represents
the text of Hesychius ; and von Soden has made the same conjecture, and
used it to give the designation H to what is called in the present volume the
Old Uncial text.
1 The text of the Patmos codex is known only from von Soden s apparatus
and from his discussion, pp. 1669 f., 1928.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT ccliii
1. Has the text of B been influenced by the Western
rewriting ?
2. Does it contain readings which have been introduced into
it from the Antiochian recension ?
3. It contains a considerable number of individual, or
singular/ readings in which it diverges from the other members
of its group, and which either lack support altogether or find but
little, and perhaps accidental, support in any other witnesses to
the text of Acts. How far are these to be deemed corruptions
introduced by the scribe of B or of one of its ancestors ?
4. When the testimony of the Old Uncial group of five is
divided, can any general conclusions be drawn as to the usual
value of the testimony of any of the sub-groups, and in particular
of the sub-groups of which B is a member ?
If these questions could be convincingly and fully answered,
the problem of the text of Codex Vaticanus would be mainly
solved. One further question, however, ought to be mentioned,
upon which light can perhaps sometime be thrown by renewed
comprehensive palseographical study of the MS. itself, the question,
namely, which of the corrections now found on its pages were
added by the first hand, or the diorthotes, before the codex was
issued from the scriptorium where it was executed.
1. To consider the four questions in order, in the first place Freedom
it seems clear that B was not appreciably influenced by the <we S t e m
Western text of Acts. Characteristic readings betraying the | nfluence
J in Acts.
recognizable * Western type do not appear in it ; and the im
pression gained from this observation is confirmed by the small
number, and the character, of the cases in which, standing
alone and departing from the other four of its group, it agrees
with D. 1 For those portions of the book in which all five of the
1 In Acts v. 32, the words ev avru, characteristic of the Western text,
seem to have been inserted into the text of an ancestor of B which lacked them ;
but this may well have been a contamination from the ancient base of the
Western text, not from the Western rewriting itself (see Textual Note).
In Acts ii. 5 the introduction of touocuot seems to have been present in the
Western text, but this may have been a pre-western corruption (see Textual
Note).
ccliv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Old Uncial group, together with Codex Bezae, are extant, con
stituting about one-fourth of the whole book, 1 the figures, which
include some cases where the agreement with D is only substantial
and not complete, are as follows : 2
AGREEMENTS WITH D
B alone .
. 13
Ps ,, .
. 9
A .
. 11
C .
. 34
81 .
. 11
Of the thirteen cases found for B all are trifling variants, not to
be associated with the characteristic rewriting of the Western
text ; and most of them are probably to be accepted as the
original reading, probably preserved independently in the two
lines of descent. An examination of the several sub-groups made
up of B and two of the others of the Old Uncial group shows, for
the same portions of the book, even smaller totals in each case.
(I have not found, as it happens, any instances where B accom
panied by only one other of its group agrees with D). The agree
ment of B with three others of its group and D is not significant
for B, for it only means that in such a case one of the Old Uncial
group has an isolated variant. If C, 81, and D were extant for
the whole book, the figures would all be larger, but there is no
1 For the passages, covering nearly one-half of the Book of Acts, in which
BtfAC 81 are all extant, see below, p. cclvii note 1. C contains not quite two-
thirds of the book, 81 almost exactly three-quarters. D is extant as follows :
i. 1-viii. 29, x. 14-xxi. 2, xxi. 10-xxii. 10, xxii. 20-29. The precise points of
division within the verses will be found accurately noted by Gregory.
2 Pains have been taken to make these and similar figures accurate, but
absolute accuracy and completeness cannot be claimed for them, and they
ought to be used only for inferences which are not invalidated by a reasonable
margin of error. In any case, questions of judgment often enter into the deter
mination of how to count variants ; for instance, whether as one or two, or where
slight minor variation is present. The statistics have been drawn up from the
apparatus made for the present volume, in which the aim has been to omit
obvious blunders and variations due to spelling in all the MSS. used. This
should not be taken as implying that such errors and unusual spellings are not
in themselves worthy of attention for certain critical purposes.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclv
reason to suppose that their relation to one another would be
substantially different. The portions covered come from various
sections of chapters i.-xxii.
2. For Codex Vaticanus the claim is also made, and perhaps Freedom
with justice, that it is substantially, and probably completely, AntLhia
free from Antiochian influence. 1 The evidence, however, for this mfhience -
is somewhat less decisive than that relating to * Western
influence. The following approximate figures, again relating
only to the portions common to all five of the Old Uncial group,
are suggestive :
VARIANTS FROM ALL FOUR OTHERS OF THE GROUP
B
A
C
81 .
The groups of two MSS. containing B, x, or A, show, with the
exception of the group AC (see below, p. cclxviii), even smaller
numbers (though generally larger percentages) of agreements
with the Antiochian text.
For the whole book the corresponding figures for BttA are :
B ... 221 30 14 per cent
K ... 311 20 6
A ... 297 46 15
But the small number of MSS. under comparison, and in each MS.
the great mass of variants due to other causes than Antiochian
i influence, make this method of statistical inquiry tedious and
1 unsatisfactory. The most that these and other comparative
figures show seems to be that any influence of the Antiochian
i recension on B was very limited in scope, and that no positive .
1 Hort, Introduction, p. 150 : " Its [B s] text is throughout Pre-Syrian,
i perhaps purely Pre-Syrian, at all events with hardly any, if any, quite clear
t exceptions."
Total singular
variants
Agreements with
Antiochian
Percentages
. 96
10
10 per cent
. 158
12
7
. 120
13
11
. 186
44
24
101
27
27
cclvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
numerical evidence suggests that the text of B suffered such
influence at all. A conclusion must rest on the study of the
readings themselves, and this in fact does not reveal cases that
require the assumption of Antiochian influence. With extremely
few exceptions the cases of agreement of B and the Antiochian
can best be regarded as readings of the B-text which served as a
base for the Antiochian revisers. 1 This opinion is an inference
from the fact that these readings, so far as internal character
permits a judgment, almost always commend themselves as prob
ably right. The situation is otherwise with the agreements, for
instance, of A and C with the Antiochian. The exceptions, where
B-Antiochian readings appear to be wrong, are (generally, if not
always) trifling variants, probably due to independent corruption,
so that the agreement is to be deemed accidental, not significant.
The view that B is superior to the other members of its group
rests on the internal superiority of its readings in those numerous
cases where the nature of the readings permits a judgment.
Where the five witnesses divide into opposing groups of two or
three, or where B with three others stands opposed to a single
dissentient, there are hardly any cases in Acts where " internal
evidence of readings " leads to the preference of the reading not
supported by B. This superiority of text, where internal tests
can be applied, is in accord with three observations already set
forth, namely (1) the fact that the text of B seems to belong,
with the papyri, to the period of earlier and freer variation ; (2)
the care with which it was written ; and (3) the pre-origenian
character of the text of many books in its Old Testament section.
Moreover, B contains in Acts fewer of what may be termed
idiosyncrasies than do others of the Old Uncial group. 2
3. In support of this last statement as to the singular
readings of B, the following figures are instructive, although,
here as elsewhere, crude statistics are not demonstrative without
1 The same problem arises in the LXX ; see above, pp. civ, cxxvi.
2 It seems probable, moreover, that the corrections of many of the singular
readings of B may be ascribed to the diorthotes of the scriptorium, so that in
justice the errors ought not to be attributed to the completed manuscript.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclvii
refinement by various reductions and analyses. For drawing up
these and similar tables the Book of Acts has to be divided into
the portions attested by all five, by four, and by three, witnesses
of the Old Uncial group, 1 and the figures give the approximate
number of instances in which each MS. stands alone without
support from any other of the group.
SINGULAR HEADINGS OF THE OLD UNCIAL GROUP
B K A C 81
I. (BKAC81) . . 96 158 120 186 101
II. (BKAC) ... 26 44 45 54
III. (BKA81) ... 50 61 65 .. 53
IV. (BKA) ... 51 48 67
223 311 297
The difference in the number of these singular readings between
B and X, A, C is large enough to be significant. The rela
tively small number of such readings in 81 is also significant, and
will come up for discussion below. The causes which have pro
duced such singular readings are different in the several MSS.
For another illustration the passage i. 2-iv. 3 may be taken.
SINGULAR HEADINGS IN i. 2 iv. 3
B K A C 81
Total 17 27 17 25 14
Shared with Antiochian .5 4 5 6 7
Not Antiochian but"!
shared with others [ 7 7 6 9 2
outside of group J
Probably cases of idio-"
16 6 10
syucrasy
1 The contents severally of the four Divisions is as follows : I. (BNAC 81) :
i. 2-iv. 3, vii. 17-x. 42, xiii. 1-xvi. 36, xxiii. 9-18, xxiv. 15-xxvi. 19, xxvii. 16-
xxviii. 4 ; II. (BNAC) : v. 35-vii. 17, xx. 10-xxi. 30, xxii. 21-xxiii. 9 ; III.
(BNA 81) : i. 1-2, iv. 3-8, x. 43-xiii. 1, xvi. 37-xvii. 28, xxiii. 18-xxiv. 15,
xxvi. 19-xxvii. 16, xxviii. 5-31 ; IV. (BtfA) : iv. 8-v. 34, xvii. 29-xx. 10, xxi.
31 -xxii. 20. For the precise points of division, within the verses, of the missing
parts of C and 81, see Gregory.
VOL. Ill r
cclviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
Although judgments would differ in a few instances as to the
readings here counted, such cases will be found too few to affect
the plain force of the comparison. It seems that B is superior
to both K and C in the small number of readings which it has
that may be due merely to the vagary of the scribe. But this
investigation would have to be carried much farther to become
more than a suggestive guide to research.
The figures, however, of the first table, p. cclv, show that
although B is more free than the other four of its group from
readings in which it stands alone among them, yet the number
of its singular readings is so considerable as to constitute a
definite problem.
The readings in which B has, so far as reported, no support
from any Greek authority whatever are about 90 ; those others
in which it has no support from the Old Uncial group are about
133. Of the former class (no Greek support) only the following
seven seem to call for acceptance, and four of these are supported
by versions :
vii. 49 /cat 77.
x. 19 om avrco.
x. 19 Svo.
xiii. 42 et? TO /jiera^v o-aj3/3arov TJ^LOVV.
xvi. 19 Kai t,8ovres.
xvi. 26 om Trapa^prj/jia.
xxiv. 26 om avrco.
All of these are found in parts of Acts where all five witnesses of
the Old Uncial group are extant ; all of them, except x. 19 and
xiii. 42, are of trifling importance, and in all a judgment is diffi
cult. 1 In a large proportion of the other readings of the ninety
the singular reading of B is clearly either transcriptionally or
intrinsically inferior to that of the other witnesses. In more
than three-quarters of the readings of the class no version adds
its support to B ; of the barely twenty cases where a version
1 Westcott and Hort accept the reading of B in the first three of the seven
pases here listed ; in the last four they relegate it to second place.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclix
agrees with B the reading is plainly wrong in at least four, and
in all the agreement may be due to accidental coincidence in
trifles. We may say with some positiveness that where B is
without other Greek support, it is ordinarily to be rejected. 1 Of
the ninety instances a little more than one-third are omissions.
In fact, many of these completely singular readings do not differ
essentially from the unquestionable blunders of the scribe of B
which are corrected in any printed text. The only difference is
that in the class of cases here under discussion the scribe s blunder
happened to produce a tolerable sense ; so, for example, vii. 51,
Kap&ias B for Kap&iais \ xi. 25, avao-r^aat, B for avafyrTjo-at, ;
xii. 8 viro^vcraL B for vrro^uai ; xxvi. 7 /caravrrjcreiv B for
also such cases of omission as x. 21 77 ; xxiii. 6
; or the repetition in xix. 34 of fMeydXrj 77 apre/jus efacnwv.
In the other class of about 133 readings, in which B stands
without other Old Uncial support but with some (though often
slight) support from other Greek witnesses, a little less than one-
half seem on the whole worthy of acceptance. Care must here
be exercised not to be much influenced by supporting testimony
in cases of easy scribal errors which may well have arisen in
dependently (for instance, xxvii. 34 jrpo B "^ minuscules, surely
an error for ?rpo9 ; see Textual Note). In such readings isolated
minuscule (or even uncial) support is of little consequence. The
readings, not of this latter nature, which do receive substantial
support apart from B, deserve careful consideration, particularly
where D or the Antiochian reenforces B; among these it is
probable that many were also found in other very ancient MSS.
Here the internally inferior readings are to be rejected ; the
others, including those whose internal character gives no positive
indicative, I have counted as genuine, and they make up the
proportion of a little less than one-half, as just stated. 2 Many
1 Most of the cases in which Westcott and Hort depart from B are of the
class discussed above. It would have been of advantage to their text if they
had rejected more of these singular readings of B.
2 The case of iv. 33 shows the kind of complication which is capable of arising,
and may be instructive in this connexion. B TOD Kvpiov njeov TT/S
cclx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
cases in this group must remain very uncertain ; for instance, xiii.
44 re BP minuscules for Se, xvi. 14 Trav\ov BD for TOV TrauXou,
both being cases in which I have ventured to reject the reading
of B. In some such instances the habitual practice of the writer
of Acts can be a guide ; for instance, xiii. 17, where TOV B M* vg
sah for rovrov before iapari\ seems surely wrong. Sometimes
the reading which produces a more forcible meaning in the
sentence will on that ground be accepted as more probably the
original writer s ; for instance (to take two good instances where
B has no Greek support at all), the omission by B alone of
eja) in xxiii. 6, or of iraviv in xxiv. 14. It is to be observed
that in the readings of the class under discussion the versions,
as it happens, by reason of their inability to show varieties of
Greek expression, usually give no aid in reaching a decision.
A fair conclusion seems to be that B, when without support
from others of its group but with some other support, is some
times wrong, sometimes right, and that while, here as elsewhere,
on general grounds there may be some balance of presumption
in favour of B, yet for this class of readings the presumption is
not strong.
Sub-groups 4. The sub-groups which contain B. That the variations of
B nt< Qmg single MSS., without support from any other MS. of the Old Uncial
group, constitute the bulk of the variations within the group is
shown by the following table for the portions in which BtfAC 81
are all extant (Division I.), comprising a little less than one-
half of the entire book. The total number of loci variations,
each of which appears at least twice in the table, is about 780.
The actual variants are attested as follows :
stands quite alone, but it is a variant (in order only) from T^S avavTacreus TOV
Kvpiov i-rjffov, which happens to be preserved in Pap 8 , is the reading of the Anti-
ochian text, and seems to be right. The opposing, wrong reading (TTJS ai/aorao-ews
i-rjffov XPUTTOV TOV Kvpiov) is supported by KA. C and 81 are both lacking for
this passage. Of the three readings neither B nor KA is right, but B is much
nearer right than XA. Pap 8 shows that the reading of the Antiochian text is
ancient. If the very unusual evidence of Pap 8 were not available, we should
have to say that the Antiochian text alone had preserved the true reading.
But B has only just missed it. See the Textual Note on this passage.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxi
By one MS. . . B 96
81 101
A 120
N 158
C 186
Total, by one MS. . 661
By two MSS. . . 204
By three MSS. . . 214
By four MSS. . . 540
The discrepancies of the numbers are of course due to the fact
that in some loci three variants occur, each attested respectively
by three, one, and one, or by two, two, and one MS.
In the case of B, singular variants commend themselves
as worthy of acceptance in about the proportion of two-sevenths
only ; of the singular readings of the other four MSS.
hardly any show positive marks of genuineness. The number
of cases where a division in the group calls for a decision is thus
reduced to a little over 200.
For this smaller body of variants attested by a group of two Groups of
within the Old Uncial group, the attestation is distributed as
follows (approximate accuracy only being claimed for the figures,
as explained above, p. ccliv note 2) :
GROUPS OF TWO MSS.
DIVISION I. (BKAC 81)
BK 29 KA 10
BA 9 NC 15
BC 29 N81 9
B81 19
AC 36 C 81 31
A 81 17
Every possible combination is represented in these groups,
and some, though limited, inferences can be drawn from them.
Groups of this sort may mean either (a) that the two component
cclxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
MSS. agree in authentic readings, from which all others have
departed, or (b) that the two have been alike subjected to the
same corrupting influence and perhaps are both derived from the
same corrupt exemplar. In the former case (a), lines of ancestry
of the two may have been entirely independent at every stage
since the original autograph. In the latter (6), there will be a
presumption, though not a certainty, that the two lines of ancestry
are not independent of each other.
Of these binary groups only four BK, BC, AC, C 81 are
noticeable for their size. The group BK is not large enough to
justify treating these two codices as a single persistent sub
group. If B and K, being the oldest, independently contain
an unusual number of uncorrupted readings, that would fully
account for this group. As a matter of fact, most of these
twenty-nine readings are probably original, but in a few cases
the two codices seem to agree in error. A few of these
errors are vii. 38 vjuv Btf latt Iren for rjfuv ; vii. 46 oi/cco BttHSD
429 d sah (one codex) for Oew (see Textual Note) ; with which
may be mentioned v. 31 rov BK, omitted (C and 81 being deficient)
by A, D, and the Antiochian ; viii. 5 TTJV TTO\LV BttA min
uscules, where C D 81 Antiochian sah boh omit TT/z/. 1 The group
BK is less out of scale in comparison with other binary groups
containing B than when compared with those containing K.
This is probably due to the excellence both of the text of B and
of that of K (when the latter does not have an erratic singular
reading), for in fact it means that K relatively seldom goes wrong
when in company with one other of the group. This is evidence
that X is not by ancestry specifically akin to any one of
them.
1 Of these instances, in vii. 38 and vii. 46, Westcott and Hort reject the
reading of Btf, in v. 31 they bracket the word, in viii. 5 they follow BXA.
Von Soden rejects the reading of Btf in all four cases. Besides the errors in BK
noted in the text above, the following seem to the present writer cases where BK
agree in error against one or more of the Old Uncial group : v. 28 om ov ; x. 17 om
KO.L , xi. 11 ij/j-ev , xiii. 18 erpotro^oprjo ev ; xiii. 33 TJ^UV ; xviii. 7 + rtrtou (TITOV) ,
xix. 27 fjt.e\\eu> re KO.L Ka6aipei<T6cu rr)s /m,ya\ioT r]Tos ; XX. 28 deov ; xxi. 21 +
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxiii
The relatively large size of the group BC is probably to be
accounted for by the goodness of C except when C is influenced
by the * Western or the Antiochian text. Conversely, note the
small size of the group BA. In such low numbers accident may
have played a considerable part, but in the other divisions of
the book a similar relation of the groups Bs, BC, and BA is
generally found, so far as the groups exist, thus :
BK BC BA
Division II. (BtfAC) . 9 10 7
III. (BXA81) . 19 8
IV. (BKA) ... 58 40
Of the groups AC and C 81 something will be said below in
connexion with those codices.
The groups of three in Division I. are as follows : Groups ot
three.
BNA 33 NAG 16
BXC 18 KA81 33
BK81 31 KG 81 13
BAG 11
BA81 15 AC 81 29
BC81 15
From these sub-groups of three, taken by themselves, no
valid inference suggests itself ; but although it is evident that
B is not closely connected through any near ancestor with any
other of the Old Uncial group, yet a study of the groups
of two and the groups of three together will furnish further
statistical evidence of the resemblance of B and X. If we
eliminate from consideration, as we ought to do, the singular
readings, which appear in varying proportions in the several
codices, s evinces itself as decidedly nearer to B than is any one
of the other three (AC 81), while the other three are about equal
in the extent of their agreement with B. The process on which
this conclusion rests may be illustrated by the comparison of
K and A, thus (Division I.) :
cclxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEISTIANITY
Rule for
use of B.
Codex
Sinaiticus.
BK81
29
18
31
BA
BAG
BA 81
9
11
15
78 35
From this it is clear that K is decidedly nearer to B than is A.
A similar process gives the same result for C and 81 also, as
just stated. If the figures for Division I. are taken as a whole, it
appears that for each MS. the number of cases of divergence
from B (omitting the singular readings of each and including
only those where a sub-group opposes B) is as follows : X 170,
A 205, C 214, 81 206. A further investigation of all sub-groups,
paying close regard to the individual readings in detail and their
relation to other MSS., especially codex 1175 (Patmos), would
be worth while, and might bring out some interesting relation
ships between the codices.
Where B is supported by at least one, but not by all, of the
Old Uncial group, and where internal evidence of readings
is an applicable criterion, B is found to be probably right in
nearly all cases, and the rule may be deduced that the reading
of B is to be accepted unless positive evidence to the contrary
can be brought. This practice will doubtless lead the critic astray
in some cases, but no better rule is at hand. 1 On possible genuine
readings embedded in the Western rewriting, see above, pp.
ccxxxv f . ; on the possibility that all the Old Uncial group may
be wrong, and the reading of the Antiochian text right, see
below, pp. cclxxxiv f . The grounds of this excellence of B have
already been stated (p. cclvi).
With regard to the text of Codex Sinaiticus in Acts not much
is to be added to what has already been said in discussing Codex
Vaticanus. The Western text has exercised no observable
influence on X. That the Antiochian likewise has probably not
influenced K can also be shown, 2 for if there had been any direct
1 Cf. F. C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius, 1894, p. cxviii.
2 In the LXX the text of K in the Psalter and the Prophets is said to show
some traces of Lucianic influence ; see pp. xcix, cclxxxviii.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxv
influence from it, we should expect it to appear in the singular
readings, where K has no support from any other of its group.
But here, out of a total of about 311 such readings in the whole of
Acts, only 20 (that is, 6 per cent) agree with the Antiochian text.
It is convenient to give here the figures for the other MSS. of the
group. They are given first for Division I., then for the whole book
(Divisions I. -IV., without reference to the defects of C and 81).
* SINGULAR READINGS COMPARED WITH ANTIOCHIAN TEXT.
DIVISION I. B K A C 81
Total singular readings . 96 158 120 186 101
Agreements of these with 1 1Q ^ 13 ^ 2?
Antiochian /
Percentages ... 10 7 11 24 27
DIVISIONS I.-IV. B K A C 81
Total singular readings 221 311 297 240 154
Agreements of these with 1 3Q ^ ^ ^ ^
Antiochian J
Percentages ... 14 6 15 24 29
Again, where K has the company of one other of the Old Uncial
group in departing from B, in no case does a large proportion of
agreement with the Antiochian text suggest influence from that
text on a common ancestor of the two. 1 The agreement with the
Antiochian is more probably due to a resemblance between K and
the Old Antiochian base of the Antiochian recension, if such a base
may properly be assumed to have existed.
1 The group XA 81, indeed, which both subtends a larger number of readings
than any other group of three not containing B, and also seems to show a greater
proportion of Antiochian agreements (73 per cent), stands out in this latter
respect conspicuous. But the explanation is probably to be sought in some
fact of textual history which has made a cleft between the two types repre
sented respectively by BC and XA 81, and in some connexion between the
foundations of the Antiochian recension and the text of KA 81. A more
searching and comprehensive study might throw light here on some of the
general problems of the New Testament text. The positive, though limited,
Western element in C does not seem to be connected in any way with this
other phenomenon.
cclxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
The singular readings of K are numerous and peculiar. In
singular readings not in agreement with the Antiochian, K
leads over A and 81 by a large margin, and if Western agree
ments are likewise omitted, X shows a much larger number of
1 singular readings than C. 1 Some of these have been cited
already (p. xlviii note 4) in treating of the general character of K.
Most of them are vagaries, perhaps of the scribe of this codex
itself, and hardly any commend themselves as deserving accept
ance, but a more thorough examination of them in their relations
to other witnesses might bring out some useful observations.
That K is nearer than any other MS. to B has already been
shown.
Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi seem to have some
bond of connexion ; in the table printed above (p. cclxi), AC is
the largest of the binary groups. Moreover, they show a curious
resemblance in that almost always when an attempt is made to
analyse and reduce to percentages the relation between tf, A, C,
and 81, by using as a basis the readings in which these four depart
from B, the result shows percentages of A and C close to each other,
if not identical, K and 81 often taking position the one on their
right hand and the other on their left. The student is continually
reminded of the palaeographical resemblance of the two. Never
theless, the differences between A and C are, at any rate to a
surface view, more striking ; and they are certainly more easily
interpreted.
That a certain Western element is to be recognised in A,
and a larger one in C, has already been pointed out (p. ccxx).
Longer, but not complete, lists of verses in which substantial
agreements with the Western text, or at least with the readings
of Codex Bezae, occur, are as follows :
1 For Division I. only, the figures of singular readings, with omission of
those agreeing with the Antiochian text, are : B 86, K 146, A 107, C 142;
Codex 81, 74. That of the number mentioned (drawn from a little less than
one-half of the whole book) C agrees with D in 30 instances, while X so agrees
in only 6, tells its own story, in harmony with what is said in the text above.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxvii
CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER OF THE
OLD UNCIAL GROUP)
ii. 6, 22. xiv. 21, 24.
iii. 8, 13 (twice). xv. 18.
viii. 39. xvi. 16.
x. 37, 39. xx. 4, 18.
xiii. 14. xxi. 22.
CODEX EPHRAEMI (UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER OF THE
OLD UNCIAL GROUP)
ii. 2, 17, 36. xiii. 17, 20, 23, 25, 45.
iv. 2. xiv. 6, 10, 12, 18f.
vii. 37, 60. xv. 4, 7, 11, 23, 24, 28, 29, 34.
viii. 26. xvi. 1, 3, 7, 19, 29, 31, 34.
ix. 22. xxi. 25.
x. 17, 32.
It is to be borne in mind that C includes but about two-thirds of
the whole book.
In Division I., A unsupported is found in agreement with D
11 times, C in such agreement 30 times. With these figures may
be compared those for K, 6 times ; for 81, 10 times ; and for
B, 12 times. A and C in common against the others of the group
agree in Division I. with D only about 11 times. Division I.
includes about one-half of Acts, but in about one-half of this
Division we do not have the evidence of D, so that the figures
relate to only one-fourth of the whole book.
With regard to Antiochian influence on A and C, the evidence
is more complicated, and an answer to the question more difficult
to formulate with entire confidence. In other parts of the Bible,
as is well known, the Psalter of A is largely Lucianic and the
Gospels almost wholly Antiochian, while Lucianic influence is
said to be found in the Prophets. 1 As to C, all that can be said is
that in the Gospels kinship to the Antiochian text is plainly
traceable, in the Pauline epistles less so (see above, p. Iv).
1 Procksch, Stndien tur Geschichte der Septuaginta : Die Propheten, p. 86.
cclxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
This inquiry in the text of Acts is best confined to Division L,
for there alone is a satisfactory comparison possible. In this
Division, Codex Alexandrinus stands alone in 120 readings, but
in only 11 of these agrees with the Antiochian text. This seems
to show that there has been no direct influence from the An
tiochian text on A. The only groups containing A which suggest
anything to the contrary are :
Total readinga *^5*
AC . . . . 36 16
AC 81 . . V 29 18
KA81 . . Y * 33 24
The facts of the groups AC and AC 81 might suggest that A
and C had a common ancestor which had been slightly affected
by the Antiochian recension, but the figures may equally well
be due to a resemblance between the form of Old Uncial text
represented by AC and that used as a base by the Antiochian
revisers. The group ttA 81 is the complement of BC, of which
something has already been said (p. cclxiii). On the whole,
it does not seem possible to affirm influence on A from the
Antiochian recension.
The groups including A which depart from B seem to be less
trustworthy than the complementary groups which include B,
and the singular readings of A do not commend themselves as
right. More complete investigation of the character of the
latter is to be desired. Their number is distinctly less than that
found in K or in C, but larger than that of B or 81, and this holds
after agreements in each case with the Antiochian, or with D (so
far as extant), or with both these, have been deducted. The
figures follow :
* SINGULAR READINGS
DIVISION I. B K A C 81
Total singular readings . 96 158 120 186 101
Shared with Antiochian . 10 12 13 44 27
Shared with D 12 6 11 30 10
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxix
Codex Ephraemi wears a different aspect. Here a distinct
strain of Western text is to be observed, as has been shown
above. It is also probable that the Antiochian recension has
exerted a direct influence on C, for out of 186 singular readings
of C in Division I., 44 agree with the Antiochian. This fact may
also lend significance to the group C 81, which, out of 31 readings,
shows 17 in agreement with the Antiochian. Two interesting
cases of agreement of C with the Antiochian text may be specially
mentioned. In xx. 24 the addition pera x a P a ^ * s characteristic
of the Antiochian, and in spite of its Western ring is not
attested as Western by any trustworthy testimony. In xxiv.
24, of the four different readings supported by the Old Uncial
group, that of C (ywairci, without addition) is identical with the
Antiochian reading.
The remaining ( singular readings of C (112 in number in
Division I.), in which it agrees neither with the Antiochian text
nor with D, deserve investigation. The possibility of some
obscure special relation of C to B, suggested by the group BC,
has already been referred to. 1
Codex 81 (formerly 61 ac ; a 162 ; British Museum), written Codex si.
1 The relations of BKAC to one another, to D, and to the Antiochian text,
and the trustworthiness of these MSS. severally, have been elaborately studied
by Bernhard Weiss, Die Apostelgeschichte : textkritische Untersuchungen und
Teztherstellung (Texte und Untersuchungen, ix.) 1893, pp. 64-69. Weiss s
investigation is carried on with constant reference to his conclusions as to the
Tightness and wrongness of the variants as given in the preceding part of his
monograph (pp. 5-64), he takes careful account of the question whether a wrong
reading is due to an old error or to a later emendation, and his results are pre
sented in the form of careful and very valuable statistics. These results are
not dissimilar in their broad outlines to those reached above, although his
judgment naturally differs in single instances. Many cases of variation where
he, with earlier critics, finds decisive internal evidence for one of the readings,
would seem to me not so easy to decide. He holds that X and A, as well as C,
were influenced by the Antiochian text (X in less degree than the others), while
B was not led into error by the Antiochian. He emphasizes the small proportion
of cases in which singular readings of B are to be accepted, and finds (p. 68)
twenty cases where B, supported by one or more of the group KAC, is wrong.
Weiss s criticism of the individual readings deserves careful attention from
students in every case, although in order to be used it requires that an index of
passages be constructed.
cclxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
in 1044 by a monk John and for a monk James, is the most im
portant minuscule of Acts of which full knowledge is at present
available. 1 It was brought by Tischendorf from Egypt and may
be presumed to have been written there. It contains Acts (with
two gaps, iv. 8-vii. 17 ; xvii. 28-xxiii. 9), and the manuscript
of the Catholic and Pauline epistles known as 2241 (formerly 241 ac
285 P ; Cairo, Patriarchal Library 59) was originally a part of the
same codex. 2 Of handy size, not more than 18 x 12 6 cm., with
out lectionary notes, and written with no special elegance, it was
a copy such as a scholar would have had for daily use, not a church
book nor a costly edition de luxe, and we may well question
whether for informing us as to the text of Acts it is not, next to
Codex Vaticanus, the most valuable MS. in existence.
Of Western influence this MS. shows hardly anything ; 3 but.
as would be expected from its date in the eleventh century, when
the Antiochian recension was nearly everywhere widely current,
it probably shows some direct Antiochian influence. Of its
singular readings a larger proportion than in the case of any
other of the five MSS. of its group agree with the Antiochian, and
these may well be derived therefrom.
1 SINGULAR READINGS
DIVISION I. (BtfAC 81) B x A C 81
Singular readings . . 96 158 120 186 101
Shared with Antiochian .10 12 13 44 27
Percentages ... 10 7 11 24 27
1 Hort, Introduction, p. 154 : " By far the most free [of the cursives] from
Syrian readings is 61 of the Acts, which contains a very ancient text, often
Alexandrian, rarely Western, with a trifling Syrian element, probably of late
introduction."
2 The credit for this important discovery belongs to Paul Glaue, one of von
Soden s bibliographical explorers, now professor at Jena.
3 The long Western addition found in 81 in Acts xiv. 19 is not a significant
exception to this statement, for it is given not only by hcl.mg and C, but also
by a very large number of minuscules. Zahn, however, is probably wrong in
thinking it a part of the non-western text, and that it fell out by homoeo-
teleuton ; see Textual Note.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxxi
DIVISION III. (BKA 81) B X A C 81
Singular readings . 50 61 65 . . 53
Shared with Antiochian .5 2 11 ... 17
Percentages ... 10 3 17 .. 32
It agrees with C thirty-one times in Division I. ; and seventeen
of these cases are readings also found in the Antiochian text, and
may be due to an Antiochian strain in the common ancestor of
the two. The group AC 81 (29 readings, of which 18 are shared
with the Antiochian) is also noticeable, but represents merely
the complement of the group BK, and, in view of the tentative
conclusion about A stated above (p. cclxviii), very probably
only reveals one line of cleavage between ancient types of the
Old Uncial text.
The striking characteristics of 81, in which its excellence lies,
are (1) that when its singular variants due to Antiochian
influence are omitted from the count, as being a definitely
explicable and not very large element, the body of readings that
remain presents a text somewhat nearer to that of B than is the
text of either A or C ; and (2) that the text of 81 shows the
smallest number of singular readings of any of the four tfAC 81,
and, when the Antiochian variants are again omitted, a number
much smaller than even those of B. The figures are shown above
(p. cclxx). In a word, 81 evidently comes nearer than any other
known MS. to the common type of this group, in a form strongly
resembling those of B and A, though by no means identical with
either. The figures are as follows :
DIVISION I. B K AC
81 agrees with ... . .461 409 460 383
81 departs from . . . .307 359 308 385
DIVISION III.
81 agrees with .... 116 104 110
81 departs from .... 120 132 126
cclxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
If singular readings of all MSS. are omitted from the figures
for variation, the results stand thus :
DIVISION I. B K AC
81 departs from .... 110 100 87 98
DIVISION III.
81 departs from .... 17 18 8
It is interesting to recall the fact (stated above, p. ccxiii) that
the brief text of the fifth-century fragment 066 from Egypt agrees
almost perfectly with 81.
The further study of these and the other MSS. of the Old
Uncial group can only be made fully profitable as part of a study
of the whole history of the text of the group, with complete use
of the later (mixed) MSS. which represent it (see the list given
above, p. xxiv). From such a study much would be gained in
security in the use of this text, and perhaps something in actual
conclusions as to the right use of the oldest witnesses.
Alex- An important question relates to what Westcott and Hort
e^ 1 * 11 called the Alexandrian text, which they believed to be a
skilful recension aiming at " correctness of phrase." Was there
a true recension, now represented by no single extant MS., but
to be identified in Acts in xACE 33 81 and other minuscules ? 1
Or have we to do merely with a mode of statement for the natural
variation and consolidation within the Old Uncial group, whereby
inferior readings appeared, and then, in a somewhat definite
assortment, passed into that form of the text which was most
often copied ? In other words, are we to assume the deliberate
activity of one hand or was there a process, the steps of which
we cannot trace, in which many hands were engaged ?
1 Hort, Introduction, p. 166; of. pp. 130-132. The other minuscules
named by Hort as witnesses to this Alexandrian text are (using Gregory s
final numbers) 322, 323, 36* c , 181, 441, 429, 489, 206, 1518. The fact that these
nine codices are distributed by von Soden among six of his classes (in every
case but one in an I-group) shows the need of further study of the later text
in so far as it is not Antiochian. 33 and 81 belong to von Soden s H-group.
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxxiii
The evidence that there was an Alexandrian recension
can lie only in a body of errors shared by a group of witnesses
in such a way as to point definitely to a common ancestor. Such
an ancestor need not have created the errors ; it may merely
have selected them and then been followed in that particular
selection by its descendants. Something like this seems, for
instance, to have taken place in the formation of the Antiochian
recension, which is now generally recognized to have been an
historical event.
Now in the case of Acts it is clear from the figures of the sub
groups, as given in part above, that Btt sometimes agree against
the other three, and that Btf and one of the others frequently
agree against the other two. For Division I. the approximate
figures are as follows :
Total variants, excluding the cases where one
MS. departs from the rest .... 209
Of these, BK, BKA, BKC, BK 81 . . . . Ill
BA, BAK, BAG, BA 81 . . . . 68
BC, BCK, BOA, BO 81 .... 73
B 81, B SIX, B 81 A, B 81 C . . . 80
Most of these readings are probably right as against the
groups not containing B, but in these latter groups every com
bination of component elements is found, and in every case
the groups represent small, usually very small, numbers of
readings. No well-massed agreement against Btf suggests that
an earlier recension has been at work which has determined
the selection of errors in any MS. or group. Likewise, in
the whole book, in sixty or more of the cases where B lacks
Old Uncial support, it seems to be right (though much more
often probably wrong), while other MSS. when they stand alone
are almost never right ; but this relatively small number of
cases (two-sevenths) where all the others in combination appear
to be in error is not sufficient to justify the assumption of a
recension. The papyri and very early fragments show a kaleido
scopic variation operating within rather narrow limits, and the
VOL. Ill s
cclxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
study of these is highly suggestive in regard to the question in
hand. We may conclude, I think, that so far as Acts is concerned,
the evidence does not make it necessary to suppose that a definite
recension has controlled the selection of errors found in the later
MSS. of the Old Uncial group. Yet as time went on, the text at
Alexandria apparently tended to follow a more definite standard,
and assumed a form in which * singular variations were more
rarely found than in earlier days. 1
Text of B An ultimate question relating to this group of witnesses, and
one of fundamental importance for the whole text, relates to the
earlier history of the text of Codex Vaticanus. This codex,
except where it shows singularities of the copyist or of an
ancestor, represents the original, it is believed, better than any
other MS. Is this superiority to be ascribed merely to the age
of the MS. and to peculiarly favourable conditions which sur
rounded its ancestry, as stated above, so that it is properly called
a * neutral text ? Or is its superiority due, as in the case of
a modern critical text, to the skilful work of an ancient editor,
guided by sound principles of choice ? If the latter view were
adopted, our general confidence in B would persist, for its excel
lence is demonstrated by internal evidence ; but that confidence
would be tempered in those numerous instances where the guiding
lantern of internal evidence is not at hand. The facts seem to
me to favour the former hypothesis, namely, that the text of B
is a neutral text, not a learned recension. The reasons are
1 It thus appears that the conception of gradual and informal origin which
has sometimes been used, as I think wrongly, to explain the phenomena of the
Western text, seems to be the best account we can give of the facts of the
later Alexandrian text. Nevertheless the facts sometimes recall the theory
proposed to account for the mutual relationships of the copies of Alcuin s re
cension of the Vulgate : "a text prepared by Alcuin from various sources,
with variants in the margins ; the descendants of this original edition [difiering]
in the degree to which they substitute these variants for the text " (and similarly
for the recension of Theodulf ) ; see E. K. Band, Harvard Theological Review,
vol. xxvn., 1924, p. 244. The only readings in Acts assigned by Hort to the
Alexandrian text in the Notes on Select Readings of his Appendix, p. 92,
are vii. 43, pe<j>av (pctufrav) ; xii. 25, e ; xv. 34, e5oe*> 5e rw <ri\a eiri/J-eivai
aurous (also Western).
THE OLD UNCIAL TEXT cclxxv
two. First, the text of B is substantially free from Western
and from Antiochian influence. In these spacious aspects
t is actually neutral. They cover a good part, though not
,he whole, of its excellence, and the historical position thus
iattested for this text makes it not unlikely that in other respects
ialso its ancestry may have been of superior quality. Secondly,
jthe excellence of B largely resides in two classes of readings :
!(a) it is apt to have the shorter reading, that is, to lack
jwords found in other MSS. ; and (b) its readings, even
I when not shorter, are often harder/ that is, more likely than
heir rivals to have caused difficulty to the scribe and to have
ed him to alter. Now a recension, made by a scholar following
he principles of Alexandrian grammarians, might have adopted
;he principle of usually selecting the shorter reading, and would
so have produced the brevity of the text of B. But in the case
of the harder readings it is difficult to think of any principle
of selection likely to have been adopted by an ancient critic
which would have brought about such an accumulation of these
readings as we find in B. This codex is by no means free from
errors in the Book of Acts, but it appears to be * neutral, in
the sense that its errors were not due to an observable recension. 1
1 C. H. Turner, Marcan Usage, Journal of Theological Studies, vol. xxvi.,
1924-25, pp. 14-20, has collect-ed instances from Mark in which the text of B
seems governed by the deliberate purpose of an editor to avoid the use of ets
n phrases where no idea of motion is expressed.
5. THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT
IT is no longer necessary to prove by argument that a recen
sion of the New Testament text was made, probably early in
the fourth century, at Antioch in Syria, largely by a selection of
existing readings. 1 Its chief purpose seems not to have been,
as in the creation of the Western text two centuries earlier,
to produce a rewritten and improved form of the book, but rather
to bring the New Testament text out of the confusion into which
it had fallen, and to provide Christians with copies of the Scrip
tures which should adequately represent the intention of the
original writers. Unfortunately the critical principles employed
were plainly not such as commend themselves to modern scholars,
and consequently, from the modern critic s point of view, the
result was not the improvement, but the deterioration of the
New Testament text. This recension, termed by Westcott and
Hort the Syrian text, is in the present volume called the
Antiochian, in order to avoid confusion with the name applied
to the versions in the * Syriac language. Its nature was estab
lished by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and especially Westcott and
Hort, reenforced by other contemporaries and resting on the
studies of various predecessors, notably Bengel and Griesbach ;
and the results so reached constitute the most important abiding
result of nineteenth-century textual criticism.
This Antiochian text early passed to Constantinople, later
the greatest centre for the diffusion of copies of the New Testa-
1 The demonstration by F. C. Burkitt, 8. Ephraem s Quotations from the
Gospel (Texts and Studies, vii.), 1901, that Ephrem did not use the Peshitto
seems to render unnecessary the theory of successive steps in the revision,
adopted by Hort, Introduction, pp. 135-139.
cclxxvi
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxvii
ment, and so became the basis of the text generally used until
the invention of printing, and of the printed text of the New
Testament until it was displaced by the critical editions, begin
ning in 1830 with that of Lachmann. Von Soden s wide-ranging
investigations have now opened up to study the later history of
this text during the whole period in which it circulated in manu
script form, while those of Keuss have adequately elucidated
its history in print from 1514 to recent times.
For the Book of Acts the Antiochian text is found in some Codices.
four hundred or more copies, among which, besides those not
classified, at least two distinct types (K c and K r , the latter found
frequently in Athos MSS.) have been discovered by von Soden.
In the present volume we are not concerned with this later
history, important as it is for the complete solution of the textual
problem of the New Testament. For our purpose it is necessary
to select certain MSS. which may be accepted as giving approxi
mately the Antiochian recension in its oldest attainable form,
and the only practicable course is to take the oldest continuous
texts containing the recension. These are the ninth-century
uncials H, L, P, and S of the eighth or ninth century. Of these
H is now at Modena, L at Rome, and of their origin nothing
appears to be known P, now at Petrograd, belonged to Porfiri
Uspenski, bishop of Kief in the nineteenth century, and was
undoubtedly drawn by him from some oriental monastery. S is
in the library of the Laura on Mount Athos, and it may be added
that a very large proportion of the extant MSS. of the Antiochian
text for the various sections of the New Testament are preserved
in the libraries of Mount Athos. Many of them were probably
written there, and have never left the Holy Mountain, while
many of the Antiochian copies now in other libraries came from
Mount Athos. Codex S is probably the oldest of this group. Of
the four, S alone is complete ; P is a palimpsest.
In order to supply evidence for certain sections where the
uncials are defective, the apparatus has been completed from
the readings of one or both of the two minuscules 462 (formerly
cclxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
101 ac ; thirteenth century) and 102 (formerly 99 ac ; 1345 [or
1445 ?] A.D.), these being Moscow MSS., adequately known from
Matthai s published collations and, as the apparatus shows, un
mistakably containing excellent texts of the same recension
represented by the uncials.
Codices The three uncials HLP have been elaborately studied by
Bernhard Weiss, 1 who reaches the conclusion that of their more
than 630 variants upwards of 490 are due to the common under
lying text, and that of the three P is the most faithful representa
tive of the exemplar. The superiority of P is deduced from the
figures for sub-groups :
HL against P . 16
(in many cases due to
LP I the defect of L and H)
together with those for singular readings :
P H L
Singular readings .... 53 97 95
The relative numbers of singular readings are the more con
vincing (as Weiss points out) because P is much more nearly
complete than either H or L, so that in order to make a fair
proportionate comparison its figure ought to be reduced well
below the actual number (53) given above. 2
This form of the Antiochian recension was copied through the
centuries with remarkable exactness. 3 A single parchment leaf
1 Die Apostelgeschichte : textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung
(Texte und Untersuchungen, ix.), 1893, pp. 1 f., 66.
2 Closer inquiry, however, needs to be made into the question whether
P in Acts shows a mixed text retaining traces of its Old Uncial base in the midst
of the Antiochian improvements. Hort, Introduction, pp. 153 f., describes it
as " all but purely Syrian in the Acts and 1 Peter." In James, P contains a
large ancient element, which bears a closer resemblance to B than to any other
extant uncial ; see J. H. Ropes, The Text of the Epistle of James, Journal of
Biblical Literature, xxvin., 1909, pp. 117 f
The question whether the oldest representatives of the Antiochian recen
sion contain a special type of that text, slightly divergent from the original
and to be corrected by observing the readings common to the great mass of the
minuscules, deserves further investigation. Von Soden s method, if I mistake
not, was first to detach the specific readings of K c and K r , and then to treat a
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxix
(093) found in the Genizah at Cairo makes it possible to carry it
back to the sixth century, and lends confidence to our use of the
text of the later complete copies.
Although continuous pure texts of the Antiochian recension
of Acts in Greek older than the eighth century have not been dis
covered, its readings appear frequently in the earlier centuries
in mixture with the Old Uncial text, and, as has been shown
above (pp. cclxvii-ix), if not A (sixth century ?), yet probably C
(the same century) shows its influence. In apparently mixed
texts, however, the difficult question always arises whether the
result is due to direct influence on the mixed text or to the
kinship of the latter with one of the ancient bases on which the
Antiochian rests ; and to this question often only a qualified
answer can be given. In view, however, of the known rapid
progress of the Antiochian text after the fourth century, and of
its wide extension, the possibility of direct influence can, at
present at least, but seldom be excluded, and increases with every
successive century of the period in question.
In no part of the Christian world is evidence found of the use Diffusion of
of the Antiochian recension of Acts before a date well down in the ^ ntlochian
u6Xw
fourth century, and wherever we have positive evidence before
that time (as is the case for Alexandria and Egypt, Palestine or
Syria, Lyons in Gaul, and Latin Africa), it is plain that the
Antiochian text was not that in use by Christian writers. After
the middle or latter part of the fourth century the evidence for
the use of the Antiochian selection of readings becomes reasonably
abundant. In the East, not far from the end of the fourth
century, the Apostolic Constitutions and Chrysostom used it,
although it is probably not the only text used by the latter ; and,
a little earlier than they, Epiphanius may also have had it.
These are all writers who proceeded from Syria or Palestine, and
the true K-text those readings which are found in the great majority of other
minuscules ; cf. p. 1762, where he refers to the departures of the special readings
of HLPS and various minuscules " von dem durch die Dbereinstimmung aller
andern Codd als K gesicherten Text."
cclxxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
would naturally have fallen under the influence of Antioch.
In 616 Thomas of Harkel, working at Alexandria from what
he believed to be a " very accurate and approved " Greek
copy, made his Syriac revision conform to the Antiochian
text. Of other use of it at Alexandria no patristic evidence
has so far been brought to light. The Greek codex C (fifth or
sixth century) seems to have been influenced by the Antiochian
but its provenance is not certain. The Genizah fragment
(093) of the sixth century, with the Antiochian text, was
preserved at Cairo, but need not have been of Egyptian origin.
By the middle of the eleventh century codex 81, which doubtless
represents the text of Alexandria, clearly shows exposure to
Antiochian influence. Of the eighth and ninth century An
tiochian uncials HLPS no statement of the locality whose text
they offer can be made. We may perhaps assume, however,
that they represent the influence of Constantinople, as do the
great mass of the Antiochian minuscules. One agency in extend
ing this influence was the work of the monks of Mount Athos.
For further light in these matters textual criticism must in the
main wait on palaeography.
In the West, Codex Laudianus (E ; Sardinia, late sixth or
early seventh century) has a Greek text which is largely
Antiochian. 1
For the Gospels the evidence as to the diffusion of the An
tiochian recension is naturally much fuller. The earliest witnesses
1 Whether the non-western Greek influence perceptible in the gigas-recen-
sion and that which is recognized in Codex Bezae included any Antiochian
element does not seem to have been worked out by any investigator. Hort,
Introduction, p. 155, states that what he called the Italian form of the Old
Latin, that is, Codices Brixianus (f ) and Monacensis (q), contains a considerable
Antiochian element. In the Old Testament Books of Kingdoms the Latin
text of Lucifer (356-361) shows marked Lucianic elements mingling with a
text of a different type. The facts have not received decisive explanation, but
it is not improbable that the Latin recension used by Lucifer, and of which
fragments are found in Old Latin MSS., had been subject to Lucianic influ
ence ; see Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Kdnigsbucher, pp. 143-154 ; L. Dieu,
Retouches Lucianiques sur quelques textes de la vieille version latine (I et II
Samuel), Revue Biblique, vol. xxvm., 1919, pp. 372-403. The Vulgate appears
to be substantially free from Antiochian influence.
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxxi
to it are the Apostolic Constitutions and the Antiochian fathers
at the end of the fourth century Diodorus, Chrysostom, Theodore
of Mopsuestia, together with parts of the codices W (fourth
or fifth century ; Egypt) and A (fifth or sixth century). But
in the Gospels, much as in Acts, the earliest fragments (such
as 069, 072) with an Antiochian text are of the fifth or sixth
century, and the earliest complete codex (O) comes perhaps
from the eighth century, followed by several from the ninth
century.
The Antiochian recension is the New Testament part of the Relation of
text which in the LXX is called Lucianic, and both of these appear New Testa .
to owe their origin to the work performed, doubtless by various
hands, 1 under the supervision of Lucian of Antioch (f312). The Old Testa
ment.
often-quoted statement of Jerome (Praef. in librum Parali-
pomenon) about the three types of Old Testament Greek text
that of Hesychius used in Alexandria and Egypt, that of Lucian
the martyr accepted from Constantinople to Antioch, and that of
the codices based on Origen s Hexapla, which had been made
popular by the efforts of Eusebius and Pamphilus and were read
in Palestine 2 is matched for the Gospels by the statement in his
dedicatory Epistula ad Damasum (A.D. 384) :
Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupates
paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio : quibus utique nee
in veteri instrumento post septuaginta interpret es emendare quid
licuit nee in novo profuit emendasse, cum multarum gentium linguis
scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt. 3
1 For evidence that several persona were engaged in the recension see
Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbiicher, pp. 294 f.
2 Rahlfs, Das Buck Ruth griechisch, 1922, p. 13, believes that the Origenian
MSS. of Pamphilus and Eusebius (which contained the text that Jerome did
apprc e) represent a reaction against the influence of Antioch with the deliberate
purpose of preventing the Lucianic text from coming into general use.
Jerome s hostile reference to the Lucianic codices of the Gospels tends to
confirm this view, which is obviously of great importance in opposition to any
suggestion that the edition of Pamphilus and Eusebius was a compromise -text,
partly made up from the Lucianic recension.
* Jerome s reference here is quite correct. Down to his time no transla
tion of the New Testament had been made under the influence of the Antiochian
recension. Even the Peshitto, the product of the following century and of
cckxxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
| In large measure the Lucianic text of the Greek Old Testa
ment has now been identified, and the MSS. recognized, especially
by the aid of the quotations of Chrysostom and Theodoret (bishop
of Cyrus in Syria ; f ca. 457), 1 the direct references to the
Lucianic text of the Psalter made by Jerome in his letter to the
Goths Sunnias and Fretelas (Ep. 106, 2), and certain marginal
readings, expressly indicated as Lucianic, in the Syro-hexaplaric
version and in some Greek MSS. Various considerations prove
its connexion with the Antiochian text of the New Testament.
Thus, certain illustrations have been pointed out of agreement
in the form of proper names. The Lucianic text (3 Kgds. xvii. 9)
has, against all others, ^dpeirra rr}? StSo^o?, for the earlier
2a/367TTa (or ^dp(j)0a) r?)? S^Sama?. This is the exact form
in which the phrase appears in the Antiochian text of Luke
iv. 26, the same variations occurring among the earlier types.
Similarly the Lucianic and Antiochian agree (4 Kgds. v. 1 ff. ;
Luke iv. 27) in the spelling Nee/judv instead of the earlier
NaiyiKm 2 Equally characteristic of the common principles
guiding the recension of the two parts of the Bible is the plain
endeavour to make endings and grammatical forms correspond
to the grammarians rules, as, for instance, in the consistent use
of elirov and the like for elirav^ or of o eXeo?, at least in the
accusative, for TO eXeo?, 3 or the strong tendency to correct
eyevrjOij to eyevero.*
But the reasons for accepting the Lucianic Old Testament
Syria, does not render, in Acts at least, a text of that type. That Jerome
decisively rejects the codices of Hesychius is instructive in view of the fact
that the Greek text which he himself used was one corresponding to the Old
Uncials.
1 See Rahlfs, Theodorets Zitate aus den Konigsbuchern und dem 2.
Buche der Chronik, Studien zu den Konigsbilchern (Septuaginta-Studien, i.)>
pp. 16-46.
a Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 113 f.
8 Rahlfs, Das Buck Ruth griechisch, 1922, p. 13. A comparison of the details
assembled for the New Testament by von Soden, pp. 1456-1459 (cf. 1361-1400),
1786, with the Lucianic text of the Old Testament would undoubtedly yield a
great number of other illustrations.
4 Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, pp. 294 f.
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxxiii
and the Antiochian New Testament as constituting one revised
Greek Bible are broader than these special observations, even
though the latter are no doubt capable of being multiplied in
definitely. The two recensions were made at about the same
time and at the same centre, and their principles and general
character are identical. For the New Testament the compre
hensive and elegant summary statement of Hort ( Introduction,
187, pp. 134 f.) is familiar to all students ; it might be expanded
and elaborated, but can hardly be improved. 1 In the Old Testa
ment for a number of books, historical, prophetic, and poetical,
the Lucianic recension has now been studied and described, and
the facts everywhere appear to be the same. Besides the attempt
at closer approximation to the Hebrew text the chief features
are conformation to the language of similar passages in nearer or
remoter context, grammatical correction to a standard of forms
and syntax, improvement in expression alike in order, diction, and
style, with a view to greater smoothness, fulness, and intelligibility.
Synonyms are substituted to suit the reviser s taste, particles
changed or added ; the text is often somewhat expanded, very
rarely made shorter. There is not one of the well-known charac
teristics of the Antiochian New Testament which cannot be
illustrated from the Old Testament of Lucian. 2
The critical principles and the aim of the Antiochian revisers Sources.
are plainly discernible from the result of their labours. Less easy
to form, but for the purposes of critical study indispensable,
is a judgment as to the basis of their work and the sources from
which they drew their selection of readings. That they made
some changes of their own, without older manuscript authority,
1 See also von Soden s account, pp. 1456-1459, of the general character of
the Aiitiochian recension, with many illustrations.
1 On the characteristics of the Lucianic text of Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, see C. C. Torrey, Ezra Studies, Chicago, 1910, pp. 106-109 ; for other
books, W. 0. E. Oesterley, Studies in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Book of
Amos, 1902, pp. 61-67 ; Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbucher, 1911, pp.
171-183, 239-288, 294 ; Rahlfs, Der Text des Septuaginta-Psalters, 1907, p. 231 ;
Rahlfs, Studie uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, 1922, pp. 83-90 ;
O. Procksch, Studien zur Oeschichte der Septuaginta: Die Propheten, 1910,
pp. 79-87.
cclxxxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHEISTIANITY
is commonly assumed, and their methods in the revision of the
Old Testament make this probable ; but the main substance of
their text came from earlier sources. 1 The determination of
these sources, and the discrimination of the inherited from the
new readings, is made difficult by the almost complete lack of
Greek manuscripts of unquestionably earlier date than the
Antiochian recension, and by the vast influence which that re
cension presently came to exercise over the Greek text of the New
Testament. We have already seen how hard it is to make sure
whether the Greek codices X and A are akin to the base of the
Antiochian recension or have been influenced by the recension
itself ; and even in the case of C and 81 the question admits of
argument. In Codex Bezae all agreements with the Antiochian
require to be closely examined to see whether they are com
ponents of the Western text or whether they owe their presence
to the later chances which befell the text of that MS.
We may assume that the revisers worked, in part at least, on
the basis of Greek MSS. preserved at Antioch that represented
such a text as had long been used in this great, rich, and
active church, but no literary monuments from Antioch earlier
than the time of Lucian are capable of aiding our inquiry.
It may well happen, therefore, that readings now found only
in the Antiochian recension, 2 or in texts dependent upon it,
had been current in Antioch from the earliest times. Any
reading, however, which is to be accepted as of this sort, must
1 E. von Dobschutz, Eberhard Nestles Einfuhrung in das griechische Neue
Testament, 4th ed., 1923, p. 8, may be deemed to go too far, if he means, as he
seems to do, that all variant readings except Mischlesarten must be assumed
to have existed in the second century. Hort s statement, The New Testament
in the Original Greek, smaller edition, p. 549, is duly guarded : " The Syrian
text has all the marks of having been carefully constructed out of materials
which are accessible to us on other authority, and apparently out of these alone.
All the readings which have an exclusively Syrian attestation can be easily
accounted for as parts of an editorial revision " ; this is consistent with his
fuller discussion, Introduction, pp. 132-135.
2 In order to distinguish the Antiochian recension of the fourth century from
the Old Antiochian text, it will be convenient sometimes from here on to
designate the recension as Lucianic not merely, as hitherto, for the Old
Testament but also for the New Testament.
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxxv
possess very strong internal credentials of genuineness. Readings
peculiar to Lucian which are inherently improbable, and even
those which are merely possible with nothing that positively
recommends them, will have to be referred provisionally at least
to the later recension. One case in which I am disposed to
accept the Lucianic reading, in spite of a general consensus of
Old Uncial authorities against it, may serve as an illustration.
In Acts xvii. 14 ew? (BtfAC 81, omitted by D d gig) is super
ficially unobjectionable, but a consideration of the relation of the
Lucianic <w? to the statement of vs. 15 shows so interesting a
meaning, and one so little obvious, that the argument from
intrinsic probability is very strong. Another case where
Lucian, supported by Pap. 8 and the Sahidic, gives the right
reading against both ttA and B (which differ, C and 81 being
here defective) is iv. 33 rfjs avao-rda-ecos rov /cvpiov I^crou.
Such cases, however, are rare in Acts. In iv. 17 the Lucianic
addition of a Semitic aireCKrj (cf. v. 28) appeals to the critic,
but the possibility of an Old Antiochian dittography will make
him hesitate to adopt it. 1
The Antiochian recension bears a general similarity to the text Relation to
of the Old Uncials. It differs from their text far less than from the an d to
Western, and supports them against the Western in many
noteworthy readings ; for instance xi. 20 EXX^wo-ra? against
"EXX^a? of D (and A), or in all but a single word of the striking
Western rewriting of xviii. 5 f . Of this it is needless to multiply
illustrations.
But on the other hand the Antiochian recension of Acts
1 In Acts xiii. 17 the omission of loyxxiJX by the Lucianic text in agreement
with the Peshitto looks like an Old Antiochian reading, since the Lucianic rarely
omits >vords ; but the omission can hardly give the true text. Any single agree
ment of the Lucianic and the Peshitto need not point to influence from the
recension upon the Syriac translation, for both may go back independently to
ancient texts. Thus in Luke ii. 14 evdoKia was the reading not only of Lucian,
with some of the Alexandrian uncials, but also of the Old Syriac (as found in the
Diatessaron [Ephrem], the Sinaitic Syriac, Aphraates), and seems to me to
bethel rue reading, in spite of the support given to evSoKias by Bfc<A, Origen,
and the Western text (D and all Latin witnesses) ; see J. H. Ropes/ Good
Will toward Men, Harvard Theological Review, vol. x., 1917, pp. 52-56.
cclxxxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
contains many agreements with the Western text. In some
instances these are found in conflate readings in which the revisers
have united the Old Uncial and the Western. x Thus, in Acts
xx. 28 B X and others read rov 6eov, the Western reading
was rov /cvplov, while HLPS have combined these into rov
/cvpiov KOI Oeov. Again, in xxviii. 14 the text of LP (but not
HS) has eV avrols eiri^elvau, which looks like a combination
of the modified Western eV avrols eTri/jueivavres with the
Old Uncial (BtfA 066 81 boh) Trap avrols ein^elvai,, although
the case is not so clear as in xx. 28.
In many other cases the Antiochian recension either has a
Western gloss, or other peculiarity, or else shows a text built
up by modifying the basic * Western reading. Some examples
of this from Acts are the following :
ii. 30 + TO Kara adp/ca avacmjoretv rov Xptcrroi>.
ii. 43 om eV lepovcraXrj/jb (o/3o<? re rjv /-teya? eirl irdvras.
(Here NAG seem to have the right reading ; the Antiochian might
have come from a text like B, but equally well from a Western
text.)
iv. 33 TT)? dvao-rdcrea)? rov /cvplov I?;croi). (Here, as in
ii. 43, the Antiochian sides with the general type of B and the
Western, not with the later text of tfA.)
ix. 5 o Se Kvpios eiTrev.
x. 32 4- 09 Trapatyevopevos \a\r}crei aoi.
xv. 37 e/3ov\evo-aro, for /3ov\ero.
xviii. 5 TTvevfjuan, for Xo^w. (The only reason for thinking
this to be Western is that it is found in the Harclean margin.)
xix. If. evpoDV . . . elirevj for evpelv . . . eltrev re.
xx. 24 ovBevbs \6yov rcoiov^iai ov&e e%a) rr)v tyvfflv [ftov],
(This is a modification of the Western reading.)
xxiii. 11 + IlaOXe.
xxiii. 12 rives ra)v lov&aiwv, for ol
xxv. 16 + e
xxvi. 25 om
1 Conflations appear to be much more numerous in the Lucianic Old Testa
ment ; see Rahlfs, Lucians Rezension der Konigsbiicher, pp. 192 ff. ; Oesterley,
Amos, p. 112.
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxxvii
xxvi. 28 ryeveaOai,, for
xxvi. 30 + Kal ravra elirovro^ avrov.
xxvii. 2 /xe\\o^T69, for yiteXXoim.
xxviii. 16 o e/carovrap^o^ TrapeSw/ce TOU? Se<r/uou9 r&&gt;
rw Se ITauXo) e7Trpd7rrj, for eTrerpaTTTj Se
xxviii. 29 + /ou ravra avrov etVoi/ro? a7rrj\6ov ol lovSaioi,
7ro~\,\r)v e^oz/re? eV eaurot? c
These examples, many of which are discussed in the Textual
Notes of the present volume, and to which very many more might
be added, will serve to illustrate the relationship. The not
infrequent occurrence of small and unimportant agreements, as
in some of the cases cited, suggests that either the Lucianic text
or its Old Antiochian ancestor was a Western copy imperfectly
corrected to an Old Uncial standard, rather than an Old Uncial
text interlarded with Western readings. It is perhaps more
likely that this operation had been performed in an ancestor than
by the Lucianic revisers, for their own work rested mainly on a
good Old Uncial text, with which they combined many important,
not insignificant, Western readings, and their resultant text
includes vastly more from the Old Uncial text than from the
Western. They were engaged in preparing an exemplar from
which copies should be made, not merely, as might have been
true of more primitive hands, in bringing a valuable old copy up
to date in accordance with a newly accepted standard. 1
Apart from the c Western readings found in the Antiochian
recension, the Old Uncial base which the revisers used was
evidently an excellent text. 2 With this conclusion correspond
1 A Souter, Text and Canon of the New Testament, 1913, p. 122, expresses
the opinion that the Lucianic revisers used the Western text " for their usual
base," and illustrates this (p. 120) by the readings in Luke xxiv. 53, where the
Western cuVoiWes is expanded by addition from the Old Uncial text into
alvovvres Kal evXoyovvres. Acts xx. 28 rod icvplov Kal deov shows the same
phenomenon. But in both instances a sensitive taste would in any case have
preferred the order actually adopted.
8 So B. Weiss, Die Apostelgeschichte : textkritische Untersuchungen und
Textherstellung, p. 67.
cclxxxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
the results of the criticism of the text of the Septuagint. In the
Books of Kingdoms the Lucianic recension rested on a pre-
hexaplaric text standing next to Codex Vaticanus and the
Ethiopic version, and sometimes, though rarely, better than they. 1
In Ruth the same is true, and the pre-hexaplaric base was closely
akin to B. 2 In the Psalter, passages are found where the Lucianic
recension has a better reading than the agreeing texts of Upper
Egypt, Lower Egypt (Codex B and the Bohairic), and the Old
Latin. If in these cases the possibility is alleged that by their
own correction the Lucianic revisers produced their superior text, 3
it is to be observed that the resemblances between the text of
Lucian and the African Old Latin show that many Lucianic
readings, not found in B, are in fact of ancient origin. 4 In the
Prophets, the base of Lucian s text was of great antiquity, and
akin to that of Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and the
corresponding minuscules. 5 In Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah
(all drawn from Theodotion) the Lucianic text contains " valuable
material not found elsewhere," and depends on a different type
of Greek text from that of B and A. In 1 Esdras the Old Latin
(African) adds its attestation to the antiquity of the base of
the Lucianic recension. 8
The Antiochian revision of the New Testament text deserves
a fresh and penetrating investigation, which should aim at dis
criminating the new readings introduced by the revisers from the
ancient base on which they worked, should try to determine the
relative significance of the older texts they used, and in particular
should inquire into the character of the text current in Antioch in
the second and third centuries. A complete answer to these
1 Rahlfs, Lucians Eezension der Konigsbiicher, pp. 290 f., 129 f.
2 Rahlfs, Studie uber den griechischen Text des Buches Ruth, pp. 89 f.
3 Rahlfs, Der Text des 8 eptuaginta- Psalters, pp. 229-231 ( 61, 62. 1).
4 Capelle, Le Texte du psautier latin en Afrique, pp. 198 f., 211.
5 Procksch, Studien zur Geschichte der Septuaginta : Die Propheten, 1910,
p. 79 ; F. C. Burkitt, The Book of Rules of Tyconius, 1894, pp. cxvi-cxvii ;
W. O. E. Oesterley, Studies in the Greek and Latin Versions of the Book of Amos,
1902, pp. 103-105.
Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 101-106, 111.
THE ANTIOCHIAN TEXT cclxxxix
important questions is hardly attainable, but neither the utter
neglect of the Antiochian readings which has become common in
I the last generation, nor the method devised by von Soden of using
| it for constructing a text is a satisfactory solution of the problem
! which it presents.
VOL. Ill
6. THE HISTOEY OF THE TEXT
FROM the facts which have been presented and discussed it is
now in place to try to sketch briefly the history of the text of Acts,
as it appears to have run its course through the centuries. In
such a reconstruction it will conduce to clearness if the statements
are made for the most part positively, and without regard to the
fact that hypotheses, not proved conclusions, sometimes underlie
them. The reader who wishes to know the precise degree of
probability which the statements possess, may be referred to the
discussions of the preceding sections of this Essay.
The Book of Acts, written, we know not where, toward the end
of the first century, was early separated from its companion
volume of evangelical history, when the Gospel of Luke was united
with those of Matthew, Mark, and John to form the canon of four
Gospels ; but Acts was preserved by being associated with that
canon as the historical section of the sacred writings relating to
the Apostolic Age. The text was, from the first, subject to the
inevitable alterations which copying unsupervised by authority
Western produced. On the basis of one of these slightly divergent copies,
rewriting, before the middle of the second century, the book was drastically
rewritten to suit the taste of the time, and with special reference
to easy fulness of the narrative. The hypothesis has been
suggested above that this rewriting proceeded from the same
circle as the primitive nucleus of the New Testament canon.
That at least the Gospels were combined into one corpus, and
equipped with their uniform titles, at not far from the same date
as that at which the Western text arose is generally admitted. 1
1 Harnack, Einige Bemerkungen zur Geschichte der Entstehung des Neuen
Testaments, in Beden und Aufsdtze, vol. ii., 1904, p. 241, assigns the combination
ccxc
THE HISTOKY OF THE TEXT ccxci
: Such a theory would dispel much of the mystery attending the
i position and influence of the Western text in the second
i century, and against it no conclusive objection seems to present
i itself. 1 But it is insusceptible of direct proof, and could be taken
out of the realm of the merely possible only by elaborate justifi-
I cation in many directions.
At any rate, the Western text of Acts, whose origin, as
Dr. Hort is said to have been in the habit of explaining, " is lost
in the mists of a hoar antiquity," met the needs of its century, and
was widely used. Carried to the East, it was the basis of the
earliest Syriac translation, used in the fourth century in Meso
potamia ; and probably before the end of the fourth century the
Armenian version was made from a Syriac text largely or wholly
* Western in character. Earlier, in the third century, it is found
in Greek in Syria or Palestine. As late as the third or fourth
century we have it in Egypt. On the other side of the world,
the West received it in the second century, not many years after
its creation, and the earliest Latin version, used in Africa,
was made from it, while in the same period the Western Greek
text was used by the Greek colony of Lyons in Gaul. So far as
of the Four Gospels in one collection to Asia Minor in the period 120-130 ; see
also his full discussion, Das evayyt\iov rerpd/xop^ov, in Die Chronologic der
altchrintlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, vol. i., 1897, pp. 681-700, especially pp. 694,
099 f. ; and Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, 4th ed., 1924, p.
784. He thinks that Acts was added much later, probably at Ephesus.
See also J. Leipoldt, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. i., 1907,
pp. 149 f. Zahn, Grundriss der Oeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons,
1901, p. 40, holds that in the period 80-110 the canon of Four Gospels and
also the collection of thirteen epistles of Paul were formed and passed into
liturgical use in the Gentile churches of the whole region from Antioch to
Rome. He is doubtful whether Acts was widely used in church services at so
early a d;> . See also Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. i., 1889,
pp. 941-950, where Zahn urges that the canon of Four Gospels was created at
Ephesus in consequence of the composition of the Gospel of John.
1 The argument of Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. i.,
1888, pp. 440-445, that the supposed formation of the New Testament canon in
the years 160-180 would have required also the establishment at the same time
of an authoritative Catholic recension of the text, which in fact did not then
take place, is suggestive in this connexion. Zahn s polemic does not touch the
question of such a relation of collection and text fifty years earlier.
ccxcii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
our limited knowledge permits a judgment, the Western text
of Acts in the second century (and not much less completely in
a large part of the third) swept the field with the conspicuous
exception of one locality, Alexandria.
Text used At Alexandria, at least, not all the copies of the older text
f Acts (from one f orm of which the Western text was made)
disappeared from use in the days of Western dominance, as is
probably shown by the undoubtedly non- western quotations in
Clement of Alexandria ; and we may detect a reaction at the time
of Origen, and possibly under the influence of the attention given
by him to Christian scholarship in that centre. How widely the
non-western copies were used is not known, but in the third
century older manuscripts of the Western type began to be
corrected by a different standard, though not without retaining
fragmentary Western survivals, readings which failed to be
expunged by the correctors pens. In the fair copies of these
corrected manuscripts the resulting mixture preserved a record of
what had taken place. To one such the Sahidic translation of
Upper Egypt owed its origin, somewhere about the year 300. In
the towns and villages of Egypt in the third century many copies
may be supposed in use (and of this positive evidence is not
wholly lacking) which conformed to Origen s text, not to the
rewritten form previously so popular. By that time the star of
the Western rewritten text seems to have set for the Greek-
speaking section of the Christian world. 1
With Constantine the Church entered on a new era, and
from the fourth century, when the systematic destruction of
Christian books ceased, the sources flow more freely and the
monuments are more abundant. Alexandria, still a great
Christian centre, used a sound non -western text of Acts, but;
encouraged a limited modification and supposed improvement,;
and the copies used there showed a tendency to avoid singularities
and to approach a fixed standard. Of the history of this text)
1 A knowledge, if it were available, of the text of Acts used in Caesarea iij
Palestine would perhaps show a parallel, but different, history.
THE HISTOKY OF THE TEXT ccxciii
the details are obscure, but its development, which included a
disposition to adopt readings, and even to approve complete
copies, of the text of Constantinople, continued until the down
fall of Christian civilization under the Moslems in the seventh
century, and for centuries beyond that disaster. From the fourth
century we still have Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus,
superb copies made for great Egyptian churches, and the testi
mony of Athanasius ; from the fifth century comes Cyril ; from
the sixth Cosmas ; from the seventh a great monument in the
Bohairic version ; and from later ages important witnesses, not
yet fully explored.
The great rival of Alexandria in Christian learning was Antioohian
Antioch. What text of Acts had been current there in the
second and third centuries is not known, but about the year 300,
under the leadership of Lucian, a text of the whole Greek Bible
was produced at Antioch which contended with that of Alex
andria for supremacy, and finally in the New Testament won
the victory. Older copies were more or less successfully revised
to conform to it, and vast numbers of new copies made. Com
bining in Acts an ancient text like that of Alexandria with a
lesser proportion of Western readings and some original re
vision, its merit lay in its fitness for the use of educated Christians,
given through its care for grammar and style and its inclusive-
ness. An irresistible force in its behalf was the adoption of it
by the capital, Constantinople, intellectually dependent on Antioch
and increasingly for centuries the centre of the production of
Bibles. We can trace this text from the Antiochian and Syrian
Greek writings of the fourth century, from later fathers, from
one sixth-century fragment, from excellent copies of the ninth
(and p< rhaps the eighth) century, and from a host of copies
of the long succeeding centuries in which it was almost com
pletely dominant. The monks of Mount Athos made many hundred
copies of it ; it pervaded Greece and Asia Minor, and at an early
date was not unknown, nor without influence, in Alexandria
itself. It suffered some changes, the locality and date of which
ccxciv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
have not yet been fully elucidated, but the copies brought to the
West when the Byzantine power collapsed in the fifteenth century
were largely of this type. From them were drawn the earliest
printed editions and their successors until the middle of the
nineteenth century, and on the text of Antioch depend the great
Protestant translations of Germany, France, and England. For
the greater part of sixteen centuries it needed to fear no rival,
and to-day it is read in some form by a great proportion of
Christian people.
Text of From the time of its first circulation, however, the Antiochian
Pamphilus TT , , , ... , A1 -, .
and text did not lack a competitor, even apart from Alexandria
Eusebius. itse j At c aesarea | n Palestine where Origen took up his
residence in 211-12 a definite tradition of the text of the New
Testament had its seat, and in the early fourth century two
Caesarean scholars who revered Origen Pamphilus and Eusebius
promulgated an edition of the Bible which claimed superiority
to the Antiochian recension. In the Book of Acts the nature of
this Caesarean text its relation to Origen, its component
elements, and its history is still a subject of inquiry, but in an
ample body of manuscripts dating from the tenth century on
there is contained a group of texts made up of excellent ancient
readings, partly non- western, partly Western, and mixed in
various degrees with the Antiochian text of Constantinople,
which may represent this attempt to counter the influence of
Lucian. In its essential character the Lucianic text of Antioch
may be regarded as not different from these other contemporary
texts. Like them it consisted mainly of a combination of read
ings, drawn partly from such a text as that of Codex Vaticanus,
partly from the Western text. But, as it happened, to its
particular combination, rather than to any other, went the palm
in the rivalry of later texts.
Syriac If we turn from the history of the Greek text to that of the
versions, we find the two great churches at the two ends of the
Empire each with its own translation and its own history. For
the old Syriac translation of Acts made from the Western text
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT ccxcv
the Syrians of Edessa in the early fifth century, as a part of
, their great ecclesiastical version, the Peshitto, substituted a
! new translation in which Old Uncial and Western readings
! alike are liberally represented. In the Syrian church, torn by
if action and subject to a measure of alien Greek control, it is
i not surprising that in the sixth century a fresh effort was
made to provide the great dissident Monophysite body with a
different text, and again a century later to cement the union
of the Monophysites of Mesopotamia with their faithful
brethren of Egypt by a further revision, which in fact brought
their text into close harmony with that of Constantinople. Yet
the ancient tradition of the Peshitto, beloved in spite of, perhaps
because of, its antiquated differences from any Greek text,
survived, and has held control to the present day in all branches
of Syriac-speaking Christianity. But, by a happy chance, the
apparatus of variants attached to the later form of the Mono
physite revision has preserved a record of unmistakable Western
readings, precious though of uncertain immediate origin.
In the Latin church of the West the text of Acts had a history Latin
similar at the start to the Syrian but different in its outcome.
Here likewise, in the second century and thus possibly even earlier
than in Syria, a translation of Acts was made from a completely
Western Greek copy, was used perhaps first, certainly longest,
in Africa, and received there no considerable modification from
any other type of Greek text. In (probably) Sicily the Greek
text on which it was founded was known and copied as late as
the fifth century. This African Latin version passed into
Spain, entered into union with later Latin revisions, came to
Languedoc, and affected the current text of that centre of far-
reaching influences. Besides other changes it suffered an elabor
ate revision as early as the first half of the fourth century, both
to improve its Latin phraseology and to bring it into accord with
the non- western Greek text which increasing contact of East
with West had made known to Latin-speaking scholars. This
revision is well known to us from Codex Gigas and the quotations
ccxcvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
of Lucifer of Cagliari ; its use spread rapidly over the whole
Occidental world from Toledo to Nish, and it was for many
centuries current in Italy and Gaul. Whence was derived the
Greek non-western text by which it was made is not known,
but we may recall that for seven years, beginning about 340,
Athanasius was in exile in the West, and that he spent the first
three of these years in Rome. With the completion about 385
of Jerome s revision of the Latin New Testament, Rome for the
first time definitely enters the history of the New Testament text
Vulgate. of Acts. The Vulgate Acts rested on a form of the Latin version
akin to that of Codex Gigas ; the Greek text to which it was
brought into close correspondence was that of Alexandria. The
story has been told above of the manifold combination of Old Latin
and Vulgate, and the diffusion of these mixed texts (with readings
partly Western/ partly Alexandrian) from two centres, on the
one hand from Ireland, by missionaries to France, the Rhine
country, Switzerland, and North Italy, and on the other from
Spain and Languedoc, through Provenal, Italian, Old German,
and Bohemian daughter -translations, as well as in Latin texts.
Italy supplemented its own copies with texts from Spain ; in
France Alcuin s revision of the Vulgate at least put an end to the
use of the Old Latin and prepared the way for the composite
Paris text of the thirteenth century, from which sprang the
printed text, and finally, as the standard of the Roman Catholic
Church, the Clementine printed edition.
The first contest in the history of the text of Acts was between
the Western text and what I have termed the Old Uncial.
Among the Greeks this struggle ended in the abandonment of
the Western text by reason of the early dominance of Alex
andrian thought ; in the West the result was a combination
of the two texts, with later virtual elimination of Western
elements. The next great contest reflected the rivalry of Antioch
and Alexandria. Antioch allied herself with Constantinople, and
her text gained supremacy over both the text of Alexandria
and the Caesarean text fathered by Eusebius. In modern times
1
THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT ccxcvii
the efforts of critical scholars have reversed the process, and
brought Alexandria to her own again. Eecent attempts to go
still farther back and annul the verdict of ancient Christian
history by preferring the Western to the Old Uncial text seem
to me to have been unsuccessful, even in the modified form of
an attempt to treat both these ancient texts as coeval and as
equally the work of the original author of the book.
Many defects appear in any attempt to draw up an account
of this history under the present conditions of knowledge. The
outlines are often too sharp, the contrasts harsh, and the defini
tions too narrow ; while lack of available information often
requires statements to be painfully guarded, and blurred with
qualifications which do injustice to the relations which fuller
knowledge would elucidate. But enough is known to make it
evident that a comprehensible historical process has here gone
on, in which all the witnesses had their due position, 1 and which
followed and reflected significant movements of Christian life
and thought. The history of the text of the New Testament is
the illustration in a single field of the general history of the
Christian Church, to serve which the text was formed.
1 A diagram intended to show the relation of the several witnesses in one
case where the evidence lends itself to such presentation will be found below
on p. 260.
7. THE METHOD OF CRITICISM
THE history of the New Testament text, while interesting in
itself as a fragment of church history, is primarily studied in
order to aid in the practice of textual criticism and the recovery
of the original text from the divergent witnesses. The incidental
observations already made on the use of the materials of textual
criticism in Acts may here be briefly resumed.
Antiochian. 1. In the first place it may be taken as accepted that the
Antiochian recension, in so far as it contained new readings of
the Lucianic revisers, was wrong, and that when it agrees with
older types of text it can rarely add any weight to the evidence
of the latter. In a few cases it may contain ancient readings
not otherwise attested, which yet commend themselves for
acceptance as right ; hence its readings require to be studied,
but they will very seldom be adopted. When its true form has
been established, the later developments of its text become of
merely historical interest ; but the copies containing these can
be definitely and completely excluded from consideration only
when their relation to one another and to the fourth-century
recension itself has been fully worked out.
Western. 2. The Western text has come down to us only in fragments,
in consequence of the complete disuse into which, relatively early,
it fell in every region to which it penetrated. It can be fully
used only when it is reconstructed and restored, for by reason of
its nature as a free recasting of the original the comparison of
isolated variants without their Western context often fails to
reveal their true significance. In the recovery of it Codex Bezae,
unsatisfactory and often misleading as is its testimony, is neces
sarily the starting-point ; next in importance come the Harclean
ccxcviii
THE METHOD OF CRITICISM ccxcix
Syriac apparatus and the Old Latin versions, by the aid of which
the Western elements of the Greek I-codices can be identified ;
in addition every scrap of scattered evidence has to be gathered
and scrutinized where better lights fail. The talk often heard of
great unexplored resources for the New Testament text lying
unused in the mass of Greek minuscules is justified chiefly with
regard to these I-codices, which seem to rest on one or more
combinations of the most ancient text with the Western text.
The group, or a part of it, may owe its unity to descent from the
Caesarean edition of Eusebius, and may contain genuine readings
attested but slightly, or not at all, elsewhere. 1
As has been emphasized at greater length above, the signifi
cance of the Western text lies in its antiquity. Its confirma
tion of readings of the Old Uncial text is valuable, for, when its
own readings can be certainly ascertained, they carry back the
evidence to the early second century. And it is probable that
sometimes less often, however, in Acts than in the Gospels
an ancient reading embedded in it can be recognized which on
internal grounds approves itself as better than the reading of its
usually more trustworthy rival.
3. For our chief source of knowledge we are thus thrown old Uncial.
on the text of the Old Uncial group, 2 represented in greatest
purity, so far as is at present known, by Codices BtfAC 81, but
also found in a series of minuscules in which the mixture with
Antiochian readings does not preclude the recognition of excellent
1 In two of these MSS. (1852 [a 114] and 2138 [a 116]), whose eleventh-
century text was not known until the publication of von Soden s apparatus,
Harnack, Sitzungsberichte, Berlin Academy, 1915, pp. 534-542, has made the
extraordinary and suggestive discovery of a reading, probably genuine, in
1 -Jo} v. 18, hitherto known in no Greek MS., but found in the Vulgate and
Latin fathers, namely 77 yewrjffi.^ for o yewrjOeis. This reading makes sense
in a difficult passage where no other reading is tolerable ; and the change
involved only the alteration of one letter (-CGIC, -0IC) together with
the resulting adjustment of the article from 77 to o. The two MSS. are at
Upsala and Moscow. This is not the only noteworthy reading contained in the
Upsala MS. ; the testimony of the latter is not given in full by von Soden.
2 Compare what is said by Rahlfs, Studie ilber den griechischen Text des
Buches Ruth, pp. 149 ff ., with reference to the text of the Greek Old Testament.
ccc THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
ancient elements as well. These latter need to be investigated,
and their non-antiochian readings carefully studied, especially in
order to discover evidence that apparently singular readings of
the five chief MSS. do not really stand alone, and also to find
out whether any groups in which the minuscules share are of
signal excellence and authority. Here again something may be
recovered from the unexplored resources of minuscules, but the
result will make no revolution in criticism.
In the study of the five chief members of this group, four of
them (BttAC) being the oldest representatives of it, it has appeared
that Codex Vaticanus, when its readings have any other support
within the group of five and when they can be tested by internal
evidence, is generally right. Consequently we are left to follow it
also in those non-singular variant readings where internal evidence
gives little or no aid. But when B stands alone, or with very
weak support, it seems to be more often wrong than right. The
main labour in the actual construction of a text of Acts from the
materials at present available will consist in the comparison of the
readings of BtfAC 81 in the moderate number of instances in
which they depart from one another, and especially in those
cases in which two or three of them agree in their support of a
variant. When one of the four ttAC 81 goes its own way, its
variant reading hardly ever commends itself for acceptance.
The result of such a procedure will be a text more like Codex
Vaticanus than like any other single MS., but it will depart from
B at many points. The preservation in this codex of a text so
little retouched and representing so excellent an exemplar of the
earliest period is a piece of good fortune which could not have
been anticipated, but which in view of all that we know of the
history is entirely comprehensible. The view that B has this
superior character requires no incredible assumptions. In spite
of the best critical efforts the result of the process of criticism
here indicated will include erroneous readings which we have no
means of detecting, but if Codex Vaticanus had not been
preserved the number of these would have been still greater.
THE METHOD OF CRITICISM ccci
The conclusions thus arrived at are substantially those of Von
Westcott and Hort, whose text, however, seems to the present method.
writer to follow B too closely in readings where B stands alone, and
to neglect some few indications of better readings which can be
derived from Western evidence. The method of von Soden,
who tried to determine the three texts of Alexandria (Hesychius),
Eusebius, and Lucian, and then treated these three as independent
of one another, so that the vote of any two of them was to be
taken as decisive for their underlying earlier common base, seems
to me an untrustworthy guide, although it has led to a result not
very different from that produced by what appears a sounder
process. The fundamental defects of von Soden s method are
two : (1) He failed to treat the second-century Western text
as a real thing, to be reconstructed from all the evidence, and
missed the true character of the I-codices (Eusebian ?) as including
a mixture of two elements ( Western and Old Uncial ), both
very ancient but quite disparate. In consequence his mode of
using the I-text is misleading. What his I-text really gives is
(a) evidence as to the Western rewriting, often of unique value ;
(6) evidence of ancient non-western readings which represent a
lost MS. or MSS. of uncertain age, parallel to the Old Uncial codices,
but not necessarily independent of their text. (2) He aimed to
treat the Antiochian text as representing an ancient type equal in
weight to the old Alexandrian and the Eusebian. But here again
his authority is mixed, containing in fact not only original and
authentic readings but also a Western strain and a new
Lucianic element, and these untrustworthy components can be
excluded from consideration chiefly by noting agreements of the
Antiochian text with the Old Uncials. Even if ancient Antiochian
readings departing from all, or from one sub-group, of the Old
Uncials can sometimes be identified, these merely represent a lost
second-century or third-century MS. parallel to the (somewhat
younger) Old Uncial codices, not necessarily independent of their
text, and by no means necessarily better. Such readings merely
signify that another important Old Uncial witness has been added
cccii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
to our resources, to be treated in just the same way as the several
witnesses to the Old Uncial text already at the disposal of
criticism, and with no greater reverence than is accorded to these
latter. The study of the extant Old Uncials shows that von
Soden s assumption of a single Alexandrian recension, which we
can reconstruct from divergent witnesses, is a fallacy. What we
have to do is to recover as many second-century readings, not due
to the Western rewriting, as we can, and to compare them with
one another. The double assumption underlying von Soden s
system was that all the extant Old Uncials are derived from a
particular form of the second-century text, and that the ancient
Antiochian text rested on a MS. independent of that particular
form : and this twofold assumption cannot safely be made.
8. TASKS
IN the preparation of an Essay like the present many topics
arise on which the necessary information for a statement of the
facts is not available, and many questions occur to which an
answer would be desirable. In a large proportion of these
problems a solution could be reached by sufficient expenditure of
time and effort. Some of the problems are comprehensive, and
require long research and all the resources of matured knowledge
and judgment, others are of limited range and would form good
tasks for the training of younger scholars. A service may
perhaps be rendered by the following list of tasks to the perform
ance of some of which it is hoped that this volume will prove an
incentive. The list is extensive, but makes no claim to com
pleteness. It would be gratifying if the present work could be
followed by a series of studies, longer and shorter, dealing with
further problems of the text of Acts, by many hands and in
various languages, and it is my confident expectation that in
one form or another provision could be made for the publication
of such supplementary studies.
I. GREEK CODICES AND TEXTS
1. A renewed and thorough general study, with the aid of
modern palaeographical, and especially philological, knowledge
of each of the uncials BtfAC. This is peculiarly needed for Codex
Alexandrinus, but equally for Codex Vaticanus.
2. The correctors of K and the aims and standards of their
work.
3. The singular readings of sAC 81.
ccciii
ccciv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
4. A more thorough investigation of the readings of the
Old Uncial sub-groups, including the testimony of Cod. 1175
(Patmos), 33 (formerly 13 ; Paris), 326 (formerly 33 ; Lincoln
College, Oxford).
5. The group ttA 81 ; why does it so often oppose BC, and
why is it so often in agreement with the Antiochian ?
6. In general, all the questions relating to the Old Uncial text
of Acts raised and discussed in the foregoing Essay need to be
more thoroughly examined, with such a fresh assemblage of the
facts as can easily be made from the present volume.
7. Thorough palaeographical, and especially philological, study
of Codex Bezae, and particularly a definitive examination of the
corrections and notes of that codex.
8. The non-western readings now found in D ; from what
type of text were these derived ?
9. How much of the text of D is probably in fact due to the
influence of the Latin parallel, and how much of the supposed
latinization must be regarded as doubtful ?
10. Study of the I-codices, in groups containing many or few.
Photographs of most of these can easily be obtained.
11. From these I-codices, as now known in published appar
atus, a full (not necessarily perfectly complete) assemblage of
the Greek Western fragments that can be identified, using as
criteria the approximate agreement of readings with D, with the
Harclean apparatus, and with the Old Latin, Peshitto, and
Sahidic, as well as their internal character. This is greatly
needed as a check on the evidence of D, and for confirmation and
improvement of the Western text printed by Zahn.
12. A closer detailed search in the Western text for the
indication of the readings of its ancient pre- western base.
13. The exploration of the * Western text for instances of
knowledge of Hebrew or of Palestinian conditions.
14. The character of the Old Antiochian text used as the basis
of the Lucianic recension. What were the relations of its Old
Uncial element to the several extant MSS. of the Old Uncial group?
TASKS cccv
15. In general, a thorough analysis of the Antiochian recension
n Acts.
16. The history of the text of Acts as found in Greek
ectionaries ; and the same for Latin lectionaries.
17. A study of the forms and spelling of proper names in the
Carious types of New Testament text, with tabulation of facts
j bserved, and with use of recent studies of the proper names of
[he LXX.
18. The ever-recurring problem of Euthalius and his text.
19. The prefaces to Acts, including that published by E. von
obschiitz in the American Journal of Theology, vol. n., 1898,
p. 353-387.
II. VERSIONS
20. Does the African Latin in Acts show any relation to the
.ntiochian recension, as it does in some Old Testament books ?
21. A complete investigation of the Greek text of Acts
^presented by Codex Gigas.
22. Does the Greek text of the Western element in the
sxt of Gigas differ at all from the Greek source of the African
atin?
23. A study of the relation of the Latin translations of the
ospels to the translations of Acts, especially with relation to
odex Gigas.
24. The Armenian version and the Greek text underly-
it.
25. A detailed and complete study of the Peshitto of Acts.
26. The text (in distinction from the apparatus) of the
arclean Syriac. This ought to elicit some Western readings
unarked with an asterisk and overlooked in the apparatus to
e present volume.
27. The Georgian version and its underlying Greek.
28. The Ethiopic version (first of all with use of the oldest
iris MS.) and its underlving Greek.
29. The Old Bohemian version and its Western elements.
VOL. Ill u
cccvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
III. PATRISTIC PROBLEMS
30. The text of Chrysostom in Acts.
31. The text of other Greek fathers of the fourth and sub
sequent centuries.
32. Examination of the relation of the Didascalia and Apos
tolic Constitutions for the text of other books in the light of the
observations presented above relating to the text of Acts.
33. The text of Augustine. (The index to the Vienna edition
of the Epistolae now furnishes new resources.)
34. The history of the Latin text of Acts as illustrated by
Latin fathers after Cyprian.
EXPLANATORY NOTE TO TEXT, APPARATUS,
AND TEXTUAL NOTES
THE text of the Book of Acts is printed below from Codex Vaticanus
and Codex Bezae on opposite pages. The apparatus attached to
these continuous texts is not intended to provide a complete state
ment of all known various readings, but is rather regarded as a
series of textual investigations, made on the basis of the well-known
comprehensive collections of readings, together with some parts of
the evidence for the Western text which can with advantage be
separately exhibited in this manner. The arrangement of the whole
| and the judgment in details, especially in the omission of certain
i classes of facts, have been guided by the purpose of providing means
for historical study and for criticism of the text ; purely linguistic
or palaeographical ends have sometimes been disregarded. In
accordance with this principle variants of spelling have in most
cases been deliberately neglected in the apparatus, although the
actual spelling of Codices B and D and of the Latin Codices d and
h has been carefully followed in the continuous texts.
1. Codex Vaticanus. The text of Codex Vaticanus has been
supplied with punctuation, capitals, accents, etc., and abbreviations
for nomina sacra and the like have been resolved, so as to form a
readable text, but the spelling as printed is exactly as it comes to
us from the first hand, with the exception of a few changes which
are all carefully indicated. Much of the spelling of Codex B which
looks strange to the modern reader, because it violates the rules
of the later Greek grammarians, consists merely of irregularities
common in the fourth century, which the scribe, if confronted with
them, would probably have been disposed to defend. In certain
instances, however, he has apparently committed indefensible
blunders or omissions. These are corrected in our text (angular
brackets [ < > ] being used to indicate omissions supplied), and a very
few changes of spelling have been made (chiefly in cases of confusion
of v and ot) where the irregular spelling is a serious obstacle to
the modern reader s understanding, and would perhaps have been
deemed wrong by a fourth-century corrector if he had noticed it.
cccviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
Twice (xviii. 2 /cAauSiov ; xxv. 24 fyv) whole words necessary
to the sense were omitted. In the few cases (less than twenty-five in
the whole of Acts) where blunders not by omission have been observed
and are corrected in the text, the reading of the MS. is recorded in the
line immediately following the text. The insignificant number of
such instances will indicate the conservative practice of the editor in
making corrections, as well as in adding letters in the text, and itself
attests the care and intelligence with which the codex was written.
About half of the blunders thus noted are actually corrected in the
MS. by B 1 or B 2 . and some of these corrections ought probably to
be credited to the account of the original scribe. Readings manifestly
wrong but which make sense are retained in the text, as in x. 37
KrjpLyfjia for /SaTrrtoyxa, although in this particular instance the
spelling of the printed text is corrected to read Krjpvyjjia. In proper
names the spelling of the MS. has been given without change, even
when inconsistent with the scribe s usual habit.
Where the first hand of B has corrected his own work, his
corrected form has been adopted. The corrections of B are not at
present satisfactorily understood, and call for a renewed study,
which can only be made from the pages of the MS. itself ; even the
latest facsimile does not suffice for this purpose. Corrections
ascribed to B 3 by the Roman editors have been neglected as too
late to be significant for our purpose, but those which they assign to
B 2 (apart from mere spelling) have been mentioned in the apparatus
with the variants of the Old Uncial group. Where Tischendorf s
positive judgment differed from that of the Roman editors with
regard to these corrections, that fact has been noted. It is probable
that in some cases a competent fresh study of the corrections would
lead to different conclusions from those now current.
The division into verses has been made to correspond with that
of Stephen s edition of 1551.
It should be observed that the method of printing the text of
Codex Vaticanus here adopted, while deemed useful for study and
well adapted to the present purpose, is not recommended as a good
way to prepare a critical text for general use.
2. Editors Readings. In the first section of the apparatus are
noted those readings of Westcott and Hort ( WH ) and von Soden
( Soden ) which depart from B. The former give virtually the
minimum of necessary departure from B ; while the text represented
by the latter was formed on a different principle from that of I
Westcott and Hort, and of its relation to Westcott and Hort s text
no full statement is elsewhere accessible. To these has been added I
(with the symbol JHR ) mention of readings in departure from B I
which commend themselves to the author of the present volume j
(not necessarily, however, to the Editors of The Beginnings of]
EXPLANATORY NOTE cccix
Christianity}. This last series of readings is not sufficient for the
formation of a critical text, for which many further questions of
spelling, punctuation, etc., would have to be taken into account.
The confidence with which the preferences are offered varies greatly
in the different cases, as will be gathered from the Textual Notes in
which many of them are discussed. Those not referred to in the
Notes are usually cases where B stands alone, with little or no support
from other authorities.
For a new critical text the time will not be ripe until the
I-codices 1 are more completely known and studied, and until
the versions have been exhaustively compared and investigated.
The only other recent independent text which might have been
included in this portion of the apparatus is that of Bernhard Weiss,
in Texte und Untersuchungen, ix., 1893. But this rests on principles
not essentially different from those of Westcott and Hort, and is
easily accessible in the apparatus to Nestle s edition of the New
Testament, so that it seemed best not to make the apparatus more
complicated by adding a record of Weiss s departures from B.
3. Old Uncial Text. The second section of the apparatus records
the variants from B of the group of codices NAG 81, together with
the corrections ascribed to B 1 and B 2 and the variants of those
small fragments (see pp. ccx ff.) which clearly represent this type of
text. The fragments included are Pap 8 , Pap 33 , 066, 076, 095, 096,
0165, 0175, Wess 59c . The relation of these readings to Codex Bezae
is added, with ( + D) to denote complete, and (cf. D) to indicate
substantial, agreement. But it must be remembered that these
statements of relation to D include only cases where the Old Uncial
authorities are divided by a variation within the group. Agree
ment of D with the whole group is not recorded here. The variants
of N AC 81 and of the fragments are given completely, except that
manifest blunders (e.g. xiii. 13 VTrecrrpei/jav K ; xiv. 10 opdpos A ;
i. 21 rjjjLtov for ^jatv C ; xi. 12 enrov for eirrev 81) are usually omitted
and variations of mere spelling and grammatical form (e.g. CLTTOV,
eiTra ; 7r\iovs, 7T\Lovs) consistently neglected. Thus in numerous
cases the characteristic habit of the scribe of 81 of adding -v to the
accusative (e.g. xiv. 12 Stav for Sia) is not mentioned.
In some cases it has been necessary, for the sake of simplicity
and clearness, to treat a group of codices as united in the support
of a variant where in fact there are among them slight differences
of spelling which are not mentioned (e.g. xvi. 25 creiAas- BtfA 81
o diAas C merely means that BtfA 81 agree in lacking the article ;
in fact B spells the name here creiAas 1 , KA aiAa?). In general the
spelling followed in this portion of the apparatus is that of B, and
1 As von Soden states (pp. 1686-1688), his collation of these codices was
only partial.
cccx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
cannot be relied on as indicating the spelling of the other MSS. of
the group, save where for some special reason that is noted. In all
these matters it has been kept in view that this is an investigation.
not a comprehensive apparatus like that of Tischendorf, and that
this aim dictates the greatest simplicity compatible with full in
formation. I do not think that these omissions need cause the-
student to distrust the apparatus as an instrument for the purpose
for which it is constructed.
The earliest corrections of the codices of the group are given
(K a N C A 2 C 2 ), but not the later ones ; corrections by the first hand are
adopted, without special mention, as the reading of the MS. (e.g.
xvii. 24, where A* at first omitted o before TroiTjcras and then
supplied it). It is not impossible that K a represents corrections
made by the original scribe. The complicated possibilities in the
case of corrections can be but imperfectly exhibited in an apparatus
like the present one.
Codex 33 (formerly 13) might have been included with the Old
Uncial group, but its text is much more diluted with Antiochian
readings than that of 81, and it is easily accessible in Tregelles. It
has accordingly seemed best to avoid a further complication of this
apparatus by an addition which would have made necessary the
mention of many irrelevant readings.
The apparatus relates to the text of B as printed, without usually
making reference (except in recording corrections of B 1 and B 2 ) to
the blunders mentioned in the line below the text or to the omitted
letters supplied in the text.
4. Antiochian Text. The section of the apparatus giving the
readings in which the Antiochian text departs from Codex Vaticanus
is constructed on the same plan as the Old Uncial section, and the
same warnings apply as to its limitations and its use. Here, as
there, blunders are generally not mentioned, spelling is not usually
recorded, and the basis of comparison is the slightly corrected form
of Codex Vaticanus as printed on the page. The MSS. chosen as
witnesses to the Antiochian text (see pp. xx-xxi) are SHLP. The
readings of S have been drawn from a photograph, 1 those of P
from Tischendorf s edition. H and L are accurately known from
Tischendorf and Tregelles. The readings of the sixth-century
fragment 093 (Acts xxiv. 22-26, 27) are also included. In Acts i. 1-
ii. 13, where P is lacking, the readings of 102 are given ; and in
i. 1-v. 28, where H is lacking, those of 462. These two minuscules
are excellent copies of the same recension as SHLP, and are
1 Unfortunately the MS. is mutilated in Acts i. 11-14, xii. 15-19, xiii. 1-3,
and the photograph was illegible in a very few words elsewhere. In S a few
corrections are to be found, which have not usually been mentioned in the
apparatus. S shows a tendency to omit final -y, writing, for instance,
for r)fj.epav.
EXPLANATORY NOTE cccxi
adequately known from the apparatus of Matthai s New Testament
(Riga, 1782). H is also defective in various other briefer sections
(see above, pp. xx-xxi) ; as is L in i. 1-viii. 10 (as far as ZCFTW 17). The
extraordinary uniformity, however, with which the Antiochian text
was copied for many centuries renders of little moment this variation
in the attestation used for the apparatus. In this apparatus silence
of course means agreement with my (slightly corrected) printed text
of Codex Vaticanus, in so far as the witnesses regularly adduced for
the Antiochian text are extant.
For convenience of comparison the variants from B of the Textus
Receptus are included in this section of the apparatus with the
symbol r , although they do not represent the precise type of
SHLP. The text used for collation is that of Stephanus, 1550, as
given in Scrivener s New Testament, 4th edition, London and
Cambridge, 1906.
5. Codex Bezae (Greek). In printing the Greek text of Codex
Bezae the same principles have been followed as with Codex
Vaticanus. The manifest blunders, however, corrected in the text
but recorded in the lines immediately following it, are far more
numerous. As in the case of Codex Vaticanus the course pursued
has been highly, perhaps excessively, conservative. Many readings
which are undoubtedly wrong, including most of those due to the
adjustment of the Greek to the Latin side, have been permitted to
stand, on the ground that although contrary to Greek idiom they
do not produce utter nonsense. In a number of cases (some being
due to the contamination of D from a non-western text) impos
sible readings, mostly cases where the correction is not at first sight
evident, have been permitted to stand in the text, but with an
obelus (j"). The number of such obeli might perhaps have been
made greater with advantage. The spelling of Codex Bezae has
been carefully preserved except where changes are expressly noted.
In many of his aberrations the scribe was doubtless following faith
fully the archaic text of his exemplar, but in some cases, especially
in inflexional endings, his spelling is so disturbing to the modern
reader that it seemed worth while to emend it (never without due
notice). Letters which presumably once stood in the text, but are
no longer legible, either through accident or by intentional erasure,
are enclosed in square brackets []. For this the statements of
Scrivener s notes have been carefully studied. These are to be
carefully distinguished from omitted necessary letters which never
stood in the text of the MS. but have been added in angular
brackets < > . Abbreviations are generally resolved without
special note. Interlinear letters apparently by the original scribe
and printed by Scrivener have been adopted as a proper part of
the text ; the corrections of later scribes are not referred to. The
cccxii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
peculiarities of Codex Bezae are extensively discussed in the Textual
Notes.
Where Codex Bezae is defective, such Greek readings as can be
shown to be probably variations of the Western text from the
Old Uncial text have been collected and printed. This material has
been drawn mainly from minuscules, but occasionally from the
Antiochian uncials, from Pap 29 KAC, and from Greek patristic
citations. In this way, where D is lacking, an unexpectedly large
part of the Greek text of specifically Western readings attested
by the Latin side of D, by h, by Tertullian, Cyprian, and Irenaeus,
and especially by the marginal glosses and asterisked words of
the Harclean Syriac, has been recovered. All discoverable Greek
readings which are attested, as just stated, by these almost or
quite purely Western witnesses have been printed for the sections
in question. In addition, for these sections, search has been made
in the minuscules, as cited by von Soden, for Greek readings which
the mixed texts of the Latin and the Peshitto show to be probably
Western , and this search has not been unfruitful for these pages.
Probably more remains to be gathered, especially by further elicit
ing the Western element of the Antiochian text through careful
comparison with the Latin, Syriac, and Sahidic versions. It is
evident that a great amount of Western text lurks in the minus
cules of the I-groups, now made in a large degree accessible by the
apparatus of von Soden, and much of it can be securely discovered
by skilful comparison of the versions named, together with the
Armenian, which I have not used. The same process ought also
to be applied to the Greek text of Codex Bezae itself, in order now
to confirm and now to forbid the acceptance of it as giving the
Western text. A foundation for such study has been laid in
Zahn s Urausgabe, and many matters of this nature will be found
discussed in my Textual Notes.
In my attempt to collect Western readings in the sections
mentioned I have not paid attention to probable Western
variations in the order of words. It is possible that these can some
times be detected in the minuscules. I have also refrained from
drawing inferences as to Western variants in the more common
conjunctions (/cat, re, Sc), since these are so frequently altered in
the versions.
There is need of a fresh investigation of the extent to which the
Western text in these sections positively agreed with the Old
Uncial text, since only variations from the latter are indicated in the
readings I have given.
The lemmata used to show the points of reference of the variations
are, of course, drawn from the text of Codex Vaticanus.
6. Codex Bezae (Latin). The text of d has been printed with
EXPLANATORY NOTE cccxiii
division of words, but with no attempt to suggest correction of its
errors, and in its native spelling, without resolution of abbreviations,
and without the use of capitals or punctuation to aid the reader.
For the purposes of textual criticism (as distinguished from the
study of the history of the Latin version) d is, in fact, chiefly, though
not quite exclusively, valuable for its aid in understanding the
Greek pages of Codex Bezae. One problem in printing it with
division of words is an occasional haplography, by which a letter
is omitted, thus xi. 23 adnm for ad dnm ; xxii. 20 sanguistephani for
sanguis stephani. A few words once present but now destroyed
have been supplied in square brackets [ ].
7. Western Apparatus. It has not been practicable to print
an apparatus for the Western text similar to those presented for
the Old Uncial and Antiochian texts. All the Greek MSS. which
contain Western elements are highly mixed, and the same is
true of nearly all the Latin texts, as well as of the other versions.
The variants from Codex Vaticanus of the Peshitto and Sahidic
versions have been analysed, and are exhibited in Appendices III.
and IV. To try to select and print the Western readings of
the Old Latin would involve a judgment, often of a doubtful nature,
on every case, and the result would be misleading. The student
must here have recourse for himself to the apparatus of Wordsworth
and White, as he must for the Greek evidence to that of Tischendorf
and of von Soden. Indeed, one object of the plan adopted for the
Western page is to discourage the idea that (except h) any single
Latin MS. of Acts, such as gig, can be treated as if it could give by
itself, apart from comparison with other authorities, direct evidence
of the * Western text. The student must consider, as the Western
evidence, nothing less than the whole apparatus of Wordsworth and
White, together with the versions in other languages.
In default, therefore, of pure Western Greek and Latin MSS.
(other than h) it has seemed well to bring together some of the chief
evidence of other kinds which can be trusted. This is the more
useful that a part of it is not elsewhere so conveniently accessible in
a simple form.
8. Codex h. Codex h (the Fleury palimpsest) is virtually purely
Western in its fragments of Acts. First deciphered by Berger,
then more fully by Buchanan with the advantage of Berger s previous
reading, again examined a second time by Buchanan and inspected
at doubtful points by other scholars, the text of this difficult
palimpsest is even now not known with perfect certainty, although
there is agreement as to most of its readings (see above, pp. cvi-viii).
In every line, moreover, the trimming of the pages makes supple
mentary conjecture necessary. The text printed below has been
formed by careful consideration of the probabilities furnished by
cccxiv THE BEGINNINGS OF CHKISTIANITY
all the available evidence. Words and letters in square brackets [ ]
are conjectures to fill the lacunae of the MS. ; for these Buchanan s
proposals have usually, but not always, been found acceptable.
Mention should be made of Souter s happy conjecture co[nsecutus]
in xxvi. 22. Where the conjectures adopted are not obvious, the
reader must weigh them for himself. The more difficult conjec
tures are often mentioned in the Notes. In a few instances an
erroneous letter cancelled, probably by the first hand, in the MS.
has been omitted from a word, but otherwise the spelling of the MS.,
however strange, has been preserved. The sporadic punctuation of
the MS. has not usually been reproduced.
It is worth mention that the readings of h in Wordsworth and
White were necessarily drawn from Berger, and that von Soden
follows them in neglect of Buchanan s publication.
The following substantial differences between the readings and
conjectures of Buchanan and of Berger deserve mention. Some of
the readings here attributed to Buchanan are those of his later
correction (see above, p. cvi note 2), not of his edition. Many
differences not here noted are due to the fact that Buchanan was
able to read much more than Berger could do ; in such cases Berger s
conjectures have usually been confirmed. For the study of minor
details of spelling, where Berger and Buchanan differ in their reading,
the information given in the present volume is not sufficient and
recourse must be had to the original publications. Buchanan also
reports the corrections by various hands now found in the MS.
CODEX h
BERGER BUCHANAN
iii. 4 ad[stans dixit] adspic[e inquit]
12 dixit et dixit
14 et petistis et vos petestis
15 [autem vitae lign]o autem vi[tae sjuspendentes occidistis
[intere]m[istis]
16 supe[r] supra
22 [me ipsujm [au]di[etis] me eum vos audituri
24 [et per] [et pro]
iv. 3 tenuerunt et tenuerunt
9 [hodie] rogamus [hodie interjrogamus
14 agnosce[bant e]os agnosce[bant e]is
15 [adsejcuti [conlojcuti
17 [dentu]r [divulgentu]r
v. 26 n[on] n[on vero]
29 ad il[los] ad a [him]
34 mi[nimum d]uci mi[nistris d]uci
41 e [conspectu] et conspe[ctu]
42 a[utem] atquae
EXPLANATORY NOTE
cccxv
BERGER BUCHANAN
discupierentur
discentiu[m valde]
fid[em]
[plebe]m
[quies]cit
[qui er]ant
[pa]vore
tridum nihil
respon[dens ait i]ta
tintus
uti victos
civitates sicut ihs dixerat eis LX[XII
in lys]tra
ut motum
languid [us pedibus]
[ti]morem hio
apostolos in[cipientes]
salvaretur clamans dixit ei
amvula et ille infirmus
et turbae videntes quod fe[cit]
[mer]curium quoniam ipse eratprinceps
verborum et [ad portam]
suum vestimentum accurrentes
[ut con]vertamini
[int]estabilem
[illis ho]minib-
[cum disce]ssisset
fier[et verbum]
[nationes]
[quomodo mult]a
[cecid]erunt
rogamus vos
[apud om]nes
exclamavit
[qui] ita
lege[tes cret]en devenimus
plures
[dum flat]
In xxvii. 7 Buchanan, in his final judgment, reads aliquos [dies],
agreeing with Berger s original reading (from which, however, at
the suggestion of Corssen, Berger afterward receded). Burkitt,
however, after examining the MS., is sure that it reads aliquod
\tempus}.
vi. 1
d [espicer]entur
7
discentiu[m nimis]
7
[f]id[ei]
12
[populu]m
13
[defi]cit
15
[qui sedeb]ant
ix. 4
[. .]vere
9
triduum n[o]n
10
respon[dit quis] e[s]
18
untus
21
ut finctos
xiv. 6
civita[tes lys]tra
7
et motum
8
in[validus pedibus]
8-9
[ti]more[m di] hie
9
[paulum incipientem]
9-10
sal[varet eu]m di[xit]
10
am[bula] et con[festim]
11
[turbae autem videntes]
q[uae fecit]
12-13
[mer]curiu[m sacerdos
autem jo vis qui] in
[p]or[ticu] ci[vitatis]
14
silf.., ..Is
15
[con]vertamini
17
[invi]sibileia
19
[illos ho]mines
20
[cum surre]ssisset
xviii. 5
fier[ent verba]
6
[gentes]
8
[cum multus]
17
[percuss]erunt
xxiii. 15
rogamus [uti]
19
[ante homi]nes
xxvi. 24
[et c]lamavit
28
[agri]ppa
xxvii. 8
lege[bamus u]nde
venimus
9
paucos
13
[cum flaret]
cccxvi THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
9. Tertullian ; Irenaeus ; Cyprian ; Augustine. In the passages
cited from the church fathers those words which are not part of the
quoted text of Acts are enclosed in square brackets.
The text of TERTULLIAN used is that of the Vienna Corpus
so far as it is available, elsewhere that of Oehler. The mere
allusions of Tertullian have not been given ; for them recourse
must be had to Ronsch, Das Neue Testament Tertullian s, 1871.
For IRENAEUS the courtesy of the publishers and editor of Novum
Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, Oxford, 1923, has permitted the use
of the text contained in that volume. Greek fragments are quoted,
so far as extant, in addition to the Latin. For renderings of the
Armenian text of Irenaeus s quotations from Acts, see Conybeare in
Novum Testamentum Sancti Irenaei, pp. 270 f., 288. A few brief
allusions by Irenaeus (e.g. v. 32, 2 to Acts vii. 5), chiefly significant
for the Latin words used and not for the Greek text rendered, have
not been included in my notes. The references to chapters and
sections of Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, are in accord with the
editions of Massuet and of Stieren, but the enumeration of Harvey s
edition, when divergent, is added in parenthesis.
The text of the quotations from CYPRIAN is taken from Hartel s
edition in the Vienna Corpus with further correction in the Testimonia
from the readings of Codex L as given by Hartel. In Acts i. 1-ii. 11,
by an error of judgment on my part, the quotations made by Cyprian
are not adduced in full, but only the important variants of his text
given as footnotes to the text cited by Augustine, with which
Cyprian s quotations are nearly identical. The full passages from
Cyprian are as follows :
Acts i. 7 (Testimonia iii. 89) nemo potest cognoscere tempus aut
tempora quae pater posuit in sua potestate.
i. 14 (De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 25 ; also De dominica oratione 8)
et erant perseverantes omnes unanimes in oratione cum
mulieribus et Maria quae fuerat mater Jesu et fratribus ejus.
i. 15 (Epist. 67, 4) surrexit [inquit] Petrus in medio discentium,
fuit autem turba in uno.
ii. 2-4 (Testimonia iii. 101) et factus est subito de caelo sonus,
quasi ferretur flatus vehemens, et inplevit totum locum
ilium in quo erant sedentes. et visae sunt illis linguae
divisae quasi ignis, qui et insedit in unumquemque illorum.
et inpleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto.
From AUGUSTINE, De actis cum Felice Manichaeo i. 4-5, Acts i. 1-
ii. 11 is cited, with the variants found in the corresponding quotations
from Acts in De consensu evangelistarum iv. 8 and Contra epistolam
Manichaei quam vacant Fundamenti 9, together with Acts ii. 12-13
from this last treatise. There are other passages in Augustine s
EXPLANATORY NOTE cccxvii
writings where the African Latin of Acts is cited (see Zahn, Urausgabe,
passim), but no discriminating study of his quotations has ever been
made which could sufficiently guide use of them in the present
volume. They appear to vary in character in the different works,
and sometimes to have been made from memory, sometimes per
haps from, or under the influence of, the Vulgate. The Vienna
edition of Augustine has been used.
10. Harclean Syriac. From the Harclean Syriac the greater
part of the marginal glosses and all words under asterisk (with a few
obelized words) are reproduced in the apparatus. The aim has been to
record all the renderings of the Harclean apparatus which represent
variant Greek readings. In addition, such renderings of Western
readings as have been noticed in the Harclean text, not marked
by an asterisk, are given. Of this class others which have escaped
observation and record here are undoubtedly to be gathered, recog
nizable in their Antiochian surroundings. Marginal glosses have
been omitted which merely reproduce the Old Testament quotations
(as in i. 20), or are of an exegetical nature, or relate only to a difference
in the Syriac rendering of the same Greek word (e.g. viii. 40, xxiii. 7),
but all these together are not numerous. Two longer notes will be
found quoted in full above, p. clxiv.
The Greek lemmata to which the translations of the glosses,
etc., are here attached, are drawn, so far as possible, from the text
of Codex Bezae or of the Greek Western fragments printed at the
top of the page ; in a few cases it has been necessary to use lemmata
from the text of Codex Vaticanus. The point of attachment is
not always the same as that indicated in the Harclean MS., in which
some manifest errors of attachment have been committed.
The rendering of the Syriac is based on that of White, but has
been carefully revised and corrected. The departures from White s
Latin are intentional. It should be observed that ipse and ille are
used for the Syriac pronoun which represents the Greek article.
11. Textual Notes. In the Textual Notes many problems and
difficulties which I should have liked to resolve will be found left
without a Note because I had nothing to contribute to the illumina
tion of them. Discussion is offered of many of the readings in which,
in my judgment, Codex Vaticanus goes wrong, but usually not of
those where B stands with no, or almost no, support from other
witnesses. In the latter class of instances all that could be said
would have amounted but to a bare statement of the fact, which
will be already familiar to the student of the text for whom the
Notes are designed.
In general I have tried to avoid burdening the Notes with obvious
remarks leading to no conclusion. The manifest differences between
the two great types of text are better studied in continuous texts
cccxviii THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
than in notes ; and it is from the whole body of facts that every
student must make up his mind as to the general superiority of one
or the other type, or as to their equal authority. Consequently no
attempt has been made to give a complete running commentary on
the successive details of variation of D from B. A large proportion
of the Notes, however, discuss the more difficult readings of Codex
Bezae, especially where the evidence adduced from other Western
witnesses furnishes a more trustworthy guide to the proper Western
readings than does D. A selection of such evidence, not a complete
array, especially from the Latin authorities, is often sufficient to
produce conviction, and that is all that has been attempted.
In citing the testimony of the Old Uncial group, Codex 81 is often
not mentioned in cases where its considerable Antiochian element
renders its testimony suspect.
In the Textual Notes the term B-text has commonly been used
for brevity to refer to the non- western text , without prejudice to
the question of whether the non - western influence upon Codex
Bezae came from the Old Uncial or from the Antiochian form of
that text.
Where the name of a critic is given as holding a certain view, I
mean to indicate that the idea would probably not have occurred
to me independently. Otherwise names are not mentioned except
where a fuller published discussion has to be referred to.
Five longer Detached Notes follow the last chapter of Acts.
ABBREVIATIONS
GREEK codices are consistently referred to by Gregory s later system
(1908). The Psalms are cited by the enumeration and verses
of the Hebrew.
WH Westcott and Hort
Soden Hermann von Soden
JHR James H. Ropes
+ followed by
add adds, add
corr corrector
corr* corrector, identical with the first hand
def is lacking
mg margin
min(n) minuscule(s)
om omits, omit
suppl supplies
txt text
vid apparently
Am. J. Philol. American Journal of Philology
L. and S. Liddell and Scott
St* d K t / Theologische Studien und Kritiken
Tdf Tischendorf
T.U. Texte und Untersuchungen
W.W. Wordsworth and White
Antioch |
Ant /
Antiochian text
text of Stephanus, 1550
cod. ardmach Codex Ardmachanus (the Book of Armagh)
d Codex Bezae (Latin)
e Codex Laudianus (Latin)
gig Codex Gigas
h Fleury palimpsest
latt} Latin texts
CCCX1X
cccxx THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY
m
perp\
P I
r
t
prov
tepl
arm
boh
eth
hcl
pesh
sail
Ambr ^
Ambros/
Ambrst
Athanas
Aug
Chrys
Clem. Alex
Const. Apost
Cypr
Ephr
Ephr. cat
Eus
Hil
Iren
Jer
Lucif
Orig
Perpet
Philast
Prise ^
PriscilU
Prom
Proph )
De Proph /
Rebapt
Salvian
Tert
Vig
Speculum Pseudo-Augustini
Perpignan MS.
Schlettstadt lectionary
Liber comicus (Toledo lectionary)
Vulgate
Wernigerode MS.
Provenal version
Codex Teplensis (German)
Armenian version
Bohairic version
Ethiopia version
Harclean Syriac version
Peshitto
Sahidic version
Ambrose
Ambrosiaster
Athanasius
Augustine
Chrysostom
Clement of Alexandria
Constitutiones Apostolorum
Cyprian
Ephrem
Ephrem s Catena on Acts
Eusebius
Hilary
Irenaeus
Jerome
Lucifer of Cagliari
Origen
Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas
Philastrius of Brescia
Priscillian
Liber promissionum et praedictorum dei
Prophetiae ex omnibus libris collectae
De Rebaptismate (Cyprianic Appendix)
Salvianus
Tertullian
Ps.-Vigilius, Contra Varimadum
TEXT
APPARATUS
TEXTUAL NOTES
VOL. in
CODEX VATICANUS
nPASEIL
T6v LLev TrpajTOV \6yov eiroiTjcrdfJi rjv irepi
a>v jjpgaro lyaovs Trotetv re /cat StSacr/cetv | a^pi rjs rjfJiepas eV- 2
rots aTroordAots 1 Std TTV^V^JLOLTOS ayt ou ous- e^cAe^aro
ols /cat Trapearrjaev lavrov towa /zero, TO TraGelv 3
i> TroAAot? re/c/A^ptots", St* rjfiepajv recraepaKOVTa OTTTOVO-
avTols /cat Aeycov ret Trept rijs" ^aortActa? TO #eou. /cat 4
owaAto/zei os Trap^yyetAev avrot? avro lepooroAv/Ltcuv
,adai t aAAd Tre/Dt/zeVetv r^v eTrayyeAtav rou Trarpos ty
[i,ov ort Icoav^? )Ltev efioLTTTicrev v Sart, UjLtet? Se ev Trveu/xart 5
2 a,%pt T;S T^epas] ei/ fj/^epa t] JHR ous
om JHR
B( + D) o njcrous KA 81 4 7ra/>?777eiXei> airrots B^s 81 ( + D) avrotj
AC 5 > Tr^en/xart l3aTrTi<rdr]cre(r6e ayiu BK81
ev Tn>v/j,a.TL ayi. co
Editors 1 o ITJCTOUS Soden
om JHR
Old Uncial
Antiochian 1 o i^crous S 462 102 T
5 (SaTrTi<rdr)<T<r6e ev
ayio) S 462 102 T
2 For the conclusion, indicated
above, that the original text of vs. 2
read approximately ev rj^epa rj epreiAa-
/iepos rots a7roo"roXots 5ta Tr^euyuaros
07101; e^eXe^aro see Detached Note,
pp. 256-261.
3 Sict, is represented in ~h.cl.text by
bejad, for which hcLmg gives Vappai.
White notes that the latter preposition
is used in the Harclean text, Mk. xv.
1, Lk. iv. 25, Acts xix. 8, to represent
<?7ri , but it seems more likely that
Vappai was an idiomatic translation of
Sia given as equivalent to the literal
but inappropriate bejad. No Greek
MS. is known to read eirt.
4 Aug. quomodo, referring back to
fed, was perhaps added by translator
(see Detached Note on vs. 2).
<rvva\io/Ji.ej>os] <rvi>av\i ofji,i>os many
minn, including 614, and many patris
tic texts. To this seems to correspond
the use of conversor, Aug perp gig e
vg.codd. Confusion of the two words
was not uncommon in Greek MSS. (cf.
L. and S., s.v. owavX^o/zcu), but the
difficulty and persistent attestation of
<rvva\io/ji.evos here make it more likely
that crvvav\to[ji.evo$ was an alleviation
by conjecture, perhaps regarded as a
mere improvement in spelling.
fj.0v] (frTJfflV did TOV (TTOfJiaTOS /JiOV D
lat may be original, corrected because
of Semitism ; more probably it is an
expansion, ameliorating the transition
to direct discourse and avoiding the
awkward /JLOV, while following the
familiar style of the book (cf. i. 16.
iii. 18, 21, iv. 25, xv. 7, all with per
fectly stable text).
5 D /cat o seems to be error for o KOLL
gig t Hil Aug. contra Pel., c. ep. Fund.,
c. Petit. 32, c. Cresc. ii. 14 (17), etc. ; for a
similar misplacement in D cf. xiv. 38.
Aug. Ep. 265, 3 quotes this passage,
from Iwdvrjs fjAv to TTCIT^/COO-T?}?, sub
stantially as in contra Felicem (except
that he writes baptizabimini instead
of incipietis baptizari), and then pro
ceeds : aliqui autem codices habent
CODEX BEZAE
SIS AnOSTOAHN
1 TOJ> fjiev TTpajTov \6yov 7Toir]ad[jLr]v Trept TTOLVTOJV, aj 0o<tA,
2 a)v rjp^aro I^crou? Trotetv re /cat StSaovcetv | a^pt 77? ^epa? ai>-
\rffJL(/>6r] VTL\dp,vos rots aTTOffToXois Sto, 7TVv^aros dyt ou ovs
3 e^eAe^aro /cat e/ceAeuo*e /c^puorcretv TO euayye Atov of? /cat -zrap-
eoriqazv lavrov fcovTa /xera TO TraOelv avrov ev TroXXols
recraepaKOvra rjjj,pa)v oTrravofjicvos avrols /cat Aeyajv TO,
4 TiJ? /SacrtAetas" TOU ^eou. /cat crwaAtfo/xevos JU-CT auTcuv
auTOts: aTro lepocroAujitcov ^ ^cuptfea^at, aAAa Trept-
^V eVayyeAetai^ TO? rrarpos fjv r)Kovcra<r> ^aiv 8ta
5 crTO/z-aTos" jLtov oTt Icoav^s 1 /xev e/SaTTTtcrev vSaTt, UjLtet? Se
TTvevjjiari ayta; /3a7TTi<j6ij<jec70 f /cat o"j" /LteAAcTe Aa/xjSavetv ou
3 OTTTavo/xevot? ra] ras 4 <rvvaAt<TKO/zevos
5
1 primum quidem sermonem feci de omnibus o theofile quae incoavit ihs facere d
et docere 2 usque in eum diem quern susceptus est quo praecepit apostolis
per spm sanctum quos elegit et praecepit praedicare evangelium 3 quibus et
praesentiam se vivum postquam passus est in multis argumentis post dies quadraginta
apparens eis et narrans ea quae sunt de regno di 4 et simul convivens cum eis
praecepit eis ab hierosolymis non discedere sed expectare pollicitationem patris quam
audistis de ore meo 5 quia Johannes quidem baptizavit aqua vos autem spo sancto
baptizamini et eum accipere habetis non potest multos hos dies usque ad pentecosten
1 primum quidem sermonem feci de omnibus, o Theophile, quae coepit Jesus Augustine,
facere et docere 2 in die quo apostolos elegit per spiritum sanctum et praecepit P*^?^ t " 1
praedicare evangelium, 3 quibus praebuit se vivum post passionem in multis Fund-am. Q;
argumentis dierum visus eis dies quadraginta et docens de regno dei, 4 et Pf ns evv
quomodo conversatus est cum illis, et praecepit eis ne discederent ab Hiero
solymis, sed sustinerent pollicitationem patris, quam audistis, inquit, ex ore
meo ; 5 quoniam Johannes quidem baptizavit aqua, vos autem spiritu
sancto incipietis baptizari, quem et accepturi estis non post multos istos
1 fecimus Fund (cod opt) 2 usque in diem quo Cons et praecepit] mandans
jussit Cons 3 visus est eis per Fund 4 om et 1 Fund (codd)
[2-9 ad quadraginta dies egit docens eos quae docerent. dehinc ordinatis Tertullian,
eis ad officium praedicandi per orbem circumfusa nube in caelum est receptus.] A P l 3- 21
2 ave\T)(jL(f)dri fVTCi\afj.evos . . . Kypvaffeiv TO evayyeXiov] mg assumptus est Harclean
quum praecepisset apostolis quos elegit per spiritum sanctum et praecepit
praedicare evangelium
CODEX VATICANUS
AAa? rauras 1
ytaj ov /zero, Troa? rauras 1 rjfjiepas. o p,ev 6
aweAflcWe? rjpcorajv avrov Aeyovres" Kt pte, et ev rat XP OV V
vra) arroKaQiardveis rr\v fiacnXciav ra> lopaTyA; etTrei rrpos 7
us" Oir\; vfjicov ecrrtv yvaWt XP VOV S *} Kaipovs ovs 6 Trarrjp
e#ero V rfj tSta e^ovcria, dXXd Xrjfju/jecrde ovvapiv 7reX66vros 8
rou ayiov rrvev^aro^ e< v^as, /cat eaeorOe fjiov pdprvpes ev re
lepovcraXrjfJL /cat ei> 7701077 T ?? lo^Saia /cat Za/zapeta /cat ecos
ecrxdrov rfjs y^S 1 - /cat ravra elrraiv avr&v fiXerrovrajv eirrjpdr], 9
/cat ve(/)eXrj imeXapev avrov OLTTO rwv o(f)OaX[j,a)v avra>v. /cat 10
Editors 7 eiTrez/] + 5e Sodeii JHR 8
Soden om O.VTWV fi\eirovTUv JHR
2] WH
9 fi\iroi>TUv avrtijv WH
Old Uncial 6 ffviteXdovres BACK C 81 ( + D) eAtfojrres N ypwrwv B^AC
81 ( + D) 7 etTre^ B + ow B 2 vid (B 3 Tdf) + 5e i<A 81 o 5e eiTrej/ C
8 AIOU BKAC( + D) fioi 81 ei/ 2 BK omAC81( + D)
BACK 81 enrovruv K avruv fiXetrovTUv B fiKeirovTwv avruv KAC 81
Antiochian 6 ^pwrwv]
8 AH S462 102 r
S 462 102 S~( + D) 7 ei7rev] + 5e S 462 102 r
9 XeirovTuv avruv S 462 1025"
vos autem spiritu sancto incipietis
baptizari ; sed sive dicatur baptizabi-
mini sive dicatur incipietis baptizari
ad rem nihil interest ; nam in quibus-
cumque codicibus inveniuntur bapti-
zabitis aut incipietis baptizare men-
dosi sunt ; qui ex graecis facillime
convincuntur. The difference between
baptizabimini and incipietis baptizari
is probably purely Latin. The active
reading, however, cited by Augustine
might point to a Greek text Iwavtjs
/j.ev e^a-n-Tiffev vdart, v/mei.s 5e ev irvev^ari.
ayiu, with no verb expressed. This
could easily give rise to all the variants,
including the addition of o /ecu /ueAAere
\a/j.paveiv (corrupted in D to /cat o), the
divergent Latin translations, and the
variation in the order of words in the
Greek MSS. : but on the other hand the
omission in the original is inherently
improbable, unless the active verb is
expressly intended ; no Greek evidence
for it exists ; and the various readings
are all susceptible of explanation with
out this supposition. It seems more
likely that the active voice was an
attempt of purely Latin origin to find
here the commission to baptize which
both Luke and Acts lack.
The addition ews TTJS TrevTrjKOffTys D
Aug Ephr (on Eph. iv. 10) sah takes vs.
5 (on Iwctv^s . . . 77/uepas) as parenthe
sis. The text of Ephr and sah, not see
ing this, have inserted but before ewy.
6 For this question the translation :
domine, si in hoc tempore (re)praesen-
taberis, el quando regnum Israel? is
found with slight variation many times
in Augustine (e.g. c. ep. Fund. 9, c.
Gaudentium i. 20 [22], tract, in ev. Joh.
25, 3, tract, in ep. Joh. 10, 9), but not
in c. Pel. 4, nor in most codices of civ.
dei xviii. 53, nor in perp gig. (Ke)prae-
sentaberis ( be restored, be shown ),
of which d restituere is an equivalent,
refers to the Parousia. The cause of
the Latin form of the text would seem
to be that the Semitizing d was mis
understood and taken to mean if (so
in fact Augustine, sermo 265, 2), and
then an apodosis constructed out of
Jesus answer. The expansion appears
only in Latin, although it is possible
that in D the meaningless a?roAcara-
(TTctz eis ets (for dTroKaTaffTadrjffr] ? see
Zahn) and the unique reading TOV
icrpaTjX are due to the modification of
some different earlier text.
7 The asyndetic opening of vs. 7 in
B is without other Greek support. It
is probably due to an accidental
omission, but the striking variations
in the connexion supplied (eiirev 8e, o
5e etTrev, o 5e airoKpideis et-trev, /ecu enrev)
may well point to the fact that the
omission was not peculiar to B.
For ovx vfj,uv . . . Kaipovs Augus
tine in several places gives the trans
lation : nemo potest cognoscere tempus
i CODEX BEZAE
6 TroAAds" TCLVTOLS ^fte/oas" ecus rfjs TrevTrjKoaTrjs. ol jjie
eX66vT6$ 7Tr]pa)Tajv avrov Aeyovres" Ku/>te, el ev rat
7 rovro) OLTTOKaracrrdveLS t et ? t T7 ? v /taertAet av rov ^IcrpaijX; Kal
L7TV TTpOS CLVTOVS Ou% VfJLOtV eOTtf yvaWt yjpOVQVS T) KCLipOVS
8 ovs 6 rrarrjp cOero eV rfj t St a cf ouata, aAAa Xrjfjuffeade
TT\66vTOS TOV CtytOU TTVeVfjiCLTOS Vfids, Kal CreO~de [JLOV
rvpes ev re lepoucraA^yit /cat Trdcrr) rfj Iou8ata /cat Sa/zapta /cat
9 eeos" ecr^arou r^s" y^?. /caura etTroi TOS CLVTOV V<f>eXr] VTre
io avrov , /cat aTT^pOr) GLTTO otyVaAfjiajv avrwv. /cat ws
8
6 hi ergo cum convenissent interrogabant eum dicentes due si in tempore hoc d
restituere reguum istrahel 7 et dixit ad eos non est vestrum scire temper aut
momenta quae pater posuit in sua potestate 8 sed accipietis virtutem cum super-
venerit santus sps super vos et eritis mei testes ad quae hierusalem et omni judaeae
et samaria et usque ad ultimum terrae 9 et cum haec dixisset nubes suscepit eum
et levatus est ab oculis eorum 10 et ut aspicientes eraut in caelo abeunte eo et ecce
dies usque ad pentecosten. 6 illi ergo convenientes interrogabant eum Augustine,
dicentes: domine, si in hoc tempore praesentabis regnum Israhel ? 7 ille j 4 f ^Q^^
autem dixit : nemo potest cognoscere tempus quod pater posuit in sua Fundam. 9
potestate ; 8 sed accipietis virtutem spiritus sancti supervenientem in vos, et
eritis mihi testes apud Hierosolymam et in tota Judaea et Samaria et usque in
totam terrain. 9 cum haec diceret, nubes suscepit eum et sublatus est ab eis.
10 et quomodo contemplantes erant cum iret in caelum, ecce duo viri astabant
6 praesentabis] representaberis et quando Fund 7 tempus] +aut tempora Cypr.test
quod] quae Gypr. test
7 quae pater posuit in sua potestate.
(in other instances, tempora}. The use 8 That the Antiochian JJ.OL for /J.QV
of a single word for xp vov s 77 Katpovs (BKACD) is attested by Aug. c. Pel.,
(attested also by Hilary tempora} he c. ep. Fund. Prom sah may show that
explains (Ep. 197, 1-3), doubtless cor- it comes from the Western text,
rectly, to be due to the lack of For /JLOV cf. xiii. 31, xxii. 20.
Latin synonyms. Cyprian, Test. iii. 9 The Western text seems to have
89, has tempus aut tempora : the read /ecu ravra eiirovros avrov ve(pe\tj
Latin ultimately adopted tempora vel VTreXafiev avrov /ecu eir-rjpdri aw avruv.
momenta perp gig t vg. ; see Words- So Aug. contra Pel. (om /cat 1) sah.
worth and White s note. The Syriac Augustine has elsewhere part of the
had the same difficulty, pesh zabna same, and D Prom give slightly modi-
em zabne. tied forms. According to this text the
In Augustine s correspondence with cloud enveloped Jesus, and then, while
Hesychius of Salona (Epp. 197, 198, within it, he was lifted up. The usual
199) the reading nemo potest cognoscere text represents Jesus as rising before
is discussed. This probably im- the disciples view and disappearing
plies ouSeis ovvarai. yvuvai, and that from sight in a cloud in the sky. The
may be the original, corrected in the Western text is doubtless to be dis-
B-text so as to avoid the inclusion credited here as in other free variations,
of Jesus himself in the negation But avrw pXewovruv, which badly over-
(but cf. Mk. xiii. 32) ; more prob- loads the sentence in B, has no equi-
ably, however, it was the paraphrast valent in Dd sah (Aug), and ought
who substituted the direct and plain probably to be omitted. The incon-
ovSas Svvarat, under the influence of gruous OTTO o00aA/xwi of D was added
Mk. xiii. 32. by conflation from the other text.
6 CODEX VATICANUS i
(1)S drevi^ovres rjaav els rov ovpavov rropevopevov avrov, /cat
tSou dvSpes Suo Trapeto-rry/cetcrav avrols ev ecr#7?(7ecret Aeu/cats-, ot n
/cat elrrav "AvSpes- FaAetAatot, rt eartJKare fiXerrovres els rov
ovpavov; ovros 6 Irjaovs 6 dvaXrjfjL(f)dels d^>* vfj,ajv els r<ov> ovpavov
ovrcos eXevaerai 6V rporrov ededaacrde avrov rropevofjievov els
rov ovpavov. rore vrrearpeifsav els lepoucraA^/z, 0.77-0 opovs rov 12
KaXovfjuevov EAattuvos*, o eartv eyyvs ^lepovoraXrjfji aafifidrov
exov oSov. /cat ore elafjXdov, els ro vrrep&ov dvefirjaav ov rjaav 13
Karafievovres, o re Herpos /cat IcodV^s 1 /cat la/ccojSos" /cat Av-
, OtAtTTTro? /cat 0co/>tas , BapdoXofJiaios /cat Ma^^atos",
AA^atou /cat Styitcov o ^rjXajrrjs /cat louSas 1 Ia/cc6/?ou.
ourot rrdvres rjcrav rrpoo-Kaprepovvres 6{jio6vfJiaoov rfj TTpoo-evxfj 14
v yvvai Iv /cat Ma^ota/x rij prjrpl Irjaov /cat OT)V rots
Kat ev rat? rjfiepaLS ravrais dvaaras Herpos ev /xecra; rcDv 15
elrrev (rjv re o^Aos* ovo^drojv erri ro avro cos eKarov
12
Editors 11 jSXeTrovTes] e/i/SXeTrovres Soden om eis rov ovpavov 2 JHR 14 [rou]
1170-01; WH rov irj<rov Soden JHR om <rw 2 Soden 15 cos] wcrei Soden
Old Uncial 11 /SXeTroj/res KB 81 e/x/SXeTroj/res ACtf c ( + D) TOV 2 B 2 13
BAG 81 (cf. D) om K (K c [ + D] inserts before as) o 2 BACK 81 ( + D)
om K 14 TrpoffKapTepovvTes o/modv/uiadov BAC81( + D) ofj,odvfj.a8oi>
/caprepoufres o/j.o6vfjiadov K (N c deletes op.odv[j.a.oov 2) (jLapia/j, B 81
XAC( + D) iijcrov B TOW n)o~ov fc$AC 81 ( + D) (TUP 2 B 81
om KAC( + D) 15 a5eX0uj> BtfAC /xafli/T&w 81 ( + D) re BKA 81
5e C ws B 81 ( + D) axrei NAG
Antiochian 10 fad-r)TL Xev/c?? S 462 102 T( + D) 11 /SXeTrot res] e^XeTro^res S 462
102 <T( + D) eXevo-ercu] + TraXiv 102 (S def) 12 e^wv 102 (S def)
13 avefiyo-av ets TO virepwov 462 102 (S def)5"( + D) ta/fw/3os /cai
462 102 (S def)5~ 14 Trpoo-ei/x^] + /cat TT; 5er)(rei S 462 102 5~
S 462 102 T( + D) TOV 1770-01; S 462 102 5~( + D) 15 a5eX0wj>]
S462 102r( + D)
11 ets TOV ovpavov 2 (after a0 u/xwi>) expressly combated by Ammonius
is probably rightly omitted by D gig (c. 398 A.D. ; in Cramer s Catena).
Aug (Serm. 277, not c. Fel.) Vig. 13 The omission in D of /cat before
12 For o-a/3/Saroi; odov pesh reads Ia/cw/Sos 1 and 2t/ ( ;j is due to the
about seven stadia (shabbetha estad- arrangement of the names in two
wan), sah a journey of seven roads columns.
(not stadia, as commonly cited). The 14 TOV ir)<rov. B s unique omission
very rare Sahidic word rendered of TOV is an error.
road is now known to mean (usually, 15 aeX0cop BNAC has been altered
at least) high road, i.e. 656s, and the in the Western text (D Cypr Aug
translator probably understood the gig p e etc.) to the more common
phrase to mean a week s (o-a/S^Sdrou) designation /xa^rwv (so also 81 and
journey. The Syriac may be somehow Antiochiau). The paraphrast may
due to the same exegesis, which is have deemed a5e\<puv ambiguous, if
CODEX BEZAE 7
els TOV ovpavov Tropevofievov OUTOV, /cat loov avSpes Suo
11 Trapeio-TrJKeiaav avTols ev eorOrjri XevKrj, \ ot /cat elTrav "AvSpes
FaAtAatot, rt earrjKaTe evfiXeTrovTes els TOV ovpavov; OVTOS 6
I^crou? o avaXr]fjL(f)deis a<f) VfjLajv OVTOJS eAeucrerat ov rpoTrov
12 ededo-eade avrov TropevojjLevov els rov ovpavov. rare VTreaTpei/jav
els Eilepov&aXrjiJ, airo opovs TOV KaXovpevov EtXe&vos, o ecrnv
13 eVyi)? lepouaaA^/x crapfiaTOV e%ov ooov. /cat ore
el<s> TO VTrepatov ov rjcrav
o T rierpos" /cat
Eta/cco^o? /cat
/cat
/cat
6 TOV
o ^rjXajTrjs /cat Iotas Ia/ca>/?ou.
14 OVTOL TrdvTes rjcrav irpoctKapTepovvTes 6fJLodvfj,a8ov TTJ
crvv rat? yvvaiiv /cat re/ci/ots" /cat Mapta fj,rjTpi TOV Irjorov /cat
rots dSeA^ot? auroi;.
15 Ev Se rat? rjftepais TavTais avao-Tas 6 HeTpos Iv fJLecra) TO>V
cov eLTrev (TJV yap 6 o%Xos ovo^aTcov evrt TO auro ws p/c)*
13
viri duo adsistebant eis in veste Candida 11 qui et dixerunt viri galilaei qui statis d
aspicientes in caelum iste ihs qui adsumptus est a bobis sic enim veniet quemad-
modmodum vidistis eum euntem in caelum 12 tune reversi sunt hierusalem a monte
qui vocatur oliveti qui est juxta hierusalem sabbati habens iter 13 et cum introissent
ascenderunt in superiora ubi erant commorautes petrus et johannis jacobus et andreas
philippus et thomas bartholomeus et mattheus jacobus alphei simon zelotes et judas
jacobi 14 hi omnes erant perseberantes unanimes in oratione cum mulieribus et
filiis et maria matre ihu et fratribus ejus 15 in diebus his cum surrexisset petrus in
medio discipulorum dixit erat praeterea multitude nonomnium quasi cxx 16 viri
illis in veste alba, 11 qui dixerunt ad eos : viri Galilaei, quid statis respicientes Augustine,
in caelum ? iste Jesus qui adsumptus est in caelum a vobis sic veniet, 9- Felicem
quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in caelum. 12 tune reversi sunt Hiero- Cyprian, De
solymam a monte qui vocatur Eleon, qui est juxta Hierosolymam sabbati nit - 25 1 ^
habens iter. 13 et cum introissent, ascenderunt in superiora, ubi habitabant Ep/67. 4
Petrus et Johannes, Jacobus et Andreas, Philippus et Thomas, Bartholomaeus
et Matthaeus, Jacobus Alphaei et Symon Zelotes et Judas Jacobi. 14 et erant
perseverantes omnes unanimes in orationibus cum mulieribus et Maria quae fuerat
mater Jesu et fratribus ejus. 15 et in diebus illis exurrexit Petrus in medio
discentium, et dixit (fuit autem turba in uno hominum quasi centum viginti) :
14 oratione Cypr (bis) 15 discentium Cypr. ep. 67 dicentium Fel (codd)
13 iaKw/3os o TOV aXtpaiov] Jacobus )< ille ^ Alphaei tovdas laKufiov] Harclean
Judas -x- ille ^ Jacobi 15 Se] mg autem
not misleading (cf. vs. 14). The in chaps, i.-v. makes this variant
striking avoidance of fj.adrjTal else where important.
8
CODEX VATICANUS
rjv 16
- 17
, l8
t/cocrt)* "AvSpes dSeA^ot, eSet TrXrjpcoOrjvcu, rrjv
7TpOL7T TO 1TVVfJLa TO aytOl> OLOL (TTOfJiaTOS AaUtS TTpl
TOV yevojiteVou oS^you rot? avXXapovaw I^crow, 6Vt
T]V V r)fJLlV KOI IAa^V TOV K\7JpOV
OVTOS fJil> OVV KTTJCrGLTO ;CU/HOl> K
/cat TTprjvrjs yevo^evos eAa/CT^crev /zecros 1 , /cat e^e^vdrj TTCLVTO. rd
avTov. /cat yvwaTov eyeVeTO Tracrt rots 1 KOLTOIKOVGW 19
cuore /cA^^vat TO ^ajpiov e/cetvo TT^ 8taAe/CTO>
A/ceASa^Lta^, TOUT ZGTLV "^aypiov at/zaTOS". yey^oaTTTat yd/D 20
PS. ixix. 25 e^ /St)3Aa) ifjaXfjLOJv T^evT^OiJTa} rj eTrauAt? auTou p7jp,os /cat /LtT]
PS. cix. 8 ora> o /caTot/ca)v ev ctuT/J, /car TT)V tTncrKOTTrjv avTov Aa^eVco
Tpos. Set ow TOJV avv.\dovTO)v rjfjuv dvopajv ev TfavTi -^povco a) 21
elcrfjXdev /cat e^fjXdev e< T^/xas o /cupto? I^crot;?, ap^a/xevo? a-Tro 22
Editors
Old Uncial
16 [TOP] irj<Tovj> Soden
19 777] + t5ia Soden
16 iijaow BKAC TOJ* ;<rouv 81 ( + D)
18 TTttJ/ra BKC 81 ( + D) om A
TT; BK( + D) + tfoa B 2 (B 3 Tdf)AC 81
aKe\5a/ma C 20 awrou 1
17 ^ BACK C 81 ( + D) om K
19 /ecu BACN C 81 o /cat K( + D)
B (cf. D)
81
21 a> B^ACSl (cf. D) ev u>
Antiochian jg ypafav] + TavT7]i> S 462 1025~( + D) TOJ/ H/O-OW S 462 102 5~( + D)
17 e^] o-uv S 462 1025" 18 rou /u<70ou 5" 19 T77] + i5ta S 462 102 T
a/ceX5a/Act S4621025~ 19-20 om TOUT eo-ni x w P lov aipa-ros yeypaTrrai. yap
ev S 20 ai/rov 1] avruv S Xa/Sot S 462 102 T 21 w] e/ a> S 462 102 T
18 For Trp-r]vf}3 yevo/j,ei>os Aug. c. _?W.
reads e^ collum sibi alligamt et dejectus
infaciem, a combination with aTrrj^aro
(Matt, xxvii. 6) ; out of this Old Latin
reading vg suspensus may have come.
In place of Trp^j/^s, the Armenian,
followed by the Georgian, has a word
which means swelling out, and F. H.
Chase has presented evidence to show
that this meaning was proper to Trprjvrjs
(cf. Trt/ATr/nj/u and -rrprjOu), and was in-
tended here ; sec especially the Latin
and Armenian versions of Wisdom
iv. 19, and the mediaeval Lexicon of
Zonaras. Ephrem on the Diatessaron
(Matt, xxvii. 5 ; Latin tr., p. 240) and
in the Catena on Acts i. 18 (see below.
p. 391) refers to the same idea, but it
is to be remembered that his Syriac
comes to us through the Armenian.
Euthymius Zigabenus, Comm. on
Matthew (xxvii. 5), quotes in a kind
of paraphrase the latter part of Acts
i. 18, and uses the expression TT/^J/T??
c iTovv TreTrprjfffj^vo$ ; but this is prob-
ably an explanation, not a variant
reading. Nor is Papias s
(in Cramer s Catena on Acts i. 18),
although perhaps due to Acts i. 18,
to be regarded as attesting any textual
variant ever actually read in Acts.
See F. C. Conybeare, Classical Review,
vol. ix, 1895, p. 258 ; Zahn, Forschun-
gen vi, 1900, pp. 153-157, and p. 126,
note 1 ; Urausgabe, pp. 331-332 ; J. R.
Harris, Am. Journal of Theol. vol.
iv, 1900, pp. 490-513 ; F. H. Chase,
Journal of Theol. Studies, vol. xiii,
1912, pp. 278-285, 415 ; Harnack,
Theol. Lit.-Zeitung, 1912, cols. 235 if.;
Torrey, Composition and Date of Acts,
pp. 24 f.
19 While the Aramaic phrase would
be chaqal dema, the usual reading
of the Old Uncial text was probably
ax^XSa/iax KA 81. Old Latin (and
vg) sah (in all known copies) boh like-
wise retained a final guttural. Under
varying degrees of influence from
Aramaic, B reads a/ceX5a/xax ; D areX-
Sai/xax ; Antiochian, with C (cf. pesh
hcl), ct/ceXSa/xa.
CODEX BEZAE 9
16 "AvSpes dSeA</ot, Set TrXrjpajdrjvai TTJV ypa(f>r)V ravrrjv rjv TrpoetTrey
TO TTvevfJia TO ayiov Sta OTo/zaros" AauetS ?rept louSa TOV yevo-
17 [JLevov oorjyov rot? crvXXafiovcrLV TOV I^aow, ort /car^ptfyt^/xeVos 1
1 8 ^v eV ^/xtv, 6s" eAa^e ro> KXfjpov Trjs OiOLKOvias TOLVTTJS. OVTOS
fj,ev ovv KTT}<ja.TO ^copt ov e/c fjiiadov Trjs dSt/cta? OLVTOV, /cat
rrprjvrjs yv6[j,vos e Aa/aycjev /ze oros 1 , /cat eexvdr) rravra ra o-
19 aurou. o /cat y^cocrrov eyevero irdaiv rots 1 /carot/coucrtp
aaA^jit, cScrre KXrjOfjvai TO -%ojpiov e/cetvo rrj 8taAe/cra> aurcuv
20 *A/ceA8atjLta%, TOUT ccrrti/ -^ojpiov at/faros . yeypaTrrat yap eV
aj r\ eVauAt? aurou eprjfjios /cat fj/ff jj 6 /carot/ccDv
eV CLVTTJ,
/cat TT)V 7TL(JK07rrjv avTOV Xa^TOJ crepes .
21 8<et> ow rcDv crvveXdovTCov rjfJLelv dvopcov ev rravTi TCO ^povco u)s
22 clarjXOev /cat e?jX6ev e<^* T^/xas 1 o Kvpios lycrovs Xptcrrd?, ap^a-
20 yevrjOrjTU) ry]
fratres oportet inpleri scripturam hanc quam praedixit sps sanctus per os david de d
juda qui factus est dux hiis qui adpraehenderunt ihm 17 qui adnumeratus erat inter
nos et sortitus fuit sortem ministerium hujus 18 hie ergo possidit praedium ex
mercedem injustitiae suae et pronus factus crepavit medius et effusa sunt omnia
viscera ejus 19 et notum factum est omnibus qui inhabitant hierusalem ita ut
vocetur praedium illud lingua ipsorum aceldemach hoc est praedium sanguinis
20 scriptum est enim in libro psalmorum fiat habitatio eorum deserta et non sit qui
inhabitet in ea et episcopatum illius sumat alius 21 oportet ergo eorum qui venerunt
nobiscum viroru in omni tempore quoniam introibit et exivit ad uos dns ihs xps
16 viri fratres, oportet adinpleri scripturam istam, quam praedixit spiritus Augustine,
sanctus ore sancti David de Juda, qui fuit deductor illorum qui comprehenderunt 9- 4 f ^
Jesum, 17 quoniam adnumeratus erat inter nos, qui habuit sortem hujus
ministerii. 18 hie igitur possedit agrum de mercede injustitiae suae, et collum
sibi alligavit et dejectus in faciem diruptus est medius et effusa sunt omnia
viscera ejus. 19 quod et cognitum factum est omnibus qui inhabitabant
Hierosolymam, ita ut vocaretur ager ille ipsorum lingua Acheldemach, id est
ager sanguinis. 20 scriptum est enim in libro Psalmorum : fiat villa ejus
deserta, et non sit qui inhabitet in ea, et episcopatum ejus accipiat alter.
21 oportet itaque ex his viris qui convenerunt nobiscum in omni tempore quo
introivit super nos et excessit dominus Jesus Christus, 22 incipiens a baptismo
16 viri fratres, oportet impleri scripturam hanc quam praedixit spiritus Irenaeus,
sanctus ore David de Juda, qui factus est dux his qui apprehenderunt Jesum, jjSo^rsL l
17 [uoniam adnumeratus fuit inter nos.
20 fiat habitatio ejus deserta, et non sit qui inhabitet in ea ; et, episcopatum
eius accipiat alter.
20 et episcopatum ejus accipiat alius.
18 TTJS aSuia? avrov] iniquitatis -X- suae v Harclean
10
CODEX VATICANUS
i-n
rov parrriaiJiaros IcodVou eco? rrjs rjfiepas rjs d
fJLaprvpa rfjs dvaardaeajs avrov avv rjfjfiv yeveaQai eva TOVTCDV.
Kal eorrrjcrav ovo, Icocn^ rov KaXov^evov Ba/>cra/?/3dV, os evr- 23
K\TJ6r) *Iovaros, Kal TULadOiav. Kal Trpoaev^djJLevoL elirav 2u 24
KVpL Kapoioyvajcrra irdvrwv, dvdoei^ov ov eeAe a>, e/c rovrajv
ra>v Bvo eva, Xafielv rov rorrov rfjs SiaKovias ravrys Kal drfo- 25
aroXfjs, d(j>* rjs Trapeprj lovoas Tropevdfjvai els TOV rorrov rov
LOLOV. Kal eoajKav K\r]povs avrols, Kal eVeorev o K\fjpos CTTI 26
Ma^^tW, /cat o-vvKari/jr)(f>icrdrj /xera rcov evSe/ca aTrooroAcov.
Kat ev ra> crvv7rXr)povo*6ai rr\v rj^epav rfjs TrevrrjKoo-rrjs II
rjcrav rrdvres o^ov errl TO at)ro, Kal eyeVero d(f>va) CK rov ovpavov 2
Editors 25 TOTTOJ 1] K\r)pov Soden mg 26 aurois] avruv JHR
dudeKa JHR 1 OJJLOV] o[j,o6vfj.a.8ov Soden mg 1-2 ev TW
. . . eyevero] eyevero ev rats T^epcus c/cetvats rou avvirXypovffdai TTJV T)/j,pat>
TT/S TrevTrjKoaTT]^ OVTUV avTUv TravTuv eiri TO avro /cat etSou eYevero JHR
Old Uncial
Antiochian
22
K 81
26
Wess 59 c
BC( + D) a%pt K
TOTTOV rov idiov B
^riQio-dr) BACK e 81
om K
81 25 TOTTOV 1 BAC(+D) K\r}pov
81 ( + D) tStoi TOTTOV C TOTTOV TOV dixaiov A
Qiadri K 1 Travres BAGS 81
22 yevecrdai aw it]^iv S 462 102 5" 24 -rravTWv] TUV airavruv S e*
5uo ei a ov eeAea; " 25 TOTroi/ 1] K\r)pov S 462 102 5~ a</>]
e^ S462 102 5~ TOTTOV TOV idiov] TOTTOV O.VTOV 462 26 aurois] aurwi S 462
1025"( + D) 1 Traces] aTraires S 462 102 T o/xou] 0/j.odv/Jt.adov 462 102 5"
ofj.odvfj.adov 01 aTrocrroAot S
duodecimus may be a secondary result
from it.
1-2 The reading of D means and it
came to pass in those days of the
arrival of the day of pentecost that
while they were all together behold
there came, etc. ; and this is correctly,
but freely, rendered by Augustine s
text (see apparatus) and (with the
plural days of pentecost, cf. vg) by
t (in temporibus illis dum complerentur
dies pentecosten). This Greek can be
explained as a literal translation from
Aramaic (cf. J&C-text of Ruth i. 1 Kal
eyevero ev rcus T^epcus rou Kpiveiv TOI>J
/cptras Kal eyeveTo XI/AOS ; see Rahlfs,
Studie uber den griech. Text des Bitches
JRuth, 1922, pp. 105, 115, 122), or
(as Professor J. E. Frame suggests) by
the supposition of a clumsy addition
to a text which had eKfivais but did not
mention Pentecost. Thesmooth textof
B seems to be due to an editor. In any
case Acts x. 25 (eyevero TOV el<re\6elv} is
a wholly different construction. Note
the omission of eidov in the B-text.
23 D eo-Trjaev is shown by Aug. c. ,W.
and gig to be no accident of this one
MS. In vs. 24 Aug. c. FeL, precatus
dixit is unique ; that the plural is
found in the better text of vs. 24 speaks
strongly for eo-T-^o-av in vs. 23.
For fiapffappav BNA81, C Antiochian
read fiapffapav. D is supported by
perp gig t vg.codd in the confused
correction papvapav. On further con-
fusions see Zahn, Urausgabe, pp.
333-335.
26 The ambiguity of K\rjpovs avrwv
D Antiochian perp gig e t hcl.text is
shown by the Latin rendering sortes
suas in Aug. c. FeL d vg.cod. M, which
suggests a vote rather than a drawing
of lots. Hence aurots BKAC81 may
be due to a substitution made for the
sake of clearness.
(j.eTa TUV 5w5e/ca( among the twelve )
D Eus. dcmonstr. ev. x. 3, 2 hcl.text
was probably the Western reading ;
it may be right, as it would naturally
lead to correction, cf. ii. 14. Aug.
contra Felicem, cum undecim apostolis
i-n CODEX BEZAE 11
fjivos O.TTO rov jSaTTTtd/xaros 1 IcodVou 0)9 rfjs rjfjLpas fjs OLV-
Xrjfji(f)6rj a<^ rjfjL&v, {Jidprvpa rfjs dvao~rdcra>s avrov avv rjfjiiv
23 yeveadcLL eVa rovrcuv. /cat ecrr^orev ovo, Icjcrr)<f> rov KaXovp,Vov
24 }$apvd/3av , os 7TKXrj6rj loucrros 1 , /cat Maddiav. /cat Trpoa-
eu^a/zevot etTrav Kupte /capStoyvcDcrra ndvra>v y dvdoeiov 6V e-
25 eXeaj e/c rovrwv rajv ovo \ dvaXajBeiv rorrov rov rrjs oiaKovias
ravrrjs /cat a-TrocrroA^s , d</> T^s 1 Trapefir] louSa? Tropevdrjvat, els
26 rov ronov rov tStov. /cat eoajKav KXijpovs avr&v, /cat
KXrjpos 7TL Maddiav, /cat o-vveiff^iadf] fjuerd ra)v t)5 0,
II Kat eyeVero eV rat? T^epats* e/cetVat? rov o-vvTrXrjpovcrdai,
2 rjfJLepav rrjs Trevr^/cocrr^s ovrcuv avrcijv Travrcuv zm ro avro, /cat
22 incipiens a baptismate johaimen usquae in diem quo adsumptus est a nobis d
testem resurrectionis ejus nobiscum fieri uimm istorum 23 et statuit duos Joseph
qui cognomiuatur barnabas qui vocatur Justus et matthias 24 et orantes dixerunt
dne qui corda nosti omnium designa quern elegisti ex his duobus unum 25 sumere
locum ministerii hujus et apostolatus a quo transgressus judas abire in locum suum
26 et dederunt sortes suas et cecidit sors super rnatthian et dinumeratus est cum
xii apostolos
1 et factum est in diebus illis et cum inplerentur dies pentecostes erant simul
Johannis usque in ilium diem quo adsumptus est a nobis, testem resurrectionis Augustine,
ejus nobiscum esse. 23 et statuit duos, Joseph qui vocabatur Barsabas qui ^ ^^^
et Justus, et Matthiam, 24 et precatus dixit : tu, domine, cordis omnium Fun dam. 9
intellector, ostende ex his duobus quern elegisti 25 ad suscipiendum locum
hujus ministerii et adnuntiationis, a qua excessit Judas ambulare in locum
suum. 26 et dederunt sortes suas, et cecidit sors super Matthiam, et simul
deputatus est cum undecim apostolis duodecimus.
1 in illo tempore quo subpletus est dies pentecostes fuerunt omnes simul in
1 illo] loco MSS. simul in uno] eadem animatione simul in uno Fund
25-26 [Judas autem abdicatus est et ejectus, et in] locum [ejus Mathias irenaeus,
ordinatus est]. S.SloU
24 avaXajSeiv roirov TOV TTJS Staxoi/ias raur^s] mg unum, ut accipiat locum Harclean
ministerii hujus
The plural * days, representing ray from Easter to Pentecost (cf. Origen,
77/uepaj (which does not occur in any contra Celsum viii. 22 rats rj^pais TTJS
known Greek authority), is found in TrevTrjKoarTjs in this sense) ; but that
perp gig vg pesh, and is clearly meaning seems to have been wholly
nlary, having perhaps been in- unknown to Hellenistic Jews, and is
troduced in the two languages in- probably impossible for a Christian
dependency of one another. The writer of the first century. See J. H.
difficult o-vvTrXrjpovadai ri]v rjfj.epav was Ropes, Harvard Theological jRevicw,
altered to the plural in accordance 1923, pp. 168-175, where, however,
with the later Christian use of ?? the archaic superiority of the text of
to denote the fifty days D in Acts ii. 1-2 was not recognized.
12 CODEX VATICANUS
rrvofjs jStata? Kal 7rXr]pa)aev oXov rov
OIKOV ov rjcrav KadrjfJLevoi, Kal axf>6rjaav avrols 8ta^eptd/ J tei ai 3
yXojcraat. Jjael rrvpos, Kal e/ca#tcrev e<* eVa e/cacrroi/ avr&v, \ Kal 4
Trdvres Trvevparos ayiov, Kal 7Jpavro AaAetv ercpais
Kada>s ro Trvevjjia eSt Sou aVo^eyyeo-flat avrols.
Se ev lepovcraXrjp /carat/cowres" louSatot, aVSpe? cv- 5
ls CXTTO Travros" &vov$ TCOV VTTO TOV ovpavov yvo[LGvr^<s oe 6
(frcovrjs Taurus (JwrjXBe ro TrXrjdos Kal crvvexvdr), on rJKOvcrev
els Kacrros rfj tSta StaAe/cra) AaAowrcov aurcDv e^tcrravro 8e 7
/cat edavfjia^ov Aeyo^res" Oi)^t tSou Travres" ovroi elcriv ol AaAowres"
/cat TTCO? ^/xets 1 d/couojLtev eAcacTros" T?y tSta StaAe/cra) 8
Editors 3 /cat e/cafltcrej ] eKa.6i.ffev re Soden 4 Tra^res] aTravres Soden 5 ev]
ets WHmg JHR om touScuoi JHR 6 ijKovev Soden
7 5e] +7raJTes Soden o^X 4 ! OII X WHmg OUK Soden Tra^res] aTravres
Soden
Cld Uncial 2 were: BAC 81 (+D) +airo Wess 59 ^ K a6r]fj.voL BA 81 Wess 59
Kade^ofjievoL C(+D) 3 /cat eKO.di.ffev BK C 81 /cai Ka9iffav N Wess 59c
(cf. D) e/ca^tcrev re A etcadiffev de C aur&v BNAC Wess 59c (+D) auTOj/ 81
4 Traj/res BXA. 81 Wess 59 " (+D) aTrai/res B 2 C 5 ev (NA ets, K c ej,
Wess 59c def) LepovffaXrj/j. KaroiKOvvres tonSatot (K om iou5atoi) avSpes BNA 81 Wess 59c
KCLToiKOvvres ev iepov(ra\ri/j. avdpes LovSaiot, C 6 rjKOVffev Bfc$ r/Kovev C 81
77/couoj/ A(+D) ets BAG 096 81 (+D) om K 7 5e B(+D)
+a7rai/res tf +TravTes ACK C 096 81 \eyovres B^AC 81 +:rpos a\\-rj\ovs
096 (+D) ouxt B oux K 81 (+D) OVK AC iravres B 81
aTravres B 2 NAC 096 (+D) ovroi CHTIV OL XaXowres BXA 096 (+D)
et<7t> ovrot ot XaXoi Z Tes 81 ourot ot XaXoi^res etcrti/ C
Antiochian 3 /cat e/caflto ei ] eKadiffev re S 462 102 5" 4 Traces] aTrai Tes S 462 102 5~
aurots aTro(}>deyy(r6at. S 462 102 5" 6 TJ/COIW S 462 102 S~(+D) om
ets S 102 7 5e]+7ra*/res S 5" \eyovr es]+irpos aXX^Xous S 462 102 5~ (+D)
ouxO OVK S 462 102 5~
3 eKadiffav ND is supported by no (2) The Western* text read ev
other Greek or Latin MS., but by de LepovaaXyfji. -rjaav KaroiKowres louSatot,
Greek fathers pesh hcl sah boh. Ephr. avdpes a-rro -jravros edvovs (so Aug).
catena, p. 397, emphasizes the singular (3) In the texts of the Old Uncials
number of the verb. a series of conflations and changes
5 The several variants (ets for ev ; ensued. The text of B inserted the
variations in order ; .omission of tou- Western ioi>5atot (perhaps a pre-
Satot by K ; omission of evXajSeis by western variant) into the original,
Aug. c. Fel., c. ep. Fund.} seem to and improved by the use of ev for
indicate a corruption deeper and more ets (cf. ix. 21). The text of C in-
intricate than the ordinary modifica- troduced tofSaiot in a different place,
tions of the authorities, and may per- between avdpes and euXa/Sets, and
haps be explained as follows : adopted the order /carot/cowres ev
(1) The original text read with X: lepoucraX??/*.
riffav 8e ets lepovffaX-rj/j, KaroiKovvres (4) Meantime D, following in general
avdpes eiAa/3ets avro Travros edvovs (for the Western text, altered it by in-
eiAajSeis cf. viii. 2, xxii. 12, Lk. ii. 25). serting euXa/Seis from the B-text, but
CODEX BEZAE 13
i8ov eyeVero acf)vw e/c rov ovpavov "^X^ wcmcp (frepofjievrjs jStata?
3 Trvofjs Kal 7rXtjpO}(Jv Trdvra rov OLKOV ofi rjcrav /cafe^o/xe^ot, /cat
axfrdrjaav avrols Sta/xept^o/zevat yXwaaai wcrei irvpos, /cat e/ca-
4 QLGOV re e< era e/caarov avrwv, /cat 7rX^crdr]<jav rrdvres TJVCV-
fj,aros dyuov, /cat rjpa<v>ro XaXelv erepat? yAcocrcratS KaOais
5 ro TTvevfjia oi8ov a7ro<^0eyye(70at aurots 1 . eV lepovcraXrjp, rjcrav
KaroiKovvres louSatot, i)Aa^ets > dvopes CXTTO Travro? edvovs ratv
6 UTTO roy ovpavov yvop,evr)s 8e TT^S" <f>(jjvfjs ravrrjs crvvrlXOe
TO 7rXrj6o$ /cat avve^vd^y /cat VJKOVOV ets" e/caGrros 1 AaAowra? rat?
7 yAcocro ats aurcDv c^etWa^ro Se /cat edavfjia^ov Aeyovre? Trpos"
aAA^AofS" Ou^ t Sou aTravre? ovroi zlaiv oi AaAowre? FaAt-
8 Aatot; /cat TTO)? ^jLtets 1 aKovofjiev e/caaros 1 T^V StaAc/croi^
omnes in unum 2 et factum est repente caelo echo tamquam ferretur violentus d
spiritus et inplevit totam domum ubi erant sedentes 3 et visae sunt ejus dividi
linguae tamquam ignis et sedit super unum quemquem eorum 4 et inpleti sunt
universi spu sancto et coiperunt loqui aliis linguis sic ut sps dabat eloqui eis 5 in
ierusalem erant habitantes judaei timorati viri ab omni gente quae sub caelo sunt
6 cumquae facta esset vox haec convenit multitude et consaesae sunt qui audiebant
unus quisque loquentes eos lingua sua 7 obstupescebant autem et admirabantur
dicentes ad alterutrum nonne ecce universi hi sunt qui locuntur galilaei 8 et
quomodo nos audimus unus quisque propria lingua nostra in qua nati sumus
uno. 2 et factus est subito de caelo sonus, quasi ferretur flatus vehemens, et Augustine,
inplevit totam illam domum in qua erant sedentes. 3 et visae sunt illis i^t ;M?ij
linguae divisae quasi ignis, qui et insedit super unumqueinque eorum. 4 et Fundam. 9
inpleti sunt omnes spiritu sancto, et coeperunt loqui variis linguis quomodo Tl^tii lQ
spiritus dabat eis pronuntiare. 5 Hierosolymis autem fuerunt habitatores
Judaei, homines ex omni natione quae est sub caelo. 6 et cum facta esset vox,
collecta est turba et confusa, quoniam audiebat unusquisque suo sermone et
suis linguis loquentes eos. 7 stupebant autem et admirabanttir ad invicem
dicentes : nonne omnes qui loquuntur natione sunt Galilaei ? 8 et quomodo
agnoscimus in illis sermonem in quo nati sumus ? 9 Parthi, Medi, et Elamitae,
2 totum ilium locum (locum ilium Cypr.test) in quo Fund Cypr.test 4 oro variis Fund
9 Parthi] +et some MSS. om et 1 Fund
6 rats yXuaracus avTwv] mg linguis ipsorum Harclean
set that word before ai>5pes, instead of at work in vs. 8, ryv BiaXeKTov D Aug.
after it as in the original text. c. FeL, c. ep. Fund., unit Prom perp
6 rr] tSia dia\eKTd) \a\ovvTO)v airrwi>] gig t vg.codd pesh, for rrj t5ta dia\KTO).
\a\ovvras rat? y\w<rcra.is avruv D pesh. Note the rendering agnoscimus in Aug.
The change in order (not found in c. Fel., c. ep. Fund. Prom.
Latins [except d], which otherwise 7 Tracres (aTra^res) after ^iffravTo is
support in part the Western reading) lacking not only in B but in the
is perhaps intended to make it clear Western text (D Aug gig) and
that the speaking, not the hearing perhaps in the Antiochian (yet cf. S).
only, took place in these languages. It was perhaps added under the
The same motive seems to have been influence of vs. 12.
14 CODEX VATICANUS
r)[j,cov V fj eyewrjdrjfjiev; TldpOot, Kal MijSot /cat AtAa/zetrat, 9
/cat ol KaroiKovvres rrjv MecroTrora/xtav, lovSat av re Kal KaTTTra-
, HOVTOV Kal rrjv Ao iav, | Qpvyiav re /cat Ila/z^uAtav, 10
/cat ra fte/37^ rrjs 1 Aifivrjs rrjs Kara K.vp i qvrjv i /cat ot
7rio7]fjLOVvrS Pa>/zatot, louSatot re /cat Trpoo-TjAurot, | K/OTjres* n
/cat "Apa/?es", GLKOVO^V XaXovvrtuv avr&v rals ^/xerepat? yAajo*-
crat? ra jiteyaAeta roO #eo>. e^taravro Se TrdVres 1 /cat St^rropowro, 12
aXXos TT/JO? aAAov Ae yovres" Tt ^eAet rovro etvat; erepot 13
Se Sta^Aeua^ovres" eAeyov ort FAeu/cous /xejLteorco/xeVot etcrtV.
crraOels 8e d UeVpo? cn)i/ rot? eVSe/ca eTrrjpev rrjv cf>ajvr)V avrov 14
/cat a.7T^)6ey^aro avrols "Av$ps louSatot /cat ot /carot/cowre?
lepovcraXrjiJ, Trdvres, rovro V{JLLV yvajcrrov eo*ra> /cat e^cortcracr^e
ra prjfjiard [AOV. ov yap d)s ^/xet? vrroXa^dvere ovroi peOvovaw, 15
eartv ya/> wpa rpirr) rrjs rjfjiepas, aAAa rouro ecrrtv ro elprj^evov 16
Editors 12 dnriropovv Soden 16 om iw^X JHR
Old Uncial 9 /ecu cuAa/ueircu BACJ< C 096 81 (+D) om K 12 Si-rjiropovvTO
dL-rjiropovv G 096 81 (+D) Trpos BKAC 096 81 (+D) +TO? 076
BAG 81 (+D) 0eXot K ^eXet rovro B(K)C 8 1 (+ D ) TOUro ^ eXei A 13 Sta-
xXeuafovTes 5X670^ BKAC 096 corr 81 (cf. D) x^afrj/res e\eyov 096 [ex]Xeuafo?
\eyovres 076 (cf. D) 14 o BtfA 076 096 81 (+D) om C a.7r<t>deyfrro
BKA 076 096 81 +\eyuv C vfuv yvucrrov B^AC 096 81 (cf. D) yi>uffr[ov
vfj,iv~\ 076
Antiochian 12 oLr,iropow S 462 102 S~(+D) 8e\ei\ av 6e\oi S 462 102 5"
13 SiaxXeuafoi Tes] x^eua^oj/res S 462 102 5~ 14 om o PS 462 5~ 7ra>/res]
aTrai/res PS 462 5~
9 lovdaiav is translated Judaei in ance with the geographical intention
Pesh has Jews and of the word Judaea. These are
Cappadocians for lovoaiav re KCLL ancient conjectures, no more weighty
Ka.inrcLOOK.iav. Sah (in spite of Zahn s than the modern suggestions of idov-
vigorous argument, Urausgabe, pp. /j,cuav, \vdiav, ivdiav, (3i6vviai>, yop-
337 f.) is not to be taken as attest- o(v)aiav, KL\LKLOLV, or the proposal to
ing lovdaioL. Aug.unit and pesh are reject the word as interpolated.
probably attempts to escape the 11 apa/3ot D is a Latinism.
obvious exegetical difficulty, but the 13 Withhcl.m^cf. Ephrem on 1 Cor.
repetition here and in vs. 10 of the xiv. 23 (p. 77) de apostolis dixerunt
word Jews (cf. vs. 5) puts an in- eos musto plenos inebriates esse, and
appropriate emphasis on the fact that pesh these have drunk new wine and
these were Jews. Aug. c. ep. Fund, and are intoxicated.
Tertullian adv. Judaeos 7 (Augustine 14 rare D pesh is probably the
perhaps influenced by Tert. ; note reading of the Western text, which
their agreement in the words regiones frequently introduces rore in what
[-em] Africae and incolae) substitute might seem an Aramaizing manner
Armeniam. Jerome on Is. xi. 6 ff. (see above, pp. ccxxxii, ccxliv, note 1).
substitutes Syria, probably in accord- By couflation D has both rore and Se.
ii CODEX BEZAE 15
9 rj eyevvijOrjfJLev ; YldpOoi /cat Mfjooi /cat EAa^etrat, ol /carot-
Kovvres rrjv MeaoTTorafJLiav , louSat av /cat KaTTTraSo/ctW, Tlovrov
10 /cat r^v Acn av, | typvyiav /cat HajLt^uAtav, AtyuTrroV re /cat ra
fJ>prj rfjs Aifiovrjs rrjs Kara KvpTJvrjv, /cat ot emSi^jitowTes Paj-
/z-atot, louSatot re /cat TrpocnjXvroL, \ Kpijres /cat "ApajSot, d/couoju,ei>
AaAowrcoi/ avrotji rats ^/zere/oats 1 yAcucraats ra /z-eyaAeta row
12 0eou. ^Lorravro oe ndvres /cat oirjTropovv aAAosr Trpo? aAAov
13 677t raj yeyovort, /cat Aeyovres" Tt ^eAet rovro etvat; erepoi
8e Ste^Aeua^ov Aeyovre? ort rAeu/cous" ourot ^Lte^ecrrco/xeVot
14 elcriv. rore crraOels Se o Her/oos: cruv rot? Se/ca aTrocrroAot?
7T7JpV TTpWTOS TT]V $<J)VT]V OLVTOV KOil L7TV
/cat TTavres ot KOLTOLKOVVTCS lepoucraA^jLt, rovro v^
15 eorco, evwricrare ra prjfiard fnov. ov yap w$ vp,L$ VTTO-
16 Aa^avere owrot ^Ovovaiv, ovarjs a)pas rfjs rjfjiepas y, \ aAAa
rovro ear iv TO ipr][j,vov Sta rou 7rpo(f>r)rov
11 Kprjrrj S 14 v/>teiv] rj/zeiv 15 t;7roAa///?averat
9 parthi et medi et aelamitae et qui inhabitant mesopotamiam judaeam et cappa- d
dociam pontuin et asiani 10 frygiam et pamphyliam aegyptum et partes lybiae
qui est circa cyrenen et qui hie deruorantur romani judaei et proselyti 11 cretenses
et arabi audivimus loquentes eos nostris linguis magnalia di 12 obstupescebant
omnes et hesitabant alius ad alium quod factum est et dicentes quid vult esse hoc
13 alii vero deridebant dicentes quia musto isti repleti sunt 14 cum stetisset autem
petrus cum decem apostolis et elebabit primus vocem suam et dixit viri judaei et
omnes qui inhabitant hierusalem hoc vobis notum sit ausilate verbis meis 15 non
enim sicut vos suspicamini hii hebrii sunt est enim hora tertia diei 16 sed hoc est
et qui inhabitant Mesopotamiam, Judaeam et Cappadociam, Pontum, Asiam, Augustine,
10 Phrygiam et Pamphyliam, Aegyptum et partes Libyae quae est ad Cyrenem, [ ; 4 ^.* c ^ n
et qui aderant Romani, 11 Judaeique et proselyti, Cretenses et Arabes, audie- Fun dam. 8
bant loquentes illos sais linguis magnalia dei.
12 stupebant autem et haesitabant ob id quod factum est, dicentes : quidnam
hoc vult esse 1 13 alii autem iuridebant dicentes : hi musto omnes onerati sunt.
9 Judaeam] Armeniam Fund 10 Phrygiam] +que one MS. partes Lib: e]
regiones Africae Fund aderant] advenerant Fund 11 Judaeique et proselyti] et
Judaei incolae et Fund
9 Parthi, Medi, Elamitae, et qui habitant Mesopotamiam, Armeniam, Tertullian
Phrygiam, Cappadociam, et incolentes Pontum et Asiam, Pamphyliam, Adv - Jud - *
10 immorantes Aegyptum et regionem Africae quae est trans Cyrenen, in-
habitantes Romani et incolae, tune et in Hierusalem Judaei et ceterae gentes.
15 [dixit Petrus non ebrios quidem illos esse, cum sit] hora tertia diei ;
16 [esse autem] hoc, quod dictum est per prophetam : 17 erit in novissimis cf. Hi. 17 , 1
iii. 11, 9
8 eyevvrjO-rj/jLev] mg fuimus 12 ciri rco yeyovon] mg de illo quod factum est Harclean
13 on y\evicovs OVTOI ;u6,ueoTU7 / uej>oi ei<riv] mg quia ebrii sunt
16
CODEX VATICANUS
Joel ii. 28-32 Sta rov 7rpo(f)ijrov Ito^A Kat ear OLI /zero, raura, Ae yet d fleos 1 , 17
e/cxeco 0,770 rov Trveu/zaros />tot> em Trdorav cra/3/ca, /cat 7rpo<f>7]rv-
(jovcriv ol viol vfjuwv /cat at dvyarcpes v/xcDv, /cat ot veavt cr/cot
opdaeis oi/jovrcu, /cat ot Trpecrfivrcpoi vpcov evvTrviois
vTai /cat ye em rot;? SouAou? />tot> /cat em ras* 18
/zov eV rat? r)fj,pai$ e/cetVats e/c^ecD oVo row irvevfjuaros
, /cat 7rpo<f>r)TVcrovcr(,v. /cat SCUCTO) repara eV rtu ovpava> dVa> 19
/cat crr}p,ia em rrjs yrjs /caret), at/xa /cat TTU/O /cat drftetSa KOLTTVOV
Editors
17 jtiera raura] ev rats eax aTaiS ?7ywe/5cus WH Soden
JHR
18 om KCU
Old Uncial
17 fJ.era ravra B 076
rats e<r%arats ?7/ie/oais C
rats ea^rcus rj/j.epat.s ^A 096 81 (+D) /tera raura
at dvyarepes vpwv BKA 81 Ovyarepes C
4 BXA 076 81 om C vid (C 2 suppl) (+D) evvTrvtotj Bi<AC 81 evvTrvia
076 vid 18 SouXoyj BAG 076 81 (+D) SouXas i< SouXas BAG
076 81 (+D) SouXous X 19 avw BKC 076 81 (+D) om A
Antiochian 17 /xera raura] ev rats etrxarats
om veavnTKOt U/AWV opacrets oi/ ovrat Ac
S
PS 462 5~(+D)
evvTrvta P 462 5~
om ot 1 S
16 twT^X omitted by D (cf. Justin, dial
87), Iren, Aug. p. 199. 23, Hil. trin.
viii. 25. In Ps.-Orig. Tract. 20 (ed.
Batiffol and Wilmart) it is probably a
later addition.
17 /xera raura B 076 Cyr. of Jer.
catech. xvii. 19 sah (3 late codd.). D,
Tertullian, adv. Marc. v. 8, with KA
boh and the great body of authorities,
have ev rats ecrxarats 7;/xepats. This
Western reading was apparently
drawn from ev rats ritJ.epa.is exetvats, vs.
18, which is therefore in consistency
omitted by D gig Priscill Rebapt.
Combinations of the two readings
appear in C minn, and in s&h.cod.JB
(cent. iv).
The Western substitute in vs. 17
was thus widely adopted in non-
western texts, but the corresponding
Western omission in vs. 18 scarcely
at all.
17-20 The quotation from Joel is
found in two forms, that of B and
that of D. Each MS. is supported
by other witnesses, Greek, Syriac,
Sahidic, and notably Latin, which
group themselves about the two leaders
in kaleidoscopic selection. Apart from
the peculiar instance of iiou 2, vs. 18,
which may or may not belong to the
series (D here agrees with B), and
with the further exceptions of o tfeos,
vs. 17, and /cat frpo^Tevaovffiv, vs. 18,
the reading of B in every case agrees
with the LXX.
17 /Cat (LXX)
om D
/xera ravra (LXX)
ev rats e<rx a ~
rats r/ttepats D
o 0eos
/cuptos D
u/xwv 1 and 2
aurwv D
(LXX)
vfjiwv 3 and 4
om D
(LXX)
18 [fiov 1 (so D)
[om Prise
(LXX)]
Rebapt]
[/JLOV 2 (so D gig
[om Rebapt
Prise Perpet)]
(LXX)]
ev rats T/yuepats
om D
e/cetvats (LXX)
[Kat Trpo(pT}Tev<rov-
[om D (LXX)]
crtv]
19 atita /cat irvp /cat
om D
aritet5a KO.TTVOV
(LXX)
20 /cat eirKpavr] (LXX)
om D
In some cases manifestly, and prob
ably in all, the departures in D from
the LXX-text spring from one motive,
namely to adapt the quotation to the
situation to which Peter here applies
it. This adaptation may be the
work of the original author, and the
agreement of the B-text with the LXX
may have been effected by an editor.
CODEX BEZAE
17
"Ecrrat eV rats ea^arats ^jLte/oat?, Ae yei KvpLos,
rou TTvevfJLOLTos IJLOV em Trdaas adpKas, Kal
ol viol avro)V Kal BvyaTtpzs avrcov, Kal ol veavictKoi opdcrei
oi/jovrai, Kal ol TTpeafivrepoi, evvirviaodriaovrai, \ Kal ey [a>] e*m
TOVS oovXovs [J>ov Kal em TO,? oovXas [JLOV e/c^eco 0,770 rov
ov. Kal Scoora> repara eV ra> ovpava> ava> Kal
em rfjs yfjs Kara} 6 T^Ato? jU.erao r/ae ^eTat i<s>
quod dictum est per prophetam. 17 erit in novissimis diebus dicit dns effundam d
spin meum super omnem came et prophetabunt fili eorum et filias eorum et jubenes
visiones videbunt et seniores somuia somniabunt 18 et ego super servos meos et
super ancillas meas effundam spiritum meum 19 et dabo prodigia in caelo susum et
sign a in terra deorsum 20 sol convertetur in tenebris et luna in sanguine prius
17 [ilia promissio spiritus facta] per Johelem : in novissimis temporibus Tertullian,
efFundam de meo spiritu in omnem camera et prophetabunt filii filiaeque ^"^ / ii
eorum. 18 et super servos et ancillas meas de meo spiritu efFundam. 17 ; }fe.
earn. 63
diebus, dicit dominus, efFundam de spiritu meo in omnem carneni et Irenaeus,
i prophetabunt. m< 12 *
Under this view the text of D will be
preferred. Equally possible, however,
is the view that the author copied
exactly, or nearly so, from his LXX,
and that the modifications are due to
the customary freedom of the para
phrastic Western reviser ; cf. vii.
18, 26, 33, 43 (om V/J.MV ; eiri ra fj.epij
jSa/SiAuj/os), xiii. 47 (where D is not
conformed to LXX). For this latter
view speaks the characteristic transfer
of ev rats ii/j.epa.is e^capcus (cf. vs. 18)
to vs. 17 in the form et> rais ea^cn-cus
Tj/iepcus, as well as the habitual
fidelity to the text of the LXX which
the author of Acts elsewhere displays
where making formal quotations.
Examples of this may be seen in vss.
25-28, 34 f., iv. 25 f., etc.
The case of the addition to the LXX
of KCU TrpofprjTevaovffiv in vs. 18 is
peculiar, because D perp r Prise here
omit, with best MSS. of LXX, while
B and all others (including Justin)
have ;he words. These are parallel to
vs. 17, and are clearly an adaptation of
the OT passage to the present situation.
Such an adaptation does occur in
the undoubtedly original words Xe7ei
o 0eos (v.l. Kuptos), vs. 16 ; but in the
case of KO.I Trpo(t>-r)Tev<rov<nv, vs. 18, the
VOL. Ill
wiser judgement is perhaps to assume
an addition to the author s quotation
before the formation of the text of B,
i.e. a Western non- interpolation,
and to reject the words. If they were
originally present, the only reason for
omitting them in D would have been
the desire to conform to the LXX, but,
as has been shown, this motive is the
opposite of that which, under any
hypothesis, governed the formation of
the D-text.
In the case of JJLOV 1 and 2 D is on
the side of B, and the omission in Latin
witnesses may be due to the further
working at some later time of the
motive of adaptation. But possibly
D may here be conflate, and the
omission of both words in De Rebaplis-
mate, etc., may alone represent the
original.
It is to be noted that certain
additions to the LXX text, of purely
rhetorical nature, seem to have been
made by the author himself not
only Xe"yei o 6eos, vs. 17, but aw, a-rj/meia,
and KO.TU, vs. 19. He has also per
mitted himself evvn-viois, vs. 17, for
ew-rrvta LXX, and perhaps dropped rr)v
before rj/xepaf , vs. 20 (but LXX text is
in both cases doubtful). Among these
18 CODEX VATICANUS n
o TJXios fjieracrrpa^aerai els CTKOTOS /cat rj aeXrjvr] ets* af/xa 20
Trplv T) \9eiv rj/Aepav KVpuov rr)V jLteyaAi^v /cat CTTufravrj . /cat 21
ecrrat Tras" 09 eav eVt/caAecr^rat TO ovopa KvpLov aojOr^aerai.
av$pS lorpaTyAetrat, d/covcrare rous 1 Adyous" TOUTOU?. I^crow 22
TOI> Na^co/oatov, aVSpa aTroSeSetyjLteVov CITTO rou #eot> et? i^Ltas
Swa/zecrt /cat repacri /cat cr^/>tetots > ot? eTroirjaev 8t* avrov 6 6eos
ev jj,cra) vfjL&v, Kadws avrol ot Sare, | rovrov rfj ajpiafievrj fiovXfj 23
/cat TT/ooyvctJcret TOU ^eou e/cSorov 8ta ^etpo? a^djLtCDV TTpocrmj^avTes
dvetAare, ov o ^eo? avecrTTycre Auaa? ras" ciSetvas" roi; davdrov, 24
/cavort ou/c T^V Swarov /cpareta^at aurov UTT* aurov* AauetS yap 25
PS. xvi. s-ii Aeyet et? avrw* TlpoopcbfjLiqv TOP Kvpiov evcbmov JJLOV Sta Travrds 1 ,
ort e/c Se^tcov /i,oi; ecrrtv tra /XT^ aaAeu^cD. 8ta TOVTO 7^v(f>pdvdrj ^JLOV 26
TI /cap8ta /cat T^yaAAtdcraro T^ yAcDcrad jLtou, ert Se /cat 7^ crdp fiov
/caracr/CTyvctjaet 77* eArrtSf ort ov/c ewcaraAet ^rets" T^V ifjv^v JJLOV 27
ets* aS^v, owSe 8c6or6ts > rov oaiov oov tSetv Sta^^opdv. eyvajpto-ds- 28
e v<f>pocrvvr]s /xerd ro>
Editors 20 om ?; WH (but cf. mg) Soden JHE TTJJ/ y/jiepav Soden
Old Uncial 20 TT/HJ/ TJ B 076 om 77 KAC 81 (+D) tjfjiepav BK 076 (+D) T^J/ r)/j.fpav
AC C 81 /cat eTTt^aj/T; BAG 076 81 om K(+D) 21 om vs. 21 fc<
(X a suppl) 22 airodedeiy[j.evov CLTTO TOV 6eov B^C 81 OTTO TOV deov airo-
dedeiy/jLevov A(cf. D)
o BNA 81 (+D) om C 23 e
/c5oro>/ BNAC 81
-f-Aa/Soi/Tes K C (+D)
25 avrov BNC 81 (+D) aur^ A
/cuptov BAG 81
+Hov K (+D)
26 /xou T; Kapdia BX 77 Kapdia yttc
v ACK C 81 (+D)
28 eu 0po<n;n,sBKC81(-
f D) v<f>po<rvj>r]i> A Tid
Antiochian 20 rt}v tj^epav PS 462 5" 22 OLTTO TOV deov aTrodedety/j-evov PS 462 ~(cf. D)
KaQus] +KO.I. PS 462 S~ 23 e/cSoroi ] +\a^ovre? PS 462 S~(+D)
PS 462 r 26 77 /capSta ^ou PS 462 <T(+D) 27 oSou PS 462 T
all but \eyei o Oeos and o-^/zeta have this note, as not forming part of the
been corrected to the LXX standard main problem. See also p. ccxxxiii.
in some extant witness or group of 20 The unimportant addition of TI in
witnesses. B 076 and the Antiochian text has
Minor variants occur in D which against it not only NAG 81, but also D,
have been deliberately passed by in and may best be rejected from the text.
ii CODEX BEZAE 19
CTKOTOS KOL TI G\rfvri et? at]ita rfplv \0elv rjfjiepav Kvpiov rrjv
21 fjLeydXrjv . /cat carat Tra? oV aV em/caAecr^rat TO ovofta ro
Kvpiov crajOrjcrercu.
22 "AvSpes Icrpa^Aetrat, a/couorare TOT)? Adyous" rovrovs.
rov Naopatov, dvopa OLTTO rov dcov l$$oKifju^ao*[jievov el?
owdfiecrei /cat re/oaat /cat crtyfubis oaa eTrot ^crei oC avrov 6
23 eV {JLo~a) vpajv, Ka9a)s avrol ot5are, | rovrov rfj (Lpicrpevr) /3ov\7J
/cat Tr/ooyFcocret ro ^eou e/c8orov Aaftovres 8ta x L P s dvofAwv
24 7TpoGTTriavTs aviXciT , ov 6 0os OLVarrj(jV Xvaas ras" coSt^as 1
ro aSou, /cavort oi)/c ^v Swarov KparelcrOac avrov VTT* avrov-
25 AauetS ya/3 Aeyct et<s > > auroV*
Hpooptop,r)v rov Kvpiov IJLOV va)TTi6v JJLOV Sta rravros, on
26 e /c Seftaiv jLtou ecrrti >a ^17 craAeu^a). Sta rovro r)v<f)pdvdr]
TI Kapoia fj,ov /cat i^yaAAtaaaro ^ yAcDcrcra ^Ltoy, ert Se /cat ^
27 o-ap^ /zof Kara<JKr]va)cri e</> eATTtSct- ort ou/c ev/caraAeti/ret?
T^V iftvxTJv IJLOV els aSrjv, ovoe SaJcret? rov ocrtdv crou tSetv
28 $ia<f)dopdv. yvcupto-a? /xot oSous" fco^s" rrXrjpwcreis /xe eu-
(f>pocrvvr)s p,erd rov rrpoa^rfov aov.
quara veniat dies dni magnus 21 et erit omnis quicumque invocaverit nomen dni d
salvus erit 22 viri istrahelitae audite sermones hos ihm nazoraeum virum a do
probatum in nobis virtutibus et prodigiis et signis quae fecit per eum ds in medio
vestrum sicut ipsi scitis 23 hunc destinato consilio et providentia dl auditum
accepistis per manus iniquorum adfixum interfecistis 24 quern ds suscitavit solutis
araitibus inferioru quoniam possibile non esset detineri eum ab ipso 25 david enim
dicit in earn providebam dnm meum in conspectu meo semper quia a dextra mea est
ut non commovear 26 propterea laetatum est cor meum et exultavit lingua mea
adhuc autem et caro mea inhabitavit in spsem 27 quia non derelinques animam
meam aput inferos nequae dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptiouem 28 notas
fecisti mini vias vitEfe inplevis me jucunditate cum facie tua 29 viri fratres licet
22 viri Israelitae, auribus mandate quae dico : Jesum Nazarenum, virum a Tert. Pud. 21
deo vobis destinatum. cf - Res - carn -
22 viri [enim, inquit Petrus,] Isvaelitae, audite sermones meos : Jesum Irenaeus,
Nazareum, virum adprobatum a deo in vobis virtutibus et prodigiis et signis, m< 12> 2
quae fecit per ipsum deus in medio vestrum, quemadmodum ipsi scitis,
23 hunc definite consilio et praescientia dei traditum per manus iniquorum
iffigentes interfecistis, 24 quern deus excitavit solutis doloribus inferorum,
quoniam non erat possibile teneri eum ab eis. 25 David enim dicit in ipsum :
providebam dominum in conspectu meo semper, quoniam a dextris meis est, ut
non movear. 26 propter hoc laetatum est cor meum, et exsultavit lingua mea,
insuper et caro mea requiescet in spe ; 27 quoniam non derelinques animam
meam in inferno, neque dabis sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
25 meo] mei Turner
23 7r/)o<r7r7;!avTes] affigentes -X- in cruce ^ Harclean
20 CODEX VATICANUS n
aov. avopes dSeA^ot, lov etTietV /xera rrapprjoLas rrpos v^as rrepl 29
rov rcarpidp-^ov Aavet S, ort /cat ereXevrrjaev /cat rd<f>rj /cat TO
p,vfjjj,a avrov ecmv eV ^/xtv apftot TTjs" rjfjiepas ravrrjs" rrpo^TJrrjs 30
.cxxxii.ii ow VTrdpxcov , /cat etScb? 6Vt op/caj aijitocrev aura) o 0eos" e/c Kaprrov
rrjs 6a(f>vos avrov /ca#tom em rov Bpovov avrov, rrpoioajv eAa- 31
Trept r^s" dvao*rdo*0)s rov Xptorou ort oure ev/careAet^^
owSe ij aap^ aurou etSev oiacfrdopdv. rovrov rov Irjvovv 32
6 deos, ov irdvrcs ^/xet? o-/zev [idprvpes. rfj Se^ta 33
ow rou 0eou vi/jwdeis rr^v re errayyeXiav rov rrvevjjiaros rov
aylov Xafiwv rrapa rov rrarpos e^e^eei^ rovro o vfjuels /cat
jSAeVere /cat a/covere. ou yap AauetS dvepr) et? rous 1 ovpavovs, 34
Pa. ex. i Aeyet Se auroV Etvre^ KVpcos r& KVpico JJLOV Ka^ou e/c Se^taiv
eats av 6a> rovs -)(dpovs oov VTTOTTOOIOV ra>v TTOOOJV aov. 35
cDs" ov<v> yewajaKerat rrd$ ot/co? laparjX on /cat KVpiov 36
avrov /cat Xptorroi^ Irroirjcrev 6 Qeos, rovrov rov Irjaovv ov w/
Editors 39 <r<uos auroi^] + [TO /cara crap/ca o.vo.(JTt]a^v TOV xP iffTOV ] Soden
31 ovSe] oure WH Soden JHR 33 [KCU 1] WH 34 o Kvpios Soden
36 o 0eos CTroir](rei> Soden
Old Uncial 31 t , K aT<-\ei.<t>6r) BKAC 2 81 (+D) fVKarfXtj/j.^et] C aSrjv B# 81 aSov
AC(+D) ouSe B ovre KAC 81 (+D) 32 7?yueis eff^ev BAG 81
(cf. D) efffiev 77^15 K 33 /cai 1 B(+D) om KAC 81 34 Kvpios
BX(+D) o icuptos B 2 (B 3 Tdf)ACK c 81 36 ovv B 2 OLKOS BKA 81
o oi/cos C(+D) auroz/ /cat xpiffTov Bfc$AC KCLI xP l<J " rov O.VTOV 81
ciroir)<Tev o ^eos B^ 81 o 0eos ewotTja-ev AC(+D)
Antiochian 30 TOV KapTrov P off<f>vos OLVTOV\-\-TO Kara aapKa a.va.<srt]ae\.v rov
PS 462 r(cf. D) dpovov PS rov 6povov 462 5" 31 cure] ou PS 462 5"
evKare\ti.(t>8ri} Kare\ei<t>dr) r, ^v^n wrov PS 462 r a5ou PS 462 T(+D)
32 om eoy-tej/ P 33 rou Trveu/utTOS TOU 071011] TOU ayioy Trvev/^aros PS 462 5"(+D)
o] +vw PS 462 r uyuets] ^ets S om /cai 1 PS 462 5~ 34 o /cuptos
PS 462 5" 36 /ecu xpt-^ov avrov PS 462 r o 0eos eTrotT/tre PS 462 <T(-fD)
30 offfyvos] ventris (i.e. /cotAias, con- roi xP iffrov Kat D> which in Latin
formed to Ps. cxxxii. 11) perp gig Iren appears only in d e (om secundum
pesh. Kapdias D seems based on carnem) and, with conflation, in
/cotXias. Vigilius, but (with somewhat varying
The awkwardness of the Semitic e/c form) was adopted by the Antiochian
Kapirov, treated like a noun and serving revisers. The enlargement may have
as object of the verb, gave occasion been subsequent to the formation of
for the expansion Kara aapKa avaerrjaai the Western text.
I -
CODEX BEZAE 21
29 avopes dSeA^ot, e^ov et7re(V /z-era Trapprjaias rrpos
rov Trarpidpxov AauetS, ort /cat ereXevrrjeev /cat eVa^Ty /cat TO
30 fJLV-rjfuov avrov e oTW Trap -jj/i^ ^XP 6 ^^ yp*p&$ TauT^s" 77po-
ovv vrrapxcov, /cat clSajv ort op/ca> wfioaev avra> 6 6eos
e/c Kaprrov rrjs /capSta? avrov Kara crdpKa dvaarfjaai rov Xpt-
31 arov /cat /ca^tom em roy Opovov avrov, <7Tpoiowv eXdXrjcrev Trept
rrjs > aVaoracretos rov Xptorou oret cure IvKareXeifiOr] et? a8ot>
32 oure ^ o^P^T aurou etSev oia(f>9opdv. rovrov ovv lyaovv dv-
33 ecrrrjaev 6 Qeos, ov Trdvres T^/xets" fjidprvpes ea/itev. rij Se^ta ovi/
rov 6eov vipaiOeis /cat r?)^ eTrayyeAtav rou dytou rfvev^aros Xafiajv
34 7ra/>a TOW rrarpos e^e^eev u/xeti o /cat jSAeTrere /cat a/couere. ot)
yap AauetS dvefiri et? rou? ovpavovs, e iprjKev yap avros"
35 Aeyet Kvpios ra> /cupta) /xov Ka^ou /c Se^tcuv jLtou | ecus ^a)
TOU<?> K0pOVS aOV VTTOTTOOLOV TCOV TTOOOJV CTOV.
3 6 acr^aAcDs" ow yetvcoor/ceVcu Tras 1 o ot/cos* lapa^A ort /cat Kvpiov
/cat Xptarov o fleos 1 7roirjav rovrov Irjaovv ov
30 cu/xacrev 31 e
mihi dicere cum fiducia ad vos de patriaarcha david quia defunctus est et sepultus d
est et monumentum ejus est aput nos usque in hunc diem 30 cum esset autem
propheta et sciret quia jurejurando juravit ei ds de fructum de praecordia ejus
secundum came suscitare fprn collocare super thronum ejus 31 resurrectione xpl
quia neque derelictus est aput inferos neque caro ejus vidit corruptionem 32 hunc
ergo ihn resuscitavit ds cujus nos omnes testes sumus 33 dextera ergo di exaltatus
et pollicitationem sps sancti accepta a patre effudit vobis quod et vidistis et audistis
34 non enim david ascendit in caelos dixit enim ipse dixit dns dno meo sede ad
dexteram meam 35 donee ponam inimicos tuos scamillum pedum tuorum 36 pro
certo ergo sciat omnis domus istrahel quia et dnm et xpm ds fecit hunc ihm quern
33 dextera del exaltatus [sicut Petrus in Actis contionatur]. Tert Prax. 17
36 firmissime itaque cognoscat omnis domus Israhel quod et dominum et Prax. 28
Christum [id est unctum] fecerit eum deus, hunc Jesum quern vos crucifixistis.
[29 dehinc rursum fiducialiter illis dicit de patriarcha David, quoniam Irenaens,
mortuus est et sepultus, et sepulchrum ejus fit apud eos usque in hunc diem.] *" 12 2
30 propheta autem [inquit] cum esset et sciret quoniam jurejurando ei juravit
deus de fructu ventris ejus sedere in throno ejus, 31 providens locutus est de
resurrectione Christi, quoniam neque derelictus est apud inferos, neque caro ejus
vidit corruptionem. 32 hunc Jesum [inquit] excitavit deus, cujus nos omnes
sumus testes : 33 qui dextera dei exaltatus, repromissionem spiritus sancti
accipiens a patre, effudit donationem hanc quam vos nunc videtis et auditis.
34 non enim David ascendit in caelos, dicit autem ipse : dixit dominus domino
meo, sede ad dexteram meam, 35 quoadusque ponam inimicos tuos sub-
pedaneum pedum tuorum. 36 certissime ergo sciat omnis domus Israel,
quoniam et dominum eum et Christum deus fecit, hunc Jesum, quern vos
crucifixistis.
33 o] text hoc donurn quod, mg hoc quod Harclean
22 CODEX VATICANUS n
caravpcoaare . aKovaavrcs 8e Karevvyrjcrav ryv /capSt av, elrrov 37
re rrpos rov Herpov /cat rovs XOLTTOVS OLTroaroXovs Tt Trot^craj-
//,ei>, avftpes aSeAc^ot; | Iler/Dos" Se TTpos 1 avrovs MeravoT^crare, 38
/cat fiaTTTiadriTa) e /caoTOS" v/xcuv ev TO) oVd/xart I^orou Xptorou
ets acfrecrw TOJV a^apncjv v\j,&v> /cat XrjjJU/JecrOe TTJV Scopeav rou
ayt ou 7TPVfJiaros VfJilv yap eariv rj e-TrayyeAt a /cat rots re/cvot? 39
V{j,ojv /cat 77acrt rots* et? fJiaKpav ocrovs av rrpo cr/caAeor^rat Kvpios
6 6os rjfjucijv. Tpois re Aoyots* TrAetocrtv StejuapTU/oaro, /cat 40
avrous Aey^u^ Sco^re aTro r^s* yeveaj T^? a/coAtaj
Ot />tev ow aTroSef a/z-evot rov Aoyov avrou e^aTrrtcj^crav, 41
/cat 7TpoaT07]<jav eV r^ r^Jiepa e/cetV^ 0u^at coaet rptcr^etAtat.
^(jav Se 7TpocrKapTpovvT$ rfj StSa^ rcDv aTrocrroAcu^ /cat TTJ 42
/cotvcovta, r^ /cAacret rou aprov /cat rat? Trpoo eu^ats * eyetVero 43
8e Trdcrr) i/JV%fj <f>6/3os. TroAAa 8e repara /cat oT^fteta Sta
Editors 37 om XotTro^s JHR 38 ^erai o^o aTe] +^770-^ Soden +e07 Soden mg
ey] CTTI Soden 43 5e 2] re Soden
Old Uncial 37 etTrov re BAG etTroj Tes fc< etTrov 5e 81 38 fj.eTavor)<Ta.Te B +<f)r}<rii>
AC 81 (cf. D) ev BC(+D) CTTI J<A 81 u/iw? 2 BXA 81 17^ wy C
39 oo-ovs BX 81 (+D) ous AC 41 w<r BACNc 81 (+D) ws
42 TrpoffKaprcpowres BJ<C 81 (+D) + A Kotvwvia BXAC 81 (+D) +/cai
^c 43 y iV To 1 B^AC(+D) 67ei/cro 81 8e 2 BN 81 re AC
5ta rajj* aTrocrroXwi eyeivero B^ 81 (+D) e-yeivero 5ta TUV airoffroKuv AC
Antiochian 3 ^ Tr l ^apSia PS 462r(+D) eiTrov re] eiirovres S om roi/ 462
TrotTjo-o/zei/ 5~(+D) 38 5e] +607; PS 462 r e^] eirc PS 462 r
om rwv PS 462 r(+D) om vfj.uv 2 PS 462 5"(+D) 40 die/jLaprvpero
PS 462 r om aurous PS 462 r 41 ow] +ao- y ue ws PS 462 5"
aTroSela/iei/oi] Se^a^ej/ot S om ev PS 462 5~ 42 KOIVUVM] +KO.I PS 462 5"
43 eyeivero 1] e7e^ero PS 462 S" 5e 2] re PS 462 5~
37 The omission of \oiirovs D 241 Antiochian is conformation to the
gig Aug. unit is probably right. solemn formula of the Gospels, not an
38 For LTjffov xpwrou Iren reads IT/O-OU, original shorter reading, seems clearly
pesh rou Kvpiov ir}(rov. The agreement indicated by the complete absence of
in omission of xP iffrov i s probably tendency to expand in Matt. xxvi. 28, .1
coincidence. The Western text has Mk. i. 4, Lk. iii. 3.
an expanded phrase, cf. D Cypr. 42 rrj KOLVWVLCL rt] /cXacret] cominunica-
That the omission of vpuv after ets tione fractionis vg sah boh is due to .
afaffiv apapTiav D gig perp Rebapt taking T-TJ /cXacrei as appositive. Pesh
Iren Mig.unit, etc. pesh hcl.text and shows the same exegesis.
II
CODEX BEZAE 23
37 care. Tore rrdvres ol crvveXOovres /cat aKovcravrcs Karevvyrjcrav
rg /capSt a, /cat nv$ l avrwv citron rrpos rov Herpov /cat
rovs OLTToaroXovs Tt ow TTOiTjcro^v, avopes aScA^ot; UTToSetgare
r}fj,LV. Herpes oe 77/309 auroik cfrrjaw Meravorjcrare, /cat
paTTTicrdrjTW eKaaros v/zaJv eV ra> ovo^an rov KVpiov Irjaov
Xptcrrou et? a^ecrtv a/xaprtcov, /cat Xijfjuffeade rr)V Sajpeav rov
39 aylov TrvevfJiaros rjfielv yap eanv r) eVayyeAta /cat rots re/cvot?
Tj/Ltcov /cat vraat rot<s > > ets 1 /xa/cpav ocrous" av TrpoCT/caAea^rat
40 Kvpios 6 #eos* r)fJLO)v. erepois oe Aoyot? TrAetoatv 8te/>tapruparo,
/cat Trape/caAet avrovs X&ywv Sdj^re d?7O TT^S* yevea? ravrrjs
rfjs aKoXids.
41 Ot jitev ow Tnarevcravres rov Aoyov aurov /3a7TricrOr]o~av >
/cat rrpoazredrjoav eV e/cetv7y r?J jy/xe/oa i/ff^at cocret r/oto-^etAetat.
42 /cat 7jo*av TrpocrKaprepovvrcs rfj oioaxfj rcov aTToaroXajv ev
lepovGaXrjfj, /cat r?y KOWOJVLO,, rfj /cAaat rou aprov /cat rat?
43 Trpocreu^ats . eyetVero 8e Trao^ ^X?? <f>o/3os TroAAa, repara /cat
38 \7j/ji\f/(rdaL 39
vos crucifixistis 37 tune omnes qui conveuerant exaudientes stimulati sunt corde
et quidam ex ipsis dixerunt ad petrum et ad apostolos quid ergo faciemus viri fratres
ostendite nobis 38 petrus autrus autem ad eos ait paenitentiam agite et baptizetur
unus quisque vestrum in nomine dni ihu xpi in remissione peccatorum et accipite
gratiam sanctum spin 39 nobte enim est haec repromissio et filiis nostris et omnibus
qui in longinquo quos advocaverit dns ds noster 40 aliis quoque sermonibus
pluribus contestabatur et exortabatur eos dicens salvi estote ex progenie hanc prava
41 hi ergo credentes sermoni ejus baptizati sunt et adjectae sunt in illo die animae
quasi tria milia 42 et erant perseverantes in doctrina apostolorum in hierusalem et
in communicatione fractionis panis et orationibus 43 nascebatur quoque omni
38 paenitemini, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine domini Jesu Cyprian,
Christi in remissionem peccatorum, et accipietis donum spiritus sancti. Ep ^ 3 17
39 vobis enim est promissio et filiis vestris et omnibus deinceps, quoscumque
advocaverit dominus deus noster.
37 [cum dixissent igitur turbae :] quid ergo faciemus ? 38 Petrus ad eos Irenaens
ait : paenitentiam agite, et baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine Jesu in iij> 12) 2
remissa peccatorum, et accipietis donum spiritus sancti.
37 TOTC . . . KaTevvyTjffav] mg tune omnes qui congregati erant et audierant Harclean
compuncti sunt U7ro5eiare rj/j.eiv] mg monstrate nobis 40
testabatur -X- iis V 41 iriffTevffavTes] mg et crediderunt et
24 CODEX VATICANUS n-m
eyetero. Trres" e ot moreuom Tes em TO avro 44
arravTa Kowd, /cat ra /crTJ/zara /cat ras vrrdp^eis IrriTTpaaKov 45
Km Ste/ze /otov aura Traaiv /ca#ort aV rt? xpeiav et^ev /ca# 46
r)[j,pav re TrpoaKaprepovvres 6fj,o6vfj,a$ov eV ra> tepa>, /cAcovres
re /car OLKOV dprov, jU-ereAa/^jSavov rpo(f)fjs eV dyaAAtaaet /cat
a^eAdr7]rt /capSt as 1 , alvovvres TOP 0eoi> /cat e^ovre? ^dpiv TTpos 47
oAoi> rov AaoV. o Se Kvpios Tr/oocrert^et rous orajo/xeVoi;s /ca0*
r)fj,epav \ em TO auro. Ill
Ilerpos 1 8e /cat Icoav^s ave)Satvov ets ro lepov TTL TTJV wpav
rfjs Trpoaevxfjs TT^V eVar^v, /cat rt? av/y/o ^a>Aos /c /cotAta? fJbrjrpos 2
Editors 43 e-yetvero 2] +6V lepovaaXrjfji 0oj3os re 77^ /xeyaj e?ri iravras Soden within [ ],
JHR 44 add KCU before iravres Soden JHR CTTI TO auro] ^o-av e?rt TO
auTO /cai WHmg Soden 47 Tj/xepa* ] +[TT; e/f/c\?;o-ia] Soden 1 8e Trerpos
Soden mg 2 /cat] +i5ou JHR
Old Uncial 43 eYeipeTO 2 B 81 (+D) +e> / icpovcraX rjiu, 0o/3os Te TJI [j.eya.5 e?ri Tra^Tas NAG
44 TravTes B /cat Travres NAG 81 7rt<rTi/cravTes BK TrtorTeuoj Tes AC 81 (+D)
e?rt TO auTO B T^o aj eiri TO avro KO.L ^AC 81(+D) 45 Bie/j-epL^ov BKC 81 (+D)
e/nepi^ov A 46 op.oQviJ.aoov ev r<a tepu BXA 81 ev TOJ tepa; 0/j.odvfji.aSov C
TC 2 BKAC (+D) om 81
Antiochian 44 TTKTTevovres PS 462 5~(+D) e?ri TO auro] tjffav eiri TO avro /cat PS 462 5"
(+D) 47 rjaepav ] +TTJ KK\r}<na PS 462 T 1 5e TTCT/JOS PS 462 5~
43 After eyeiveTo 2 fc$AC read ey by reason of the miracles. The
tepov(ra\r)fj. <o/3os re f]v peyas e-m TravTas, same repetition is to be seen in
and they are supported by some Greek almost exactly the same manner in
minn and by vg and boh (pesh has ev v. 5, 11. Note cv te/aoucraX??/* D, vs. 42.
lepouo-aXT^u only). D perp gig e exhibit The authorities for the longer text
the shorter text with B81 Antiochian. in vs. 43 generally read /cat iravTes Se
NAC (but not vg) begin vs. 44 /cat in vs. 44 (but 81 has the shorter text
iravTes 5e. The text of NAC is prob- and yet reads /cat). On transcriptional
ably genuine, for the additional words grounds /cat is to be accepted (cf. iii.
are not drawn from the Western 24, xxii. 29).
text, and are not to be accounted for 44 fin. TO avro eixov is read by B 234
from v. 5. Unless the words are due Orig. Salvian.avar^. iii. 10 perp gig
to mere lust of expansive paraphrase, (munerum for in unum) m r. The
which does not often appear outside others present the expanded rj&av eirt
of the Western text, the argument TO airro /cat axov. Both here and in
from transcriptional motives tells vs. 47 CTTI TO OUTO gave trouble ; cf.
strongly in their favour, since they C. C. Torrey, Composition and Date of
seem to repeat vs. 43a. In fact, the Acts, pp. 10-14.
first clause of vs. 43 (eydveTO Trday 45-46 D /cat otrot /cT^/uaTa etxov i\
\//vxd 06/3os) belongs with the preced- wapitis (cf. iv. 34) and pesh try to
ing sentence (vs. 42) ; the later part of avoid the implication that all were
vs. 43 was concluded by a similar property -owners.
statement, with an appropriate notice After die/j,piov avra D perp gig
(fj.fyas) of increase of reverent feeling m r have Kad ijnepav, which D omits
I .,,
CODEX BEZAE
25
e
aprov
44 crnfJLcla 8ta TO)V drroaroXajv eyetvero. Travres 1 re ot
45 -^crav em TO auTO /cat et^ov Travra /cotva, /cat ocrot
etxov ^ virdpgtis e mVpacr/cov /cat te/ze /3tov aura /ca0
46 Traort frots-j aV Tts xP ^ a
TO) tepaj /cat /car ot/cous*
47 (jbereXdnpavov rpo<j>rjs eV ayaAAtaaet /cat dcfreXorrjTt, /capStas,
atVowTes rov few /cat e^ovres" X-P LV vpos oXov rov KoajJiov. 6
III 8e Kvpios TTpocrerideL rovs aaj^ofjievovs /ca^ r)fjipav \ ETTL TO GLVTO
V rfj KK\rjcria.
Ev 3e rats rjfjiepais ravrais Herpos /cat IcoavTys 1 avejSatvov
ts ro tepov TO SetAetvov 7rt TT)V cSpav vdrr)<v> rfj<s> irpocr-
2 evxys, KCLI ISov ns avrjp ^a>Aos" e/c /cotAta? fJLTjrpos avrov e^aorrd-
animae timor multa etiam portenta et signa per apostolos fiebant 44 omnes etiam d
credentes erant in unum et habebant omnia communia 45 et qui possessiones
habebant et facultates distrahebant et dispartiebantur ea cottidie omnibus secundum
quod qui opus erat 46 omnes quoque perseverantes in templo et per domos id
ipsum capiebant panes accipientes cibum in exultatione et simplicitate cordis
47 laudem dicentes do et habentes gratiam aput totum mundu dns autem autem
adiciebat eos qui salvi fiebant cottie in unum in ecclesia
1 in diebus autem ipsis petrus et johanes ascendebant in templu ad vesperum ad
horam nonain orationis 2 et ecce quidam vir clodus ex utero matris suae baiolabatur
at beginning of vs. 46. The sense
would be excellent, cf. vi. 1. The
insertion by D of a meaningless, but
suggestive, TOIS after irao-iv, and perhaps
also the identity of phrase Kadort ay
TIS xp eiat> f X c>/ with iv. 35, arouse the
suspicion of a deep-seated corruption,
and that the original text of the
passage was something like die/u-epitov
avra Trafftv rois [ ] Ka.6 Tj/jLepav. The
following sentence, vs. 46, might then
have begun, as in D, Traces re, but
what follows in D (KO.T OIKOVS av etn TO
auro) suggests that something is irre-
coverably wrong in the text of both
verses. As the text of D now stands,
an attempt appears to have been made
(KCIT OIKOUS, and especially eiri TO CLVTO)
to take it as referring expressly to
the eucharist. The omission of ev iepw
by perp gig r (r reads orationi in-
stantes) may have had a similar motive.
Observe that no trustworthy witness
to the primitive African text is here
available.
1 CTTI ro auro belongs with the pre-
ceding sentence acording to BXAC 81
vg sah and the (somewhat expanded)
text of D. The reading CTTL TO avro 5e
irerpos is an Antiochian attempt at
improvement of this difficult text ;
it seems to have affected no Latin
document except, naturally, e.
In the ameliorative addition (ev) rt]
eKK\-rj<na, U pesh Antiochian agree,
probably through the Western
element in the Antiochian.
TO SaXiyov D alone, to be taken
as an adverb, cf. Lev. vi. 20 (13),
Susanna 7.
2 D perp 2 vg.one cod pesh /ecu t5ou
ri$ avrjp may be original, since it is
more Semitic. For use of loov to intro-
duce preliminary explanation, cf. Lk.
ii. 25, vii. 37, x. 25, xiii. 11, xiv. 2,
xix. 2, xxiv. 13. The omission of
virapxw in D pesh (perhaps indicated
also by omission of qui erat [so vg]
in perp gig e Lucif) is probably part
of the same original context.
26
CODEX VATICANUS
m
at>Tov imdpxwv e/taora^e <TO >, 6V Ti6ovv KaO* rj^epav TTpos rty
Bvpav TOV Upov r^v Aeyo/xeV^v *}/oatav TOV alrelv eXerjfJiocnjvrjv
Trapd TOJV Lcr7Topvofjiva)v els TO tepoV, os loajv HeTpov /cat 3
Icodvrjv fjieXXovTas etVteVat els TO lepov rjpa)Ta eXerjfJLoavvrjv
Xafieiv. ciTVLcra$ oe HeTpos els OLVTOV ovv TO> Iwdwr) eiTrev 4
BAei/rov els rjfjias. 6 oe eVet^ev GLVTOIS TrpocrSo/coDv rt Trap* OLVTOJV 5
Aa/3ea>. etWev 8e Herpos" Apyvpiov KCLL ^pvcriov ovx vrfdp-^i 6
fJLOl, O Oe %<*> TOVTO (7Ot 8t8o>/Af V TO) oVo/XttTt, I^CTOU XptCTTOU
rou Na^co/oatou TreptTiaret. /cat Trtaaas 1 aurov r^s Senas X i P s 7
Tjyeipev CLVTOV 7rapa^/o^/xa Se ecrrepeco^crav at /3dorts avrov
/cat ra cr^>uSpa, | /cat e^aXXo^evos ecrr^ /cat Tre/oteTraret, /cat etV- 8
rjXOev (jvv OLVTOLS els TO lepov TrepiTraTOJV /cat dAAoju-evos /cat atVcSv
rov #eoV. /cat et8ev Tras o Aaos aurov TrepiTraTovvTa /cat alvovvTa 9
TOI> ^ov, Tfyeiv(jt)<JKOv 8e aurov ort OVTOS rjv 6 rfpos TTJV eXerj- 10
Editors 2 om
/cat] Soden
JHR 3 om XajSeiv JHR 6 va^wpatov]
10 ouros] auras Soden
Old Uncial 2 e/3a<rraero B 2 (B 3 Tdf)
BKAC 81 (+D) Ka\ov/j,evr)i> 095
om 81 ?7/)wra
(-f D) TT/OOS t<
5 avruv B^A 095 81 (+D)
Trer/oos 5e eiTrev AC 095
AC 095 81
8 /cat atj/wj/ BC 095 81
10 aurof BACK a 81 (+D)
TT/JOS
095 (+D) e?ri 81 \eyo/mevi]v
3 os ... TO tepoi/ B^AC (cf. D)
095 81 (+D) epwra C 4 as 1 BAG 095 81
Trerpos eis avrov BKAC 81 (cf. D) ets auroj* Trerpos 095
avrov G 6 etTrev 5e Trerpos B 81 (cf. D)
vafapaiov BX(+D) +6761/36 (C eyeipai) /cat
7 at /3a<rs aurow B^AC 81 avrov at /Saaets 095 (+D)
om /ecu A (cf. D) 9 ^eoy BKA 81 (+D) nvpiov C
om K euros B(+D) auros
Antiochian 3 om Xa/Setv PS 462 (+D) 6 i^afwpatou] +e7etpe (-at T) /cat PS
462 5~ 7 om auro?/ 2 PS 462 r(+D)] aurou at /3aa6ts PS 462 5~(+D)
9 aurov iras o Xaos PS 462 5" 10 5e] re PS 4625~(+D) ^] ecrrtf 462
2 Trap avrwv eiaTropevo/j.ei w^ avruv
D, for Trapa. rwv eio"7ropevo/j.ev<j)i )
is due to a scribe s blunder, which
made necessary the insertion of
the second aura??, but which did not
affect d.
3 Omission of \aj3etv (cf. vs. 5) by
D h perp gig Lucif and Antiochian is
to be followed.
6 BK sah and D have the text with-
owt 676tpe(-at) /cat ; all others, including
h Cypr Iren, contain the addition (cf.
Lk. v. 23 f. and parallels).
8 The superfluous /cat
ea-rrj in D (om h Iren) is due to con-
flation with the B-text.
TrepnraTuv /cat aXXo^evos /cat, omitted
in D h, is probably original, being
represented (after the habit of this
paraphrase) by g[audens] et exultant
(%at/wv /cat a7aXXtw/xevos) h, xatpo^eyos
(perhaps for xcu/ow< /cat a7aXXta>> y u,e> Oj)
D, gaudens d e foai/wi/ E), attached
in each case to TrepteTrarei. The words
themselves are by no means otiose in
the context.
:
III
CODEX BEZAE 27
ero, oV Irffiow Kad* rjfJLepav npos rrjv Bvpav rov iepov rr]v Aeyo-
fjLvrjv Qpaiav rov alrelv eXerjfjbocrvvrjV Trap* avrajv elcrTropevo-
fjuevcov avrojv et? TO lepov. \ ofiros drevLO as rots ofidaXfjio is avrov
/cat tStov Herpov /cat lajdvrjv fjieXXovras et<crte>vat etV TO lepov
4 rjpwra avrovs \rjfjLoavvr]V. fJL/3\i/jas oe d Herpos ets* avrov
5 avv *Ia)dvr) ^at 6*776 v Areyetow ets* T^ita?. d Se
6 auTOts* TTpooSoKOtv Tt \aftzlv Trap 9 avrwv. etWv 8
Apyuptov /cat xpvalov ovx vrrap^i fjioc, o Se e^co rovro aoi
StBco/u* eV TO) ovopan Ir]aov X/oto-Tou TOU Na^opatou Trept-
7 TrciTet. /cat Trtacras" auTov T^? Septet? ^etpds" ^yeipev /cat rrapa-
XpfjfjLa ecrrddr), /cat GTpea)6r](jav avrov at jSacretS /cat Ta cr^>upa,
8 | /cat e^aAAdjaevos* CCTTT^ /cat Trepierrdrei f^atpd^Ltevo^f , /cat eto*-
9 fjXdev ovv avrols etV TO tpdv alvcov rov 6eov. /cat etSev Tras* d
10 Aad? awTov TrepiTrarovvra /cat alvovvra rov deov,
4 twav^v 7
quern ponebant cottidie ad januam templi earn quae dicitur pulchra ut peteret d
elemosynam ab his qui ingrediebantur in templum 3 hie respiciens oculis suis et
vidit petrum et johannen incipientes introire in templum rogabat eos elemosynam
4 intuitus autem petrus in eum cum johannen et dixit aspice ad nos 5 ad ille
adtendebat eos expectans aliquid accipere ab eis 6 dixit autem petrus argentum et
aurum non est mihi quod habeo hoc tibi do in nomine ihn xpl nazorei ambula 7 et
adpraehensum eum dextera manu suscitabit et confestim stetit et firmatae sunt ejus
vases et crura 8 et cum exsiluisset stetit et ambulabat gaudens et introibit cum
eis in templum laudem dans do 9 et vidit omnis populus eum ambulantem et
2 qui introibant templum. 3 hie contemplatus o[culis su]is, cum vidisset h
Petrum et Johannem incipiences in]troiret in templum, rogabat illos elemosynam.
4 [intuijtus autem eum Petrus cum Joanne, adspic[e, inquit], et contemplare
me. 5 ille autem contemplatus e[st eos,] sperans aliquid accipere ab eo.
6 dixit autem [Petrus] ad eum : argentum quidem et aurum non est [mihi :
quod] autem habeo, hoc do tibi : in nomine Ihu Xpi Na[zareni] surge et
ambula. 7 et adpraehensa manu e[jus destejra, excitavit eum, et continue
stetit, confirm[atique] sunt gressus ejus et laccania, 8 et ambulabat g[audens]
et exultans. introivit autem cum eis in tem[plum lau]dans dm. 9 et vidit
eum omnis populus ambulan[tem et] dm laudantem. 10 agnoscebant autem
6 dixit autem Petrus ad eum : argentum quidem et aurum non est mihi ; Cyprian,
quod autem habeo hoc tibi do. in nomine Jesu Christi Nazarei surge et Test - " 6
ambula. 7 et adpraehensa manu ejus dextera excitavit eurn.
6 argentum et aurum non est mihi ; quod autem habeo, hoc do tibi : in Irenaeus,
nomine Jesu Christi Nazareni surge et ambula. 7 et statim ejus confirmati iiL 12) 3
sunt gressus et plantae, 8 et ambulabat et introivit cum ipsis in templum,
ambulans et saliens et glorificans deum.
6 Trcrpos] +mg ad eum Harclean
28
CODEX VATICANUS
in
Ka6TJfj,Vos em rfj Qpata YlvXrj rov Icpov, /cat envVrj-
cr6r]crav Od^ovs /cat eKcrrdcreaJS eVt TO) crujLtjSe/fy/cort aura).
Kparovvros oe avrov rov Herpov /cat TOV lajdV^j/ owe Spa/zey n
Trasr o Aaos 1 TT/OOS" avrous 1 em r?J oroa r?J KaAovfJievr] SoAo/xcavro?
e/c0a/zj3ot. tSa>v Se o Her/DOS drrzKpivaro 77/30? TOI> AaoV- "AvSpes 1 12
lorrpaTyAetrat, rt 0au/zaere em rovrto, r) TJJMV rt drevi^ere (Ls
tSta SvvdfjiL 77 euo-e^Seta TreTroirjKooiv rov rfepiTrarelv avrov; 6 13
0? Appaajj, /cat laaa/c /cat Ia/cc6j8, o ^eos rcDi^ Trarepcw
, eoogaazv rov rraioa avrov *Irjaovv, ov vp,LS JJLCV irap-
eSaj/care /cat ^pviqaaoOe Kara TrpoacoTrov HetAarou, Kpcivavros
Kivov aTToAvew vfJLets Se rov aytov /cat OiKaiov rjpvrjcrao de, 14
Editors 13 /ecu 1] +o ^eos Soden
2] +o 0eos Soden
Old Uncial 10 rrj wpcua Trv\rj BACX C 81 (+D) ryv wpaiav
re A roy 2o BtfA 81 om C (cf. D)
TOVTO 81 TOV BKAC (+D) om 81
+o ^eos KG KO.L 2 B 81 -f 0eos
BAG 81 (+D) Trarepa S
BAG 81 (+D) a,Tro\\veiv X
11 5e
12 TOVTU BKAC(+D)
13 /ecu 1 B 81 +0eos A(+D)
+o
Kpeivavros B^A 81 (+D) KpivovTos C
Antiochian 11 aurou] rou ta^evros x w ^ oi; PS 5"
7T/30S ttUTOUS TTttS XttOJ PS 462 5~
+o 0eos S (cf. D) om /tei/ S 5"(+D)
f. D)
12 om o PS 462 T 13 /ecu 1]
+O.VTOJ> PS 462 5~(+D)
11 The Western reviser, under
standing that the Porch of Solomon
was not inside but outside of the
Beautiful Gate, has rewritten this
verse, and his paraphrase is found
substantially intact in D ; while h
rests on a partial and conflate version
of it, in which the words of the B-text
from ffweSpa/jiev iras o Aaos to e/c0a//.j3oi
have been substituted for 01 5e 6afj.-
P"r)6ei>Ts e<rTT)<Tai> of D. In D perhaps
/cat ai To?, represented in h, has been
dropped after crwee7ropei/ero, and
certainly eKdafufioL is due to conflation
from the B-text. ot da^ ijdevres refers
to the crowd ; the awkwardness in
the B-text of the plural K0a/j.j3oL after
(rvvedpapev may have led to the
Western rewriting of the second
half of the verse.
12 ei;<re/3eia] %ov<na h perp 2 vg.codd
pesh arm. Iren omits the word
altogether.
13 D TOV Kpewavros is due to con
flation ; cf. h Iren.
14 For efiapware D Iren (adgravastis)
Aug. peccat. meritis i. 52 (inhonorastis
et negastis) no good explanation can be
given. Harvey on Iren. iii. 12, 3 points
out the resemblance of the Syriac
words kephar (a pv tied at) and kebad
(fiaptivew). See also Nestle, Philologica
Sacra, 1896, pp. 40 f., who suggests
kebar. It is more probable that
ef3a.pwa.Te is a retranslation of the
Latin gravastis d, adgravastis Iren.
But why the Latin translation took
this turn is not explained ; the Greek
text of Irenaeus, if extant, would prob
ably supply the key to the problem.
The Sahidic rendering (cod. B) would
correspond to Tjpv-rja-acrde /cat KaTetypovy-
crare aurou (or Tjriyuacrare auroj>), but it
throws no light on the problem, since
the second verb would never be used
to render fiapvyeiv (H. Thompson).
Ill
CODEX BEZAE 29
re avrov on ovros rjv 6 rrpos rrjv eXcrjfJLOcrvvrjv /
rfj Q/oe o. HvXrj rov tepou, /cat errXTJadrjcrav 6dp,j3ovs Kal K<a>rd-
aecos cm rw yeyevrj^va) avra>. eKiropevofJLevov oe rov Tlerpov
Kal IcudVou avv^7TopVro Kparajv avrovs, ol oe ^aju./fyfleVres
ecrrrjo-av eV rfj crroa, rj /caAou/zeV?] SoAo/ztovos", e/c#a/z/?ot.
12 OLTTOKpideis Se 6 Herpes etWei Trpos 1 avrovs "AvSpe? IcrpaTyAt-
rat, rt ^au/xa^ere CTTI roura), 77 rjpew rL dre^t^ere a)?
rfj loia ovvdfju, rj cvorefiia rovro TrerroirjKorwv rov
13 avrov; 6 deos AjSpaa/x, Kal 6eos Icra/c /cat ^eo? Ia/cc6p, o
raiv rrarepajv ^ju.tui , e8o^a(rev rov TratSa avrov I^crow
ov UjLtet? TrapeSco/care ets KpLaw /cat aTTrjpvrjo aorde avrov
Kara Trpoorwtrov HetAarou, rou /cpetVavros", e/cetVou aTroAuetv
14 aurov deXovros v/xets" Se rov ayiov /cat St/catov efiapvvare, /cat
10 re] rat 12 Oavfia^rai rov] rovro
13 v/^ets] rjfjitis airr]pvr)o-a.o-dai
laudantem dm 10 cognoscebantque eum quia hie erat qui ad elemosynam sedebat d
in porta ilia pulchra templi et repleti sunt terroris et stupefactionis in eo quod
contegerat ei 11 exeunte autem petrum et joliannen cum eis ibat tenens eos
stupentes autem stabant in porticum qui vocatur solomonis stupebant 12 respondens
autem petrus dixit ad eos viri istrahelitae quid admiramini super hoc aut nos quid
intuemini quasi nos nostra propria virtute aut pietate hoc fecerimus ut ambulet hie
13 ds abraham et ds isac et ds iacob ds patrum nostrorum clarificavit puerum suum
ihm xpm quern tradidistis in judicio et negastis eum ante faciem pilati cum judicasset
ille dismittere eum voluit 14 vos autem ipsum sanctum et justum grabastis et
eum, qu[oniam] ipse fuit qui ad elemosynam sedebat ad horr[eam por]tam h
templi : et inpleti sunt omnes ammiration[e], et stupebant de eo quod illi
accidit sanitas. 11 [exeun]tibus autem Petro et Joanne simul et ipse pro[dibat]
tenens eos, et concurrit omnis populus ad eos [in portijcu quae vocatur
Solomonis, stupentes. 12 cum v[ideret] autem Petrus, respondit ad populum
et dixit : v[iri Istrajelitae, quid ammiramini super hoc, aut nos qu[id intujemin^
quasi nos nostra virtute aut_potestate [fecerimujs ut amvularet istae 1 13 ds
Abraham et Isac et Ja[cob, ds] patrum nostrorum clarih cabit filium suum ihm
[xpm, qu]em vos quidem tradidisti ad judicium, et negastis [ante] faciem Pilati,
illo volente eum dimittere. 14 vos aute [sanct]um et justum negastis, et vos
12 viri Israelitae, quid miramini in hoc, et nos quid intuemini, quasi Irenaeus,
nostra virtute fecerimus hunc ambulare ? 13 deus Abraham, deus Isaac, iiL 12> 3
deus Jacob, deus patrum nostrorum, glorificavit filium suum, quern vos
quidem tradidistis in judicium, et negastis ante faciem Pilati, cum remittere
eum vellet. 14 vos autem sanctum et justum adgravastis, et petistis virum
13 cts Kpitnv] ing in judicium Harclean
30 CODEX VATICANUS m
Kal fjTrjoracrde avSpa (f>ovea xapio*drjvai, Vfuv, \ TOP 8e dpxrjyov 15
rfjs ,a)fjs a7TKTivaT, ov 6 0os rjyeipev IK ve/cpeuv, ov r^eis
fjbdprvpes &fj,V. Kal rfj rn orei rov oVo/mro? avrov rovrov ov 16
6ea)peiT6 Kal o ioare ecrrepecuo-ev ro ovofia avrov, Kal rj Triaris
TJ Si avrov eocoKev avra) rrjv 6\OK\7]piav Tavrrjv airlvavTi Trdvrajv
v^wv. Kal vvv y doeXcfroL, otSa on Kara ayvoLav eTrpa^are, a)V7Tp 17
Kal ol apxovres VJJLCJV 6 oe deos a TrpoKarrjyyziXzv Sta crro/zaroj 18
rrdvrajv rajv 7Tpo(f>r]ra)v rraQelv rov Xptcrrov avrov eTrA^pcucrei
. /xeravo^crare ovv Kal eTTiarpei/jare 77/90? TO J;a\i<f)Qr}vai 19
ra? d/xaprias", OTTOJS av ZXOajaw Kaipol dvai/tvgecDS 0,770 20
7rpoaa)7TOV rov Kvpiov Kal aTrocrretA^ rov rrpoKe-^eipia^evov v[uv
Xpiarov IT^CTOW, 6V Set ovpavov /xev Se^aa^at a xpt xP va)V ^TTO- 21
Editors 16 /ecu 1] +e7ri Soden 19 ?rpos] eis Soden
Old Uncial 16 /cat 1 BK 81 +e?rt ACX C (+D) 18 iradeiv TOV xptarov BKC 81 (+D)
om A 19 eTTicrrpei/ aTe B^A 81 (+D) eTrtr/aei^are C ?rpos BN
ets AC 81 (+D) 20
Antiochian 16 /cat 1] +eirt PS462S~(-fD)
O.VTOV 1] TOVTOV S
18 avTov
Tradeiv TOV \pujTov PS 462 S~
19 Trpos] ets PS462T(+D)
20 irpo-
/cexetpto ju.ei OJ ] TrpoKeKrjpvy/Jievov S~ ^
rpo/ce%apt(7//,evo S iiyaovv Xl
uarov 5"
14 To the addition of potius by hcl. the two ancient readings is to be
mg after yrrjaaTe corresponds petistis preferred to the common phrase with
inagis e E. CTTL.
16 T?) rto-ret BK 81; e?rt TT; Trtcrret 19 Trpos Btf alone ; ets AC81D An-
ACD h (supra ; Iren and other Latin tiochian. The only ground of decision
documents read in and probably re- is the relative value ascribed to the
present rrj Trtcrret) Antiochian. Since opposing groups.
the Antiochian text probably did 20 For hcl -X- cf. the addition of
not influence h, the reading with vobis in varying positions by Iren boh ;
ert is ancient, but the shorter of by h Tert ; and by e vg.codd.
CODEX BEZAE 31
15 rjr^aare avopa <f>ovea xapiorOfjvcu v^elv, rov oe dpx^yov rrjs
ta>fjs drreKreivarc, ov 6 Oeos tfyecpev IK veKpajv, ov r)fj,is fidprvpes
1 6 ecr/xev. Kal errl rfj mWei rov ovo^aros avrov rovrov tfeajpeire
Kal o ioare ort evrepecocrev TO 6Vo/za avrov, KO! r) rrions rj oY
avrov oa)KV aura) rrjv 6XoK\ripiav ravrrjv aTrevavri rrdvrojv
17 vfjicJjv. Kal vvv t avopes doeXfoi, emo-rdfJieOa ore v^els pev Kara
1 8 ayvoiav Trpdar rrovr^pov, warrep Kal ol apxovrts v^v 6 oe
6eos o TrpoKarrjyyziXev oia vrofjuaros rrdvrcov rcuv 7TpO(f>7]rajv
19 TraQeiv rov Xptcrrov avrov TrXrjpa)O*V ovrws. {jLeravoijcrare ovv
20 Kal eTrtcrrpe^are ets" TO ^aXei(f)drjvai, ra? djLtaprtas" v^G)v 3 OTTCO?
av TreX6a>o*iv Kaipoi dvai/jv^ecos arro Trpoo-corrov rov KVpiov Kal
21 aTTOorreiXTj rov 7Tpo/<:e%tpto-/xeVov Vfjuv Xptarro^ I^crow, ov Set
14 (froveia 15 ?7/xeis]
postulastis virum homicida donari vobis 15 principem vero vitae interfecistis quern d
ds suscitavit a mortuis quibus nos testes sumus 16 et in fide nominis ejus hunc
quern vidistis et scitis consoldavit nomen ejus et fides que per ipsum est dedit ei
integritatem hanc coram omnibus vobis 17 et nunc viri fratres quia vos quidem per
ignorantiam egistis iniquitatem sicut et principes vestri 18 ds autem quae prae-
nuntiavit per os omnium prophetarum pati xpm suum inplevit sic 19 paenitentiam
ergo agite et convertimini ad hoc ut deleantur peccata vestra 20 ut veniant tempora
refrigerii a facie dmi et mittat praedestiuatum vobis ihm xpm 21 quern oportet
petestis homicidam [homijnem vivere et donari vobis : 15 priucipem autem h
vi[tae s]uspendentes occidistis, quern ds excitavit a mor[tuis, cuj]us nos sumus
testes. 16 et supra ficlelitate nominis [ejus h]unc quern videtis et nostis con-
firmavit nomen [ejus, et] fides dedit ei integritatem istam in cons[pectu
ojninium vestrum. 17 et nunc, viri fratres, scimus quo[niam no]n quidem per
scientiam fecistis nequam, sicut [et princ]ipes vestri. 18 verum ds, quod
adnuntiabit ore o[nium prjofetarum passurum xpm suum, et inplebit. 19 [peni-
tea]t itaquae vos et convertimini ad_perdelenda [peccata] vesta, 20 ut tempora
vobis refrigcris supraviniat [a facie d]ni, et mittat vobis praeparatum Ihm Xplm:
19 paeniteat itaque vos et respicite ad abolenda delicta vestra, 20 uti tempora Tertullian,
vobis superveniant refrigerii ex persona dei et mittat praedesignatum nobis Res " car " n " 23
homicidam donari vobis : 15 ducem autem vitae occidistis, quern deus Irenaeus,
excitavit a mortuis, cujus nos testes sumus. 16 et in fide nominis ejus 11K 12> 3
hunc quern videtis et scitis confirmavit nomen ejus, et fides quae est per
ipsum dedit ei incolumitatem coram vobis omnibus. 17 et riunc, fratres, scio
quoniam secundum ignorantiam fecistis nequam ; 18 deus autem quae praedixit
ore mnium prophetarum pati Christum suum adimplevit. 19 paenitentiam
igitnr agite et convertimini ut deleantur peccata vestra, 20 et veniant vobis
tempora refrigerii a facie domini, et mittat praeparatum vobis Christum Jesum,
14 777770" arc] -\-mg potius 17 irovypov] mg malum 20 eireXduaiv] Harclean
veniant -X- vobis V
32 CODEX VATICANUS m
Karaardaeajs Trdvrojv <Lv IXdXr^aev 6 0os OLOL crrofjiaros rcDi/
ayiojv OLTT alojvos avrov 7Tpo(f)r]ra)v . Mwvafjs p-ev elrrcv on 22
Deut. xyiii. UpO^ljrrjV VfJilV dvaaTTJCrei KVplOS 6 QeOS 6/C rOJV doX(f>a)V VfJLCOV
ws //, avrov aKOVcreade Kara rfdvra ova av XaXijcrrj vrpos v^ds.
corrai oe rrava fax*) /) ? rts> ^ v W dKOvarj rov TTpofirjrov /cetVou 23
Lev. xxiii. 29 ^oXedpevd^acraL K rov Aaou. Kal 7rdvr$ o ol TTpo^rai 24
arfo 2a/xou9jA /cat ra>v KaOe^fjs ocrot eXdXrjaav /cat /car^yyetAay
ras" r)fJLpa$ ravras. v/zets core ot vtot ra>v Trpo^rcov /cat 25
TTj? OLadrjKTjs rjs o 6e6s oiedcro Trpos rovs irarepas t5
Gen. xxii. is Aeycuv TTpos AppadfL Kat ev TO) CT7re /3/-taTt CTOU
aovrai Tracrat at Trarptat r^s* y^?. w^ttv rrpwrov dvaarrfcras 26
24
Editors 22 0eos] +r)nw Soden 25 Sieflero o 0eos Soden v/jnav] i\\uav WHmg
ev\oyr)dr}<TovT(ti] evev\oyr)6 r)a OVTai Soden
Old Uncial 21 ayuav BKAC 81 +TWV B 2 (B 3 Tdf) K c (cf. D) 22 0eos B
+vfiuv AN C 81 (+D) 24 TrpofrjTcu B 2 (?) ocrot BAG 81 ot KC 2
eXaX77cra;> BKAC 81 eTTpoty-rjTevaaLV C 2 KarfjyyeiKav BtfAC 81 (+D)
TrpoKarriyyeiXav C 2 [a]^a77ei[Xa^] 0165 25 o ^eos Siedero B 0165
(+D) Ste^ero o 0eoy XAC 81 vfuav BAK C 81 -r\^v ^C 0165 (+D)
ev BKAC 81 (+D) om 0165 evXoyrjdijaovTai B ev\oyr)(Toi>Tai A
vev\oyr)dr)<rovTai KA 2 0165 81 (+D) eirevXoy^drjaovTai C 26 aj/acmjaas
o 0eos BXC 0165 o 0eos avaffrrjaas A 81 (+D)
Antiochian 21 rwv] iravruv rwv PS 462 TTOLVTWV S~ airou Trpo^rjruv air atw^oy PS 462 5"
22 /ACV] +yap (S orn 7a/)) TT/JOS TOVS trarepas PS 462 5~(cf. D) ^eos] +r)/j.ii)v P
+i;/AWJ S 462 5~(+D) 24 K:ar7j77et\aj ] TrpoKaTr)yyet.\av 5~ 25 om ot
PS 462 r(+D) 5ie6ero o 6cos PS 462 r i/^wv] TJ/XWJ/ PS 462 5"(+D)
om ev 5" eiXo777^r?crovTai] eyeuXo777^77(roi rai PS 462 ~(-}-D) 26 o ^cos
P 5~+D om o 0eos S
24 D o eXaXTjora? (MS. -ef), for oaot For at Trarptat hcl.wgr has emwatha
e\a\r)crav, is due to misunderstanding daberitha, perhaps meaning that
of the Latin quotquot (quodquod d h), emwatha is the word used in the
which accurately rendered oo-ot. passage of Genesis (beritha) from
25 vfjuav BA 81 has been conformed which the quotation is drawn (Gen.
in XC0165 D Antiochian to the xxii. 18). The Syro-hexaplar is lack-
general usage of Acts in referring to ing in this passage ; pesh renders by
our fathers. amme.
CODEX BEZAE
21 \povov 22 aKOV(recr6ai 24 eA-aA^crev 25 earat
caelum quidem accipere usque ad tempera restitutionis omnium quae locutus est ds d
per os sanctorum suoru prophetarum 22 moyses quidem dixit ad patres nostros
quia prophetam vobis suscitavit dns ds vester de fratribus vestris tamquam me ipsum
audietis secundum omnia quaecumq-locutus fuerit ad vos 23 erit autem omnis anima
quaecumq-non audierit prophetam ilium disperibit de populo 24 et omnis prophetae
a samuel et eorum qui ordine fuerunt quodquod locuti sunt et adnuntiaverunt dies
hos 25 vos estis filii prophetarum et ejus dispositionis quam d! disputavit ad patres
nostros dicens ad abraham et in semine tuo benedicetur omnis patriae terrae
21 que [oportejt caelos recipere usquae ad tempora dispositi[onis omjnium h
quae locutus est ds ore santorum pro[fetaru]m suorum. 22 Moyses quid em
dixit ad patres [nostro]s : profetam vobis excitavit dns ds de fratrib-
[vestri]s tanquam me : eum vos audituri per omnia que[cumqu]e locutus
fuerit ad vos. 23 omnis autem anima quaecumquae non audierit profetam
ilium, e[xtermi]navitur de populo. 24 et omnes profetae a Samuel [et per]
ordineni quodquod locuti sunt, adnuntiaver[unt isjtos dies. 25 vos estis tili
profetorum, et testan.ent[i quod] di disposuit ad patres nostros, dicens ad
Abra[ham : et] in semine tuo venedicentur omnes nationfes ter]rae. 26 vobis
Christum, 21 quern oportet accipere caelos ad usque tempora exhibitionis Tertullian,
omnium quae locutus est deus ore sanctorum prophetarum. Iies " carn - 23
21 quern oportet caelum quidem suscipere usque ad tempora dispositionis Irenaeus,
omnium quae locutus est deus per sanctos prophetas suos. 22 Moyses quidem iii- 12 3
dicit ad patres nostros quoniam prophetam vobis excitabit dominus deus
vester ex fratribus vestris quemadmodum me, ipsum audietis in omnibus
quaecumque locutus fuerit ad vos : 23 erit autem omnis anima quaecumque
non audierit prophetam ilium peribit de populo. 24 et omnes a Samuel et
deinceps, quotquot locuti sunt, et adnuntiaverunt dies istos. 25 vos estis
filii prophetarum et testamenti quod deus disposuit ad patres nostros, dicens
ad Abraham : et in semine tuo benedicentur omnes tribus terrae. 26 vobis
VOL. Ill D
34
CODEX VATICANUS
m-iv
o Oeos rov Trdtoa avrov aTreareiXev avrov evXoyovvra V[j,ds
V TO) aTTOOrp</)LV KaOTOV OLTTO rOJV TTOVTjpiCOV .
AaXovvrcjv 06 avrojv Trpos rov Xaov 7Tcrrr]crav avrois ot IV
ls Kal 6 crrparyyos rov lepov /cat ot ZaSSou/catot, 8ta- 2
Sta TO StSaoTcctv avrov? rov Xaov /cat /carayyeAAetv
v avacrracrtv rrjv /c vKptijv, /cat eVe/3aAoi> avrots 3
^devro els rtfpTjaiv etV T^V avpiov, rjv yap cairepa
e ra>
ra?
. TroAAot Se rcuv aKovaavrcDV rov Xoyov eirio-revcrav, /cat 4
dpidfjios r&v dvopcov ws ^etAtaSes 1 TreVre.
EyeVero 8e 7rt TT)V avpiov avva^OrivaL avrwv roi>s apxovras 5
KOL rovs 7rpcr/3vrpovs /cat rou? ypa^arels ev IcpoucraATjjU,
| (/cat "Avvas 6 dpftiepevs /cat Kata^a? /cat lajdW qs /<:at AAe^- 6
Editors 26 TrovrjpLwv ]
+IVH WH
+vfj.(t>v Soden JHR
1 apxtepets]
tepets WHmg Soden JHR
4 [o] api0/j.os Soden
ws] [wo-et] Soden
5 ev] ets JHR
6 ia
)avvr)s\ Mvadas JHR
Old Uncial 26 ovrou BKAC 81 (+D) O.VTOV 0165 voviipiwv B +U/AWJ NA 0165 81
(+D) +O.VTUV C 1 apxie/aets BC tepeis ^A 0165 81 (+D) 2 diairovov/ueyoi
BKA016581 K<u 8iairorovtieroiC*A(c.tT>) ra> BXAC 81 om 0165 T-TJV c/c
B^AC 81 rwv 0165 (+D) 3 eOevro BK 0165 81 (+D) -faurous AC
ets TT;* avpiov (X yauptov) B^A 81 r^y eiravpiov 0165 (cf. D) 4 TOC XO^GJ/
B 0165 81 (+D) om A a/>i0/w B^ 0165 (+D) o apt0/xo5 A 81
TWF aj/Spwv BXA 81 (cf. D) avepwirw 0165 ws B 0165 (-fD) om KA 81
5 rous 3 BKA 81 om 0165 (cf. D) ev BA 81 (+D) ets K 0165
Antiochian 26 avrov] +i-r)ffovv PS 462 5" 7TOJ>?7piUH>]
1 apxiepets] tepets PS 462 5~(+B) 2 TTJ^ e/c] rwi/ PS 462 (+D)
PS 462 r ws] wo-ei PS 462 5" 5 TOVS 2 om PS 462 r
om PS 462 r(cf. D) e^J ets PS 462 r
/cai Kat.a<j)a.v KO.L Lwavvijv teat a\e^5pov PS 462 S~
PS 4625~(+D)
4 o aptdfios
TOUS 3
rov ap%tepea
26 The omission of avrov by D h
perp gig Iren is improvement of
style.
1 tepets KAD Antiochian sah is to be
preferred to the more usual apxiepets
BC.
D omits /cat o (rrpaTyyos rov tepoi/.
The word used for o-Tpar^os in gig
pesh hcl.text sah. corf boh is plural.
5 The agreement of h pesh in trans-
lating : (et pesh) postero die collecti
sunt magistratus, etc. suggests that
eyevero (<5e) in D is due to conflation
with the B-text, and that the shorter
text is the true Western, a simplifi-
cation, at the same time providing
a grammatical construction for the
nominatives in vs. 6, which Antiochian
has made over into the accusative.
But the paraphrase might have been
independent in Syriac and Latin.
ets fc>0165 is to be preferred to the
more elegant ev ; see Note on ii. 5.
6 D perp gig prov tepl read iwvadas
for Luavv-qs of all other MSS. and versions
(including h). Probability seems to
lie with the far less usual Jonathan,
for h is by no means impeccable.
lonatha is included as one of the
proper names of Acts in Jerome,
TII-IV CODEX BEZAE 35
7Tpa>rov 6 0eos dvaar^cra? rov Traloa avrov ea7reareiXev eu-
Aoyowra vfJLas ev r<a)> drroarpecfrew 1/caoTov e/c rwv Trovrjpi&v
VfJLCOV.
IY AaXovvrcov Se avrwv 77/00? TOI> AaoV ra pTJfjLara ravra eir-
2 ecrryo-av ol elepels /cat ot ZaSSou/catot, OLairovovjJievoi Sta TO
StSaovceti> avrovs rov Xaov /cat aVayyeAAetv rov I7yo*ow ei> TT^
3 dvdo-rao~L rwv veKpwv, /cat eVet/taAoVres ayrot? ras" ^etpa? /cat
4 edevro el? rrjprjcriv els rrjv tTravpiov, rjv yap ecrTrepa 97817. TroAAot
8e TOJV aKovcravTUJV rov \6yov CTricrrevcrav, /cat apidfj,6s re eyevrfdr)
dvopwv cos ^tAtaSe? e.
5 EyeVero oe enl rrjv avpiov 7jfj,epav avrfa(h)(Ha> ol ap^ovres
6 /cat ot TTpeafivrepoi /cat ypa/z/xarets ev lepoucraA^/z, | /cat "Awa$
6 dpx^pevs /cat Kat^a? /cat laWflas 1 /cat AAe^avSpo? /cat oom
26 euAoyowras e/cacrro? 2 SiaTroyov/zevoi] Ka.ta7rovovfj.evoi
26 vobis primum ds suscitavit puerum suuin misit benedicentem vos in eo cum d
abertatur unus quisque a nequitiis suis
1 loquentibus autem eis ad populum verba haec adsisterunt sacerdotes et
sadducaei 2 dolore percuss! eo quod docerent ipsi populum et adnuntiarent ihm in
resurrectione mortuorum 3 et inmiserunt eis manus et posiierunt in adsertionem in
crastinu erant enim vespera jam 4 multi vero eorum qui audierunt verbum
crediderunt et factus est numerus virorum ad quinq- milia 5 contigit autem in
crastinum diem congregati sunt principes et seniores et scribae in hierusalem 6 et
annas pontefex et caifas et joathas et alexander et quodquod erant ex genere
primo ds excitabit filium suum, et [misit] venedicentem vos, ad avertendum h
unumqu[emque] a nequitis suis.
1 loquentibus autem illis ad po[pulum] verba ista, adstiterunt sacerdotes et
praeto[r templi] et sadducei, 2 dolentes de eo quod docerent po[pulum], et
adnuntiarent in ihm resurrectionem mo[rtuoru]. 3 et injectis manibus et
tenuerunt eos et tra[diderunt] custodie in crastinum : fuit autem jam vesper[a.
4 muljti tamen ex eis qui audierunt crediderunt : nufmerus] autem factus ad
quinquae milia hominum. 5 posttero die collect! sunt magistratus et prin[cipes
et] seniores et scribe 6 et pontifex Annas et Caip[has et Jo]hannes et Alexander
primum deus excitans filium suum misit benedicentem vos, uti convertat se Irenaeus
unusquisque a nequitiis suis.
2 in Jesu resurrectionem quae est a mortuis adnuntians. iii. 12, 3
2 iv ITJ<TOV rrjv avaffracriv T&V veKp&v Ktiptiaawv. [catena]
1 ^a pt]/j,ara TO.VTO] mg sermones hos Harclean
Nmn. hebr. p. 103), which probably reviser has made a learned correction
rests on a Greek work of the latter on the basis of Josephus, Antiq. xviii.
half of the third century. It does 4, 3, or from similar information of
not seem likely that the Western his own.
36 CODEX VATICANUS iv
/cat ocrot rjorav IK yevovs apx^panKov) , /cat crr^aavres 7
avrovs ev TO) /zecra; 7TwQdvovTO Ei> Trota SwajLtet 77 ey TTOLO)
ovopan 7Toir)craT TOVTO v/xet?; Tore II expos TrA^cr^et? Tn/ei;- 8
fJLOLTOS dytOU L7TV TTpOS aVTOUS" "Ap^OVTCS TOU AttOU /Cat 7T/)-
vpvrepoi, el r)fJLis arjfipov avaKpLv6fj,69a e m ewepyecrta avdpa)- 9
TTOU acrdevovs, ev T IVI OVTOS crecrcucrTat, j yvcuorrov ecrrco iraoiv 10
vjLttv /cat Travrt ra) Aaa) Icrr/Da^A ort ev TOJ ov6fj,ari iTycrov Xpt-
crrov rou Na^cjpaioVj ov UjLtet? ecrravpcbcrare, ov 6 6eo$ rjyzipev
K VKpa>v, ev TOVTCO ovros 7rapaTr]Kv va)7Tt,ov vftojv uytTys".
PS. cxviii. 22 ourd? ecJTtv o At^os" o e^ovdzvrjdels v</>* vfiajv ra>v ot/coSd/xcov, on
i^ d AAa; ouSevt 12
Editors 8 Trpecr(3vTepoi] +TOV LffpayX Soden
Old Uncial 7 rw B^A 81 om 0165 (+D) eTrot^o-are rouro BA 0165 81 (+D) TOUTO
cTrotT/o-are K 10 rw 2 BKA(+D) om 0165 w/xets B^A(+D)
+/j.ti> 0165 eo-rai /awo-are BKA(+D) ecrrpwo-aTe 0165 OP o BKA(+D)
o 5e 0165
Antiochian 7 om TW PS 462 (+D) 8 TrpeapvTepoi] +TOI; t(rpa77X PS 462 S~(+D)
9 om 6 S avaKpLvufj-eda PS 462 5~ 11 ot/co5o/iwp]
PS 462 T
8 The addition of rou itrpa^X after T; crwr^pta, with now (instead of wee ;
Trpeffpvrepoi, found in D Cypr h perp Iren has et non) for the following
gig Iren (perp 2 w prov tepl vg.codd ovSe. The rearrangement, in which
pesh have rov OIKOV i<rpa-r)\) and in t] ffwrypia necessarily fell out, is
Antiochian, is a good example of the doubtless secondary, but probably
Western element in the Antiochian belonged to the Western text. In
text. D conflation has reintroduced the
10, 12 vyiys, vs. 10, is followed in reading of the B-text both in vs.
Cypr h hcl.m<7 by in alio autem nullo 10 and vs. 12, but has left traces of
(eKetvnalionullo). Correspondingly, the Western in vs. 12 in the omis-
vs. 12, Cypr h Iren Aug. peccat. merit. sion of 77 cramj/Ha and the reading ov
i. 52 omit KCU OVK ea-nv ev oXXw ovdsvi for ovde.
R CODEX BEZAE 37
TOLV 6K yevovs dp^tepaTt/cou, /cat arr)<javTS avrovs V //,ecra>
_TVl>6dvOVTO El> 770 ttt SwdfJU 77 V 7TOLO) OVOjLtaTt 7TOiTJaar
8 rovro vfjiels; rore ITe r^os" TrXrjcrOels Trvev^aros ayt ou LTTV rrpos
9 aurous" "A.pxpvrs TOU Aaou /cat TTpecrfivrepoi rov lopaT^A, | t
^/xets 1 cnjfJLepov avaKpeivo^eQa d<j> u/zaii> CTT euepyecret a avOpaiirov
i 10 a<70evot>s > > ev rtvt OVTOS creo-ajorat, | yvtuoToi ecrrco vraatv u/xetv
/cat TTdvrl TO) Aaa) Icr^a^A ort ev ra> OVOJJLGLTI, Irj&ov Xptaroi}
rou Na^ajpatou, ov v/xet? caravpwcrare^ ov 6 6eos ^yetpev /c
11 VKpO)V, V TOVrO) OVTOS 7Tap(JTr)KV VW7Tl,OV VfJLOJV VyiTJS- OVTOS
ecrrtv o At^o? o e^ovdevrjOels vfi vfjicov rwv ot/coSojitcov, o yevd-
12 fj,vo$ els K(f)aXrjv ywvioLS . /cat ov/c earrtv ev aAAa> ouoevt, oi>
pontifical! 7 cum statuisset eos in medio interrogabant in qua virtute aut quo d
nomine fecistis hoc vos 8 tune petrus inpletus spo sancto dixit ad eos principes
hujus populi et seniores istrahel 9 si nos hodie interrogamur a vobis super bene-
facio hominem infirmum in quo hie salvus factus est 10 notum sit omnibus vobis
et omni populo istrahel quia in nomine xpi ihu nazoraei quern vos crucifixistis quern
ds suscitavit a mortuis in isto hie adsistit in conspectu vestro sanum 11 hie est
lapis qui praejectus est a vobis aedificatoribus qui factus est in capud anguli 12 et
et quodquod fuer[unt ex gejnere pontifical! ; 7 et cum statuissent [eos in h
medi]um, quaerebant in qua virtute aut in q[uo nomine] id fecissent. 8 tune
Petrus repletus sp[u sco ait ad] eos : principes populi et seniores Istrael : 9 [si
nos hodie interjrogamus a vobis super benefacto hominis in[firmi]s, in quo iste
salbatus est, 10 sit vobis omnibus no[tum, e]t omni populo Istrael, quoniam
in nomi dni ihu [xpi N]azareni, quern vos crucifixistis, quern ds excita[vit a
m]ortuis, in illo iste in conspectu vestro sanus ad[stat, i]n alio autem nullo.
11 hie est lapis qui contem[tus es]t a vobis quia aedificatis, qui factus est in
caput [angu]li : 12 non est enim nomen aliud sub caelo da[tum h]ominibus, in
8 principes populi et seniores Israel, 9 ecce nos hodie interrogamur a Cyprian,
vobis super benefacto hominis infirmi, in quo iste salvatus est. 10 sit
vobis omnibus notum et omni populo Israel, quia in nomine Jesu Christi
Nazarei, quern vos crucifixistis, quern deus excitavit a mortuis, in illo iste
in conspectu vestro sanus adstat, in alio autem nullo. 11 hie est lapis
qui contemptus est a vobis qui aedificabatis, qui factus est in caput anguli.
8 Petrus dixit ad eos : principes populi et seniores Israelitae, 9 si nos Irenaeus,
hodie redarguimur a vobis in benefacto hominis infirmi, in quo hie sal- llh
vatus est, 10 cognitum sit omnibus vobis et omni populo Israel, quoniam
in nomine Jesu Christi Nazarei, quern vos crucifixistis, quern deus excitavit
a mortuis, in hoc hie adstat in conspectu vestro sanus. 11 hie est lapis
spretus a vobis aedificantibus, qui factus est in caput anguli. 12 et non
10 vyirj^+mg in alio autem nullo Harclean
38 CODEX VATICANUS iv
ia, ovoe yap ovofjid ecrnv Zrepov VTTO rov ovpavov ro
ev dvdpcbirois ev co Set cra)0rjva,i vfjids. dewpovvres 13
Se rrjv rov Herpov Trapprjaiav /cat IcodVvou, /cat /caraAa/3o/Aefot
ort avdpajTTOi ay/oa/Lt/x,arot etow /cat tSttorat, eQav^a^ov, cV-
eyetVajo"/c6V re avrovs on crvv ra> I^crou rjcrav, roV re dvdpajrrov 14
pAerrovres crvv avrois earcDra rov redeparrevfjuevov ovoev et^ov
aVretTretv. /ceAeucravres Se avrovs ect> roi; crvveopuov dir\Qelv 15
owe/?aAAov TTpos 1 aAA^Aous 1 | Aeyovres" Tt Trot^crcoju-ev rot? avdpaj- 16
Trot? rovrois; ort /xev ya./> y^cocrrov cr^/xetov yeyovev St*
Trdcnv rot? KaroiKOVcnv lepovo-aA^/x cfravepov, /cat ou
aAA* t^a /x^ eVt TrAetov Slave fjirjdfj L$ rov Aaov, a77tA^- 17
a awrots 1 /x-^/cert AaAetv cm ra> oVo/xart roura; /Lt^Sevt
dvdpa)7TO)v. /cat /caAecrayre? aurous" TraprJyyetAav /ca#oAou /z^ 18
14
Editors 12 v/uas] 77/ias WH Soden JHR 18 TO /ca^oXou Soden
Old Uncial 12 ovofjia eariv erepov B ovo/J.a erepov e<mv A 0165 erepov ovo/m.a ecmv #
(cf. D) vyuas B 7/^as A0165(+D) 13 re BKA0165>rr 5e
0165 (+D) 17 iva Bi<A(+D) +5e A 2 ^/cen BK(+D) ^77 A
18 KaGoXov BK TO /ca^oXou AK C (cf. D)
Antiochian 12 ov5e] OUTC PS 462 5~ om UTTO TOI/ ovpavov PS 462 u/ms]
PS 462 r(+D) 14 re] 5e PS 462 r 15 o-we/SaXov r(+D)
16 TroLrj<rofJt.ev PS T(+D) apvr)<ra<rdat. PS 462 r 17 Aaoi/] +a7retX?7
PS 462 r a-n-eiX-rjo-OfJ-eda P 462 (+D) om TOUTW S
avdpuTTU P 18 7rap7777iXai ] +ai^Tots PS 462 5" TO Ka6o\ov
PS 462 T (cf. D)
13-15 The text of vss. 13-15 as found have come about through some adjust-
in full in h alone doubtless represents ment between the text of h (cf. pesh)
accurately the Western rewriting. and that of B, but the precise method
Besides minor alterations, such as is matter for conjecture only. The
vs. 13 aKovcravres for dewpowres, etc., process of conflation seen in D con-
vs. 14 has been inserted after e8av/j.aov tained the possibility of many an
of vs. 13, and the altered connexion accident. It is, however, also possible
has led to various further changes, of that TEFONENAI became by a cor-
which the most noteworthy is the rupt dittography FEFONENAIAI.
introduction of rives Se e avrwv as the 17 With hcl.mg cf. the Latin addi-
subject of e-rreyeivucTKov. tions after populum : verba ista e E
The only clear trace of this Western vg.cod, verba istorum h, verba haec gig
text in D consists of the addition Lucif.
TTOITJO-CU 77 in vs. 14. In pesh the Antiochian adds unaccountably air-
following fragments of the Western fi\-rj before aTretXT/o-ajjue^a. Possibly we
text have survived: vs. 13 cum should know why, if we knew the
audirent ; vs. 14 conversati erant (av- whole cause of the strange reading of
f<7Tpa.(t>T)<rav for rja av), ilium infirmum ; D eTriXTjcro/xe^a ovv oirrots.
vs. 15 tune jus serunt. All these have 18 TrapTjyye^av TO Kara TO D is
been eliminated in hcl.tearf. probably a mere corruption of Trap-
IB The impossible yeyovevai of D may 777761X0,1 TO Kado\ov of A Antiochian.
CODEX BEZAE
non est in alio quondam nequae aliud est nomen sue caelo quod datura est hominibus d
in quo oportet salbos fieri nos 13 intuentes vero petri fiduciam et johannis et
adsecuti quia homines sine litteris sunt admirabantur cognoscebant autem eos quia
cum ihu erant 14 hominem quoque conspicientes cum ipsis stantem ilium que
curatum nihil habebant contradicere 15 cum jussissent autem eos extra consilium
habire conferebant ad invicem 16 dicentes quid faciamus hominibus istis quoniam
quidem notum signum factum est per ipsos omnibus qui inhabitant hierusalem
manifestum est et non possumus negare 17 sed ut non amplius quid serpiat in
populum comminemur ergo eis jam non loqui in nomine hoc cuiquam hominum
18 consentientibus autem omnibus notitia vocantes eos praeceperunt illis ne omnino
quo oportet salvari nos. 13 cum au[diren]t autem omnes Petri constantiam et h
Joannis, [persujasi quoniam homines inlitterati sunt et idio[tae, amjmirati sunt :
14 videntes autem et ilium infirmu [cum ei]s stantem curatum, nihil potuerunt
facere [aut cojntradicere. quidam autem ex ipsis agnosce[bant e]is, quoniam cum
ihu conversabantur. 15 tune [conlojcuti jusserunt foras extra concilium adduci
[Petrujm et Johanem : et quaerebaut ab invicem, 16 dice[tes : quijd faciemus
istis hominib- ? nam manifestum [signum] factum ab eis omnibus habitantib.
Hierosoly[mis appjaret, et non possumus negare. 17 sed ne plus [divulgentujr
in populum verba istorum, comminavi[mur eis ultrja non loqui in nomine isto
ulli hominum. 18 [consentienjtib- autem ad sententiam, denuntiaverunt
12 non est enim nomen aliud sub caelo datum hominibus, in quo oportet Cyprian,
salvari nos. Tent. ii. 16
est aliud nomen sub caelo quod datum sit hominibus in quo oporteat salvari irenaeus,
nos. iii. 12, 4
12 [And there is] none other name [of the Lord] given under heaven wherely Dem. ofAp.
men are saved. Preach. 96
17 eu rov \aov] -\-rng a sermonibus his 18 <rvvKa.Ta.Ti6e[jicv(t)i 5e avrtav Harclean
mg quum consensissent autem ad sententiam
40 CODEX VATICANUS
</>#eyyecr0at jU/^Se StSacr/ceti em rat ovo^an I^crou. o 8e Herpo? I9
/cat loodw^s 1 OLTroKpidevres elrrav Trpos aurous" Et 8t/catoV eortv
rov deov v^ia)V aKOveiv fjidXXov 77 TOU ^eou /cpetVaTe, ou 2 o
yap r^els a t 8ajitej> /cat T^/couaa/zev /U.T) AaAety. ot Se 2 i
a-TreAuow auTous, fJirjSev evpi&Kovres TO TrcDs 1
8ta rov AaoV, ort Trdvres eSd^a^ov rov ^ov
7rt TO) yeyovort* ercDv yap 77^ TrAetovcuv recrcrepaKovra 6 avdpconos 22
(f>* ov yeyovet TO o*7]/xetov TOVTO rrjs tacrecos".
5 } A^7TO\v6evTs Se rjXOov Trpos TOU? ISiovs /cat aTn^yyetAav 23
ocra irpos avrovs ot ap^iepels /cat ot Trpecrfivrepot, etTrav. ot 8e 24
op,o9vp,a$ov rjpav <f)covrjv Trpos" TOV ^eov /cat etTrav
, cru o TrotT^cras TOV ovpavov /cat TT)V yr^v /cat TT)V ddXaaaav
/Cat TTOLVTCL TOL V ttUTOt?, O TOU TTCLTpOS rjfJLCJJV 8t(Z TrVVfJLCLTO$ dytOU 2 5
PS. ii. i f. oTo/xaTO? AauetS TratSos" o*ou etTrcov "Iva Tt (f>pvaav eOvrj /cat
Editors 18 [row] ITJCTOI; WH rou t^aou Soden JHR 21 /coXacrwi Tat WH Sodeu
JHR 22 om TOVTO JHR 24 crv] +[o ^eos] Soden 25 fo TOM
5ta irvev/naTOS aytov <rro/mTojf WHmg
Old Uncial 18 ITJO-OU B TOV t7?<rou B 2 (B 3 Tdf)KA 0165 (+D) 19 o de irerpos
irerpos de 0165 (cf. D) twapj Tjs BK0165 (+D) o iwavvys A eiirav
B etTroj/ i<A(+D) eiTre?/ 0165 21 Ko\aau<rii> B KoXaauvrai B^B 3 Tdf)
23 aTryyyeiXav BA(+D)
Antiochian 18 TOV ITJO-QU PS 462 5~(+D) 19 TT/JOS avrovs eiirov PS 462 T
21 KoXcto-ovTcu P 462 KoXaffu^Tai S S~(-fD) 24 tru] +o 0eos PS 462 5"(+D)
25 o TOU TraTpos T//AW^ 5ta Tn/eu^ctTos ayiou (TTO/iaTos 5avei5] o diet ffTOfAaros 5a^3t5
PS 462 r TOU 7rat5os r
21 The reading of B KoXaawo-iv is interpolated, imputes too great in-
supported only by 61 (codex Mont- eptitude to the supposed primitive
fortianus). The change spoils the neat interpolator, whose text was certainly
sense of the middle KoXaauvrcu, have widely adopted; and the hypothesis is
them punished. intrinsically too easy to be sale. Iren
22 The omission of TOUTO D perp has the full text, but with changed posi-
gig Iren Lucif may well be original. tion of TOU TTCIT/OOS rj/j-uv ; vg is similar.
23 With hcl-X- cf. avrois 1874 vg. The Western text of D (no
25 The consistent reading of all the African document is here extant)
Old Uncial group, BRA (C81 are lack- excised the unintelligible TOU irarpos
ing) Athanasius, o TOU irarpos T)fj.uv 5ia IJ/JLUV, and, failing to recognize the
Tr^eu/ictTos crytou trro/zctTos 5auet5 TrcuSos dependence of Trveu/xaTos a7tou on
(rou enruv is probably to be adopted crroyUctTos, created an additional mem-
here ; see exegetical note for Torrey s ber by inserting 5ta TOU. Whether
explanation from Aramaic original. D s <e>XaX?7o-as, with its noteworthy
To assume, as the Antiochian revisers but not unsuitable position, may be
appear to have done, that both TOU original instead of B s euruv is a
-jrarpos -rjfjiwv and Tr^eu/xaTos <ryiou were question impossible to answer. The
iv CODEX BEZAE 41
Xav fro /caret ro| ft-ry (0e yyeo-0at fi7?8e StSdor/ceti> cm ra> ovopan
19 rou I^crou. a7roKpL0is oe Iler/oos /cat IcadV^s 1 etTrov Trpos*
avrovs Et St/catdV ecrru> C.VOJTTLOV rov deov vfjitov aKOveiv fj,dXXov
1 20 T) TO ^eou /cpetVare, ov ovvdfJL0a yap r)fJ,els a ioa{jLV /cat TJKOV-
i 21 ocLfMV XaXelv. ol Se rrpooarfeiXricrd^Levoi dVeAucrav avrovs, \vr\
VpiaKovTS atrt av TO irajs KoXdacovrai avrovs, Sia rov Aaov, art
I 22 Travre? e 8ofa^ov rov ^eov em ra> yeyovorf ercDi yd/3
p, rjv 6 av6pa)7TOS < ov yeyovet ro o^/Ltetov riy
23 ATroAu^eWe? Se r]Xdov Trpos rovs loiovs KO!
24 ocra Trios aurou? ot dpxipL$ /cat ot Trpecrfivrepoi. etVrav. ot 8e
/cat eViyvovres TT)V rou ^eou eVe/)yetav ofjLodvpaoov
<f)O)vr]V Trpos rov deov /cat etTrav AecrTrora, cru o aeos" o
rov oupavov /cat r?)v yijv /cat r^v 0dXaaaav /cat Trdvra
25 ra, ev at^rots", o? Sta nvev^aros dytou 8td rou crr6fj,aros <>XdX r r]O as
AauetS TratSos" crou*
22 yap] + rjv
loquerentur neque docerent in nomine ibu 19 respondens autem petrus_et Johannes d
dixerunt ad eos si justum est in conspectu di vestri audire niagis quam dm judicate
20 non possumus enim nos quae vidimus et audivimus loqui 21 ad illi etiam
comminat dimiserunt eos nihil invcnientes causam qua punirent eos propter populum
quoniam omnes clarificabant dm super quod factum est 22 annorum autem erat
plurimum xl his homo super quern factum erat hoc signum sanitatis 23 dismiss!
autem venerunt ad suos et renuutiaverunt quanta ad eos poutifices et seniores
dixerunt 24 ad illi cum audissent et_cpgnovissent di virtute unanimiter autem
vocem levaverunt ad dm et dixerunt dne tu es ds qui fecisti caelum et terrain et
mare et omnia quae in eis sunt 25 qui per spin sanctum per os locutus est david
22 annorum enim finquit scriptura] plus quadraginta erat homo in quo Irenaeus,
factum est signum curationis. m
24 [audientes, inquit, tota ecclesia] unanimes extulerunt vocem ad deum
et dixeruut : domine, tu es deus qui fecisti caelum et terrain et mare et omnia
quae in eis, 25 qui per spiritum sanctum ore David patris nostri pueri
23 aTTTjT-yeiXac] annunciarunt -X- iis / Harclean
versions, no one of which seems to arm. The investigation of the many
correspond exactly to the text of D divergent combinations is rendered
although most of them have retained unsatisfactory because the versions
the device of Sia rov aro/uaros, have exercise a legitimate freedom in order
helped themselves by various re- of words, and are incapable of indicat-
arrangements and slight retouchings. ing exactly the minor differences of the
Apparently with a conflation, sah has Greek by which the influence of the
qui locutus est . . . dicens, cf. eth and two Greek texts could be traced.
42
CODEX VATICANUS
IV
Aaot ejjLeXtTTjaav Kvd; Trap(jrr^aav ol jSacrtAets rfjs y^? /cat ot 26
dpxovT$ cruvrj^Orjaav em TO avro Kara rov Kvpiov /cat /card
rov Xptarou avrov. (jvv7J^6rj(jav yap eV dXydeias eV rfj TroAei 27
ravrr) em Tov Qjyiov TTCuSd (jov iTyaow, ov e^peKTa?, HpajS^s 1
re /cat flovrto? IletAaTOS ow eBvecrw /cat Aaot? Icrpa^A, Trot^crat 28
ocra ^ X^^P ou /ca ^ ^ fiovXr] Trpoaipujev yeveo^ai. /cat rd vw^ 29
Kvpie, eVtSe 7rt rds* aTretAd.? OLVTOJV, /cat Sds rots SovAots" crou
jiterd Trapprjcrias Trdcrrjs XaXetv rov Xoyov oov y V TW TTJV X ^P a 3
e/cretVetv ae et? ta<7tv /cat crTy/xeta /cat repara yetvecr^at Std
rou dvo^aros 1 TOU ayiov TratSos crou Ii^crou. /cat Ser^evTcui 31
avra)^ O~aXvOr] 6 rorros ev tjj rjcrav (jwzevot /cat
3 2
TOU dytou TTvevfAaros, /cat eAaAow rdv Aoyov rou
/zer Trapprjaas .
Tov o TrXrjdovs TOJV marevcrdvrwv
poi
Kaoa /cat
Editors 28 /3ouX7/] +<roi; Soden
KO.I [77] ^vxy Soden
30 x e P a ] +< J " oy Soden JHR 32 [rj] xapdia
Old Uncial 25 Keva B /cati/a KA(+D)
BA +<rou KA 2 (+D) 30
<re (K c om ae) KK C (cf. D)
27 TroAet BH(+D) +^01; A
ew <re B X l P a ff fKre
31 airavres BAX C (+D)
28 (3ov\7]
i< Pap 8
Antiochian 27 om e^ TT? TroXa ra^r?; PS 462 5~ 28 /SoiAr;] +crof PS 462 T(+D)
29 aTreiXas] /SouXas S 30 %et/)a] +<rov PS 462 5~(+D) 31 TOI; 07101-
Trvev/j-aros ayiov PS 462 5~ 32 ?; Kapdta /ecu 77 / I X^ PS 462 ~
25 Ktva B Antiochian. Even with
the spelling xaiva NAD, the meaning
was vana, as in all versions.
27 For Xctois BNAD perp gig Iren
Lucif sah (cod. B), the reading Xaos E
(e populo) mirin Aug. praed. sand.
Hil is probably an ancient correction,
and may give the Western text ; cf.
pesh (synagoga] hcl.text (populo) sah
( the people/ codd. of cent, xii-xiii).
30 Hcl.w^ attaches to the word
which renders OVO/J.O.TOS this note :
Copies exist in which "name" does
not occur. This probably relates to
Greek copies, but no such variant in
Greek or in any version is otherwise
recorded.
32 Cyprian cites not only in Test.
iii. 3, but also in De unit. 25, De op.
et el. 25, Ep. 11. 3.
CODEX BEZAE
2 6 "\va ri <f>pv<a>av edvrj /cat Aaot ejjieXerrjcrav Kvd; \ trap-
crrr}oav ol /tacrtAets" rfjs yrjs /cat ot apftovres avvijxdTjcrav
?rt TO avro Kara rov Kvpiov /cat Kara rov X/otcrrou aurou.
27 avvrjxOrjcrav yap err* dXrjdeias V rfj TrdAet ravrr) em, rov aytov
aov Traloa I^o-ow, 6V e^petcra?, ^HpajS^s" re /cat II OPTICS YliXdros
28 oi)v eQvzviv /cat Aaot? lapaiyA, Trot^aat oaa 77 ^et/3 CTOU /cat 17
29 flovXri aov Trpowpiaev yeveadai. /cat ra yw, Kvpie, ^>t8e 7rt
rds 1 ciTretAas awrcDv, /cat Sos" rot? SouAot? orov /xera rracrrjS irap-
30 prjcrias AaAetv rov Aoyov o-ou, eV ra) rTyv X e ^P a aov ^ K ^ ViV <^>t?
taatv /cat cn^/zeta /cat repara yzvzaQai Sta rou ovd/zaros" rou
31 aytou TratSos" crou *I^o i oi;. /cat Serjdevrojv avrcov (jaAvurj o
a) rjcrav (jw^yfjuevoi,, /cat e7rA^o*^7ycrav aTravre? ro> aytou
, /cat cAaAow rov Aoyov rou ^eou /.tera Trapprjcrias
Travrt ra) deXovn Tnarevew.
32 Tou 8e TrX-rjdovs rtov TTiarevcrdvrcw yv /capSta /cat
25 Keva] Kcuva 29 aTretAag] ayia?
puero tuo quare fremuerunt gentes et populi meditati sunt inania 26 adsisterunt d
reges terrae et principes congregati sunt in unu adversus dnm et adversus^pm ejus
27 collect! sunt enim revera in civitate hac super sanctum puerum tuum ihm quern
unxist[i] herodes vero et pontius pilatus cum gentibus et populis istrahel 28^ facere
quaecumq rnanus tua et voluntas t[ua] praedestinavit fieri 29 et nunc sunt dne aspice
super minacias eoru et da servis tuis cum fiducia omni loqui verbum tuum 30 in eo
cum manum extendas ad curatione et signa et portenta fiant per nomen santi pueri
tui ihu 31 et cum obsecrassent ipsi commotus est locus in quo erant collect! et
inpleti sunt omnes sancto spo et loquebantur verbum di cum fiducia omni volenti
credere 32 multitudinis autem eorum qui crediderunt erat cor et anima una et non
27 convenerunt enim universi in ista civitate adversus sanctum filiurn tuum, Tertullian,
quern unxisti, Herodes et Pilatus cum nationibus.
convenerunt enim universi] colleeti simt enim vere Bapt
~ Cyprian,
32 turba autem eorum, qui crediderant, anima ac mente una agebant, nee Test. iii. 3
. _ _ _ ^ _ etc.
tui dixisti : quare fremuerunt gentes, et populi meditati sunt inania 1 irenaeus,
26 adstiterunt reges terrae, et principes congregati sunt in unum adversus iii- 12) 5
dominum et adversus Christum ejus. 27 convenerunt enim vere in civitate
hac adversus sanctum filium tuum Jesum, quern unxisti, Herodes et Pontius
Pilatus, cum gentibus et populis Israel, 28 facere quaecumque manus tua et
voluntas tua praedestinaverat fieri.
31 commotus est [enim, inquit,] locus in quo erant colleeti, et repleti sunt in. 12, r, (6)
omnes spiritu sancto, et loquebantur verbum dei cum fiducia omni volenti
cred
31 eaaXevd-rj [yap, (prjfflit,] 6 r67ros tv o; Tjaav (rvvrjy^voi, teal fir\-f]ff9-r}aav [catena]
rov ayLov Trvevfjt.aTOs icai \d\ovv rbv \6yov rou deou fj-era
30 [See note on opposite page] 32 Kapdia] cor -X- unum y Harclean
44 CODEX VATICANUS iv-v
ta, /cat oi)Se els n rwv VTrapxovrajv avrq> eAeyov tStov
dAA rjv avrois Trdvra Koivd. KOI Swa/zet fieydXTj dVeSt Sow TO 33
ol OLTrocrroXoi TOU Kvpiov I-qcrotJ TT^S" avaoTaaews 1 ,
re jj,ydXrj r\v eVt Trdvras avrovs. ov$e yap evSerjs fy ns 34
J> auTots" ocrot yap /CTT^TOpes 1 ^copt cov 77 OLKIOJV VTrrjpxov, TTOJ-
Xovvres (j)pov ras ret/xa? rcDv 77t77pao-/co/zeVa>i> \ /cat zrLOovv 35
7ra/oa rows TrdSas 1 rcDv aTrocrrdAcov SteStSero Se e/cacrra; KaOori
av Tt? xP ^ av ?X V I^cn?^ ^^ o cirucXrjBels Bap^ajSa? 0,776 36
cxTrocrrdAcuv, o ecrrtv epjJLrjvevofJievov vlos Trapa/cATycreaJS",
, KuTTptos 1 TOJ yeVet, | VTrdpxovros avrw dypov TrcoXijaas 37
TO xP^jf Jba Ka ^ ZQvjKfv Trapd rovs TrdSa? TO)P 0,770 CTToAcuv.
*Avr]p Se Tt? Avavtas* ovd/xaTt OT)I> HaTrfaipr) rfj yvvaiKi V
auTOU eTTwXrjarev KrrjfJia \ /cat evou^iaaro airo rrjs Tijjifjs, cruv- 2
/cat T^S* ywat/cds*, /cat e^ey/ca? /xepo? Tt 77apa TOU? 770809
Editors 32 eXeyev WH Soden JHR Tra^ra] atravra Soden 33 r?jy
avao-Tacrews rou Kvptov iijvov Soden JHR 34 TIS T?* WH Soden JHE
36 epfj.Tjyevo/j.evov l fj.edepfj,-r]vevofj,evoi> WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 32 aurw BKA aurou Pap 8 (+D) cXe7ov B eXe7ez> ^A Pap 8 (+D)
Travra B Pap 8 (+D) a?ravra XA 33 TO paprvpiov OL airoffroXoi BK Pap 8 (+D)
ot a7roo"ToXot TO [Aaprvpiov A TOU Kvpiov ujcrov TT;S a^acrTacrews B TT;S
avaffraaews TOV Kvptov njffov Pap 8 (cf. D) T?;S ava<TTa<recos njaov xp ia " rov TOV
KA (cf. D) 34 77^ TIS B TIS t]v KA Tts v-jrypxev Pap 8 (+D)
BAK C Pap 8 (+D) om K 35 5e BKA(+D) om Pap 8 36
fjLeeepwvevonevov KA Pap 8vid (+D) 37 irapa BA(+D) Trpos
1 avavcas OVOJJ.O.TI BK OVOJJ.O.TL avavia? A(+D)
Antiochian 32 avrui] avruv P 462 eXeyov] e\ryi> PS 4625~(+D)
airavra PS 462 5" 33 fj.eya\rj 8vva.fjt.eL PS 462 5" T??S avao-Tao-ewr TOU
/cupiou ITJO-OU PS 462 5~(cf. D) 34 -rjv TIS] Tts vjrrjpxev PS 462 r(+D)
35 K0.00TL av] /ca^o PS 36 IWO-T/S PS 462 r a?ro] viro 5"(+D)
ep/jLT)t>vofJ.evov] [j.edepfj.r)vevo/j.voi> (-os S) PS 462 S~(+D) 37 auTw] auTOU 462
2 7u^at/cos] +airrov PS 462 r
32 Tertullian, opoZ. 39, itaque qui the Western text, as in perp gig
animo animaque miscemur, nihil de Iren (Aug. serm. 356). In B alone
rei communicatione dubitamus. omnia (the support from Chrys. Horn. xi.
indiscreta sunt apud nos praeter uxores, note the longer phrase with xP LffTOV
may be a reminiscence of the Western is probably a coincidence) the order of
text of this verse. the last two phrases was reversed so as
33 The original reading was aire5i.8ovv to connect TOU Kvpiov ir)<rov with airo-
TO fjiaprvpLov ot aTrotrroXoi TT;S avacrrcKrews o"ToXot. In a revised text, seen
TOU Kvpiov L-rja-ov Pap 8 (cent. iv.)Antioch- in X, IT^O-QU xP icrTOV TOV Kvpiov was
ian sah, with TTJS avacrrao-eus taken as substituted for the simpler TOU Kvpiov
dependent on /j-aprvpiov. This was 1770-01;, and in AE minn vg the text
doubtless the Greek which underlay suffered further by the change of order
iv-v CODEX BEZAE 45
/cat OVK r\v Std/c/Dtcrts- eV avrois oi)8e/zt a, /cat ouSets <rt> ra>i>
VTTOipxovrwv avrov eAeyei> tStov etvat, dAAa rjv aurot? Trdvra
33 KOivd. /cat SwajLtet /xeydA?} aTrcStSow TO p,aprvpLov ot aTrdoroAot
TTjs 1 dvacrrao-ecos TOU Kvpiov *Ir]crov X/otcrrov, ^apt? T fJLeydXrj
34 77^ CTT t TroWa? a^ovs". ovSe yap eVSe-^s" rts VTrrjpx^v iv aurots"
oo-ot ya/o KTTjTopes r\oav xwptwv TJ ot/ceta)v fuxr^p^ovf , TrcoAowres 1
J35 [/c]at (frepovTes ret/xas 1 rcov TTLTrpaorKo [vr]a>v | /cat eriOovv Trapa
TOVS Troftas ra)v aTrodroAcov SteStSero Se e^t e/cdara) /cavort
36 ap rts 1 XP ^ av *X V I^cn?^ 8e o emKXrjdels Bapvd^as vrro
ra>v a7rocrToAa>i>, o eo-rtv fjLcdepfjLrjvevofJievoi vlo$ 7ra/3a/cA?ycrect>?,
37 KuTT/otos", Aeveirys rat yeVet, | VTrdpxovros avra) x^ptov TrcoXrjcras
T]VyK TO XP^f JLa Ka ^ Q?]KV TTCLpd TOU? TToSa? TCOI CLTTOOToAcOl .
V Avrjp Se rtj ovo/zari Avavtas* cru^ ^icx/xfrvpa rfj ywat/ct aurou
2 7ra)Xr)<jV KTTJfJLa \ /cat eVoor^to-aro e/c rij? Tifj,rjs, crwetSuta? /cat
T^S" ywat/cos", /cat eVey/cas /Lte/oos" rt Trapa rous 1 TroSa? rcDv d,7ro-
37 x a) / HOV/ 2 yvvaiKatKO?
erat accusatio in eis ulla et nemo quicquam ex eo quod possidebant dicebant suum d
esse sed erant eis omnia communia 33 et virtute magna reddebant testim apostoli
resurrectionem dm ihu xpi gratia magna erat super eos omnes 34 nee enim inosp
quisquam erat in eis quodquod possessores erant praediorum aut domum vendentes
et adferebant praetia quae veniebant 35 et ponebant ad pedes apostolorum dis-
tribuebantur vero singulis secundum cuique opus erat 36 Joseph autem qui
cognominatus est barnabas ab apostolis quod est interpraetatum filius exhorationis
cyprius levita genere 37 cum esset ei ager venundato eo adtulit hanc pecuniam et
posuit juxta pedes apostolorum
1 quidam autem vir nomine ananias cum sapphira uxore sua vendidit pos-
sessione 2 et subtraxit de praetio conscia uxore sua et cum adtulissent partem
fuit inter illos discrimen ullum, nee quicquam suum judicabant ex bonis, quae Cyprian,
eis erant, sed fuerunt illis omnia communia.
33 virtute [enim] magna [inquit] reddebant testimonium apostoli resurrec- irenaeus,
tionis domini Jesu. "i- 12 . 5 ( 6 >
airediSovv 01 aTrocrroXoi TO fj-apTvpiov. D Antiochian, sail ; (2) K, AE minn vg.
preserves the original text, with only Within each group subordinate mod-
the addition of xP iffTOV a ^ the end. ifications took place. Between the
The Antiochian here followed the true two forms of the name the tendency
text, not the revised form. to expand is a more significant
The difference in the form of the transcriptional motive to be taken
name is the index of the most import- as text-critical guide than a supposed
ant bifurcation of the text. If this disposition to alter the unusual, but
guide be followed, the witnesses fall wholly unexceptionable, phrase irj<rov
into two groups : (1) Pap 8 B, Western, xP LffTOV TOV Kvptov.
46 CODEX VATICANUS
TO)V aTTOGToXoJV 6f]KV. 17TV Se O RcV/DOS" Avavid, 8tO, Tt 3
eTrXijpajcrev 6 ^aravds rrjv /capSt av aov ipevaaadai ere ro Trvevfjia
TO ayiov /cat voa^LaaaBai 0,770 rr]s rifjLrjs rov ^copt ov; ou^t JJLCVOV 4
crot efjLevev /cat TTpaOev ev rfj crfj eovaia V7rrjpXv; ri on edov iv
rfj Kapoia aov ro 7rpay/za rovro; OVK ifj6vaw avdpcoTrois aAAa,
TO) 00). OLKOVOJV O 6 AvaViOLS TOVS \6yOVS TOVTOVS 7TCrO)V 5
e^ei/jv^ev /cat eyeVero (j>6/3os /xeyas 7Tt Travra? rou? a/couovras 1 .
oe ot vecorepot owecrTetAai> at)rov /cat e^evey/cavres 6
. eyevero 8e cos 1 cbpcov rpiwv Staar^jita /cat T^ yvvr] avrov 7
/AT) etSuta ro yeyovo? elcrfjXdcv. aTreKpldr} 8e Trpos 1 avrrjv ITerpos" 8
EtVe jitot, t rocrovrov ro ^copiov aTreooade; rj Se irfV Nat,
TOO-OUTOU. o 8e ner/oos" Trpo? aur^ 4 Tt ort crvv(f)CDVTJdr] vplv 9
Tretpaaat TO 7TVVfjLa Kvpiov; loov ot TrdSes" raiv daujjdvrajv rov
avopa aov eVt r^ ^vpa /cat e^otVoucrtV o*e. eneaev oe Trapa^p^/xa 10
Trpo? rows TrdSa? avrov /cat c^ei/jv^ev etcreA^ovres" Se ot veavtor/cot
zvpov avrrjv vKpav > /cat e^evey/cavres" eOatftav vrpos* rov avopa
avrfjs. /cat eyevero (f>6/3os jLteya? e^ oA?yi/ r^ e/c/cA^crtav /cat em n
Travra? TOU? a/couovras 1 ravra.
Ata re ra)^ ^etpcov raiv aTrooroAcov eyetVero o"7^ju,eta /cat repara 12
Editors 8 [o] Trerpos Soden 10 ?rpos] Trapa Soden mg 12 re] 5e
WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 3 5tct BNA(+D) om Pap 8 vid eTrXypwev BA Pap 8 K C (+D) eTrypwev N
5 roi)s2BXA(+D) om Pap 8 7 us BAX C (+D) ews K 7670^0$
BtfA(+D) 7 e7o OT[ ] Pap 8 8 Trerpos BXA o Trerpos Pap 8 vid (+D)
I/at BK(+D) om A 9 Trerpos BK(+D) +ei7re A rt BAN C (+D)
+ow K rT? 6vpa BK(+D) rais ^i;pats A 11 e?rt BK(+D) om A
12 re B 5e NA(+D)
Antiochian 3 om o before Trerpos PS 462 ~(+D) vocr<f)i<Ta<r6ai] +<re PS 462 (+D)
4 om ev 1 P 5 om o before avavias S~(+T>) CLKOVOVTO.*] +ravra
PS 462 T 8 Trpos avrrjv] avrrj PS 462 T o Trerpos PS 462 T(+D)
9 Trerpos] +etTre PS 462 5" 10 Trpos 1] Trapa PS 462 5~ aurou] avrwv S
^eaj iO /foi] vewrepoi 462 11 a/couopras] /caroi/coui ras P 12 re] 5e
PS 462 fT(+D)
3 With hcl -X- cf. the addition of substitute for KGU voa$iaa.aQa.L . . .
Trpos auroj in E minn versions. virrjpxfv only the words cum esset
For eTrXrjpuffev (eTr^pcucrev K) vg reads fundus in tua potestate. No explana-
temtavit, and is supported (eTreipaaev) by tion of this text is forthcoming.
Athanasius, Epiphanius, Didymus, but Valerian of Cimiez (c. 450), horn.
by no Greek MS. Theodoret twice 4, used the Testimonies, and has the
quotes the verse with r/Trar^o-ei for reading. Augustine, c. litt. Petil. iii.
eirX-rjputrev. 48 (58), and Ambrosiaster, quacst. vet.
3, 4 Cyprian, ^. iii. 30, has as et novi test. 97, curiously agree in break-
v CODEX BEZAE 47
3 aroXajv edero. elnev oe Tlerpos Trpos Ajwtav Ata rt eTrXirjpajaev
6 ^aravas rrjv Kapoiav aov iffevoaoBal ae ro dyiov rrvev^a /cat
4 voa(j)Laaa6ai ae drro rfjs reifjirjs rov %a)piov ; oup^t p,evov aol
/cat Trpadev ev rfi e^ovala VTrrjp^ev; ri on edov ev rfj
ia aov Troifjaai Trovypov rovro; OVK ei/jevaa) dvdpwTrois dXXd
5 ra) dea). aKOvaas oe Avavias rovs Xoyovs rovrovs rfapaxpr]^a
Treawv eeifsvev /cat eyevero <f>6f$os fieyas e?rt rfdvras rovs aKovov-
6 ras- dvaardvres oe ol veajrepoi avveariXav avrov /cat eeveyKavres
7 edaiftav. eyevero oe <Ls ojpojv y Stacm^ju-a /cat rj yvvrj avrov
8 fJ>r) lovla ro yeyovos elafjXdev. elrtev oe rrpos avrrjv 6
EiTrepajrijaa) ae el dpa ro -^ojpLov roaovrov drfeooade. rj oe
9 Nat, roaovrov. 6 oe YLerpos <7rpos > avrriv Tt ort "\av
vfieiv Tretpacrat TO Trvevfjia rov KvpLov ; loov ol wooes rojv
rov dvopa aov erri rrj Bvpa /cat e^oiaovaLv ae. /cat eneaev
TTpos rovs Trooas avrov /cat eei/jvev elaeXBovres oe
ol veaviaKOi evpov avrrjv veKpdv, /cat avvareiXavres e^rjveyKav
11 /cat edaifjav TTpos rov dvSpa avrfjs* /cat eyevero (f>6/3os /Lteya? e<
oXyv rr\v KK\j]aLav /cat eVt rfdvras rovs aKovovras ravra.
12 Ata Se rojv ^et/ocov rajv drroaroXcDV ey elver o ar^ela /cat repara
4 /xeyov] /zecrov e^evcrov 7 Stacrre/^a
8 8e 2] Sr; 11 a/covovre?
quandam juxta pedes apostolorura posuit 3 dixit autem petrus ad ananian ut quid d
adinplevit satanas cor tuum mentiri te spiritui sancto et intercipere te ex praetium
praedii 4 nonne ruanens tibi manebat et destractum in tua potestate erat quid
utique posuisti in corde tuo facere dolose rem istam uon es mentitus hominibus sed
do 5 audies autem ananias sermones hos subito cum cecidisset obriguit et factus
est timor magnus super omnes qui audiebant 6 cum surrexissent autem jubenes
involuerunt eu et cum pxtulissent sepelierunt 7 factum est quasi horarum trium
spatium et uxor ejus nesciens quod factum erat introibit 8 dixit autem ad earn
petrus die mihi si tanti praedium vendedistis ad ilia dixtt_etiam tantum 9 petrus
vero ad earn quid utique convenit vobis teptare spin dni ecce pedes eorum qui
sepelierunt virum tuii ad ostium et efferen te 10 et ceciditque confestim ad pedes
ejus et perobriguit cumque introissent jubenes invenerunt earn mortuam et cum
extulissent sepelierunt ad virum suum 11 et factus est timor magnus super totam
ecclesiam et super omnes qui audierunt haec 12 per manus vero apostolorum
3 inplevit Satanas cor tuum mentiri te aput spiritum sanctum, 4 cum Cyprian,
esset fundus in tua potestate. non hominibus mentitus es, sed deo. Test - "* s
3 rpos avaviav] -X- ad eurn -^ Anania 8 Trpos avrrjvj -X- ei ^ Harclean
10 O.VTOV] mg ejus
ing off their quotation at just this Testimonia. Moreover, Augustine may
point, and may have been using the be dependent on Ambrosiaster.
48 CODEX VATICANUS
TToAAa v rw Aaar /cat rjaav ofJLodvjJLaoov TTOLVTCS ev rfj STOOL
2ioXofi,wvo<> ra>v Se XOITTOJV ovdeis eVdAjLta KoXXdardai avrots 13
dAA* p,ydXvvv avrovs 6 Aads 1 , | jjidXXov Se TT poorer id evro m- 14
(JTVOVTS TO) KVpiCO TrXyOrj dvSpOJV T Kdl yWCUKOJV C<JOT /Cat 15
eis" ras" TrAaTetas 1 e/c^epetv rovs acrdevels /cat riOevai em /cAivapia>v
/cat Kpaf3dTTa)V, Iva. ep^o/zeVou Herpou /caV -^ or/cta eTTtcr/ctaoret
Ttvt aurcDv. crvvrjpxcTO Se /cat TO TrXTJdos TOJV 7Tpi TroXccov \6
Ie/)otcraA^/x, <f)povr$ dcrOeveis /cat o^Xov^vovs VTTO 7TVVfJLara)V
OLKaOdprcov, otrtves 1 eOepaTrzvovro aTravres.
Avacrras 1 Se o a/o^tepeu? /cat TrdVres ot crvv aura), 17 ovtra 17
aipems ra>v SaSSou/catcov, eTrXrjadrjaav ,ijXovs \ /cat eVe^aAov 18
ras" x e W a s z TOVS drrocrroXovs /cat zOevro avrovs eV TTyp^aet
S^/zoCTta. ayyeAos" Se Kvpiov Sta w/cro? ^votfe ra? Ovpas rrjs 19
(f>vXaKfjs, e^ayaycov Se aurous" etTrev IIo/oei;ecT^e /cat arradevres 20
AaAetre ei^ ra) tepa) TOJ Aaa) TTOVTCL ra pTJfjLara rfjs wfjs ravrrjS
a,Kovaai>Ts Se elarjXOov VTTO rov opdpov et? ro tepov /cat eStSaor/cov. 21
Trapayevoftevot Se d ap^tepeus" /cat ot cruv aura) oruve/caAeo-av TO
crvveSpiov /cat Trdcrav rrjv yepouatav TCUV utcSv lapaTyA, /cat aTT-
eareiXav et? TO SeaftcoT^ptoz/ d^^vat auTous 1 . ot Se Trapayevd- 22
p,voi VTrrjperai ovx $pov avrovs ev T^ <j)vXaKrj, dvacrrpet/javres
Se a77^yyetAav | Ae yovTes" oTt To Seor/zcoT^ptoy eupo/ze^ /ce/cAet- 2 3
Editors 12 Traircs] aTraircs Soden 16 7roAea>j>] +[ets] Soden 17 77X01;
WH Soden JHR 18 x ei /> a s] +[aurwf] Sodeu 19 a^as Soden
Se 2] re WH Soden JHR 21 Trapa^ei/o^evos WH Soden JHR
23 TO] +[^ei/] Soden
Old Uncial 12 wavres BA affaires N(+D) 14 irurTevovTes BK(+D) 01 Tto-Teuoirey A
15 K\ivapiuv B^(+D) TOJ* K\ivapiwv A aura?;/ BAK C (+D) avrw ^
17 frXous B ^7/Xou ^A(+D) 18 e7re/3aXo?> BK(+D) eireftaXXov A
19 /cros BKA(+D) TTJJ vy/cros N c ^ot^e B a^ot^as KA 5e 2 B
21 Trapayevofj,evoi B Trapayevo^evo i B 2 XA(+D)
Antiochian 12 e? TO> Xaw TroXXa PS 462 5~ Traires] aTravrej PS
15 /cat ets] Kara PS 462 5~ (cf. D) K\ivaptwv ] K\IVWV PS 462 5" eirt<ma<r7j
PSr(+D) 16 TroXewp] +eis PS 462 ff"(+D) 17 ^Xou PS 462 5"(+D)
18 x 6t P a *] +aura>v PS 462 r 19 r^j /u/cros PS 462 r 5e 2] re
PS 462 T(+D) 21 irapayevofjievos PS 462 S~(+D) 22
PS 462 5~(+D) 23 ro] +/m.fv PS 462 5~
17 For aj>a<rras perp has Annas cXdovres 5e e/c TTJS (j)v\aicr)s E e, and sirai-
(cf. vg. coc?. ardm.), clearly primitive, larly pesh arm, is probably a bit of
but wrong. Western text not elsewhere pre-
21 For a/cowaj/res 5e the reading e- served.
v CODEX BEZAE 49
TroAAo, ev TO* Aaar /cat rjcrav ofJLodvfJLaoov drfovres ev rat tepco ev
13 rfj crroa T?J SoAo/ztDvos" /cat o^Set? ra>v XOLTTOJV eroAjita /coAAacr#at
14 auTOts" aAA efjLeydXvvev avrovs o Aao?, fjidXXov oe TrpocreriOevro
! 15 Trtcrrevo^res TO) Kvpia) TrXijdrj dvopajv re /cat ywat/aSv cScrre
/cara rrXareias eK<f>epew TOT)? acr#ei ets > auTaiv /cat rt#eVat e?rt
K\ivapiojv /cat Kpafldrrajv, Iva ep^o^evov Flerpou /cav 17 cr/cta
e77tcr/ctacr^ rti^t aurcDv aTT^AAacrcrovTO yap CXTTO Trdcrrjs dcrdevias
16 cos t)^V e/cacrros avraiv. avvrjpxero Se TrXrlOos ra)V 7Tpi<>
TToXecov ct? IcpovcraXrjp,, (f)povres dcr^evet? /cat o^Xovfjuevov^
OLTTO TTvevfJidrcov OLKaOdprojv , /cat etcDvro Trdvres.
17 Avao-ra.? Se o ap^tcpeus 1 /cat Trdvres ot cruv avra), rj ovaa
1 8 atpecrt? ra)v SaSSou/catcut j eTrA^cr^crav ^Aot | /cat eTrefiaXov rds
^et/oa? eTTt rous" aTrocrrdAous /cat edevro avrovs ev TTjpTJaei S^/zocrta*
19 /cat erropevdr) eis eKacrros els rd t8ta. rdre 8ta i/u/cros" ayyeAo?
KVpiov dv0)ev rds dvpas rfjs <f>vXaK7J$, e^ayaycov re aurou?
20 etTrev ITopeuCJ^ /cat <jTa9evres XaXelre ev ra) lepa* rat Xaa>
21 Trdvra rd p^/zara r^s 1 fco^S" ravrrjs. aKovcravres Se elcrfjXOov
VTTO rov opdpov ets" TO lepov /cat eStSacr/cov. rraparyevo^evos Se
o dpxiepevs /cat ot crw at)ra>, eyepQevres ro rrpaii /cat auv-
KaXecrdfjievoL ro avveBpiov /cat Trdcrav rr)V yepovcriav rwv vlujv
lapaTJX, /cat aTrecrreiXav et? TO SecrfJicor^piov d^drjvac avrovs.
22 ot 8e vrfriperai TrapayevojJLevoi /cat dvoi^avres rrjv (frvXaKrjv OVK
23 eupov auTous" eorw dvao-rpei/javres /cat aV^yyetAav | Xeyovres on
14 7rA>7$i 18 f]6tvTo 19 avecoav 20 AaAetrai
22 avv^avres
fiebant signa et portenta multa in populo et erant pariter universi in tern in porticum d
solomonis 13 nee quisouam ex ceteris curabat adherere eis sed magnificabat eos
populos 14 magisque adiciebantur credentes dnomultitudo virorumque et mulierum
15 ita ut in plateis inferrent intirmos eorum et ponerent in lectulis et grabattis ut
venientis petri vel umbra iuumbraret quemcumque illorum et liverabantur ab omnem
valetudinem quern habebant unus quisque eorum 16 conveniebat vero multitude
finium undique in hierusalem ferentes infirmos et qui vexabantur ab spiritibus in
mundis qui curabantur universi 17 cum surrexisset autem pontifex et omnes qui
cum ipso quae est secta sadducaeorum inpleti sunt aepulationem 18 et miserunt
manus in apostolos et posuerunt eos in adservatione publica et abierunt unus quisque
in domicilia 19 per nocte vero angelus dni aperuit januas carceris cumque dixisset
eos dixit 20 ite et stantes loquimini in templo populo omnia verba vitae ejus
51 cam audissent autem introierunt sub anteluce in templum et docebaut cumque
venisset pontifex et qui cum ipso exurgentes ante lucem et convocaverunt concilium
et omnem senatum tiliorum istrahel et miserunt ad carcerem adduci eos 22 ministri
vero cum venissent et aperuissent carcerem non invenerunt eos intus reversi sunt et
12 ACCU avoi^avT^ TTJV <pv\aicr)v] -x- aperuerunt carcerem ^ Harclean
VOL. Ill E
50 CODEX VATICANUS v
GfJievov ev 770*077 do^aAeta /cat rov$ (f>vXat<as zcrrwras em ra>v
6vptov, dvoiavr$ Se ecraj ovoeva evpopcv. (Ls Se rJKOvcrav rovs 24
Adyov? Tourous 1 o re o*rparr)yos rov lepov /cat ol dp^tepets , St-
Trepl avrajv ri av yeVotro rovro. rrapayvo^vos 8e TIS 25
aurots" ort ISou ot avopes ovs 0cr0 ev T?J </>vXaKrj
elcrlv eV ra> lepco eoTtDres /cat St8do*/coi Tes > rov Aadi>. TOTC 26
aTreA^cov d crr/oar^yds OTW rot? VTrrjperais rjyev avrovs, ov /^era
jSta?, (/)o/3ovvro yap rov Aadv, /XT) \i6a<jd)<Jiv . dyayovres 8e 27
avrovs earrjaav ev ra> avveopia). /cat TT7]pcbr r]o~v avrovs o
dp%ipvs | Xeyajv IlapayyeAta TTaprjyyeiXafJLev Vfjuv fj,rj 8t8a- 28
o~Keiv eiri TOJ ovofjian rovrw, /cat tSou 7TTrXr]pa)Kar rrjv lepoy-
o-aA^jLt TT^S* StSa^s 1 vfJLaJv, /cat fiovXeade eTrayayclv < Ty/.tas rd
afjita rou dvdpa>7TOV rovrov. drfOKpiQels oe Herpos /cat ot (XTTO- 29
25
Editors 26 ^yayev Soden 28 7rapa77e\ta] ou TrapayyeXia Soden JHR
Old Uncial 24 rt BAK C (+D) TO rt K 25 ot BAN C (+D) ora t<
/cai BAN C (+D) om N (K a suppl eo-rwres) 26 ^ef BK yyayev A (cf. D)
A"7 BN(+D) iva w A 28 Trapayye\ia BKA ou Trapayye\ia K C (+D)
didaaKfiv Bfc$(+D) XaXeiv A TreTrXT/pw/care B(+D) eTrX^pajcrctTe i^A
Antiochian 23 0uXa/cas] +ew 5" eirt] irpo PS 462 5~ 24 o re] +tepeus KCU o
PS 462 5- 25 avrois] +Xe7W- r 26 rjyayey PS 462 r (cf. D)
AIT?] iv a ^77 PS 462 r 28 ?rapa77eXca] ou irapayyeXta PS 462 T(+D)
u/xas S 29 o irerpos 5" (cf. D)
23 In D VK\K\La-/j.vov the first two from the feeling that even so the
letters are by dittography from the utterance was not properly called a
preceding evpo/mev. question, seems to have read rjp^aro
26 D omits ou ; h probably had non \eyciv Trpos aurous for eTrr]puTr)<rei> avrovs.
vero (aXX ou). Perhaps ou was omitted D omits /cat before i5ou. Probably
by oversight in the process of deleting u/m$ 5e, represented in h pesh, has
aXX. been omitted in D to conform to the
(pofiovfjifvot. yap D is conflation ; ordinary text, but without restoring
h mettues (for metuens) translates /cat.
(poftovpevos. 28, 29 The rendering of vs. 29 in h
27 For w, li and pesh seem to have Aug. c. Crescon. i. 8 (11) doubtless cor-
followed a text which read fjurpo<rdei>. rectly represents the Western text.
h praetor for apxtepeus may have Gig has the same, but with some con-
in mind a Roman trial, but possibly formation to the B-text : respondens
(cf. iv. 1) his text read o o-rpar^os. autcm petrus et apostoli dixcrunt :
D tepeus is probably due to the influence utrum oportet obaudirc, deo an homini-
of the Latin (cf. gig Lucif), the oldest bus? atilledixit: deo. et petrus ait ad
form of which often translated dpxiepefc illos. Of this Lucifer has utrum and
by sacerdos ; see Zahn, Urausgabe, deo an hominibus. Six vulgate codices
p. 177. have retained the sentence at illi
28 ir7jp<jjTr)ffv, vs. 27, seems to imply dixerunt : deo ; and a single trace in e
the presence before TrapayyeXia of ou D h (an for quam) caught the keen eye
(Turn) 1 , perp e (nonne] sah Antiochian of Bede ("interrogative legitur in
pesh. But the text of h pesh, perhaps Graeco ").
v CODEX BEZAE 51
To SeoyxeorTyptov eupo/xev ev/ce/cAetoyxevov ev Trdcrrj dcr^aXia
Kal rovs (f>vXaKas earajras em roDv 6vpwv, dvot ^avre? 8e ecrco
24 ot)8e va eupo/xev. to? 8e rjKovaav rovs Xoyovs rovrovs o re
arparrjyos rov lepov Kal ot dp^tepet?, 8t7^7rdpouv Trept at5rct)v rt
! 25 dv yeVryrat rovro. Trapayevd/xevo? 8e rtsr dV^yyetAev auroi? on
I8ou ot dv8pe? ovs 00-6e ev rfj (frvXaKTJ etVtv ev ra> tepa> ecrrcore?
j 26 /cat StSdcr/covre? rov Aadv. rdre drreXdajv d arparrjyos o~vv rot?
VTTrjperais rjyayov avrovs /xerd ^Sta?, </o/?ou/xevot fydpf rov
! 2 7 Aadv, jLtTy \iQaaQaxjiv dyaydvre? Se aurou? ecrrTyaav ev ra) CTUV-
28 eopLO). Kal eTTrjptbrrjcrev avrovs o tepeu? | Ae ycov Ov TrapayyeAta
7rapr)yyiXajjLv z5/xetv /XT) StSdcr/cetv eTrt ra> dvd/xart rovra);
loov TrcTrXypajKarc rrjv lepouo-aA^/x rij? 8t8a^7j? vfjLO)v 3 Kal fiov-
29 Aecr^e evrayayetv e^ -J^/xa? rd at/xa rou dvOpcjTrov e/cetvou | ?ret^-
30 ap^etv 8e ^ea) pdXXov r) dv^pcuTrot?. d Se Herpo? etTrev Trpd?
23 ev/cAeKAetcr^tevov 28 jSovXea-Oai <jf>ayayetv
renuntiaverunt 23 dicentes quia carcerem invenimus clusum in omni diligentia et d
ugiles stantes ad ostium aperientes intus neminem invenimus 24 ut vero audierunt
sermones hos praetorque templi et ipsi pontences haesitabant de eis quiduam fieret
de hoc 25 cum venisset autem quidam adnuntiavit eis quia ecce viri quos posuistis
in carcerem sunt in templo stantes et docentes populum 26 tune cum abisset ipse
praetor cum ministris deducebant eos cum vim timebant enim populum ne lapi-
darentur 27 cuinque adduxissent eos statuerunt in concilio et interrogavit eos
pontefix 28 dicens denuntiatione praecepimus vobis non docere in nomine hoc ecce
inplestis hierusalem doctrine vestra et vultis adducere super nos sanguinem hominis
hujus obtemperare 29 do oportet magis quam honibus 30 petrus vero respondit
22 [ ] verunt 23 dicentes: quoniam pignarium in[venimus] clausum h
in omni firmitate, et custodes stan[tes ante] ostia : cum aperuiesmus autem,
ueminem in[venimus]. 24 et quomodo audierunt verba ista magistrat[us templi]
et pontifices, confundebantur de ipsis quidn[am illud] esset, 25 adveniens autem
quidam nuntiavit [eis, dicens] : quoniam ecce viri quos misistis in custodi[am,
in tem]plo sunt, stantes et docentes populum. 26 tu[nc abiit] magistratus cum
ministris, et abduxit eos, n[on vero] per vi, mettues ne forte lapiraretur a popul[o.
27 et quo]modo perduxerunt eos in conspectu conci[lii, incepit] ad eos praetor
dicere: 28 non praecepto prae[cepimus] vobis ne umquam in hoc nomine
doceretis ? vos autem ecce implestis Hierosolymam do[ctrina vesjtra : et vultis
super nos adducere sanguine h[ominis] illius. 29 respondens autem Petrus dixit
The text of D has here again Second and third century witnesses
suffered by conformation, consisting to the B-text are Polycrates letter to
of the excision of the words correspond- Victor, ap. Eus. h.e. v. 24, 7, Origen
ing to respondens autem petrus dixit, c. Cels. viii. 26, and Hippolytus, c.
ad ilium cui h, for which the B-reading Noet. 6 fin. (ed. Lagarde p. 48), all
ought to have been substituted, and of whom quote the affirmative form
of the insertion of /uaXXov. 5e (d 7ret#apx eil/ 7 a P Set dew fj,a\\ov TJ avdpu-
oportet) is an attempt at connexion. TTOLS, and would not have found the
In the sentence following avdpuirois text available for their purpose in
the Western Greek reappears in D. its Western guise.
52 CODEX VATICANUS
oroAot etTtav Heidap^elv Set Oetjj jitaAAov rj dvQpwTrois. 6 dzos 30
ra>v Trarepajv rjfjbwv vj yeLpev I^crouv, 6V vfjuels Ste^etpt crao^e
Kpfj,dcravTs em vXov rovrov 6 dzos ap^r^yov /cat crcorT^pa 31
vifja)crV Trj Se^ta avrov, TOV Sowat jLterdVotav ra> Icrpa^A
icat a(j>eaw dfAapTLajv /cat T^ets" eV aurtD fjudprvpes rwv prj^drajv 32
rourajj>, /cat TO 7TVV[j,a TO aytov e8a)Kv 6 0o$ rots rreidapxovcriv
avra). ol Se aKovaravres SteTrpetovTO /cat /3ovXovro aveAetv aurous 1 . 33
avacrras 8e rt? ei^ ra> avvebpio) Oapetomos" ov6p,an Fa/>taAt7]A, 34
^OjitoStSacr/caAos- rt/xto? Travrl raj Aaai, e/ceAeuaev e^a> ^pOL^v rovs
dv9pO)7TOVS TTOlfjaCLL, \ 17TV T TTpOS OLVTOVS "Av$pS Icrpa^Aet- 35
rat, 77/)ocre^er eaurot? eVt rot? dvdpwTrois TOVTOLS rt yiteAAere
TTpdcraeiv. rrpo yap rovra>v rcov rjp,pajv dvearr] SevSas, Aeycov 36
efvat rtva eavrov, a> TTpocreKXidrj dvSpcov dpiB^Jios cos* rerpa/coo < ta>v
Editors 31 [TOU] WH om rou Soden JHR 32 ev aura;] eo-^e^ WII Soden JHR
e; aurw or ff[j.ev avrco WHrng a7ioj ] +o WH Soden JHR 33
f3ov\vot>TO Soden 34 avdpwirovs Soden mg aTrotrroXous Soden
Old Uncial 30 o B(+D) +5e NA 31 TOV BK om A C (+D) 32 ev
/iaprupes B etr/xei /j-aprvpes t<(+D) fj-aprvpes eo-pev A aytoi B +o XA
(of. D) 33 ejSoiAoJ/ro BA epov\evovTO N(+D) 35 re BNA(+D) 5e C
36 eauroy B^AC +/xe7af A 2 (cf. D) Trpoo-e/cXt^^ BKAC corr (cf. D) irpov-
eK\y6r)(rai> C ws BACN C (+D) cocret ^ rerpa/coa-icof BACK C (+D)
rerpa/cocrioi K
Antiochian 31 om TOU HPS5~(+D) 32 e^ aurw] e<r / uei avrou HPS5"
HPSr ayiov] +o HPS5~ (cf. D) 33 a/coiwres P
efiovXevovro HPSS~(+D) 34 /3pa%u rous avdpu-rrovs] /3pa%u ri rous a7TO(rro-
Xous P5~ rois aTTotrroXous ppa^v TL HS 36 TrpoaeKKidrf] TrpOffeK^dr] HPS
avdpuv HPS5~(+D) ws] wret HPS5~
31 For 5eia the reading do^rj D place, contrary to the sense, after
perp gig (h 1) Iren Aug sah seems to 77/ms ; and ea-jufv was extruded in
be a very ancient accidental error ; for making the correction. Iren has
the same confusion cf. LXX. Is. Ixii. 8, exactly the text of B. Several
2 Chron. xxx. 8 (Nestle, Expositor, minuscules read ev O.VTU ea/j-ev. The
5th ser., ii., 1895, pp. 238 f.). Antiochian, on the basis of the B-text,
TOV Btf (dittography ?) is probably improved ev O.VTU awkwardly into auroi 1 .
to be omitted with A D Antiochian. The omission of 6 by B minn sah
In such cases the author of Acts some- boh was probably an accidental error ;
times uses rou, as in Acts xxvi. 18 the variants ov DE, o &A Antiochian,
(twice), Lk. i. 74, 77, 79 ; sometimes and TOU Tr^eu/mTos TOU crytou o h perp
not, as in Lk. i. 54, 79. may possibly suggest a deeper but
32 The text of K(A) gig vg pesh, hidden cause.
which lacks ev OUTOJ and reads /cat T^ets 33 With hcl -X- cf. the added TO.
a/j.ev AtapTupes, is probably right. The pT/ywara TOUTO, 614 minn.
Western text had the addition ev 34 For the lacuna in h, Berger s con-
aura; at the close of vs. 31 ; so D d h jecture mi[nimum ] is not wholly satis-
perp Aug. peccat. merit, i. 52 sah. factory, and Buchanan s mi[nistris]
(The Greek basis of h apparently had still less so. Vg. cod. par. 11533 reads
e<r/j.v mutilated into pev. ) The words modicum.
were inserted in B, but in the wrong 36 The attestation of the expanded
Iv CODEX BEZAE 53
CLVTOVS 0OS TOJV 7TGLTpa>V TjfJLWV rjylpV llprOW, 6V
Step^etptcrao^e /cpe/zacravTes 1 em vXov TOVTOV 6 deos
Kol crajrrjpa vi/jojaev rfi 80^77 avrov, Sowat fjuerdvoiav TO)
/cat a(/>(nv djjLCLpTLcijv eV aura). KO! r)(Jii$ ecrfj-cv fjidprvpes
Trdvruiv TCJV prjfjLOLTOJv TOVTWV, /cat TO TTvevfjia TO aytov oV e Sco/cef
33 o fleas* Tots* Tndapxovcnv avrco. ot Se a/couo-avTes- Stevrpt ovTO /cat
34 efiovAevovTO aVeAetv auTot;?. avaorras 1 8e Tt? e/c TOV ovveftpiov
Oaptcratos 1 OVOJJLCLTL FayLtaAt^A, vo/xoStSacr/caAos 1 Tt/xtos 1 Travrl TO)
35 Aaa), e/ceAeucrev TOU? aTroo-TdAous" e^co ^pa^u TTOLTJCTOU,,
T TT/DOS" TOl)? apXOVTCLS KOI TOVS (JVV$pOVS " Av$pS
AetTat, TTpocrexere eauTot? 7rt Tot? dv9pa)7rois TOVTOLS Tt /xeAAeT
36 Trpdaaeiv. Trpo yap TOUTCUV TOJV ^/xepcuv dvearrj 0eu8as", Aeycov
etvat Ttva /xeyav eafTov, a> /cat Trpoo*/cAt^ dpidfJLOs dv8pa)v d)$
30 SiexttpLoracrOai 35 cruveSptovs Trpo<rt\Ta.i
eavrovs /zeAAerat 36
ad eos ds patrum nostrorum suscitavit ihm quern vos interfecistis suspensum in ligno d
31 hunc ds ducem et salvatorem exaltavit caritate sua dare paenitentiam istrahel et
reraissionem peccatorum in ipso 32 et nos ipsi testes sumus omnium verborum
horum et spm sanctum quern dedit ds Ms qui obternperat ei 33 ad illi audientes
discruciabantur et cogitabaut interficere eos 34 cum surrexisset autem quidam in
concilio pharisaeus nomine gamaliel legis doctor honorabiles apud omnem populum
jussit apostolos foras pusillum facere 35 dixitque ad principes et concilium viri
istralielitae adtendite vobis super istis hominibus quidnam incipiatis agere 36 ante
hos enim dies surrexit tlieudas dicens esse quendam magnum ipsorum cui adsensum
ad il[lum] : cui obaudire oportet, do an hominib- ? ille aut[em ait : do]. 30 et h
dixit Petrus ad eum : ds patrum nostroru[m exoita]vit ihm, quos vos inter-
emistis, suspendent[es in ligno]. 31 hunc principem ds et salvatorem exalt[avit
gloria] sua, dare penitentiam Istrael et remissi[onem peccati] in se : 32 et
nos quidem testes sumus omniu[m verborum] istorum, et sps sci, quern dedit ds
eis qui[cumq- crediderint in eu]m. 33 haec cum audirent verba, dirrupie-
bantur, [et cogita]bant perdere eos. 34 exurrexit autem de co[cilio fari]seus
quidam, nomine Gamaliel, qui erat legis [doctor e]t acceptus totae plebi : et
jussit apostolos mi[ . . . d]uci interim foras : 35 et ait ad totum concilium :
[viri Istra]elite, attendite vobis quid de istis hominibus [agere i]ncipiatis.
36 nomen ante hoc tempus surrexit [Theudas] quidam, dicens se esse magn.um,
30 deus patrum nostrorum excitavit Jesum, quern vos adprehendistis, et Irenaeus,
interfecistis suspendentes in ligno. 31 hunc deus principem et salvatorem iii- 12 5 ^
exaltavit gloria sua, dare paeuitentiam Israel, et remissionem peccatorum :
32 ef nos in eo testes sermonum horum, et spiritus sanctus, quern dedit deus
credciitibus ei.
33 aKowavres] quum audivissent -X- sermones hos N/ Harclean
reading TLVO. eavrov fj.eyav (cf. viii. 9) presence in D (riva fj-eyav eavrov), Old
is interesting. Not only does its Latin (h gig vg.codd. Jerome), pesh,
54 CODEX VATICANUS v
os dvrjpedrj, /cat Trdvres ocrot lireLdovro avra> SteAiftfycrav /cat cyc-
vovro is ovSev. ju,erd rovrov dve&Tr) lovoas 6 FaAetAatos" eV 37
rats rjfJLepais rfjs d7roypa(/)fj$ /cat oLTrearTjcre Xaov om cra> az5ro-
KOLKIVOS aVajAero, /cat Trdvres OCTOL eneiOovro avrcij Steor/copmcrfl^-
crav. /cat vw Aeyco t5/xtv, aTroor^re oVo rcov dv6po)7rci)v TOVTOJV 3^
\ >/ i > / / > \ T >/ >/!/ D^ x r/ w
/cat a(f>T avrovs ort eav T) e^ avupajTraiv r) povAr) avrr) TI ro
pyov TOVTO, /caraAu^Tycreraf et Se e/c 6eov eartV, ou Sw^crecr^e 39
/caraAucrat avrovs pr) TTOTC /cat ^eo/za^ot Vpe6rJT. eTreicrdrjaav 40
8e az5ra>, /cat Trpoor/caAecra^tevot rou? aTT-ocrroAou^ Setpavre?
Trap^yyetAav jLti) AaAetv eTTt TO) ovo^Ltart TOV I^aov /cat aTreAucrav.
Ot />t^ OW 7TOpVOVTO %aipOVTS OL7TO TTpOGWTTOV TOV aVV&ploV 4!
Editors 38 ra i/w Soden JHR [ra vw] WH a#ere Soden mg eao-are Soden
40 aTreXixra* ] +[auro^s] Soden
Old Uncial 37 Xaov BtfA +JTO\U C -f TroXw C corr (+D) o<rot BKAC 2 (+D) 01 C
38 vw B ra vw> B^PJB^ACf+D) uAtii BN a AC(+D) om N 39 Svvr,-
<re<rd BKC(+D) dvvaffOc A aurous BNAC 2 (+D) avro C 40
+aurous A
Antiochian 37 aireffT^ffe] avecmjffev H Xaov] +t ca o HPS~ (cf. D) 38 vvv]
ra vvv HPSr(+D) a^ere] eacrare HPS5~(+D) om avrrj HPS
39 5e] -ficat S Suv^a-ecr^e] SwwrQe HPSr ai^rous] auro
40 a7reXu<raj>] +auro^s HPS5"(+D)
614 and many minuscules show it to apposition, di\vdy<rav being necessarily
have been Western, but it is found omitted.
in Origen c. Cels. i. 57 and in Cyril 38 On the late Latin use of sic for
Alex., and has been inserted by A 2 . si, found in d, cf. vii. 1, Jn. xxi. 22,
36, 37 The use, instead of avyped-r) and see J. R. Harris, Codex ezae,
in vs. 36, of8i\v0ri D, KareXvdij Euseb. pp. 33-40.
h.e. ii. 11, 1, dissolutus cst perp, and 39 The Western gloss, oure iv*s
in vs. 37 of dissolutus est perp for oure /SaaiXets cure TvpawoL aTrex^^
aTrwXero, may be an attempt to improve ow euro TUV avdputruv TOVTUV D hcl -X-
the argument of Gamaliel, under the and, in part, h e E minn, may possibly
view that the apostles (rather than show use of Wisdom xii. 14 ovre
Jesus) are here compared with Theudas /3ao-iXei)s T) rvpawos 6.vTO<f>6a,\fii}<rM
and Judas. But more probaby in vs. dw-rja-erai croi irepl &v dTrwXecraj. See
36 os SieXvdrj D was taken to refer to J. R. Harris, Expositor, 6th ser., vol.
/cat Travres will then stand in ii., 1900, pp. 394-400.
CODEX BEZAE 55
os* SicXvdr) avros 8t* avrov /cat TTOLVTGS oerot enidovro
37 auroj /cat lyevovro els ovdev. /zero, TOVTOV avearrj lovSas 6
FaAtAatos" eV rat? ly/zepats 1 r^s* aTTO ypafifjs /cat aTrecmqaev Aadv
TroAw OTTtcra) avTOV /cd/cetvos" aTrcuAero, /cat ocrot 7ri9ovTO avrai
38 o(,(jKOpiriadr](jav. /cat rd vw "j"t(Ttv,"f" dSeA^ot, Ae yco u/zetv,
arr]T OLTTO rcov dvdpWTTtuv rovrajv /cat edo-are avrous* /XT)
raj ^etpas" ort eav ^ e^ dvdpa)7rajv r) fiovXr) avrrj r) rd epyov
39 TOVTO, /caraAu^o-eraf et Se e/c ^eoi; ecrrtV, OT) Svvrjacade /ca<ra>-
Auaat azJrous" ovre u/iets owre jSacrtAets* owre rvpavvoi. aTre^ccj^e
ouv aTrd rcDv dvdpa)7ra>v TOVTOJV fjiij TTOTC ^eo/itd^ot vp0rjr.
40 f [.]e7Tt(7r[. . .] es "t ^ aura, /cat Trpoor/caAeo dyLtevot rows* aTro-
o ToAoi S Sctpavres" TrapTJ yyeiXav fj,r) AaAetv 7rt TO) dvd/zart rou
41 I^crou /cat aTreAvcrav aurous". ot />tef ow aTrdcrroAot zTropevovTO
39 Svvr)(r<rdai aTre^etr^ai 40 CTTI] CTTCI
est numeri virorum quasi quagringentorum qui interfectus est et omnes quodquod d
obtemperabant ei facti sunt nihil 37 post hunc surrexit judas galilaeus in diebus
professions et alienavit populum post se et ille periit et qui credebant illi dispersi
sunt 38 et quae nunc fratres dico vobis discedite ab hominibus istis et dismittite
eos non coinquinatas manus quia sic erit ab hominibus consilium istud aut hopus hoc
destruetur 39 si autem a do est non poteritis destruere eos nee vos nee imperatores
nee reges discedite etgo ab hominibus istis ne forte do repugnantes inveniamini
40 consenserunt itaquae ei et et cum vocasset apostolos caesis eis praeceperunt non
joqui in nomine ihti et dismiserunt eos 41 apostoli vero ibant gaudentes a conspectu
cui sensit [numer]us hominum non minus quadrigentorum : [qui juglulatus est, b
et omnes qui ei consenserant co[fusi sunjt et nihil sunt facti. 37 post hunc
deinde sur[rexit Ju]das Galileus in diebus census, et convertit [multajm plebem
post se : et ille perit, quodquod ei cre[didera]nt persecutiones habuerunt.
38 nunc au[tem, fra^]res, dico vobis, ab istis hominib- recedatis, et [eos
dimijttatis, et non maculetis manus vestras : quo[niam si] haec potestas humani
voluntatis est, dissol[vetur virjtus ejus : 39 si autem haec potestas ex di
volu[tate est, no]n poteritis dissolbere illos, neque vos neq- [principes] ac
tv_ranni. abstinete itaquae vos ab is[tis hominijbus, ne forte et adversus
dm inyeniamini [pugnantes. 40 con]senserunt itaque illi : et vocaverunt
apos[tolos, et caesojs dimiserunt eos, praecipientes ne umquam loquerentur
alicui in nomine lEu. 41 [illi] autem dimissi avierunt gaudentes et conspe[ctu
[39 non te terremus, qui nee timemus, sed velim ut omnes salvos facere Tertullian,
poss:tnus monendo ^ Beonaxw-] Scap 4
39 ovre v/uetj ovre ^3a(TtXetj oure rvpavvoi. o-Tre^cade ovv O.TTO ruv CLvdpuiruv Harclean
-x- nequ TOS neque reges neque tyranni ; abstite ergo ab hominibus
his -^
56
CODEX VATICANUS
v-vi
OTL KaTTj^iwdTjaav VTrep rov oVo/zaTOS" dri[JLao~drjvai rrdcrdv re 42
rjfjiepav .v ra> te/oa) /cat /car* OIKOV OVK erravovro oLodaKOvres /cat
euayyeAto^tevot rov Xpurrov I^crouv.
Ev Se rat? ljpUf/xu$ raurat? 7T\T]dvv6vrwv ra>v [JLaOrjTwv VI
eyeVero yoyyua/zos- TOJV EAATyvtorcov TT/OOS" rous* E^patou? 6Vt
Trapedeojpovvro ev rfj 8ta/covta r^ KadrjfJiepivfj at X^JP ai <*-VT>V
TrpoGrKaXecrdfjLevoL Se ot Sc68e/ca TO TrXijOos TCOV fjLadrjrwv ZLTTCW 2
OVK dpecrTov zcrnv rjfjids /caraAeti^avTas TO^ Aoyov rou ^eou
Sta/covetv TpOLTre^aLS 7ncrKifja>fjL6a 8e, aSeA^ot, avSpas e vfjuaJv 3
fjiaprvpovfjievovs errra TrXrjpeis TTvevf^a/ros /cat cro^tas", ous" /cara-
aTTJ<JO(J,V 7Tt TT^S" ^jpC^OS TaUT^S r){J,LS 8e T?J 7TpO(JVxfj KOI 4
TT^ 8ta/covta rov Aoyou TrpoaKapreprioo^v. /cat rjpecrev 6 Aoyos* ev- 5
OJTTLOV Travros* rou TrA^ous*, /cat efeAefavro Sre^avov, avSpa TrXTJ
Editors
WH Soden JHR
Soden JHR
5e] ow Sodeu [5?;] WHmg
Old Uncial
42 xptcrrov BKA
U Pap 8
Kvpiov C (cf. D)
2 Tj/xas Bi<A
BKA Pap 8 (+D) Ka.Ta\L^a.vT^ C
Pap 8 (+D) 5e BK 5^
Tr\r)peis B^C Pap 8 (+D)
/cat BACK Pap 8 (+D)
BAC
1 TrapeOewpovvTo BKAC(+D)
^/txtv C(+D)
B
om A(+D)
id Pap 8 (+D) +a-yiou AC
BA(+D) evavriov C
BC corr
KAC(+D)
Antiochian 41 i;7rep rou ovo/JLaros (+CLVTOV S~) K
TOV WWTOV HPSr(cf. D) 3
ow HPS5" TrX^peis] TrXy/pTjs HP
HPS5" AcaTaaT^aw/iej HPS
5 TrXT^s HS(+D) TrX^pts P
HPS5~(+D) 42 nqaovv
HPSr(+D) 5e]
S Trj eu/iaros] +a7ioi;
4 TrpocrKapTfprja u^v HS
3 eTri.crKe\f/ufj(.e6a B, attested by no
other witness, seems to be due to the
desire not to exclude the apostles from
a share in the selection of the Seven.
It is clearly inconsistent with vs. 6
in the usual text. Perhaps the
Western oi/rot fara.Qi]<ja.v in the
latter verse has arisen from the same
motive.
5 Tr\r)prf BC corr minn is a correction
for the indeclinable ir\T]pr)s tfACD
Antiochian.
v-vi CODEX BEZAE 57
^aipovrs OLTTO rrpoawrrov rov avveopiov ort virep rov ovofJLaros
42 KaTr]ia)dr]crav drt/zacr#7?var Trdcrav Se rjfjuepav ev ra> tepai /cat /car
OIKOV OVK eTTCLVovro oi$dcrKovrS KO.I euayyeAt^d/xevot rov KVpiov
lycrovv Xptcrrov.
ri Ev oe ravrais rat? rjjJLepcus 7rXr]6vv6vra)V rwv fjiadrjrajv
eyeVero yoyyuo/xos 1 ra>v EAA^vtcjTa)^ Trpos- rous" E^patous ort
Trapedeajpovvro eV rfj Sta/covta Kadr){j,pLvfj at X^P aL U-VT&V eV TTJ
2 Sta/covta rco^ EjSpatcoy. TryoocrAcaAeaayLtevot ot tj3 TO TrXrjdos TOJV
[jLadr^rajv LTTOV npos avrovs OVK dpecrrov ecrriv fytcw /caraAet-
i 3 i/javras rov Adyov rou ^eou StaAcovetv rparre^aLS. rt ouv ecrrtV,
do\(j)oi; 7TiGKifjaad e^ v^wv avrajv avftpas p,aprvpovfjLvovs
% TrXrjpcis TTvevjJiaros /cat aortas , ous" KaraorrTJaofJLev eVt TTJS"
4 ^pta? <r>avrr)S ^ftet? Se eaofjieda rfj rrpocrevxfj /cat TTJ 8ta-
5 /covta rou Adyou 7rpoc7/capTpowrs > . /cat rfpeaev 6 Adyos
va)7TLov TTOLvros rov rrXijOovs rajv fjLa6rjra)v , /cat e^eX
ov, avopa TrArjprjs m orecos /cat 7TVVjj,aros ayiov,
3
concilii quia pro nomine digni habitat! sunt contumeliam pati 42 omni autem die d
in teraplo et domi non cessabant docentes et evangelizantes dum ihra xpm
1 in diebus autem istis multiplicantibus discipulis facta est murmuratio quae ex
grecis erant adversus aebraeos quia discupiuntur in ministerio diurno viduae ipsorum
in ministerio haebreorum 2 convocantes itaque xii multitudinem discipulorum
dixerunt ad eos non enim placet nobis derelicto verbo di ministrare mensis 3 quid
ergo est fratres prospicite itaque ex vobis viros testimonio bono vii plenos spu et
sapientia quos constituamus in negotio hoc 4 nos autem sumus oratione et ministerio
berbi perseveramus 5 et placuit sermo hie in conspectu omni multitudini discipu
lorum et elegerunt stephanum virum plenum fidei et spiritu sancti et philippum et
conjcilii, quod digni habiti essent ignominias pati [in nomijne ihu. 42 omni h
atquae die in templo et in domib[us non] cessabant docentes et annuntiantes
dnm ih[m xpm].
1 in diebus autem illis, cum abundaret turba di[scentiu], facta est contentio
Graecorum adversus Ebr[ . . . . ] quod in cottidiano ministerio viduae Graec[orum]
a ministris Hebraecorum discupierentur. 2 et [convojcaverunt illi xii totam
plebem discipulorum, [et dixe]runt eis : non est aecum vobis reliquisse ver[bum
di] et ministrare mensis. 3 quid est ergo, frat[res ? exjquirite ex vobis ipsis
homines probatos sep[tem, ple]nos spu sco et sapientia dni, quos constitu[amus
in] hunc usum. 4 nos autem orationi verbi adse[rvientes] erimus. 5 et placuit
sermo iste in conspectu o[mnium] discentium : et elegerunt Stefanum, hominem
2 et convocaverunt [inquit] illi duodecim totam plebem discipulorum et Cyprian,
dizerui.t eis. _ _ Kp C7) 4
42 omni [quoque] die [inquit] in templo et in domo non cessabant docentes Irenaeus,
et evangelizantes Christum Jesum filium dei. m> 12) 5
in domo] domo or domi Turner
4 eo-o/xefla Trpo<rKapTepovi>Tes] my [erimus] persoverantes Harclean
58
CODEX VATICANUS
VI
/cat Trvevfiaros dytou, /cat Ot AtTTTrov /cat
/cat Nt/cdvopa /cat Tet/zcuva /cat nap/zevdV /cat Nt/coAaov Trpocr-
Aj/rtcr^ea, | ot> earTjcrav evwmov rwv aTrocrroAcov, /cat 6
7TOr)Kav CLVTOLS rds ^etpas".
Kat o Aoyos 1 rou 0eou r)vavv, /cat eTrXrjOvvcro 6 dpi6fj,6s TOJV 7
eV lepoucraA^/x- a^oSpa, TroAus* T o^Aos" TOJV tepeav
VTTTJKOVOV rfj TrtWet.
Sre^avos" Se TrXrjprjs x^P iros Ka ^ ^vvdneajs eTrotet re/oara /cat 8
cn^/zeta jLteyaAa ev TO) Aaa>. dvecrrrjcrav Se rtve? ra)v e/c r^j 9
rij? Aeyo/zeV^? At^e/ortVcov /cat Kup^vatcov /cat
/cat rcDi/ a,7ro KtAt/cta? /cat Aortas crw^rowre?
/cat ov/c i&xvov d^rtCTTTyvat TT^ cro^ta /cat TO) Trveu/zart 10
^ eAaAet. rore VTrefiaXov avSpas Aeyovra? ort A/cry /coa/xe^ n
aurou AaAowros" pTJfJLara f$Xdar(f>7]iJLa ets* Mcaucr^v /cat rov
ra
Old Uncial 5
7
Pap 8
0175 om A(-fD)
BCK C A 2 Pap 8 (+D) \eyovros
/cai Tn>evfj.aros BACK c Pap 8 (+D) Trvcu/uaros /ecu Trtcrrews K
0175 vid (+D) loySaiajj/ X VTTTJK-OVOJ/ BNC 0175(+D)
9 TWV 1 BAG 0175(+D) om K TT/S \eyonev-ris BC(+D)
A. 0175 a\eavdpeut> BKAC 0175(+D) a\ea.vdpivwi>
KtXtKias BNAC(+D) TT;S KiXi/cias 0175 /cat ao-tas BKC
\e7o^rasBC Xe7oi Tej 5<A XaXowros
om A /SXao-^a BK a AC Pap 8 jSXao--
Antiochian 8
HPS5"
6 Aos statuerunt h (cf. d g"w0s) is
partial conformation to the B-text,
against Western ourot eo-ra^crav D
perp pesh.
7 rwy tcpewv BACD Antiochian is
to be accepted in preference to rwy
lovScuwv K minn pesh, and to the
obviously corrupt tv ru tepco which
underlies h (in templo). This last
reading seems to be due to some con
fusion with ev ipovffd\f]fji. (just before),
which h 181 omit.
9 For \ippTu>w}> the conjecture of
XipiffTivuv or \L^vffTivuv ( Libyans )
has been much discussed ever since
the mention of it by Beza, in his notes
in R. Stephen s Latin New Testament,
Geneva, 1556. It is attractive but un
necessary. The explanation Libyans
quoted from Chrysostom in the Ar
menian catena, and found in the
Armenian vulgate text, may be an
interpretation, not a variant reading ;
see Conybeare, Am. J. Philol. xvii.,
1896, p. 152.
A 60 lect support D d in omitting
/cat acrtas.
10 The Western addition is found
in vg. codd and in tepl and the
Bohemian.
CODEX BEZAE 59
/Cat QiXlTTTTOV /Cat
KOI Nt/c<dV>o/oa /cat
/cat TlapiJLvd<v> Kal Nt/coAaov
TTpocnjXvrov Avrto^ea.
OVTOL ecrrddrjcrav evaiinov TOJV aVooToAcov, olrwes
e77e 0?7 /cav OLVTOLS rds ^ctpas 1 .
7 Kat o Aoyos 1 rod Kvpiov iqv^avev, Kal eTrX^dvvero 6
TWV fjLadrjrajv eV lepovcraXrjjjL a<f)6pa, rroXvs re o^Aos 1 ratv Upcatv
VTTTJKOVOV fa[.]f rfi mart.
8 Hrefavos Se TrXijp rjs \dpiros /cat SvvdfJLews eVotet repara /cat
(njfjieia fjieydXa V TO) Aaa> Sta TOU ovo/zaros Kvpiov I^crou Xpt-
9 crrov. dvecrrrjcrav Be rives r&v e/c r^s 1 crwaycoyTys" TT^S" XeyofAevrjs
Aeipepreivcov /cat Kvpyvecov /cat AXegavSpecov /cat TCOI/ 0,770
10 KiAt/aa? crvv,r)TovvTS raj Sre^ava), otrtves" ot)/c to-^vov dvTiarrjvat,
rfj ao(f>La rfj ovcry eV aura) /cat TO) Trvevfiari ra> dyiq) w eAaAet,
11 8td TO eAey^eo-^at aurous 1 77* aurou /zero, 7rdar]s Trapprjaias. /AT)
8vvdfjLVoi ov<v> dvTO</>6aXfJLiV rfj aA^et a, rore
Xeyovr[.]s on, A/c^/coa/zev aurou AaAowros prjfJiara
prochorum et nicanorem et timonem et permenan et nicholaum proselytum antiocensem d
6 quos statuerunt in conspectu apostolorum cumque orassent superposuerunt eis
manus 7 et verbum dni crescebat et multiplicabatur numerus discipulorum in
hierusalem nimis multaque turba sacerdotum oboediebant fidei 8 stephanus vero
plenus gratia et virtute faciebat portenta et signa magua in populo per nomen dni
ihu xpi 9 surrexerunt autem quidam qui erant de synagoga quae dicitur livertinorum
et cyrenensium et alexandrinorum et eorum qui sunt a cilicia altercantes cum stephano
10 qui non poterant resistere sapientiae quae erat in eo et spo sancto in quo loque-
batur quoniam probatur illis ab illo cum omni fiducia 11 non potentes autem
resistere veritati tune summiserunt viros qui dicerent quia audivimus eurn loquentem
[plenum] fide et ico spu, et Filippum et Proculum et N[icanore] et Simonem et h
Parmenen et Nicolaum pros[elytum] Antiocensem. 6 hos statuerunt ante
apostol[os et orajtes inposuerunt eis manus. 7 et verbum diii ad[cresce]bat, et
multiplicabantur numerus discentiu[m ....]: magua autem turba in templo
audiebant fid[ei]. 8 [Stef]anus autem plenus gratiam et virtute faciebat
[prodjigia et signam coram plebem in nomine ihu xpi. 9 [exur]rexerunt autem
quidam ex synagoga quae [dicit]ur Libertinorum et alii Cyrenaei et ab
Alexandria e]t Cilicia et Asia, contendentes cum Stefano : 10 qui [non
vjalebant contradicere sapientiae quae erat in [eo et sjpui sco quo loquaebatur,
et quod revincebantur [ab eo c]um omni fiducia. 11 tune itaque, non valen[tes
resJisUre adversus veritatem, summiserunt ho[mines], qui dicerent: audivimus
7 7n<rrei] +my evangelii 8 8ia TOV ovo/naros xvpiov tyaov xp LffTOV ] "X- per Harclean
nomen domini ^ 10-11 Sia TO fXey^aOai avrovs eir avrov /xera Traffijs
Trappyo-ias. /ATI 5vva.fj.evoi ovv avTo<pda\/j.iv rrj <t\-rj6ei,a] my quoniam arguerentur
ab eo cum omni libertate. quum non possent igitur intiteri contra veritatem
60
CODEX VATICANUS
re TOV Xaov /cat rou? TrpecrfivTepovs /cat TOVS ypa/z- 12
/cat
OLVTOV /cat
is TO
Gen. xii. i auTo
oweSptov, | ecrTrjcrdv re ndpTvpas 0euSet<r Aeyovras" avdpajTTos
OVTOS ov TravcTOLt, XaXojv pT^Ltara Kara TOV TOTTOV TOV dyiov
TOVTOV /cat TO> VOJJLOV, d/CT^/coaju-ev y^ OLVTOV XeyovTos on
us" o Na^copatos OTTOS /caraAucret rov TOTTOV TOVTOV /cat
t ra #77 a rrapeoajKev r^lv M.<jDvarjs. /cat arevto-avres 1 ei?
TTOLVTes ol Ka6^,6fjiVOL lv TW cruveSpico etSav ro TrpocrcoTrov
avTOV cocret TrpoawTrov ayyeAou.
Se o dpxiepevs Et raura OVTWS e^et; | o Se e^Ty "AvSpe?
/cat Trarepe?, a/covorare. o* ^eo? TT^? So^s aKf>6r] TOJ
TfciTpl rjfjbwv Aflpadfj, OVTI ev Trj MecroTTora/zta TTynv T) /carot/c^crat
Xappav, | /cat etTrev Trpos" aurdv "E^eA^e e/c TT^S- y^?
oruyycvetas 1 crou, /cat oevpo els TTJV yrp> r]v aV crot
14
IS
CTOU /cat
14
Editors 13 [rourou] WH
3 /ecu 2] +e/c WHmg So<len
\Jf] v \ Soden
Old Uncial 12 re BKAC Pap s (+D) 5e 0175 rovs 2 BtfAC 2 0175(+D) om C
eiriffTavres BAC C Pap 8 1075(+D) om S yyayov BNC Pap 8 107o(+D)
+avTot> A 13 Xe7oi Tas BAC(+D) \eyovres K 0175 o avdpwiros
OVTOS BKA Pap 8 1075(+D) OVTOS o avdpuiros G XaXw^ pij/aara BKC Pap 8 1075
prjfj,aTa \a\uv A(+D) rou a7tou TOVTOV BC TOVTOV TOV aycov Pap 8 om
TOVTOU A 0175(+D) 14 e^ B 1 (?)B 2 15 e:s B a AC 0175
om K 3 KOLL 2 B(+D) 4-e/c ^AC 77^ BKA(+D) om C
Antiochian 13 re] oe H
om TODTOU HPS(+D)
TJ/J.IV~\ v/jnv S
3 /cat 2] +c/c HPSfT
15
14 /caraXutr?? H
ravTes HPS5~
om TT,V
prju.aTa /3Xacr0?; / u.a XaXw^ HPS5"
a Tra/oeSw/cev] a?rep eSaj/cei P
1 et] -}-apa HPSS~(+D)
15 J. R. Harris, Four Lectures on
the Western Text, pp. 70-74, argues
that the rendering of d stans in mcdio
eorum points to a text in which this
phrase related to the high priest and
belonged to the following sentence (cf.
Mk. xiv. 60) ; in reply see Corsseu,
Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1896,
pp. 434 f.
3-51 In the phrases drawn from the
O.T. in vss. 3-51 about 30 variants
between B and D occur in which one
agrees with LXX against the other.
Vs. 21, D adds irapa. TOV TTOTO.P.OV, and
is supported for substance by E e vg.
8 codd hcl -X-. Vs. 24, D with support
from w vg. one cod eth adds /cat eitpvif/cv
O.VTOV tv TTI a/jifMu. Since both these
readings are from LXX, a large number
of others where D agrees with LXX
may safely be ascribed to the same
tendency to conformation. In another
series of cases, such as vs. 18, e/j-vrjaOr)
D E e gig perp ; vs. 26, TI Trotetre avdpes
a5eX0ot (without eo-re) D ; vs. 43, CTTI
TO. fj.ep-rj D gig (perp) (e) sah (see note
below), and others, the reading of D
in departure from LXX has the
appearance of Western paraphrase.
Vs. 31, o Kvpws eiirev ai/rw \eyuv D
eth (pesh seems to be a combination
of both readings) was probably intro-
duced to agree with LXX, and in
compensation, vs. 33, /cat eyeveTO <puvri
-n-pos avTov D (not in LXX) was sub-
stituted for the original reading. ID
vr-vn CODEX BEZAE 61
! I2 els Mwvcrfjv /cat rov Oeov avveKeivrjadv re rov Xaov /cat rovs
TTpe&pvrepovs Kol TOVS ypafjLfjLare is , /cat emordVres avvrfprraaav
13 avrov /cat rjyayov els TO crw&piov, /cat ecrrrjaav [Jbdprvpas i/JV-
oels /card avrov Xeyovras avOpcorros euros ov rraverai p^ara
ii4 XaXoJv Kara rov rorrov rov aylov /cat ro vofjiov, a/c^/cdaju.ei yap
avrov Xeyovros ort lyaovs o Naopaios- euros /caraAuo-et rov
rovov rovrov /cat dAAa^et ra, 0rj a TrapeocoKtv r\[L^iv MtoucnJ?.
15 /cat rjrevilyOV oe avra) rrdvres ot /ca^/zevot ev rai crvveftpia) /cat
efSov ro rrpoaajrfov avrov aicret TrpocrcoTrov dyyeXov ear euros ev
/xecrcu avrujv,
II EtTrey Se o ap^tepeu? ra) Sre(dVar Et a/aa rouro OVTOJS X l >
2 | o 8e e^* "AvSpes dSeXcfrol /cat rrarepes, aKovcrare. 6 6e6s rrjs
oor]s a><f>0r) rw rrarpl rjp,a)v A^pad/x, 6Vrt ev r^ MeaoTrora/xta
3 ?r/3tv ^ KaroiKrjo-ai avrov ev Xapav, | /cat etTrev Trpos 1 aurov "E^eA^e
rrjs yfjs oov /cat r^s* owyoaas CTOU, /cat oevpo "|"et"j" et?
2 aSeAot aSeA<? 3
verba blasphema in moysen et in dum 12 commoveruntque populum et seniores et d
scribas et adgressi adrripuerunt eum et adduxerunt in concilium 13 et statuerunt
testes falsos adversum eum dicentes homo hie non cessabit verba loquens adversus
locum sanctum et legem 14 audivimus enim earn dicentem quia ihs nazoraeus hie
destruet locum istum et mutavit iterum quos tradidit nobis moyses 15 et intuiti in
eum omnes qui sedebant in concilio et viderunt faciem ejus quasi faciem angeli stans
in medio eorum
1 ait autem pontifex stephano sic haec sic habent 2 ad ille dixit viri fratres et
patres audite ds claritatis visus est patri nostro abraham cum esset in mesopotamiam
postea quam mortuus esset in charris 3 et dixit ad eum exi de terra tua et a
eum loquentem [verba] blasphemiae in Monsen et dm. 12 et concitaverunt h
[plebe]m et majores ratu et scribas : venerunt et rapu[erunt] eum, et
perduxerunt in concilium, 13 et statue[runt a]dversus eum testes falsos, qui
dicerent: non [quiesjcit homo iste verba jacere adversus legem [et advjersus
hunc locum scm : 14 audivimus autem eum [dicentjem quod ihs Nazarenus
dissolbet templum is[tum et] consuetudinem istam mutavit quam trade[dit
no]bis Moyses. 15 et cum intueretur eum omnes [qui er]ant in concilio,
videbant vultu ejus tamqua [vultum] angeli di stantis inter illos.
1 et interrogavit [sacer]dos Stefanum : si haec ita se haberent. 2 [ad ille
re]spondit : viri fratres et patres audite : ds clari[tatis]
2 dfitis gloriae visus est patri nostro Abrahae, 3 et dixit ad eum : exi Irenaeus,
de tern tua et de cognatione tua, et veni in terram quam demonstrabo tibi : Jii 12 > 10 ( 13 )
3 tibi demonstrabo Turner
only one instance (vs. 18, see below) the other uncials in omitting V/J.MV in
.s there reason to suspect that the vs. 43 see note below.
B-text has been conformed to LXX. 3, 4, 5 With the purpose of bringing
On the agreement of BD minn against the text into better accord with the
62
CODEX VATICANUS
vn
Tore eeA#coi> e/c yfjs XaASatW /caTaj/C7?crev ev XappdV. 4
TO, TO arrodaveiv rov rrarepa avrov /xeraj/ctcrev aurov
eij rrjv yrjv ravryv els r]v u/zets* vvv /caTot/cetTe, /cat ou/c e Sco/cev 5
auTa> KXrjpovofJLiav ev avrfj ovoe firjfJLa 77080?, /cat
Gen. xvii. s Som>at avTa) els Kardcf^eaiv avrrjv /cat rat &7Tpp,ari avrov
avrov f OVK ovros aura) reKvov. eXdXrjcrev 8e ovrcos 6 deos on 6
Gen. xv. is f. ecrrat TO OTrepfjua avrov rrdpoiKov ev yfj aAAoT/ota, /cat SouAaJCTouow
/cat KOLKCJcrovaw errj TeT/Da/cocrta* /cat TO e^o? to av oovXev- 7
Kpivtt) yd>, 6 Beos etTrev, /cat /XCTO, ravra e^eAeucrovTat /cat
XarpVo~ovcTLV pot, ev TOJ TOTTOJ rovra). /cat e8a>/cev avTa>
/cat OVTOJS eyevv^crev rov lo-a/c /cat
T?y ^/xepa T^ dySo^, /cat laaa/c TOI^ la/cco^S, /cat
St6Se/ca rrarpiapxas. /cat ot Trarpidpxat, ^AceScravTes 1 TOV 9
Ia)crr}(f> OLTreSovro els P^iyvrrrov /cat -^v o ^eos 1 /XCT auTOU, | /cat 10
OP e/c iracrajv rajv dXeii/jecov avrov, /cat eSco/cev avToi
KU aofaav evavriov Oapacb fiamXeajs AlyvTrrov, /cat
Karearrjcrev avrov rjyovfjievov erf Alyvrcrov /cat oAov TOV ot/coi^
rovrov. rjXOev Se Aet/u-os" e^ oA^v TT^V AtyfTTTOV /cat Xavaav /cat n
Editors 5 avrrfv etj /carao ^ecrtj aurw Soden 7 SovXeucroucrti WH Soden
eiTrei o 5eos Soden 10 add e0 before oAoi WHmg Soden TOI;TO^]
airou WH Soden JHR 11 at7i;7rroj>] 777^ aiyvTrrov Soden (but cf. mg)
Old Uncial 4 TO BtfC(+D) orn A
/carao xea iJ avrw i{A
BAC(+D) aurw ^s
BXA(+D) +O.VTO C
BX dov\ev(rov(Tif AC(+D)
8 075077 BAC^ C (+D)
evavTiov BAC(+D) evavrc K
auTou
5 avrw ets Karaa xeo-tJ aur^i BC(+D) aur^i ets
aura> 3 BJ^A(+D) afroy C 6 ourws
afroi BAC(+D) o"ou ^ Kaicw<rov<riv
7 /cat TO BKA(+D) TO 5e C SovXeuo-wo-ti/
\arpevffovcriv B^A \a.rpevffw(nv C vid
10 auTW BC (cf. D) om A
0X0** B(+D) e<j> o\ov J<AC TOVTOV B
Antiochian 4 ej ] as HS
o ^eos HPSr(+D)
ta/cw/3 2] o ta/cw/3 HPSr
HPS?"
5oi;^at 5~ 6 OUTWS] afTW H 7
om O.VTOV S to-aax 2] o tcraa/c HPS5"(+D)
TOI;TO^] OUTOU HPSr(+D) 11 aiyvirrov]
statements of Gen. xi. and xii., perp gig
have a text which removes fiera TO
(nrodavLV rov irarepa avrov from its
place in vs. 4 and inserts the words
just before vs. 3. Possibly with the
same motive, in vs. 4, D reads /ca/cet
i]v (d et ibi erat) for KaKadev. The
quotation by Irenaeus is so greatly
abridged that its omissions ought not
to be used as evidence here.
4 With hcl -X- agree minn in reading
v/muv in both cases.
10 It is noteworthy that 0a/>aw,
which hcl marks with -X-, is omitted
in Greek texts, so far as kno\vn, only
by 614 431. Tlie-X- is usually employed
by the Harclean to indicate a word
added, not omitted, by the Western
text ; cf. xxvii. 7 and p. clxx above.
vii CODEX BEZAE 63
4 rjv av ooi Set for rdre AfipaafJi efeA#o>v e/c yfjs XaASateov /cat
Kara)K7]o-V V XappdV. /ca/cet ^v /zero, TO OLTroOavelv rov rrarepa
avrov /cat fjLerwKivev az)rov etV T^V yiji/ ravrrjv etV TJI v/zets" vw
5 /carot/cetre /cat ot Trarepes rjfJiaJv ot 77730 rjfjiajv, /cat ou/c eSa>/cev
avra> K\j]povop,iav V avrf} ot)Se firjfia 77080?, aAA* eTn^yyet AaTO
Sowat aura) etV /carao-^ecrtv avrrjv /cat TO> crTre/o/zart avrou jiter
6 ayrdV, ou/c oVro? aura) re/cvou. e AaA /ycrei 8e ovrws 6 Oeos Trpos
avrov ort larat TO CTTrep/za auTo? TrdpoiKov ev yfj dAAoTpta, /cat
7 SouAcocrofO tv aT^TOus" /cat KOLKOMJOVUW err) v~ /cat TO eOvos c5 av
SouAeucroucrtp /cptvcu eyco, t7rev o deos, /cat jLteTa ravra e
8 Tat /cat Xarpevaovcriv jLtot ev TO) TOTTO) rovrco. /cat e8co/cev
TOfjLrjs /cat ovra)s eyeW^o-ev TOV Icra/c /cat 7re/ot-
OLVTOV rfj rjfjLepa rfj dySoTy, /cat d laa/c TOV la/cco^S, /cat
9 la/cco^S TOUS" tjS Trarpidpxas. /cat ot TraTptap^at ,r)Xa)crai>Ts rov
10 9 la)crrj(f) dneSovro els Aiyvrrrov /cat T^V d fled? /ACT avrov, \ /cat
et,Xaro avrov e/c Tracrcav TCOV dXeiiffectiv avrov, /cat e Scu/cev
xdpLv avrco /cat o*o0tav evavriov Oapaa> ^SacrtAecus" Alyvrcrov, /cat
Karearrjcrev avrov rjyovfjievov err 9 Aiyvrrrov /cat dAov TOV ot/coy
Se AetjLtds" e^> dA^? T^? AtyuTrrou /cat Xavadv /cat
/carotKetrat
coguatione tua et veni in terra quamcumq- tibi monstravero 4 tune abraham exibit d
de terra chaldeorum et habitavit in charra et ibi erat post mortem patris sui et
intransmigravit eum in terram bane in qua vos nunc habitatis et patres nostri qui
ante nos 5 et non dedit ei possessionem heredetatis in ea nee quantum tenet gradus
pedis sed promisit ei dare earn in possessionem et semini ejus post ipsum quando non
esset ei filium 6 locutus est autem sic ds ad eum quia erit semen ejus peregrinum
in terra aliena et in servitute redigent eos et male tractabunt annis cccc 7 et gentem
cui servierint judicavo ego dicit dns et postea xibunt et deservient mini in loco hoc
8 et dedit ei dispositionem circumcisionis et sic genuit isac et circumcidit eum die
octabo et isac ipsum Jacob et Jacob xii patriarchas 9 et patriarchae hemulati Joseph
distraxerunt in aegyptum et erat ds cum illo 10 et eripuit eum ex omnibus con-
flictationibus ejus et dedit ei gratiam et sapientiam coram farao regae aegypti et
constituit eum in aegyptum et omnem donrum suam 11 venit autem famis super
4 et transtulit ilium in terram hanc, quam nunc et vos inhabitatis, 5 et non irenaeus,
dedit ei hereditatem in ea, nee gressum pedis, sed promisit dare ei in possessionem *" 12 10 ( 13 )
earn, et semini ejus post eum. 6 locutus est autem sic deus ad eum, quoniam
erit i- -men ejus peregrinans in terra aliena, et in servitutem redigentur, et
vexab ;ntur annis quadringentis ; 7 et gentem cui servient judicabo ego, dicit
dominus, et postea exient et servient mihi in isto loco. 8 et dedit ei testa-
mentum circumcisionis, et sic generavit Isaac.
4 KCU o: Trarepcs T^OJV 01 irpo rju.uv] -X- et j>atres vestri ante vos y 10 ^apaw] Harclean
X- Pharaone /
64 CODEX VATICANUS
is [JLeydXr], /cat ovx vjvpicrKOv \oprd(jp,ara ot irarepes
VII
oiKovcras oe Ia/ceu/3 ovra aetTta et? Atyi>7rroi> e^aTre oretAev rou? 12
Trarepas Ty/zcDv rrpcorov /cat ev TOJ oevrepa) eyvcopiadr) Itotn^ 13
rots aSeA^ots" avrov, /cat <j>avpov eyeVero TO> Oapaco TO yeVo?
IcocTT^. aTTOcrreiXas Se Ia)crr)(j) /xere/caAecraro Ia/ca>)8 rov Trarepa 14
avrov Kal Traaav ryv crwyyeVetav ev ifjv%(us p$o/jLr)KovTa TreVre,
| KarepT] 8e Ia/ca>j8. icat auros 1 ereXevrrjo-ev /cat ot Trarepes rjfjiajv, 15 !
/cat [JLeTeredrjaav els Su^e/z /cat ereOrjcrav ev ra> fjiv^ari a) 16 |
A^paa/z rt/z,^? apyvpiov irapa ra)v VLOJV EifjifjLwp Iv
Kadcbs 8e Tfyyi^v 6 ^poVos 1 TTys- eVayyeAtas 1 ^s 1 co/xo- 17 j
Aoy^crev o ^eo? TO) Aj8paa/>t, yvfycrev 6 Aao? /cat TrAr)6vv6r] eV
AtyvTrro), | ax/H ou dvecrrr) fiacnXevs erepos CTT Atyuvrrov, o? 18 !
ou/c ^Set rov Icocrrj^. ouro? /caraao<^tcra/>tvos > ro yeVo? ^jLtcov 19 |
e/ca/cacrev rows Trarepa? ro Troteti^ ra Pp(f>rj K0ra avrwv els
TO ^17 ^ajoyovetcr^at. eV a) Kaipco eyevvrjdr) Mcovcrfjs, Kal rjv 20
dcTTetos" TO) ^ea>- os dverpdfir) fjifjvas rpeis ev TO> ot/ca> TOU rrarpos
Editors 12 as CUYUTTTOJ/] e^ at7U7rrw Soden mg 13 eyvupwdr]] aveyvupHrd-r) WHmg
Soden twcr7;0 2] rou tw<r?70 Soden 15 KarefiTj 5e] /cat Kare^f] WHmg
Soden JHR m/cw/3] +[s at7U7rro^] WH +ets c^uTr-rov Soden JHR
Te\evTr)<rei> auros WH Soden JHR 18 om e?r aiyvirrov JHR
19 Trarepas] +[ 7Atw ] Soden e/c0era ra /3pe07; Soden (but cf. mg)
Old Uncial 13 eyvupio-6r] BA aveyvupiad-r] KC(+D) rw 2 BAC(+D) om X
two-7/0 2 BC (cf. D) avrou A 15 /care/Sr? 5e B /cat /care/57? NAG
ia/cuj/3 B +ets at^VTrrof J^AC(+D) auros ereXeuTTyo-ev B ereXeur^cre^ auros
KAC(+D) 16 ev truxeyti Bi<C rou ei/ auxe/A AN C (cf. D) 17
ws A Xpof os BKC(+D) /catpos A u/AoXoyrjo-ev
81 18 e?r at7U7TTOi B^sAC om 81 (+D) 19 Trarepas
BK(+D) +i7/xwj AC81 e/c^era aurwv BKAC aurwv e/c^era 81
20 Trarpos BK a AC 81 +/J.QV N (cf. D)
Antiochian 12 crema] crtra HPS5~ ets aiyvTrTOv] ev aiyvirru HPS5~(+D)
13 eyvwpicrdri} aveyvwpiffd ri HPS5~(+D) om a8eX0ots P laxrrifi 2J
rou iwa-770 HPSS~(+D) 14 rov Trarepa aurou <a/cw/3 HPS5" (TUYycvetaq
+aurou 5~(+D) eftdo/j.riKoi Ta irevre i^^xats H (cf. D) 15 KctTefir) 5e]
/cai Kare^r] P ia/cw/3] +ets aiyvirrov HPSff"(+D) ereXeuri7<re ayros
HPS5~(+D) 16 w] o HPS5" ev o-^e,"] rov ffvxtf*. (P X^) HPSr(+D)
17 w^.oXo77?o"ei ] wfj-ocrev HPSS" 18 om eir aiyvTrrov HPS5~(+D)
19 Trarepas] +77^0;^ HPS5~ e/c^era ra j3pe</>7} HPSr(+D) 20 Trarpos]
15 The omission of 5e in D perp gig into connexion with the following
brings the mention of Jacob s journey statement of his death, but the
CODEX BEZAE 65
VII
OXelifits /LteydA^, /cat ov% euptcr/cov ^oprdcrfjiara ot rrarepzs
; 12 d/coucras 1 ovv la/cco/? 6Wa cretTta ev AtyuTTTO) e^aTrearretXev TOU?
13 narepas rjfjicov rrpwrov /cat em TO> oevrepa) dveyvajpioQr] TCOCTT)^
Tot? aSeA^ots" avrov , /cat (fravepov eyevridj] rco Oapaco TO ye^o? TOU
1 14 Ia>CT7^. dTrocrTetAas" Se Ia>cn]^ /zeTe/caAecraTO Ta/ccojS TOV rrarepa
\ 15 avrov /cat rrdaav rr\v avvyevziav avrov ev o /cat ^u^ats". Karefir]
Ia/ccoj8 etV AtyuTTTOv, /cat ereXevrrjvev avros r /cat ot rrarlpes
a) cbvrjcraro A^Spad/x TetjLtT^s 1 dpyvpiov rrapa r&v VLOJV
17 TOU ^v%efJL. Kadajs Se r^yyi^ev 6 %p6vos rrjs eTrayyeAta? 7^9 GTT-
T^yyetAaTO o $eo<? TO) A^Spad/x, 7]vr](jV 6 Aaos" /cat errXridvvdri
1 8 eV EyuTTTO), d^pt ou avzarj] fiaaiXevs eVepo? o? ou/c ep,vrjo~dr) rov
ig Itua7J</>, /cat Karaoo^iadiJizvos TO yeVos rjfJLOJV e/cd/cajaev TOU?
TraTepa? TO> TTOLGIV K0ra rd /3p(f)r) avrajv et? TO /AT) ^cooyovet-
20 a#at. eV cS /catpaj eyewrj&q Ma>uo-7ys > , /cat ^v dcrTtos TOJ ^ea- o?
21 dverpd(f>r) fjifjvas rpis eV TO) ot/caj TO rrarpos avrov- eKredevros oe
II flAeii/ eis 19
omnem terrain aegypti et clianaam et conflictatio magna et non inveniebant utensilia d
patres nostri 12 cum audisset vero Jacob esse frumenta in aegypto misit patres
nostros primum 13 et in secundo recognitus est Joseph a fratribus suis et mani-
festum factum est ipsi pharao genus Joseph 14 cum misisset autein Joseph accersibit
Jacob patrem suum et omnem cognationem ejus in Ixx et v animabus 15 descendit
Jacob in aegyptum et defuctus est ipseque et patres nostri 16 et translati sunt in
sychem et positi sunt in sepulchre quod mercatus est abraham praetio argenti a
filiis emmor et sychem 17 ut vero adpropiuquavit tempus promissionis quam
pollicitus est ds ipsi abraham auctus est populus et multiplicatus est in aegypto
18 donee alius exurrexerit rex qui non meminisset ipsius Joseph 19 cum justitias
coepisset cum genus no.strvi male tractavit patres ut faceret exponi infantes eorum ut
non educarentur 20 in quo tempore natus esset moyses et erat eligans do qui
mensibus tribus educatus est in domo patris ejus 21 cum vero expositus esset secus
17 e7T7rx7etXaro] mg pollicitus erat 18 /SaatXeus erepos] +mg in aegypto Harclean
context speaks for the conjunction. Sychem as a personal name but con-
For 5e B Antiochian the more Semitic fused the relationship ; perhaps the
KO.I KA T may be preferable. B-text is to be preferred, but a con-
16 fv crvxffJ- BKC sah boh ; rou tv lident decision is not possible.
<ri>xe/i AE e vg.codd ; TOV crvx^fJ- D 18 fir (nyvirrov BNAC pesh is omitted
Antiochian perp (qui fuit sychem) by DE e gig Antiocliian, and may be
vg (Jilii sychem). Of. Josh. xxiv. 32 addition under influence of LXX.
(Heb. and LXX differ), Gen. xxxiii. With \\c\.mg here agrees pesh, but
19. The Western text has taken not the Latin Western and D.
VOL. Ill F
66 CODEX VATICANUS vn
oe avrov dveiXaro avrov rj Ovydrrjp <Da/>ao> /cat 21
dvedpeif/aro avrov eavrfj vlov. /cat eTraioevdr) M.a>vo*ijs Trdcrr) 22
cro(/>t a Alyvirriajv, rjv oe Swards ev Aoyots" /cat epyots avrov.
ws Se erfXripovro avra) reaarepaKOvraerrjs ^povos", dvepr) em 23
rrjv Kapoiav avrov emovce i/facrtfat rovs doeXfiovs avrov vlovs
lapaijX. Kal iocbv riva doiKovjj,evov r)jj,vvaro /cat eTToir^aev 24
eKOLKri&iv ra> Kararrovov^eva) 7rardas rov Aiyvrfnov. evo/xtfev 25
oe uvvievai rovs doeXcfrovs ori 6 Oeos oid ^etpos* avrov oiococnv
aajrrjpiav avrots, ol oe ov avvfjKav. rfj re eTnovarj rj^iepa a)(j)dr) 26
aurot? p,a^ofjiVOLs /cat crvvrjXXaao ev avrovs ets* elprjvrjv eLTrcbv
"AvSpcs", doeX(f)OL ecrre* tva rt a8t/ctre dXXrjXovs ; \ 6 8e d8t/caiv 27
Ex. ii. 14 rov TrXrjcriov aVdjcraTO avrov etTrcov Tt? ere /carecrr^crey dp%ovra
/cat SiKaarriv e</ rjfjiwv; fjurj dveXelv /ze CTU ^eAet? oy rpoTrov 28
avetAe? e^^e? rov PCiyvrfriov ; <f>vyev oe McoucnJ? ey ra> Aoyaj 29
rovroj, /cat lyevero rrdpoiKOs eV y?J Ma8ta/x, ou eyevvrjaev vlovs
Suo. /cat TrXrjpajdevrcov erojv recraepaKovra axfrdr] avrw ev rfj 30
rov opovs Setva ayyeAo? ev (/>Xoyi Trvpos fidrow 6 oe 31
t8cov eOavfjuacrev ro opafj,a Trpovep^ofjievov 8e aurou
Ex. iii. 6 /caravo^crat eyevero (f)covrj Kvpiov Eycb o ^eos 1 rcov Trarepwv aov, 32
djLt /cat Icrad/c /cat Ia/cc6^S. evrpofjuos 8e y<v6fj,>vos
Editors 21 inov] ets woi/ WH Soden JHR 23 roi^s wous WH Soden JHR
25 ae\0oi;s] +[avroi ] Soden 30 01776X05] +[/cuptoi/] Soden
Old Uncial 21 vtov B ets woi/ ^AC 81 (+D) 22 7ra<r-r) B 81 ev iraat) t<A.C
23 wovs B TOVS VLOVS NAG 81 (+D) 25 aSeA^ous B^C +auroy A 81 (+D)
26 (TUJ TjXXacnrei BKC(+D) ffwrfKaaev A ffvvri\\a<rev 81 aurous Bi<A 81
(+D) ai^rots C 28 cru BKAC(+D) om 81 ex#es (81 x^s) TOJ
ai.yvirTioi> B^C81 (+D) rov aiyvirnov x# A 30 0Xo7i Trupos BK81 (+D)
irvpL 0X0705 AC 31 edavfJiaaev BAG edavpa^ev N 81 (+D) TO opa/j-a
BKC 81 (+D) om A /tuptou BKA 81 +?r/)os a^ro^ C 32 o 1
BKA 81 (+D) ora C o 2 BKA 81 (+D) om C ytvopevos B 2 (?)
BAG 81 (+D) /AWUCTTJS 76^0^6^05 X
Antiochian 21 eKreOevra Se avrov HPSS" VLOV] ets VLOV HPS~(+D) 22 add
ev before cp7ots PSS~ om avrov HPS5" 23 e?ri] eis H rous
uious HPSr(+D) 25 a5eX0ovs] +CLVTOV HPS5"(+D) ai;rois
(riorripLav HPS5~ 26 re] 8e P <rvvi>i\\ao-<rev] (rvvyXavev PSS~
(rvvrjX\a.<Tv H aurous] airots H eore] +u/u,ets HPS5" a\\rj\ois S
27 Tj/uas ^(+D) 30 a77eXos] +/euptov HPS5~(+D) 31 eOav^ev
HPS(+D) KvpLov] +7rpos avrov HPS5" 32 e7w] +eiMt S add o
0eoj before LaaaK HPS5" (cf. D) add o 0eos before ta-a;/3 HPSr (cf. D)
25 Hcl.mg the children of Israel is found also in pesh, but not in D or
Latin witnesses.
vn CODEX BEZAE 67
avrov Trapd rov Trora^ov dveiXaro avrov rj dvydryp <Dapaco, av-
12 edpdi/saro avrfj els viov. /cat ircu$v6r) MOJVO-TJS rraoav rrjv crofaav
23 KlyvrrriwVy rjv re ovvaros ev Xoyois /cat epyois avrov. <Ls oe
7rXr)povro reacrapaKOvraerrjs aura) ^povo?, dve/3r) ercl rr/v Kapoiav
avrov emcr/cej/racr^at rovs d$eX(f>ovs avrov rovs vlovs Icrpa^A.
/cat ISwv rtva doittovfjievov e/c rou yevovs rjjJivvero /cat erfoi f r\aev
e/cSt/c^crtv TO) Kararrovovpevcp 7rardas rov AiyvTrnov, /cat
25 eKpvi/jev avrov ev rfj a/LtjLta). evo/xtjev 8e ovvievai rovs doeX^ovs
avrov on 6 6eos oid x L PS avrov StScucret aajrrjpiav avrols,
26 ol oe crvvfJKav. rore eiriovor) ^/xepa ax^Qj] avrols
/cat et8ev awrous" aSt/cowra?, /cat ow^AAacrcrev aurous" ets"
L7Ta)V Tt Trotetre, aVSpe? aSeA^ot, tva rt aSet/cetre et?
270 oe doLK&v rov 7rXr)o~iov driajaaro avrov etnas T& ere /car-
28 earr)o~ev ap%ovra /cat 8t/cacrr^v e^> r)p,ds ; f^r] dveXelv fj,e av OeXeis
29 ov rpOTTOv avetAes" t^^es" TOV AtyuTrrtov; ovrcos /cat ecfrwydoevaev
Mcuvo-rjs ev ra> Aoya> rovrco, /cat eyevero rrdpotKos ev yfj Ma8tajLt,
30 ou eyevvrjcrev vlovs 8uo. /cat jj,erd ravra TrXyjcrdevrcov avraj erwv
\L o)(f)dri avrco ev rfj epr/fjLO) rov opov Setva ayyeAos" Kvpiov ev
31 ^Aoyt TTVpos fidrov 6 oe McDvcrrjs elocov eOavjjia^ev ro opapa
/cat TTpoaepxofJLevov avrov [/c]at Karavofjaai 6 Kvpios elrcev avrco
32 Aeycov *Eya) o ^09 TCOV rrarepaiv crov, 6 deos A^padju, /cat ^eos*
lad/c /cat ^eos Ia/ccoj3. evrpofios oe yevofjuevos M.ajvarjs OVK
22 tTTcStvOr] 23 Tecro-a/oaKovraeT-^s] /! er^s 25 VO/JLLOV
26 a^eiKctrat 28 ai^^es 29 8i;a> 30 erwv] er^
flumen sustulit eum tilia pharao et vice fill educavit sibi 22 et eruditus est moyses d
omni sapientia aegyptioru eratquae potens in sermonibus et operibus suis 23 ad
ubi inpletur ei xl annorum tempus ascendit in cor ejus visitare fratres suos filios
istrahel 24 et cum vidisset quendani injuriari de genere suo vindicavit et praestitit
vindictam ei qui vexavatur percusso aegyptio et abscondit eum in harena 25 arbi-
trabatur autem iutellegere fratres suos quia 3s per manus ejus dat salutem ipsis ad
illi non intellexerunt 26 tune sequenti die visus est eis litigantibus et vidit eos
iniquitantes et reconciliavit eos in pacem dicens quid facitis viri fratres ut quid
injuriam facitis invicem 27 qui autem injuriam faciebat proximo repulit eum dicens
quis te constituit principem et judicem super nos 28 numquid interficere me vis
quemadmodum interfecisti externa die aegyptium 29 adque ita profugit moyses in
sermone hoc et fuit incola in terrain madiam ubi genuit filios duos 30 et post haec
et inpletis annis xl visus est ei in solitudine in monte sina angelus dni in flamma
ignis rubi 31 moyses enim cum vidisset mirabatur visum cumque ipse accederet et
consideraret dns ait ad eum dicens 32 ego sum ds patrum tuorum ds abraham et
ds isac et ds Jacob tremibundusque factus moyses non audiebat considerare 33 et
21 Trapa, TOV TroTo.fj.ov] -X- in fluraen V 24 e/c rov yevovs] -X- ex genere Harclean
suo -/ 25 TOVS ade\<povs auroi;] +mg filios Israelis
68 CODEX VATICANUS vn
OVK eroA/za Karavorjcrai. elrrev Se avrqj 6 Kvpios" 33
Ex. in. 5 A.VGOV TO V7r6$r)p,d crov TUJV TroScDv, o yap rorros e<^> to ecrrrjKas
EX. iii. yfj ayt a ecrrtv. LOOJV eloov r^v /ca/ccocrti rov Xaov /zov ro> eV 34
Atyu77Ta>, /cat TO> &Tvay[jLov avrov Ty/coucra, /cat Kare^rjv e^eAe-
cr0at avrous" /cat vw oevpo ciTrooretAa) ere ets" AtyuTrrov. rovrov 35
TOI> McouaTjv, OP ripvri<ja.vro etVo^res" Tt? ere /careW^crei ap^ovra
/cat St/cacrr^v; rovrov 6 Qzos /cat ap^ovra /cat Xvrpwrrjv arr-
cruv %etpt dyye Aou rou o(f)64vro^ CLVTCO eV riy /3arco.
e^yayev avrovs Tronjcras repara /cat cr^/xeta eV TT^ Aty^Trra; 3 6
/cat eV Epu^pa 0aAacrc7T7 /cat eV r?J eprjjjia) err) revaepaKovra.
Deut. xviii. ovroV ecrrtv o McoucrTys 1 o etVa? rot? f t ots" Icrpa^A Tlpo(f>r)rr]V vplv 37
avacrTTJcret o ^eos" e/c rcuv a8eA^)cD^ v/ztuj cu? e /ze . ovros" ecrrtv 6 38
yevo/xevos" eV r^ e /c/cATycrta eV TT^ prjfJUi) /zero, rou dyye Aou rou
AaAowro? auraJ eV ra> o/oet St^a /cat ra>v Trarcpajv rjfjiajv, os* e f -
eAe^aro Aoyta Jcuvra Sowat u/ztv, a> ou/c rjOeXrjo-av vmJKOOi yeve- 39
o$at ot Trarepe? rjfjbojv dAAa aTrcocravro /cat earpd^aav eV rats 1
Ex. xxxii. i /cap8tats" aT/raw etV Afyiwrrov, | etTTovres 1 TO) Aapcov Ilot^aov 40
0oi>s ot TTpOTTOpevaovrat, rjfjiajv 6 yap Majvafjs euros , 6V
Editors 33 TWV TroSwc crou WH Soden JHR 34 auroi/] airwv Soden
36 rt] 1] 777 Soden 37 eiTras] etTrwj Soden 38 eeXearo] edefaro
WH Sodeu JHR vfuv] rjfj.iv> WHmg Soden JHR
Old Uncial 32 eroX/ia BAG 81 (+D) cro\Mff6v X 33 o 1 BKC 81 om A
ffOV TUV TTO<!>UV B TUV TTodiOV CTOV #A. 81 (+D) VOV (C 2 OUl (TOU) K TUV IToSuV CTOV C
0} BKA81 (+D) +CTUI/ C (<ru C 2 ) 34 aurow B(+D) aura t<AC81
35 diKaffrqv BA +c0 i7A*wy N*C 81 (+D) /cat 2 BK* 81 (+D) om KAC
\vrpurriv BACN C 81 (+D) diKaffT^v K a7re<rraX/fev BJ<A 81 (+D) a?r-
eo-retAei/ C ffw BAG 81 (+D) cv X 36 TT; 1 BC 777 KA 81 (+D)
37 avaar-rjaei. BKA81(+D) +/fupios C v^wv BACK C 81 (+D) om K
6ji*e BKA 81 +aurou aKOvae<r8e C(+D) 38 ^wv BAC 81 (+D)
B edefrro ^AC 81 (+D) vfuv BX 77^^ AC 81 (+D) 39
U/AO;^ 81 e<TTpa(j>r}<Ta.v BAC a 81 (cf. D) +/cat 5< e^ BKAC
om 81 (+D) 40 OVTOS BAC 81 (+D) +o avdpu-n-os X
Antiochian 33 rwv iroSwv aov HPS5~(+D) e0] ev HPS5~ 34 avrov] avruv
HPSr aTToareXw HPS5" 35 om /cat 2 HPS5~ a7re<rretXei/ HPS?"
o-uv] ev HPSfT 36 rr; 1] 777 HPS<T(+D) aiyvwrov 5~(+D) 37 om
o before /J.UVO-TJS HS(+D) etTras] fL-jruv HPS5" avao-Trjaei] +/ci/ptos
HPS5~ 6eoi\ +vn<av PS5~ +ri(jiuv H e^e] +aurou a.Kov<re(r0e S~
(cf. D) 38 aura;] aurou H eeXearo] eSefaro HPS5"(+D)
iv HPSr(+D) 39 om ev HPSr(+D) TT? vapc7ta HPS
CODEX BEZAE 69
33 eroXfJLa Karavofjaai. /cat eyevero (JHjJvrj rrpos avrov Ava[o]v
TO vrr6or]fjLa rujv Tfoowv <7ov , 6 yap rorros ov eW^/cas" yjj ayia
34 eariv. /cat LOOJV yap tSov rrjv KOLKOHJLV rov Xaov rov eV Eyu77ra>,
/cat rov orvayp,ov avrov d/c^/coa, /cat Karefirjv e^eXeadai avrovs
35 /cat vw oevpo aTrocrretAco ere etV AtyuTrrov. rovrov rov
ov rjpvTJaavro elrrovres Tt s ere Karearrjaev dpxovra /cat
(f>* rjfjiojv, rovrov 6 Oeos /cat apxovra /cat Aur/ocor^v aTrecrraA/cev
36 ow X et P^ ayye Aou rou 6(f)6evros avrw Iv rfj fidra). ovros e^yaycv
auroys 1 , o TrotTycras 1 repara /cat cn^eta ev y^ AtyuTrrou /cat ev
37 Eipvdpa QaXdo-vrj /cat eV r?J ep^/JLO) errj p.. ovros ecrrw Mcjouo-^s 1
o etVas 1 rot? utots 1 IcrpaTJA- n/DO^Tjr^v u/zetv avaoTTJo-et o ^eo? e/c
38 TOH> doX(f>a)V vfJLO)v cocret c/Lte auTou OLKOvcaOe. ovros 0riv o
yevofjievos ev rfj e/c/cAi]crta ev rfj epTJfJLW jitera ro ayyeAou
XaXovvros aura) ev TO) o/oet 2eu>a /cat rcDv rrarepcuv T^JL^V, os
39 loearo Aoyta t,6jvra Sowat 77^u,ty, ort ou/c TfO&rjcrav vmJKOOL ye-
veaOai oi rrarepes ^ju-cov dAAa drraxjavro /cat dTrearpd^rjcrav rals
40 Kapoiais LS Alyvrrrov, \ irravrS rto Aa/Dc6v Hot^orov rjfJLelv
dcovs ot Trporropevaovrai rjfjLajv. 6 yap Mowers ouros", oj
36 e/>v0/m] vpeOpa 37 aKOvecr^e] MS. perhaps reads
39
facta est vox ad eum solve calciamentuni pedum tuorum locus enim in quo stas terra d
santa est 34 intuitus enim vidi mulcationem populi qui est in aegypto et gemitus
ejus audivi et descendi eripere eos et nuuc veni mittam te in aegyptum 35 hunc
ipsum moysen quern negaverunt dicentes qnis te constituit principern et judicem
super nos hunc ds et principem et redemptorem misit in manu angeli qui visus est ei
in rubo 36 hie eduxit eos cum fecisset portenta et signa in aegypto et in rubro mari
et in solitudine per annos xl 37 hie est moyses qui dixit filiis istrahel prophetam
vovis suscitavit ds de frr.tribus vestris tamquam me ipsum audietis 38 hie est qui
fuit in ecclesia in solitudine cum angelo qui loquebatur ei in monte sina et patribus
nostris qui accipit eloquia viventium dare nobis 39 cui noluerunt oboedientes esse
patres nostri sed repuleruut et conversi sunt cordibus in aegyptum 40 dicentes ad
aaron fac nobis deo qui praecedaut nos moyses enim hie qui eduxit nos de terra
38 [ille quidem] accepit praecepta del vivi dare vobis, 39 cni noluerunt Irenaeus,
oboedire patres vestri, sod abjecerunt et conversi sunt corde suo in Aegyptum, - 15, 1
40 dicentes ad Aaron : fac nobis decs qui nos antccedant ; Moyses enim qui
38 praecepta] words ( = A6-yia) Armen 39 cui . . . vestri] and when our fathers
would not be submissive and obedient Armen corde suo] with their hearts Armen
40 Moyses] this Moses Armen
35 c0 -rj/aojv] -x- super nos x Harclean
38 -t)iJ.Lv AC 81 D Antiochian seems accident, the intrinsic evidence of
preferable to vfiLv BJ^ minn perp Iren. fitness to the context (cf.
The variation being probably due to T//AWJ ) is to be accepted.
70 CODEX VATICANUS vn
Amos v.
25-27
AtyuTrrou, OVK o i,oap,v ri eyeVero avra). 41
eV ral$ T^ttepats" e/cetVats /cat avrjyayov 9vcriav
TO) 6tcL)oJ, /Cat V<f)paiVOVrO V TOl$ pyOl$ TOJV ")(LpO)V OLVTOJV.
crrpiffV oe o 6eos /cat rrapeSajKev avrovs Xarpcvew rfj o~rpariq 42
rov ovpavov, Kadais yeyparfrai eV jStjSAa; rcov rrpofirjrojv MT^
cr^>ayta /cat Ovcrias rrpocnqvc yKare /xot er^ recjcrepa/covra, ot/co?
?JA; /cat dveAa^Sere TT)V aKTjvrjv rov MoAo^; /cat TO acrrpov 43
ro ^eou Po/x^a, rous 1 TVTTOVS ov$ 7TonjaaT TTpovKwelv aurots".
/cat /xerot/ctcD T^/zas 1 evre/cetva BajSuAcDvos". | ^ aKrjvrj rov fjiaprvpiov 44
o^v rot? Trarpdaiv T^JU-CUV eV TT^ eprjpa), KaOws Stera^aro o AaAcuv TO)
Troifjaai avrrjv Kara rov rvirov ov ecopa/cet, ^v /cat etcr- 45
Sta8e^a/xevot ot Trarepe? rjjJia>v /z,era I^o-ou ev TT^ /cara-
ra)v eOvtov &v e^ajaev 6 Oeos aTro TrpovcoTrov r&v irarepcov
Editors 42 Teo-o-epaKOj/ra] +e^ TTJ ep-rj/AU WH Soden JHK 43 0eoi>] +I//AWI/ Soden
pofj,(j)a] pecftav Soden JHR
Old Uncial 41 eywero BKAC yeyovev 81 (+D) 42 5e BA 81 (+D)
+auroi;s C auroi^s Bt<AC(+D) airrou 81 er?; recraepaKovTa oi/cos
i<rpar)\ B 6r>7 recrcre paKovra ev TTJ eptj/jf-d) ot/cos taparjX B 2 (?)XC 81 (+D) ev TT; ep^/aw
otAcos iffparjX er-rj retra-epaKovTa A lapayX BN(A) 81 (+D) +Xe7et /cvptos C
43 ^eou B(+D) 4-u/iwi NAG 81 pofj.(f>a B po^av # pe^tya 81
AX C pe0av C 44 ^/xwi/ B^C 81 (+D) v^iwi A 5ieraaro
81 (+D) eraaro J<
Antiochian 49 yeyovev HPS5~(+D) 42 XaT/jeuetv] +ev S TecraepaKovTa] +ev
T-TJ epr)/uw H.PSS~(+D) 43 6eov] +V/JLWV HPS5~ pe^a H pe<j><pav 102
462 m pe<t>pai>P pe^av 462 t x t r (cf. D) po/A^a S 44 T^V] +ev fi"(+D)
S ewpa/cev HS(-f-D)
43 The omission of u/uo* after ^eof Latin documents remp/tam} ,
in BD gig Iren Philast might have (Latinism?); pe/z0a 81 vg.codd. BS
been due to a reluctance to admit that Origen (CWs. v. 8, but vv. II.) have
the heathen divinity was in any sense po/u0a, X 3 pojj,(pa.i>, but the untrust-
the Hebrews ( your ) god ; but the worthiness of B and K in the spelling
original writer may have been led by of unusual proper names is notori-
the same motive to omit the word. On ous ; cf. Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp.
the whole it is better to explain the 94 f.
presence of the word in NAG Antiochian eiri TO. fj,prj D (perp) gig (e) sah
as a case of conformation to the text ( to this side of Babylon ) is probably
of the LXX, and to follow BD. Western paraphrase, bringing the
It is safest to assume that the statement into better agreement with
original spelling for the name of the historical fact. The reading eireKewa
god here was pe0av (pcu0aj>), as in of all other witnesses agrees indeed
LXX. The chief spellings in the with LXX (Amos v. 27), but a cor-
MSS. of Acts are as follows : peQav rector, conforming to LXX, would not
(pat- A) ACE e (repham) pesh hcl sah have left /Sa/SiAw^os untouched.
boh (pe<pav or prifiav) ; pe0a H ; pe00av The addition of hcl. text and -X-
(-0p- P) P 102 462 m ; pe^av 1 69 minn (from Amos v. 27) is found in full in
d h perp gig Iren vg. W. W. (in all these 1611 \eyei Kvpios o 6eos o
CODEX BEZAE 71
rj^ds e/c yfjs AlyvTrrov, OVK ot Saftev rt yeyovzv avrw.
41 Kal efJiocrxoTTOirjcrav eV rat? r^epais e/cetvat? /cat cu^yayoi dvoriav
TO) tSd>Aa>, /cat -qixfrpalvovTO eV rot? e/oyot? raw x ei P < * )V avr&v.
42 (yTpi/Jv Se o 0os- /cat Trape Seo/cev auTous Aarpewetv rfj orpareta
TO> ovpavov, KaOcits yey/mTrrat eV /Stj3Aa> Trpo^rajv MT) or^ayta
/cat Qvaias Trpoa^veyKare /zot eny /I eV TTJ eprjjJLto, of/cos IcrparjX;
43 /cat av\dj$T TTJV crKr]vr)v rov MoXox Kal TO acrrpov rov Qtov
Te/x^a/x, TOUS- TVTTOVS ovs eVotTJcrare Trpocr/cwetv aurots". /cat
44 jLterot/cta) u/xas- eVt [ra /xejp^ BajSuAaJvos 1 . ^ cr/c^v^ rou paprvpiov
rjv V rot? Trarpacrtv rj[j,a)v ev rfj eprjfJLO), Kadcbs Stera^aro AaAaiv
TO) Ma>ucrt TTOiijaaL avrrjv /cara ro Tra [parJuTiov ov eo/Da/cei>,
45 ^v /cat etorTJyayov StaSe^ajLtevot ot Trarepes TJJJLCJJV /xera I^crou eV
r^ /caraor^ecret raiv edv&v wv e^cuCTev o ^eos 1 O/TTO TTpoaanrov Ttov
41 avryyayov] aTr^yayovro 44 Trarepecriv 45 irjcrovv
aegypti nescimus quid contegerit ei 41 et vitulum fecerunt in diebus illis et d
obtulerunt hostiam simulacro et jucundabantur in operibus manum suarum 42 con-
vertit autem ds et tradidit eos deservire exercitui caeli sicut scriptum est in libro
prophetarum numquid hostias et sacrificia obtulisti mihi annis xl in solitudine domus
istrahel 43 et adsumpsistis tabernaculnm ipsius moloch et astrum di rempham
figuras quae fecistis adorare eis et transmigravo vos in illas partes babylonis
44 tabernaculum testimonii erat penes patres nostros in solitudine sicut disposuit
qui loquebatur moysi facere illud juxta figuram quam viderat 45 quod etiam intro-
duxerant patres nostri cum jesum in possessionem gentium quas expulit 3s a facie
42 tune itaque pervertit illos deus, et tradidit il[los ser]vire exercitui caeli, h
sicut scriptum est in libr[o profejtarum : numquid hostias et immolation[es
obtujlistis mihi per annos XL in deserto. domus Is[trael] 1 43 et recepistis
domum Moloc, et sidus dl ve[stri Rejpham, et effigies quas fecistis ut adoretis
ea[s : et transjferarn vos ultra Babylonem. 44 et domus te[stimonii] fuit
patribus nostris in deserto, sicut praec[epit loquens] ad Mossem, faceret earn
secundum effigie[m quam] vidit. 45 quam et induxerunt recipientes pat[res
nosjtri cum ihu in possessione nationum, ex q[uibus] salvabit ds a conspectu
eduxit nos de terra Aegypti, quid ei contigerit ignoramus. 41 et vitulum Irenaeua,
fecerunt in diebus illis, et obtulerunt sacrificia idolo, et laetabantur in factis l^g 1 ^ l
nianuum suarum. 42 convertit autem deus, et tradidit eos servire exercitibus
caeli, quemadmodum scriptum est in libro prophetarum : numquid oblationes
et sacriticia obtulistis mihi annis quadraginta in ereruo, domus Israel ? 43 et
accepistis tabernaculum Moloch, et stellam dei Rempham, figuras quas fecistis
adorare eas.
40 quid ei coutigerit] after ignoramus Armen 42 exercitibus] sing. Armcn
43 /Sa/SuXoH/os] Babylouem, dicit domiuus deus, omnipotens -X- nomen ei </ Harclaan
oi>o/j.a O.VTU ; and with varying minor 44 In Codex Bezae for Scrivener s
omissions in several other minuscules. ira[. . .~}virov Blass(*S^. Kr., 1898, p. 540)
614 431 omit ovop.a aurw. thought ?ra[. .JTUTTOJ Avas legible.
72
CODEX VATICANUS
TOJV rjfjiepajv AauetS 6? vpev
evpelv crKrjvwfJia ra> ot/ca>
aura) OIKOV. aAA ozr^ o v
rov dcov 46
jv 8e 47
Is. bcvi. 1 f. KOLTOLKl Ka6(l)S 6 7TpO(f)r]T7)S AeyCf j OVpOLVOS fJLOi
Kal rj yfj VTTOTTOOLOV TCOV TTOOOJV fjiov TTOIOV OIKOV OL
/zot, Aeyet Kvpios, T) rt? TOTTO? rfjs KaraTTavcrews fJLov; ou^t 17 5
%Lp fjiov 7roir)Ui> TavTa TT<ivTa; GK\j]porpd^riXoi Kal arrepi- 51
Tfj,r]TOL /capStas 1 /cat rot? cucrtV, y/xer? aet rai rrvev^ari rat ayia)
aVTl7Ti7TTT, (I)S OL 7TaTpS V{JLO)V Kal VJJ,i$ . TLVa TOJV TTpO^TCJP 52
QVK eStcofav ot Trarepe? VJACJV; Kal aTreKreivav rovs TTpoKar-
ayyeiXavras irepl Trjs eAeuaeaj? rou oiKaiov ov vvv u/xets 1 irpo-
Sorat /cat cfrovels eyeVecr^e, otrtve? eAa^Sere rov vo^ov is Sta- 53
rayas 1 dyyeAcuv, /cat ou/c (/)vXdaT.
Se ravra oiTTpiovro rat? /capStat? auraJi/ /cat 54
Editors 46 ot/cu;] ^ew WH Soden /cuptw JHR f Q <J} t WHnig
WHmg Soden oiKoSo^fl-ere WH Soden JHR
WH Soden JHR icapStas WHmg
49 /cat if] 77 5e
51
Old Uncial 46 rjTrjaaro BAK C ( + D) Oin K OIKU B(+D) ^ew ACX 81 47
BKA81 (+D) eavru C 49 /ca: 77 B 77 5e ^AC 81 (+D)
B ot/coSo/iTycrere XAC 81 (+D) 50 raura iravra, BN 81 Traj ra raura
AC(+D) 51 /capStas B KapSiats AC(+D) rats /capStcus n^.a;i/ X TT; icapSta 81
53 e^uXa^are BXC 81 (+D) e0iAaecr0e A 54 rairra BAC C 81 om K
Antiochian 46 OIK
HP5"
] ^ew P5" 47 aurw] eawrw H 48 x e P 07roi7 7 TOt s]
/caroi.-cet] +faots S 49 /cat 77] 77 5e HPS5~(+D) om OIKOV H
HPS5~(+D) 50 Travra raura P(+D) 51 /capStaj] T77
/capita HPS5~ 52 u/Awy] TJ/AWJ S yeyevrjede HPS5~
46 OIKW B^HS 429 D d sah (cod. B)
is generally held to be so difficult that
it must be considered a very ancient
error, for which deu AGP minn
Latin (except d), Syriac, Bohairic, was
an early emendation, probably follow
ing Ps, cxxxii. 5. Hort conjectured
that KO was the original, and although
this does not appear among the various
Greek translations of the Mighty One
of Jacob (3 PK " ?, Ps. cxxxii. 5, cf.
Gen. xlix. 24, Ps. cxxxii. 2, Is. xlix.
26, Ix. 16, see also Is. i. 24), yet that
phrase was evidently a difficult one,
and received several renderings in the
Greek Old Testament, one of which,
5wd<rT77s Ia/co>/3 (Gen. xlix. 24, Is. i.
24 [v.l.], and Ps. cxxxii. 2 Aquila),
is not very far from cci/ptos
Plainly OIKU was found admissible by
many early readers of Acts, and it is
not quite impossible ; but the whole
context makes it unlikely. If we
have here a translation from an Aramaic
source, it is easy to suppose that the
Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew
phrase was first rendered by TO; Kvpiu
ta/cw/3, and then this unusual expression
corrupted to the familiar-sounding
but inappropriate phrase ru> ot/cw ta/cw/3.
51 /capStais KACD is to be preferred
to /capStas B unsupported (cf. Jer. ix.
26). Note the readings rats /capcuau
vfj-uv X, TT? /capita 81 Antiochian gig g 2
h Lucif Aug (cf. Ezek. xliv. 7, 9), and
other forms of scribal modification.
vn CODEX BEZAE 73
46 Ttarepwv vfjt,a)V ecus rcuv i^u-epcuv Aat>et8 69 eupe ^aptv
47 rov Oeov /cat rjrTJaaro o~KTJva)[j,a eupetv ra> ot/ca> la/cdSjS. SoAo-
48 jLtcDv Se OLKOoofjLTjcrev avrco OLKOV. 6 oe viftiaros ov /carot/cet eV
XeipoTTOirjrois- ws 6 Trpo^TJTTjs Aeyet-
49 ovpavos fjiov cmv Opovos, rj Se yi\ VTTOTTO^LOV TOJV TTOOOJV
fJLOV 7TOIOV OLKOV OLKOOOfjL^CTT jLtOt, Aeyet KVpLOS, TJ TToloS rOTTOS
50 TTjs" Kara7rava0)s fJ^ov ecrnv; ou^t i5 X 61 / 3 A tou faofafW
ravra;
51 cr/cA^porpa^TyAot /cat aTTeptr/x^rot /capStat? /cat rot? cucrtV,
det TO) TTveu/zart TO) dytaj dvrtTTtTrrere, Ka9ajs ol Trarepe? /cat
52 vfjL&v. TLVCL TOJV 7rpo(f>rjrcL)V OVK OLO)av e/cetvot; /cat a,7r/crtvav
aurous" rous" Trpo/carayyeAAovra? Trept eAeucrecfJS TOU St/catou ou
53 vw ujLtets 1 77-poSorat /cat Covets 1 eyeVecr^e, otrtve? eAdjSere TOI>
vofjiov is oiarayas dyyeAcov, /cat oz)/c (f>vXdaT.
54 A/couaa^re? Se aurou SteTrptovro rats /capStats" aurcov /cat
49 otKoSo/x^o-erat 51 avrnrnrrerai 52
patrurn nustroruni usque ad dies davit 46 qui referit gratiam in scouspectu di et
petiit tabernaculum invenire sedes domui Jacob 47 Solomon autem aedificavit ei
domum 48 sed ipse altissimus inhabitavit in manufactis sicut profeta dixit
49 caelum est mexis thronus terra vero scarnillum pedum meorum qualem domum
acdificatis mihi dicit dns aut quis locus requens mea est 50 nonne manus mea fecit
haec omnia 51 durae cervices et incircamcisi cordibus et auribus vos semper spo
sancto obstitistis sicut patres vestri et vos 52 quern prophetarum non persecuti
sunt illi et occiderunt eos qui praenuntiaverunt de adventu justi cujus nunc vos
proditores et homicidae effecti estis 53 qui accepistis legem in dispositione.s
angelorum et non custoditis 54 audientes autem eum discruciabantur cordibus suis
patrum nostroru[m, usque] in diem David, 46 qui invenit gratiam coram [do], h
et petit habitationem invenire in do Jacob. 47 [Solomo] autem aedificavit illi
domum. 48 sed altissim[us non] habitat in aedificis manu factis hominu[m, sicut]
dicit profeta : 49 caelus mihi tronus est et [terra sub]pedaneum pedum meorum.
qualem do[mum ae]dificavitis mihi, vel qualis domus qtiietis m[eae est] ?
50 nunquid non manus mea fecit omnia ista ? 51 duricordes, et incircumcisi
corde et auribus, vos semper sco spui contradixisti, sicut p[atres] vestri.
52 quern non ex profetis illi persecut[i sunt? et occideru]nt qui nuntiaverunt
de adventum justi, cufjus vos] nunc proditores et latrones fuistis, 53 [qui
istis legem in praeceptis angelorum, nee o[nino s]ervastis. 54 et cum
49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool : what house will ye build Ireuaeus,
me, or what is the place of my rest ? breach *f>
51 cTAcXT/porpax^Xot] -X- o ^ duri cervice Harclean
74 CODEX VATICANUS vn-vm
/3pV}(OV rOVS OOOVraS 7T* OLVTOV. VTTOLpXCDV O6 TrXrjprjS TTVeVfJUCLTOS 55
dyt ou drevluas et? rov ovpavov eloev ooav 6eov /cat I^aow
ecrrajra e/c Se^tcoy ro> #eo, | /cat CLTTCV I8ou decupa) rous" ovpavov? 56
vs /cat rov v tov rou dvdpo)7Tov e/c 8e^ta>v ecrrcDra rou
. KpdavTS oe (f>a)vfj ^teyaAi) owecr^ov ra c5ra aurcDv, /cat 57
6fjLo6vfjia86v err* GLVTOV, /cat e/c^SaAovres" ^co TT^ TroAeco? 58
. /cat ot fj,dprvp$ aTredevro ra t/>tarta lavrajv Trapa
TOVS iTooas veaviov /caAoiy-teVou SauAou. /cat eXidofioXovv rov 59
7TLKaXovfJLVov /cat Aeyovra- Ku/>te *I^orou, Se^at ro
{JLov I ^et? Se ra yovara e/cpafev cf>a}vfj /xeyaA^ Kupte, 60
/XT) crrrjO"r]s avrols ravrrjv rrjv djjiapriav /cat rovro t7ra>v
KoijJLTJ6r) . SauAo? Se T^V oweuSo/caij r^ avatpecret aurou. VIII
Eyevero 8e ev e/cet^ r^ rjfjiepa Stcuy/zos" /xeya? ?rt TT^V
56
Editors 58 eai^rajj ] avruv WH Sodeu JHR 60 r?7i> a/iaprtav ro.vrt\v Soden
Old Uncial 55 irXrjpTjs BAG 81 (+D) +7rtcrTea;s /cat K de^iwv rov deov
Bt<A81(+D) Se^twi/ ai/roi; C 56 e/c 5eia>?> eorwra BN C 81 (+D) ea-rwra
e/c de^idiv fc^AC 57 0w^7j /u,eya.\if) BKAC(+D) (f>wvriv fj.eya\-rj 81
58 e/cjSaXoj/res BKC 81 (+D) 4-auroi A eaurwi/ B aurcov NAG 81 (+D)
59 ti7o-ou BNA 81 (+D) +xpitrre C 60 0w^ ^70X77 BAC 2 C 81
/j,fya\rj C (cf. D) om K ravTrjv rrjv a/j-apriav BAC(+D) TT
ravrrjv K 81
Antiochian 55 de^iuv rov 6eov] oe^cuv avrov S 56 5t7;z/oi7yctevoi s]
HPS5~(+D) 58 eai^rwv] aurwj S~(+D) om HPS 60 T^ a.fj.a.priav
ravrrjv HPS5~
55 The reading of h [ipse aut]em former consideration perhaps speaks
cum esset in spiritu sancto (o 5e virapxuv for, the latter against, its originality.
t> irvev^ari ayita) has a less usual ex- If the reading represented by h is
pression and, in o 8e, a better con- original Western, D is here con
nexion than the Greek text. The formed to the B-text.
vii-vm CODEX BEZAE 75
55 /3pvxov re rovs ooovras eV avrov. vrrdpx^v oe 7rXijpr]s rrvev-
fjLGLTOs dyiov a/revet cras" et? TOV ovpavov etSe Sogav deov /cat
1 56 Ii^crow rov Kvpiov e/c OC^LOJV rou ^eou ecrrcura, j /cat etTrev Iooi
deajpo) rovs ovpavovs r)vewyfj,evovs /cat TOV utov TOU dvdpwirov
57 e/c Se^ttDv eorcoTa TOU fleou. KpdavTS Se (f>a)vfj /zeyaAry ow-
| 58 ecr^av TO, coTa avTtov, /cat (ZpfjuTjcrav ofJLodvfJLaSov eV auTov, | /cat
KJ3aX6vTS ^CO TT^S" TToAeCt)? \lQo^6\OVV GLVTOV . /Cat Ot [J,CLpTVpS
OLTTcdevro ra et/zaTta auTaiv Trapa TOU? TroSa? veavtou Ttvo?
59 /caAou/zeVou SauAou. /cat eAidofioXovv rov ^r(f)avov eTTt/caAou-
6oftevov /cat AeyovTa* Kupte I^crou, Se^at TO Trvevfjbd [JLOV \ 6eis ra
yovara Kpa^V (j>covr]V ^eydX^v Xfyeanr Kuptc, /A^ crT^cr^s 1 auTOt?
Ill ravrrjv rr\v ap,apriav /cat rovro CLTTOJV eKOifJLTjdr] . SauAo? oe
^v ovvev^OKajv rfi dvaipecrei avrov.
EyeVeTO Se eV e/cetV^ T?J yuepa OLCjyfjLos jtteyas 1 /cat ^AetJ/fts"
60 Sefe a-TT^cret? 1 avepatcrt
et stridebant dendibus super eum 55 cuinque esset pleiius spu sancto intuitus in d
caelum vidit gloriam di et ilim dnm ad dexteram di stantem 56 et dixit ecce video
caelos apertos et filium hominis ad dexteram dl stantem 57 et cum exclamasset
voce magna conpresserunt aures eorum et inpetum unanimiter fecerunt in eu 58 et
ejectum extra civitatem lapidabant eum adque ipsi testes deposuerunt vestimenta
sua ad pedes adulesceutes cujusdam nomine sauli 59 et lapidabant stephanum
invocantem et dicentem dne ihu accipe spm meum 60 cumq- posuisset geuua et
clamavit voce magna dicens dne ne statuas illis peccatum hoc et cum hoc dixisset
dormibit
1 saulus vero erat consentiens interfecti ejus facta est itaque in ilia die persecutio
haec illi audissent, fre[meban]t intra corda sua, et stridebant dentes in eu. h
55_[ipse_aut]em cum esset in spu sco, et intueretur caelu, [vidit hojnorem di, et
ihm dnm ad dexteram di stan[tem, 56 et d]ixit : ecce video caelos apertos, et
filium homi[nis ad djexteram di stantem. 57 tune populus exclama[vit voce]
magiia et continuerunt aures suas, et in[rueru]nt pariter omnes in eum. 58 et
expulerunt eu [extra cijvitate, et lapidabunt eum : et illi testes posu[erunt]
vestimenta sua ante pedes juvenis, cujus [nomejn vocatur Saulus. 59 et
lapidabunt Stefanum [invocajntem et dicentem : dne ihu recipe spurn meu.
60 [et genijbus positis exclamavit voce magna : dne ne [statuas ijllis hoc
peccatum. et dum hoc dicit, obdor[mivit].
1 [Sajulus autem erat conprobator neci Stefani. [et in illijs diebus facta est
[55 hunc videt Stephanus, cum lapidaretur, adhuc stantem ad dexteram dei.] Tertullian,
Prax. 30
60 domine, ne statuas illis hoc peccatum. Cyprian,
_ Bon. pat. 16
55 [Stephanus haec docens, adhuc cum super terrain esset,] vidit gloriam dei Irenaeus,
et Jesum ad dexteram, 56 et dixit : ecce video caelos apertos et filium hominis " 12 > 13 ( 16 )
ad dexteram adstantem dei.
60 domine, ne statuas eis peccatum hoc. iii. 12 18(16)
58 e\i6opo\ovv avrov} lapidabant -X- eum y" 60 Kvpie] +mg Jesu Harclenn
76 CODEX VATICANUS vm
KK\j]a[av rrjv eV lepocroAJjLtots" Trdvres 8e SteCTTrapTycrav Kara
ra? x^po-S r ^l ? louSai as 1 /cat Sa^tapeta? TrA^v TOJV aTrocrroAcov.
8e rov Sre^avov avSpes evXafiels /cat 7roi7]crav 2
err aural. ZauAos" 8e eAu/zat vero r^v e/c/cA^atav 3
/caret rou? ot/cous" elcrTropevofJievos, avpcov re av$pa$ Kal yvvalKas
7rape8t8ot> etV (ftvXaKijv.
01 jLtev ow StaoTrapeVres 8ifjX9ov euayyeAt^o^tevot rov Aoyov. 4
Se KareXOwv et? T^I> TroAtv r^s 1 Tiafjuapeias Krjpv<rav 5
rov Xptcrroi^. rrpoael ^ov Se ot o^Aot rots Aeyo/xeVots* WTTO 6
rou OtAtTTTToi; o^Lto^uftaSov ev TO) a/couetv awrous" /cat pXerrew ra
cny/xeta a cTrotef TroAAot yap rcDv e^ovrcov rrvevfjiara aKaOapra 7
e^p^ovro, TroAAot 8e TrapaAeAu/zevot /cat
eye^ero Se TroXXrj X a P a ^ v T f}
Se rt? oi^o/zart ^LtifJiajv TrpovTrfjpxev ev rfj TrdAet
/cat e^icrrdvajv ro e6vos rfjs Sa/zapetas", Aeycai^ etvat rtva eavrov
a> Tr/Docret^op Trdvres aTro fjueiKpov ecos /xeyaAoy Aeyovres" 10 j
ds" ecrrw rj 8 wants TOU ^eou iy /caAoiyzei Ty jLteyaA?^. Trpocret^ov
Editors 1 [5e 3] WH 5 om r??^ Soden JHR 9 et(rra coj ] ei<TTUj> Soden
Old Uncial 1 Travres 8e BC 81 (+D) Travres re A /cat Traces K c om 5e N 3 avdpas
BACK C 81 (+D) roi;s ai/Spas K 4 StTjXtfoi BAC^ e 81 (+D) ??X0oi> ^
5 5e BNAC 81 corr (+D) re 81 TT;J/ BKA om C 81 (+I>) <ra/xapetas
BACK C 81 (+D) Kato-apms K 6 <f)L\iinrov BC 81 (+D) TrauAov A
BACN C 81 (+D) aurou K vid a B^C 81 (+D) om A
Antiochian i Traces 5e] Travres re 5" 2 evroi^a-aj/ro HPS5" ^670 H er
HS 5 om r^ HPSr(+D) 6 5e] re HPSfT 7 TroXXoi 1]
HPSS~ fj.eya\r) (puvr) S~ e^p%ero HPS5" 8
PS5" troXX-r] %apa] %apa ^70X77 HPS5~(+D) 9
HS5~ 10 om Tra^res HPS om KaXov/mevrj HLPS5"
5 ets TTJJ/ TroXt^ TT?S crayuapetas BA exampled (except in 2 Peter ii. 6),
69 181 460 1175 1898, ets TT?I/ cf. e.g. Acts xi. 5 eV vr6Xet IOTTTTT/.
TroXtj T^s Kaicrapias K, om TTJI/ CD The phrase Lk. ix. 52 (KFA minn)
Antiochian sah boh, /Samaria in ets TTO\LV crafj-apiruv shows a certain
civitate perp. The presence of the similarity. See C. C. Torrey, Com-
article is strongly attested, but not position and Date of Acts, p. 18
so decisively as to make the difficult note 2. The reading of K is prob-
phrase with the article acceptable. ably due to some knowledge of the
The meaning cannot be the capital tradition connecting Simon Magus
of Samaria ; while the name Samaria and Philip with Caesarea.
for the city itself is improbable for 7 In Codex Bezae Scrivener was
New Testament times, even if the inclined to read 7r[ap]a. Blass (St. Kr.,
genitive in such a use were not 1898, p. 540) thinks the scribe more
chiefly poetic and in the N.T. un- probably wrote Trfa/x].
CODEX BEZAE 77
em rrjv KK\r)<ji,av rrjv eV lepooroAujU-ots" Travres Se
/cara ret? xwpas louSatas* /cat Sajaapta? TrXrjv TCOV
2 ot e/xetvav eV lepoucraAT^it. crw/cojatcravTS TOV Sre^avov aVSpes 1
3 euAa/fetS" /cat CTTOirjcrav KOTTCTOV /xe yav err* avra). 6 Se SauAo?
eAtyzatVeTO T^V e/c/cA^crtav /cara rous 1 ot/cous 1
crvpajv re aVSpas" /cat ywat/ca? TrapeSt Sou ets
4 Ot /xev ouv (HacTTrapeVTes SirjXOov evayyeAt^o/xevot rov Aoyov.
5 OtAtTTTTOS 1 Se /careA^a)^ et? TrdAtv r^s" Sa/xapta?
6 aurots" TOV Xptcrrov. cu? Se TJKOVOV Trap, ot o^Ao
TOIS Aeyo/xeVot? UTTO OtAtTiTrov [. . .]OI>T[.] ev rai a/coueti>
7 OLVTOVS /cat ^SAevretv ra o-Ty/xeta a eVotef TT[. .] TroAAot? yap
rcov e^oyrcov TTvevfJiara d/ca^apra POOJVTCL (frwvfj jLteyaA^ e-
* TroAAot 8e TrapaAeAujiteVot ^coAot lOepaTrevovro X a P^ T
eyeVero ev rj TroAet e/cetV^. av^p Se rts 1 dvo/xart
v rfj vrdAet /zayeua;]/ efe[. . .] TO
10 2a//,apta<r, Aeycov elvai TWO. eavrov jiteyav, | a> Trpoo et^ov
CLTTO jjiiKpov ecus /xcyaAou Aeyo^res" Ouros 1 eorrtv 97 Swap,t? row
11 0ou 17 KaXovfJLevrj jLteyaA^ . Trpooret^ov 8e aura) Sta TO t/cava>
3 eAv/zevero TrapeStSov? 5
magna et tribulatio super ecclesiam quae est in hierosolymis omnis enim dispcrsi d
sunt per regiones judaeae et samariae praeter apostolos qui mauserunt hierusalem
2 conportaveruntquae stephanum viri tiraorati et fecerunt plancturn magnum super
eum 3 Saulus autem divastabat ecclesias per singulas quae domos ingrediens
trahensque viros et mulieres tradebat in carcerem 4 ad illi quidem qui dispersi
erant adnuntiabant evangelizantes verbum 5 philippus vero cum venisset in civitate
samariae praedicabat eis xpiii 6 intendebant autem omnis turbae his qui dicebantur
a philippo unanimo in eo quod audierint ipsi et videbant signa quae faciebat 7 a
multis enim qui habebant spiritum in mundum clamantes voce magua exiebant multi
enim paralysin passi clodi curabantur 8 gaudium magnum factum est in civitate ilia
9 viri autem quidam nomine simon jam pridem erat in ipsa civitate magika fadens et
mentem auferens gentibus samariae dicens esse quendam magnum 10 cui intendebant
omnes a pusillo usque ad magnum dicentes Me est virtus di quae vocatur magna
11 intendebant autem ei propterea quod plurimo tempore magicis rebus mentem
tribulatio et persecutio [magna] ecclesiae quae est Hirosollimis. omnes aute h
[dispersi] sunt circa civitates Judeae et Samariae, [praete]r apostolos, qui
remanserant Hierosylymis. 2 [portaver]unt autem Stefanum homines pii, et
fecerunt
9 vir autem quidam nomine Simon, qui ante erat in civitate, magicam irenaous,
exerceris, et seducens gentem Samaritanorum, dicens se esse aliquem magnum, i- 2 ^ 1 ^ 6 )
10 quem auscultabant a ])usillo usque ad magnum, dicentes : hie est virtus del
quae vocatur magna. 11 intucbantur autem eum propter quod multo tempore
magicis suis dementasset eos.
9 magicam] magiam Turner
egrediebantur -X- ab iis ^ Harclean
78 CODEX VATICANUS vm
Se aura; Sta TO t/ca^a) xpova) rats /zayetats- e^eora/ceVat
ore Se 7Tiarvaav TO> OtAt7T7ra> euayyeAto/xeVaj Trept T/Js 1 f3a<jiXeias 12
TO #eot> /cat rou oVo/zaTO? I^crou Xptorroi?, eparrTi^ovTo avSpes
re /cat ywat/ces*. o Se St/xcov /cat auros* em crreucrei , /cat /SaTrrt- 13
TTpoaKaprepojv TCO <lHAt777rar decopcov ra crT^/xeta /cat
/xeyaAas" yetvojLtevas" e^tarraro. a/couCTavres Se ot e^ 14
aTTOCTToAot ort SeSe/crat i] SajLtapeta rov Aoyov
rou ^eou aTrearetAav irpos avrovs Tlerpov /cat IcoavT^v, otrtFes 1 15
/caTajSdVres Trpocrev^avTO Trepl GLVTWV OTTCOS* XOL^OXJLV Trvevfjua
ayiov ovSeTTOJ yap r\v CTT ovSevt aurcDv eTrtTreTrrco/cos*, povov Se 16
j8ejSa7rrt(T/>teVot VTrfjpxov els TO ovo/xa TO Kvpiov Irjcrov. TOTC 17
7TTidocrav ras -%elpas eV auTous", /cat \dfj,/3avov 7rvVfjLa ayiov.
ISajv 8e o St/z,cov oTt Sta T^S* eTrt^ecrecos TCOV -^ipa)V ra>v OLTroaroXajv 18
St8oTat TO 7rvvp,a TTpocnjveyKev avrols xpTJfJLara, \ Aeycov AOTC 19
l TTJV efouo-tav ravrrjv tva a> eav 7Ti6a) ras ^etpas* Xap.j3dvr]
aytov. neV/Dos 1 Se etvrej/ Trpos 1 auTov To dpyvpiov aov 20
aot etT^ ct? aTrajAetav, OTt TO)V 8copeav TOU ^eou vd//,to r as > Sta
Kraadai. OVK ecrTtv crot pepis ouSe KXfjpos v TO) Aoya) 21
UTO), jj yap /capSta CTOU OT)/C eWtv evdela evavn rov Oeov. jjiera- 22
VOT](JOV OVV OLTTO Trj$ KOLKLOLS <JOV raVT7]S , KOI Se^T^Tt TOU KVpiOV
Editors 13 ra] re WH Soden JHR 18 Tn/ei^a] +ro 07401* Soden
Old Uncial 12 TO; ^tXtTTTrw eia yyeXt^ o y uei a> BACfc$ c 81 (+D) rou (f>i\nnrov evayyeXt^o/mevov K
^eou BACN C 81 (+D) /cvpio^ ^ reBXC81(+D) om A 13 ra B
re KAC 81 (+D) 76ti/o/xefas BKA 81 (+D) om C et<rraro
BAC 2 C 81 eZiffTavro KC(+D) 14 ^eou BACN C 81 (+D) xP ^oi;
18 TTJ/eu^a BK +ro a7toi AC 81 (+D) 20 avrov BAC C 81 (+D)
21 evavri. BKA(+D) evai riOf C 81
Antiochian 12 Trepc] ra Trept HLPSS~ add row before ir)<rov S~ 13 ra] re
HLPS5~(+D) dwa^as /cat o-T/^eta HLPS om fjt,eya\as HLPS
yivofj.eva HLPS 14 rov -rrerpov HLPS5~ 16 ouSeTrw] oviru HLPS5"
icvpiov] xpitrrou HLPS 18 t6W] deaaa/JLevos HLPS5" 7r^ev/ia] +ro 0740*
HLPS5"(+D) 20 om eiy S om roi^ H 21 evavrC]
22 om ovv S Kvpiov] 6eov HLPSS"
21. That the Western text read reading of perp gig pesh Aug Const.
T7] TTLffTei TavTT] for rw Xo7w rourw is Ap. vi. 7. 2.
indicated by the agreement in that
CODEX BEZAE 79
12 XpovQ ra ^ p-aytats 1 e^eorra/ceVat avrovs. ore Se erficrrevcfav ra>
euayyeAtfo/zeVaj Trept rij? jSacrtAtas 1 rou 0eou /cat rou
I^crou XptoTou, ej8a7rrtoi>TO aVSpes 1 re /cat ywat/ces.
13 o 8e ^iLfJLOJV /cat auro? emcrreuaev, /cat fiarrrio~Qels r^v /cat rrpoa-
Kaprepaiv rat <DtAt7T7ra>, 9eajpa)v re ar^ela /cat owdfjuts /LteyaAa?
14 yetvojiteVas* efetWaro. a/coucravres Se ot ev lepovcraXrjfj, OLTTO-
aroXoL on SeSe/crat 17 Sa/Ltapta rov Aoyov TOU ^eou aTrecrretAav TIROS
15 aurous" Herpov /cat Icoav^v, otrtves /carajSavres 1 Trpocrrjv^avro
16 Trcpt aurcuv OTTCU? Xdfitoaw 7rvV[j,a aytov ovoeTrw yap T^V eTrt
owSeVa aurcDv ennrerfrayKos, \LOVOV oe jSe^aTrrta/xeVot VTrfjpxov
17 etV ro ovofjua rov Kvpiov I^aou Xptarou. rare erreriOovv ras
18 xetpa? evr* aurovs", ^at eXdfJbfiavov rfvev^a. aytov. tScov Se o
ore 8ta r^s" eTTt^eaecas" rcav %ipa)v rcov aTrocrroXajv StSorat
19 TO TTvevfJia TO aytov TrpocrTyvey/cev auTots xP^I JLara
/cat Acycov AoVe /cap,ot TT)V e^oucrtav ravryv Iva a) av 7TiOa)
20 /cdyco TO,? ^etpa? XafifidvY} vrvevfjia aytov. Herpes 1 Se elrfev irpos
avrov Apyvptov CTUV crot etT] ts" aTrcoAetav, OTt T^V Scopeav
21 ^eou eVo/zto-as 1 Sta xP r )l JL( ^ rcov Kraadai. OVK earcv aoi
oj)8e KXijpos ev ra) Aoyaj TOUTOJ, ?] /capSta CTOU o*5/c eo"Ttv evdela
22 evavri rov Oeov. fjieravorjcrov ovv 0,710 riys" /ca/ctas* orou ravrrjs,
13 e^eicrravTo 18 TrpocrryveyKav 21
abstulisset eis 12 cum vero crederent philippo evangelizantem regnum dl et de d
nomine ihu xpi baptizabantur viri ac mulieres 13 simon quoque et ipse credidit et
baptizatus est et adherebat philippo videns eigna et virtutes magnas fieri obstupiscebat
14 cum vero audissent qui in hierusalem erant apostoli quia excepit samaria verbiim
di miserunt ad eos petrum et johannen 15 qui cum descendissent oraverunt super
eos ut accipiant spin sanctum 16 nondum enimjerat super quemquam eoru inlapsus
tan turn autem baptizati erant in nomine dni ihu xpi 17 tune inponebant manus
super eos et accipiebant 5pm sanctum 18 cum vidisset simon quia per inpositionem
manum apostolorum datur sps sanctus obtulit eis paecunias 19 rogando et dicendo
date et mihi potestatem hanc ut cuicumque inposuero et ego manus accipiat spm
sanctum 20 petrus autem dixit ad eum
20 pecunia tua tecura sit in interitum, quoniara gratiara del pretio conse- Tertullian,
quendam putasti. Fug 12
21 non est tibi pars neque sors in ista ratione. jdoi. 9
20 pecunia tua tecura sit in perditione, quia existimasti gratiara dei per Cyprian,
pecuniam possideri. Lestf "* 10
20 pecunia tua tecum sit in perditione, quoniam donum dei existimasti Irenaeus,
pecunia possideri : 21 non est tibi pars neque sors in sermone hoc ; cor euim i- 23) l ^ 16> 1 ^
tuum non est rectum corain deo.
13 ff-rjfjieia. /ecu dvva/jieis /j.eya\as] virtutes et signa -X- magiia yf Harcleau
VIII
80 CODEX VATICANUS
et dpa dfiedrjo-erat, crot rj errivoia rrjs Kapolas croir els yap xoXrjv 23
mKpLas Kal avvoeo-^JLov doiKLas opco ore ovra. drroKpiBels oe 6 24
^iifjLOJv elrrev Aerjdrjre vjj,els vrrep efiov rrpos rov Kvpiov orrcus
fjiTjoev erreXdrj err* efj,e (Lv elprJKare. ol {Aev ovv OLafjLaprvpdfjLevoL 25
Kal XaXrjffavres rov Xoyov rov Kvpiov vrrearpe<f)ov els lepocroAu/za,
"AyyeAos* oe Kvpiov eXdXrjaev rrpos QiXirrrrov Xeycuv Ava- 26
arrjOi Kal rropevov Kara fjiearjfjL^pLav errl rrjv ooov rrjv Kara-
fiaivovaav drro lepovGaXrjfjL els T^d^av avrrj ecrrlv eprjfjios.
Kal dvacrrds erropevdr), Kal loov dvrjp A-Wioifj evvov%os ovvdcrrrjs 27
KavSa/cT^s" /3acnXLO~o~rjs Aldiorrcov, os T^V errl rrdarjs rrjs yd^rjs
avrrjs, os eXrjXvdet, rrpoo~KWTJo~wv els lepovcraXrjfj,, \ YJV oe vrro- 28
arpecfrajv KOL Kadrjfjievos errl rov dpfjbaros avrov Kal dveyeivoj-
GKev rov rrpo(f>rjrrjv Haatav. elrrev oe ro rrvevua rco QiXirrrrq) 29
UpoaeXde Kal KoXXrjdrjri ra> dp{j,ari rovrco. rrpoaopafjLwv oe 6 3
OtAtTTTTOs rJKovaev avrov dvayeivtbaKovros HcratW rov rrpo^T/jrrjv ,
Kal elrrev ^Apd ye yewajaKeis a dvayetvwcrKeis ; o oe elrrev 3 1
Hojs yap dv ovvaip,rjv edv ^ ns ooayrj&ei fie; rrapeKaXeo-ev re
rov OtAtTTTTOV dvafidvra KaOiaai arvv avrco. rj 8e rrepiox?) TTJS 3 2
is. liii. 7 f. ypa(/>rjs rjv dveyelvcoaKev rjv avrrj Qs rrpofiarov errl o-fiayrjv rjxdr],
Kal cos dfjbvos evavriov rov Keipovros avrov d(f>covos, ovrcos OVK
26 riiv oSov] + r?7v oSoi
Editors 27 [os 2] WH 28 5e] re Soden 32 Kcipavros WHmg
Old Uncial 24 e?r BKA 81 om C 25 5ia/j.apTvpafjLevot BAG 81 (+D)
popevoi K icupiou BKC 81 (+D) deov A vireffrpetyov BNA 81 (+D)
virea-rpe^av C 26 iropevov BXA 81 Tropevdrjri C(+D) eTrt BS*AC(+D)
om 81 TT?;/ 2 BACK C 81 (+D) +fcaXoufte I 77i/ K C<TTIV BXAC(+D)
om 81 27 os 2 BC 2 tfc 81 om KAC(+D) 28 de BC re KA 81
(+D) TOU BKA 81 (+D) om C /cat aveyeivuffKev BCK C 81
re A. ave-yivwffKev K TO^ Trpo(f>r]T7]v rja ai.a.v B^A 81 (+D)
rov irpo(f>7)T r)i> C 30 5e BtfAC re 81 r]aaiai> rov Trpo^rtjv
B^sAC rov TrpocpyTijv ijaaLav 81 31 av BKC 81 om A odayrjffei fie
B(i<A 81) fJLe odrjyrjffet. C 32 Keipovros B 81 iceipavTos NAG
Antiochian 24 om o H wv] ws L 25 diafiaprvpofjievoi LP
HLPS5" iepovcra.\Tr)fj, HLPS5" eui777eXi(rai ro HLPS5"
26 eTTt] ets H 27 r??s a<riXi<r0-?7s HLPS5" ets] ev L 28 de] re
HLPSr(+D) 30 rov irpo^rrtv -qaanav HLPSS" 32 KeipavTos HL
oirws] ouros II L
24 For evidence that Chrysostorn verse see J. R. Harris, Four Lectures,
used the Western text of this p. 94.
vm CODEX BEZAE 81
/cat SeTJd^ri rov KvpLov el apa 0,^77 fl^aerat crou rj emVota rTJ?
23 Kapoias crov ev yap m/cpta? X^V KOL ^ ruj/ SecrjLta) aSt/cta?
24 ae 6Wa. drroKpeideis oe 6 St^Lta>v etTrev TTpo? avrovs
oeijdrjre vpels irepl fj,ov TTpos rov QOV OTTWS jLt7y8ei
rovrcov rajv /ca/ccov cuv tp7y/care jLtot, o? TroAAa /cAatajv ou
25 Travev. ot /Ltev ouv 8ta/xaprt;pa/xevot /cat AaATycravres 1 rov Aoyov
rov Kvpiov VTrearpecfrov els Etepoo*oAu/xa, TroAAa? oe KcojJias rwv
Sa/zapetrcov euTyyycAt ovro .
25 "AyyeAos 1 Se Kvpiov eXdXrjaev TTpos OtAtTTTrov Aeycuv Avacrra?
TTopevdrjn Kara fjLecrrjfjippiav errl ryv ooov rj]v Karafialvovaav dno
27 lepovcfaXrjfJi els Td^av avrrj eariv eprjfjios. /cat d^acrra? eVo-
, /cat tSou dvrjp At0toi/r euvou^os 1 ovvdcrrrjs Kai^Sa/c^s jSaot-
rtvo? At^toTTCov, o? T^V eVt Trdo"r]s rrjs ya^s" jai5rou,|
28 eXrjXvdet, TrpocrKwrjcrajv lepouCTaA^/x, ^i^ re VTroo~rpe<f)a)V KaB-
Irri rov ap/xaro? avayetvc6o-/ca>v rov TTpo(f>r)rr)v ]
29 etVrei> 8e ro rfvev^a ra) OtAt7T77a>
29 roi;raj] avrou 614 (cf. rovrov 1518)
23 ev] 7yv 24 tov] ov
[24 nam et Simon Samarites in Actis Apostolorum redemptor spiritus sancti, Tertullian,
posteaquam damnatus ab apostolo cum pecunia sua interitum frustra flevit.] ni
23 in felle enim amaritudinis, et obligatione injustitiae video te esse. j. 23, a i"i6, 1)
32 tamquam ovis ad victimam ductus est, quemadmodum agnus ante iii. 12, 8 (10)
tondentem se sine voce, sic non aperuit os.
32 qnemadmodum ovis ad victimam ductus est, et quemadmodum agnus in iv. 23 (37), 2
conspectu tondentis sine voce, sic non aperuit os suum.
21 TrapaicaXw] -X- obsecro -^ 0eov ] mg dominum os -rroXXa Harclean
K\aiuv ov dieXi/jLTravev] mg flens multum et non cessans
27 os 2 B Antiochian sah, om KAC probability, to be fragments of the
D perp vg (gig r t insert hie). The Western rewriting. They have been
relative was omitted because the full identified by the aid of d, which is
sentence-building virtue of tdov was extant for x. 4-14, together with other
not felt. Latin witnesses and the Harclean
29 Fiomviii. 29 to x. 14 the Greek apparatus. Such readings have not
of Codex Bezae is lacking. From been inserted unless they are actually
various Greek sources, chiefly minus- attested in Greek ; and no attempt
cules of the I-type, there are included has been made to determine Western
in the following pages readings (not order of words, or to indicate the
belonging to the text of BKAC 81) Western variant iu the case of the
which seem, with varying degrees of conjunctions Kal, SV, and re.
VOL. Ill G
82 CODEX VATICANUS vm-ix
avoiyei ro oroua avrov. ev rfi rarrewojaei, rj Kpiais avrov 33
rjpdrj rrjv yevedv avrov rls oLrjyrjaerat, ; on. a iperai drro rrjs
yrjs rj ^a)r) avrov. diroKpiBeis Se o evvovxos ra> tAtTT7ra> elrrev 34
Ae o/zat uov, Trept TtVo? o 7Tpo(/)rjrrjs Ae yet; Trept eavrov r) Trept
erepov nvos; dvoias oe 6 OtAtTTTro? TO crro/Aa avrov Kai dp- 35
dfjievos drro rrjs ypa(f>rjs ravrrjs evrjyyeXio-aro avroj rov Irjaovv.
a)S oe erfopevovro Kara rrjv ooov, rjXdov erri ri vocop, Kai (frrjaw 6 36
evvov^os " ISou vocop" ri KcoXvet, fie f3aTrrio~dfjvai ; Kai eKeXevcre 38
crrrjvaL ro ap/z-a, /cat Karefirjaav a/z^oTepot els ro vocop o re
OtAtTTTTOs* /cat o evvovyos, Kai eparmo ev avrov. ore oe av- 39
efirjvav e/c TOU voaros, rrvevfjia Kvpiov rjprrao~ev rov Ot AtTTTTW, /cat
OVK eloev avrov ovKeri 6 evvov^os, erropevero yap avrov rrjv
ooov %aipojv. OtAtTTTTOS" oe evpedr) els "A^corov, Kai Step^o/xeyo? 40
o TO,? TroAet? rrdaas ea>s rov eXOelv avrov els Kat-
o-apetav.
Se SavAo?, eTt evTTveojv aTreiXfjs Kai (f>6vov els rovs [JiaOrjras IX
TO KVptov, rrpoaeXOaiv ra> ap^iepel | fjrrjaaro Trap* avrov emvro\as 2
els Aa/Ltaa/cov Trpo? TO,? crvvaytoyas , OTTCDS edv rivas evprj rfjs
ooov ovraSy avopas re Kai ywat/cas, oeoep,evovs dydyr) els lepou-
o~aXrjp,. ev oe rw rropeveuBai eyevero avrov eyyL^ew rfj Aa/zaovca), 3
ee(f>vrjs re avrov rrepLrjarpai/jev (f)ojs e/c TOU ovpavov, \ Kai Treaajv 4
1 Tl] OTt
Editors 33 Taireivuaei] +avrov Soden T-TJV] + 5e Soden 34 \eyei]
+TOVTO WH Soden JHR 39 T-TJV odov avrov WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 33 raTreiyuxrei B^A +O.VTOV C 81 rt]v BXAC +5e 81
34 \eyei B +TOVTO B 2 XAC 81 35 raur^s BAC^ C 81 +KO.I
39 avcpTjaav BKAC 81 ave^ C 2 irvtvpa BXC 81 +cryio;> eTreTTfiref e?rt
TOV ewovxov ayye\os 8e A aurou TT\V odov B TT/J oSoj avrov NAG 81
40 eu7;77eXi^"ero ras TroAets Tracras Bi^C 81 ras TroXeis Tracras evrjyye^i^ero A
1 en B 2 (B 3 Tdf)ACX c 81 on B om K 2 Trap aurou eTrio-roXas BAG 81
eTricrroXas Trap aurou K TT;S o5ou ovras BC oiras TT/S o5ou t^A 81 3 ev
5e B^AC om 81 rw BKAC TO 81 irepLijarpa^ev 0ws BNG 81
A
Antiochian 33 raTret^wo-et] +aurou HLPS5~ rr]v\ +5e HLPS5~ 34
+TOVTO HLPSS" eavrov] avrov H 35 om o before 0tXtTTTroj H
37 add core 5e o 0iXtTTTros- ei Trtoreuets ef 0X779 TT/S /capStas, e^etrriv. aTro/cpt^ets 5e
eiTre- TTLarevw rov mov rov deov etvai roi itjffovv xptcrroi 5~ 39 TT/V o5ov
aurou HLPS?" 3 rw] ro HL e^e0j/r;s re] /cat e^aKpvtj^ HLPS~
irepnj<Trpa\t>ev avrov HLPS5~ CAC] OTTO HPS5~
YIII-II
[CODEX BEZAE]
83
3 6 evvovxos] + ra> QiXimra) 489
37 17TV 06 ( + OLVTO) 1522) O OtAtTTTTOS" (om. O OtAtTTTTOJ
Ei marcveis It; oXrjs rrjs Kapoias ( + CTOV minn), efeo-rtv. OLTTO-
Kpideis oe L7TV Ht-arevo) rov vlov rov 0ov elvcu rov (om. rov
minn) Irjcrovv Xpivrov 2298 minn
39 TrvevfJLa Kvpiov TJpTraaev rov CDtAtTrvrov] TrvevfjLa ayiov 7T7Tcrv
7rl rov vvov%ov oyy\os oe Kvpiov
A minn
36 ecce aqua, quid est quod me inpediat tingui ? 37 tune dixit Philippus : Cyprian,
si credis ex toto corde tuo, licet.
Test. iii. 43
33 nativitatem autem ejus quis enarrabit ?
ejus.
quoniam tolletur a terra vita irenaeus,
iii. 12, 8 (10)
in humilitate judicium ejus ablatum est. iv. 23 (37), 2
37 credo filium dei esse Jesum. Hi. 12, 8 (10)
7ricrrevu> rbv vlbv TOV deov elvai Iy<rovv XpurTov. [catena]
[solum adventum iguorabat] filii dei, [quern cum breviter cognovisset] iv. 23 (37), 2
39 agebat iter gaudens.
37 ei.irev 5e o 0tXi7T7ros ei Tricrrei/eis e^ 0X775 rrjs
5e Harclean
tnrtv TTto-rei/w rov mov TOV 6eov ewcu TOV i-rjcrovv xP<-" rov ] X- dixit autem ei|: Si
credis ex toto corde tuo, licet, respondens autem dixit : Credo in filium dei esse
Jesum Christum 39 ayiov] mg sanctus eireireaev eiri. T
ayye\os Se Kvpiov] -X- cecidit in eunuchum ; angelus autem domini ^
ab eo
37 Vs. 37 is a Western addition,
not found in Bfc$AC Antiochian vg.
W.W. sah cop pesh, but read, with
minor variants, in many minuscules.
A part is quoted by Iren Cypr ; and
the whole (with minor variants) is
found in perp gig e E vg.codd
hcl-X- arm. The most noteworthy
variant is TRcrreuo; etj TOV XP L(TTOV TOV
VLOV TOV Oeov (without the following
word. K e. The text of E is,
as usual, a retranslation from e ;
suscepis e (in place of e&o-Tiv) is
probably rightly corrected by e corr to
salmis eris, to which <rw077<m E cor
responds. The error of e was due to
an earlier scribe s confusion of p and p.
39 The Western addition to vs.
39 in A (written by first hand over
erasure) is found also in a series
of minuscules, and in perp vg.codd
hcl -X- arm, and is quoted, or definite
ly referred to, by Ephrem, Cyril
of Jerusalem, Didymus, Jerome,
and Augustine. The geographical
range of attestation is noteworthy.
The purpose of the addition was
to make explicit that the baptism
was followed by the gift of the Holy
Spirit.
Ab eo hcl.ragr is found also in perp
Aug.
2 The difficulty of TTJS odov was felt
in ancient times, and an attempt made
to relieve it by adding Tairrrjs ; so 104
181 1838 perp gig e vg pesh hcl.text.
84 CODEX VATICANUS ix
em rrjv yfjv rJKOvaev (/>a)vrfv \eyovaav auror SaouA, SaouA, ri
fji Stco/cets-; | elirev Se - TV? et, Kvpie; 6 8e - Eyai et/zt I^craus 1 5
ov en) StaS/cets 1 dAAa dvdcrrrjOi, /cat etcrtflt els rrjv 7rdAii>, /cat AaA^- 6
dr)(TTai croi on ere Set Trotetv. ot Se aVSpes 1 ot cfWoSeuowes aura) 7
LarriJKLcrav eVeot, d/coiWre? /xev T^? </>awfjs fJirj^eva Se
rjyepdjj Se SauAos 1 CITTO ri^s y^S", dvea>yjLteVa>i< r Se TOJV o
az)rov ovSev e)3Ae7rev ^etpayajyowTes" Se aurov etcrTyyayov et?
Aa/zacr/coi . /cat ^v ^/xepas- rpet? JUT) ^SAeVcov, /cat ov/c l^ayev 9
O \ v
OUOe 7TLV.
*Hv Se rt? fj,a6r)T7]s lv AajLtatr/ca) dvo/xart Avavtas 1 , /cat 10
L7TV TTpOS OLVTOV V OpdfJLCLTl 6 KVpLOS AvaWa. O Se L7TV ISoU
eyco, KVpie. 6 8e Kvpios TTpos avrov Avaorra, 7ropv6r]TL TTL n
pvfjirjv rrjv KaXovfJLevrjV Ev^etav /cat ^rrjcrov ev ot/cta lovSa
ovofJidTi. Ta/ocre a, tSoi) yap 77/00 aeir^erat, | /cat et8ev avSpa 12
opdfJLaTL Avavtai^ dro/xart etcreA^wra /cat ImOevra avraj rds
Editors 6 et(Tt0t] etcreXtfe WH Soden JHR 11 avacrras WHmg Soden JHR
12 [ev opa^uart] WH ev opa/xart avdpa. Soden om ev opa^uart JHR [ras] WH
om ras Soden
Old Uncial 5 et BNA 81 +av C o 8e BAG +enrv K 81 LTJO-OVS BX 81
+o vafapaios AC 6 eiaidi B etcreXtfe KAC 81 7 ei<TTr)Kei(ra.i>
BKAC L<7T7)ffav 81 yciev BKAG 5e 81 5e 2 BtfAC om 81
Qewpovvres BACN C 81 opwvres J< 8 ouSev BtfA oi^Se^a A 2 C 81 9 oi/5e
B^A 81 KOLL OVK C 10 i> opa/iart o /cuptos BKAC o Kiynos ey opa/xan 81
11 avao-ra B avacrras XAC 81 12 e? opa/j,ari BC om KA 81 ras
B^c om KAC 81
Antiochian 5 o 5e] +/cuptos et?rev HLP5" 6 instead of aXXa insert aK\r)poi> <roi ?rpos
Kevrpa \aKrieiv. rpefAwv re /cat dap/Suv etTre- Kvpte, rt /ue OeXeis 7roi?;crat; /cat o
Kvpios ?rpos auroj* 5" etat^i] Lcre\6e HLPS5" ort] rt HLPS5"
8 o o-a^Xos HLPSr de 2] re HLPS ovdeva HLPS5" 10 o
Acuptos ei opafiari HLPSS" 11 ai ao ras HLPS5" 12 ev opa/j-ari
ovopari avavLav HLPS5" om ras HLPS?"
4 After n yae 5taceis 431 e E vg.codd in h (vanum . . . eum) appears in
pesh hcl -X- add o-KXypov trot Trpos Kevrpa vg.many codd in the following form :
\aKTifeiv. This appears to be a frag- durum est tibi contra stimulum cal-
ment of the larger Western addition citrare. et tremens ac stupens (+ in
of vss. 5, 6, transferred to this position eo quod fuerat [fadum erat] vg.codd)
in order to agree with xx vi. 14. dixit : domine quid me vis facere?
To the sentence tinder asterisk in et dominus ad eum (cf. xxii. 10,
hcl. text, hcl.mg adds the following xxvi. 14). With this substantially
note : Durum est tibi calcitrare ad agree perp hcl -X- (cf. nag, vs. 4). Gig
stimulos non est hoc loco in Graeco, has durum . . . calcitrare, but no
sed ubi enarrat de se Paulus. On the more, and Hilary quotes (in a slightly
series of marginal notes to which this different text) the part et tremens . . .
belongs see above, pp. clxii-clxv. facere. Aug and Ambrose refer to
5, 6 The Western addition found the sentence : domine quid me vis
[CODEX BEZAE] 85
,
X 4 TL fM StcuKret?] + OK\j}p6v crot irpos Kevrpa XaKri^eiv 431
5 o Se] + Kvpios el HLPS(T) minn
add irpos avrov before Eydj T 323
I^crou?] + o Na^copatos 1 AC minn
; 6 Kai 2] + eVei 614 minn
j ii Tapcrea] ra> yevei Tapcre a 36
4 [in pajvore, et audivit vocem dicentem sibi : Saule, [Saule], quid me per- h
sequeris 1 5 qui respondit, dicens : [quis es], dUe 1 et dixit dns : ego sum fhs
Nazarenus que[m tu perjsequeris : vanum autem est tibi contra stim[uluin
caljcitrare. qui tremens, timore plenus in isto sib[i facto], dixit : dne, quid
me vis facere 1 6 et dns ad euni : ex[urge, et] introi in civitatem, et ibi tibi
dicetur quid te o[porteat] facere. 7 homines autem illi, qui ei comitaban[tur,
sta]bant stupefacti, et audiebant quidem vocem [sed ne]minem videbant, cum
loqueretur. sed ait ad [eos : leva]te me de terra. 8 et cum lebassent ilium,
nihil [videbat] apertis oculis : et tenentes manus ejus dedux[erunt] Damascum.
9 et sic mansit per tridum nihil vid[ens, et] neque cibum neque potum accepit.
10 erat a[utem] quidam discens Damasci, nomine Annanias : [et ei in]
visionem dns ait: Annania. qui respon[dens ait:i]ta, dne. 11 et dns ad
eum : surge et vade in vicum [qui voca]tur, et quaere in domum Judae nomine
Saul[um, na]tione Tarseum : ecce enim adorat ipse.
6 exsurge, [dicens,] et introi Damascum, illic tibi demonstrabitur quid Tertullian,
debeas agere. ** 18
4 Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris 1 5 ego sum Jesus Christus, quern tu Irenaeus,
persequeris. lu - 15 > J
4 ffK\r]poi> <TOL ?r/)os Kevrpa XaKrifciv] -X- durum est tibi calcitrare ad stimulos ^ Barclean
5 o vafw/mtos] -X- Nazarenus x 5, 6 ov av 5tw/cets] quern tu persequeris
X- ille autem tremens et pavens super eo quod factum fuerat ei dixit :
Domine quid vis me facere et domiims [+mg dixit] ad eum : Surge x
11 <rav\oi>] Saulum -X- quendam \/
facere? The addition is found in no (all with minor variations). In the
Greek MS., and is lacking in many words et cum lebassent ilium h stands
codd of vg, including Amiatinus, as alone. The whole text of h here
well as in pesh sah boh. The most doubtless represents the Western,
important peculiarity of h, vanum for elsewhere found only in fragments.
durum, may represent a reading nevov 12 Vs. 12 is omitted by h, but with
or ets Kevov in the original Western ; no extant support ; it is in all prob-
if so, in all other Latin copies the text ability an integral part of the original
has been conformed to xxvi. 14. text, since irpoffevxerat is meaningless
The Greek text found in 5~ is due to without it. See, however, P. Corssen,
the hand of Erasmus, who translated Der Gyprianische Text der Ada aposto-
it from the Latin of vg and introduced lorum, Berlin, 1892, pp. 21-23.
first edition, 1516. He frankly ev opa/mari after avdpa BC ; before
indicates the facts, Annotationes, p. avdpa Antiochian pesh hcl ; omitted
by KA 81 perp gig vg sail boh. The
7, 8 After vs. 7 dewpowres the addi- reading which omits is probably
tions of h are supported as follows : right.
cum loqueretur] qui loqueretur perp 12, 17 Vs. 12 rets xpas BE ; x l P ay
w tepl gig (cum quo) ; sed ait ad [eos KAC 81, manus gig e vg ; x t P a
leva]te me de terra] perp w vg.codd Autiochian perp r t pesh hcl. Sah is
86 CODEX VATICANUS
OTTOJS dVajSAe j/rry \ a7TKpidrj Se Avavias Ku/3t, rJKOvcra 13
GLTTO TToXXaJV 7Tpl TOV dvOpOS TOVTOV , OCTCt KCLKOL TOLS dyiOlS CTOU
v lepovcraXrjfJL Kal (Loe e^et e^ovcriav Trapd T&V 14
orjaai Trdvras TOVS em/caAoujueVous" TO ovoud aou.
Se Trpos 1 avrov d Kvpios Tlopevov, on cr/cetfos 1 efcAoy^j 15
eoTtV />tot euros ro> /3acrTdcraL TO ovojjid pov zvcjTnov rwv
eOva>v re Kal ftaaiXeajv VLOJV re Icrpa^A, eya> ya/> virooei^a) aura) 16
ocra Set avrop virep TOV ovofiaros f^ov TraOelv. aTrrjXdev oe 17
Avavias Kal elcrTjXdev LS rrjv oi/ciav, /cat emmets CTT* aurov rd?
i7TV SaouA dScA^e, d Kvpios dVe crTaA/ceV jite,
is (rot ev TTy d8a> ^ rjpxov, OTTOJS dva/3Xei/jr]s Kal Tr
ayiov. Kal evOews aTreVeaav avTov CLTTO TWV 6(/>6aX- 18
wv d)s XTTIOS, dve)8Aei/reV re, /cat dvacrrds 1 e^aTT-rto 1 ^, | /cat Xafitov 19
EyeVcro Se /zerd rcov ev Aa/xaor/cd) fiaOrjTOJV r)fj,pas Twds, \ Kal 20
v rats o-u^aycuyats eKTJpvaacv TOV I^crow ort ouro?
ecrrtv d utos" rou ^eou. cf/aravro 8e vrdvTes ol aKovovT$ Kal 21
Ov% OVTOS ecrrtv d Tropdtfaas V IcpovcraXrjfj, TOVS 7rt-
TO ovofj,a TOVTO, Kal coSe ts" TOVTO eXrjXvdci, wa
0oejji,vovs avTovs dydyr} em rov? dpx^pels; SauAos* Se /xaAAov 22
VOVVafJLOVTO Kal OVV.-)(VVVV loVOaiOVS TOVS KaTOlKOVVTa$ V
AajLtacr/ca), (7iyz/?tj3da>v drt ourds eartv d Xptorrds". a>S" Se 7rXr)- 23
21
Editors
13 cucyKoa Soden 15 [TWV] WH
om TWV Soden
18 O.TTO TWV
o00aX/x,wv avTov Soden (but cf. mg)
ws] wcret Soden
21 ev] etj
Soden JHR 22 TOVS ioi;5cuous Soden
Old Uncial 13 ffov Bt<AC om 81 eirQiyffev ev iepovaa\r]/j, BKC 81 ev
firoirjaev A 15 TWV BC om KAC corr 81 17 5e Bfc<C 81 re A
avrov ras x el P as BXA 81 ras x i P a * 67r a-vrov C >/ ^7PX OU B^*AC 81 om
18 avTov aTTO TWV O(p6d\fji,(i}v BA airo ruv o<p6a\ju,(i)t> avTov #C 81 cos
wo-ei CS re BA 81 5e N 5e Trapaxprj/m C 2 19 evLa^vdrj BC
t<AC 2 81 21evBC81 s XA eXT/Xvtfei BAC c\T]\v6ev 81
22 evedwafj-ovro BXA 81 +rw Xo7w C tovScuous BK rows ioi/5atovs ACN C 81
Antiochian 12 % ft P as ] X ei P a HLPS5" 13 o a^avtas ~
eiroLr)<rei TOIS ayiois crov HLPS5" 15 /J.OL eanv HLPS5" om TWV
before c8vwv HLPS5~ om re 1 HLPS5" 16 avrw] O.VTOV L
17 om Lrjffovs HLPS 18 O.TTO TWV o0^aX/iwv auTou HLPS5" ws] wcret
HLPSr TC] +7rapaxpi7Ma L~ 19 evto-xua-ev HLPSr 20 5c] +o
<rauXos HLPS5~ TWV] +OVTWV HLPS ITJO-QVV] xpta-rov HLPST
21 om 01 a/covovres S e\r)\v6ev HLPS 070777] avayafn P
22 TOUS iou5aioi/s HLPS5~
ix [CODEX BEZAE] 87
17 aTTTjXOev Se Avavi as ] rore eyepOels Avavias aTrrjXOe 61-1
minn
18 avefiXcipev re] +7ra/oa^p^a L 614 minn
20 eKTJpvcraev] + ju,era Traces Trappycrias Iren
$OU + TOU ^COVTOS 1 181
21 Travras TOVS TTLKa\ovfjLvovs 1898 minn
22 eveSwa/zouro] + TOJ Aoya C 467
13 res[pondit] autem Annanias : due, audivi ego de isto hom[ine a] nmltis, h
quantas persecutiones fecerit sti[s tuis] Hierosolymam : 14 et ecce accepit a
sacerdoti[bus] potestatem in nos, uti alliget universes qu[i invocant nom]en
tuum. 15 cui dixit dns : vade, quia vas elec[tionis ejst miM homo iste, nt
ferat nomen meum cora [gentibjus et regib* et filiis Istrael : 16 ego enim
demons[trabo e]i quanta oporteat eum pati causa nominis mei. 17 [et surjrexit
Annanias, et abiit ad domura : et inposuit [ei iuan]um in nomine ihu xpi,
dicens : Saule frater, [dns me] misit, ihs qui tivi visus est in via per quam
ve[nisti, ut] videas, et replearis sps sto. 18 et estatim cecide[runt d]e oculis
ejus taniquam squamae, et continue [vidit : et] surrexit et tintus est. 19 et
accepit civum, et con[fortatu]s est.
dies autem plurimos et in civitate Damus[co cum] discentibus transsegit.
20 et introibit in sinago[gas Jude[orum, et praedicavit cum omni fiducia dnm
[fhm, qu]ia hie est xps, filius cfi. 21 stupebant autem omnes [qui a]udiebant,
et intra se dicebant : ita non hie est [qui per]sequitur omnes Hierosolymis
qui invocant [nomen is]tut, et nunc quoq- propterea venit uti victos [eos
addu]cat sacerdotibus 1 22 Saulus autem magis conro[borab]atur in verbo, et
perturbat Judeps qui mora[bantur] Damasci, inducens quia hie est xps in que
[bene se]nsit ds.
15 vade, quoniam vas electionis est mihi iste, ut portet nomen meum in Irenaeus,
gentibus et regibus et filiis Israel ; 16 ego enim demonstrabo ei ex ipso, quanta in
oporteat eum pati propter nomen meum.
20 in synagogis [ait] in Damasco praedicabat cum omni fiducia Jesum, i"- I 2 , 9 (H)
quoniam hie est Christus filius dei.
20 v TCUS ffvva. ydjya.is [^fjfflv} v Aa/zacr/c^; ticfipvcrcre yuerd Traces Trappycrlas rbv [catena]
Iri<rovt>, 6n ovrbs IGTI.V 6 vlbs TOU deov 6 X/)i<7r6s.
idiomatically indeterminate. Vs. 17, eis lepovaaX-rj/jt, XA minn is to be
for TCIS xetpas of all Greek documents, preferred. As in ii. 5, iv. 5, xvi. 36,
with (perp) gig vg hcl sah (cod W, fv is probably due to emendation of
cent. xii.-xiii.), manum is read by h r what seemed unliterary use. In all
t pesh sah (codd. BV, cent. iv.). four cases K, once supported by A
No confident decision is possible, but and once by 0165, has preserved the
in both cases ray x ci P as mav perhaps earlier text against B. For the use
be adopted in agreement with the of eis in this sense in Lk. and Acts see
uniform usage of Acts. Tischendorf s note on Acts ii. 5.
21 For ev tepovtraX^ BC Antiochian,
88 CODEX VATICANUS ix
povvro r)fjLpat iKaval, avvefiovXevvavro ot lowSatot dveXelv avrov
| eyft6cr#77 oe rco SauAa) rj 7Ti/3ovXr) avrwv. Traperr] povvro oe 24
/cat ra? nvXas rjfJiepas re /cat VVKTOS OTTCDS avrov dveXaiaiv
Xafiovres 8e ot fjiadrjral avrov VVKTOS 8td rov ret^ovs" KadrJKav 25
avrov -%aXdoavres ev cnrvpiSl. Trapayevouevos oe els lepovcraXrjfj, 26
CTTcipa^e KoXXaadai rols /xa^rats* /cat rravres </>of$ovvro avrov ,
/LIT) TTivrevovres ort e<7Tti> fJLaOrjrrjs . Ba/ova^Sas 1 Se eTTtAajSo/zevo? 27
avrov rjyayev Trpos rovs drtocrroXovs , /cat StT^yT^CTaro aT^rots 1 Trais 1
ev r^ o8a> etSev roV Kvpiov /cat ort eXdXrjaev aura), /cat Trees ev
Aa/xacj/ca) eTrapp^crtacraro ei^ ra) ovofjian Irjcrov. /cat TJP /zer* 28
aurcDv io"iTOp6v6[jLi>o$ /cat K7ropv6fJLvos els lepowaXrjiJ,, Trap-
p^crta^o/xevos ev ra> oVo/xart ro? Kvpiov, eAaAet re /cat crvve^rei 29
77/90? rows EAA^vto-ras" ot 8e eVe^etpouy dveAetv aurdv. eVt- 30
yvovres oe ot aSeA^ot /car^yayov auro^ et? Katcrapetav /cat e-
aTTtcrreiXav avrov et? Tapo-oV.
H />tev ow e/c/cA^o-ta /ca#* oA^s" rij? louSatas* /cat FaAetAata? ^j
/cat 2a/>ta/)eta? et^ei^ elprjvrjv ot/coSo/xov/zeV^, /cat Tropvo[j,vr)
rat </)6/3co rov Kvpiov /cat r?J Trapa/cA^cret rou dytov Trvevfiaros
EyeVero 8e nt rpov Step^d/xei/ov Sta, Trdvrcov KareXdetv /cat 32
TOWS dytous" TOWS Karoutovvras AwSSa. ewpev Se e/cet av- 33
9pa)7Tov riva ovo^ari Alveav e^ To)v O/CTCO KaraKeifJievov em
30
Editors 27 rou t^crou Soden 32 Xu55a[j ] Soden
Old Uncial 24 y/Jiepas re /cat VVKTOS owus avrov a.ve\w<nv B^C 81 (N c av\u<nv avrov) OTTWS
O.VTOV rj/Aepas /cat VVKTOS A 27 TOUS BKAC aurous 81 /cat 3
om K ITJO-OU BC rou t7?<rou K 81 Kvpiov A 28 eicnropevo-
/xevos /cat eKiropevo/Jievos BXAC e/cTropeuojU.ei os /cat eta Tropeuo/xej os 81 TOU
Kvpiou BXA 81 +ti;(rou N tT/o-ou C 29 e\\r)viffTas BKC 81 e\\r)vas A
30 /cataapetaj BtfC 81 tepocroXu/ia A auroi 2 BKC 81 om A 31 TOU
1 BKC om A 81 32 Xu55a B a A Xi;55aj/ C 81 ev Xu55a fc<
Antiochian 23 at Tj/Aepai H om ot S 24 crauXw] TrauXa; H
jrapeTTjpovv HLPSr 5e /cat] 5e L re HPS5~ 25 ot /j.adr)Tai
avTOv] avTov ot /madyTai HLP5" ot /xa^rat S KadrjKav 5ta rou reixofs HLPSS"
26 5e] +o crauXos HLPS^ ets] e^ HLPS eTrttpa^e] eirei.pa.TO HLPS5"
om //?7 Trta-reuovres S 27 rou 1770-011 HLPS5" 28 om /cat
e/CTropeuo/xevos HLPS ets] ev H~ add /cat before
HLPS5" rou /cuptou] +t7;(rou HLS5" 29 aurov ave\eiv
30 om aurov 1 L 31 at per ovv KK\r)(rtai . . . ei-^ov . . . ot/co5o/xou/xevat
. . . Tropevofj.eva.1 . . . Tr\-r)6vvovTO HLPSr 32 \v8dav HLPSr
33 atj eai oi o/xari HLPS5"
IX
27
28
31
[CODEX BEZAE]
ovofjiari] + Kvpiov 1522 corr minn
Kvpiov] + I-qaou K C HLPS
30 KatcrapetW] + VVKTOS 614 rainn
at
ow KK
\T](jiai
HLPS
23 et cum jam multi dies implerentur, con[silium] ceperunt Judaei uti eum h
interficerent : 24 notae [autem] Saulae factae sunt cogitationes eorum, quod
30 VVKTOS] -X- nocte
Harclean
25 01 fiaOrjTai avrov BXAC 81 (perp)
vg ; avrov ot jua0TjTcu Antiochian gig e
pesh hcl sah boh. The readings ot
/jmdijTaL avrov and ot, /j.ad-rjTai are each
supported by a few minuscules. The
weight of the authorities and the
transcriptional probability against the
reading O.VTOV lead necessarily to the
rejection of the Antiociiian text. But
the soundness of our text must remain
doubtful unless it can be made to
appear natural to describe any Chris
tians at Damascus as Paul s disciples.
29 After eXaXet re the addition
gentibus vg. codd (not perp gig) ethiopic
is perhaps not part of the Western
text. The suggestion that it is due to
a survival of the variant eXX-rjvas from
the following sentence is possible, but
it is not certain that any Greek MS.
except A ever contained that variant.
eXA^tcrras BKC 81 pesh Chrys
(who explains as TOVS eXXijvtoTl 00ey-
7o/x6/ovs in distinction from ol /3a0ets
E/3pcuoi); eXX^as A. The word occurs
elsewhere in the New Testament only
in Acts vi. 1, xi. 20. In vi. 1 no
Greek variant is reported ; in xi. 20
the support is : eXX^vto-ras B 81 (K)
Antiochian ; eXX^i/as AD. The ver
sions in most cases offer no evidence.
In Latin graeci is the only render
ing for eXX^iucrTcu in all three cases ;
similarly sah and boh in all cases
employ the usual native word for
Greeks, which sah also uses for
eXXrjves in four cases out of nine in
Acts, and boh in all nine instances.
Pesh translates by the usual word for
{ Greeks in vi. 1, xi. 20, but here in
ix. 29 indicates eXXrjvLaras by the free
rendering those who knew Greek
(cf. Chrys.). e\\r)j>iaTas, as both an
unusual word and here better attested,
is to be read here. See note on xi. 20.
30 Kai<rapet.a.i>] + VVKTOS 257 431 467
614 913 1518 perp gig e (per noctem,
retranslated in E dia VVKTOS) vg.S codd
pesh hcl -x- sah.
31 That the Western text read
ot fj.ev ovv e/cA X?7(ricu, with the following
verbs in the plural, is indicated by
the reading of perp gig Aug. unit,
eccl. vg.codd.
90 CODEX VATICANUS
os fy Tra/oaAeAiyxeVos . /cat etTiev avrqj 6 Herpos 34
Ati/ea, etdVat ere I^o-ofe Xptoros" dvdarrjdi KO! arpaxjov aeaimS-
/cat V00)S aveVny. /cat etSav avrov Trdvres ol /carot/cowres 1 35
AuSSa /cat TOV ap<wa, otrtve? eVecrrpei/raj em rov KvpLov.
Ei> IOTTTT^ Se rts ??v fjLaOTJTpioL oVd/zaTt Ta/?et0d, 77 Step/zTy- 36
Aeyerat Aop/cds" auTTj ^v 7rXr)pr]s epycov dyad&v /cat
ajv eTrotet. eyeVero Se ev rat? r^fJiepais e/cetVat? 37
avrrjv diroQavelv Xovcravres Se 07]Kav ev VTrepaxo.
eyyvs 8e ovcrrjs AvS$a$ rfj loTTTn^ ot jaa^rat d/coJcravres ort 38
II expos ecrrtv e^ aur^ aTre crretAav Suo av8pa? TT/JOS* aurov Trapa-
/caAowres" MT) o/cv^or^s 1 SteA^etv ecus* rjfMcov \ dvaards Se neVpos" 39
crvvrjXOev aurots" ov TrapayevofJievov dvij f ya yov et? TO VTrepajov,
/cat Trapecrrrjcrav avrat vraaai at xtfP aL /cAatovaat /cat e?rt8t/cvu-
ftevat ^tTcDj as /cat t/xdrta ocra eTrotet /^er avraiv oucra ?5 Aop/cd?.
K/3aXa)v 8e efaj Trdvras 6 Herpes /cat ^et? rd yovara Trpoarjv^arOy 40
/cat 7naTpei/jas rrpos TO acop,a eiTrev TajSet^d, dvdcrrr)6i. 17
8e TJvoi^ev TOVS 6(f>9aXp,ovs avrrjs, /cat tSouaa TOV HeV/oov dv-
(Jv. Sous 8e auT^ X^tpa dve crr^crev auTTyv, (jyajvijaas 8e 41
ay tows /cat Tas* XnP a $ wapeonjorcv avrrjv ^coaav. yvaxjrov 42
Se eyeVeTO /ca^ oA^s* loTrTr^s*, /cat eTrtWeucrav TroAAot e?rt TOV
Kvpiov. eyeVeTO Se rjfJLepas iKavas )Ltetvat ev loTr^ ?rapd Ttvt 43
St/xcuvt fivpael.
Avrjp Se 7 Tts- ev Katc/apeta ovo^aTi Kopv^Atos 1 , eKaTOvrdpxrjS X
Editors 34 o XP"? T * Soden 35 X^SSa^] Soden 36 ayaOuv epywv Soden
37 add aim;! before ed-rjKav Soden e^/cav] 4-aur?j WHmg JHR 42 TTJS
IOTTTTT/S Soden 43 5e] +[auro ] Soden
Old Uncial 34 (re BKC 81 +o /cvpios A xpw* B ^ c XP t<rT s B 2 (?)(B 8 Tdf)A 81
35 Xu55a BKA \vddai> C 81 TOP 1 BAC{< C 81 om X vapuva.
BXAC vapuvav 81 36 6/370;^ ayaduv BC ayaduv epyuv NA 81 37 5e
1 BXAC om 81 edrjKav B -f auTT/v NA 81 ai/TT?^ e^/ca? CX C
UTrepww BK 81 rw uTrepcow AC 38 Xu55aj Bi<C 81 \v5Sa AN C
39 Trer/oos BXA 81 o Trerpoj C 40 ew Travras BNA 81 Travras e|w C
41 5e lo BKC 81 re A 42 IOTT^J BC TT^S toTTTTT;? KA 81 43 5e BC
+OLVTOV AN C 81 tKavas BKA 81 rtvai C yitetvai BJ<A 81 +O.VTOV C
Antiochian 33 KpafiaTTW HLPS5" 34 om LTJVOVS H o xP ia " ros HLPST
o-eauroj L 35 XvSSai HLPS5~ crapwva] avvapuva HLS aaapuva P
<rapwi>av 5" 36 ayaQuv cpyuv HLPS5~ 37 add auTi;* before edrjKav
HLPSr 38 01] +5e H om Svo avSpas HLPS o/c^T/o-ai HLPSr
r)/j.a)v] avrwv HLPS5" 40 om /cat before 0eis LPS^" 42 TT/J IOTTT^S
PS5~ r?; lOTnrrj L iroXXoi eTria-reucrav LPS5~ 43 /ietpcu] +auro> LPS5"
om ev tOTTTTT/ L 1 rts] +rfv P5~ e/faTOj Tapx 1 ?^] o m L eKaTOVTapxos P
IX-X
[CODEX BEZAE]
91
34 0\ + o KvpLos A minn
39 7Tap<7T7)crav aura)] Trcpiecrrrjcrav GLVTOV 1518
42 yvwcrrov Se] + rovro 467
40 Tabitha, exurge in nomine Jesu Christi.
1 Cornelius centurio . . .
Cyprian,
Op. et eleem. <
I [erat enim, inquit, Cornelius hie]
Irenaeui,
iii. 12, 7 (8)
37 <nroQa.veiv] mortua est -X- quum esset autem Petrus Lyddae
40 ava<rTT)6i] surge -X- in nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi </
Harcleaii
34 For /cat et?rev avru o Trerpos perp
reads : intendens autem in eum petrus
dixit ei y with which sah agrees. Doubt
less the true Western.
36 trapuva BKACE (XA -pp-} ; aapw-
vav 1 minn. To these correspond
sarona gig, saronam perp e, saronae
vg. Antiochian rend acrcrapcuva (acrapwva
P by incomplete correction from vapuva.
in ancestor). Perhaps (Zahn) the initial
a was prefixed in imitation of the
Hebrew article, although the Aramaic
article was already indicated by the
final a. See reference to the two spell
ings in the anonymous onomasticon
published in Tischendorf, Anccdota
sacra et prof ana, p. 126.
40 avaoTijdi] +in nomine domini
nostri iesu christi hcl -X- sah Cypr perp
gig m vg.codd Ambros, in slightly
varying forms (of. iv. 10;.
The Western addition of immedi
ately to
gig m e (E) sah eth.
is attesUd by perp
92 CODEX VATICANUS
K o-7Tipas rs KaovfjLvr]s rat/cTs 1 , eucre/sr /cat (oovjjievos 2
rov 0ov avv rravri ra> ot/co> avrov t TTOICOV eAeTy/zocrwas 1 TroAAas 1 TOJ
Xaa> /cat oeopevos rov 0ov Sta rravros, efSev eV opa//,art (fxiveptos 3
axret Trept wpav vdrr]V rfjs rjfjiepas ayyeAov rou 0eou etcreA^oWa
rrpos avrov /cat et-TroVra avra) Kopv^Ate. o Se drevicras aura) 4
/cat e/z^iojSos yevofievos eiWev Tt eortv, Kvpie; elrrev Se aurai*
At TTpooev^cii ceov /cat at eAeTy/zocrwat crou dvefirjcrav t? fJLvrjfjio-
avvov fj,7rpocr9V rov 6eov- /cat vw 7T/z0ov avopas et? Io777n]v 5
/cat jLteraTrc/x^at St/ia>ya rtva 09 eTTt/caAetrat IleTpos" ouros 6
^evt^erat vrapa rtvt St/xa)vt jSvpcret, a) eartv ot/cta Trapa daXaaoav.
J)S oe OLTrrjXOev 6 ayyeAo? o AaAaiv awra), <f)0)VTJaas ovo rtt>v ot/cera)^ 7
/cat arpancbrrjv evaepfj r&v TrpoaKaprepovvrcw avra> \ /cat ef - 8
Tjyrjadfjievos arfavra avrols aTrecrretAev aurous" t?
T7y 8e 7ravpLov oooiTTOpovvrtov KLVtDV Kal rfj TioA
dvefir) rierpos" evrt TO Sco/^a Trpoavao~9ai rrepl a>pav
eyeVero Se TTpoarrewos /cat rjdeXe yzvaavOai TrapaaKeva^ovrtov oe 10
aiv eyevero CTT* aiVrov e/ccTTacTts", /cat 0ect>pet rov ovpavov dv- n
/cat /carajSatvov a/ceuos 1 rt a>s" oOovyv jLteyaA^v reaaapaw
us KdOeie^vov eVt r^s* y^S 1 , ev a) VTrrjpxev Trdvra rd rerpaTrooa 12
/cat p7Trd rfjs yrjs /cat Treretva rot? ovpavov. /cat eyeVero 13
(f)O)vrj Trpos avrov Amora?, Herpe, Ovcrov /cat <^aye. o oe 14
Editors 9 e/ceivcoi ] ai^rwi Soden 11 a/)%ats] + Sfde^tvov /cat Soden
Old Uncial 2 0eov BKAC /cuptoj/ 81 3 wcret BAC^ C ws K 81 4 at 2 BtfA
oin C 81 ets fj.vr)fj,o<Tvvov BAC^ C 81 om K e/j.irpo<rdfi> B^A 81 evuiriov C
5 rtj/a BAG 81 om K 6 rti/t o-t/icovt B^A 81 o-t^aH/t rti/t C w BtfAC
ws 81 ot/cta BXA 81 17 ot/cta C 8 a-jravra aurots BKA 81 avrots
aTravra C 9 e/cet^wv BC aurwi KA 81 eicTrjv BJ^C 81
evarrjv X c KTTJV rrjs r/fj-epas A 10 eir avrov eKcrraais BKA e/c<rra<rts
e?r auroj C om eTT ai^TOv 81 11 fjt,eya\r)v BXA 81 oni C 2
apxais BKAC 2 + dede^evov /cat C vid 81 TT/S 77;? BKAC TTJV ynv 81
12 irereiva B^AC 2 81 ra irerfiva C
Antiochian 2 Trotw^] +re LPS5~ 3 om wept LPSr 3-4 om Kopi>r)\ie o 8e
a.Tei>t<ras aurw L 4 om at 2 S e/jLirpocrdev] evwiriov LPS5"
5 ets lOTnrrjv avSpas LPS5" om rtva LPS5" os eTrt/caXetrat Trerpos]
TOV eTTLKa\ovfj.vov irerpov LPS 6 6a\ao-<rav ] +OIVTOS \a\rjaei <rot TL ae 8ei
iroieLv S~ 7 om o before XaXwv LP aurw 1] rw /copj/TjAia) LPS5"
ot/cerwv] 4-aurou LPS5" 8 avrois o.ira.vra LPS5" 9 e/cetJ/wv] aurwc L
10 Tj^eXe] 7j\6ev S auTajv] eKeivwv LPS5~ eyevero 2] eireirtvev LSS"
11 /cara/Satvoif] +e?r avrov LPS5" ap%ats] +5e5e/iepo /cat LPS5"
12 ra Terpa-rroSa /cat ep-rrera TI;S 7975] ra rerpairoda rrjj 7175 /cat ra 077/ua /cat ra
epirera LPS5" ra ireretva LPS5~
x [CODEX BEZAE] 93
X 4 aimw 1] els avrov 88 1311
Tt eariv] T/ff el 1828
^ om Tu>a ^LPS
6 euros . . . fivpcrel] Kal avros eari fevt^o/zevos" vrpos Stjitcova
TWO. ftvpcrea 614 minn
ddXaaaav] + os AaArjcret prjfjLara irpos (re eV of? crajdijcrrj cru
/cat Tras- o&fe crou 466 467 (88)
9 e/cTTp] + TTjs rjfJ,pa$ A
i /cat Karapalvov . . . yfjs] Kal reaaapmv ap^ai? 8eSe/zeVoj>
crKevos rt ai? oOovrjv Xa^Trpav /cat Ka9iefivov em rrjs yTJs" Const.
Apost. vi. 12, 6 (cf. 33 minn)
4 et trepidus factus dixit quid est due dixit autem ei orationis tuae et aelemosynae d
ascendcrunt in recordatione coram deo 5 et nunc mitte viros in joppen et accersi
simonem qui cognominatur petrus 6 hie est ospitans aput simonem pellionem
cujus est domus juxta mare 7 ut autem dissit angelus qui loquebatur ei vocatis
duobus famulorum ejus et militem fidelem ex his qui praesto erant 8 enarravit
illis visum et misit illos in joppen 9 postera autem die iter illis facientibus et
adpropiantibus ciritati ascendit petrus in cenaculum et horabit circa hora sexta
10 factus est autem esuriens et bolebat gustare praeparantibus vero ipsis cecidit
super cum mentis stupor 11 et vidit caelum apertum ex quattuor principiis
ligatum vas quodam et linteum splendidum quod differebatur de caelo in terrain
12 et erant omnia quadripedia et serpentia et rolatilia caeli 13 et facta est vox ad
eum petre surge immola et manduca 14 ad illi dixit non dne quoniam numquam
2 ... fuit faciens multas eleemosynas in plebem et semper oraiis deum. Cyprian,
3 ... huic circa horani nonam oranti adstitit angelus . . . dicens : Cornell, Dom or 32
4 ... oratioues tuae et eleemosynae tuae ascenderunt ad raemoriam coram deo.
2 religiosus, et timens deum cum tota domo sua, et faciens eleemosynas irenaeus,
multas in populo, et orans deum semper. 3 vidit ergo circa horam nonam *" 12 7 ^
diei, angelum dei introeuntem ad se et dicentem : 4 eleemosynae tuae
ascenderunt in recommemorationem in conspectu dei ; 5 [propter quod] mitte
[ad Simonem, ] qui vocatur Petrus. [9-15 Petrus autem cum vidisset revelationem
in qua respondit ad eum caelestis vox :]
5 TLVO] mg quendam 11 \a/j.irpav] mg splendidum Harclean
11 For Kan KaraftaLvov . . . CTTI TTJS in Antiochian pesh hcl.text seems to
7175 the citation in Const. Apost. vi. be a Western survival; Clem. Alex.
12, 6 corresponds almost exactly to reads eKdede/mevov. The mixed form in
the Latin of d and doubtless gives sub- he}. text, is noteworthy : et vas quoddam
stantially the Western reading. A devinctum quatuor extremis velut lin-
form omewhat like this but nearer the teum magnum descendens et inclinans
11. sir,; text is offered by minn. Cod. 33 in terrain. Apparently the Western
differs from Const. Apost. only in read- text described the vessel as bound by
ing fji.-ya.\r]y Ka.Tafia.ivov KCU Ka.6iefj.evov the four corners, instead of lowered
instead of \a/j.irpav KO.L Kadijj.evoi>, by the four corners, and in consequence
while perp gig Ambr. spir. ii. 10 have of this change dropped Kara fiouvov.
a Latin text resembling that of d. The texts with all three participles are
Note also hcl.mgr. The word Seoc/j.evoi conflate. See above, p. cxcii, note 1.
94
CODEX VATICANUS
Herpes L7TV M^Sa/zcDs 1 , Kvpie, on ovoeTrore e^ayov rrav
KOLVOV /cat aKaOaprov. /cat (f>a)vr] TrdXw e/c oevrepov rrpos avrov 15
*A 6 6eos eKaddpiaev crv jj,r] KOLVOV. rovro o eyeVero em rpis, 16
/cat evdvs dv\r}p,<j)dr} ro VKZVOS els rov ovpavov. ws oe ev aura) 17
oirjTTOpei 6 Her/DOS rt aV eti? ro opafia o ef8ev, tSou ot aVSpe? oc
ciTrecrraA/zeVot VTTO rou Kopi^^Atov Stepcor^aavres r^v ot/ctav rot?
St^tcovo? eTrearrjcrav ITTL rov TrvXcova, /cat </>a)vr}0 avrs errvQovro 18
et Stjitcov d eVt/caAou/Aevos" nerpos" v6do ^evtferat. rou 8e 19
Ilerpov oievdvfjLovfJievov 7Tpl rov 6pdfj,aro? etvrev ro TrvetJjLta-
I8ou avopes ovo fyqroOvT^s ere | dAAa avao-ras" Kardftrjdi, /cat 20
TTOpevov avv avrols fjiySev Sta/cpetvdjLtevos", ort eycu aTrearaA/ca
| /Caracas Se Her/oos 1 TT/DOS" rou? avopas eiTrev *I8ou 21
et/xt 6V ^retre* rt? atrta St rp Trdpecrre; ot Se elnav 22
" Karovrdp%rjs, dvrjp OLKOLLOS /cat (f)o^ovfjivos rov
deov fjLCLprvpovfjiv6s re WTTO oAot rou edvovs rajv louSatcav,
e^p^/xartcr^ t57rd ayyeAou ayt ou fJLra7TfJU/jaadai o*e els rov
OLKOV avrov /cat a/couaat prjfjiara rrapd aov. etV/caAeo-a/zevos 1 23
ouv
Editors 17 aurw] eaurw WH Soden JHR i5ou] /cat t5ou JHR 18 eirvvdavovro
WHmg Soden 19 Tr^ey/ia] +aurw WHmg Sodeu Svo] rpets Soden
[rpetj] WHmg ^rou<ri Soden 21 77 atrta WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 14 KOU BXA 77 C 81 (+D)
t5ou BKA 81 /cat i5ou C(+D)
BC firvveavovTO KA. 81 (+D)
5uo B rpeis XAC 81
20 670; BNAC(+D) om 81
oma B ?7 atrta KAC 81 (+D)
17 aurw B eavrw XAC 81 (+D)
81 a?ro AC(+D) 18 eirvdovTO
19 irvev^a B +aurw KAC 81 (cf. D)
^rowres BK 81 ^roucrt AC(+D)
21 TOW w*/aj BKA 81 (+D) aurous C
Antiochian
14 /cat] 77 LPS5~(+D)
LPS5~(+D) i
otn TOV before (rifjiuj>os LPS^"
(+D) rpcis 5~
21 o Trerpos L(+D)
OLVTOV (avrovs S) HSr
16 eu^us] TraXt// LPSS~(+D) 17 aurw]
t5ou LPS5~(+D) UTTO] a?ro LPSr(+D)
18 eirvvdavovro LPS5"(+D) 19 di.ev6vfj,ov-
aira> LPS5~(+D) dvo] ora HLPS
HLPSr(+D) 20 ort] diori LPSr
+TOUS aireffTaX/nevovs O.TTO (+roi 5") Kopvij\LOV irpos
r? atrta HLPSr(+D) 22 om re S
16 With omne vas licl.mg cf. aTravra
minn for TO o-/cei>os.
17 For iSow BKA 81 the more difficult
/cat t5ov C D perp e Antiochian is to
be preferred.
19 ai/5pes dvo B without support ;
avdpes rpets (cf. xi. 11) NAG 81 E e gig
vg pesh hcl.mg sah boh ; avdpes D perp
Aug. gen. ad litt. xii. 11, Cyr. of Jer.,
etc., Antiochian. The reading dvo B,
whether original or not, assumes that
only the two ci /cerai (vs. 7) need be
mentioned as responsible messengers,
the soldier merely serving as a guard.
In spite of the narrow attestation of
B alone, this seems more likely to
have been the view of the original
author than of a scribe, rpets is plainly
x CODEX BEZAE 95
!5 TrdV KOIVOV r) d/cd#aprov. (f>a)vr)cra$ 8e TraAtv e/c oevTepov Trpd?
rfavTOV *A d fled? e/ca#dptcrei> en) /xo) KOIVOV. TOVTO 8e eyeVero
17 em rpt s*, /cat dvXr]fj,(/)dr] TrdXiv TO cr/ceuo? et? rdv ovpavov. a>s" 8e
eV e auro) eyeVero, St^Trdpet d HeVpos 1 rt av L<r]> TO dpa/xa o
et8ev, /cat etSou ot dVSpes" ot f aTrecrraAjLteVot avrd Kopv^Atou eVepco-
jg r^crayres r^v ot/ctav rou St/xcuvos 1 eTrecrr^crav evrt rdv mjAcova, /cat
rou 8e rierpou ocevdvfJLOVfJbevov Trept rou
dpa/xaros" etTrev avra) rd Trvev/xa- *I8ou d^Spes" t^Tovalv ere
20 dAAd dvacrra, /card/fyflt /cat Tropevov crvv avTols [Jirjoev 8ta/cpt-
ort eya> d77eo"raA/ca avroi;?. rdre /carajSd? o Herpos 1
rot)? avopas etTrev ISou ey^> et/u ov J^retre* rt ^e Aere T)
22 Tts ^ atrta 8t -^v Trdpeo*re; ot 8e etTrov Trpd? aurdv Kop^Atds 1
rt? eKaTovTapxys, dvrjp St/cato? /cat (f>oj3ovp,vos TOV Qeov /xapru-
re u^) oAou rou eOvovs TOJV louSatcov, e^p^/xartcr^
3 dyyeAof dytou /zeraTre/x^acr^at ere et<r rdv ot/cov OLVTOV /cat
d/coucrat pTy/xara Trapd crou. rdre etcrayaycbv d Herpos 1 egei
23
auT
15 crv] croi 21
manducavi omne commune et inmundum 15 et vox rursum iterato ad eum quae d
ds mundavit tu noli communicare 16 hoc enim factum est per ter et adsumptum
est ipsum vas in caelum 17 et dum intra se factus est haesitabat petrus quae esset
visio quani viderat et ecce viri qui missi erant a cornelio inquirentes domum simonis
adsisterunt ad januam 18 et cum clamassent interrogabant si simon qui co-
gnominatur petrus hie ospitatur. 19 petro autem cogitante de visione dixit ei sps
ecce viri quaerunt te 20 sed surge et descende et vade cum eis nihil dubitant quia
ego misi eos 21 tune descendens petrus ad ipsos viros dixit ecce ego sum quern
queritis quid vultis quae causa propter quam venistis 22 ad illi dixerunt ad eum
Cornelius centurio vir Justus et timens dm testimonio quoque a tota gente judaeorum
responsum accepit ab angelo sancto accersire te in domum suam et audire verba abs
te 23 tune ergo ingressus petrus hospitio excepit eos ac postera die cum surrexisset
15 quae deus emundavit, tu ne commune dixeris. Iren - iii-12,7 (8)
A 6 debs eKaddpure, av fJ.T) Koivov. [catena]
16 KCU ave\r)fj.<f)d r) iraXii TO <r/ceuos eis TOV ovpavov] mg et statim receptum est Harclean
omne vas in coelum 17 KopvrjXiov] -\-mg [quum] appropinquassent et
19 5tti>6v[j.ovfjievov] [quum] cogitaret -X- et haesitaret N^ avdpes] +mg tres
22 dcov] +mg et
a deliberate tr.inscriptional improve- ix. 38, where Antiocliian lacks the
ment (cf. xi. 11), and the same motive superfluous but unobjectionable 5i o
would account for the Western avdpas of BKAC 81 E and all the
and Antiochian omission of 8vo, Cf. versions.
96 CODEX VATICANUS x
Tfj Se ziravpiov avacrras e^rjXOev avv avrols, /cat rw$ TOJV
TOJV arro IOTTTTT^? crvvfjXdav avrco. rfj Sc eiTavpiov 24
ets* TT)V Katcrapetav * o Se KopyTyAtos* ^v TTpocrboKtov CLVTOVS
TOVS avyyzvzis GLVTOVS /cat TOVS aVay/catoi>
(faiXovs. d>s 8e eyevero TOU elcreXOeiv TOP Herpov, cruvavT^cras 25
aurai o KopvryAto? Trecrtuv em rows TrdSas* 7rpoaKVvr]<jv. o Se 26
Herpes* T7yetpei> avrov Aeycw AvdaryBi /cat eya; avros* av6pa)7r6$
t/zt. /cat (TU^o/xetAcDv aurai elafjXdcv, /cat euptcr/cet cru^eATyAu^oras 27
TroAAous-, | ^^ re Trpos" aurovs 1 * f T/x-et? eTTiaraade <Ls d^e/xtrdv 28
ecrrtv ci^Spt louSat a; KoXXacrdai rj 7rpoapXcr6ai dXXcxfrvXq)*
/cd/xot o ^eos* eSet^ev prfievoi KOWOV TI aKadaprov Aeyetv dv6pa)7rov
| Sto /cat dvavTiprjrcos yXOov /xera7re/x^^t?. irvvOdvo^ai ovv 29
rtVt Adyaj fj,T7Tfjn/jacr6e jLte. /cat o Kop^Atos* e^>7]* ^71030
^ju-e pas* ^XP L TO-vrrjs rrjs a>pa$ TJprjv TJ\V tvdrrjv Trpocr-
V TO) OiKO) [JLOU, /Cttt t Sot) CIV^p eOTTTy eVOJTTlOV fJLOV V
Editors 24 ei.a-T]\6ov Soden airrous 2] a^rou WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 23 avacrras BKA 81 (+D) +o Trerpos C 24 eicrTjXflev B 81 (+D)
ftvyXOav NAG awrous 2 B aurou KAC(+D) om 81 26 eyu auros
BKA 81 aim>5 670; C 28 o ^eos e3eiei> BC 81 (cf. D) edei^ev o 6eos
KA 30 WQV BKAC 81 +vri<rTcvur /cat A 2 (cf. D)
Antiochian 23 av aoras] o irerpos HLPS5" TT/S IOTTJT^S 5" 24 TTJ 6e] /cat TT;
HLPSr ci<rrj\dav HL i<rrj\6or PS" aurouj 2] aurou HLPSr(+D)
25 om TOU HSS~ 26 avrov r)yeipw HLPS5" 30 17^^] +vr]aTV(i)i> /cat
HPS5" (cf. D) -t-vyffTcvcov L om rt]v evarr]v Trpocrevx^ofj.fvo^ ev rw
ot/coj fjiov L evarijv] -i-wpav HPS<T
24-27 The Western text has skil- the angel appeared to Cornelius must
fully rewritten these verses (notably be explained on linguistic grounds,
vs. 25) in order to present a completely whether vulgar Greek or Semitic (cf.
continuous narrative. D d is supported C. C. Torrey, Composition and Date
by gig hcl. mg and in part by perp of Acts, pp. 34 f. ), not by arbitrary
and other Latin codices. See Corssen, reconstruction of the text (Blass con-
Gotting. gel. Anzeigen, 1896, pp. 437 ff. jectures rerapT-^v ij/^epav Tavrrjv). The
26 avaffrridi] n irotetj (cf. vii. 26, addedpTja-reuuj arjdthefollowingcopula
xiv. 15) D d hcl.ra<7 and, with con- (re or *cat)D Antiochian gig pesh hcl sah
flation of both phrases, perp w prov is a Western expansion of familiar
vg.codd. Some of the last mentioned type. TIJS rpirys D d (nustertiana) for
Latin texts, and prov, add dcum adora Terapr^s of all other witnesses is merely
(cf. Rev. xix. 10) either before avaffrydt a different way of counting days (i.e.
or at the end of the verse. by not including the current day).
27 D d omits <rvvofjLi\ui> without any a/m for ravT-qs is a matter of taste.
corresponding substitute, but it is E e while taking d-rr6 and ^XP L i n their
found in perp gig, and need not be normal sense, tried to attain a meaning
regarded as a Western non-interpola- for the whole on the basis of the
tion. Antiochian text by adding OTTO e/crTjs
30 The use of dir6 and ptxP 1 nere u P a * ( cf - vs - 9 )> altering TTJV evarfjv to
to indicate the point of time when ewr evarrj^ and improving the order
x CODEX BEZAE 97
Tfj 8e ZTravpiov dvaards c^fjXdev crw> avrois, Kal rives ra>v
24 dSeA^ojv a7ro loTnrrjs crvvfjXOav avrco. rr\ 8e eiravpiov elafjXOev els
d 8e KopyrJAtos" rjv TrpocjSe^ojLtevos aurous 1 , /cat crw/caAe-
rous" owyevefc avroi; /cat rovs aVay/catous" (friXovs Trepi-
25 efjLWv. 77 p /3o<7eyytoi>TOS 8e Tou Her/aou et? TTyv Kataaptav
TTpoBpafJLwv ef? ra)v SouAan> oiecrdfijjaev TrapayeyoveVat aurov. d
Se Kopv^Atos 1 K7T7]$r]aas /cat crwavr^cras aura) Trecrwv rrpos
2677080? TrpocreKvvrjcrev avrov. 6 8e ner/oos" ^yetpev aurov
27 Tt Trotets 1 ; /cayco avdpcoTros elfjn, a>? /cat cru. /cat elcrcXdtbv re
28 feat uev ovv\ri\vQ6ras TroAAous 1 , | ^17 re Trpds" aurous 1 * T/xct?
(j)i<JTaade (Ls ddejjuarov eanv dvopl lovSataj /coAAacr^at
xcr6aL dv$pi dXXocfrvXa) /caftot d ^ed? eTieStfev fJLT]<Se>va
29 /cotvdv ^ OLKadaprov Aeyety avdpcoTrov Std /cat dvavTip ijrajs rjXdov
lJLTCLTTeiJL<f)6iS V(f) VfJLCJV. TTVvddvOfJiOH, OVV T
30 ifjacrde jLt. /cat d Kopv^Atos 1 ^77 Avrd TT^S" Tpirrjs
TTJ? a/on co/oa? ^ jLt^v V7]crreva)v rrjv evdrrjv T Trpoo eu^d/^evos i/
TO) ot/ca; jLtou, /cat t8ou av7)/3 ecrr^ eVa>7rtdv /x,ou ev ecr^?Jrt
23 ICTTTTT^V 28 efyicrravOoii 29
exibit cum eis et quidam fratrum qui ab joppen simul venerunt cum eo 24 postero d
quoque die ingressus est caesaream Cornelius vero erat expectans eos et convocatis
cognatis suis et necessariis amicis sustinuit 25 cum adpropiaret autem petrus in
caesaraeam praecurrens unus ex servis nuntiavit venisse eum Cornelius autem exiliens
et obvius factus est ei procidens ad pedes ejus adoravit eum. 26 vero petrus levabit
eum dicens quid facis et ego homo sum quomodo et tu 27 et introibit et invenit
convenisse multos 28 aitque ad eos vos melius scitis ut nefas sit viro judaeo
adherere aut accedere ad allophylum et milii ds ostendit neminem communem aut
immundum dicere horninem 29 propter quod et sine cunctatione veni transmissus
a vobis interrogo ergo qua ratione accersisti me 30 et Cornelius ait a nustertiana
die usque in hunc diem eram jajunans et nona oravam in domo mea et ecce vir
28 dominus mihi dixit neminem hominum communem dicendum et Cyprian.
innmndum. Ep 64) 5
28 ipsi scitis quoniam non est fas viro Judaeo adjungi aut convenire cum Irenaeus,
allophylo ; mihi autem deus ostendit neminem communem aut immundum m - 12 > 15 ( 18 )
dicere hominein : 29 quapropter sine contradictione veni.
24 ei<T77\0ei ] mg introierunt 24, 25 irepie/Aeivev TrpoaeKvvya ev avrov Trpos Harclean
TOUS ?ro5as] mg sustinuit. quum appropinquasset autem Petrus Caesaream,
praecucurrit quidam ex servis et nunciavit quod veniret. ipse autem Cornelius
exiliit et occurrit et cecidit ad pedes ejus et procidit ^ 26 n Trotets]
mg quid facis 30 at>r)p] mg angelus
of words, thus : euro rerapr^s tifJ-fpas irpo<revxofJ.ei>os OTTO e/CTT/j u>pcts ews
M^XP Tavrrjs TTJS wpas f]^.t]v v^Grtvuv KOLL ei> TO> OIKW /JLOV, KO.I idov, /crX.
VOL. Ill H
98 CODEX VATICANUS x
cr6rjri XafijLTTpa \ KOLL <f>r)cri KopvqAie, clarjKovadr) aov r} Trpooreu^ 3!
Kal at eXerjfjLOO-vvai aov fjivr)adr)o~av evaiTnov rov 0ov TTC/XJ/TOV 32
ovv is loTTTTTjv Kal /zeTa/caAeom St/ztova os em/caAeiTai Herpes
^evt^erat V oi/aa St/zcovos fivpcrecus napd ddXacraav.
fjs ovv evre/xj/ra TTpos ere, crv re KaXcos 7roi7]cra$ rrapaycvo- 33
Ts T^efe va>7nov rov 6eov 7rdpo-fjLv d/couacu
TrdWa ra Trpocrreray/xeVa om UTTO rou Kvpiov. dvoias oe HcTpos 34
Deut. x. ir TO orro/za i7TV 77 dXrjOeias /caraAa/xjSavojLtat ort ov/c ecrrtv
o 0os t aAA* ev Travrl edvi 6 (j)o^ov^vos avrov 35
St/cacocrwTyv Se/cros" aura) ecrrtv. rw Aoyov 36
rot? utots" lapa^A euayyeAt^o/^e^os" Lp<r)V>r)v 8ta
I^dou XpiGrrov OVTOS <JTW TrdvTOJV KVpios . otSaT TO yv6{iLVOV 37
prjfjba Ka6* oA^s" rij? lovSatas 1 , dpdp,vos drro rfjs FaAetAata?
/>tera TO K^pvyfJLa o eKTjpv^ev Icoav^s 1 , I^aow TOV CITTO Naa/)e #, 38
a>s" XP icrV a*VTov 6 deos TrvevfJiaTi, aytoj /cat cWa//,et, 05
30 aicr@r)Ti 37
Editors 32 ^aXaa-aav] +os Tra/aayej/o/xevos XaX-^cret (rot Soden 33 ow] i5ou JHR
rou 0eou] <rou JHR om irapea/Jiev JHR 36 \o7op] +0^ WHmg
Soden 37 add u/iets before otSare WH Soden JHR
Soden /c77/>v7/u,a] /SaTrrtcr/xa WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 32 ev ot/cia o-t/iojj os jSupcrews Bt<A 81 (+D) ?rapa rtj t (TL^WVL ftvpffei G
QaXaatrav B^A 81 + os Trapayevo/^evos XaX^cret crot C(+D) 33 re BKC 81
76 A Tra^Ta ra TrpoaTeTay/JLeva <roi BKC 81 ra TrpoareTayfJieva trot Tra^ra A
UTTO BK 81 a?ro ACt< c (+D) rou 2 BKAC(+D) om 81 34 oro/ta
BK 81 (+D) +CLVTOV ACK C 35 e<rTLi> BC 81 (+D) eo-rai A 36 rov
vid 81 +yap C vid (+D) Xoyof B^A 81 +ov NC(+D)
B 2 37 otSare B u/iets otSare i<AC 81 (+D) yevojj.evov
81 (+D) 7e7ovos C ap^evos B^C +7a/> A(+D) ap^a^vov 81
pvypa (B) paimo-na B 2 NAC 81 (+D) 38 os BACK C 81 ws t<
Antiochian 32 flaXao o ai ] +os Trapayevo/Jievos XaXrjffei <roc HLPS5~(+D) 33 Kvpiov]
Oeov HLPS5~(+D) 36 Xo7ov] +ov HLPS5"(+D) eipTjvrjit] diKaioffvv^v S
37 add u/ieis before otSare HLPS5~(+D) ap^apevov LPS~ Kijpvyfj.a]
pairTL(r[j.a. HLPS5~(+D) 38 add cv before Trveuywan L
33 idov, with omission of irapevfjiev, C vid D pesh hcl-X-. yap and OP seem
D pesh sah may be preferable to the to be different attempts at ameliora-
reading ovv of the B-text ; note the tiou, although in the case of ov tran-
Semitism. scriptional change might perhaps
ffou D d vg pesh sah may be pre- have worked in either direction.
ferable to the more religious phrase Note that ov was probably struck
rou 0eou. out in X before the codex was issued
36 rov X070V aTrecrreiXev B^ a A 81 from the scriptorium. His with
vg ; verbum suum misit gig d sah ; rov Xo7ov, found frequently in versions
Xo7ov ov ctTreo-reiXev X E e Antiochian ; (Latin, Sahidic), need not imply a
rov yap \oyov avrov cureo-reiXev 614 perp different Greek text (but cf. 614).
rov yap \oyov ov awe <rreiXei> 37 a/>a/xevos BXACDHE ;
x CODEX BEZAE 99
31 | /cat <f>r]0iv Kopi TyAte, elayKovadrj aov rj npoaevx 1 ^ Kal at IXer)-
32 fjioavvai aov efjuvrjadrjaav evcbmov rov 6eov rrepifjov ovv els
Kal /zeTa/caAecrat ^ijjiajva os e m/caAemu Tlzrpos
fevt^eTat V ot/a a ^Lfj^ajvos /3vpa0)s rrapd ddXaaaav, os
33 Trapayv6fJivos AaA^cret aoi. e^avrrjs ov<v> evre/zi/fa Trpos ae
7rapaKaXa)v eXdelv Trpos rjfJLaSj av oe KaXws eTroirjaas V Ta^et
7rapayv6fJLVos. vvv <t>Soi) trdvres r)fJ<iS IVCOTTLOV aov, aKovaai
34 /3ovX6[JLVoi Trapd aov rd TTpoareraypeva aoi drro rov Qeov. dvoi-
as oe TO o*TOjita Ylerpos elrrev Err* dXrjOeias KaraXafJi^avo^Lcvos
35 art OVK eariv TrpoaojTToXr^fjLrrrTjs 6 deos, aAA ev Travrl edvi 6
(fropov/jievos avrov Kal epya^ofjievos oiKaioavvrjV SeKros avra>
36 eariv. rov yap Xoyov ov drreariXev rols viols laparjX evay-
yeAt^o/xcvos" elprjvrjv Sta I^aou Xpto*rou (ovros lariv rrdvrojv
37 Kvpios) | vjj,ls oioare, TO yev6fj,vov Kad* oXrjs louSatas 1 , dp^d-
IJLVOS yap O-TTO TT^S* FaAtAatas 1 ficrd TO Parma^a o eKijpv^ev
38 Icuav^?, | I^crow TOV 0,770 Nafape^, ov e^piaev 6 deos dyiw rfVv-
jLtaTt /cat Swa/zef ovros oirjXdcv evepyerojv Kal clwfJLevos rrdvras
38 etw/xevas
stetit in conspecto meo in veste splendida 31 et ait corneli exaudita est oratio tua et d
aelemosynae tuae in mente habitae sunt in conspectu di 32 mitte ergo in joppen et
accersi simonem qui cognominatur petrus hie hospitatur in domum simonis pellionis
juxta mare qui cum venerit loquatur tibi 33 e vestigio ergo niisi ad te rogando
venire te ad nos tu autem bene fecisti in brevi advenire nunc ergo nos omnes in
conspectu tuo audire volumus a te quae praecepta sunt tibi a do 34 aperiens autem
os petrus dixit in veritate expedior quia non est personarum acceptor ds 35 sed in
omni gente qui timet eum et operatur justitiam acceptus est ei 36 verbum suum
misit filiis istrahel evangelizare pacem per ihm xpm hie est omnium dns 37 vos
scitis quid factum est per totam judaea cum coepisset enim a galilaea post baptismum
quod praedicavit Johannes 38 ihm a nazareth quern unxit ds sancto spo et virtute
hie pergressus est benefaciens et sanans omnes qui obtenebantur a diabolo quia ds
34 in veritate comperi quoniam non est personarum acceptor deus, 35 sed irenaeus,
"* 1 , 2 2 ~
in omni gente qui timet eum et operatur justitiam acceptabilis ei est. "*
37 vos scitis quod factum est verbum per omnem Judaeam, incipiens enim
a Galilaea post baptismum quod praedicavit Johannes, 38 Jesum a Nazareth
quemadmodum unxit eum deus spiritu sancto et virtute : ipse circumivit
benefaciens et curans omnes qui oppressi erant a diabolo, quoniam deus erat
>7]<nt>] dicit -X- mihi ^ 33 irapa.Ka.\wv e\deii> irpos -ri/j.as] -X- rogans Harclean
ut venires ad nos ^ 36 yap] -X- enim /
Antiochian (attempt to improve and see Torrey, Composition and Date
grammar). Cf. Lk. xxiii. 5, xxiv. 47 of Acts, pp. 25-28.
(note vv. 11.), Acts i. 22, for note- D d omit prjfjia ( matter ), thereby
worthy instances of this Aramaism, avoiding the Semitism.
100 CODEX VATICANUS
VpyrO)V /Cat lo)[JiVOS TTOLVTaS TOVS KaraOVVCLCrrVOfJLVOVS V7TO
rov SiafioXov, on 6 deos r^v fJLtr* avrov /cat ly/xets [Jidprvpes irdvrajv 39
a)V iroir)<jv V re rf} %a)pa rcov lovSaicov /cat lepovcraXyfj, 6V
/cat aVetAav /cpejuacravTCS* em vXov. rovrov 6 deos ^yetpev TT^ 40
rpirrj rjjjiepa /cat e Sco/cev aurov efjifiavrj yevecrOai, ov iravrl TO) 41
w aAAa ^dprvoi rot? 7TpoKXipoTovr]fjLvois VTTO rov 6eov,
, otrtve? cruv(j)dyo}JiV /cat crwemojitei> CLVTCO /zero, TO ai/acrny-
aurov e/c vKpa)v /cat Tra^TyyyetAev T^jLttv /cTypu^at rai Aaa) /cat 42
ao dai, on OUTO? ecrrtv d ojpia^vos VTTO rov deov Kpir^s
t,wvrwv /cat vKpajv. rovrcp Trdvres ol Trpo(f)7Jrai fjuaprvpovcrw, 43
a^ecrtv d[j,apriajv Aa^etv Sta rou ovd/xaros" avrou TrdVra roi
mcrrevovra. et? a75rdv. ert AaAowro? TOV Ilerpoi; ra pr^fiara 44
ravra erreTTecre TO 7TVVfJLa TO ayiov em Trdvras TOU? a/cowoyTas 1
TOV Adyov. /cat e^ecTTT^o av ot /c Trepiro^rls rfiorol ot avvrl\QcLV 45
TO) ner^a;, 6Vt /cat 7Tt TO, ^VT^ ^ Scopea TOU 7TVVfJiaros rov
ayiov e/c/ce^tTat T^KOVOV yap avrwv AaXovvrcov yAcucro ats /cat 46
^yaXvvovrwv rov deov. rore drreKpidri TLerpos \ MiyTt TO vocup 47
Swarat KOjXvaai Tt? TOL> /^ ^aTrnadrjvai rovrovs olrwzs TO
Editors 39 tepouo-aA^/u,] e^ iepovaaXyfj, Soden 45 ot 2] 0(rot WHmg Soden JHR
rou 07101;] aytou Tr^en/iaros Soden 47 /cwAwrcu 5ij/arai Soden mg
Old Uncial 39 T^/teis BKC 81 u/u.eis A(+D) tepovffa^fji B(+D) e^ te
J<AC 81 40 yyeipev BA^c 81 +ei/ ^C 41 wro TOU
BNA 81 (+D) T/A"! UTTO TOU 0eou C ffW(f>ayofji,i BKA 81 (+D) +aurw C
42 ovros BC(+D) avros ^A 81 44 e7re7re(re BK 81 eTretre A(+D)
45 ot 2 B oo-oi KA 81 (+D) Trveu/xaros roi- 071011 B (of. D)
a/ytou irvev/uLCLTos ^A 81
Antiochian 39 77/ueis] +eo-yuev HLPS5" tepov(ra\T]/Li.] ev tepovaaXrjiJ. HLPSr
om KCU after 01* 5" 42 oirros] auroj H(L ?)PS5~ 43 TOVTU] TOVTOV HL
45 ot 2] oaot HLPS5~(+D) Trven/xaros TOV 07101;] 07101; Tr^ef/iaros HLPS5"
46 o Trerpos HLPS5~(+D) 47 /cwXixrat Suvorat TIS HLPS5"
40 (ej>) TTJ rptTT; Tjjuepa] ^era T^J/ gig t vg.codd sah Vigilius Const.
rpiT^v -ripepav D d t. D d show a Apost. vi. 30.
similar variation of text in Matt. xvi. 46 To the erased words of D corre-
21, xvii. 23, as do also the Latin spond in d : praevaricatis linguis et
codices a k (but not D d) in Mk. viii. magnificantes (i.e. erepots (?) yXwrffau
31 ; see J. R. Harris, Codex Bezae, KO.L iJ.ya.\wovTuv}. Most Latin texts
1891, pp. 91 f. lack praevaricatis altogether; vg.corf.
41 The addition of forty days ardmach reads variis (cf. pesh),
(D d hcl-X-) is found also in E e perp Rebapt suis, sah other.
x CODEX BEZAE 101
rou? /caraSuvaoreufleVra? UTTO rou Sta/3oAou, ort o Oeos r\v
39 aurou- /cat Tj/zet? /xaprupe? aurou &v eVot^aev eV re Trj X^PQ
louSatajv /cat lepoucraArj/z 6V /cat avetAav /cpe/zacravre? em
i 40 gvXov. TOVTOV 6 6e6$ jjyipv jitera r^v TpiTr/v rjfjiepav /cat e Scu/cev
i 41 aura) v<f)avfj yzvzaOai, ov Travrt ra> Aaai aAAa jitapruort rot?
7rpoK^(LpoTovr]fjLVOLs VTfo TOV &ov> T^jLtetv, otrtve? o"uve(^ayojLtev
/cat cruveTTto/zev aura) /cat avv<av>eaTpdcf)r)iJLV /zero, ro dvaaTrjvai
i 42 e/c VKpu)V rjiJLepas p, /cat eVeretAaro rjfjbelv K7]pv at ra) Aaa) /cat
SioLfJiapTVpacrdai 6 rt ouros 1 ecrrtv o ajptCT/xevos" UTTO rou ^eou /cptr^S"
43 a>vra>i> /cat veKpwv. TOVTCO rrdvTes ot 77/>o^7jrat jitaprupoucrtv,
a^ecrtv dfJLapTiwv Aa/3etv 8ta rou ovo/Ltaros 1 aurou Travra rov ?rt-
44 areuoyra et? aurov. ert AaAouvros 1 rou Ilerpou ra p^^tara raura
7TCTV TO 7TVVfJLOL TO CiyiOV Tfi 7TCWTOLS TOVS GLKOVOVTCLS TOV
45 /cat J;0~T7]o~av ot e/c TrepiTOfJirj? mcrrot 6 o-ot avvfjXdov ra)
ort /cat em ra e^v^ T] 8ajpea rou TrvevfjiOLTos aytou e/c/ce^urat
46 rjKovov yap aura)v AaAouVrcoi [ /cat
47 jLteyaAuvovraj]v rov ^eov. etTrev Se o HeVpo?- | M^rt ro uSajp
/ccoA<ucr>at rts* Swarat rou /XT) jSaTrrtcr^TJvat aurou? otrtve? ro
39 T^/xets] v/xets
erat cum illo 39 et nos testes ejus quae fecit in regione judaeorum et hierusalem d
quern etiam iiiterfecerunt suspensum in ligno 40 hunc ds suscitavit post tertium
dieum et dedit ei manifestum fieri 41 non omni populo sed testibus praedestinatis
a do nobis qui simul manducavimus et simul bibimus cum eo et conversi sumus
postquam surrexit a mortuis dies xl 42 et praecepit nobis praedicare populo et
protestari quia ipse est qui praestitus est a do judex vivorum et mortuorum
43 huic omnes prophetae testimonium peribent remissionem peccatorum accipere
per iiomen ejus omnem qui credit in eum 44 adhuc loquente petro berba haec
cecidit sps sanctus super omnes qui audiebant verbum 45 et obstupefacti sunt qui
erant ex circumcisio fideles qui simul veuerunt cum petro quia et super gentes
donum sps sancti effusum est 46 audiebant enim eos loquentes praevaricatis
linguis et magniticantes dm dixit autem petrus 47 numquid aliquis aquam
cum eo. 39 et nos testes omnium eorum quae fecit et in regione Judaeorum et irenaeus,
in Hierusalem; quern interfecerunt suspendentes in ligno. 40 hunc deus " . 12 >7 ( 8 )
excitavit tertia die, et dedit eum manifestum fieri, 41 non omni populo, sed
testibus nobis praedestinatis a deo, qui cum eo et manducavimus et bibimus
post resurrectionem a mortuis ; 42 et praecepit nobis aduuntiare populo et
testificari quoniam ipse est praedestinatus a deo judex vivorum et mortuorum. C f. j v . 20, 2
43 hui^ omnes prophetae testimonium reddunt remissionem peccatorum accipere
per non, en ejus omnem credentem in eum.
47 numquid aliquis aquam vetare potest ad baptizandum hos q[ui iii. 12,15(18)
/iTjrts rb vdbjp KOjAuaai dtVareu roLVour, oi rt^es
39 ov] quem -X- rejecerunt Judaei ^ 41 /cat ffvvaveffTpa.^-n/j.ei T/^ue/aas Harclean
p.] et versati sumus -X- cum eo dies quadraginta ^ 46 /c
text et iiiagnificantes (?), mg et glorificantes
102 CODEX VATICANUS x-xi
msevfjia TO ayiov eXa^ov o>? /cat ^/zet?; TTpooeragev oe avrovs 48
ev rat ovofJLCLTi, IT^CTOU XptorroO /3a,7TT(,o i 0fjvai. rdre rjpcorr^aav
avrov 7rifj,ivai T^e/oas 1 rt^a?.
"H/covaav Se ot dnoaroXoi /cat ol dSeA^ot ot ovres Kara ryv XI
louSatW ort /cat ra #^77 eSefavro rov Adyov ro #eou. ore Se 2
avefirj Herpos etV lepovoraAry/z, Ste/cpetVovro TT/JO? avrov ot e/c
TrcpiTOfjifjs | Ae yovres 1 ort la7jX0V7Tp6sdvopa$ aKpopvcrriav ZXOVTCLS 3
/cat uvv<f>cLyv avrols. dpdfjLevos oe rierpos" e^ert^ero aurots 1 4
Xeycov Eya> ^Tyv ev TrdAet IOTTTTT^ 7rpocrU^d//,evos > /cat 5
eV e/ccrracret opa^Lta, Kara^alvov CTKCVOS rt a>s" oOovrjv fieydX^v
appals /ca^te/xeV^v e/c rou ovpavov, /cat 7jA#ev a%/)t e/>tou
et? ^v arevtoras 1 Kosrevoow /cat etSov ra rerpciTroSa TT^S" y^? /cat ret 6
urjpia KOLL ra e/OTrera /cat ra Trerctva rou ovpavov TJKOVGOL 8e /cat 7
Editors 1 ijKovo av Se 01 airoffroKoi. /cat oi a5eX^>oi] aKOVffrov 8e eyevero TOLS aTroaroXotj
/cat rots a5eX0ou JHR 2 ie/oo<roAi>/Aa Soden 3 ci(n]\6es WHmg
Soden (but cf. mg) JHR <rvve(f>ayes WHmg Soden (but cf. mg) JHR
Old Uncial 48 5e BK 81 re A avrous B 81 (+D) aurots fc<A oi/o/xart
+TOU /cuptou 81 (+D) 3 eio-7/X^ei B 81 etcrTjXfles NA(+D) ffvve(f>a.yev
B81 <rvi>e(f>ayes KA(+D) 5 Trpocreuxo/ievos BAK C 81 (+D) om
Ka.TO.pai.vQV cr/ce^os TI BKA(+D) <r/ceuos rt KQ.Ta.fia.i.vwv 81
Antiochian 47 ws] /ca^ws HLPS5~ 48 5e] re HLPS5~
t^trou xptcrrou fiaTTTt.adrji ai] fiaTrTicrdrjvai. cv rco o^o/xart TOU Kvpiov HLPS5" (cf. D)
2 ore 5e] /cat ore HLPS5~ tepo<roXi;/xa HLPS5" (cf. D) 3 71730?
avdpas aKpo(3vffTiav e^o^ras ciffr)\6es (-ev L) /cat (rv^e^a^es (-ev L) HLPS~(cf. D)
4 o Trerpos HLPS5" om /ca^e^j L 6 om rTjs 7?;s HPS
ep?rera] +r7;y 7775 H , 7 om /cat 1 HLPS"
1-2 The rewritten Western text mention. The Latin authorities for
of vss. 1, 2 is transmitted on the whole the Western expansion in vs. 2 have
more completely in D d than in any a form abbreviated to a less degree
of the Latin or Syriac witnesses, which, than hcl -X- but in somewhat the same
however, are numerous and contain way.
large parts of it. Vs. 1, for ot D 1 The reading of D (substantially
should perhaps be read rots ; for e5earo confirmed by pesh) : axovo-Tov de eyevero
possibly e5eavro. After TOV \oyov rots a7ro<rroXots /cat rots a5eX0ots is more
roi; 6eov the addition, not found in Semitic than the B-text. Cf. LXX
D d, of /cat edoafoj> (e5oa<raj> ?) roy Gen. xlv. 2, Is. xxiii. 5, xlviii. 3, 20 ;
deov (cf. xi. 18, xxi. 20) is adequately anovvTov does not occur in N.T. D
attested for the Western text by may here have the original text.
perp eorr gig vg.codd hcl-X. Vs. 2, at 2 Trpoff^wfrjaas D may be an error
some point after e7rtcrr?7pt^a$ an omitted for Trpoacpuvyaai., cf. hcl-X- loqui ; but
verb (e^rjXdev ?) seems to be attested the Latin witnesses agree with D.
by perpvg.coeW hcl-X-. For /car?jf r?7crej> /carr/jfTTjo-e* aurots D is hardly toler-
avrois the conjecture of Zahn, /car- able ; possibly aurots is a mistake for
T)VTT]<rev aurou, commends itself, but aurou (Zahn), but more probably it is
beginning with os /cat the testimony due to the Latin eis of d.
of the versions (except d) fails. A 3 eiatjXdes, crvvecpayes NAD Anti-
few other minor variants require no ochian perp gig vg hcl.w<7 sah boh ;
CODEX BEZAE 103
, 48 TTvevfia TO ayiov eXafiov c/jOTrep /cat iJ/Ltets ; Tore Trpocre rafev
avTovs f3a7TTLO-0fjvai eV TW oVo/u.art rou Kvpiov I^aou Xptaroi}.
rore Trape/cdAea av OVTOV irpos avTovs Sta/zetvat T^tepas 1 rtvas*.
XI A/couarov Se e yeVero rots* dvroo-roAot? /cat rots d8eA<^ot? ot
2 eV r^ Iou8ata ort /cat ra 6^1/17 eSe ^aro TOI> Aoyov row ^eou. o JU,<EI>
ouv ITerpos 1 Std t/cavo %p6vov rj0eXrjcr 7ropv0fjvai, et? lepocro-
Xvfjia /cat 7rpoo~(f)a}vr)aas TOVS doeXcfrovs /cat emo-TTypt^as 1 aurous 1 ,
/cat KaTrjVTrjcrev avTols /cat aTT^yytAev aurots 1 rTyv ^dptv ro
0ov. ot 8e e/c Treptro/x^s 1 dSeA^ot 8te/cptVovro irpos avTov
3 | Ae yovres- ort Etcr^A^es Trpos 1 avopas d/cpoj3t>o-rtav e^ovra? /cat
4 aiW^ayes* oruv aurot?. dpd(JLvos 8e HeVpos" e ^ert^ero aurots"
^ rd /carets Aeycuv Eyco TJfArjv ev IOTTTTT] TroAet Trpocreu^Ojitevos
/cat efSov e/ccrrdaet opa/xa, KaTafialvov cr/ceuo? rt cos* o06vr]V
fjicydXrjv reVpaortv dp^ats* /ca^teju-eV^v e/c rou oupavou, /cat
6 ecus fjiov els rjv drevtcras KCLTZVOOVV /cat etSov rerpavroSa
^S" /cat ra 07jpia /cat epTrerd /cat 77eretvd rou ovpavov /cat
2 rjOeXrjcraL 6
prohibere potest ut baptizeutur isti qui spm sanctum acceperunt sicut et nos d
48 tune praecepit eos baptizari in nomine dni iliu xpi tune rogaverunt eum ad eos
demorari dies aliquos
1 audito vero apostoli et fratres qui erant in judaeam quia et gentes
exceperunt verbum di 2 quidem ergo petrus per multo tempore voluit proficisci in
hierosolyma et convocavit fratres et confirmavit eos multum verbum faciens per
civitates docens eos quia et obviavit eis et enuntiavit eis gratiam di quia erant de
circumcisione fratres judicantes ad eum 3 dicentes quia introisti ad viros praeputia
habentes et simul manducasti curn eis 4 incipiens autem petrus exponebat eis per
ordinem dicens 5 ego eram in joppen civitate orans et vidi in mentis stupore visum
descendere vas quodam velut linteum magnum quattuor principibus dimittebatur de
caelo et venit usque ad me 6 in quod intuitus considerabat et vidi quadripedes
terrae et vestias et repentia et volatilia caeli 7 et audivi vocem dicentem mihi
47 spiritum sanctum acceperunt quemadmodum et nos ? Irenaeus
2 o fj.ev ovv Trerpos . . . SidacrKuv avrovs] -X- et benedicebant deo. ipse Harclean
quidem igitur Petrus per tempus non modicum volebat abire Hierosolymam et
loqui fratribus ; et quum contirniasset, profectus est et \/ docuit eos N/
3 etcnjXtfes, /cat (rvvctpayes] my iugressus sis et ederis 5 /j,ya\rji>] mg
splendidum
, ffvve(payev B 81 L minn pesh inferior. Of. perp gig vg and hcl.text
hcltext. The B-text is due to the ( propter ).
failure to recognize on as direct 5 With hcl.m<7 f- P er P splendidum
interrogative ( why? ), hence is magnum.
104 CODEX VATICANUS xi
(j)a>vfjs \yovo"r]s fJLOL* AvaoTa?, Ilerpe, Qvaov /cat <ay. etWov 8
Se- Mrjoafjiajs, Kvpi, on /cotvov T) aKaOaprov ouSezrore eunjAflev
els TO crro/xa /zou. dVe/cpt^Ty oe e/c ocurepov (j)O)vr) e/c rov ovpavov- 9
*A o $eos" KaddpLcrV av fj,r) KOLVOV. rovro Se eyeveTO em rptV, /cat 10
dvff7rdcr9rj TrdAtv a-TravTa eis TOV ovpavov. /cat tSou eavrrjs 11
Tpet? dvopes 7To~Tr)o~av errt T^V ot/ctav ev 97 rjaev, dTreoraA/^teVot
aTTo Katdapetas" Trpo? fte. etTrev Se TO rrvevfjid fjioi vvveXOelv avrols 12
p,7)0v oiaKpeLvavra. rjXOov 8e cruv e^tot /cat ot e d8eA<^ot ouTOt,
/cat lcnjXdo[jLv t? TOV OLKOV Tov dvopos. aTrTJyyetAev Se ^juiy 13
TTcus 1 etSev TOV ayyeAov eV TOJ ot/ca; auTOU crradevra /cat etVovTa*
Yle/jufjov ets" IOTTTTT^V /cat /xeTa-xrefte/fat 2t/>tava TOV iriKaXov[JLvov
Herpov, 05 XaXrfo-ei pTJfJLOLTa Trpos ere eV ots- crwOrjorr) av /cat Tra? o 14
ot/co? 0*0 v. ev Se TO> dp^acrdat fj, XaXelv lireTTecrev TO Trvevfjia TO 15
dyiov 677* auTOUs" cocrTrep /cat < Tyyitas 1 eV dp%fj. efJLv^aOrjv Se TOU 16
rov KVpiov cu? e Aeyev Icodv^? /xev epdirTLcrev VOOLTL
Se ^SaTTTtcr^crecr^e ev 7TVvp,ari dyia). et ow T^V ta^v 17
oa)KV avrols 6 6e6s <l)s /cat 7^/xtv 7?tcrTucracrtv ?rt TOV
KvpLov 9 lr]crovv Xptordv, eyco TO ^ /XT^V SwaTOS* /ccoAucrat TOV ^eov;
d/coucravTes" Se ravra rjavxacrav /cat eSd^acrav TOV 0eov AeyovTe?" 18
"Apa /cat Tot? e^vecrtv o ^eos" T^V fjuerdvoiav et? ^OJTJV eSco/cev.
Editors 9 0WJ/77 e/c Sevrepov WHmg Soden 11 Tj/iT/f WHmg Soden JHR
12 ^toi ro irvev/j.a Soden 13 eiTro^ra] +[ai;ra;] Soden
WH Soden JHK
Old Uncial 9 e/c devrepov (puvrj B (pwrj ex devrepov KA 81 11 7;/iev BKA(+D)
77^7;^ 81 12 dLa.Kpeiva.vTa BAK e 81 haKpivovTo. # cf BKA(+D)
+01 81 13 Tre/ii/ oj/ B aTroo-reiXov NA 81 (+D) 14 o BKAJ+D)
om 81 16 ^vt]aBt]v BS 81 (+D) e/^o-tf^ej/ A e\eyev B^A 81
(_I_D) +oriK c 17 e5w/ce/ BA81(+D)
om 81 18 edo^aa-av BK 81 e5oafrj/ A
Antiochian 8 on] +iraj> HLPS5" 9 5e] +yuot HLPS5"(cf. D) ^WI/TJ e/c devrepov
HLPS5" 10 om 5e H TTO.\LV aveffTracrdrj HLPS5" 11 TJ^V
HLPS5" 12 /xot ro irvevfjia HLPS5" diaKpivopevov HLPSr
13 5e] re HLPSr cnrovTa] +avru HLPSr(+D) Tre^ov] aTroareiXov
HLPS5"(+D) toTTTTTjj/] +avSpas HLPS5~ 16 om TOV 2 HLPSr
17 e 7 o/j +5e HLPS5- 18 eSo^a^ov HLPSr apa] apaye HLPSr
HLPSS"
11 77^171 81 Antiochian, all versions ; e (dubitanteni) vg (haesitans} cf. x. 20.
BHA D vg.Scodd. This purely That the text of B is a conformation
accidental change of -rj^v to t\^ev seems to x. 20 is made less likely by the
to have been an early occurrence ; the active voice and telling force of the
versions point to the true reading. participle.
12 Om /j.r)dei> SiaxpivavTa. D d perp 17 D d vg.wie cod Rebapt Aug. trin
hcl. For Sia/cptvo/xevof X E Antiochian xv. 19, 35 omit o 0eor. This may be
XI
CODEX BEZAE 105
TiKovaa (frwvrjv \eyovodv />tof Avacrra, Tlerpe, ovaov /cat (f>aye.
8 et?ra oe- M^Sa/xto?, Kvpie, on KOLVOV f) aKadaprov ovoeTrore
9 elarjXdev els TO oro/Lta IJLOV. eyevero (frcovr) e/c TOU ovpavov
10 Trpos fJ^e- *A o ^eos eKaOdpiaev av fJLT] KOIVOV. rovro 8e
eyevero ercl rpis, Kal dveaTrdaOrj rrdXw dnavra els rov ovpavov.
11 /cat t 8ou eavrfjs y dvopes errearrjaav erri rrjv ot/ctav ev fj rjfJLev,
12 drrearaXfJievot, drro Katcrapata? rrpos jLte. elnev Se TO rrvevf^d /zot
ovveXQetv avrols rjXdov avv e^tot /cat ot e^ d$eX(f>oi ovroi, /cat
113 elo"nX9op,ev els rov O!KOV rov dvopos. drnfjyyeiXev oe
eloev dyyeXov ev ra> ot /cco avrov crradevra Kal elrrovra
ATroorTetAov ets 1 IOTTTT^V /cat jLtTa7TejLt?/fat St/xtova TOV eTTLKaXov-
14 u,evov Tlerpov, os AaA^cret pr^para rrpos o~e ev ols GajdrjO"fl crv
1 15 /cat was 6 OLKOS o-ov. ev oe ra> opfacrBcU fj,e AaAetv auTots" erceaev
16 TO TTvevfJia TO dyiov ere* avrols tus 1 /cat e(f> T^jLtas 1 ev apxfj. e[wr]-
a07]v oe rov prjfiaros rov Kvpiov d)s eXeyev Icaaw^S {J<ev efiaTT-
17 Tto*ev vbari vfjiels oe fiarmo Orio eode ev rrvev^a<n> ciyta). et
ovv rrjv LGTJV ocupedv eScu/cev avrols cos" /cat rjjjielv rcio-revaao-iv erri
rov Kvpiov I^crow Xpto*Tov, eyco Tt? rjfArjv ovvaros /ccuAucrat TOV
^eov TOU JU.T) 8owat auTots 1 Trvevjjia ayiov mcrreucracrtv evr avrw;
18 a/coucravTes 1 Se ravra rjcrv^aaav Kal eooa<cra>v rov deov Xeyov-
res "Apa /cat Tots eBveaw 6 6eos perdvoiav els ,a>r]v eoaiKev.
16
surgens petre immola et manduca 8 dixit autem absit dne quia commune et d
inmundum numquam introibit in os meum 9 respondit vero vox de caelo ad me
quae ds mundavit tu noli communicare 10 hoc autem factum est per ter et sublata
sunt iterum omnia in caela 11 et ecce statim tres viri supervenerunt ad domum
in qua erant missi a caesarea ad me 12 et dixit Sps mihi simul venire cum eis
veneruntque mecum etiam sex fratres isti et introibimus in domum ipsius viri
13 adnuntiavit autem uobis quomodo vidit angelum in domo sua stetisse et dixisse
ei mitte in joppen et accersi simonem qui cognominatur petrus 14 qui loquebatur
verba ad te in quibus salvus fias et omnis domus tua 15 et dum coepisset loqui eis
cecidit sps sanctus super eos sicut super nos in principium 16 recordatiis sum
verbum dni sicut dicebat Johannes quidem baptizavit aqua vos autem baptizaniini spo
sancto 17 si autem aequalem donum dedit eis sicut nobis credentibus in dnm ihm
xpm ego quis eram qui possim prohibere dum ut non daret eis spin sanctum credenti
bus in eum 18 cum autem audissent haec siluerunt et clariticavenmt dm dicentes
17 roi fj.7) Sovvai ai;rots irt>ev/j.a ayiov irLffTVffai<nv eir avrui] -X- ut non daret iis Harclean
spiritum sanctum, quurn credidissent in dominum Jesum Christum >/
right, but is more probably due to the Like hcl-x- vg.cod reads in domi-
Western reviser s view that the Holy num Jesum Christum; cf. vg.codd in
Spirit was the gift of Christ. nomine Jesu Christi> and Bohemian.
106 CODEX VATICANUS xi
01 fJLV OVV StaOTrapeVreS 1 0,770 rfj$ lJa}? TT? yVOfJLV^S 7H 19
oifjXdov ws Oowet /oys 1 Kal KvTTpov Kal Avrto^etas",
XaXovvres rov \6yov et ^ [JLOVOV lowSat ot?. rjaav Se 20
avrwv avopes KuTrptot /cat Kup^vatot, otrtves 1 eXQovrcs
i$ Avrto^etav eXdXovv Kal Trpos rovs EAA^vtOTas , euayyeAto-
fJLVOL TOV KVplOV I^CTOW. /Cat T^f ^Ctp KVpLOV fJLT* avrOJV, TToXlJS 21
re dpidfjLos 6 moTeuoras- 7rearpi/JV em rov Kvpiov. rjKovcrdr) oe 22
o Adyo? tV ra cSra rij? e/c/cA^crta? TTjs" ovcrr]s v TepoucraA^jLt Trept
/cat e^aTreWetAav BapvajSav ecus Avrto^eta?* 05- Trapa- 23
TT&vras rfl 7rpo9ecri rfjs Kapoias Trpoa^eveiv ev raj /cvptco, on 24
dya^o? /cat TTXrjpyjs TrvevjJiaros ayLov /cat mWecus 1 . /cat
rj o^Ao? t/cavos*. e^TjXOev O et? Tapaov dvacrrrjcrat 25
SauAov, | /cat vpojv T^yayev et? Avrtd^etav. eyeVero 8e aurot? /cat 26
Editors 21 [o] Soden 22 papvapa.v ] +[5ifX^ei ] Soden 23 [r??v 2] Soden
[ei>] WH om > Soden JHR 24 t/cavos] +rw A-upiw WH Soden JHR
25 avaa-T77crai] avafaTyo-at WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 19 <rre0aj>w BH 81 are^avov A (cf. D) ioi;5cuois BA. 81 louScuot ^
20 /cat 2 BNA 81 om X C (+D) eAX^io-ras B 81 ua77eXKrraj K eXX??j/ay
Afc<c( + D) 22 ou^s B 81 om A(+D) 23 TT,V 2 B^A om 81 (+D)
ev B om KA 81 (+D) 24 T/V av^p BA 81 (+D) a^p TJV K t/ca^or B
+rw Kvpni) B 2 ^A 81 (+D) 25 rapcrov BNA +o ^3apva/3ay 81
B avaftTijffcu B 2 NA 81 (cf. D) 26 /cat enauroj BKA eviavrov 81 (cf. D)
Antiochian 20 eXtfovres] ciffcWovres HPS5~ om /cat 2 HLPS5~(+D) 21 om
o HLPSr(+D) 22 om owi;s HLPS5"(+D) tepocroXu/xots HLPS5"
+5teX^etv HLPSr(+D) 23 om TT^ 2 HLPS^(+D)
HLPSr(+D] 24 t/cai/os] +TW KV/JIW HLPS5~(+D) 25 Taptroi ] +o
HLPS5" ai/aoTT/a-at] avafrryo-ai HLPSr (cf. D)
26 ei pwi ] +O.VTOV HLPS5~ rj-yayev] +O.VTOI> HLPS5~ auroi/s HLPSS~
om /cat before evtavrov HLPS5" (cf. D)
20 eXXyvLaras B 81 Antiochian, under discussion requires a contrast
evayyeXio-ras (error for eXXvjyKrras) K ; between Jews and non-Jews, and no
eXX^as ADK C 1518. Greeks is the reason appears why the latter should
rendering of all versions, but is not not be designated by the term Greek-
decisive as to the word in the Greek speaking persons. The specific mean-
copies used. Eusebius and Chrysostom ing Greek-speaking Jews belongs
refer to "EXX^es in this connexion, to the word only where that is clearly
but the reading of the text they used indicated by the context, as is certainly
is not thereby certainly indicated not the case here. See B. B. Warfield,
(cf. vi. 1) ; it may have been either Journal of Biblical Literature and
e\\r)vi<rTas ( Greek-speaking persons ) Exegesis, Boston, 1883, pp. 113-127.
or \\T)vas. The unusual \\Tf]vt.crTas 21 o before -marei/aa.? Bfc$A 81 minn
is probably right ; note on the part is awkward and probably to be re-
of cod. A the same tendency to alter tained. D Antiochian omit.
in Acts ix. 29, where A reads eXX^as for 23 The addition of ev B^ 181 is
eXXr/j/icrras. The context in the verse not to be accepted ; the evidence of
xi CODEX BEZAE 107
19 Ot fj,ev ovv BiacrrrapevT$ OLTTO rfjs OXeii/jeats rfjs ycvofjLevrjs OLTTO
rov Sre(/>dVou SifjXdov ecus* Ootvet /O]? /cat KuTTpou /cat Avrto-
20 Betas , fJ>V]$vi rov \6yov AaAowres 1 et fur) /xoi/ots" louSat ots 1 .
Se ruses e avrwv aVSpes* KuTrptot /cat Kup^vatot, otrtves" e
els Avrto;\;etai> eAaAow Trpos 1 rousr "EAA^va?, euayyeAtdjLtevot
21 TOy KVplOV *\J](JOVV XptCTTGn>. 7]V 8e X 6 ^/ 3 KV P^ OV /ACT* aUTCUV,
22 TToAvS" T dpldfJLOS 7TtCTTUCraS e7T(JTp6l/JV 7TL TOV KVplOV . rjKOV-
adj] Se o Aoyos 1 t? ra cora r^s" e/c/cA^crtas 1 r^s 1 v lepouo-aA^jLt
at)ra>v, /cat e^aTrecrretAav BapvajSav 8teA#eu> ecus rrj? Avrto-
/cat Trapayevojitevos /cat tScuy TT^V X^P IV TO ^ $ eo ^ ^X a P r l
/cat Trape/caAet TTOLVTOLS rfj rrpo6ecrei Trjs /capSta? TrpoajLteVetv rcu
24 /cuptcu, cvrt ^y aVi%> dya^os* /cat TrX^prjs TTVZVIJLCLTOS oryiov /cat
2 c mcrrecus . /cat Trpocreredrj o^Aos* t/cavo? TCU /cuptcu. | a/coucras 1 8e
26 ort SavAos 1 ecrrtv et? apcrov e^fjXOev dva^rjT&v avrov, f /cat cu?f
irapKaXeov eXdeiv is Avrto^etav. otrtres 1 ?rapa-
forsitam et gentibus ds paenitentiam in vitam dedit 19 illi quidem dispersi a con- <J
flictatione quae facta est sub stephano transierunt usque phoenicen et cyprum et
antiochiam nemini verbum loquentes nisi solis judaeis 20 erant autem quidam ex
ipsis viri cyprii et cyrinenses qui cum venissent antiochiam loquebantur cum craecos
evangelizare dam ihm Ipm 21 et erat manus dni cum eis multisque numeris cum
credidissent reversi sunt ad dnm 22 auditus est vero hie sermo in auribus ecclesiae
quae erat in hierusalem de eis et miserunt barnabant ut iret usque antiocham 23 qui
cum venisset et vidisset gratiam di gavisus est et adorabantur omnes ipso proposito
cordis permanere a dnm 24 quia erat vir vouus et plenus spo sancto et fidei et
adposita est turba copiosa ad dnm 25 audiens autern quod saulus est tharso exiit
requirere eum 26 et cum invenissent depraecabantur venire antiochiam contigit vero
25-26 a/covcras Se . . . <rvvexvdr)(rai>] mg quum audivisset autem Saulum esse Harclean
Tarsi, exiit ad quaerendum eum. qui, quum collocutus esset cum eo, persuasit
eum venire Antiochiam. quum venissent autem, annum integrum con^regati
sunt
vg (in domino), (d) perp (ad dominuin], /ecu (to which hol.mgf seems to point,
and of sah ( in ) boh ( in ) does not cf. vs. 23). Both perp and hcl.wit/
necessarily point to the presence of show by the following sentence that
the preposition in the underlying (unlike gig vg) they are rendering the
Greek. With ev the phrase, if not Western text. oxXo? LKO.VOV may
due to translation, would probably have been clumsily introduced from
have to be taken in the characteristic the B-text, and thus have supplanted
Pauline sense, nowhere else found in a previous appropriate rt] eKKXyffta (so
Acts (iv. 2, xiii. 39 are different). perp vg.cod.lt m s) ; but it is perhaps
Cf. xiii. 43 irpofrnevfiv TT) x a P<- ri - more likely (Zahn) that in D (also d,
26 The Western text of vs. 26 in D in part) the words rt] eKK\T)<na. /cat
is corrupt, but can be restored with fStdaaKov (cf. perp vg.cod.Jt m s} have
the help of perp gig (in part) and dropped out between aw^xyQ^ffav and
hcl.?n<7. For KCU ws we may substitute o^Ao? IKO.VOV. Note the different forms
w /cat (with support of perp vg quern of the text in D and d. For
cum invenisset] or, more probably, os /xartcrej/ D we should read -av.
108 CODEX VATICANUS xi-xn
eviavrov o\ov <Jvva )(B f]VCLi ev rfj e/c/cATycrta /cat StSa^at o%Xov LKCLVOV,
XpTjfjLaricrai re rrpa)ra)s ev Avrto^eta rovs fiaOrjrds XpetoTtafous-.
Ev OLVTCUS oe rat? rjfjiepais KarfjXOov diro lepocroAu/zcuv 27
7rpo(j>fjrcu els ^ Avrio-^eiav dvacrras oe ets 1 e auTa>t> oi/o/zan 28
"Ayafios earjfJLawev Sta rou irvevfjiaros Aet/^ov p,eyd\f]v ju-e AAetv
ecreadcu, e< oA^v T7)i> oiKOVfJievrjv rjns eyevero em KAau8t ou.
rtuv Se fiad^Tajv Kadais evTropelro ns topicrav eKacrros CLVT&V els 29
Sta/covtW 7re/x0at rots* KCLTOIKOVCFLV eV rij louSata a8eA^>ot?
o /<:at eTToirjcrav aTroareiXavTes Trpos rovs Trpeafivrepovs OLOL x et /o? 30
/cat SavAou.
Kar eKeivov Se rov Kaipov eTrefiaXev UpwBrjs o fiacnXevs ras XII
KOLKwaat, rwas rajv OLTTO rrjs e/c/cAi](7tas . aVetAev 8e la- 2
Kaifiov rov doeXfiov Iwdvov fAOftdifyfl. t8cov Se ort dpecrrov eanv 3
rot? louSatots* rrpoaeOero crvXXapelv KCL\ Herpov, rjcrav Se Ty/xepat
ov /cat mdaas eQero els <^uAa/c7yv, TrapaSovs recraap- 4
Editors 26 cruvaxtfTjj cu] avi xvd rjvai JHR Xpicrrtafous WH Soden
27 aurcus] rawTats WH Soden JHR 28 ear) paw WHmg Soden JHR
3 [cu] r)[j.epat. Soden
Old Uncial 26 7rporra>5 BX irpurov A 81 (+D) ei/ a^rto%eia BX 81 (+D) eu
avrtoxetav A X/ )ei rrtaj/OL s B (cf. D) xP r l" riai ovs & 81 xpLffriavovs A
27 aurais B ravrais KA 81 (+D) 28 effijfiaiifev B ecnwavev XA 81
29 wpto-a^ BX 81 (+D) wpurej/ A 30 jcat 1 BX a A 81 (+D) +o X
1 ripwS-rjs o /3a<rtXei>5 BA(+D) o j9a<rtXeu5 rjpu5r)<s X 81 3 C<TTIV BAX C 81
(+D) om X tjfMepai. BX at Tj/xepcu A 81 (+D) 4 irapadovs BX 81 (+D)
irapa.dt.5ovs A
Antiochian 26 om e^ before TT; eKK\r)<na HLPS Trpwrov HLPS5"(+D)
XpiffTiavovs HLPS5" 27 aurcus] rayrats HLPS5~(+D) 28
HLPSS~ peyav HLPS5~(+D) TJTIS] oaris /cat HLPS5~
+/caicrapos HLPS5~ 30 o] 01 L 3 i5wv Sc] /cat tSwy HLPSS~(+D)
at y/JLepai S(+D)
26 The singular word avvex^6r]arav D in monte ii. 37, De prophetiis, etc.),
is represented by commisceri gig (d), containing the first person ijfiuv.
commiscuerunt se perp vg.cod.jR m %, and Otherwise the addition does not differ
perhaps by conversati sunt vg. May in character from the Western ex
it be the original verb for which pansions in general, and it has in
awaxBijvai has been substituted in all fact no greater claim than they to
other texts? If a merely accidental acceptance. Elsewhere we means
error, so strange a variant would seem Paul and his companions ; in this
hardly likely to perpetuate itself. instance, the church at Antioch.
The omission by the Antiochian text Apparently the reviser was aware of
of ev before TIJ eKK\T)crt.a, difficult to the tradition connecting the author of
explain if the verb was ffwax^W - 1 ) the book with Antioch. See Harnack,
may point to an original ffMrxuftgro*. Sitzungsberichte, Berlin Academy, 1899,
27, 28 The Western text is notable pp. 316-327.
for the addition, widely attested in 28 e<j)-rj(r r)fj.aii>uj>fo ravaffTasecnr)fJ.aii>cv
Latin (including perp Aug. serm. dom. is found in D d alone, and Zahn argues
xi-xn CODEX BEZAE 109
yvo\L.voi eviavrov oXov avvexvOrjaav fo^Ao!/ t/cavdvf , /cat TOT
TrpaJrov expr)fi,dTLcrai> ev Ai/no^eia ot /za^rat Xpetcrrtai/ot.
27 Ev raurats" Se rats 1 i^tepats 1 KarijXdov OLTTO
28 TTpo^rJTai etV Avrto^etav, T^V Se TroXXr) dyaAAt ao-t? *
fjLva>v Se rjjJL&v <j>r) et? ef aurcDv oVd/xart "Aya/fos
Std rou 7TVVfjLaTos Aet/zoV jLteyav p,eX\iv eo*ecr$at (>
29 oiKOVfJLvr]V rjns eyeVero eVt KAauStou. ot 8e fiadr^
V7TOpOVVTO <Z)pl<JCLV Ka.(7TOS GLVTWV ds Sta/COVtW 7TfJilfjai TOt?
30 KaroiKovaw ev rfj louSttta dSeA</>ot* o /cat eTrot^c/av aTro-
o-reiAavre? TT/OOS* rous 1 Trpeafivrepovs 8ta ^ctpos" Bapvdfia /cat
SauAou.
XII Kar eKelvov 8e rov /catpov eVejSaAev ras" x ^P a ^ H/oajSr^? o
jSaortAeus" KaKcijcrai rwas TOJV drro rfjs e/c/cA^crtas 1 eV r^ TouSata.
2, 3 /cat dvetAev Id/cct>/8ov rov a,8eA^>ov Icocivou /xa^atpa. /cat t Sa>i>
ort dpecrrov ecrrtv rot? louSatots* 97 eTrt^etpT^crts aurou 77t rous"
Tncrrovs TTpocredero avvXapziv /cat HeVpov, ^aav 8e at
4 d^vfjiCDV Tovrov Tridcras eBero els <f>v XOLKTJV, TrapaSous"
26 X/ 37 7/ xaTtcrV 28 CTTy/xevcov 30 aTrocrretAao-res
3
eis annum totum cominiscere ecclesiam et tune primum nuncupati sunt in antiochia d
discipulos christianos 27 in istis autem diebus advenerunt ab hierosolymis prophetae
in antiochiam erant autem magna exultatio 28 reverteutibus autem nobis ait unus
ex ipsis nomine agabus significabat per spin famem magnam futuram esse in toto orbe
terrae quae fuit sub claudio 29 discipuli autem sicut prout copiam singuli autem
ipsorum in ministerium mittere hiis qui inhabitant in jiulaea fratribus 30 quod
etiam fecerunt curn misissent ad presbyteros per manum barnabae et sauli
1 per ilium vero temporis inmisit manus suas herodes rex maletractare quosdam
qui erant ab ecclesia in judaea 2 et iuterfecit jacobum fratrem johannis gladio
3 et cum vidisset quod placeret hoc judaeis conpraehensio ejus super credentes
adjecit adpraehendere et petrum erant autem dies asymorum 4 hunc adprehensum
posuit in carcerem traditum quattuor quaternionibus militu custodire eum volens
1 ev T7) louSata] -X- quae erat in Judaea ^ 3 77 e7rtxetp7?crts avrov Trt Harclean
TOVS TTLVTOVS] nig aggrcssus ejus in fideles
with much force and acuteness that D and d constitute but one witness.
the Western text originally read (2) e0rj <rrj/j.aivut> is inherently difficult,
aveaTT] (njfj.aivui (cf. vg surgens signi- since the oratio obliqua clearly de])ends
ficabat). His reasoning is as follows : on vt)n.a.i.vuv. (John xviii. 32, xxi. 19
(1) For <rr)/j.aiv(jji> d has significabat. are different.) (3) In perp vg.cod.R
Since this is incompatible with the De proph. we find qui significabat^ a
preceding ait of d, the latter word has reading not easily explained unless a
probably been introduced to conform finite verb had once preceded in place
to the Greek side, and has taken the of surgens.
place of surgens, proper to that Latin fjieyav . . . ijrts D is due to an incom-
(vulgate type) on which d was here plete correction (cf. /j.eya\Tjv . . . rjris
based. Consequently, for e0?j ait BKA 81 ; fj-eyav . . . ocms Antiochiau).
110 CODEX VATICANUS xn
oiv rerpaoiois arpanojr&v (f>vXdao~iv avrov t ^ovXofjicvos ju,era ro
TracTx - dvayayelv avrov ra> Aaa>. d /zev ovv Utrpos errjpelro ev 5
rfj (ftvXaKrj TTpoaevx T) Se fjv i<rVtos yetvo/zeV^ VTTO rrjs e/c/cA^CTta?
Tre/ot avrov. ore Se TJjJLeXXev Trpoaayayelv avrov 6 HpaK^s", 6
rfj vvKrl Kivrj r\v d Herpos /cot/xto/zevos" /zera^u ovo crrparicoraiv
O0fJivos aXvuzviv ovo~iv, <f>vXaKs re 77/30 rfjs 6vpas ertjpovv rrjv
(frvXaKr jv. /cat t Sot) ayyeAos 1 Kvpiov eVe oTT?, /cat <^a>s- eAa/xi/fev eV 7
TO) ot/c^/zart* Trara^a? 8e TT)V rrXcvpav rov Ylerpov rjyeipcv avrov
Xeyajv Avacrra ev ra^et- /cat e^errecrav avrov at aAucret? e/c
TOJV ")(ipwv. zlrrev 8e d ayyeAos 1 rrpos avrov ZcoCTat /cat WTroSucrat 8
ra cravSaAta croir erroirjaev 8e ovrws. /cat Aeyet avraj Ilept-
jSaAou TO t/zartoV aou /cat aKoXovOei /xot /cat e^XOajv rjKoXovOei, 9
/cat ou/c ^et ort dXrjOes lo~riv ro yeivoptvov 8ta rou dyyeAou,
eSd/cet 8e opapa pXerreiv. SieXdovres Se rrpwrrjv (f>vXaKrjV /cai 10
oevrepav rjXOav errl rr\v rrvXrfV rr/v Giorjpav rrjv (f)epovo~av els rr/v
TrdAtv, ^rts- avrofjidrrj rjvolyrj avrols, /cat e^eA^ovre? rrpofjXOov
pvp,rjv fjiiav, /cat evdews arrearrj 6 ayyeAos 0,77 avrov. /cat d n
10 rjvvyr]
Editors 5 e/cre^^s Soden eK/cX^crias] +?rpos rov foo^ WH Soden JHR
6 7rpo(ra7a7eiJ>] Trpoayayav WHmg Soden JHR 8 5e 1] re Soden
vtroSvcrai] virodrjaat. WH Soden JHR
Old Uncial 4 avayayeiv BN 81 (+D) ayayeiv A 5 e/crevws B^A vid e/crev^s A 2 81
yeivo/J-evri Bt<A yevo/j,evr) 81 enKXyaias B +7r/3os TOV ^eov fc<A 81 (+D)
Trept BKA 2 81 (+D) WIT (?) A 6 irpoffayayew B irpoayayeiv A 81 (cf. D)
irpoffayew K (cf. D) TTJS ^upas BK 81 (+D) TT? tfi/pa A 8 5e 1
B(+D) re 5<A 81 virodvaai B virodTjarai B 2 ^A 81 (+D) OUTWS
BKA(+D) ofros 81 9 i)Ko\ov6et B{<A 81 (+D) +aura> K c yeivopevov
BA(+D) yevopevov 81 5ia BK 81 (+D) UTTO A de BA C 81 om
10 5e BA(+D) om 81 eis BKA(+D) eTrt 81 airearr] BK 81 (+D)
atrrjKQev A
Antiochian 5 t/crev^s HLPSS" yevop.evq P eKK\r)<nas] +irpos rov deov
HLPSS"(+D) Trept] yircp HLPS5" 6 TrpoaayayeLv avrov] avrov
jrpoayeiv HLPS5~(+D) 8 de 1] re LP" Trpos avrov o ayye\os L
fwtrat] Trepifwo-ai HLPS5" UTroSixrai] vTrod-rjffai HLPSS~(+D) 9 om
/cat e%e\duv rjxoXovdei P ^KoXou^et] -fauTW HLSr yevofj-evov L
5ia] UTTO H 10 om 5e S om rt\v <J>epov<rav eis rt]v iroKiv L
HLPSr TrpoTjXtfoj ] TrpoarjXBov L(+D)
4 Hcl.in^ gives asceiidere facere vg.cod hcl-X-. The relation of this
(avayayeiv) as a substitute for body to the sixteen soldiers of vs. 4
tradere of the text. Perhaps this is not plain.
rendering of the text (with which The omission of yii>o/j.evr) in D is
pesh agrees) rested on ayayeiv A minn. probably accidental. All Latin codices
5 <f>v\aKT]] + a cohorte regis perp except d read fiebat.
CODEX BEZAE 111
arpariwrwv (/>vXdaa<>iv , povXofJicvos jueTa TO Tracr^a
5 dvayayetv avrov rat Xato. o [LV ovv Herpos Irrfpelro cv rfj
<f>vXaKrj TToXXr) O TTpoacvx r) rjv v e/CTei>et a 7Tpi avrov 0,77-0 rrjs
; 6 KK\r)aias irpos rov Ocov J \TTpl avrov^ . ore Se ejueAAev rfpodytiv
avrov HpaJSi??, rij WKrel e/cetVi) r\v o IleT/oo? /cot/zcoju-evos 1
fj,erav ovo crrpariojrwv OOfJivos dXvacai SucrtV, (f>vXaK$ Se
7 TTpo TiJ? Ovpas erijpovv rj]v </>vXaKr]v. /cat t Sou ayyeAos" Kvpiov
7Teo*T7^ TO) IleTjoa;, /cat ^a)? 7TXafjnfjv ra> oiK^fjuart, vvas O
rj]V TrXcvpav rov Herpov tfycipev avrov Xeyaiv Avdcrra ev Ta^ef
8 /cat ^7Taav at dAucrets e/c TCOV ^Eipajv avrov. eirrev oe 6 ayyeAo?
Trpos avrov Zaicrat /cat UTrdSTycrat Ta cravSaAta 0*01; ITTOLTJO ^V 8e
ouTCus". /cat Aeyet auTo)* TLcpifiaXov TO tjjidriov aov /cat a/coAou^et
9 jLtot * /cat ^eX6ajv riKoXovOei, /cat ot)/c ^8et OTt aA^^e? eo-Ttv TO
10 yetvo/zevov Sta TOU ayyeAou, eSo/cet ya/D opapa jSAeTietv. SteA-
^OVTS" Se irpwrrjV /cat Scvrepav (frvXaKrjv rjXdov ITTL rrjv TrvXrjv rrjv
criorjpdv rj\v (frepovcrav ts rrjv TroAtv, T^Tt? avrofidrrj rjvoLyr) avrols,
/cat e^cXBovres Karefirjaav rovs t, fiadfjiovs /cat rrpoar]\0av pvfjt,7]v
11 /Lttav, /cat v6<DS a.rci<jrr\ o ayyeAos" CITT* avrov. /cat o neV/aos 1 ev
6 Kotyxov/xcvos 10 r^vvyrj
post pascha producers eum populo 5 vero petrus custodiebatur in carcere multa d
vero oratio erat instantissime pro eo ab ecclesia ad dum super ipso 6 ad vero cum
incipiebat prodocere eum herodes nocte ilia erat petrus dormiens inter duos milites
ligatus catenis duabus vigiles autem ante ostium adservabant carcerem 7 et ecce
angelus dni adsistit petro et lux refulgens in illo loco pungens autem latus petri
suscitavit eum dicens surge cilerius et ceciderunt ejus catenae de manibus 8 dixit
autem angelus ad eum praecinge te et calciate calciauienta tua fecit autem sic et dicit
ei operi te vestimentum tuum et sequere me 9 et cum exisset sequebatur et non
sciebat quia verum est quod fiebat per angelum putabat enim visum videre 10 cum
praeterissent primam et secundam custodiam venerunt ad portam ferream quae ducit
in civitatem quae sua sponte aperta est eis et cum exissent descenderunt septem
grados et processerunt gradum unum et continue discessit angelus ab eo 11 et
4 ava-yayeiv] ing ascendere iacere 5 <j>v\a.KTJ\ + -x- a cohorte regis V Harclean
7 TO) Trerpw] -X- Petro v? eTreXayu^e^] + mg ab eo 9 5ta] mg ab
11 Kat o irerpos] mg tune Petrus
Trepi ^vTov 2 D is conflation. Perp 10 The seven steps of D d perp
has it only in the earlier position. (descenderunt grades, without septem)
7 For hcl.mg ab eo cf. eir avrov, seems to imply local knowledge not
which minn substitute for ev rco to be drawn from the B-text. Cf.
oiKTj/icm, and ab eo perp gig Lucif, xxi. 35, 40. Ezek. xl. 22, 26, 31
in varying positions but in each case furnishes no satisfactory explanation,
in addition to the rendering of ev ru 11 For hcl.mg cf. rare o
ot/cT/jium. 1611 perp.
112 CODEX VATICANUS xn
Herpes ev aura) yevd/zevos etWev Nw otSa aXr/Ows ore ea7r-
eo - retAei> d KVpios rov ayyeAov avroO /cat e et Aard /xe e/c X 1 P OS
/cat TraoTys" rijs" TrpoaooKLas rot? Aaou ran> > Iov8ata>.
re r]\0ev eVt rrjv ot/ctav r^s" Maptas r^? ft^rpds" IcodVou 12
ro 7TLKaXovfJiVOV Map/cou, ou ^crav t/cavot owT^potcr/xeVot /cat
Kpovcravros 8e avrou TT^V Ovpav rov TrvX&vos 13
rraioicrKr] VTTCLKOVGOLI ovo^ari PdSr;, /cat emyvouora TT^V 14
rov Ylerpov OLTTO rrjs X a P<*- s OVK ^voi^ev rov irvXajva, etcr-
opafjiovaa oe aTrrj yyeiXev earavai rov Herpov Trpo rou TrvAcDj/os 1 .
| ot Se ?rpo? avrrjv etTrav MatV^. 77 Se Stto-^uptfero ovruis l^etv. 15
ot 8e etTrav f O ayyeAos 1 ecrrtv aurou. | d Se Herpos 1 eTre/xevev 16
Kpovojv dvot^avres" 8e etSav az5rdv /cat e^ecrr^crav. /caraoretcras 1 17
8e avrot? TTy X i P^ GZLy&v StTyyTycraro awrots" Trais 1 d /cupto? avrdv
e^Tyyayev e/c r^s" <f>vXa,Krjs , etWeV re* A-Trayyet Aare Ia/cc6j3a> /cat
rots aSeA^ots 1 ravra. /cat ^X6ojv erropevdr] et? erepov TOTTOV.
yevo/xeV^s 1 Se rjfj,pas rjv rapa^o? ou/c dAtyo? ey rot? crrpartcorats 1 , 18
rt apa d rierpos" eyeVero. HpajSTy? Se eTTt^r^cras aurd^ /cat 19
/XT) vpa)v dvaKpeivas rovs <f>vXai<as e/ceAeuaev aTra^^iJvat, /cat
/careA^a>^ a7rd TTjs 4 louSatas et? KatcrapetW SterpetjSev.
T Hv Se OvfJiOfJiax&v Tuptot? /cat ZetSaWots * 6p,o9vfJiao6v oe 20
Editors 11 aurw] eaurw WH Soden JHR om o 2 WHmg Soden 12 [TTJS 1]
Soden 13 irpoarjKde} irpor)\6e WHmg 15 etTraJ/ 2] eXeYOi/ WH
Soden JHR etTrav WHmg aiTOf cffriv Soden
Old Uncial 11 aurw B eauru KA 81 (+D) o 2 B om XA 81 (+D) rov
Xaov BK 81 (+D) om A 12 re Btf 5e A 81 13 Kpovaavros BtfA
Kpovvavres 81 ( + D) 7rpoa"ij\6e BA 81 (+D) irpotjXde B 2 K VTraKovtrat
BX iX A 81 (+D) U7ra/couova-a K 15 etTrai 2 B eXe7(w XA 81 (+D)
o BAX C 81 (+D) om X ecrra airrou BKA aurou eari/ K c 81 (+D)
17 KaraffCLcras de aurois Bt< 81 (+D) /caraa-etcravTos 5e aurou A aurois 2 B(+D)
om KA 81 o Kvptos avrov e^Tjyayev BK (+D) O.VTOV o Kvpios e^yayev A
o Kvpws efryayev avTov 81 19 5e BK81 (+D) re A Sierpet/Sev BN
81 (+D) dieTpitcv A
Antiochian 11 ei/ aurw Yez/o/Aeyos] yevopevos ev eaurw HLPS5" (cf. D) om o 2
HLPSr(+D) + K before Trao-T/s S 12 re]+ o -jrerpos P
om rr;s before /iaptas HLPS5~ 13 airroi/] row Trerpou HS5~ 15
2] eXe70i HLPS5"(+D) avrov effrtv HLPSr(+D) 17 re] 5e
(S def) (+D) 19 ryv Kaicrapeiav HLPS5" 20 t]v de] + o rjpwdrjs HLPS5"
12 For hcl -x-fratres cf. a5e\0ot 614 lie could detect e[]w (so also Wetstein),
minn. and that TrvXuvos was too long for the
13 In the rasura of Codex Bezae space, d has /orz s, with no other word
Blass (St.Kr. 1898, pp. 540 f.) thought to represent 7rv\uvos.
XII
CODEX BEZAE 113
12
eavra) yzvo^vos etWv Nw of8a ort dAi^eD? efaTre crretAev Kvpios
rov ayyeXov avrov /cat e^eiXaro />te e/c x i P$ H/oaj8ou /cat Traces
T^S" TTpoaooKeias rov Xaov ra>v lovoaiatv. /cat owetScov rjXdev
Ircl rrjv ot/cetW r^s" MaptW r^s 1 ju^rpos- IcodVov ro em/caAou/xeVou
<M>ap/cou, ou TJorav LKavol crvvrjdpoiafjLevoi, /cat rrpo(jvxo^voi.
! 13 Kpovoravros 8e aurou r^v 6vpav rov [ ....... ] TTpocrTjXOev
| 14 TratStW?} ovo^an *P6or) UTra/coucrat, /cat eiriyvovcra TTJV </>ajvr]V
rov Herpov arro rfjs X a P^ OVK fyoif* rov WwAcSva, /cat et(T-
j 15 opafjiovo-a Se aTT-TyyyetAe^ earavat Ilerpov TT/DO rou TruAajvos". o<t>
Se e[Ae]yov avrrj- Maivrf. r) oe Sttcr^upt^ero ovra>s e^tv. ot
16 8e eAeyov rrpos avrTJv Ttr^ov o ayyeAo? auroy eartv. o 8e TT-
e[jLVV Kpovcov efavoif avres" Se /cat t Sovre? aurov /cat e^eorr^orav.
17 /caracreto-as" Se aurots* r^ X et P^ * va o eiya[cra>]crti clcrrjXOev /cat
St^yTycjaro aurots 1 TTO)? o Kvpios avrov ef^yaye^ e/c TT^? (f>vXa,Kfjs
eiTTev oe ATravyetAare la/cco^aj /cat rots 1 aSeA^ots 1 ravra. /cat
1 8 e^eXOajv eTropevdrj els erepov roTrov. yevo^evj]? 8e
19 rapa^os" eV rot? arpanajrais, ri dpa 6 Herpos" eyeVero.
8e eVt^TTJo-as 1 aurov /cat /XT) eupcbv avaKpelvas rovs
K\VG.v a7r[o]/c[r]av^i/at, /cat KareXdwv OLTTO rfjs louSata?
Kato-apatW SterptjSe^.
20 ^Hv yap dvjJLOiJLa-xaJv Tvptois /cat StScuvtots* ot 8e
12 napKov] apKov, but possibly 1st hand added /x 13 /cpov-
14 fvv 15
petrus in se conversus dixit nunc scio quia vere misit dns angelum suum et eripuit
me de manibus herodis et omni expectation! populi judaeorum 12 et cum con-
siderasset venit ad domum mariae matris johannis qui cognominatur niarcus uhi
erant copiosi coacervati et orantes 13 cumquc ipse pulsasset januam foris accessit
puella nomine rhode respondere 14 et cum cognovisset vocem petri a gaudio non
aperuit januam et adcurrens autem admmtiavit stare petrum ante januam 15 ad
illi ad earn dixerunt insanis ad ilia vero perseverabat ita esse qui autem dixerunt ad
earn forsitam angelus ejus est 16 ipse vero perseverabat pulsaus et cum aperuisset
viderunt eunt et obstupuerunt 17 cumquc significasset eis de manu xit silerent
introiens eterrabit eis quemadmodum dns eum liveravit de carcere dixit autem
renuntiate jacobo et fratribus haec et egressus abiit in alium 18 facto autem die
erat turbatio in militibus quid petrus factus esset 19 herodes vero cum irequisisset
eum et uon invenisse interrogatione habita vigiles jussit obduci et cum descendisset a
judaea in caesaraeam demorabatur 20 erat enim animus iupugnans tyrios et sidonios
12 rjffav] erant -X- fratres yf 14 Tji/ot^e] + -X- ei ^ 17 eia-r]\Qtv /cai Harclean
avrois] -X- ingressus est et narravit iis ^ 20 01 5e] mg hi autera
14 For hcl -x- ei cf. avrw 1518 e perp gig Lucif, and may be an addition
(E) pesh. to th 
