Skip to main content

Full text of "Codex Bezae : a study of the so-called Western text of the New Testament"

See other formats 


\    STUDIA     IN 


THE  LIBRARY 

of 
VICTORIA  UNIVERSITY 

Toronto 


TEXTS    AND    STUDIES 

CONTRIBUTIONS   TO 

BIBLICAL   AND   PATRISTIC   LITERATURE 


EDITED    BY 

J.   ARMITAGE   ROBINSON    B.D. 

FELLOW  OF  CHRIST'S  COLLEGE  CAMBRIDGE 
NORRISIAX  PROFESSOR  OF  DIVINITY 


VOL     It. 


A   STUDY   OF  CODEX   BEZAE 

THE   TESTAMENT   OF   ABRAHAM 

APOCRYPHA   ANECDOTA 


CAMBRIDGE 

AT   THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 
1893 


Reprinted  by  permission  of  the  original  publisher 

KRAUS  REPRINT  LIMITED 

Nendeln/Liechtenstein 

1967 


Printed  in  Germany 
Lessing-Druckerei  -  Wiesbaden 


TEXTS    AND    STUDIES 

CONTRIBUTIONS  TO 

BIBLICAL  AND  PATRISTIC  LITERATURE 


EDITED    BY 

J.  ARMITAGE  ROBINSON   B.D. 

FELLOW  OF  CHRIST'S  COLLEGE  CAMBRIDGE 


VOL.  II. 


No.  1.      A  STUDY  OF   CODEX  BEZAE 


CAMBRIDGE 

AT    THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS 

1891 


Reprinted  by  permission  of  the  original  publisher 

KRAUS  REPRIN?T   LIMITED 

Nendeln 'Liechtenstein 

1967 


UonDon:    C.  J.  CLAY  AND  SONS, 

CAMBBIDGE   UNIVEKSITY  PEESS   WABEHOUSE, 

AVE   MAEIA  LANE. 


DEIGHTON,  BELL  AND  CO. 
ILetpjig:  F.  A.  BROCKHAUS. 

fjiefo  gorfe :  MACMILLAN  AND  CO. 


CODEX    BEZAE 


A  STUDY   OF   THE   SO-CALLED   WESTERN   TEXT 
OF  THE   NEW   TESTAMENT 


BY 


J.    RENDEL    HARRIS 


FORMERLY   FELLOW   OF   CLARE   COLLEGE    CAMBRIDGE 

AND   NOW   PROFESSOR   OF   BIBLICAL   LANGUAGES   AND   LITERATURE    IN 

HAVERFORD   COLLEGE    PENNSYLVANIA 


CAMBRIDGE 

AT   THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 
1891 


v.  2, 

f\Ot 

\  s\  i    ** 
\  a  UD 

iMMANUIL 

STOR 


31431 


"Qiiis  enim  sanae  mentis  homo  Cod.  D  sequatur?" 

MATTHAEI. 

"The  Codex  Bezae  sets  criticism  at  defiance." 

MlDDLETON. 

"The  singular  Codex." 

ELLICOTT. 


PKEFACE. 


present  treatise  is  the  result  of  an  attempt  to  solve  the 
textual  enigmas  which  recur  so  constantly  in  the  pages  of  the 
Codex  Bezae.  We  are  advised  by  Dr  Hort  that  "knowledge  of 
documents  must  precede  final  judgment  about  readings"  ;  and 
certainly  there  never  was  a  text  where  our  knowledge  was  so 
imperfect,  and  where  a  right  understanding  was  so  imperative. 
The  Codex  Bezae  in  some  passages  shews  an  accuracy  of  transcrip 
tion  which  is  quite  exceptional;  in  others  it  displays  a  laxity  of 
reading  which  is  simply  appalling.  Everyone  knows  and  admits 
this,  but  no  one  has  found  a  scientific  method  for  separating  the 
precious  from  the  vile,  "  the  good  fish  from  the  other  fry." 

I  have  therefore  undertaken  to  re-examine  the  manuscript  and 
write  the  life  -history  of  its  text  :  and  in  doing  this  I  have  found 
that  what  I  had  long  suspected  but  scarcely  dared  to  say  was 
indeed  true  ;  namely,  that  the  textual  critics  of  modern  times 
have  in  certain  directions  overbuilt  their  foundations,  and  run 
ahead  of  their  proofs.  And  it  will  be  seen  from  the  following 
pages  that  if  New  Testament  criticism  is  to  progress  with  any 
confidence,  we  must  retire  in  order  to  advance  ;  we  must  go  back 
again  to  positions  clearly  defined  by  Mill  and  Wetstein,  deserting 
the  theories  which  underlie  the  majority  of  the  texts  published  in 
later  days. 


Vlli  PREFACE. 

I  can  well  believe  that  the  mere  suggestion  of  the  necessity  of 
a  backward  step  in  criticism  will  be  received  by  many  with  an 
incredulous  smile  :  they  will  say  what  Dione  said  of  Diomed, 

injirios,  ovde  TO  oiSe  KOTO,  <frptva  Tvdtos  inor, 
cm  ftoX'  ov  drjvaios  09  d&avdrouri 


To  such  I  can  make  but  this  reply  :  that  every  other  textual 
hypothesis  has  been  worn  threadbare  before  it  has  been  discarded: 
that  I  have  adopted  the  present  theory  only  after  a  long  and 
careful  investigation:  and  that  I  am  confident  that  it  will  be 
found  that  the  present  re-statement  of  an  ancient  interpretation 
will  lead  to  a  permanent  simplification  of  the  perplexities  of 
the  New  Testament  text. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  ON  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

IT  may  be  assumed  that  the  search  after  the  primitive  form  of 
the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  in  particular  of  the  four 
Gospels,  will  demand  the  service  of  many  minds,  that  have  under 
gone  very  diverse  forms  of  training.  There  must  be  a  wide 
acquaintance  with  languages,  if  we  are  to  understand  the  bearing 
of  the  Versions  upon  the  restoration  of  the  text,  and  give  their 
evidence  the  right  weight ;  there  must  be  a  keen  Semitic  feeling 
which  is  able  to  distinguish  the  Syriasm  imported  by  a  translator 
from  that  which  belongs  to  the  primitive  apostolic  idiom,  or  to 
restore  the  latter  against  editorial  refinement;  there  must  be  a 
close  study  of  the  palaeography  of  the  scripts  which  are  involved 
in  the  problem ;  and  this  study  must  further  be  balanced  by 
an  acquaintance  with  the  laws  of  phonetic  change,  so  that  we 
may  not  refer  rare  forms,  when  we  meet  with  them,  to  mere 
accident  or  to  the  negligence  of  scribes.  And  in  the  grouping  of 
the  evidence  and  the  estimation  of  the  relative  value  of  the 
possible  solutions  of  the  problem,  a  quick  imagination  must  be 
side  by  side  with  a  subtle  reasoning  power  on  the  judgment-seat. 
It  is  too  much  to  expect  that  all  of  these  forms  of  fitness  for 
critical  work  should  be  found  in  one  person  or  in  one  school :  each 
of  the  great  New  Testament  scholars  has  his  weak  side ;  every 
successive  school  persists  in  neglecting  some  part  or  other  of  the 
evidence :  and  yet  in  spite  of  the  slow  steps  by  which  the  Textual 
Criticism  of  the  New  Testament  is  advancing,  we  are  satisfied 
that  it  will  not  be  long  before  resolute  and  patient  labour  will 
pluck  the  heart  out  of  some  of  the  mysteries  which  characterize 
the  subject :  the  fields  being  white  to  the  harvest,  we  may  con 
gratulate  ourselves  that  the  reapers  are  also  ripening. 

c.  B.  1 


2        INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  ON  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

The  object  of  this  tract  is  to  supply  the  workers  with  some 
fresh  suggestions  as  to  the  handling  of  the  central  problem  of  the 
criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  viz.  the  origin  and  meaning  of 
the  so-called  Western  Text.  It  is  recognized  that  the  earliest 
Eastern  and  Western  witnesses  to  which  we  have  access  are  cha 
racterized  by  a  family  likeness  in  their  evidence:  the  Old  Latin 
and  the  Old  Syriac  Versions  of  the  Gospels  bear  witness  to  the 
diffusion  of  such  a  type  of  text  in  early  times  as  we  find  in  the 
Greek  of  the  Codex  Bezae  :  but  all  speculation  as  to  the  origin  of 
this  eccentric  text  has  hitherto  been  unfruitful ;  we  have  run  up 
against  a  dead  wall,  and  to  all  appearance  the  wall  is  a  pretty 
thick  one.  No  one  knows  how  this  Western  text  came  into  being : 
we  can  indeed  see  it  gradually  corrected  out  of  existence,  or  ab 
sorbed  into  revised  texts  both  in  the  East  and  West;  but  its 
genesis  is  an  enigma.  It  is  clearly  not  altogether  apostolic,  for 
the  interpolations  which  it  contains  resist  such  an  inference ;  yet 
we  cannot  prove  that  it  is  unapostolic,  for  its  antiquity  is  indis 
putable.  Nor  has  the  problem  been  rendered  much  easier  by  the 
recovery  of  the  literature  connected  with  the  Tatian  harmony :  we 
may  be  sure  that  Tatian's  text  was  Western,  but  whether  it  was 
Western  in  cause  or  effect,  or  both  in  cause  and  effect,  is  still 
unknown. 

Now,  in  order  to  make  the  investigation  a  little  easier,  I  pro 
pose  to  attack  the  question  just  at  the  hardest  point :  to  make  a 
new  examination  of  the  Western  text  in  its  leading  monument, 
the  great  Cambridge  manuscript,  known  as  Codex  Bezae,  and  to 
challenge  it  once  again  to  tell  its  history. 


The  Codex  Bezae  in  the  Sixteenth  Century. 

It  is  well  known  that  there  have  been  very  diverse  opinions  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  MS.  itself,  to  say  nothing  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  text.  Kipling,  who  edited  the  text  so  excellently  for  his 
day,  was  of  opinion  that  the  MS.  had  an  Egyptian  origin :  in  this 
belief  he  was  followed  by  Schulz,  who  emphasised  the  same  view 
in  a  valuable  little  dissertation  on  the  subject.  On  tho  other 
hand,  the  moderns  usually  follow  Scholz  and  Scrivener  in  the 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  ON  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

opinion  that  the  MS.  is  of  Gallican  origin,  the  Greek  text  being 
occasionally  affected  by  Latin  forms1,  and  the  Latin  translation 
being  vitiated  by  all  sorts  of  decaying  modes  of  speech,  which 
intimate  that  the  scribe  was  writing  in  the  provinces,  probably  to 
the  west  of  the  Alps,  and  at  a  time  when  the  Latin  speech  was 
breaking  up.  So  that  it  is  generally  held  that  the  Codex  Bezae 
was  written  in  the  Rhone  Valley,  probably  at  Lyons  where,  ac 
cording  to  Beza,  it  was  found ;  and  that  it  never  was  out  of 
France  (unless  it  be  for  a  possible  visit  to  the  Council  of  Trent, 
whither  it  is  said  to  have  been  carried  by  a  French  bishop)  until 
it  was  presented  by  Beza  to  the  University  of  Cambridge  in  the 
year  A.D.  1581.  And  while  the  reasons  for  these  conclusions  are 
not  perfectly  decisive,  they  are  cumulative  and  in  the  main 
convincing.  Accordingly  I  shall  not  repeat  in  detail  the  argu 
ments,  which  may  be  found  in  Scrivener's  edition  of  the  MS.  or  in 
any  good  textual  handbook :  our  task  lies  in  another  direction.  I 
am  willing  to  grant  the  hypothesis  of  the  Gallican  origin  of  Codex 
Bezae  as  a  basis  upon  which  to  build :  if  the  foundation  be  a 
rotten  one,  the  edifice  will  soon  betray  the  fact.  It  may  be 
further  admitted  that  the  MS.  which  Beza  presented  to  the 
University  of  Cambridge  is  the  same  as  the  MS.  which  is  quoted 
in  the  margin  of  Robert  Stephen's  New  Testament  of  A.D.  1550 
under  the  sign  yS,  and  which  Stephen  affirms  to  have  been  collated 
by  certain  of  his  friends  in  Italy :  and  it  is  possible  that  this 
identification  may  lead  to  the  further  admission,  to  which  allu 
sion  was  made  above,  that  the  Codex  Bezae  was  carried  to  the 
Council  of  Trent  in  1546  by  William  a  Prato  the  bishop  of 
Clermont  in  the  Auvergne.  But  this  point  must  be  reserved  for 
a  closer  examination.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say  that  such  a 
supposition  at  once  explains  the  difficulty  as  to  how  a  Lyons  MS. 
could  be  collated  in  Italy. 

But,  while  making  these  preliminary  admissions,  I  do  not 
admit  that  Beza  ever  recognized  his  own  MS.  in  the  ft  of  Stephen  ; 
nor  again,  as  Gregory2  following  Scrivener3  asserts,  that  Beza  had 

1  Such  as  XeTrpuxros,  ^Xa-yeXXoxrcts  and  the  like,  which  might  be  expected  from  a 
Latin  scribe  writing  a  bilingual  copy. 

2  Prolegg.  in  Tischendorf,  pp.  213,  214. 

3  Codex  Bezae,  p.  ix,  note  3. 

1—2 


4        INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  ON  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

access  to  the  collations  of  Henry  Stephen.  This  last  idea  is  a 
misunderstanding  based  on  the  prefaces  of  Beza's  New  Testament, 
which  speak  of  a  collation  by  Henry  Stephen  of  all  the  good 
editions  and  of  25  MSS.  But  an  examination  of  the  annotations  of 
Beza  in  his  edition  of  1598  will  shew  the  following  points  : 
(1)  that  Beza  quotes  the  sixteen  authorities  of  Stephen  from  the 
margin  of  the  edition  of  1550,  and  treats  them  as  sixteen  MSS., 
although  one  of  the  authorities  (a)  is  the  Complutensian  poly- 
glott  :  (2)  he  numbers  the  authorities  which  he  quotes  as  Stephen 
had  numbered  them  ;  (3)  he  quotes  the  Codex  Bezae  and  the  ft  of 
Stephen  as  two  distinct  authorities  :  (4)  the  only  other  authorities 
which  he  uses  are  the  Codex  Claromontanus,  and  another  MS. 
which  had  recently  come  into  his  possession.  To  establish  these 
points  it  is  only  necessary  to  give  a  few  instances.  If  we  take  the 
annotations  to  the  14th  chapter  of  Matthew,  we  have 

v.  2.  Iste,  Ouror.  In  secundo  codice  scriptum  erat,  /*ij«  ot/ror,  id  est, 
Num  iste  ? 

Baptista,  6  Bcurri<rn)s.  Veteres  duo  codices  additum  habent,  ov  ry<»  dirt  Kt- 
(£aAi<ra,  id  est,  quern  ego  decollaui. 

Here  a  reference  to  the  margin  of  Stephen  shews 


ov  ry»  dircKf<f>d\icra.     /3.  S. 

v.  12.  Corpus,  <rupa.  Quoddam  exemplar  legit  Trra/to,  id  est  cadauer, 
sicut  etiam  loquitur  Marcus  6,  29.  Praeterea  in  quibusdam  codicibus  additur 
relatiuum  avroO. 

Here  Stephen  notes 


avrov.     0.  id'. 

v.  19.    Et  acceptis,  KOI  Xaftav.     Particula  KOI  non  erat  in  vetustis  codic. 
neque  reperitur  in  Vulgata  versione. 

Where  Stephen  notes  against  the  xal 

NeV  naa-i  (N=i 


v.  22.     Praeire  sibi,  irpoayttv  avrov...      In   quibusdam   codicibus  deest 
avrov.    Rursus  in  aliis  legitur  irpodytiv  sed  mendosd. 

Here  there  is  no  note  in  Stephen ;  quibusdam  codicibus  stands 
either  for  quodam  codice,  viz.  the  Codex  Bezae:  or  for  the  Codex 
Bezae  together  with  some  other  unknown  copy.  Trpodyew  (2°) 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  ON  THE  CODEX  BEZAE.  5 

must  be  meant  either  for  Trpo&dyeiv,  which  I  cannot  find  the 
authority  for,  or  for  Trpodyw,  which  is  the  spelling  in  Cod.  Bezae. 
But  as  the  itacism  would  surely  not  have  been  noticed,  it  is 
probably  the  former.  The  note  is  very  confused. 

v.  34.  Gennesaret,  Tfvvr]<rapeT.  In  duobus  exemplaribus  legimus  Tfwr)- 
o-opo,  Gennesara.  In  alio  quodam,  T(VTj<rapf0,  Genesareth. 

Compare  with  this  Stephen's  margin 

yfvvrjtrapa.     /3. 
yevvrj(rap(0.     y. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Codex  Bezae  appears  in  Beza  as 
duo  exemplaria,  viz.  D  and  /3. 

In  the  same  way  the  famous  interpolation  concerning  the 
man  working  on  the  Sabbath  Day  (Luke  vi.  4)  is  referred  to 
by  Beza  as  found 

in  quodam  exemplar!  et  meo  vetustissimo. 

When  Beza  comes  to  the  interpolation  in  John  vi.  56,  he 
does  not  notice  that  the  passage  is  in  his  own  beloved  vetus- 
tissimuSy  but,  seeing  it  quoted  on  the  margin  of  Stephen  as 
from  13,  he  makes  the  following  disgraceful  note: 

v.  53...  Caetentm  in  uno  codice  vetusto  mirum  hlc  quiddam  deprehen- 
dimus.  Nam  post  tv  eavroZy,  qui  est  finis  versiculi  53,  adscripta  haec  erant,... 
Haec  ego  sicut  temere  non  expunxerim,  ac  praesertim  priorem  partem,  quae 
totidem  verbis  alibi  repetitur;  ita  non  facile  admiserim,  quum  in  uno  illo 
exemplari  sint  a  nobis  reperta.  Certe  alteram  partem  suppositam  esse 
suspieor,  quia  simile  nihil  alibi  invenio.  Neque  enim  usquam  fit  mentio 
sumendi  corporis,  praeterito  sanguine ;  et  exemplar  illud,  unde  haec  desump- 
simus,  fuerat  in  Italia  collatum,  ubi  facile  fuit  aliquid  subiicere  in  Bohe- 
morum  (id  est  Evangelii)  odium. 

Similar  distinction  between  Stephen's  (3  and  Cod.  D  may 
be  seen  in  the  case  of  the  interpolations  in  Acts  vi.  10  (in 
meo  vetustissimo  et  olio  praeterea  manuscripto) ;  in  xvi.  35,  which 
is  quoted  only  from  Stephen ;  and  in  xvi.  40,  where  Beza  adds  to 
Stephen's  testimony  the  words,  et  in  meo  vet.  exemplari.  How 
closely  his  apparatus  is  identified  with  Stephen's  may  be  seen 
in  many  cases :  e.g.  John  xiii.  2,  where  Stephen  merely  says 

ytvoptvov.     ft. 

which  Beza  gives  as 

in  vetustis  codicibus  omnibus,  uno  duntaxat  excepto. 


G        INTRODUCTORY  NOTES  ON  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

The  foregoing  specimens  are  sufficient  to  shew  the  accuracy 
of  Hug's  statements  (Introduction,  §  Iviii.),  who  shews  reasons 
to  believe  that  Beza's  apparatus  coincides  closely  with  that  of 
Stephen. 

In  fact  Hug  shews  that,  when  in  the  first  Bezan  edition 
(A.D.  1565)  we  find  that  Beza  used  a  collation  of  25  MSS.  (more  or 
less)  from  the  library  of  Stephen,  we  are  to  correct  25  to  15 
(xv.  for  xxv.),  and  understand  by  this  the  apparatus  on  the 
margin  of  Stephen,  with  a  possible  deduction  for  the  use  of 
the  Complutensian  polyglott.  In  the  second  edition  we  have 
(A.D.  1576)  seventeen  MSS.;  and  this  means  the  fifteen  (or  sixteen) 
of  Stephen,  plus  either  the  Cod.  Bezae  or  the  Claromontanus 
or  both.  In  the  fourth  edition,  Beza  has  nineteen  authorities, 
viz.  the  sixteen  of  Stephen,  the  Cod.  Bezae,  the  Cod.  Claromon 
tanus,  and  another  MS.,  which  he  says  had  recently  come  into 
his  possession  (e.g.  in  Matt,  xxviii.  20  we  have  the  note  "caeterum 
in  vetustissimo  manuscr.  codice,  quern  nuper  sum  nactus,  sic  ista 
scrip ta  inueni"  etc.).  It  will  be  seen  that  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  we  ought  to  take  literally  the  statement  that  Beza 
handled  the  actual  collations  of  Henry  Stephen ;  these  fifteen 
or  sixteen  collations  could  not  have  been  contained  in  a  single 
book,  except  in  a  printed  book.  And  this  means  that  if  Beza 
handled  anything,  it  was  Stephen's  text  of  A.D.  1550,  with  possibly 
a  few  additional  notes.  Hug  is  probably  right  in  saying  that 
"  Stephanus  scattered  the  various  readings  in  his  margin  for  that 
one,  among  his  purchasers,  who,  at  a  future  time,  might  desire 
to  make  use  of  them.  This  was  Theodore  Beza,  a  pupil  of  John 
Calvin,  who  appropriated  the  Scriptural  collations,  for  which 
Robert  was  indebted  to  his  son  Henry." 

And  now  let  us  go  back  from  the  time  of  Beza  and  Stephen 
towards  the  earlier  history  of  our  codex,  and  in  particular  to  the 
sixth  century  when  the  MS.  is  supposed  to  have  been  written, 
and  examine  it  with  a  view  to  detecting  local  peculiarities. 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  LOCALITY  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE  IN  THE  TENTH  CENTURY. 

As  we  ascend  the  stream  of  time  we  may  take  note  of  the 
marginal  annotations  which  have  been  made  in  our  MS.  by 
different  hands ;  and  in  particular  there  is  a  series  of  sentences 
in  the  margins  of  the  text  which  would  seem  to  intimate  that  the 
MS.  was  still  in  France  in  the  tenth  century.  In  order  to  explain 
this,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  refer  to,  and  partly  to  reproduce,  some 
notes  which  I  made  two  or  three  years  ago  on  the  famous  S. 
Germain  Codex  of  the  Latin  Bible,  known  to  New  Testament 
students  by  the  sign  gl,  and  published  by  Dr  John  Wordsworth  in 
the  first  number  of  his  Old  Latin  Biblical  Texts1. 

Shortly  after  the  publication  of  this  text,  this  work  was 
reviewed  by  M.  Samuel  Bergcr  in  the  Bulletin  Critique  for 
15  Sept.  1884,  who  remarked  inter  alia  as  follows:  "  L'Evangile  de 
S.  Jean  est  partage'  dans  le  manuscrit  en  316  sections,  et  185  de 
ces  paragraphes  (si  j'ai  bien  compte)  sont  accompagnes  de  courtes 
devises,  sans  aucune  relation  avec  le  texte  de  1'Evangile,  ecrites 
en  un  latin  barbare,  et  dont  voici,  par  exemple,  quelques-unes. 
xxx.  (c.  iii.  1)  Perfectum  opus.  xxxi.  (in.  3)  Insperata  causa 
perficitur.  xxxii.  (iii.  7)  Quod  verum  est  dicito.  xxxiii.  (iii.  9)  Si 
mwtiiris  arguent  te.  xxxiv.  (iii.  12)  Gloria  mayna.  xxxv.  (iii.  14) 
Pro  manifestation,  xxxvi.  (iii.  16)  De  juditio  quod  verum  est  si 
dixeris,  libens  eris.  xxxviii.  (iii.  19)  Ad  peregrinationem  itineris 
venies.  II  n'est  pas  possible  de  voir  dans  ces  singulieres  notes 
autre  chose  que  des  formules  de  bonne  aventure,  de  celle  que  Ton 
a  appele'es  sortes  sanctorum." 

1  The  Sortes  Sanctorum  in  the  S.  Germain  Codex,  American  Journal  of  Philology, 
Vol.  ix. ,  p.  58. 

2 


8  THE  LOCALITY  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE 

There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that  M.  Berger's  explanation 
of  these  marginal  sentences  (which  had  been  copied  for  Dr  Words 
worth  by  Mr  G.  L.  Youngman,  but  not  understood  by  him)  is 
correct.  The  book  has  been  used  for  purposes  of  divination,  a 
custom  which  seems  to  have  prevailed  widely  in  early  times  both 
in  Civil  and  Ecclesiastical  matters1. 

Without  going  into  the  matter  in  detail  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
observe  that  the  most  probable  method  of  using  the  Sortes  would 
be  by  the  selection  of  a  number,  for  there  are  objections  to  the 
method  of  opening  the  book  at  random  where  the  margins  are 
thickly  studded  with  sentences.  Probably  therefore  a  number 
was  selected  and  the  pages  of  the  Gospel  of  John  were  turned 
until  the  sentence  was  found  to  which  that  number  was  attached. 

By  the  kindness  of  Dr  Wordsworth  and  the  courteous  assis 
tance  of  one  of  the  students  in  the  Theological  College  at 
Salisbury,  I  have  been  furnished  with  a  transcript  of  Mr  Young- 
man's  notes  on  these  Sortes,  and  am  enabled  to  draw  one  or  two 
further  conclusions.  The  transcript  shews  the  successive  sentences 
arranged  with  the  attached  numerals  in  a  series  running  with 
frequent  chasms  from  i.  to  ccxvi.  (read  cccxvi).  In  a  few  cases 
the  numeral  is  wanting,  and  there  are  occasionally  slight  clerical 
errors  like  the  one  just  mentioned,  which  are  capable  of  immediate 
rectification.  We  will  examine  the  series  of  sentences  more  closely 
presently.  Meanwhile  let  us  turn  to  another  peculiar  feature  of 
the  Codex  which  has  hitherto  remained  without  explanation. 

On  fol.  89  b  the  following  note  is  made  by  Dr  Wordsworth  (p.  x.): 
"At  the  end  of  the  letter  to  Damasus  is  a  sort  of  wheel  full 
of  numbers,  apparently  some  arrangement  of  the  Canons  which 
follow  on  4£  pages."  My  attention  was  drawn  to  this  wheel 
by  Dr  Wordsworth,  with  an  enquiry  whether  any  explanation 
could  be  given  of  it.  In  order  to  settle  this  point,  I  made  a  copy 
of  the  series  of  numbers  in  question.  They  are  arranged  in  the 
separate  compartments  of  a  wheel  with  eight  sectors ;  and  a  little 
examination  shews  that  they  have  nothing  to  do,  as  far  as  can  be 
seen  by  a  cursory  examination,  with  the  Eusebian  Canons ;  but, 

1  Prof.  Bobertson  Smith  has  pointed  out  to  me  a  curious  analogous  case  of 
divination  by  opening  the  Koran  at  random,  as  practised  by  Walid.  b.  Yazld  who 
died  A.H.  126.  Cf.  Ibn  Athir  (ed.  Tornberg),  v.  219. 


IN   THE  TENTH   CENTURY. 

observing  that  the  numbers  form  a  broken  series  from  1  to  316, 
we  easily  infer  that  the  wheel  is  a  part  of  the  Sortes  Sanctorum 
and  that  in  some  way  or  other  its  compartments  are  meant  to  be 
employed  in  the  problem  of  determining  one's  destiny.  So  much 
is  certain.  We  may  not  be  able  to  say  according  to  what  method 
a  number  was  selected  from  one  of  the  eight  compartments,  but 
the  relation  between  the  wheel  of  numbers  and  the  sections  in 
St  John's  Gospel  is  certain.  When  we  come  to  examine  the 
numbered  compartments  more  carefully  in  comparison  with  the 
numbered  sentences,  we  find  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  a 
number  in  one  of  the  compartments  corresponds  to  a  number  in 
the  margins  to  which  a  sentence  is  attached,  as  of  course  it  should 
do  on  the  hypothesis  of  identity  between  the  two  series  ;  but  there 
are  many  cases  in  which  the  two  series  will  not  agree,  and  the 
suggestion  arises  in  one's  mind  that  perhaps  the  wheel  of  numbers 
was  not  made  directly  from  the  Codex,  but  that  both  it  and  the 
series  may  be  derived  from  some  earlier  and  more  complete  series. 
This  supposition  would  easily  explain  the  incomplete  character  of 
the  numerical  assonances  ;  for  example,  in  the  first  compartment 
of  the  wheel  there  are  33  numbers,  of  which  11  do  not  find  a  place 
in  the  numbers  of  the  Sortes.  We  shall  examine  these  and  see 
whether  the  suspicion  of  an  earlier  set  of  divination  sentences  is 
confirmed  in  other  directions. 

Let  us  then  turn  to  the  Codex  Bezae,  where  we  shall  find  that 
the  lower  margins  of  the  Gospel  of  St  Mark  contain,  in  a  rude 
Greek  hand,  a  succession  of  short  sentences. 

Of  these  Scrivener  says  (p.  xxxvii.),  "  They  consist  of  moral 
apophthegms,  some  of  them  silly  enough."  Amongst  his  facsimiles 
he  gives  a  sentence  from  the  margin  of  the  verso  of  leaf  302  : 


eav 


and  conjectures  that  these  rude  uncials  may  be  due  to  the  hand 
that  wrote  the  rtrXot  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  i.e.  to  a  hand  of  the 
tenth  century.  Again,  at  the  end  of  the  book,  he  makes  a  collec 
tion  of  the  sentences,  69  in  number,  but  without  noticing  that 
they  are  a  system  of  "  Sortes  Sanctorum." 

When  we  examine  these  Greek  Sortes  by  the  side  of  the  Latin 
system  in  the  S.  Germain  MS.  we  easily  see  that  they  form  a  part 


10 


THE   LOCALITY  OF  THE   CODEX   BEZAE 


of  the  same  system.  For  example,  the  sentence  quoted  above  is 
evidently  the  same  as  appears  in  gl,  under  the  form  "  si  mentiris, 
arguent  te  " ;  and  this  is  only  one  out  of  a  large  number  of  coinci 
dences  so  complete  that  we  may  be  certain  some  connection  exists 
between  the  two  systems.  Moreover  the  list  in  D  may  be  seen  to 
be  a  translation  from  the  Latin,  by  a  frequently  prefixed  word 
ep/jLTjveui:  as  if  the  sentences  had  originally  stood  in  two  lan 
guages  in  some  bilingual  codex. 

In  order  to  determine  the  nature  of  the  relationship  between 
our  two  series  we  must  examine  more  closely,  and  we  may  easily 
assure  ourselves  in  the  first  place  that  neither  catalogue  was 
taken  from  the  other,  for  each  list  of  sentences  contains  many 
things  that  are  wanting  in  the  other.  But  in  the  next  place,  if 
the  two  sets  of  sentences  be  arranged  side  by  side,  we  can  easily 
see  that  if  a  number  be  attached  to  each  of  the  sentences  in  Codex 
Bezae  corresponding  to  its  place  in  the  Codex,  the  sentences  thus 
numbered  will  be  in  harmony  with  the  actually  numbered  pas 
sages  in  the  S.  Germain  Codex.  In  order  to  make  this  clear  we 
may  actually  write  down  the  first  portions  of  each  of  the  two 
catalogues  as  follows,  the  S.  Germain  list  being  given  completely 
and  the  parallel  sentences  noted  from  the  other  list : 


S.  Germain  Cod. 

(i)    cessa  ei  certaueris. 
(ii)    qd  fit  coplebitu. 
(iii)     non  ad  ipsis  causa, 
(iv)     perficitur  causa. 
(?  xiii)    spes  bona. 

gaudium  fiet. 
(xv)    est  dece  dies  fiet. 
(xviii)    et  bene. 

(xxii)    perfectu  opus, 
(xxii,  1.   xxiv)     credere    quia    causa 
bona  0. 

etc. 


Codex  Bezae. 

(i)  a(fr(s  fjii  (f)t\ov?KTj<T'is. 

(ii)  TO  ycvafjifvov  T(\iovrf. 
(iii)     OVK  fifiTv\avis 
(iv)     TeAion/if  i/of  Trapa/iia. 


(XIV)       OTTO  \VJTIS  T)g 

(xv)     /if  ra  8(Ka  r)p€pat  ylvere. 

(xviii)     aKoXovfrrjaov  KUI  KO\OV  ov  yl- 

VfTC. 

(xxii)     T(\T)ovfj,fvov  irapypa  KO\OV. 
(xxiv)     TTiOTfua-oi/  on;  TO  irapypa  KO\OI> 


etc. 


The  barbarisms  are  easily  corrected  in  tho  foregoing :  ad  ipsis, 
for  example  =  adipisceris,  and  so  on.  These  corrections  being 
made,  it  is  seen  that,  as  far  as  it  goes,  the  list  in  Codex  Bezae  is 
complete,  though  only  a  fragment  of  the  original  scheme  ;  and 


IN   THE  TENTH   CENTURY.  11 

that  the  list  in  the  S.  Germain  MS.  is  a  series  of  extracts  from  the 
original  scheme. 

The  agreement  between  the  numbers  shews  that  the  Beza 
sentences  and  the  S.  Germain  sentences  are  taken  from  a  num 
bered  series  of  sentences  similar  to  that  in  the  S.  Germain 
Codex,  i.e.  the  numbers  are  not  due  to  the  sectional  arrangement 
of  St  John  in  the  S.  Germain  Codex  into  316  paragraphs,  but 
to  a  similar  arrangement  in  a  previous  Codex.  And  since  the 
S.  Germain  Codex  has  these  paragraph  divisions  also  in  common 
with  the  original  from  which  the  Sortes  were  taken,  it  follows  that 
this  original  may  very  well  have  been,  at  least  in  St  John,  the  MS. 
from  which  the  S.  Germain  Codex  took  the  foundation  of  its  text. 
We  thus  throw  into  very  close  relation  the  Codex  Bezae,  the 
S.  Germain  Codex,  and  the  archetype  of  the  latter  in  St  John. 

Moreover,  the  two  series  of  annotations  belong  nearly  to  the 
same  period  of  time ;  the  S.  Germain  MS.  being  of  the  ninth 
century,  and  the  Bezan  annotator  being  referred  by  Scrivener 
to  the  tenth.  And  since  the  two  Codices  in  question  are  both 
found  in  modern  times  in  French  abbeys,  we  may  perhaps  be 
allowed  to  assume  that  the  Codex  Bezae  was  in  France  in  the 
tenth  century. 


2  * 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  CODEX  BEZAE  IN  THE  NINTH  CENTURY. 

ON  fol.  150  b  of  the  MS.  there  is  a  liturgical  note  by  a  hand  of 
the  ninth  century,  at  the  top  of  the  left  hand  column,  to  the  follow 
ing  effect 

rrj  icvpiatcr)  TWV  Trpo^rrjcr/jLarcov 

accompanied  by  the  labarum  with  a  and  co.  This  note  is  rather 
perplexing :  but  it  seems  to  be  a  corruption  for 

rrj  tcvpia/crj  raw  TrpofaTio-fjiaTcw 

i.e.  it  indicates  a  lesson  beginning  at  John  xii.  1  which  is  the  top 
of  the  column,  for  some  Sunday  connected  with  those  who  have 
been  approved  as  candidates  for  baptism,  and  who  in  the  language 
of  the  Church  are  already  <£&mfo/x,ei/ot,  illwninati.  But  what 
Sunday  can  this  be,  and  what  service' can  be  especially  given  up 
to  the  imperfectly  initiated  Catechumens  ?  I  think  the  answer 
must  be  as  follows :  it  is  some  Sunday  before  Easter  when  the 
Catechumens  pass  through  another  stage  of  their  novitiate,  and 
probably  it  will  be  the  time  of  the  delivery  to  them  of  the  Symbol 
of  the  Faith  (traditio  Symboli).  Now  this  rite  took  place  in 
the  Gallican  Churches  on  Palm-Sunday,  as  we  may  see  from  the 
lectionary  of  Luxeuil,  a  thoroughly  Gallican  book  of  the  seventh 
century,  which  marks  the  Legenda  in  Dominica  Palmarum,  as 
follows : 

Lectio  Hierimiae  prophetae. 
Epistola  Pauli  apostoli  ad  Hebraeos. 
and  Lectio  Sancti  Evangelii  secundum  lohannem. 

Diebus  illis  ante  sex  dies  Paschae,  venit  Dominus  lesus  Bethaniam,  ubi 
fuerat  Lazarus  mortuus,   etc....      usqm   Nisi   granum  frumenti  cadens  in 


THE  CODEX  BEZAE  IN  THE  NINTH  CENTURY.        13 

terrain  mortuum  fuerit,  ipsum  solum  manet :  si  autem  mortuum  fuerit, 
multum  fructum  affert : 

i.e.  John  xii.  1 — 24 :  and  that  this  is  the  lesson  for  the  Missa 
in  Symboli  traditione  may  be  seen  from  numerous  references  in 
Western  writers :  it  was  the  custom  for  example  in  Milan  in  the 
days  of  Ambrose,  as  the  following  extract  from  his  20th  Epistle 
will  shew:  "Sequenti  die,  erat  autem  dominica,  post  lectiones 
atque  tractatum,  dimissis  tjatechuminis,  symbolum  aliquibus  com- 
petentibus  in  baptisteriis  tradebam  basilicae."  He  is  speaking  of 
what  happened  on  a  certain  Palm-Sunday. 

The  same  day  is  fixed  by  Isidore  for  the  Spanish  Churches ; 
"hoc  die  Symbolum  competentibus  traditur  propter  confinem 
Dominicae  Paschae  solemnitatem :  ut  qui  iam  ad  Dei  gratiam 
percipiendam  festinant  fidem  quam  confiteantur  agnoscant1." 

Isidore  tells  us  that  the  common  name  for  this  Sunday  was 
Capitilavium,  because,  as  we  might  almost  have  guessed  from 
the  lesson  read,  the  baptized  infants  on  this  day  received  unction 
and  had  their  heads  washed,  in  remembrance  of  our  Lord's  visit  to 
Bethany,  and  the  washing  and  anointing  of  His  feet  by  Mary. 

We  may  add  to  the  foregoing  references  the  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Agde  (A.D.  506).  "Symbolum  etiam  placuit  ab  omnibus 
ecclesiis  una  die,  id  est  ante  octo  dies  dominicae  resurrectionis, 
publice  in  ecclesia  competentibus  tradi." 

We  may  be  sure  then  that  the  lesson  marked  by  the  corrector, 
whom  Scrivener  calls  J,  is  the  old  Gallican  lesson  for  Palin- 
Sunday,  as  we  find  it  in  the  seventh  century  lectionary  of  Luxeuil. 
We  can  hardly  then  allow  that  the  Codex  Bezae  was  far  away 
from  France  in  the  ninth  century,  for  by  this  time  it  is  not  likely 
that  the  Gallican  use  was  still  in  force  at  Milan.  And  at  any  rate, 
when  we  put  this  piece  of  evidence  side  by  side  with  what  has 
gone  before,  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  Gallican  features  are 
becoming  prominent. 

It  may  be  perhaps  objected  that  substantially  the  same  lesson 
is  used  in  the  Greek  Church  in  the  Liturgy  for  Palm-Sunday :  but 
a  Greek  scribe  would  have  simply  called  it  the  tcvpiaicr)  T&V  pafov. 
Moreover  we  do  not  deny  the  occasional  agreement  between  the 
Gallican  and  Greek  systems.  We  simply  observe  that  it  is  not 

1  Isidore,  De  Ojfic.  EccL,  c,  27. 


14        THE  CODEX  BEZAE  IN  THE  NINTH  CENTURY. 

the  Roman  system  that  we  have  here,  and  we  try  to  interpret 
liturgically  the  Greek  heading  by  which  the  day  in  question 
must  have  been  known  in  the  Western  Calendar1. 

Almost  contemporary  with  these  liturgical  annotations  of  the 
scribe  J,  but  perhaps  a  few  years  later,  there  is  a  long  series  by 
another  scribe  L :  there  are  149  places  where  Scrivener  notes  his 
handiwork,  and  he  refers  all  the  lessons  in  question  to  the  ordinary 
Greek  synaxarion.  No  doubt  there  is  a  close  connexion  between 
the  Greek  and  Gallican  rituals,  but  the  matter  is  by  no  means  as 
simple  as  Scrivener  represents  it. 

The  lists  of  lessons  introduced  by  L  are  usually  given  in  the 
form  avvayvoo-fjLa,  followed  in  many  cases  by  irepi  TOV  o-aPParov 
or  Trept  rov  KvpiaKT).  But  it  is  very  seldom  indeed  that  any 
indication  is  given  of  the  Sabbath  or  Sunday  that  is  intended. 

This  of  itself  is  an  indication  that  the  lessons  were  not  marked 
in  from  a  synaxarion,  but  from  a  more  simple  order  like  the  Lec- 
tiones  Dominicales  in  the  Bobbio  Sacramentary2  where  a  series  of 
Missae  Dominicales  is  given  with  an  appropriate  lesson,  together 
with  the  special  services  for  Depositio  Sacerdotis,  and  for  the 
Missa  Defunctorum,  etc. 

The  scribe  L  had  a  book  something  like  this,  with  a  series  of 
Saturday  and  Sunday  Lessons  unattached  to  any  special  days: 
he  had  also  the  lesson  for  the  Departed,  and  the  lessons  for  Holy 
Week  and  a  few  great  festivals. 

We  have  not,  however,  succeeded  in  identifying  his  system. 

1  The  so-called  Missale  G-othicum  has  a  special  service, 

Missa  in  Symbuli  Traditione. 
That  this  is  meant  for  Palm  Sunday  may  be  seen  by  the  various  prayers :  e.g. 

Immolatio  Missae. 

Vere  dignum  et  justum  est 

Tibi  enim  cum  lingua  coma  servivit  arborea,  cum  arenosa  itinera  ramis  viruerunt 
composita  etc. 

And  that  the  lesson  read  is  from  John  xii.  may  be  seen  inter  alia  from  the 

Collectio  in  Pacem. 

Universorum  ipse  dominator  qui  conditor,  creaturae  tuae  praestanter  amabilis 
et  amator,  cui  Martha  satagit,  Maria  pedes  abluit,  cum  quo  Lazarus  redivivus 
accumbit  etc. 

2  Muratori,  Sacramentarium  Gallicanum  in  Musaeo  Italico,  I.  p.  273  sqq. 


THE  CODEX  BEZAE  IN  THE  NINTH  CENTURY.        15 

If,  for  instance,  we  look  on  fol.  120  b  of  our  MS.  we  find  that  L 
has  noted  a  lesson,  apparently  John  v.  19 — 24,  as  \Tr\epi,  avoir  av- 
a/jievos',  this  Scrivener  identifies  with  the  lesson  John  v.  17 — 24, 
which  is  given  in  Greek  synaxaria  for  the  fourth  day  of  the 
second  week  after  Easter.  The  lesson,  however,  is  evidently 
meant  for  the  Missa  Defunctorum  (rwv  dvaTravo/jLevcov),  and  there 
fore  the  reference  to  Easter  Week  is  meaningless. 

That  dvaTravh)  is  the  right  word  to  describe  the  intermediate 
state  may  be  seen  from  Luke  xvi.  23,  where  the  scribe  has  ex 
panded  the  passage  KCLI  \a%apov  ev  TO)  fco\TTO)  avrov  by  the  addition 
of  the  word  avaTravofievov,  cp.  also  Apoc.  xiv.  13. 

In  the  Bobbio  Sacramentary,  which  is  supposed  to  contain  so 
much  ancient  Gallican  matter,  the  lesson  is  not  the  one  marked  in 
Cod.  Bezae  ;  but  the  somewhat  similar  passage,  John  vi.  39,  40,  is 
read  in  the  Missa  Defunctorum,  and  the  lesson  John  v.  24 — 29  is 
read  in  connection  with  the  Missa  Sacerdotis  Defuncti. 

It  seems,  then,  that  the  system  of  the  scribe  L  was  not  unlike 
that  of  the  Bobbio  MS.,  but  cannot  be  identified  with  it. 

The  same  thing  is  true  when  we  examine  the  systems  more 
closely;  on  fol.  87  b,  for  instance,  the  lesson  Matt.  xxv.  31 — 46  is 
marked  by  L  as  avva^voarfia  Trept  rov  tcvpiafcr) :  and  Scrivener 
accordingly  identifies  it  with  the  Kvpiarcri  rfjs  airoicpeto'.  it  is, 
however,  marked  in  the  Bobbio  MS.  as  an  ordinary  Dominical 
Lection :  and  if  we  could  find  a  sufficient  number  of  similar  coin 
cidences,  we  should  say  that  the  system  of  this  Sacramentary  was 
the  system  of  the  Bezan  annotator.  The  verifications,  however, 
are  not  forthcoming,  and  we  can  only  say  that  there  is  reason  to 
suspect  the  existence  of  some  liturgical  usage  current  in  Eastern 
or  Southern  France  which  would  turn  out  to  be  exactly  parallel  to 
that  in  the  Codex  Bezae.  Such  a  system  would  be  derived  ulti 
mately  from  a  very  early  and  simple  form  of  what  we  now  know 
as  the  Greek  Synaxarion. 

We  do  not,  however,  pretend  to  have  thrown  much  direct 
light  upon  the  nationality  of  the  corrector  whom  Scrivener  calls  L 


CHAPTER  IV. 
SIXTH  CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX  BEZAE. 

THOSE  who  have  held  the  theory  of  the  Gallic  origin  of  the 
Codex  Bezae  have  done  so  on  the  ground  that  there  were  words 
in  the  Latin  text  which  belonged  not  merely  to  the  Vulgar  Latin 
as  distinguished  from  the  classical  speech,  but  to  those  dialectical 
forms  of  the  Vulgar  Latin  which  were  supposed  to  be  characteristic 
of  Southern  Gaul. 

For  example,  Scholz  in  the  Introduction  to  his  New  Testa 
ment1  says 

"  In  Gallia  meridional!  patria  codicis  quaerenda  est.  Etiam  orthographia 
in  vocibus  latinis  servata  v.  c.  temptatio,  qiiotiens,  tkensaurus,  anticus,  locuntur, 
inicus,  secuntur  huic  certe  regioni  magis  quam  alii  convenit ;  voces  soniis 
(gallice  soins)  (/ifpt'/ii/ats),  refectio  (/caraXv/xa),  sideratos  (xvAAoys),  involet  (^Ae'i/ty), 
demorari  (Starpipeiv),  natatoria  piscina  (*coAv/i/3i;$pa),  taediari  (nrjdfp.ove'iv), 
applontat  (pijo-o-ft),  certabatur  (8tt<r^vpt^«ro),  sestertia  ducenta  (dpyvpiov  /iupt- 
adas  iTfvr(\  *(6Vaptoi/),  in  aliam  regionem  plane  non  quadrant:  sunt  enim 
voces  gallicae." 

With  this  list  Scholz  practically  dismisses  the  subject.  It 
need  scarcely  be  said  that  a  modern  student  would  hardly  be 
convinced  by  such  a  list2:  in  fact  the  only  word  in  all  Scholz's 
array  that  carries  much  weight  is  the  word  soniis,  used  as  an 
equivalent  of  fjueplpvais.  But  even  in  this  case  (which  we  shall 
enquire  into  more  carefully  by  and  by)  there  is  great  difficulty  in 
the  determination  of  the  origin  of  the  form,  and  much  doubt  as  to 
whether  Scholz  has  given  its  true  French  equivalent.  But 
leaving  this  on  one  side,  and  remembering  that  the  student  of 

1  p.  xxxix. 

2  Imagine  the  geographical  delineation  of  the  sign  *  for  denarius ;  the  Diocletian 
edict  which  fixed  prices  throughout  the  whole  Roman  Empire  uses  this  sign ! 


SIXTH   CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE.  17 

Latin  inscriptions  is  constantly  baffled  in  his  work  by  too  hasty 
attempts  to  give  a  local  habitation  to  special  forms  and  spellings, 
we  think  it  best  not  to  begin  by  discussing  in  detail  every  word 
which  may  be  supposed  to  have  a  Gallic  flavour,  but  to  proceed 
in  a  new  manner,  independently  of  earlier  investigators,  so  that 
our  results  may  be  based  as  far  as  possible  upon  new  observations, 
and  not  derive  their  weight  from  their  possible  consensus  with  the 
conclusions  of  Kipling,  or  Scholz,  or  Scrivener. 

On  the  hypothesis  that  the  Codex  Bezae  was  written  in  Gaul, 
presumably  not  very  far  from  the  place  where  Beza  said  it  was 
found,  i.e.  at  Lyons, — or  if  we  prefer  to  think,  from  the  fact  that 
Beza  in  his  last  edition  called  it  Claromontanus  (as  though  he  had 
found  out  in  his  last  days  that  he  had  been  misinformed  as  to 
its  origin  by  the  person  who  sold  it  to  him),  that  it  was  written 
not  far  from  Clermont, — we  have  to  transport  ourselves  in  thought 
to  the  Gaul  of  the  sixth  century  at  the  time  when  the  Keltic 
population  was  being  hurled  back  by  Frankish  invaders,  and  when 
the  earlier  colonists  from  the  Eastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean, 
who  had  civilized  the  Rhone  Valley,  were  far  on  the  road  to 
absorption  and  disintegration  amongst  the  younger  and  more 
vigorous  populations  that  were  disputing  the  right  to  existence 
in  Central  and  Southern  France.  Amongst  these  struggling  popu 
lations  we  find  an  active  Christian  Church  with  a  ritual  and 
liturgy  of  its  own,  which  can  be  distinguished  in  many  ways  from 
the  corresponding  Roman  rituals,  by  the  prevalence  of  many 
Greek  and  Oriental  customs  and  formulae  which  never  seem  to 
have  taken  root  in  Rome  itself.  Whether  these  peculiarities  be 
original  with  the  Church  that  emigrated  from  Smyrna  to  the 
banks  of  the  Rhone  in  the  second  century,  or  whether  they  are 
to  be  referred  to  some  later  influence,  is  not  the  immediate  ques 
tion  for  us.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  Gallican  ritual  had 
many  Eastern  features.  Let  us  take  an  instance ;  in  the  Gallican 
Mass,  after  the  entry  of  the  officiating  bishop  and  the  preliminary 
sentences,  the  service  proceeds  with  the  Trisagion,  the  Kyrie 
Eleison,  and  the  Benedictus,  after  which  the  lessons  from  the 
Scriptures  begin.  Now  this  use  of  the  Trisagion  in  this  con 
nection  is  not  a  Roman  custom ;  in  fact  we  have  in  the  place  of 
it  the  Gloria  in  excelsis.  But  it  was  a  custom  of  the  early  Gallic 
c.  B.  2 


18  SIXTH   CENTURY   GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE. 

Church,  for  we  find  it  enforced  by  the  second  council  of  Vaison 
(A.D.  529)  in  a  manner  which  shews  that  it  was  a  feature  of  the 
worship  of  the  settlements  in  the  Rh6ne  Valley1 :  the  language  of 
the  Council  is  as  follows : 

"in  omnibus  missis,  seu  in  matutinis,  seu  in  quadrigesimalibus,  seu  in 
illis  quae  pro  defunctorum  commemoratione  fiunt,  semper  Sanctus,  Sanctus, 
Sanctus  eo  ordine  quo  modo  ad  missas  publicas  dicitur,  dici  debeat ;  quia  tarn 
sancta  et  tarn  dulcis  et  desiderabilis  vox,  etiam  si  die  noctuque  possit  dici, 
fastidium  non  possit  generare." 

We  see  that  the  object  of  the  Council  is  to  make  the  use  of  the 
Trisagion  a  general  feature  of  Christian  worship. 

Now  let  us  see  how  the  French  Christians  pronounced  this 
often  repeated  Greek  word. 

A  reference  to  the  life  of  Saint  Gery,  the  bishop  of  Cambrai  in 
the  seventh  century,  gives  us  the  following,  "  Aius,  Aius,  Aius  per 
trinum  numerum  imposuit  in  nomine  Trinitatis2."  It  appears 
then  that  this  word  came  to  be  pronounced  Aius  instead  of 
Agios,  which  does  not  at  all  surprise  us,  knowing  how  easily 
the  aspirates  are  misplaced  in  Low  Latin,  and  how  in  French 
similar  words  wear  away,  as  for  example,  Augustus  passes  into 
Aout,  so  that  the  middle  consonant  weakens  and  disappears, 
especially  when  the  accent  is  on  the  first  syllable. 

Now  if  we  turn  to  the  account  of  the  Gallican  ritual  given  by 
S.  Germain  of  Paris3  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  we  find 
the  canticles  at  the  commencement  of  the  service  described  as 
follows : 

DE  AIVS. 

Aius  vero  ante  prophetiam  pro  hoc  cantatur  in  graeca  lingua....  Inci- 
piente  praesule  Aius  psallit,  dicens  latino  cum  greco. 

Further  on  in  the  service  we  have 

DE  AIUS  ANTE  EVANGELIUM. 

Tune  in  adventu  sancti  Evangelii  claro  modulamine  denuo  psallet  clems 
Aius  in  specie  angelorum  ante  faciem  Christi,  &c. 

1  In  this  and  the  following  paragraphs,  I  am  drawing  largely  on  the  account  of 
the  Gallican  Service  given  by  Duchesne,  Origines  du  Culte  Chrttien,  and  on  the 
Gallican  liturgies  published  by  Mabillon,  Muratori  &c. 

2  Analecta  Bollandiana,  t.  VIT.  p.  393. 

3  Migne,  Patr.  Lat.  t.  LXXH.  from  Martene,  Thes.  Anecd.  t.  v. 


SIXTH   CENTURY   GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE.  19 

Or  if  again  we  turn  to  the  so-called  Gallican  Sacramentary 
published  by  Muratori  from  a  Bobbio  MS.  of  the  seventh  century1, 
which  Muratori  himself  believed  to  come  from  the  province 
of  Besan^on,  where  was  the  abbey  of  Luxeuil  from  whence 
Columban  migrated  to  Italy,  we  shall  find  another  instance  of 
the  curious  pronunciation  of  the  word  in  question.  The  Missal 
referred  to  begins  with  a  ritual  of  mixed  Roman  and  Gallican 
usage,  headed  "Missa  Romensis  Cottidiana."  Here  we  find  the 
sentences 

Didtur  post  Aios 
Tu,  summe  Deus,  Aios,  ipse  sanctus,  omnipotens  Sabaoth,  etc. 

And  near  the  end 

Collectio  post  Aios 
ludicia  tua,  Deus,  etc. 

There  is,  therefore,  no  doubt  as  to  the  pronunciation  of  the 
word  in  the  Gallican  Church,  and  in  fact  the  last  MS.  quoted 
carries  the  usage  up  to  the  seventh  century.  And  this  being  so, 
we  need  not  doubt  that  we  have  also  the  correct  spelling  in 
the  MS.  of  S.  Germain  previously  quoted. 

It  would,  therefore,  seem  that  the  pronunciation  of  the  word 
"Ayio?  was  vAto9  at  a  very  early  time  in  the  Gallican  Church, 
before  the  Greek  had  disappeared  from  the  service  and  been 
replaced  by  the  Latin  :  for  we  need  not  suppose  that  in  the  cases 
referred  to  the  spelling  is  due  to  the  transcribers  of  some  later 
period.  It  is  evidently  the  spelling,  as  the  pronunciation  is  the 
pronunciation,  of  the  end  of  the  sixth  century. 

The  question  which  we  ask  then  is  this :  are  there  any  traces 
of  similar  phonetic  decline  in  the  Codex  Bezae  ?  can  we  find 
the  form  "Ato9,  or  in  default  of  this  any  similar  forms  ?  We  know 
that  the  French  language  from  an  early  period  is  full  of  such 
weakenings :  the  names  of  places  shew  it  even  better  than  the 
parts  of  speech.  That  Lugdunum,  for  example,  in  some  way 
passes  from  its  Kelto-Roman  form  (Llwych-dun)  into  the  French 
Lyons  is  certain2.  So  too  Bordeaux  stands  for  Burdigalium ; 

1  Muratori,  Muteum  Italicum,  i.  p.  273  sqq.     Migne,  Patr.  Lat.  LXMI.  448. 
Duchesne  on  p.  150  refers  the  publication  of  this  sacramentary  to  Mabillon. 

2  The  old  catalojjue  of  the  Corbey  MSR.  ,  which  is  referred  to  the  eleventh 

2—2 


20  SIXTH  CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE. 

and  Autun  for  an  ancient  Augustodunum  ;  and  Loire  for  Liger  ; 
in  the  same  way  the  gulf  of  Lions  derives  its  name,  in  all  proba 
bility,  from  an  original  name  'sinus  Ligusticus,'  =  Aiyvw,  as  it 
does  not  seem  possible  to  connect  it  immediately  with  the  city  of 
Lyons1.  Similarly  in  the  case  of  some  other  letters,  as  Rh6ne  for 
Rhodanus.  Let  us,  then,  see  what  similar  forms  occur  in  the 
Codex  Bezae  of  the  weakening  of  the  "  g  "  sound  before  a  vowel 
either  in  the  Greek  or  Latin. 

In  Luke  viii.  36  we  find  in  the  Greek 


ap  AYTOIC  01  lAoNTec  ncoc  eceo0H  o  AIOON, 

where  AICON  stands  for  AepooN  as  the  Latin  shews. 

Is  this  a  mere  scribe's  slip  of  the  pen,  or  is  it  an  attempt 
to  represent  the  pronunciation  ? 

In  Acts  xiii.  5  we  have 

KATHNfeiAAN    TON    AON    TOY    *Y 

Was  the  scribe  assisted  in  the  error  of  writing  \6yov  as  \ov 
by  the  weakness  of  the  middle  consonant  ?  Probably  the  reader 
will  laugh  at  the  idea  ;  but  let  him  turn  to  Acts  xiii.  46,  where  he 
will  read 

YM6IN    npCOTON    HN    AAAH0HNAI    TON    AON    TOY    ^Y 

and  he  will  be  obliged  to  admit  that  the  repeated  error  is  curious, 
if  it  be  simply  palaeographic,  and  not  phonetic2.  Again  in 
John  xiv.  9  he  will  read 

KAI  TTOOC  CY  Aeic  AeiSoN  MMGIN... 

Then  turn  to  the  Latin  text  of  the  MS.  and  notice  how  often 
similar  loss  of  syllables  occurs. 
In  Matt.  xxii.  5  we  have 

qui  autem  neglentes  abierunt, 
where  we  should  expect  negligentes. 

century,  shews  an  early  stage  of  the  corruption  of  the  word:  it  gives  Herenei 
episcopi  Ludunensis  contra  omnes  hereses. 

1  The  name  'Sinus  Ligusticus'  does  not  seem,  however,  to  have  been  traced  west 
of  Genoa. 

2  Probably  a  similar  error  is  found  in  Luke  viii.  53  /ecu  Kare\ow  avrov,  where  we 
should  have  Kareye\uv:   but  the  verb-form  was  changed  to  ye\ew  and  the  y  not 
sounded  in  the  compound  word. 


SIXTH   CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF   CODEX  BEZAE.  21 

In  Luke  xx.  27 

eius  tacuerunt  accentes  autem, 
for  accedentes,  is  a  similar  case. 

In  Luke  xxi.  23 

erit  enim  nessitas  magna  super  terra, 

for  necessitous.  We  begin  then  to  suspect  that,  instead  of  the  Beza 
text  being  a  collection  of  blunders,  it  may  be  a  valuable  store 
house  of  transitional  forms  in  the  language  at  a  time  when  many 
changes  were  going  on. 

Are  not  these  the  very  forms  that  we  should  expect  in  the 
early  stages  of  a  language  which  made  eo  and  jo  out  of  ego, 
froid  out  of  frigidus,  soleil  out  of  soleculus,  genou  out  of  gen- 
oculum,  fraile  out  of  fragile,  trente  out  of  triginta,  bonheur  out 
of  bonum  augurium,  and  the  like?  We  must  clearly  carry  our 
enquiry  after  French  and  late  Vulgar  Latin  forms  in  the  Codex 
Bezae  much  further,  and  be  prepared  to  find  cases  in  which  the 
scribe  has  been  credited  with  blunders  where  he  is  phonetically 
perfectly  correct. 

Let  us  turn  to  Luke  xi.  5 

et  ibit  ad  eum 
media  nocte  et  dicit  illi  amie. 

We  should  naturally  pass  this  amie  as  a  pure  blunder,  but  we 
turn  to  Matt.  xxvi.  50  and  find  nearly  the  same  form 

ad  quod  venisti  ame, 

so  that  the  spelling  is  not  an  error  of  the  unconscious  kind :  there 
is  method  in  this  scribe's  noddings.  We  find  ourselves  here  on 
the  road  to  the  French  ami:  and  I  think  we  may  say  that,  if 
this  instance  is  a  good  one,  we  part  company  at  this  point  with 
any  one  who  is  disposed  to  hold  that  the  scribe  of  the  Beza  MS. 
was  an  Italian ;  for  the  Italian  language  preserves  the  form  amico, 
i.e.  it  has  hardly  deviated  from  the  Latin.  Or  again  let  us 
look  at  Matt,  xxviii.  15,  we  have 

apud  iudaeos.  usque  in  hoernum  diem. 

The  word  hoernum  attracts  attention  from  its  deviation  from 
the  conventional  hodiernus.  We  might  pass  it,  but  in  Acts  ii.  47 
we  find 


22  SIXTH  CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE. 

cottie  in  unum  in  ecclesia, 

where  we  should  expect  cottidie,  and  in  Acts  x.  30 
et  Cornelius  ait  a  nustertiana  die, 

where  we  ought  to  have  nudiustertiana.  In  every  case  the  syllable 
di  has  disappeared. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  French  language,  and  examine  the 
form  which  the  Latin  hodie  takes;  we  have  as  its  equivalent 
aujourd'hui  where  hui  evidently  stands  for  hodie;  the  change 
being  the  same  as  in  the  Beza  Codex.  And  again  we  see  that 
this  is  not  the  change  which  we  should  expect  from  an  Italian 
scribe,  who  would  write  something  nearer  to  the  modern  form  oggi. 

Let  us  now  look  at  some  curious  verb-forms.  Turning  to 
Luke  ix.  3,  we  find 

et  sanare  infirmos  et  dix  ad  eos, 

where  we  should  naturally  say,  ex  errore  pro  dixit. 
But  let  us  compare  Mark  vi  27, 

sed  statim  mis  speculatore, 

for  misit  speculatorem,  and  we  see  that  it  is  a  similar  case  to  the 
preceding ;  and  the  dropping  of  the  final  syllable  is  not  accidental, 
it  is  the  result  of  phonetic  law.  And  as  in  the  French  the  unac 
cented  syllable  weakens  away  so  that  dixit  becomes  in  French  dit, 
(for  dist?),  and  in  Italian  disse,  our  scribe  throws  off  the  final 
syllable  of  his  verb-forms. 

In  words  of  more  than  two  syllables,  the  weakness  is  usually 
felt  in  the  syllable  after  the  tone,  where  the  middle  consonant,  as 
we  have  shewn  by  many  instances,  will  drop  out  and  a  new  com 
bination  of  vowels  will  take  place. 

In  Mark  L  3, 

rectas  fate  semitas  di  nostri, 

the  first  hand  has  written  the  letters  d  over  fate ;  but  we  may 
reasonably  believe  that  he  had  a  motive  for  his  first  erroneous 
transcription,  i.e.  the  spelling  which  he  gives  is  the  local  Vulgar 
Latin  pronunciation  of  the  verb :  which  is  exactly  represented  by 
the  modern  Italian,  and  stands  very  near  indeed  to  what  the 
French  form  must  have  been  before  the  supplemental  s  in  faites 
was  developed  (probably  by  analogy). 


SIXTH   CENTUUY   GALLICISMS   OF  CODEX   BEZAE.  23 

We  can  support  this  reasoning  by  another  similar  case,  of 
weakness  in  a  word  in  common  usage,  in  Matt,  xviii.  25, 

Non  hante  co  unde  rcddcret, 

where  we  ought  to  have  habente.  This  hante  is  the  first  stage 
towards  the  French  ayant.  And  that  the  syllable  in  question 
really  was  subject  to  this  weakness  may  be  seen,  as  we  shall 
shew  by  and  by,  by  the  French  and  other  Romance  futures, 
where  we  find  the  Vulgar  Latin  cantare  habeo  become  chanterai 
because  habeo  itself  reduces  to  ai. 

This  case  speaks  more  strongly  for  a  French  locality  than  for 
an  Italian,  because,  although  the  Italian  exhibits  some  cases  of 
the  weakened  forms  of  habeo  (as  ho,  hanno  against  ebbe,  etc.),  yet 
in  this  participial  form  it  writes  avendo  and  thus  preserves  the  b 
sound. 

Occasionally  in  the  Beza  MS.  we  find  a  point  placed  over  a 
letter,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  with  what  intention,  whether  it  is 
to  indicate  something  as  to  the  breathing,  or  whether  it  is  a 
simple  erasure  of  the  letter  in  question,  or  non-sounding  of  it  by 
the  reader.  For  instance,  in  Mark  xiv.  3,  we  find 

ampullam  nardi  pi.stici  practiosi, 

where  the  word  ampullam,  which  seems  to  be  a  diminutive  of 
amphora,  is  marked  with  a  point  as  if  the  writer  wished  to 
pronounce  it  ammalam  or  amulam.  And  he  has  done  something 
of  the  same  kind  in  Mark  xiv.  13  where  he  has  marked  amphorae 
in  the  same -way,  as  if  again  the  letter  p  were  not  to  be  sounded. 
But  did  the  Vulgar  Latin  speech  really  say  amulet  in  the  time 
when  the  Codex  Bezae  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  ?  Let 
us  examine;  there  is  a  ninth-century  MS.  of  the  Ordo  Romanus 
(Cod.  Parisinus  974)  written  probably  by  a  Frankish  hand,  which 
Duchesne  has  published  as  an  Appendix  to  his  Origines  da  Culte 
Chretien.  The  writer  says  expressly  that  he  is  writing  in  the 
Vulgar-Latin :  "  Curavimus,  non  grammatico  sermone,  sed  aperte 
loquendo  veritatem  indicare."  The  MS.  was  originally  in  the 
possession  of  the  church  of  Saint-Amand  en  Puelle,  being  in 
scribed  with  the  words  "  Almae  ecclesiae  sancti  Amandi  in  Pabula 
liber."  We  should  naturally  regard  it,  then,  as  a  French  MS. 

3 


24  SIXTH   CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE. 

When  the  writer  describes  the  offerings  made  for  the  altar  he 
expresses  himself  as  follows  : 

Et  diaconi  recipiunt  amulas  et  portatur  stationarius  calix  a  subdiacono 
regionario,  et  refundit  diaconus  ammulas  in  ipso  calice  sancto.  Et  dum 
repletus  fuerit,  devacuatur  in  sciffo  quas  portant  acholithi....  Deinde  rever- 
titur  (pontifex)  ad  permanent  diaconi  ad  amulas  recipiendas. 

Further  on  he  uses  the  alternative  term  ampulla ;  e.g. 

tune  vadunt  diaconi  et  tollent  ampullas  cum  oleo  que  ponuntur  a  diversis 
etc.1. 

Et  venit  ad  eum  regionarius  secundus  et  accipit  ab  eo  ampullas  cum 
balsamo. 

Et  vadet  ante  pontificem  et  stat  ante  eum  cum  ampulla2. 

It  appears  then  from  the  MS.  that  it  was  proper  in  the  Vulgar 
Latin  of  the  period  to  pronounce  the  word  as  amula;  and  this 
explains  the  occurrence  of  the  erasing  point  in  the  Codex  Bezae. 

This  may  seem  to  be  a  trifle;  but  it  is  just  such  trifles  as 
these  that  confirm  the  argument  for  the  Gallic  origin  of  the 
scribe  of  Codex  Bezae. 

Having  noticed,  then,  the  way  in  which  the  scribe  has  indi 
cated  the  pronunciation  which  he  wished  the  reader  to  follow 
in  the  case  of  the  word  ampulla,  let  us  see  whether  there  are 
any  similar  cases  in  the  text,  where  a  letter  is  marked  for  erasure, 
or  where  attention  is  called  to  it  for  any  other  purpose. 

In  Acts  xx.  31, 

quia  triennio  nocte  ac  die, 

it  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  c  in  nocte  was  not 
sounded,  so  that  the  word  was  already  far  in  decline  towards 
the  forms  which  we  find  in  French  as  nuit  and  in  Italian  as 
notte.  Nor  is  it  surprising  that  the  weakness  of  the  speech 
should  show  itself  early  in  a  common  word  like  this.  The  form 
given  in  the  MS.  is  a  shade  nearer  to  the  Italian  than  the  French, 
but  is  recognized  to  be  the  parent  of  them  both ;  the  forms  being 
taken  from  the  oblique  noctem  where  m  is  no  longer  sounded. 
A  very  curious  case  occurs  in  Acts  xix.  36, 

oportet  vos  questos  esse. 
1  Duchesne,  l.o.  p.  450.  a  p.  451. 


SIXTH   CENTURY   GALLICISMS  OF   CODEX   BEZAE.  25 

The  erasing  point  comes  in  here  on  account  of  a  tendency  in 
the  Vulgar  Latin  to  break  up  words  artificially  into  imaginary 
compounds :  thus  they  separated  prodest  prodesse  etc.  into  prode 
est  and  prode  esse,  until  at  last  prode  came  to  be  regarded 
as  a  real  word,  even  as  early  as  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus. 
It  is  found  also  in  Cod.  Bezae  in  Luke  ix.  25.  Something  similar 
seems  to  have  happened  to  oportet:  for  Schuchardt  quotes  one 
case  of  its  decomposition1  (viz.  oportum  est),  and  it  is  possible  that 
the  pronunciation  of  our  MS.  intimates  a  similar  change. 

In  Acts  vi.  8  the  scribe  has  marked  the  p  in  stephanus  with  a 
point  of  erasure;  meaning,  as  I  suppose,  that  it  was  no  longer 
sounded:  the  letter  is,  in  fact,  absent  from  the  French  Etienne, 
but  is  preserved  in  Italian  (Stefano). 

In  Acts  xx.  9, 

sedens  autem  quidam  iubenis, 

the  scribe  intimates  the  non-pronunciation  of  the  final  s  in 
sedens;  sometimes  he  actually  drops  the  participial  ending,  as  in 
Acts  xix.  16, 

insilien  in  eos  homo. 

These  participial  endings  we  shall  discuss  more  at  length  by 
and  by. 

If  we  compare  the  French  celui  with  its  old  form  icelui, 
we  shall  see  that  the  first  word  of  the  pair  ecce  illui,  out  of  which 
it  has  been  derived,  has  been  subject  to  aphaeresis ;  and  a  similar 
thing  must  be  said  of  the  form  ici8t  =  cist,  and  of  the  Italian 
costui  which  must  be  traced  to  ecce  istui.  It  is  interesting  to 
notice  the  traces  of  this  weakening  in  the  first  syllable  of  ecce  in 
the  writing  of  our  MS. 

In  Luke  xvii.  21, 

nequo  dicent  ecce  hie  aut  cce  illi, 

where  we  should  pass  it  as  a  blunder  if  it  were  not  that  the  same 
thing  occurred  in  Luke  xiv.  2, 

observantes  eum  et  cce  homo. 

We  may  take  it  then  that  our  scribe  was  disposed  not  to 
sound  the  initial  vowel,  and  this  feature  is  the  first  stage  of 

1  Der  Vokalismus  des  Vulgar -lateins,  n.  504,  505. 


26  SIXTH   CENTURY  GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX   BEZAE. 

the  aphaercsis  of  the  syllable  in  the  Romance  languages.  In 
Matt.  iv.  11  we  have 

ct  c'cce  angcli  acccsserunt, 

which  is  a  curious  case  of  the  syllable-division,  but  whether 
the  initial  letter  is  sounded  is  uncertain.  The  point  is  near  the 
top  of  the  line  and  may  intimate  the  erasure  of  the  e. 

Reviewing  the  series  of  illustrations  which  have  been  given 
above  of  forms  which  may  properly  be  called  Romance  Forms,  we 
may  conclude  that  the  balance  of  the  evidence  is  in  favour  of 
regarding  the  MS.  as  a  Gallic  rather  than  an  Italian  production. 
And  if  this  were  so,  we  should  hardly  expect  that  in  the  sixth 
century  it  was  very  far  from  the  place  where  Beza  said  it  was 
found ;  i.e.  Lyons,  or,  as  Beza  says  in  his  last  edition  (probably 
acting  on  better  information),  Clermont  in  the  Auvergne. 

We  shall  now  pass  from  those  forms  which  belong  to  the 
Romance  languages  to  the  forms  which  belong  more  nearly 
to  the  Vulgar  Latin  of  the  Empire,  and  try  and  extract  from  them 
some  account  of  their  local  habitations. 


Additional  Note  to  c.  IV.  on  Scholz's  list  of  Gallicisms  in  the 

Codex  Bezae. 

WE  are  now  in  a  position  to  examine  Scholz's  crucial  instance  of  Gallicism 
in  the  Codex  Bezae :  viz.  the  use  of  the  word  soniis  as  a  translation  of  fj.fpip.vais 
in  Luke  xxi.  34.  Concerning  this  word  Scrivener  notes  (pp.  xlivf.) : 

"  Scholz  and  others  have  noticed  soniis  (nfptpvais)  in  Luke  xxi.  34  only,  for 
which  a,  e  have  solicitudinibus ;  6,  /  cogitationibu* ;  c  and  the  Vulgate  curis. 
That  sonius,  which  is  not  a  Latin  word  at  all,  is  connected  with  soinus  and  the 
French  soin  is  plain  enough,  and  Ducange  cites  from  one  Latin  and  Greek 
Glossary  'somnium  (frpovrls  tdta>rtK<3r,'  from  another  'somnior  /ifpt/ij/w/  whence 
was  corrupted  sonius,  thence  soinus  and  soin.  ('Nisi  competens  soinus  eum 
detineat.'  Leges  Henr.  I.  Regis  Angliae  cap.  29  in  Ducange  Medii  Aevi 
Latinitas,  sub  voce  Sunnis.) " 

Now  in  the  first  place,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  regard  somnium  in  the 
Glossaries  quoted  as  a  mere  error,  or  at  all  events  an  equivalent  of  sonium. 
For  Ducange  points  out  the  following  cases  of  substitution  of  the  former  word 
for  the  latter : 

Vetus  placitum  in  Vita  Aldrici  episc.  Cenoman.  p.  110.  Ne  mnrmitas  aut 
legitima  somnis  eum  detinuerit,  etc. 


SIXTH  CENTURY   GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX  BEZAE.  27 

Ita  perperam  somnis  habetur  in  lege  Langobard.  lib.  2,  tit.  43,  §  1,  et  sumnis 
lib.  3,  tit.  23,  §  3. 

It  seems  clear  that  these  alternative  spellings  are  mere  scribe's  errors,  and 
that  the  real  spelling  of  the  word  is  sunnis  or  sonnis,  which  would  answer 
very  well  to  the  sonium  of  our  text ;  and  would  certainly  be  the  parent  of  the 
French  word  soin. 

Two  things  may  be  said  with  regard  to  this  word ;  on  the  one  hand,  it  has 
every  appearance  of  being  a  German  word  :  on  the  other,  it  occurs  in  all  the 
Romance  languages,  and  must  therefore  be  7  sgarded  as  Low  Latin.  Its  earliest 
appearance  is  in  the  laws  of  the  Franks.  Let  us  turn  to  the  Salic  Law,  and 
we  shall  find  as  follows  : 

xlvii.  ...Et  si  quis  commonitus  fuerit  et  eum  sunnis  non  tenuerit  et  ad 
placitum  venire  distulerit  tune  ille  qui  cum  eum  negotiavit  mittat  tres  testes 
quomodo  ei  nunciasset  ut  ad  placitum  veniret. 

We  have  only  to  compare  with  this  allusion  to  a  detention  by  sunnis,  the 
authorities  cited  by  Ducange  under  essoin,  to  see  that  the  two  words  are 
equivalent : 

Essonia,  exonia,  exonium.  Essonium  de  malo  lecti,  cum  quis  morbo  ita 
detinetur  in  lecto  ut  ad  judicium  venire  non  potest...Prima  statuta  Roberti 
Regis  Scotiae.  Pro  essonio,  quod  Gallice  vocatur  mal  de  lit,  hoc  est  malum  de 
lecto,  Anglice  Bed  evill.  Essoine  de  maladie  residente  in  Consuet.  MS. 
Normann. 

Essoine  is  therefore  the  French  equivalent  of  exonium,  artificially  formed 
from  sonium. 

But  if  the  word  occurs  so  early  as  the  Salic  Law,  it  may  be  suggested  that 
it  is  -a  Frankish  word ;  and  if  we  turn  to  Kern's  account  of  the  Frankish 
words  in  the  lex  Salica1  we  find  the  following  suggestions  : 

§  231.  Sunni,  stem  'sunnia  (which  occurs  already  in  Tit.  I,  and  which  we 
find  again  in  Sect.  2),  means  a  lawful  excuse,  impedimentum  legitimum,  ex- 
ceptio.  The  M.  D.  (Middle  Dutch)  word  is  nootsinne:  O.  N.  nauftsyn;  a 
derivative  is  N.  D.  verb  vernootsingen  to  excuse  (sig= oneself)  by  proving  a 
lawful  impediment ;  in  the  municipal  law  of  Zutphen  "  ten  ware  sake  dat  hij 
sig  dede  vernootsinnigen,  te  weten  dat  hij  door  lijfsmoodt,  watersmoodt,  ofti 
heerengebodt  verhindert  ware  geweest." 

Kern  goes  en  to  suggest  a  connexion  with  the  Gothic  sunja,  truth ;  sunjon 
sik  diroXoyflfftiai,  sunjons  dno\oyia,  and  the  Latin  sontica  causa,  insons. 

That  is,  Kern  does  not  feel  quite  clear  in  his  mind  as  to  whether  he  is 
dealing  with  a  word  derived  from  the  Gothic  sunja  or  the  Latin  sons.  What 
is  certain  is  that  the  word  in  question  is  in  use  among  the  Salian  Franks  at 
the  very  earliest  period,  viz.  before  the  time  of  writing  of  the  Codex  Bezae. 
And  since  the  word  passes  over  into  the  French  language,  it  is  not  surprising 
that  its  occurrence  was  hailed  as  a  convincing  proof  of  Gallicism.  But  we 
must  not  make  such  conclusion  too  rapidly,  for,  as  we  have  intimated,  the 

3  * 

1  Hessel's  edition,  p.  538. 


28  SIXTH   CENTURY   GALLICISMS  OF  CODEX    BEZAE. 

word  turns  up  in  all  the  Romance  languages :  if  we  are  to  regard  soin  and 
essoin  as  belonging  to  this  stem,  we  can  hardly  exclude  besoin:  and  this  group 
of  words  is  widely  diffused:  we  have  the  Provencal  besonh  bezonh,  the  old 
Catalouian  bessonh,  the  Italian  bisogno,  and  the  Rhaeto-romanian  basengs, 
to  set  against  the  Old  French  besoing ;  and  just  in  the  same  way  as  the  French 
te'moin  is  derived  by  temoing  from  the  Latin  testimonium,  we  may  infer  a 
Low- Latin  word  sonium  if  not  besoniwn.  In  the  same  way  we  find  the  Pro- 
ven9al  sonh  soing,  suenh,  and  the  Old  Italian  sogna,  and  the  Wallachian  sogn, 
over  against  the  French  soin. 

It  will  be  seen  that  we  have  here  a  veritable  problem :  if  we  say  that  we 
are  dealing  with  a  Germanic  stem,  we  must  go  on  to  recognize  that  besoin 
contains  a  Germanic  prefix  bi  equivalent  to  the  modern  German  bei ;  and  we 
have  then  to  assume  that  the  words  in  question  came  into  France  with  the 
Frankish  invaders  and  into  Italy  with  the  Lombards,  which  would  of  course 
explain  why  it  turns  up  in  the  Salic  laws,  in  the  laws  of  Childebert  and 
Chlotarius  l  and  in  the  laws  of  the  Lombards. 

But  it  is  very  difficult  to  believe  that  besoin  is  a  German  word,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  no  trace  of  it  can  be  found  in  the  German  speech,  while  every 
Romance  language  has  it. 

The  other  supposition  is  that  the  word  is  truly  a  Romance  word,  and  the 
prefix  bes  has  been  added,  which  in  Romance  languages  gives  a  bad  sense  to  the 
word  to  which  it  is  attached,  so  that  if  soin  meant  simply  care,  besoin  would 
mean  anxiety  and  so  necessity. 

To  this  Diez  objects  that  in  that  case  the  Romance  languages  ought  to 
shew  the  word  written  with  a  double  s  :  and  Littr6  replies  that  the  double 
letter  does  occur  in  the  Old  Catalonian. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  latter  hypothesis  must  be  the  true  one :  we  may 
take  it  for  granted  that  the  Latin  term  sontica  causa  is  the  equivalent  in  the 
Roman  Law  for  the  sunnis  of  the  Law  books  quoted  above :  but  if  that  be  the. 
case,  it  can  hardly  be  an  accident  that  Frankish  lawyers  called  a  legal  excuse 
by  the  name  of  sunnis  which  compares  so  well  with  the  Roman  sons,  which  is 
the  root  of  sontica.  The  early  Frankish  and  Lombard  lawyers  must  therefore 
have  been  under  the  influence  of  the  Roman  Law,  and  the  word  which  they 
use  is  a  Roman  legal  loan-word. 

There  is  then  no  difficulty  about  the  diffusion  of  the  word  in  the  Roman 
speech. 

In  any  case  it  will  be  difficult  to  limit  the  word  as  found  in  the  Codex 
Bezae  to  the  position  of  the  country  under  the  power  of  the  Frankish  invaders. 
It  might  just  as  easily  be  an  Italian  word :  and  while  we  readily  admit  that  if 
the  Frankish  origin  could  be  established,  the  word  in  the  Codex  would  fairly 
belong  to  a  scribe  writing  under  Frankish  dominion,  and  so  Scholz's  contention 
would  be  established ;  yet  we  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact  that  the  word 
may  after  all  be  Vulgar  Latin  and  not  necessarily  Vulgar  Latin  of  as  late  a 

1  Ducange.  Adde  placitum  Childeberti  et  Chlotarii  §  5.  Si  placitum  sunnis  non 
detricaverit. 


SIXTH   CENTURY   GALLICISMS   OF  CODEX   BEZAE.  29 

period  as  the  sixth  century.  I  do  not  then  think  that  it  is  clear  that  soniis 
has  been  substituted  for  some  earlier  word  solicitudinibus  or  cogitationibus  :  it 
is  quite  possible  that  it  may  be  an  archaic  translation,  for  which  various  sub 
stitutes  have  been  suggested  by  transcribers  and  re-translators. 


Scholz  also  points  out  that  in  the  Codex  Bezae  in  John  x.  10  involet  is  a 
translation  of  /cXeS//^,  and  we  may  suppose  that  it  was  the  similarity  between 
the  word  and  the  French  voler  which  made  him  register  the  form  as  Gallic. 
More  cautiously  Scrivener,  discussing  the  theory  of  Scholz,  says,  "less  certain 
is  the  inference  drawn  from  involet  as  a  translation  of  K\€-fa)  in  John  x.  10 
only,  all  the  other  versions  h&viug  furetur  in  this  place.  Involo  is  rendered  by 
Ducange  per  vim  auferre  and  compared  with  the  French  voler,  but  Servius, 
the  Commentator  on  Virgil  in  the  5th  century,  says  'Vola  dicitur  media  pars 
manus...unde  et  involare  dicimus,  quum  aliquid  furtim  vola  manus  substra- 
hitur.'"  He  then  refers  to  Catullus,  Carin.  xxv.  fora  case  of  the  use  of  the 
word,  and  might  equally  well  have  referred  to  Pliny.  This,  of  itself,  is  enough 
to  make  one  suspicious  about  the  Gallican  theory1.  And  when  we  notice 
further  that  the  word  on  one  side  appears  in  the  Salic  Law  in  the  form 
embulare  (whence  the  Old  French  embler\  and  on  the  other  that  it  is  a 
common  word  in  modern  Italian  (involare  involatore  &c.),  we  need  scarcely 
hesitate  to  say  that  the  proofs  of  its  exclusively  Gallican  usage  are  not 
forthcoming. 

Probably  a  more  convincing  way  of  proving  Gallicism  in  the  Codex  Bezae 
would  be  to  compare  its  palaeographic  and  phonetic  peculiarities  with  those 
of  a  companion  MS.  which  has  a  similar  presumption  in  favour  of  a  French 
origin,  viz.  the  famous  Old  Latin  Pentateuch  of  Lyons,  which  was  published 
in  1881  by  M.  Ulysse  Robert  with  a  very  complete  exposition. 

The  Lyons  Pentateuch  is  not  nearly  so  eccentric  a  MS.  as  the  Codex  Bezae ; 
it  is  more  carefully  written  and  the  text  shews  signs  of  more  thorough  revision. 
Yet  there  are  not  wanting  signs  by  which  we  can  determine  something  as  to 
the  nationality  of  the  first  scribe. 

Suppose,  for  example,  we  were  to  test  the  MS.  in  order  to  see  whether  it 
ever  dropped  the  weak  intervocalic  g  whose  omission  is  so  common  in  Cod. 
Bezae.  We  should,  I  think,  find  only  a  single  instance,  viz. 

sarcophaum  for  sarcophagum. 

But  this  single  instance  would  have  to  be  set  with  the  aios  of  the  French 
Churches  and  X[ry]tW  and  other  cases  in  the  Codex  Bezae. 

Again  if  we  were  to  look  for  the  similar  case  of  the  disappearance  of  inter 
vocalic  c,  as  in  the  Beza  form  fate  for  facite  &c.,  we  should  find  the  Lyons 
Pentateuch  writing  feerit  for  fecerit.  It  may  be  an  accident,  but  it  is  just 
such  cases  that  make  one  suspicious. 

1  Vanipek  derives  the  word  from  the  Sanskrit  gvola. 


30  SIXTH   CENTURY   GALLICISMS   OF  CODEX   BEZAE. 

Many  other  minor  coincidences  of  spelling  may  be  noted,  such  as  the 
metathesis  of  the  aspiration  in  proper  names  etc.,  e.g.  while  Cod.  Bezae  in 
Acts  xvi.  16  writes  phytonem  for  pythonem,  the  Lyons  Pentateuch  in  Exod.  i.  11 
turns  Pithom  into  Phythonam. 

These  are  trifling  instances  and  the  subject  demands  a  close  and  careful 
examination.  I  believe  it  would  turn  out,  upon  investigation,  that  both  of  the 
MSS.  in  question  are  bona-fide  Rh6ne-valley  MSS.  as  far  as  their  scribes  are 
concerned,  but  the  problem  only  begins  at  this  point ;  for  what  we  really  want 
to  know  is  the  nationality  of  the  first  translators  of  the  Septuagint  and  New 
Testament. 

We  shall,  from  time  to  time,  as  our  argument  proceeds,  point  out  any  pho 
netic  and  linguistic  concurrences  between  the  two  MSS.  in  question. 

The  very  same  results  appear,  when  we  proceed  to  test  the  Old  Latin  MS. 
of  S.  Germain  (gl\  in  order  to  see  whether  it  shews  any  traces  of  the  striking 
disappearance  of  the  intervocalic  c  and  g  in  the  Old  French,  or  of  similar 
phonetic  weaknesses.  A  reference  to  Wordsworth's  edition  of  this  MS.  will  give 
us  the  following  information  on  the  point1. 

"  G  appears  to  have  had  a  very  slight  sound  between  two  vowels,  being 
often  omitted  in  tetii  (Matt.  ix.  21,  29  ;  xiv.  35  ;  xx.  34),  and  so  in  xxvii.  31, 
crucifierent:  cf.  xiv.  25  uilia  for  uigilia,  and  dinus  for  dignus  in  Luke  xii.  16." 

These  cases  must  be  added  to  our  previous  ones;  they  furnish  us  with 
confirmation  of  our  theory  that  Cod.  Bezae  and  Cod.  Sangermanensis  are 
both  French  in  origin.  In  vilia  for  vigilia  we  have  the  equivalent  of  the 
French  veille. 

1  Old  Latin  Biblical  Texts,  No.  I.,  p.  xxxix. 


CHAPTER  V. 
VULGAR  LATIN  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

WE  now  return  to  the  discussion  of  the  Vulgar-latinisms.  The 
MS.  is  full  of  Vulgar  Latin  forms,  which  seem  to  cover  a  good 
period  of  time ;  some  of  them  we  have  already  discussed,  where 
they  were  so  far  advanced  as  to  be  capable  of  identification 
with  known  forms  in  Provencal,  Italian  or  Old  French.  But  there 
are  many  which  belong  to  a  more  remote  period  and  which  do 
not  admit  of  such  definite  classification.  We  do  not  know  what 
was  the  primitive  text  from  which  Codex  Bezae  derived  its  Latin 
or  its  Greek ;  it  is  an  open  question  yet  whether  it  is  European 
or  African,  Roman  or  Gallican.  We  must  be  prepared  for  any 
thing  in  the  way  of  philological  surprises.  If  in  our  new  enquiry 
into  the  Vulgar  Latin  we  should  find  Africanisms  we  shall  simply 
have  to  say  that,  so  far  as  these  are  traceable,  the  MS.  must 
be  described  as  a  Gallican  MS.  made  upon  an  African  base.  If 
forms  occur  which  are  Roman  rather  than  Gallican,  or  South- 
Italian  rather  than  North-Italian,  we  must  say  similar  things. 
The  whole  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  Latin  versions  is  to  be  left 
an  open  question :  for  our  text  may  well  contain  by  inheritance 
many  peculiarities  which  are  not  capable  of  explanation  as  Galli 
cisms  of  the  sixth  century. 

One  caution  must  be  premised :  we  know  enough  now  of  the 
Codex  Bezae  to  make  us  very  careful  not  to  refer  to  the  blunders 
of  scribes  the  rare  forms  which  we  find  in  the  Latin  and  in  the 
Greek :  these  forms  are  our  best  landmarks,  and  we  must  be 
very  careful  not  to  reject  them  hastily.  When  we  find  an 
assumed  error  of  spelling  repeating  itself  in  the  text  at  different 


32  VULGAR  LATIN   OF  THE  CODEX   BEZAE. 

parts,  we  learn  that  we  are  dealing  not  with  an  error,  but  with 
a  phonetic  peculiarity.  Sufficient  instances  of  this  have  already 
been  given,  and  more  are  yet  to  follow. 

When,  for  instance,  we  find  that  the  scribe  spells  carcar  twice1 
against  career  twenty-eight  times,  we  must  reflect  that  carcar 
is  a  genuine  collateral  form,  which  may  be  frequently  found  in  the 
Acta  Fratrum  Arvalium*,  and  is  also  attested  by  the  Greek  loan 
word  xdpicapos. 

So  when  we  find  jajun  are  seven  times  against  fifteen  times  of 
jejuno,  we  shall  register  the  spelling  as  giving  us  another  side- 
form. 

When  we  find  in  Acts  xx.  20,  27  the  forms  substraxerim 
substraxi,  we  do  not  say  that  this  is  a  mere  cockneyism  of  the 
scribe;  for  we  recall  the  French  soustraire  which  is  commonly 
referred  to  a  Vulgar  Latin  subtustraho,  for  which  the  classical 
Latin  knows  only  subtraho*. 

Again  when  we  find  congaudebant  in  Luke  i.  58  and  cum- 
gaudete  in  Luke  xv.  6  etc.,  we  may  not  refer  it,  as  Scrivener 
does,  to  the  barbarism  of  a  scribe  who  is  trying  to  render  literally 
<T\rfXaipa>t  for  the  word  is  not  only  attested  in  the  oldest  Romance 
speech,  e.g.  Provencal  congauzir ;  French,  conjouir,  but  it  appears 
also  in  the  Latin  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian4. 

We  shall  then  regard  it,  for  the  present,  as  a  genuine  Vulgar 
Latin  form  of  wide  diffusion;  for  it  cannot  be  shewn  that  all 
these  writers  and  dialects  have  taken  it  from  a  translation  of  the 
Scriptures. 

But  in  order  to  impress  the  reader  more  forcibly  with  the 
need  that  there  is  for  a  fresh  scrutiny  of  Codex  Bezae  in  search 
of  lost  or  obsolescent  forms,  we  will  point  out  one  very  striking 
case  in  which  it  has  preserved  an  early  Latin  form,  undoubtedly 
archaic  and  belonging  to  prae-classical  times. 


1  Luke  iii.  20;  Acts  xzi.  12. 

8  Cf.  C.  I.  L.  vol.  vi.  pars  1,  p.  513  (A.D.  87),  p.  517  (A.D.  89),  p.  533  (A.D.  105), 
p.  535  (A.D.  117),  p.  541  (A.D.  120),  etc. 

3  Here  the  Italian  is  sottrarre :  which  seems  to  come  from  the  classical  form. 

4  Ronsch,  Itala  u.  Vulgata,  shews  the  word  to  belong  to  all  the  Old  Latin  texts  in 
1  Cor.  xii.  26,  and  refers  to  Cyprian,  Ep.  50,  Ambrose,  Ep.  6. 34  and  Snip.  Severas, 
Ep.  iL  ad  Aurel.  11. 


VULGAR  -LATIN  OF  THE   CODEX  BEZAE.  33 

Let  us  look  at  Acts  v.  38 

on  e&N  H  ei  <\N6pa)TT60N  H  BoyAH  AYTH 

QVIA   SIC   ERIT   AB   HOMINIBV8   CON8ILIVM   ISTVD. 

Notice  that  lav  is  translated  by  sic  :  we  should  naturally  let 
this  pass  as  a  scribe's  blunder;  but  as  we  read  on,  we  find  in 
Acts  vii.  2 

eineN  Ae  o  Apxiepeyc  TCO  CT€<J>ANO) 

ei  APA  TOYTO  OYTOJC  exei  •  o  Ae  e<J>H 

for  which  the  Latin  is 

AIT   AVTEM   PONTIFEX   STEPHANO 

SIC   HAEC   SIC   HABENT  •  AD   ILLE   DIXIT. 

Here  we  notice  that  the  Latin  translator,  who  is  following  the 
Greek  word  for  word,  has  again  translated  el  (more  exactly 
el  apa)  by  sic.  Now  it  might  be  maintained  that  this  was  merely 
an  anticipation  of  the  following  sic  :  but  this  is  insufficient  when 
we  recall  that  there  has  been  a  suspicion  in  our  own  minds  from 
the  previously  observed  case,  and  in  the  minds  of  philologers 
in  general,  that  the  Latin  si  was  derived  from  an  original  sic. 
And  indeed  we  find  the  word  in  Plautus  in  the  form  sice1,  and 
hence  (see  Vam^ek,  p.  971)  we  are  entitled  to  regard  the  word  as 
made  up  from  a  root  sa  +  enclitic  ke  ;  and  so  to  equate  it  directly 
with  the  Greek  ei  ice.  Let  us  now  turn  back  to  John  xxi.  22, 
where  we  find 

Ke  OYTOC  Ae  TI  •  Aepei  AYTO>  o  me 

€AN    AYTON    6eAcO    MCNCIN 


DME   HIC  AVTEM   QVID  •  DIGIT  ILLI   IHS 
81  EVM   VOLO   SIC  MANEBE. 

Bearing  in  mind  that  our  translator  has  been  convicted  twice 
of  rendering  el  and  eav  by  sic,  we  see  at  once  the  cause  of  the 
eccentric  reading  in  the  MS.  Evidently  it  once  stood 

SIC  EVM   VOLO  MANEBE, 

and  this  has  been  corrected,  probably  on  the  margin,  and  the 
correction  has  found  its  way  into  the  text  without  displacing  the 
original  reading.  A  study  of  other  Western  texts  shews  the  same 
feature  with  slight  variations,  and  it  even  passed  into  the  Vulgate  ; 

1  Probably  sic  erit  in  Acts  v.  38  was  originally  sice  sit. 
C.  B.  3 


34  VULGAR   LATIN   OF  THE   CODEX   BEZAE. 

my  collation  of  the  Amiatinus  (a  copy  which  Tregelles  made 
and  lent  to  Tischendorf)  has  the  following  note  in  Tischendorf  's 
hand  on  the  margin  against  vv.  22  and  23 ; 

Ed.  Fleckii  bis  Sic 
nee  ego  quicquam 
contra  notavi. 

So  that  we  see  the  reading  to  belong  to  the  regular  tradition 
of  the  Vulgate ;  and  to  have  been  registered  by  Fleck,  though 
apparently  overlooked  by  Tregelles,  in  this  Codex. 

Further,  we  find  the  reading  sic  eum  volo  in  b  c  g  and  in 
Ambrose  :  in  v.  23,  where  a  is  extant,  we  also  find  it.  A  reference 
to  the  Codex  Fuldensis  shews  the  same  reading  in  both  places: 
in  v.  22  the  text  stood  si  sic  eum  volo  manere,  but  Victor  of  Capua 
erased  the  si.  The  Corbey  MS.  ffz  seems  to  have  the  same  con 
flate  reading  (si  sic)  in  v.  22,  though  it  omits  the  disputed  word 
altogether  in  v.  23  \ 

Now  here  we  have  a  most  interesting  study  of  an  undoubtedly 
Western  reading.  We  need  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that 
all  early  Western  texts  read  originally  sic  eum  volo  in  both 
verses.  Moreover  the  reading  is  a  perfectly  correct  one,  as  long 
•  as  we  take  sic  in  its  archaic  meaning  et  /ce.  But  when  this  form 
became  obsolete,  the  Latin  texts  became  subject  to  correction  and 
so  to  conflation ;  and  after  a  time  the  Greek  text  was  re-acted 
upon  either  from  the  primitive  or  from  the  conflated  Latin,  and 
the  word  o#T6>9  was  inserted  as  we  find  it  in  Codex  Bezae :  so 
that  we  have  a  crucial  case  by  which  we  shew  that  to  some 
extent  the  Western  Greek  text  has  latinized,  though  how  far  that 
influence  extended  is  a  great  problem.  Moreover  this  reading 
shews  that  all  these  Latin  texts  have  a  common  Latin  root  if  we 
go  back  far  enough :  for  it  is  very  unlikely  that  separate  translators 
should  have  agreed  in  writing  in  this  passage  the  archaic  form 
sic  for  si.  The  common  root  into  which  they  recede  is  the 
first  line-for-line  translation  of  the  Latin  Gospels  of  which 
we  have  a  somewhat  late  form  exhibited  in  Codex  Bezae. 

1  I  do  not  wish  to  complicate  the  question  by  discussing  at  the  same  time  the 
origin  of  God.  k  :  and  so  will  simply  note  that  in  Mark  ix.  43  this  MS.  shews  "et  sic 
scandaliziauerit  manus  tua."  The  Lyons  Pentateuch  also  in  Lev.  v.  1  renders  la* 
rty  &naprlaj>  by  sic  non  rettulerit  accipiet  delictum. 


VULGAR  LATIN  OF  THE  CODEX   BEZAE.  35 

This  will  seem  to  be  rather  a  summary  method  of  dealing 
with  the  Old  Latin  texts,  and  I  am  afraid  that  it  will  seem 
especially  suspicious  to  Dr  Sanday  who  has  done  such  excellent 
pioneer  work  in  the  classification  of  the  early  Latin  copies.  In 
Old  Latin  Bible  Texts  No.  ii.  p.  122  Dr  Sanday  expresses  his 
belief  that  "  it  is  only  by  the  method  here  pursued,  viz.  by  the 
systematic  examination  of  whole  groups  of  readings,  that  a 
satisfactory  conclusion  will  ever  be  arrived  at."  The  caution  ex 
pressed  is  in  the  main  a  wise  one.  And  yet  Dr  Sanday  sometimes 
sees  the  necessity  of  building  high  upon  what  seems  to  be  a 
narrow  foundation  ;  for  on  p.  116  he  says,  "In  St  Mark  ix.  15,  the 
Greek  Trpoarpe^ovTe^  has  been  corrupted  to  irpoa-^povret  (for 
7rpoo"xalpovTe<;),  which  is  represented  by  gaudentes  in  the  Latin  of 
c  d  ffs  i  k.  It  seems  difficult  to  avoid  the  inference  that  these 
MSS.  in  spite  of  all  their  divergences  have  after  all  a  common 
origin."  No  doubt  it  is  difficult  to  avoid  the  conclusion,  but  was 
the  origin  a  Greek  MS.  or  a  Latin  ?  Is  the  unity  one  of  derivation  , 
from  a  version  or  from  a  copy  ?  The  question  is  an  important  one, 
because,  besides  the  authorities  quoted  by  Dr  Sanday,  the  same 
evidence  is  given  by  Cod.  b,  which  reads  cadentes  for  gaudentes,  and 
by  the  Tatian  Harmony.  Perhaps  the  evidence  accumulated  by 
Dr  Sanday  is  not  quite  decisive  on  the  question,  but  we  may  at 
least  affirm  that  we  may  build  upon  a  single  passage  in  the 
Gospels,  provided  we  interpret  it  rightly.  And  the  case  which  we 
have  proposed  above  has  the  advantage  over  Dr  Sanday 's  case  in 
this  that  it  is  certain  that  the  common  error  (if  we  indeed  are 
right  in  calling  it  an  error,  for  we  have  shewn  that  sic  is  a  lawful 
form  for  si)  is  a  translator's  error,  and  the  translator  is  the 
ancestor  of  Codex  Bezae.  From  this  translation  all  the  others 
that  we  have  named  depend.  And  we  may  suspect  that  the  Old 
Latin  texts  a  b  c  gl  and  the  copy  used  by  Ambrose,  to  say  nothing 
of  other  copies,  are  framed  upon  a  primitive  bilingual  text  of 
which  Codex  Bezae  is  the  great  representative.  We  shall  de 
velop  the  proof  of  this  position  as  the  argument  proceeds.  Mean 
while  it  will  be  a  good  study  to  set  these  early  translations, 
sentence  by  sentence,  over  against  the  text  of  Codex  Bezae,  and 
watch  the  way  in  which  one  copy  or  another  evaded  the  harsh 
ness  and  removed  the  provincialisms  from  the  parent  text.  In 

3—2 


36  VULGAR  LATIN   OF  THE  CODEX   BEZAE. 

not  a  few  cases  it  will  be  found  that  peculiar  readings  of  our 
Codex  escape  correction,  and  so  appear  in  texts  whose  Latin  is 
of  a  very  correct  type ;  while,  on  the  opposite  hand,  there  are 
no  doubt  cases  where  the  comparison  will  throw  back  archaisms 
from  the  younger  texts  upon  the  parent  text  of  the  Beza  manu 
script. 

Having  said  so  much  by  way  of  suggestion,  let  us  now  return 
to  the  curious  Latin  reading  sic  for  si,  from  the  consideration  of 
which  we  have  digressed. 

We  may  now  go  a  step  further:  Scrivener1  suggests  that  in 
the  year  1546  the  Codex  Bezae  was  in  Italy.  His  reasoning  is  as 
follows :  "  William  a  Prato,  Bishop  of  the  city  of  Clermont  in  the 
adjoining8  province  of  Auvergne,  produced  to  the  Council  of  Trent 
in  1546  a  very  ancient  Greek  manuscript  confirming  the  Latin 
reading  sic  eum  volo  in  John  xxi.  22,  which  Cod.  D  alone  of  all 
known  authorities  might  appear  to  do :  when  his  end  was  served, 
the  Bishop  would  of  course  restore  it  to  his  neighbours  the  monks 
of  St  Irenaeus,  from  whom  he  had  borrowed  it." 

Scrivener  is  quoting  from  Wetstein  N.  T.  proll.  p.  28,  who  says 

Postquam  diu  latuisset  codex  noster,  iterum  in  lucem  productus  est 
circa  tempora  Concilii  Tridentini,  quod  conjicio  ex  Mariani  Victorii  notis 
in  Hieronymum,  in  quibus  citatur  "  antiquissimus  Graecus  Codex,  quern 
Tridentum  attulerat  Claromontanus  Episcopus  A°  1546":  is  erat,  ut  ex 
Actis  Synodicis  constat,  Gulielmus  a  Prato,  qui,  ad  locum  loann.  xxi.  22, 
prout  in  Latinis  exemplaribus  legitur,  confirmandum  istius  codicis  Graeca 
protulit,  fav  avrov  6i\a>  pivfiv  ourtoy,  co>s  ep^o/iai,  si  eum  volo  sic  manere, 
usque  dum  venio.  Haec  enim  lectio  hactenus  in  solo  Cantabrigiensi  reperta 
est. 

But  have  we  the  right  to  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  the  bishop  of 
Clermont's  Codex  was  the  Codex  Bezae  ?  Wetstein's  quotation  is 
evidently  from  the  Codex  Bezae ;  but  what  of  Marianus  Victorius? 
Evidently  he  wished  for  some  reason  or  other  to  confirm  the 
reading  OUTO>?.  But  what  was  the  reason,  and  whence  did 
Marianus  Victorius  get  his  information  ?  A  reference  to  the 
notes  on  the  first  book  of  Jerome  against  Jovinianus  will  give  the 
actual  words  of  the  editor : 

Si  ewn  sic  volo  esse,  quid  ad  te?    D.  Hieronynms  legit,  sicut  habet  anti- 

1  Codex  Bezae  p.  viii.  2  i.e.  to  Lyons, 


VULGAR  LATIN  OF  THE  CODEX   BEZAE.  37 

quissimus  quidam  Graecus  Codex  quern  Tridentum  attulit  Claromontanensis 
Episcopus  anno  Domini  1549,  tav  avrov  tfeXw  /zeWii/  OVTUS  to>s  ep^oficu.  Cui 
consentit  Latinus  qui  est  in  Basilica  S.  Pauli,  a  Carolo  Magno  illi  Ecclesiae 
donatus,  et  vulgatus  ubique  Sacrarum  Missarum  Codex,  et  alii  tres,  duo  qui 
sunt  in  monasterio  Sublacensi,  et  tertius  quern  ego  legi  in  monasterio  S. 
Dionysii  Parisiensis. 

It  appears,  then,  that  Marianus  Victorius  was  adducing  the 
bishop  of  Clermont  as  confirming  the  reading  not  in  its  archaic 
form  sic  eum  volo,  but  in  a  more  evolved  form,  after  conflation  had 
taken  place.  But  since  he  gives  us  the  Greek  text,  there  is 
little  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Codex  Bezae  is  the  MS.  in  question, 
the  agreement  on  this  point  being  exact. 

The  reason  for  referring  to  the  passage  at  all  in  the  Council  of 
Trent  is  a  little  more  difficult  to  detect.  But  we  may  make  one 
or  two  points  with  some  confidence. 

It  might  at  first  be  supposed  that  the  verse  was  a  test  question 
as  to  the  authority  of  the  Vulgate  against  the  Greek  in  a  matter 
of  divergent  texts ;  and  this  would  agree  with  the  fact  that  the 
bishop  of  Clermont  was  present  in  the  Council  and  took  part  in 
the  debates  on  the  question  of  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 
But  I  can  find  no  allusion  in  the  published  accounts  of  the 
Tridentine  Council  to  any  such  dispute  over  the  verse  in  John  xxi. 
And  indeed  the  selection  of  such  a  passage  as  a  test-case  would 
imply  a  degree  of  scholarship  altogether  too  refined.  We  may 
suspect  then  that  the  question  at  issue  was  something  of  a  different 
kind,  to  which  the  verse  in  dispute  was  more  applicable  than  the 
rest  of  the  Scripture :  and  it  is  easy  to  see  what  this  question 
was ;  for  Jerome  quotes  the  passage  in  order  to  base  on  it  an 
argument  for  the  perpetual  virginity  of  St  John ;  sic  manere  is 
the  expression  of  the  perpetual  celibacy  of  the  beloved  disciple. 
Now  this  question  comes  up  in  the  Council  in  connexion  with  the 
dispute  as  to  which  estate  of  life  has  the  higher  sanctity,  the 
married  or  the  single.  It  is  true  that  it  does  not  come  up  during 
the  first  part  of  the  Council  at  which  William  a  Prato  was 
present,  but  many  years  later,  when  the  Council  had  been  re 
assembled.  But  this  need  not  prevent  us  from  believing  that  the 
question  was  much  discussed  in  private,  in  the  earlier  years  of 
the  Council. 


38  VULGAR   LATIN   OF  THE   CODEX   BEZAE. 

The  fact  is  that  the  verse  in  St  John,  as  read  in  the  Latin  or  in 
the  Beza-text,  formed  a  very  appropriate  pendant  to  the  doctrine 
of  1  Cor.  vii.  40  paxapKorepa  Be  ea-nv  eav  OUTOJ?  neLvy :  and  the 
similarity  of  the  language  invited  the  interpretation  which  we 
find  in  Jerome.  Consequently  we  find,  when  the  Canon  on  Virginity 
is  brought  forward  in  the  Council,  after  the  twenty-third  formal 
session,  that  it  appears  in  the  following  forms  :  on  July  20th,  1563, 
it  is  the  IXth  Canon  : 

IX.  Si  quis  dixerit  matrimonium  antepoiiendum  esse  virginitati,  vcl 
coelibatui,  et  non  esse  raelius  et  beatius  manere  in  virginitate  et  coelibatu 
( =  OVTUS)  quam  iungi  in  matriinonio,  anathema  sit. 

On  Oct.  26  it  is  the  Xth  Canon, 

X.  Si  quis  dixerit  statum  conjugalem  anteponendura  esse  statui  vir- 
ginitatis  vel  coelibatui,  et  non  esse  melius  ac  beatius  manere  in  virginitate  aut 
coelibatu,  quam  iungi  matrimonio,  anathema  sit. 

And  we  suspect,  as  we  have  said,  that  the  reason  for  the 
quotation  from  St  John  was  that  it  was  supposed  to  have  a  bearing 
on  the  question  of  virginity,  as  implied  in  OUTW?  pelvy  of  1  Cor. 
We  need  have  no  hesitation  in  accepting  Marianus  Victorius' 
evidence  about  the  Greek  MS.  and  its  reading,  for  he  is  an  almost 
contemporary  Italian  bishop  and  had  therefore  every  reason,  both 
as  a  cleric  and  a  scholar,  to  know  the  facts  of  the  case.  His 
Jerome  was  published  at  Rome  in  1566,  and  he  himself  died  in 
1572,  not  long  after  he  had  been  elected  bishop  of  Rieti. 

We  may  correct  the  date  1549,  which  I  find  in  the  notes  to 
Jerome  ;  it  must  stand  1546,  for  the  Council  was  hardly  in  active 
existence  in  1549 ;  nor  is  there  any  evidence  that  the  bishop  of 
Clermont  was  at  any  session  later  than  the  seventh,  i.e.  up  to 
March  1547 ;  though  he  made  a  powerful  address  before  the 
assembled  fathers  on  Jan.  9th,  1547  (a  copy  of  which  may  be 
found  in  Le  Plat,  ill.  481),  and  frequently  took  part  in  the  earlier 
debates *. 

1  His  bishopric  is  Clermont-Ferrand  in  the  Auvergne ;  he  was  elected  to  the  see 
on  Feb.  16,  1528  and  died  in  the  year  1561  (according  to  Gams  22  x.  1560,  which 
seems  to  be  the  same  date  differently  reckoned).  He  was  the  founder  of  the  Jesuit 
College  of  Clermont  at  Paris  and  of  several  other  institutions.  He  was  buried  in 
the  Convent  of  the  Friars  Minims  of  Beauregard,  which  again  seems  to  have  been 
one  of  his  own  foundations. 


VULGAR   LATIN    OF   THE   CODEX   BEZAE.  39 

We  have  seen  then  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  • 
Codex  Bezae  was  at  the  Council  of  Trent ;  and  that  it  was  referred 
to  in  order  to  support  a  Latin  rendering,  when,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  Greek  had  already  been  corrected  to  the  Latin,  although 
there  was  not  the  least  reason  to  have  made  a  correction  at  all,  if 
only  the  vulgar  speech  had  been  kept  in  mind  ! 

The  proof  that  the  archaic  Latin  rendering  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  employed  the  form  sic  for  si  may  be  confirmed  by  shewing 
how  widely  this  form  prevails  in  the  popular  Latin  literature  of  the 
same  period.  If  the  reader  will  take  the  trouble  to  examine  the 
Old  Latin  of  Irenaeus,  he  will  find  that  the  MSS.  and  edited  texts 
are  full  of  misunderstandings  arising  out  of  the  interpretation  and 
correction  of  the  ambiguous  word.  A  few  instances  may  be  given. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  text  of  Irenaeus  is  based  upon 
three  principal  MSS.  :  the  Clermont  MS.  (formerly  in  the  Jesuit 
College  at  Paris),  the  Arundel  MS.  in  the  British  Museum,  and  the 
Vossian  Codex  at  Leyden.  Other  MSS.  are  occasionally  alluded 
to  by  the  first  editors,  but  their  whereabouts  is  in  most  cases 
unknown. 

Irenaeus  ed.  Harvey,  II.  318  =  Mass.  293. 

Si  autem  nori  salvctur  haoc  videlicet,  nee  Dominus  sanguine  suo  rcdcmit 
nos,  neque  calix  Eucharistiae  comniunicatio  sanguinis  ejus  est. 

This  reading,  according  to  Harvey  and  Stieren,  is  found  in  the 
Clermont  and  Vossian  MSS.  while  the  Arundel  MS.  reads  sic  autem 
and  is  supported  by  an  Ottobonian  Codex.  The  latter  form  is,  no 
doubt,  to  be  restored. 

ii.  339  =  Mass.  301. 

Sic  ergo  pignus  hoc  habitans  in  nobis  iam  spirituales  efficit,  ct  absorbetur 
mortale  ab  immortalitate. 

Here  the  Clermont  and  Vossian  MSS.  (with  perhaps  some 
collateral  support  known  to  the  earlier  editors  of  Irenaeus)  read  sic 
for  si.  The  form  should  again  be  restored. 

ii.  356  =  Mass.  308. 

Sic  enim  proprie  de  came  hoc  dictum  diccnt,  et  11011  de  carnalibus 
operationibus,  quemadrnodum  demoiistrabimus,  ipsum  sibi  contraria  Apo.sto- 
lum  diceiitem  contraria  ostendentes. 

Here,  according  to  Harvey,  the  Clermont,  Arundel  and  Vossian 
MSS.  read  sic,  other  authorities  si.  Stieren  merely  says  "Ita 


40  VULGAR  LATIN   OF  THE  CODEX   BEZAE. 

Clarom.  Voss.  et  Mass. :  melius  quam  reliqui  si  enim."  The  sense 
requires  si  enim,  but  the  older  form  should  be  printed. 

.&:  II.  384  =  Mass.  319. 

Sic  igitur  manifeste  ostendente  Domino  quoniam  Dominus  verus  et  unus 
Deus  qui  a  lege  declaratus  fuerat...iam  non  oportet  quaerere  alium  Patrem. 

Here  the  editors  Harvey  and  Stieren  read  sic  against  the 
Vossian  and  Clermont  MSS.  which  have  si.  The  confusion  between 
the  two  forms  is  again  apparent.  We  follow  the  editors  in 
restoring  the  form  sic,  and  leave  the  interpretation  of  the  word  an 
open  question. 

ii.  395  =  Mass.  324. 

Si  ergo  Deus  magnus  significavit  per  Danielem  futura  et  per  Filiura  con- 
firmavit,...confutati  resipiscant  qui  Demiurgum  respuunt,  etc. 

Here  Stieren  notes :  "  Feuardentius  e  codice  veteri,  quocum 
Voss.  consentit,  scripsit  sic  ergo.  Sed  cum  Grab,  et  Mass,  nostram 
lectionem  restitui  propter  meliorem  connexionem  verborum,  quae 
sequuntur :  confutati  resipiscant." 

Harvey  adopts  si  which  is  clearly  right,  as  far  as  the  sense 
goes,  without  even  a  question  or  a  note.  But  it  is  again  a  case  of 
misunderstanding,  and  we  should  restore  sic  to  the  text. 

ii.  414  =  Mass.  332. 

Si  ergo  huic  promisit  Deus  hereditatem  terrae,  non  accepit  autem  in  omni 
suo  incolatu,  oportet  eum  accipere,  etc. 

where  Stieren  notes  on  the  reading  si ;  "  Ita  cum  Mass,  scrips!. 
Reliqui  e  codd.  habent  sic,  quod  errore  scribarum  scriptum  est." 

The  error  is  clearly  one  of  interpretation,  and  the  scribes  are 
to  be  justified  in  preserving  the  old  Vulgar  Latin  form. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  shew  that  the  pages  of  Irenaeus 
are  full  of  misunderstandings  similar  to  the  one  which  we  detected 
in  Cod.  Bezae.  The  instances  might  be  multiplied,  but  as  the 
present  discourse  is  not  immediately  concerned  with  the  character 
of  the  Old  Latin  of  Irenaeus,  it  is  not  necessary  to  deal  with  the 
subject  exhaustively. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Is  THE  CODEX  BEZAE  A  LATINIZING  CODEX  ? 

IT  will  be  seen  that  we  have  run  up  against  a  notable  and 
apparently  incontrovertible  instance  of  what  is  called  Latinization 
in  the  Codex  Bezae.  And  as  we  have  thus  reopened  what  was  a 
burning  question  of  the  last  century,  it  will  be  well  to  stop  and 
ask  ourselves  whether  it  is  really  true  that  such  a  retranslation  of 
Latin  into  Greek  can  be  admitted,  and  whether  there  are  any  other 
such  cases.  Leaving  then,  for  a  while,  the  discussion  of  the  Vulgar- 
latinisms  of  the  MS.,  we  proceed  to  shew  that  the  instance  in 
question  is  not  an  isolated  case,  but  that  the  whole  of  the  Greek 
text  of  Codex  Bezae  from  the  beginning  of  Matthew  to  the  end  of 
Acts  is  a  re-adjustment  of  an  earlier  text  to  the  Latin  version. 

This  was  the  view  of  the  earlier  critics,  such  as  Mill,  Wetstein, 
Middleton,  etc. :  but  it  was  supposed  to  have  received  a  final 
quietus,  by  the  discovery  of  the  wide  extent  to  which  the  so-called 
Western  readings  prevailed  in  manuscripts  of  all  periods  (and 
especially  of  early  periods),  and  coming  from  all  parts  of  the  world. 

Mill  expressed  himself,  as  follows,  in  his  Greek  Testament  A.D. 
17071. 

Vidimus  jam  qualia  fuerint  Graeca,  qualia  item  Latina  hujusce  codicis. 
De  Graecis  unum  illud  ultra  quaeritur,  an  aliqua  ex  parte  castigata  fuerint 
ad  Latinum  exemplar  ?  ea  enim  erat  de  libris  hujus  generis  eruditorum  quo- 
rundam  nostrae  et  superioris  aetatis  diserta  sententia.  Nempe  cum  mirifice 
consenserint  ista  cum  Latinis,  contra  quam  reliqui  Graeciae  libri,  iique  optimi, 
facile  ipsis  persuasum  eat,  ea  vel  non  omnino  fuisse  Graecae  originis,  sed  tota, 
quanta  quanta,  traducta  de  Latinis,  vel  saltern  recensita  et  emendata  fuisse 
variis  sui  partibus,  ad  Latinam  Versionem.  Sic  de  ipsis  pronuntiant  Erasmus, 
Lucas  Brugensis,  Estius,  Grotius,  alii ;  quorum  sententiam  nil  mirum  si  in 
hac  editione  nostram  fecerimus. 

1  Proleg.  in  N.  T.  p.  cxxxiv. 


42  IS   THE   CODEX   BEZAE    A    LATINIZING   CODEX  ? 

De  hac  re  jam  ita  videtur.  Exscripta  erant  apud  Latinos,  ex  librorum,  ad 
quos  confccta  erat  Itala  versio,  apographis,  varia  Graeca  cxemplaria,  ex  igno- 
rantia  scribarum,  doctiorumque  e  Latinis  quoruudam  nepupyia  (qui  mutuata 
e  Graecorum  libris  scholia,  et  Apocrypha  fragmenta  in  codices  ex  suis 
descriptos  inserenda  curabant)  graviter  laesa  et  interpolata.  Istis  mox 
adaptabatur  a  quibusdam  Latina  Versio.  Ex  hac  autem  consensione  forte 
factum  est,  at  indocta  maims  paucula  hinc  inde  in  textu  Graeco  ad  formam 
Latinorum  et  e  Latina  versione  mutaverit.  illud  enim  apparet  in  Graecis 
Cant.  HpoJdour,  lorni/rovr,  2a/iapirai/&>»>,  aliaque  id  genus  ad  Latinorum  formam 
confecta  sunt.  Matt.  v.  24,  cum  latirium  esset  o/eres,  irp6<r<pfpc  mutavit 
librarius  in  npoorfapds.  ea  enim  ipsi  erat  secunda  persona  futuri.  Karafiaivov, 
factum  KaTapaivovra  ob  lat.  descendentem,  iii.  16.  Cap.  xi.  22,  24  cum  esset  in 
lat.  quam  vobis  et  vero  Graecum  esset  rj  vp.1v,  quae  vobis  (sic  enirn  videbatur) 
inutavit  in  fjv  vp.lv  ut  latino  responderet.  Sic  cap.  ejusd.  v.  28,  factum  est 
iravTfs  ol  KomaivTfs  Kctl  TTffpopTKrp.fi'oi  €OTc  ob  lat.  omnes  qui  laboratis  et  onerati 
estis.  Cap.  xv.  18,  20,  ob  latino,  obsoleta  (sed  gcnuina  interpretis  Vulgati)  com- 
municat  communicant  i.e.  polluit,  polluunt,  pro  /cotj/ol,  Koivovvra  reposuit  absurde 
Koivcjvfl  KoivwvovvTa.  uti  et  Act.  xxi.  28,  CKOivavrjo-c  TOV  ayiov  ronov  TOVTOV,  ob 
lat.  communicavit  sanctum  locum  hunc.  Sic  Matt,  xviii.  22,  f/SSo/iT/Koi/ra/ay 
fTTTtiKis  ob  lat.  septies.  Act.  v.  9,  Swecpeoi^o-ez/  (pro  o-vvf<p(avr)6r))  vp.lv  ob  lat. 
convenit  vobis.  Mitto  alia. 

One  would  certainly  have  thought  that  such  an  array  of 
instances,  with  the  suggestion  that  there  were  others,  would  have 
provoked  a  very  close  examination  of  at  least  the  syntax  on  the 
two  sides  of  the  MS.  Perhaps  the  real  fault  was  that  people 
accepted  the  opinion  as  to  the  Latinization  of  the  Western  Greek 
Codices  too  readily.  There  were  polemic  feelings  which,  in  some 
cases  at  least,  were  still  provoked  by  the  suggestions  of  Latin 
authority.  Wetstein  in  his  prolegomena  takes  up  very  decided 
ground  with  Mill  as  to  the  fact  of  Latinization :  and  inveighs 
fiercely  against  Morinus  who  had  in  his  Exercitationes  Biblicae 
defended  the  consentient  testimony  of  Latin  and  Latinizing  codices 
as  being  the  criterion  of  the  true  text :  and  concludes  Morinus  on 
this  ground,  as  well  as  on  that  of  private  scandals,  to  be  wholly 
unacquainted  with  the  Greek  language1. 

The  very  strong  case  made  out  by  Mill  and  Wetstein  was  met 
by  a  temperate  reply  made  in  1787  by  J.  D.  Michaelis.  He  admits 
that  some  of  the  examples  brought  forward  are  very  extraordinary, 
but  replies  that  the  Greek  text  in  Codex  Bezae  sometimes  varies 

1  Wetstein,  Prolegg.,  Amstelodami  (A.D.  1751),  p.  32. 


IS  THE  CODEX  BEZAE  A  LATINIZING  CODEX  ?  43 

from  the  Latin,  and  he  carries  the  war  into  the  enemies'  camp  by 
suggesting  that  the  Latin  has  in  some  cases  been  corrupted  from 
the  Greek.  And  he  concludes  by  saying1 

The  result  of  the  preceding  remarks  is  that  the  manuscript  in  question 
cannot  possibly  have  been  altered  from  the  Latin,  according  to  the  charge 
which  has  been  usually  laid  to  it....  But  till  we  are  fully  informed  what 
readings  are  to  be  ascribed  to  the  text  itself  and  what  to  subsequent  corrections, 
it  is  impossible  to  decide  on  this  subject  with  any  certainty  ;  which  we  shall 
more  easily  obtain,  if  to  the  above  mentioned  information  be  added  a  diligent 
use  of  the  Sahidic  version. 

And  so  he  concludes  to  wait  until  Kipling's  promised  edition 
shall  come  out.  The  allusion  to  the  Sahidic  version  was  signi 
ficant,  for  this  version  had  been  shewn  to  be  full  of  Western 
readings. 

Griesbach2  threw  the  whole  weight  of  his  great  authority 
against  the  theory  of  Latinization.  In  describing  Codex  L,  which 
has  such  affinity  in  many  readings  with  Cod.  D,  he  refuses  to 
admit  that  the  consensus  between  readings  of  the  Alexandrian 
and  Western  recensions  is  anything  more  than  a  consensus :  very 
many  Western  readings  had  been  introduced  by  mixture  into 
Alexandrian  texts.  Such  Greek  readings  were  to  be  reckoned 
as  derived  from  Greek  MSS.  unless  it  could  be  shewn  that  they 
could  not  have  been  derived  from  such  a  source,  and  that  they 
could  on  the  other  hand  have  been  derived  from  the  Latin. 
The  illustrations  brought  forward  by  the  Latinizers  shewed  consent 
but  not  corruption:  ("nil  praeter  illorum  cum  hac  consensum 
ostendunt,  neutiquam  vero  istos  ex  hac  corr-uptos  esse").  He 
will  not  be  so  wedded  to  his  own  opinion  as  to  say  that  no  glosses 
.or  readings  ever  crept  from  the  Latin  into  the  Greek:  but 
most  of  these  cases  are  of  slight  importance  and  there  was  no 
deliberate  intent  at  latinizing  the  Greek.  He  instances  XeTr/soxro?, 
and  <£Xa7eXXa><ra9.  But  actual  readings  of  a  latinizing  kind 
are  very  rare.  Griesbach  intimates  that  a  few  such  occur  in  the 
Acts  in  the  Codex  Alexandrinus.  In  any  case,  if  one  or  two  such 
readings  occur,  that  is  no  reason  for  despising  the  rest  of  the  MS. 

It  is  evident  that  Griesbach's  views  must  have  been  the  chief 
cause  in  the  change  of  opinion  upon  the  question  of  Latinization. 

4  ^        *  Marsh's  MicJiaelis,  n.  236.  2  Symbolae  Criticae,  p.  cxi. 


44  IS  THE  CODEX   BEZAE   A   LATINIZING   CODEX? 

And  he  was  followed  by  Herbert  Marsh,  who  in  his  notes  on 
Michaelis'  Introduction  takes  up  the  same  ground1.  Marsh  points 
out  that  Semler,  who  at  first,  in  1764,  when  he  had  not  emanci 
pated  himself  from  the  influence  of  Wetstein,  had  expressed 
himself  against  the  Western  Graeco-Latin  texts,  put  himself 
right  in  his  Spicilegium  Observationum  in  1766  by  saying  "non 
licet  mihi  amplius  earn  tenere  (sententiam)  aut  hunc  codicem 
(sc.  D)  et  graeco-latinos  tarn  vehementer  adspernari...Itaque  istae 
accusationes  omnes  vanae  sunt  jam  et  temerariae."  To  which 
Marsh  adds  that  the  authors  of  the  Latin  versions  must  have 
found  in  the  Greek  manuscripts,  from  which  they  translated, 
the  readings  which  are  common  to  them  and  to  the  Codex 
Bezae:  and  this  very  agreement  is  a  strong  argument  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Western  readings.  No  instance  has  been  pro 
duced  from  the  Codex  Bezae  of  supposed  latinizing  which  might 
not  just  as  well  be  a  genuine  reading  of  the  Greek. 

Marsh's  edition  of  Michaelis'  Introduction  and  valuable  supple 
mentary  notes  on  the  same  were  published  in  1793.  And  he 
remarks  that  Griesbach's  system  is  at  present  received  by  every 
critic  in  Europe.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  by  the  end  of 
last  century  Griesbach  had  converted  almost  the  whole  world 
to  his  opinions.  Matthaei  alone  seems  to  have  held  to  the  ancient 
opinion,  and  Matthaei  was  not  popular  in  the  west. 

In  his  New  Testament  published  at  Riga  in  1786  Matthaei 
had  expressed  himself  very  strongly  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
corruptions  in  Cod.  D.  They  were  due  to  a  Latin  monk  who 
knew  a  moderate  amount  of  Greek,  and  had  made  a  farrago  of 
readings  from  other  copies  and  from  the  fathers  and  from  other 
parallel  passages.  It  must  be  owned  that  this  is  not  very  clear. 
The  indictment  had  too  many  counts. 

In  1808,  however,  there  appeared  Middleton's  Doctrine  of  the 
Greek  Article,  to  which  was  attached  a  far  more  close  examination 
of  the  subject  than  had  yet  been  made2.  Middleton  had  fallen 
foul  of  the  Codex  Bezae  in  his  attempt  to  apply  his  theories 
of  the  Greek  Article  to  the  text  of  the  New  Testament:  and 
he  subjoins  an  Appendix,  containing  some  remarks  on  this  Codex. 

1  Vol.  ii.  pt  2,  pp.  676  sqq. 

8  I  use  the  edition  of  1841,  published  after  Middleton's  death  by  H.  J.  Rose. 


IS  THE  CODEX   BEZAE  A   LATINIZING  CODEX  ?  45 

This  Appendix  is  really  an  excellent  piece  of  work,  for  so 
small  a  compass.  The  writer  begins  by  making  a  collection  of  some 
rare  and  unique  readings  in  the  Codex  Bezae  in  the  first  twelve 
chapters  of  Mark.  Then  he  analyses  the  variants  under  eight  heads: 
(1)  Synonyms.  (2)  Transpositions.  (3)  Compound  for  Simple 
and  Simple  for  Compound  verbs.  (4)  Wrong  moods  and  tenses. 
(5)  Alterations  in  the  sense.  (6)  Questionable  Greek.  (7)  Lati- 
nisms.  (8)  The  uses  of  the  Article.  Under  all  these  heads 
Middleton  finds  evidence  of  latinizing  corruption,  and  he  con 
cludes  that  "  the  Cambridge  MS.  though  a  most  venerable  remain 
of  antiquity,  is  not  to  be  considered,  in  a  critical  view,  of  much 
importance.  It  is  of  use  to  the  translator  and  to  the  dogmatic 
theologian,  but  not,  as  I  think,  generally  speaking,  to  the  editor  of 
the  N.T.,  whose  object  it  is  to  give  a  text  approaching  as  nearly  as 
possible  to  the  Autographs."  But  he  adds  very  fairly  "  As  to  the 
goodness  of  its  readings,  considered  with  regard  to  the  sense,  I 
have  already  observed  that  for  this  fact  we  may  in  part  account 
by  the  natural  supposition  of  the  great  antiquity  of  the  MS.  which 
was  the  basis  of  the  Codex  Bezae." 

In  the  present  century  the  general  opinion  as  to  the  excellence 
of  the  text  underlying  Codex  D  has  become  more  and  more 
decided.  It  is  regarded  as  an  exploded  fiction  to  speak  of 
latinizing,  and  as  a  rule  the  Latin  text  is  only  quoted  where 
the  Greek  is  lost,  or  where  there  is  some  peculiarity  attaching 
to  it  which  constitutes  a  fresh  point  in  the  evidence. 

Accordingly  Dr  Hort  says1  "a  large  proportion  of  the  Latin 
texts  of  these  MSS.  is  indeed,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  un 
altered  Old  Latin ;  but  where  they  exactly  correspond  to  the 
Greek,  as  they  do  habitually,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  how  much  of 
the  accordance  is  original,  and  how  much  arbitrary ;  so  that 
for  the  criticism  of  the  Greek  text  the  Latin  reading  has  here  no 
independent  authority."  And  his  account  of  the  genesis  of  the 
bilingual  texts  is  that  "  a  genuine  (independent)  Old  Latin  text 
has  been  adopted  as  the  basis,  but  altered  throughout  into  verbal 
conformity  with  the  Greek  text  by  the  side  of  which  it  was 
intended  to  stand."  It  will  be  seen  from  these  quotations  how 
completely  the  Greek  text  of  Cod.  Bezae  has  come  to  be  regarded 

1  Introduction  to  N.  T,  pp.  82,  83. 


46  IS  THE   CODEX   BEZAE   A   LATINIZING  CODEX? 

as  independent  of  the  translation  which  accompanies  it.  Our 
question,  then,  is  whether  this  belief  in  the  independence  of  the 
Greek  text  is  well-founded;  and  it  is  clear  that,  if  the  critics 
have  come  to  a  wrong  conclusion  on  this  point,  it  will  not  be  easy 
to  make  progress  in  the  study  of  the  New  Testament  origins 
until  the  error  is  rectified.  We  proceed  then  to  examine  the 
question  again  in  the  light  of  the  instances  of  Latinization  quoted 
above,  and  such  others  as  may  be  detected. 

Now,  when  we  say  that  there  has  been  action  and  re-action 
between  the  Greek  and  Latin  texts  in  Codex  Bezae,  we  do  not 
merely  mean  that  a  bilingual  scribe  makes  bilingual  mistakes.  It 
is  quite  true  and  worthy  of  notice  that  there  are  errors  by  the 
writing  of  Greek  letters  in  the  Latin  words,  etc.  Thus  there  are 
several  cases  where  the  letters  of  one  language  are  used  erroneously 
in  the  words  of  the  other  language.  Perhaps  the  most  curious  is 
in  Matt.  v.  22,  where  the  present  text  runs  thus : 

Ego  autern  dico  uobis:  quia  omnes  qui  irascitur. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  archetype  of  the  Western 
texts  there  once  stood  pascitur  instead  of  irascitur ;  the  first  letter 
of  the  last  word  being  lost  in  the  last  letter  of  qui;  and  the  r 
becoming  p  by  the  confusion  prevalent  in  Graeco-Latin  palaeo 
graphy.  Our  reason  for  believing  this  error  to  be  wide  spread  and 
original  is  the  fact  that  it  is  found  at  this  point  in  Codex  1c,  which 
is  said  to  be  African  Latin :  and  also  in  the  Latin  of  Irenaeus, 
ii.  32,  1,  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus.  There  is  no  more  curious 
error  than  this  in  the  whole  New  Testament ;  one  would  have 
supposed  it  would  hardly  have  escaped  correction  by  a  single 
copyist ;  and  it  seems  safe  to  trace  to  a  common  origin  MSS.  which 
shew  such  a  feature. 

But  such  instances,  while  they  constitute  a  striking  feature  of 
family  likeness  in  the  Codices  where  they  occur,  do  not  prove 
anything  at  all  with  regard  to  the  character  of  the  texts.  There 
is  always  cross-play  in  a  bilingual  MS. 

The  same  thing  must  be  said  of  such  cases  as  \€7rpa)<ro<;,  <j>\a- 
7€\Xo)o-a9,  ^afjLapiTavwv  and  the  like :  these  are  things  such  as 
may  belong  to  any  bilingual  Codex  whatever.  They  are  the  natural 
accidents  of  the  case.  We  must  examine  the  matter  much  more 
closely  before  we  can  come  to  a  conclusion. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

CASE  OF  A  LATIN  HEXAMETER  VERSE  CARRIED  OVER  INTO  THE 
GREEK  TEXT  OF  CODEX  BEZAE. 

BUT  now  let  us  turn  to  Luke  xxiii.  53,  and  examine  a  notable 
addition  which  Codex  Bezae  here  makes  to  the  text.  The  whole 
verse  reads 


KAI 
TO  CGOMA  TOY  <HY  GN  CINAONI 

KAI    eOHKeN    AYTON    €N    MNHMGICO 
AeAATOMHMeiMO)    OY    OYK    HN    OYTTO) 
OYACIC    KGIM6NOC    KAI    06NTOC    AYTOY    €n€0HK€ 
TO)    MNHMGIO)    AGI0ON    ON    MO|~IC    €IKOCI 


ET   DEPONENS 

INVOLVIT    CORPV8   IHV   IN   SINDONE 
ET   POSVIT   EVM   IN   MONVMENTO 
SCVLPTO   VBI  ADHVC 

NEMO   POSITV8   ET   POSITO   EO   IMPOSVIT 
IN   MONVMENTO   LAPIDEM   QVEM   VIX   VIGINTI 
MOVEBANT. 

Now  concerning  this  added  sentence  (/cat  O€VTOS...€KV\IOV) 
.  Scrivener  remarks  acutely  that  it  is  "  conceived  somewhat  in  the 
Homeric  spirit."  Let  us  examine  then  whether  either  in  the 
Greek  or  Latin  the  added  words  shew  traces  of  having  once  been 
in  metre.  Fixing  our  attention  on  the  added  words  in  the  Latin, 
we  see  that  the  words  posito  eo  and  in  monumento  are  a  repetition 
from  the  preceding  words  posuit  eum  in  monumento.  And  if  we 
erase  them  we  have  left  what  is  certainly  meant  for  a  hexameter 
verse, 

Imposuit  lapidem  quern  uix  uiginti  mouebant, 


48  A    LATIN    VERSE    IN    CODEX    BEZAE. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  scribe  of  Codex  Bezae,  or,  if  we  prefer 
it,  an  ancestor  of  his,  has  deliberately  incorporated  into  his  text  a 
verse  of  Latin  poetry,  which  he  has  then  turned  into  Greek, 
following  closely  the  order  of  the  Latin  verse.  The  only  difficulty 
lies  in  the  quantity  of  the  last  syllable  of  viginti,  which  would  in 
Virgil  be  strictly  long  :  but  this  objection  may  be  over-ruled,  for 
the  poetry  of  our  interpolator  may  be  popular,  and  in  any  case  we 
are  in  a  position  to  point  out  the  ultimate  poetical  origin  from 
which  his  verse  is  derived.  In  fact,  as  Scrivener  suggested,  the 
origin  of  the  gloss  is  Homeric,  and  the  stone  which  covered  the 
entrance  to  the  Lord's  tomb  has  been  compared  with  the  great 
stone  which  Polyphemus  rolls  to  the  mouth  of  his  cave.  Of  this 
we  are  told  that  it  was  such  a  great  stone  that  two  and  twenty 
waggons  would  not  be  able  to  stir  it  :  (Odyssey  ix.  240) 

Avrap  fiTfir    fircQrjKf  6vpcov  fjifyav  ityoo-'  atipas, 
*Oppi[j,ov  OVK  av  rovyf  8va>  KCU  ft/too-'  a/ia£at 
'E<7#Xat  TfTpdicvK\oi  an-' 


with  which  we  may  compare  IX.  304, 

Ov  yap  Kfv  dvvap,c(r&a  0vpaa>v 

\i6ov  oftptpov  ov  irpo<rcdr)Ktv. 


There  are  other  similar  comparisons  in  Homer,  when  great 
stones  are  thrown  by  Ajax  and  other  warriors  in  battle  ;  but  this 
passage  in  the  Odyssey  is  undoubtedly  the  one  from  which  our 
writer  has  derived  his  gloss.  The  "  twenty  "  insufficient  stone- 
movers  are  the  equivalent  of  the  twenty-two  waggons  in  Homer  ; 
and  this  of  itself  makes  one  suspect  that  the  Codex  Bezae  has 
borrowed  from  a  Latin  version  of  the  Odyssey,  and  that  the  next 
line  to  the  one  which  he  appropriated  began  with  the  word 
"  Plaustra." 

Moreover  the  passage  is  identified  with  the  story  of  Polyphemus 
by  the  fact  that  the  Evangelic  allusion  is  to  a  cave  closed  by  a 
stone,  which  finds  a  much  more  exact  parallel  in  the  passage  from 
the  Odyssey  than  any  of  the  other  Homeric  references  to  the 
handling  of  huge  stones. 

We  might  compare  by  way  of  illustration  the  following  lines 
from  the  Ilias  Latina  458—462  : 


A  LATIN  VERSE  IN  CODEX  BEZAE.  49 

Postquam  utrique  diu  steterant  nee  uulnera  magnus 
Qua  daret  infesto  Tydides  ense  uidebat, 
Saxum  ingens,  medio  quod  forte  iacebat  in  agro, 
Bis  seni  quod  uix  iuuenes  tellure  mouerent, 
Sustulit  et  magno  conamine  misit  in  hostem  ; 

but  while  this  passage  furnishes  a  very  instructive  parallel,  it  is 
not  nearly  so  close  to  our  text  as  what  would  be  furnished  by  the 
incident  in  the  Odyssey. 

If  further  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of  our  theory  as  to 
the  source  of  the  Bezan  gloss  were  needed,  it  might  be  found  in 
the  following  considerations.  The  leading  facts  of  the  Gospel 
History  were  at  a  very  early  period  (far  earlier  than  most  people 
suppose)  transferred  into  poetry  by  using  the  language  of  Homer, 
and  translating  into  this  speech  the  record  of  the  Miracles  and 
Passion  of  our  Lord.  These  curious  patchworks  of  verses  and  half- 
verses  of  Homer  were  known  by  the  name  of  Homeric  Centones, 
rOfj,7)poKevTpa)ve<;  or  'QpypoKevrpa.  It  is  not  generally  known  that 
these  collections  have  exercised  a  very  great  influence  over  the 
primitive  Christian  literature.  But  such  is  the  case,  as  I  hope  at 
some  future  time  to  demonstrate.  As  far  as  I  know,  no  attention 
has  been  given  to  the  subject,  and  I  only  refer  to  it  here  in  order  to 
point  out  that,  when  the  Homeric  Centonists  went  to  work  to  write 
the  story  of  our  Lord's  burial  in  Greek  Hexameters,  they  made  the 
very  same  connexion  with  Polyphemus  as  we  find  in  the  Codex 
Bezae.  To  prove  this,  we  will  transcribe  a  few  lines  of  the 
Homeric  Centones,  as  found  in  the  Paris  edition  of  the  Poetae 
Graeci  Ghristiani  of  A.D.  1609. 

Ilfpi   rfjs  rcxprjs. 
Topvcaaavro  8e  (rr^ia^  $e/zeiXia  rt  Trpo/SaXoj/ro. 


Ot  §'  (Sa-ff  rjpiovoi  /cparepoi/  pevos  a/ 
"EX/covo-*  e£  optos  Kara  Tranra\6c<rcrav  arapTrov 
*H   doKov,  rjc  dopv  fj.eya  vr\'iov^  ev  8e  re  6vpos 
Tcipcff  o/ioG  <a/xar<u  TC  KOI  (8pa>  (rrr€v86vTC<raiv. 
'Qs  01  y%  e/i/ic/Liattrf,  vfKW  (pepov.     avrap  vncpOfv, 
Xfpa-t  pcyav  \i6ov  dcipavrcs  re  irpoa-fGrjkav 
"Op,(3pi}jiov  OVK  av  rovbt  8vu>  KOI  ei'/coo"'  a/xa^ai 
'Eor^Xal,  rfrpa/cv/cXot,  an    ovdeos  ox^itrartuuf. 

The  striking  coincidence  in  the  treatment  of  the  case  by  the 
Centonist  with  the  gloss  in  the  Bezan  text  renders  it  certain  that 
C.  B,  4 


50  A   LATIN   VERSE  IN   CODEX   BEZAE. 

we  have  referred  the  latter  to  its  true  origin  in  the  pages  of 
Homer.  The  intermediate  link  was  either  some  Latin  form 
of  the  Odyssey,  or  it  was  a  version  of  the  Gospels  made  by  a 
Latin  Centonist. 

Further  light  is  thrown  on  the  subject  by  the  consideration 
that  the  same  gloss  which  we  have  detected  in  Cod.  Bezae  is 
found  in  one  other  Latin  copy  and  in  one  of  the  Egyptian  versions. 
The  Latin  MS.  which  is  denoted  by  the  sign  c  (Cod.  Colbertinus), 
whose  text  will  be  found  in  Sabatier's  Bibliorum  Sacrorum 
Latinae  Versiones  Antiquae,  gives  the  additional  matter  in  the 
form 

et  cum  positus  esset  in  monumento, 

posuerunt  lapidem  quern  uix  uiginti 

uoluebant. 

Some  changes  have  here  been  introduced  into  the  original 
form ;  posito  eo  has  been  replaced  by  cum  positus  esset ;  inposuit 
becomes  posuerunt ;  and  mouebant  has  been  corrected  to  uoluebant 
Now  clearly  mouebant  is  the  original  word,  for  it  is  coupled,  if 
our  suggestion  be  correct,  with  plaustra;  but  since  mouebant  went 
back  into  Greek  as  etcv\iov,  it  seems  that  in  Cod.  c  we  have  a 
re-translation  from  the  Greek  with  greater  exactness;  and  the 
same  supposition  explains  cum  positus  esset  as  a  new  translation 
of  teal  0ei>To<?  avrov,  and  posuerunt  may  be  due  to  a  reading  erre- 
Ovtcav  in  the  Greek,  or  to  a  desire  to  avoid  the  difficulty  of  the 
rolling  of  such  a  stone  by  a  single  man.  We  suspect  then  that 
the  text  of  c  is  a  re-translation  of  the  Western  Greek.  The  other 
version  to  which  we  have  alluded  is  the  Sahidic  or  Thebaic,  which 
gives  a  reading  answering  to 

cum  uero  posuissent  eum  posuit 
lapidem  in  porta  sepulcri  quern 
uiginti  homines  uoluere  possent. 

It  is  interesting  again  to  observe  the  changes  that  have  taken 
place,  the  explanatory  gloss  in  porta  sepulcri,  the  express  intro 
duction  of  homines  after  the  numeral,  the  dropping  of  uix,  and 
the  change  from  mouebant  to  uoluere  possent. 

The  reading,  moreover,  proves,  and  it  is  a  fact  of  immense 
textual  importance,  that  the  Thebaic  version  ultimately  leans,  in 


A   LATIN   VERSE   IN  CODEX   BEZAE.  51 

part,  on  a  Latin  base.  It  has  always  been  a  problem  to  account 
for  the  large  Western  element  in  the  Thebaic  version ;  we  now  see 
in  what  direction  to  look  for  the  explanation.  It  is  not,  in  the 
present  case,  a  question  of  early  Greek  recensions ;  if  the  Thebaic 
version  took  the  gloss  in  question  from  a  Greek  copy,  it  was  from 
a  Greek  MS.  which  was  the  umbra  of  a  Latin  text,  and  it  is  even 
possible  that  it  may  have  borrowed  from  the  Latin  directly. 

Further,  we  may  say  that  the  text  from  which  the  verse  in 
question  was  originally  taken,  whether  it  be  a  metrical  Gospel  or 
a  collection  of  Latin  Centones,  or  a  Latin  Odyssey,  must  have  been 
an  early  work  ;  for  it  has  every  appearance  of  being  older  than 
the  common  origin  of  the  group  of  authorities 

D  +  c  +  theb. 

It  is  commonly  held  that  the  Bezan  text  is  a  fourth  century 
product;  I  believe  it  to  be  in  the  main,  including  the  glosses, 
two  hundred  years  earlier  than  this ;  the  Thebaic  version  is 
usually  referred  to  the  third  century  at  least,  against  which  date 
we  know  no  reason ;  and  it  seems,  therefore,  that  the  metrical 
gloss  must  be  very  ancient,  and  this  consideration  will  help 
us  in  finding  the  date,  not  only  of  the  special  corruption  which  we 
are  studying,  but  of  associated  and  similarly  attested  errors. 

For  example,  the  reasoning  in  the  preceding  paragraph  would 
exclude  the  possibility  of  the  gloss  in  question  being  taken,  say, 
from  the  Evangelical  History  of  Juvencus. 

It  is  true  that  Juvencus  in  his  account  of  the  entombment 
draws  upon  the  Polyphemus  passage,  as  the  following  extract  will 
shew : 

Concessit  praeses,  et  corpus  fulgida  lino 
Texta  tegunt,  saxique  nouo  componitur  antro: 
Limen  concludunt  immensa  uolumina  petrae. 

Lib.  iv.  724—726. 

Here  Juvencus  has  borrowed  '  immensa  uolumina '  from  Virgil, 
but  he  seems  to  have  Homer  also  in  his  mind,  for  his  verses  have 
a  ring  very  like  Odyssey  ix.  235,  and  243. 

"Evrorrtifv  d'   avrpoin  fta\a>v  opvpaydov  fOrjKfv 


TjXlfidTOV    TT€TprjV    (ITfdrjKf     0V  pit)  (Til. 

4—2 


52  A  LATIN  VERSE  IN  CODEX  BEZAE. 

Juvencus  then  shews  the  same  tendency  to  use  the  language 
of  the  Polyphemus  story,  but  he  makes  no  use  of  the  line 
descriptive  of  the  size  of  the  stone,  and,  as  we  have  shewn  above, 
this  line  must  belong  to  an  earlier  writer. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  we  can  refer  the  original  gloss  to 
any  definite  time  or  person  ? 

My  friend  Dr  McCabe1,  who  first  pointed  out  that  my  Beza 
hexameter  was  substantially  a  verse  of  the  Odyssey,  suggested 
that  it  might  possibly  be  a  fragment  from  Livius  Andronicus. 
The  Odyssey  was  translated  into  Latin  verse  at  a  very  early 
date  indeed,  and  the  translation  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  first  efforts 
at  Latin  poetry.  Livius  Andronicus,  nearly  250  years  before  the 
Christian  era,  transferred  the  Odyssey  into  Saturnian  verse :  and 
the  translated  poem  was  still  used  as  a  school-book  in  Horace's 
day.  Moreover,  when  we  say  that  the  metre  was  Saturnian,  this 
is  not  meant  to  exclude  an  occasional  hexameter ;  for  these  early 
poets  used  a  good  deal  of  freedom :  and,  in  fact,  the  fragments  of 
Livius  Andronicus  which  are  preserved  shew  some  decided  cases 
of  hexameter  writing. 

Unfortunately,  we  are  not  able  to  test  the  conjecture  in 
question  by  means  of  a  direct  reference,  for  by  far  the  major  part 
of  the  Latin  Odyssey  is  wanting. 

Moreover,  we  shall  see  bye  and  bye,  that  this  case  of  demon 
strated  Horaerization  is  only  one  out  of  a  number  of  such  cases 
occurring  in  Codex  Bezae  and  other  Christian  writings  that  seem 
to  be  connected  with  it.  We  shall,  therefore,  leave  it  for  the 
present  an  open  question  who  was  responsible  for  the  Latin  verse 
injected  into  the  account  of  the  Entombment ;  if  we  were  forced 
to  make  a  suggestion,  we  should  say  it  was  due  to  an  early  Chris 
tian  Centonist,  probably  of  the  second  century. 

1  Of  the  Seminary  of  S.  Carlo  Borromeo,  Pennsylvania. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

TRACES  OF  AN  ATTEMPT  AT  NUMERICAL  VERBAL  EQUALITY  BE 
TWEEN  THE  GREEK  AND  THE  LATIN  ON  THE  PART  OF  THE 
SCRIBES  OF  THE  ANCESTRY  OF  CODEX  BEZAE. 

IT  is  interesting  to  notice  that  this  reflex  action  of  the  Latin 
on  the  Greek  had  been  observed  by  Bentley,  who  had  the  MS.  for 
so  many  years  in  his  personal  keeping  at  Trinity  College.  If  we 
turn  to  Luke  xv.  28, 


o  Ae  TTATHP  AYTOY  eSeAOcoN  Hp2<vro  AYTON 

PATER   AVTEM   EIVS   EXIENS   ROGABAT   EVM, 

we  shall  see  that  the  word  irapaKakelv  has  dropped  from  the 
end  of  the  Greek  line,  apparently  because  there  was  nothing  to 
balance  it  in  the  Latin,  which  had  however  rightly  translated 
ripgaro  TrapafcaXeiv,  or  perhaps  a  primitive  irapeicaXet,,  by  rogabat1. 
And  Bentley,  who  noticed  this,  remarked2,  "Exciderat  TO  (7rapa- 
tcaXeiv'  in  Graeco;  quod  in  Latino  rependit  eodem  (ut  solet) 
verborum  ordine." 

No  doubt  Bentley  was  right  in  his  explanation,  and  there  are 
too  many  such  instances  for  us  to  regard  the  omissions  as  accidental. 
For  example,  two  pages  further  on  in  the  MS.,  Luke  xvi.  16,  we 
have 

KAI    TTAC   €IC    AyTHN    BlAZGTAI 
ET   OMNES   IN   EAM   CONATVR, 

where  it  is  possible  that  the  translator  wrote  conatur  introire  : 
in  this  case  then  the  Latin  text  has  been  shorn  of  a  word.  It 
is  much  to  be  wished  that  Bentley  had  followed  his  clue  a  little 


1  Rogabat  is  also  found  in  Cod.  e. 

2  Ellis,  Bentleii  Critica  Sacra,  p.  15. 


54         VERBAL  EQUALITY  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

farther  into  the  mysteries  of  the  Beza  text :  unfortunately,  though 
he  was  quite  alive  to  the  question,  he  was  misled  in  a  passage  in 
the  Acts  and  came  to  conclude  that  the  Greek  had  not  been 
corrected  to  the  Latin,  and  so  did  not  give  himself  full  scope  in 
the  perplexing  problems  offered  in  his  text.  We  shall  find,  for 
instance,  that  he  studied  the  discrepant  Greek  and  Latin  of 
Acts  vi.  14, 

K(\T<\AYCGI  TON  TOTTON  TOYTON  KM  AAA<\5ei  TA  eQn 

DESTRVET   LOCVM   ISTVM   MVTAVIT   ITERVM, 

where  mutauit  stands  for  mutabit. 

Here  Bentley  says:  "edrj  accepit  pro  eo  quod  est  en.  N.B.  non 
correxisse  Graeca  ad  Latina." 

We  should  take  a  different  view  from  Bentley  :  for  it  seems  to 
us  that  the  translator  rendered  a\\afet  by  mutauit  iterum,  and 
rd  eOrj,  probably,  by  c&nsuetudines  ;  but  having  thus  allowed  the 
Latin  text  to  gain  on  the  Greek,  a  word  was  subtracted,  viz.  the 
final  one  in  the  sentence.  If  this  explanation  be  the  correct  one, 
it  will  be  seen  that  Bentley  missed  a  case  which  exactly  confirmed 
his  theory  in  Luke. 

We  must  certainly  examine  for  other  cases  of  the  same  kind, 
and  see  to  what  conclusions  they  lead  us  with  regard  to  the  manner 
of  building  and  rebuilding  of  the  two  texts  involved. 

Here  is  another  curious  specimen  of  the  kind  referred  to  by 
Bentley : 

In  Matt.  xx.  11, 

KATA  TOY   OIKOA6CTTOTOY    AepONTGC 
ADVERSVS   FAMILIAM   DICENTES, 

because  patremf  ami  lias  gave  a  word  in  excess. 

But  it  is  time  to  take  the  matter  up  more  in  detail. 

Let  us  examine,  then,  how  far  the  attempt  to  make  the  Greek 
words  and  the  Latin  words  numerically  and  in  other  respects  to 
agree  has  operated  to  affect  either  the  Greek  or  the  Latin  tradi 
tion  of  the  MS. 

We  may  be  sure  that,  if  such  a  tendency  existed,  it  would  be 
found  in  cases  where  the  usage  of  one  language  is  more  elliptical 
than  the  other.  For  example,  it  may  be  remembered  that  Daille' 
based  one  of  his  objections  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  of 


VERBAL  EQUALITY  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.         55 

Polycarp  on  the  use  of  the  expression  "  qui  cum  eo  sunt,"  which 
seemed  to  imply  that  Ignatius  was  alive  after  his  martyrdom, 
whereas  the  expression  was  in  reality  only  a  rather  unfortunate 
translation  of  rofr  per  avrov.  Now,  if  a  bilingual  text  of  the 
Epistle  of  Polycarp  had  been  current,  written  in  the  style  of  the 
Codex  Bezae,  and  some  stupid  scribe  had  attempted  to  make  a 
numerical  equality  between  the  translation  and  the  text,  he  would 
have  been  obliged  either  to  erase  the  sunt  or  to  introduce  a  verb, 
probably  overt  or  virdp^ovcn,,  on  the  Greek  side.  Now  this  imaginary 
case  is  one  which  can  be  readily  paralleled  from  the  Codex  Bezae  : 
we  may  begin  almost  anywhere. 
John  iv.  9  should  read 

TTCOC  cy  ioyA<MOC  CON  n<\p  GMOY 

Aireic  PYNAIKOC  CAM<\pemAoc  OYCHC. 


But  the  Latin  had  rendered  it 

TV   CVM   SIS   IVDAEVS  •  QVOMODO   A  ME 
BIBEBE   PETIS  •  MVLIEBE   SAMABITANAE, 

and  the  word  01/0-77?,  being  now  unbalanced,  was  erased  ;  further, 
since  quomodo  has  shifted  to  a  part  of  the  sentence  remote  from 
7ro>9,  the  scribe  corrects  the  order  of  the  Greek,  and  finally  we 
have 

cy  IOYAAIOC  CON  TTCOC  n<\p  e/v\oy 

TTGIN  AITGIC  TYN<MKOC  CAM&PITIAOC. 

For  a  second  instance  take  Acts  xiii.  29, 

coc  Ae  ereAoyN 

TTANTA    T<\    TTCpl    AyTOy    rerP^MMGNA    GICIN. 


Here  the  word  elcnv  was  added,  because  the  Latin  had  rendered 
the  sentence 


ET   CONSVMMAVERVNT 
OMNIA  QVAE   DE   ILLO   SCBIPTA  SVNT. 


In  Matthew  v.  12  we  should  have 


oyrcoc  r<* 

TOYC    TTpO<t>HTAC  •  TOyC    HpO    Y/WCON, 


which  was  rendered 


ITA   ENIM   PERSECVTI  SVNT 
PBOPHETAS  •  QVI   ANTE   VOS   FVERVNT, 


56         VERBAL  EQUALITY  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

and  to  balance  the  added  fuerunt  the  scribe  has  inserted  in  the 
Greek  the  word  vTrap^ovra^t. 

In  Matthew  xi.  28  (a  case  to  which  Mill  drew  attention), 


npoc  /we  TTANT€C  01  KorncoNTec 

KAI    ne<t>OpTICM6NOI    GCTAI 

where  the  last  word  eVre  seerns  to  have  been  derived  from  the  Latin 

VENITE   AD   ME   OMNE8   QVI   LAVORATIS 
ET  ONERATI  ESTIS. 

In  Mark  v.  40  the  Greek 

TTAPAAAMBAN6I    TON    TTATCpA 
TOY    TTAlAlOY    KAI    THN  'MHTGpA 
KAI    TOYC    M€T    AYTOY 

has  been  rendered 

ADSVMPTO   PATRE 

ET   MATRE   PVELLAE 

ET   QVI   CVM   ILLO   ERANT, 

and  the  revising  hand  has  added  the  equivalent  of  the  word  erant 
to  the  Greek,  and  harmonized  the  order  of  the  words,  giving  us 

KAI    THN    MHT€pA   TOY    TTAlAlOY 
KAI    TOYC    M€T   AYTOY   ONTAC. 

So  in  Mark  ii.  25, 


AYTOC    KAI    Ol    M€T    AYTOY   ONT6C 

because  of  the  Latin 

IPSE   ET   QVI   CVM   ILLO   ERANT. 

In  Luke  xv.  24, 

NCKpOC    HN    KAI    ANG2HC6N    ATTOAo)Au)C 
KAI    ApTI    €Ype0H 

the  Latin  is 

MORTVV8   ERAT   ET   REVIXIT   PERIERAT 
ET   MODO   INVENTV8   E8T, 

where  one  word  is  used  to  translate  a7ro\a>\a>9  rjv,  is  the  reason  for 
the  omission  of  fjv  in  the  Greek  of  our  Codex. 
In  Luke  xxiii.  38, 

o  BACIAGYC  TCON  IOY^AICON  OYTOC  GCTIN 

REX   IVDAEORVM   HIC   EST, 

where  again  eVrti/  has  been  added. 


VERBAL   EQUALITY   OF  GREEK   AND   LATIN.  57 

In  Mark  ii.  4  the  original  text 

KAI  X*A(A>CI  TON  KPABATTON  onoy 

O    TTApAAYTIKOC    KAT6KGITO 

was  translated 

ET   DIMISERVNT   GRABATTVM    IN   QVO   ERAT 
PARALYTICVS   IACENS  ; 

and  this  rendering  of  the  imperfect  tense  by  means  of  the  auxiliary 
and  the  participle  is  the  reason  why  in  our  text  we  find  the  pas 
sage  written 

KAI    X^ACJCI    TON    KpABATTON    OTTOY    HN 
O    TTApAAYTIKOC    KATAKGIMGNOC, 

and  this  OTTOV  tjv  made  it  further  necessary  to  add  in  the  previous 
line  the  words  6  lijo-ovs,  viz.  aTrea-reyao-av  rrjv  a-reytjv  KTTOV  f)v  6 
Irjarovs. 

In  Mark  iv.  31, 

MClKpOTCpON    GCTIN 
TTANTCON    TGJN    CnepMATWN    TOON    6TTI    THC    fHC 

was  rendered 

MINOR   EST 
OMNIBVS   SEMINIBVS  -  QVAE   SVNT   IN  TERRA, 

and  in  consequence  of  this,  roov  is  replaced  in  the  Codex  Bezae  by 

r/    > 
a  €(,<rw. 

In  Mark  v.  9, 

Tl    COI    ONOMA    K<M    ATT€Kpl6H 

ONOMA  MOI  AepecoN 
is  a  sufficient  equivalent  to  the  Latin 

QVOD   TIBI   NOMEN   EST  •  ET    RE8PONDIT 
EST   MIHI   NOMEN    LEGIO. 

Bat  to  make  the  parallelism  more  exact,  we  have  the  Greek 
altered  to 

Tl    COI    ONOMA   GCTIN    KAI    ATT€Kpl6H 
6CTIN    MOI    ONOMA   ACflCON. 

In  Mark  vi.  3  the  original  text 

KAI    OYK    6ICIN    Al    AA€A(|>AI 

o>Ae  npoc  HMAC 
would  naturally  be  rendered 

NONNE  ET  8ORORES   EIVS 
HIC  NOBISCVM   SVNT. 


58         VERBAL  EQUALITY  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

Hence  the  word  elcriv  was  erased  in  the  first  line  of  the  Greek 
and  carried  into  the  second  ;  and  further  nonne  et  was  replaced  by 
the  more  exactly  equivalent  ov^i  icai. 

In  Mark  vi.  20, 

eiAcoc  AYTON  ANAp<\  AIKAION 

KM    AHOM 

was  rendered 

SCIENS  EVM   VIBVM  IVSTVM 
ET   SANCTVM   ES8E. 

Accordingly  elvai,  has  been  added  after  CL^LOV  in  the  Greek. 
The  auxiliary  verb  would  seem  to  have  been  also  carried  into 
the  Greek  in  Mark  viii.  2  :  it  probably  stood  at  first 

OTI  HMepAic  jpiciN  npocMGNoyci  MOI. 
The  Latin  translator  rendered  the  first  words 

QVONIAM   IAM   TBIDVVM   EST  ; 

and  paraphrased  the  last  word  or  words,  by  saying 
EX  QVO  HIC  SVNT; 

and  then  the  attempt  was  made  to  turn  triduum  est  literally  into 
Greek,  giving  us  TJyu-epcu  rpet?  elcriv  ;  and  further  ex  quo  hie  sunt 
has  been  restored  verbatim  to  the  Greek,  with  the  final  and  fear 
ful  result 

OTI    HAH    HMepAl    TpIC    6ICIN  '  ATTO    HOTG    O)A€    GICIN. 

Very  similar  treatment  will  be  found  in  Matt.  xv.  32. 
In  Mark  ix.  34  the  Greek  had 


npoc  AAAnAoyc  p* 
TIC  MIZWN. 

The  idiomatic  rfc  pei&v  had  to  be  paraphrased,  and  the  Latin 

shews 

QVIS  ESSE[T]  ILLOBVM  MAIOR. 

Consequently  the  Greek  of  Codex  Bezae  has  added  two  words 
and  reads 

TIC    MIZCON    reNHTAI 

In  Mark  x.  27, 

<\N6pCOnOIC    TOYTO 


VERBAL  EQUALITY  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.         59 

becomes  in  Latin 

APVT   HOMINES   HOC  •  IMPOSSIBILE   EST, 

and  so  ea-riv  is  inserted  at  the  end  of  the  Greek,  and  the  natural 
ellipticity  of  the  Greek  speech  gives  way  before  the  law  of  numeri 
cal  verbal  equivalence. 
In  Mark  xiv.  21, 

KAecoc  repp*™1"*!  nepi  AYTOY 
was  properly  rendered 

SICVT   SCRIPTVM   EST   DE   ILLO, 

but  since  script  um  est  is  two  words,  a  correction  is  made  to  the 
Greek,  and  we  have 

K<\6o>c  ecriN  rerpAMMGNON  nepi 

In  Acts  iv.  34  the  texts  run 


<*P    6NA6HC    TIC    YTTHPX6N    €N 
OCOI    |-<*P    KTHTOpCC    HCAN 
H    OIK6ICON 


NEC   ENIM   INOSP   QVISQVAM   ERAT   IN   BIS 
QVODQVOD   POSSESSOEES   ERANT   PRAEDIORVM 
AVT   DOMVM. 

Here  we  see  that  VTrfjpxov  in  the  third  line  has  been  translated 
by  erant  in  the  second  Latin  line  :  therefore  the  scribe  has  added 
the  word  tfaav  to  the  second  line  of  the  Greek  for  the  sake  of 
correspondence. 

In  Acts  v.  38  the  Latin  translator  had  to  deal  \vith 


K<M  T 

so  he  translated  rd  vvv  by  quae  nunc  sunt  and  the  necessary 
eiaiv  was  then  carried  back  into  the  Greek.  Curiously  enough, 
probably  because  nunc  and  sunt  have  a  similar  appearance,  the 
word  sunt  slipped  from  the  Latin  which  actually  stands 

ET   QVAE   NVNC   FRATRES   DICO   VOBIS  ; 

but  its  equivalent  stays  in  the  Greek 

K<M    TA    NYN    6ICIN  ..................... 

In  Matthew  x.  10  we  find 

T»  *  AiEioc  Y^P  ecriN  o  eprATHC  THC  Tpo<t>HC  <\YTOY> 


60  VERBAL   EQUALITY   OF  GREEK   AND  LATIN. 

where  ea-nv  has  been  introduced   because  the  Latin,  with  very 
pardonable  freedom,  has  given  us 

DIGNVS   EST   ENIM   OPEBARIVS   ESCA   8VA. 

In  Acts  xvii.  6, 

OTI    Ol    THN    OIKOYM6NHN    ANACTATCOCANTGC 
OYTOI    6ICIN    KAI    €N0AAe    TTApCICIN, 

the  translator  took  teal  as  a   connective   of  two  sentences,  and 
accordingly  translated 

QVIA  QVI  ORBEM  TERRAE  INQVITAVERVNT 
HI  8VNT  ET  HOC  VENERVNT. 

Hence  sunt   has  given  rise  to  the  word  eio-iv  which  we  see 
to  be  added  in  the  Greek  text. 
In  Acts  xxi.  21  we  find 

OTI    ATTOCTACIAN    AlAACKCIC    ATTO    MCOCGCOC 

Toyc  KATA  e9NH  eiciN  loyAAioyc. 

QVIA   ABSCENSIONEM   DOCENS   A   MOY8EN 
QVI   IN   GENTIBVS   SVNT   IVDAEOS. 

This  is  a  very  ragged  piece  of  work;  docens  is  for  doces ; 
there  is  no  immediate  antecedent  to  qui,  but,  if  we  may  judge 
from  other  texts  there  probably  once,  stood  in  the  Greek  in  the 
second  line  Trai/ra?,  and  in  that  case  omnes  would  have  been  at 
the  beginning  of  the  corresponding  Latin.  Now  since,  according 
to  his  method,  the  translator  rendered  TOVS  Kara  rd  eOvrj  by  qui 
in  gentibus  sunt,  we  are  not  surprised  to  see  elo-iv  thrust  into  the 
Greek  text ;  and  at  the  same  time  the  superfluous  ra  disappeared. 

In  Matt.  xvii.  2  the  auxiliary  has  been  dropped  from  the 
Latin,  leaving 

ET  TRANSFIGVRATVS  IHS   CORAM   ILLIS. 

Hence  the  Greek 

KAI    M€TAMOp(J>a>6eiC    O    IHC  '  €NnpOC8€N    AyTCON. 

In  Matt.  xxv.  25, 

eiAoy  exeic  TO  CON 

ECCE  HABES  QVOD  TVVM, 

we  see  that  est  has  been  removed  from  the  Latin,  in  the  interests 
of  equ  ality. 


VERBAL   EQUALITY   OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  61 

In  Matt.  xxv.  41, 


yore  epi  KAI  TOIC  el 

TVNC   AIT   ET   HIS   QVI   A   SINISTRIS, 

where  sunt  has  dropped  from  the  Latin. 
Cf.  xxv.  34,  where  the  same  thing  occurs 

HIS   QVI   A   DEXTRIS   EIVS. 

Note   also  in   the   same  verse   the  dropping  of  quod  before 
praeparatum  est 
In  Mark  xiv.  36, 


coi  eiciN, 
has  been  added  because  of  the  Latin 

POSSIBILIA   OMNIA 
TIBI   SVNT. 

We  should  at  least  have  expected  etrnv. 
Luke  viii.  25, 

TTOY    eCTIN    H    TTICTIC    YM<AiN 
VBI   EST   FIDES   VESTRA, 

where  ea-nv  is  intrusive  from  the  Latin. 

We  have  shewn  then,  conclusively,  that  the  auxiliary  verb 
shews  the  same  phenomena  of  intrusion  and  extrusion  that 
we  should  have  expected  on  the  hypothesis  of  Latinization.  Let 
us  then  examine  some  other  cases  where  reflex  action  between 
Greek  and  Latin  texts  is  likely  to  have  occurred. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

GENERAL  VIEW  OF  THE  INTERACTION  OF  THE  GREEK  AND 
LATIN  TEXTS. 

1.     CONFUSIONS  due  to  betacism. 

A  very  cursory  glance  at  our  MS.  will  shew  the  prevalence 
of  this  feature  of  late  Latin  phonetics;  the  confusion  between 
b  and  v  is  everywhere:  and  we  have  to  see  whether  this  has 
in  any  degree  reacted  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  Latin  text 
and  so  upon  the  Greek  text  from  which  it  is  made. 

Turn  to  Luke  i.  78, 

GN  QIC  enecKeyATO  HAAAC 
ANATOAH  e 


IN   QVIBVS   VISITAVIT   NOS 
ORIENS   EX   ALTO. 


Here  the  confusion  between  uisitauit  and  uisitabit  is  so  natural, 
that  if  we  adopt  the  Greek  Text  of  Westcott  and  Hort  and  read 
eTTKrtctyerai,,  we  must  say  that  our  Codex  has  Latinized  :  and  if 
we  do  not  adopt  this  reading,  we  must  say  that  Codices  NBL 
have  Latinized  :  the  dilemma  is  a  pretty  one,  because  D  is  here 
supported  by  almost  all  other  non-  Latin  authorities,  the  Latin 
authorities  themselves  not  being  counted  one  way  or  the  other, 
on  account  of  the  prevalence  of  betacism  in  the  early  copies. 

In  Luke  xv.  15,  we  should  have 

ET  ADHESIT  VNI   CIVIVM, 

but  the  scribe  gives  us 

ET  ADHESIT   IB!   VNI   CIVIVM. 


INTERACTION   OF  GREEK   AND   LATIN.  63 

Possibly  he  wrote  an  anomalous  adhesibit  =  adhesiuit ;  and 
the  ibi  of  the  Latin  text  has  been  taken  from  the  verb,  the  con 
fusion  being  very  easy  in  the  Latin  capitals. 

A  pretty  betacistic  confusion  will  be  found  in  Luke  xiv.  .3, 
where  the  Latin  is 

CVIVS   EX   VOBIS   OVIS   AVT   BOBIS, 

where  bovis  is  a  Vulgar  Latin  nominative :  here  it  is  clear  that 
ouis  is  wrong,  being  either  a  repetition  of  uobis  or  a  correction  of 
bovis :  if  it  is  a  dittograph  we  may  replace  some  other  word  :  some 
persons  will  imagine  a  confusion  with  vio?  which  has  the  same 
letters ;  others  will  read  the  equivalent  of  01/09.  Finally  ouis  has 
been  taken  over  into  the  Greek  and  has  produced  the  well-known 
reading 

TINOC  e5  YMaiN  npoB^TON  H  Boyc. 

2.  Cases  where  the  corrector  has  troubled  himself  over  the 
rendering  of  Se  at  the  beginning  of  a  sentence,  and  with  the  desire 
to  keep  the  sequence  of  the  words  the  same  in  Greek  and  Latin 
has  carried  back  Se  into  the  Greek  under  the  form  of  tcaL 

Acts  xiii.  49, 

Aie<t>epeTO  AC  =  ET  PROVVLCTABATVR, 

and  the  Greek  becomes 

K&I  Aie<t>epero. 

Matt.  xvii.  24, 

KAI    eA6ONTU)N    AYTCON 
ET   VENIENTIBVS   EIS  : 

where  the  original  was 

eAeoNTGoN  Ae  AYTCON. 
Mark  iv.  36, 

KAI  AAAA  nAoiA 
was  rendered 

ALIAE   AVTEM   NAVES, 

and  then  the  two  texts  were  adjusted, 

KAI  AAA&  Ae  nAoiA 

ET   ALIAE   AVTEM   NAVES, 

other  corruptions  creeping  in  afterwards,  as  a  reference  to  the 
Codex  will  shew. 


64  INTERACTION   OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN. 

In  Mark  iv.  29, 

OTAN    A€    TTApAAOl 

was  rendered 

ET   CVM   PRODVXERIT, 

and  the  Greek  changed  to 

KAI    OTAN    TTApAAOl. 

In  Mark  vi.  21  the  corrector's  hand  is  seen  in 
KAI  peNOMGNHc  Ae  H/v\epAC 

ET   CVM   DIES 

where  we  should  erase  /cat. 

In  Mark  viii.  29  we  should  read 

KAI  Ayroc  eTTHpc/oTA  AyToyc, 
but  Codex  Bezae  has 

AYTOC  Ae 

on  account  of  the  Latin 

IPSE   AVTEM   INTERROGAVIT   EOS. 

In  Luke  xix.  39, 

TIN6C    A€    TCON    4>AplCAIO)N 
QVIDEM   AVTEM   DE   PHARISAEIS, 

the  original  text  seems  to  have  been 

KAI    TIN6C 

These  are  a  few  instances  of  a  widespread  confusion. 

3.  Cases  where  the  artificial  rendering  of  the  article  by  ille, 
iste  and  hie  has  produced  an  addition  of  demonstrative  pronouns  in 
the  Greek  text. 

In  Matt.  xv.  24, 

€1    MH    6IC    TA    npOBATA 

seems  to  have  been  rendered 

NISI  AD   HAS  OVES, 

and  then  we  get  the  harmonized  bilingual  text 

€1    MH    GIC    TA    npOBATA 
NISI   AD   OVES   HAS. 


INTERACTION   OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN.  65 

Matt.  xv.  32, 

eiTTGN    CTTAANXNIZOMAI    6TTI    TON    0\AON    TOyTON 
DIXIT   MISEREOR  •  SVPER   TVRBAM   HANC, 

is  another  case  of  the  same  kind. 

There  are  many  other  cases  of  similar  textual  amplification: 
and  great  confusion  introduced  into  the  texts  thereby:  we  will 
give  one  striking  specimen  in  order  to  shew  how  early  this  mode 
of  rendering  is  in  the  history  of  the  Latin  text. 

In  the  Gospel  of  John  we  frequently  find  hie  mundus  used  as  > 
a  translation  of  6  KOO-^O^. 

Suppose  then  that  we  find  in  John  xvii.  11 

KAI  OYKGTI  GIMI  GN  Toyrco  TCO  KOCMCO 

ET   IAM   NON   SVM   IN   HOC   MVNDO, 

we  reasonably  conclude  that  the  rovry  came  in  to  balance  hoc. 
Let  us  then  examine  the  whole  passage: 

KAI    OYKGTI    eiMI    €N    TOyTCG    TCO    KOCMOO 
K<M    OYTOI    GN    TCO    KOCMGO    GICIN 

KAfto  npoc  ce  epxoMAi  OYKGTI  GIMI  GN  TCO 

KOCMCO  •  KAI    €N    TCO    KOCMCO    €IMI, 

for  which  the  Latin  is 

ET  IAM   NON   SVM   IN   HOC   MVNDO 

ET   IPSI   IN   HOC   MVNDO   SVNT 

ET   EGO   AD   TE   VENIO   IAM   NON   SVM   IN 

MVNDO   ET   IN   MVNDO   SVM. 

It  is  clear  that  we  have  here  a  conflate  text  of  a  similar  cha 
racter  to  that  which  we  find  in  Codex  Vercellensis  (=  a),  which 
reads 

et  hi  in  hoc  mundo  sunt, 
et  ego  ad  te  uenio 
et  iam  non  sum  in  hoc  mundo 
et  in  hoc  mundo  sunt. 

Moreover  this  Codex  tells  us  that  the  Beza  scribe  has  con 
founded  sunt  with  sum  at  the  end  of  the  verse :  and  we  see  that 
the  Greek  text  has  not  merely  preserved  the  transferred  demon 
stratives,  but  has  followed  the  Latin  in  giving  el^L  at  the  end  of 
the  verse  for  dalv. .  It  is  easy  now  to  separate  the  two  parts  of  the 

C.  B.  5 


66  INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

conflated  text  and  to  reject  the  part  which  depends  upon  the  false 
translation  of  the  article.  The  two  parts  may  be  placed  side  by 
side: 

et  iam  non  sum  in  hoc  mundo  =  iam  non  sum  in  mundo 
et  ipsi  in  hoc  mundo  sunt         =  et  in  mundo  sunt 
et  ego  ad  te  uenio. 

This  example  is  very  convincing:  it  tells  us  moreover  that 
there  is  a  close  relation  between  the  Latin  texts  Cod.  a  and 
Cod.  d  :  this  point  must  be  noted  for  future  use. 

Other  cases  of  hie  mundus  will  be  found  in  viii.  26, 

HAEC   LOQVOR   IN    HOC   MVNDO. 

xiv.  22, 

OSTENDERE   TE   IPSVM   ET   NON    HVIC   MVNDO. 

xiv.  30, 

LOQVAR   VOBISCVM   VENIT   ENIM   HVIVS 
MVNDI   PRINCEPS, 

where  the  Greek  is 


A&AHCO>  /wee  YM^N  epxerAi  r*P  o  TOY 
KOCMOY  APXOON. 
xvi.  21, 

HOMO   IN   HVNC   MVNDVM, 

but  in  none  of  these  cases  has  the  strong  translation  of  the  article 
affected  the  Greek.  In  all  of  them,  however,  the  Latin  agrees 
with  Cod.  a. 

In  John  xvii.  14,  15,  we  have,  however,  a  good  case  of  con 
fusion  and  reflex  action. 

K&l    O    KOCMOC    MGIC6I    <\YTOYC    OTI    OYK    GICIN 
GK    TOYTOY    TOY    KOCMOY    OYK    CpGOTO)    INA    ApHC 
AYTOYC    £K    TOY    KOCMOY    AAA    INA   THpHCHC 

AYTOYC  GK  TOY  noNHpoY  GK  TOYTOY  TOY  KOCMOY 

OYK    6ICIN    KA9COC    KAfCO    OYK    6IMI    €K    TOY    KOCMOY 

the  Latin  being 

ET   MVNDVS   ODIT   EOS   QVONIAM   NON   SVM 

DE   HOC   MVNDO   NON   ROGO   VT   TOLLAS 

EOS   DE   MVNDO   SED   VT   SERVES 

EOS   DE    INIQVO   DE   HOC   MVNDO 

NON  SVNT   8ICVT   ET    EGO   NON   SVM   DE    MVNDO. 


INTERACTION   OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  67 

Here  we  notice  first  that  the  translator  having  used  the  form 
odit  (instead  of  odio  habuit)  which  has  a  present  meaning,  picrel 
has  replaced  e^ur^a-ev  in  the  Greek  text.  Next  we  see  that  the 
Latin  scribe  has  again  given  sum  as  an  equivalent  for  sunt  :  and 
this  repeated  error  may  indicate  a  dialectical  equality  of  the  two 
forms  (cf.  the  Italian  sono  which  is  the  equivalent  of  both  sum 
and  sunt).  In  this  case,  however,  the  Greek  has  not  been  harmon 
ized  with  the  Latin  as  it  was  in  John  xviL  11.  Third,  we  see  that 
hoc  [mundo]  has  crept  back  into  the  Greek  at  two  separate  points; 
and  in  both  cases  there  is  Latin  support  for  d. 

For  farther  reflex  actions  see  xvii.  18,  where  there  are  two 
in  a  single  verse.  But  perhaps  the  thing  reaches  the  height  of 
absurdity  in  xvii  25,  where  6  /cdoyto?  has  been  translated  as 
mundus  hie,  and  the  Greek  text  appears  as 

O    KOCMOC   TOYTOC. 

It  appears  probable  then  that  the  primitive  Latin  translation  of 
John  had  hie  mundus  everywhere,  and  Cod.  a  agrees  very  well  with 
this  idea. 

Many  other  cases  of  the  same  confusion,  arising  from  the 
translation  of  the  article,  may  be  found  scattered  through  the 
Western  text  ;  as  Mark  viii.  2, 


en  i  TOY  oxAoY  TOYTOY 

MISEBEOR  SUPER   ISTAM  TVRBAM, 

where  istam^rov,  but  has  been  turned  back  into  Greek  as  TOVTOV. 
Acts  vi.  5, 

KAI    HpeCCN    O    AOfOC    OYTOC    €N60TTION    TTANTOC 
ET   PLACVTT  SERMO  HIC   IN   CONSPECTU   OMNI, 

where  OUTOS  comes  from  the  translation  of  6  \oyos  by  hie  sermo. 

We  must  not  be  surprised  at  this  peculiar  feature  of  the  primi 
tive  Latin  translation,  for  it  can  be  paralleled  in  the  English 
renderings  of  the  New  Testament,  being  found  freely  in  the 
Genevan  edition  of  1576  (Tomson's  New  Testament).  Of  this 
Westcott  says1,  "  One  peculiarity  is  characteristic  of  Tomson  alone. 

1  Hist.  Eng.  Bible,  p.  232  note. 

5—2 


68  INTERACTION   OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN. 

In  his  anxiety  to  express  the  emphatic  force  of  the  Greek  Article 
he  constantly  renders  it  by  '  that '  or  '  this,'  and  in  many  cases  the 
effect  is  almost  grotesque.  One  example  will  suffice  '  He  that 
hath  that  Son  hath  that  life  ;  and  he  that  hath  not  that  Son  of 
God  hath  not  that  life'  (1  John  v.  12)."  If  Tomson  had  only 
lived  in  the  second  century,  what  a  splendid  chance  he  would 
have  had  for  propagating  a  New  Testament  with  extra-canonical 
readings  ! 

4.  Ambiguities  arising  from  the  doubtful  gender  of  such 
words  as  eius  illius,  etc. 

In  Matt.  ix.  26,  the  original  Western  Greek  was  probably 

KAI    6?HA0eN    H    <(>HMH    AyTHC, 

and  the  Latin  of  Codex  Bezae  is 

ET   EXIIT   FAMA   EIVS. 

But  the  revising  scribe  not  unnaturally  takes  eius  as  masculine 
and  therefore  he  corrects  avrfjs  to  avrov,  as  we  have  it  in  the 
Greek  of  our  text. 

I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  it  is  to  the  same  cause  that  we 
must  refer  the  confusion  in  Matt.  xiv.  6.  We  start  from  a  primi 
tive  text 

o>pXHC<vro  H  GYCATHP  THC  Hpo>Ai&Aoc, 

which  was  rendered 

SALTAVIT   PILIA   EIVS   HERODIADIS, 

where  eius  is  meant  for  a  feminine  and  is  the  equivalent  of  the 
article. 

Then  we  get  the  Greek  altered  to  avrov  which  necessitates  a 
further  correction,  and  finally  we  reach  the  impossible 

GORXHCATO    H    eyfATHp    AyTOY    HpO>AlAC. 

In  Luke  ii.  22,  we  have 

KAI  ore  enAHcGHCAN  &i  HMCP&I 

TOY    KAOAplCMOY    AYTOY    KATA   TON    NOMON 
ET  CVM   CONSVMMATI   SVNT  DIES 
PVRGATIONIS   EIVS   SECVNDVM   LEGEM. 

Does  not  eius  here  stand  for  avrrj^  (the  Blessed  Virgin),  and  has 
it  not  been  understood  of  our  Lord :  unless  indeed  it  should  turn  out 


INTERACTION   OF  GREEK   AND  LATIN.  69 

that  both  readings  avrov  and  avrfjs  are  derived  from  a  primitive 

»    *»   o 
avT(*)v  ! 

5.     Curious  case  of  confusion  between  ov  and  ov. 
In  Matt,  xviii.  20  the  translator  began  to  render 

oy  r*p  eici  •  Ayo  H  rpeic  cyNHTMeNOi 

NON   ENIM   SVNT   DVO   AVT   TRES  •  COLLECTI, 

and  having  rendered  ov  by  the  negative  he  was  obliged  to  alter 
the  line 

€K€I    eiMI    €N    M6CCO    AyTCON 

so  that  it  read 

APVT  QVOS  NON  ERO  IN  MEDIO  EORVM. 

Hence  the  Greek 


oyK  CICIN  r&p  Ayo  H  rpeic 

eiC    TO    6MON    ONOMA 

TT<\P  QIC  oyK  eiMei  EN  MECCO 
6.     Confusion  owing  to  the  difference  of  genders  in  Greek  and 
Latin. 

Matt.  iii.  16  we  have  the  Latin 

ET   VIDIT   SPIRITVM   DEI 
DESCENDENTEM   DE   CAELO. 

All  of  the  Greek  that  is  preserved  is  the  words 

KATABAINONTA    6K    TOY    OypANOy, 

and  it  would  seem  that  the  change  from  Karaftalvov,  which  should 
accompany  nrvev^a,  was  due  to   the   Latin    descendentem.     This 
suggestion  was  made  by  Mill. 
In  Mark  iv.  36  we  have 

KAI    &AA&I    AC 

noAA<M  •  HCAN  MGT  <NYTOY 


ET   AL1AE   AVTEM 
NAVES   MVLTAE  •  ERANT   CVM    ILLO, 

where  we  should  read  a\\a  TrXota  fy. 
In  Mark  ix.  36, 

K«M    AABeON    TO 


eCTHCCN    «\YTON    €N    M6CCO 

ET   ACCIPIENS   PVERVM 

STATVIT   ILLVM   IS   MEDIO   EORVM. 


70  INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

Here  ilium  has  affected  the  Greek,  and  given  us  avrov  for 
»   i 
aVro. 

In  Acts  v.  32  we  have  a  case  like  the  one  quoted  above  from 
Matt,  iii  16, 

KAI    TO    TTNA  TO    ApON    ON    eAo)K6N    O    0C 
ET  8PM   8ANCTVM   QVEM   DEBIT   Ds! 

7.     Instances  where   the  corresponding  verbs  or  prepositions 
govern  different  cases  in  Latin  and  Greek  : 
In  Acts  xi.  7, 

KAI    HKOYCA   <J>O>NHN    AefOyCAN    MOI 
ET  AVDIVI  VOCEM  DICENTEM  MIHI. 

The  Latin  accusative  has  been  carried  over  and  has  replaced 
the  Greek  genetive. 
Matt.  v.  42, 

KAI   T60    OeAONTI    AANICAC0AI    MH    ATTOCTpA<t>HC 
ET  VOLENTI  MVTVABI  NE  AVERTARIS. 

The  Greek  has  altered  rov  0e\ovra  in  order  to  agree  more 
closely  with  volenti. 
Matt.  ix.  24, 

KAI    KATepeAcON    AYTON 
ET   DERIDEBANT   EVM, 

where  we  should  have  avrov  in  the  Greek. 
Matt.  ix.  25, 

GKP&THC6N 

THN    X^IRA    AYTHC 
TENVIT 
MANVM   EIV8, 

where  we  ought  to  read  TTJS  %€t,p6$. 
Matt.  ix.  38  we  have  a  similar  case 


oyN  TON  KN  TOY 

ORATE   ERGO  DNM  ME88I8. 

John  x.  27, 

TA   npoBATA  TA   €MA 
THC    0CONHC    MOY    AKOY^I 

OVES  QVAE  8VNT  MEAE 
VOCIS  MEAE  AVDIVNT. 

Here  the  Latin  has  been  made  to  agree  with  the  Greek. 


INTERACTION   OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN.  71 

John  xii.  47  is  a  similar  case, 

ET   SI   QVIS   AVDIERIT   MEORVM   BERBORVM. 

Mark  v.  41, 


KAI  KPATHCAC  THN  xeiP*  T°Y  TTAiAioy 

ET  TENENS   MANVM   PVELLAE, 


Mark  viii.  23, 


ET  ADPRAEHENDI[T]  MANVM  CAECI, 
where  we  should  read  7*75  %eip6<:. 

Mark  x.  21, 

EN  coi  ycrepei 

instead  of 

GN  ce  ycrepei 

because  the  Latin  is 

VNVM   TIBI   DEEST. 

Luke  xx.  26, 


oyK  eicxycAN  Ae  <\YTOY 
eniA<\Bec0«M 

NON  POTVERVNT  AVTEM  EIVS  VERBVM 
ADPRAEHENDERE, 

where  we  should  expect  p^aro?. 

Acts  iii.  25  also  belongs  to  this  class  : 

K<M    THC    AIA0HKHC    HN    O    0C    Aie06TO 

ET   EIVS   DISPOSITIONS   QVAM    DS    DISPVTAVIT, 

where  rjv  is  for  779  under  the  influence  of  the  Latin. 

Acts  v.  3  may  perhaps  be  mentioned  here  :  it  should  stand 

eineN  Ae  nerpoc  &NANIA 
But  dvavia  has  been  taken  as  a  dative  and  rendered 

AD  ANANIAN. 

Then  the  Greek  is  reformed  to 

G  eineN  Ae  nerpoc  npoc  ANANIAN. 


72  INTERACTION   OF  GREEK   AND   LATIN. 

Acts  vi.  2, 

OYK    ApeCTON    6CTIN    HMGIN 
KATAAei^ANTAC   TON    AOfON   TOY   ®Y 

NON   ENIM   PLACET   NOBI8 
DEEELICTO  VERBO  DI, 

where  rJiv  stands  for 


8.  Cases  of  confusion  between  the  degrees  of  comparison 
of  the  adjectives  ;  as,  for  example,  where  the  scribe  has,  from 
a  correct  Semitic  feeling,  as  it  would  seem,  in  harmony  with 
Vulgar  Latin  usage,  translated  a  positive  adjective  by  a  com 
parative  or  superlative. 

Matt.  x.  42, 

KAI    OC    AN    TTOTeiCH  •  6NA   T60N    eAAXICTGON    TOYTCON 
ET   QVICVMQVE   POTAVERIT  •  VNVM   DE   MINIMIS   HIS. 

The  Latin  is  a  translation  of  pucpwv,  and  would  be  a  very 
good  translation  if  the  equivalent  of  ol  /juicpol  had  been  given 
in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  but,  in  any  case,  is  not  a  bad  rendering. 
When  the  translation  was  thus  made,  I  take  it  that  the  reviser 
wrote  e\axi(TTG>v  in  the  Greek. 

Probably  the  same  reaction  explains  why  in  Matt.  xiii.  48,  the 
line 

TA  KAAA  eic  TA 


has  been  turned  into 

TA    KAAAlCTA... 


There  is  good  ground  for  believing  that  the  Vulgar  Latin 
superlative  was  often  found,  as  in  the  Semitic  languages,  in 
the  form  of  a  repeated  positive,  so  that  we  suspect  that  ra 
/cd\\i<TTa  of  our  text  is  the  equivalent  of  a  primitive  Latin 
bona  bona,  which  in  Cod.  Bezae's  Latin  has  been  replaced  by 
meliora,  but  in  Codd.  a  b  e  k  appears  as  optima1.  Whether  then 
KCL\CL  or  ica\\ia-ra  is  the  original  reading,  the  change  from  one  to 
the  other  is  made  through  the  mediation  of  the  Latin. 

1  Of.  Sanday  in  Old  Latin  Biblical  lexis,  11.  p.  Ixvi. 


INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  73 

9.  Translation  of  the  Greek  aorist  by  the  Latin  perfect  or 
imperfect;  and  examination  of  the  effect  of  such  translations  of 
one  tense  by  another  in  the  original  Greek. 

In  Matt.  xvii.  5  we  find, 

4>u>TeiNH 


the  Latin  being 

ECCE   NVBS  LVCIDA 
OBVMBRABAT   EOS, 

for  a  primitive  Greek  errecr/aWei/,  the  aorist  having  been  rendered 
by  the  Latin  imperfect. 
Matt.  xix.  27, 

KAI    HKOAOY0HKA/V\eN    COI 
ET   SECVTI   SVMVS   TE, 

for  a  primitive  ijKo\ov0ijaafj>ev  which  was  translated  rightly  by  a 
Latin  perfect. 
In  Mark  i.  38, 

eic  TOYTO  n*P  eJeAHAyQA 

(where  we  should  perhaps  restore  eZHAeoisi)  because  the  Latin  had 
rendered  the  aorist  by 

AD   HOC   ENIM   VENI. 

Mark  v.  24, 

KAI    ATTHAOeN    M6T   AyTOY 

becomes 

KAI    YTTHfCN    M6T    &YTOY 

because  the  Latin  was 

ET   IBAT   CVM  ILLO. 

Mark  xv.  14, 

01  Ae  eKnepicccoc  €Kp&iE&N 

becomes  eicpa&v  under  the  influence  of 

AD   ILLI  MAGI8   CLAMABANT. 

Luke  viii.  27, 

OC    6IMATION    OYK    GNeAYAICKCTO 
QVI   TVNICAM   NON   INDVEBATVR, 

where  we  should  expect  eVeSi/0-aro,  if  the  most  ancient  texts  are 
to  be  followed,  and  certainly  the  translation  would  be  made  by  an 
imperfect  tense. 


74  INTERACTION   OF   GREEK    AND  LATIN. 

Acts  vii.  34, 


KM    TOY    CTGNAfMOY   &YTOY 
ET   GEMITVS   EIVS   AVDIVI, 

where  we  should  have  rjfcovo-a. 

Mark  x.  13  seems  to  have  originally  been  read, 
01  Ae  MA0HTAI 


DISCIPVLI   AVTEM   EIVS 
COMMINABANTVR, 

and  then  eVeTt/x^crai/  had  to  be  corrected  to  errer*/**!/. 

10.     Translation  of  the  Greek  aorist  by  a  pluperfect;  and  other 
mutations  of  tenses. 
Matt.  xi.  21, 

OTI    61    €N    TYRO)    KM    ClAGONei 


QVIA   SI   IN   TYRO   ET   SIDONA  •  FACTAE   ESSENT 
VIRTVTES. 

Here  factae  essent  stands  for  eyevovro,  rightly  enough  ;  and 
hence  the  correction  of  the  Greek  text. 
Matt.  xvi.  26,  the  translator  rendered 

TI  r^P  eo<t>eAHceT(M  ANepomoc 

by 

QVID   AVTEM   PRODEST   HOMINI, 

and  hence  we  get  the  Greek  corrected  to  w</>e\emu. 
John  xvii.  14, 

KM    O    KOCMOC    M6IC6I    &YTOYC, 

because  the  Latin  rendered  the  verb  e/uo-j/trei'  by 

ET  MVNDVS   ODIT   EOS. 

Mark  vi.  39, 

<\NM<Al9HNM    TTANTAC 

has  been  rendered 

VT  DISCVMBERENT   OMNES, 

and  the  passive  verb  in  the  Greek  has  been  corrected  to 

TT&NT&C. 


INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  75 

In  Matt.  iv.  8, 

TTAAlN    TTApAAA/V\BAN6l    AYTON    O    AlABoAoC 

eic  opoc  YYHAON  ASIAN  KAI  eAeiJeN  AYTCO. 
In  the  last  line  the  Latin  renders 

IN   MONTEM   ALTVM   NIMIS  ET   OSTENDIT   El  : 

ostendit  is  both  a  present  and  a  perfect ;  but  it  looks  as  if  some 
corrector  of  a  Western  MS.  had  taken  it,  in  this  case  wrongly,  for 
a  perfect  and  had  given  us  eSetf ei/  in  place  of  the  ordinary  reading 
Seitcvvffiv.  This  explanation  was  suggested  by  Middleton  in  his 
work  on  the  Greek  Article. 

11.  Rendering  of  the  participle  (especially  the  aorist  participle) 
followed  by  the  verb  as  two  verbs  with  a  conjunction ;  and  con 
sideration  of  the  effect  of  the  same. 

Matt.  iv.  3  should  read 

KAI  npoceAGcoN  [AYTGO]  o  neipAzoiN  eineN  AYTCO. 
To  render  this  into  Latin  we  should  say 

ET  ACCESSIT  AD   EVM  TEMPTATOR   ET  DIXIT   EI. 

The  translator,  in  fact,  gives  us  this,  only  he  renders  6  ircipd^cov 
by  qui  temptabat. 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  Greek  in  Codex  Bezae  should  run 

KAI    npOCHA06N    AYT(A>    0    TTCIpAZGON    KAI    eiTTCN 

Matt.  ix.  28,  we  should  expect  a  Greek  text 
6A00NTI  Ae  eic  THN  OIKIAN 

npOCHA0ON    AYTO), 

which  would  become  in  Latin,  as  in  Cod.  D, 

ET   VENIT   IN   DOMVM 

ET   ACCESSERVNT   AD   EVM, 

which  rendering  reacts  and  produces 

KAI    CPXCT&I    6IC   THN    OIKI&N 
K<M    npOCHAOON    AYTO) 

Matt.  xiii.  4, 

KAI    eAGONTA   TA    TTCTeiNA    KATe<J>ArCN 

has  been  made  into 

G   *  KAI    HA60N    TA   TTGTeiNA    KAI    KAT€<t>Ar€N 


76  INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

under  the  influence  of 

ET   VENEBVNT   VOLVCRES   ET   COMEDERVNT   EA. 

Matt.  xvii.  7, 

KAI    HY&TO    AYTCON    KM    6ITT6N 
ET   TETIGIT   EOS  ET   DIXIT, 

where  we  should  have  read 

KM    MfAMeNOC    AyTCON    €in€N. 

Matt.  xx.  30, 

HKOYCAN    OTI    IHC    TT&p&r€l 
KM    €Kp<\5MM    AefONTGC 

AVDIERVNT  QVOD   IHS  TRANSIT 
ET   CLAMAVERVNT   DICENTES, 

where  the  primitive  Greek  would  seem  to  have  been  dfcov 
(-  ical). 

Matt.  xxi.  6, 

6TTOIHCAN  .........  KM 

for 

TTOIHCANTeC 

because  of  the  Latin 

FECERVNT  .........  ET  ADDVXERVNT. 

Matt.  xxvi.  51, 

K<M    CTTATASeN    TON 

joy 


because  of  the  Latin 

ET   PERCV8SIT   SERVVM 
PRINCIPES   SACERDOTIS 
ET   ABSTVLIT  ............ 

John  vi.  11, 

KAI  eyx^piCTHceN   KM 
for 


Sometimes  a  reviser  has  taken  pains  to  restore  the  participial 
construction  in  the  Latin  :  e.g.  in 
John  xii.  3, 

ERGO  MARIA  ACCIPIEN8  LIBRAM   PISTICI   VNGVENTI 
PRETI08I  ET  VNXIT  PEDES. 


INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  77 

Here  it  is  clear  that  he  had  at  first  accipit  or  accepit  to  corre 
spond  to  the  Greek  \a@ov<ra ;  first,  because  he  has  left  the  et  in 
the  second  line  :  and  next,  because  \aj3ovo-a  has  been  changed  to 
\appdvei  in  the  Greek. 

John  xii.  36, 

KAI    ATT€AeCON    GKpyBH    AH    AYTU)N 

becomes 

KAI    ATTHAOeN    KAI    GKpyBH    AH    AYT60N 

under  the  influence  of  the  Latin 

ET   ABUT   ET   ABSCONDIT   SE   AB   EIS. 

Acts  xiv.  6, 

CYNIAONT6C    KAI    KAT64>YI"ON 
INTELLEXERVNT   ET  FVOERVNT, 

where  ical  is  from  the  Latin. 

Luke  v.  14, 

ATreAGe  Ae 

KAI    A€l50N    CGAYTON 

VADE   AVTEM 
ET   OSTENDE   TEIPSVM. 

Here  the  Greek  should  be  d\\a  dire\6^v  Selgov. 
Luke  xv.  23, 

KAI 

KAI  e 

ET   MANDVCEMVS 
ET   AEPVLEMVR, 

where  we  should  have  fayovres  €v<f>pav0Q)pev. 
In  Mark  iv.  36  for 

KAI    A<t>€NTeC    TON    OXAON    TTApAAAMBANOYCIN 

the  translator  has 

ET   DIMITTVNT   TVRBAM  •  ET   ACCEPERVNT   EVM, 

whence  the  Greek  becomes 

KAI    A<t>IOYCIN    TON    O\AON  •  KAI    TTApAAAMBANOYCIN 

In  Mark  vii.  25, 

eA9oYCA  KAI  npoceneceN 
stands  against 

INTRAVIT   ET   PROCEDIT. 

Obviously  the  KOI  is  an  intrusion  from  the  Latin. 


78  INTERACTION  OF  GREEK   AND  LATIN. 

In  Mark  x.  16, 


TAC  XCIRAC  en  AYTA 
AYTA 

for  Karev\6y€i  Tt0ek,  because  the  Latin  was 

IMPONEBAT  MANV8  8VPER   ILLOS 
ET  BENEDICEBAT   EOS. 

In  Mark  x.  22, 

o  Ae  ecTYfNAceN 
eni  TOYTCO  TO>  Aor<*>  KAI  ATTHA9eN 

AD   ILLE    CONTRISTATV8 
IN    HOC   VERBO  •  ET   ABUT. 

The  Greek  should  be  arvyvdaas  dirfj\6ev  :  observe  that  est 
has  been  removed  from  the  Latin  after  contristatus  in  the  interests 
of  equality. 

In  Mark  xi.  2  again  the  change  of  the  Greek  is  only  partial  ; 
teal  has  been  introduced,  but  the  participle  left  : 

AYCANTCC  AYTON  KAI  AfAreTe 

SOLVITE   ILLVM   ET  ADDVCITE. 

So  in  Mark  xiv.  63, 

AIAPPH^AC  TOYC  xeucoNAC  AYTOY  •  KAI  Aepei 

8CIDIT  VE8TIMENTA  SVA  ET  AIT, 

and  Mark  XVL  14, 

nOp€Y0€NT€C    €IC   TON    KOCMON 
KM    KHPY5AT€   TO    €YA|T€AlON. 

12.  Cases  where  the  Latin  has  used  two  verbs  to  render 
a  single  Greek  verb,  and  a  corrector  has  either  erased  one  of  the 
Latin  verbs,  or  has  carried  over  an  extra  verb  into  the  Greek. 

In  Mark  v.  18 


O    A<MMONIC0€IC 

is  translated  line  by  line, 

COEPIT  DEPRAECARI   ILLVM 
QVI  DEMONIO  VEXABATVR, 

the  imperfect  being  given  as  an  inchoative.  The  Greek  has  then 
been  brought  into  harmony  with  it:  and  so  we  have  in  Cod. 
Bezae 

TTApAKAAeiN 


INTERACTION   OF   GREEK    AND   LATIN.  79 

Exactly  the  same  corruption  occurs  in  Mark  viii.  25,  where 

KAI  AieBAeyeN 
has  been  made  into 

KAI    HpjATO    ANABAC^AI 

because  the  Latin  translation  was 

ET  COEPIT   VIDERE. 

Probably  the  same  thing  occurs  in  Mark  xiv.  72, 

KAI    eiTlBAAcJN    CKA&I6N. 

Whatever  eTrifidXcov  may  mean,  the  Latin  is 

ET   COEPIT   FLERE, 

which    translates   etc\ai€v.      Was   €Tri/3a\wv   then   displaced   by 
rjpgaTo?     For  we  find  in  Cod.  Bezae 

KM    Hp?ATO    KAAI6IN. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  there  are  a  number  of  cases  where 
the  simple  \tyei  and  \eyayv  of  Greek  narration  has  been  expanded 
in  this  way  :  or  where  \eyei  has  been  added  to  a  similar  word. 

Acts  xvii.  6, 

BOCONTCC  KAI  AeroNrec 

CLAMANTES   ET   DICENTES, 

where  the  proper  Greek  text  is  merely 
Acts  xvii.  19, 


AYTON    6TTI    AplON    TTAfON 
TTYN0ANO/V\€NOI    KAI    AefONTeC 
ADDVXERVNT  AD   ARIVM   PAGVM 
COGITANTES   ET  DICENTES. 

In  the  last  line  cogitantes  is  an  error  for  rogitantes  ;  and  this 
free  double  rendering  of  the  Greek  Xe^oi/re?  has  led  to  the 
insertion  of  the  words  irvvOavofievoi  /cal  in  the  Greek. 

In  Acts  xxl  39 

AAIOM€  Ae  coy  CYNXWPHCAI  MOI 
is  rendered 

ROGO  OB8EGRO  AVTEM  MIHI. 

Here  Saiofte  is  by  itacism  for  Seo/zat,  and  Seopcu  Be  <rov  is 
rendered  freely  enough,  but  not  unfairly,  by  rogo  obsecro.  The 


80  INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

reviser  of  the  text,  finding  these  two  verbs  instead  of  one,  struck 
out  by  mistake  the  word  which  the  translator  had  used  to  render 


What  we  have  said  of  the  double  translation  of  verbs  applies 
also  to  those  cases  where  two  words  were  necessary  to  render 
a  noun. 

Here  is  a  striking  instance  :  in  Luke  xxii.  12,  the  translator 
had  to  render  the  word  dvwycuov,  he  employed  a  word,  which 
was  understood  in  the  Vulgar  Latin  of  the  provinces,  and 
especially,  it  would  seem,  in  Africa,  viz.  maenianum,  a  word 
which  means  an  overhanging  balcony.  The  word  does  not,  how 
ever,  occur  in  its  true  form  in  any  of  the  great  Latin  Codices,  but 
in  the  Codex  Vercellensis  (a)  it  appears  in  the  form  medianum 
both  in  Mark  xiv.  15,  and  in  Luke  xxii.  12.  This  medianum, 
of  course,  caused  trouble,  and  in  the  passage  from  Luke  we  find 
Cod.  Veronensis  (b)  gives  us  pede  piano  (on  the  ground  floor), 
which  is  a  blundering  correction  of  medianum  as  we  have  it  in  a. 
This  necessitated  the  addition  of  an  explanatory  word  to  shew 
what  it  was  that  was  to  be  found  on  the  ground  floor,  and  hence 
many  Latin  texts  add  locum,  and  then  afterwards  the  scribes 
go  back  and  correct  the  'ground  floor'  to  in  superioribus  =  '  up 
stairs.' 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Codex  Bezae,  where  we  find  a  bold 
correction;  medianum  is  replaced  by  superiorem  domum.  We 
have  now  two  Latin  words  for  one  Greek  word,  so  the  scribe 
quietly  inserts  ol/cov  after  dvoayatov. 

We  have  given  this  instance  at  length,  on  account  of  the 
peculiarly  interesting  ramification  of  the  Latin  texts  over  a  hard 
word.  The  special  case  of  the  change  in  the  Greek  in  Cod.  D  is 
very  simple  and  easily  betrays  itself  *.  We  shall  have  many  simi 
lar  cases  as  we  proceed. 

13.  Cases  where  the  aorist  participle  or  aorist  imperative  has 
been  rendered  by  the  Latin  present  participle  or  present  im 
perative  ;  and  subsequent  reflex  action  on  the  Greek. 

1  For  maenianum  cf.  Linke,  Studicn  zur  Itala,  Breslau,  1889,  p.  28.  The  parallel 
passage  Mark  xiv.  15  is  instructive  in  its  various  forms  in  the  Old  Latin.  In  par 
ticular  Codex  Bezae  has  here  draycuov  olKov  effTpupfvov  /j.eyav  ^roifiov  although  both 
medianum  and  superiorem  locum  have  disappeared  from  the  Latin. 


INTERACTION  OF  GREEK   AND   LATIN.  81 

Acts  xiv.  21, 

eyArreAizoMGNoi  Ae  royc  €N  TH  noAei 
has  been  made  out  of 


because  the  Latin  translator  had,  of  necessity,  unless  he  had  re 
sorted  to  the  use  of  the  finite  verb,  rendered  by 

EVANGELIZANTES   AVTEM   IN   ILLA   CIVITATE. 

In  Acts  xvi.  29  I  believe  a  similar  error  once  occurred  in 
Western  copies  : 

<J)£OTA   Ae   GTHCAC    eiC€TTHAHCeN, 

the  translator  gives 

LVMEN  VERO  PETENS  ACCVCVRRIT. 

If  this  petens  had  changed  alrrjo-as  of  the  Greek  into  alr&v,  it 
would  easily  have  been  read  UTTTCOV,  which  underlies  the  Syriac 
rendering  ;  and  in  some  respects  seems  to  be  a  superior  reading. 

Matt.  x.  27, 

KHpycceTAi  eni  TCON  ACOMATCON 

PRAEDICATE   IN   TECTIS, 

where  we  ought  to  have,  not  Krjpvo-a-ere  but  /crjpvgare. 
Matt.  xiii.  22, 

o  Ae  eic  TAG  AKANOAC  cneipo/v\eNoc 

QVI   AVTEM   IN   SPINIS   SEMINATVR, 

the  word  (nrapefa  in  the  first  line  having  been  replaced  by  one 
more  exactly  correspondent  to  the  Latin. 

In  the  same  way  in  Matt.  xiii.  24,  aTreipavri,,  which  was 
translated  seminanti,  has  given  way  before  the  Latin,  and  we  have 

AN6pO)TTCO    CneipONTI  •  KAAON    CTTGpMA 
HOMINI   SEMINANTI   BONVM   SEMEN. 

Luke  ii.  16, 

cneyAoNTec  KAI  eypON  THN  MAPIAN 

FESTINANTES  ET   INVENERVNT   MARIAM. 

Here  festinantes  stands  for  ^<nrev<ravTes  and  the  Greek  has 
been  assimilated  to  the  translation. 

C.  B.  G 


82  INTERACTION   OF  GREEK   AND   LATIN. 

Luke  ii.  45, 


KAI  MH  eypiCKONTec 

ET  NON   INVENIENTE8   REVER8I   8VNT. 

Here  evplaKovres  stands  for  evpovres,  which  of  necessity  was 
represented  by  the  present  participle  in  the  Latin. 

In  Luke  xix.  27  we  find  a  similar  difficulty  with  the  infinitive  : 

TOYC    MH    GeAONTAC    M€ 

BACiAeyeiN 

QVI   NOLVERVNT  ME 
REGNARE. 

Here  we  should  have  expected  fia<ri,\evo-ai,  :   but  the  reason 
for  the  change  is  not  far  to  seek. 

So  again  in  Luke  xx.  6,  the  Latin  having  given 

SCIT   ENIM 
IOHANNEN   PROPHETAM   FVIS8E, 

where  the  Greek  had  elvai,  the  corrector  has  given  us  ycyovevai  as 
a  more  exact  answer  tofuisse. 
Luke  xxii.  9, 


6IC    THN    TTOAlN 

for  €lcr€\66vT(ov 
because  the  Latin  is 

INTROEVNTIBV8 
VOBIS   IN   CIVITATEM. 

14.     Confusion  caused  by  the  attempt  to  translate  the  articular 
infinitive  in  Greek. 

We  may  take  as  an  instance  Mark  xiv.  55, 

6IC   TO    6ANATCOCAI    AyTON, 

which  was  rightly  rendered 

VT   MORTI   TRADERENT   EVM, 

after  which  it  goes  back  into  Greek  as 

TNA   GANATCOCOyCIN    AyTON. 

In  Acts  iii.  12  we  have  the  following  confusion 

<A>C  HMCON  TH   lAiA  AyN&Mi  H  eyceBiA 

Toyro  neTTOiHKOTcoN  roy  TO  nepinATeiN  AYTO 

QVA8I   NOS   NOSTRA   PROPRIA    VIRTVTE   AVT   PIETATE 
HOC   FECERIMV8   VT   AMBVLET   HIC. 


INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  83 

In  order  to  resolve  the  confusion,  observe  that  in  iii.  19  the 
articular  infinitive  is  rendered  by  the  equation  els  TO  =  ad  hoc  ut. 
Hence  in  the  present  case  we  have  rov  irepiTrareiv  rendered 
by  hoc  ut  ambulet. 

Then  the  words  are  displaced,  and  the  Greek  is  corrected  until 
we  get  the  Bezan  sentence. 

Acts  iii.  26, 

€N   T   ATTOC 

Tpe<t>eiN    6KACTOC    6K   T60N    TTONHplCON    Y^toN 
IN   EO   CVM   ABERTATVR   VNVSQVISQVE   A   NEQVITIIS   8VIS, 

the  Greek  €tca<rrov  has  been  changed  so  as  to  match  the  Latin 
unusquisque. 

With  this  error  take  the  similar  one,  Acts  xviii.  2, 

AlA   TO   T6TAX6NM    KAAyAlOC 

EO  QVOD   PRAECEPISSET  CLAVDIV8. 

15.  Translation  of  the  subjunctive  after  ov  fiij. 

This  very  strong  form  of  denial  is  rendered  in  the  Latin  by  a 
future  indicative  :  hence  we  shall  find  the  subjunctive  in  Greek 
replaced  by  an  indicative :  e.g. 

Mark  x.  15, 

oy  MH  eic  AYTHN  eiceAeycerAi 

NON  INTRAVIT  IN   ILLVM. 

16.  Translation  of  a  Greek  infinitive  by  ut  with  the  subjunc 
tive  :  and  converse  case  of  a  Latin  infinitive  for  r6n  with   the 
indicative. 

Mark  v.  17, 

KAI    TTApGKAAOYN    <Vp"ON 
INA    &TT6A0H 

ET   ROGABANT   EVM 
VT  DISCEDERET, 

where  we  should  read  aire\6elv,  if  it  were  not  for  the  Latin. 
Mark  vi.  49  the  original  text  seems  to  be 

eAolAN    OTI    4>ANTACMA   6CTIN, 

and  the  Bezan  Latin  is 

PVTAVERVNT   PANTASMA   E8SE. 

Hence  the  Bezan  Greek 

<f>ANTACM&    6INAI. 

6—2 


84  INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

17.    Changes  of  compound  verbs  to  simple,  and  conversely,  with 
a  view  to  greater  harmony  between  Greek  and  Latin. 
Matt.  ix.  25, 


VENIENS  TENVIT. 

There  is  xeason  to  believe  the  true  reading  to  be  €l<re\0a>v, 
but  the  translator  rendered  it  by  veniens,  and  a  reviser  erased  the 
Greek  prefix. 

Matt.  x.  25, 

BeAzeBoyA  KAAoyciN 

BELZEBVL   VOCANT, 

where  we  ought  to  read  eireKoXecrav. 
Matt.  xvi.  23, 

o  Ae  eniCTp<\<|>eic  eineN  TOJ  nerpca, 
where  we  should  have  vTpafak,  the  Latin  being 

QVI  AVTEM  CONVERSVS  AIT  PETRO. 

John  iv.  45, 

e5eAe5&NTO  AYTON  01  r*MAioi 

EXCEPERVNT   EVM   GALILAEI, 

the  simple  form  ebegavro  being  not  close  enough  in  appearance  to 
its  Latin  rendering. 

18.  Confusion  of  the  Vulgar  Latin  present  with  the  future  in 
the  third  person  singular. 

In  John  xii.  25  we  should  read 

o  <J>iAo>N  THN  YYXHN  ATToAAyei  AYTHN 
for  which  the  Latin  is 

QVI  AMAT   ANIMAM   8VAM   PERDET  EAM. 

Here  perdet  is  a  late  form  of  the  present  tense ;  but  it  has  the 
form  of  the  Latin  future:  so  we  get  diroKeaei  written  in  the 
Greek. 

This  confusion  between  the  e  and  %  vowels  is  very  common 
both  in  the  verb-endings  and  in  the  plurals  of  nouns,  and  has  given 
rise  to  many  variants  in  the  Latin  and  by  reflection  from  the  Latin 
text  to  the  Greek.  For  instance  in  John  vi  56 


INTERACTION    OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN.  85 

O   TpCOfCON    MOY   THN    CApKA  •  KAI    TT6IN60N    MOY 
TO    AIMA  •  €N    €MOI    M6N6I 
QVI   EDET   MEAM   CARNEM   ET   VIBET   MEVM 
8ANGVEM   IN   ME   MANET 

we  have  an  apparent  future  in  the  Latin  twice,  and  in  Mark  xiv.  21 

O    M6N    Y'OC   TOY   ANSptonOY    TTAp<\AlAOT€ 
PILIV8   QVIDEM   HOMINIS   TRADETUR. 

But  here  there  has  been  no  reaction  upon  the  Greek. 

19.  Confusion  between  the  two  meanings  of  quam. 

The  reviser  of  the  MS.  had  a  prejudice  in  favour  of  regarding 
quam  as  a  feminine  form.     Hence  we  find,  Matt.  xi.  22, 

ANGKTOTGpON    6CT6   •    GN    HM€p<\    Kp€ICeO)C    HN    Y^C! 
TOLERABILIV8   ERIT  •  IN   DIE   IVDICII   QVAM   VOBIS, 

where  rj  has  been  changed  to  rjv  in  the  Greek. 
The  same  form  occurs  again  in  v.  24. 

20.  Confusion  between  qui  and  quia. 

The  scribe  is  constantly  in  peril  of  a  confusion  between  these 
forms,  especially  when  the  word  that  follows  begins  with  an  a. 

Acts  ii.  6, 

QVIAVDIEBANT   VNVSQVISQVE. 

Here  it  should  be  quia :  but  the  Latin  was  misunderstood,  and 
then  the  Greek,  instead  of 

OTI    HKOYC6N    €IC    6KACTOC, 

becomes 

KAI    HKOYON    GIC    6KACTOC. 

Notice  at  the  same  time  the  harmonization  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  verbs. 

Acts  vii.  39, 

OTI  OYK  H9eAHCAN  YHHKOOi  f€Nec6e 

CVI   NOLVERVNT   OBOEDIENTE8   ESSE, 

where  cui  has  been  read  as  quia,  and  the  correct  reading  oS  turned 
to  on. 

Sometimes  the  scribe  himself  is  aware  of  the  danger  his  text 
is  in,  and  he  places  a  distinguishing  point  in  the  text :  e.g. 


INTERACTION   OF  GREEK   AND   LATIN. 

Acts  xiv.  27, 


KM  OTI 

ET  QVIA  •  APEBVIT. 


The  object  of  this  point  is,  not  to  divide  the  sentence  but  to 
secure  the  reader  or  transcriber  from  reading  it  as  qui  aperuit. 
If  the  point  had  not  been  placed  there  we  should  probably  have 
had  a  Greek  variant 


KAI  oc 

21.  Cases  where  a  false  translation  has  been  carried  back  from 
the  Latin  into  the  Greek. 

Matt.  xv.  11, 

AKoyeTAi  KAI  CYNi'ere  •  oy  TTAN  TO  eicepxo/v\eN6 

6IC    TO    CTOMA  •  KOINCONI    TON    ANGpOOTTON 

is  the  equivalent  of 

AVDITE  ET   INTELLIGITE  •  NON    OMNE   QVOD   INTRAT 
IN  OS  COMMVNICAT  HOMINEM. 

Here  two  Greek  words  have  evidently  been  confused,  namely, 
KOLVoa)  and  Kownvia)  ;  no  doubt  the  true  text  is  tcowol,  but  whether 
because  coinquinat  (=  coincuinat)  has  been  read  as  communicat, 
or  because  communicat  actually  had  acquired  the  supplementary 
meaning  of  pollution,  the  Greek  text  has  been  reformed  so  as  to 
give  the  normal  equivalent  of  communicat. 

The  same  mistake  will  be  found  in  v.  20. 

In  a  similar  manner  when  we  find  in  Acts  xxi.  28 

KAI    €KOIN6JNHC6N    TON    AflON    TOTTON    TOyTON 

and 

ET  COMMVNICAVIT   8ANCTVM   LOCVM   HVNC, 

we  must  substitute  KeKoivcoxev,  or  at  all  events  the  aorist  eicoivwaev, 
for  the  text  as  given  in  the  Beza  Codex.  The  instance  which  we 
have  been  discussing  was  pointed  out  by  Mill. 

22.  Cases  where  the  corrector  has  substituted  in  the  Greek  a 
more  exact  equivalent  of  the  Latin,  although  the  Latin  translator 
had  really  done  his  best  to  render  the  word. 

Acts  xix.  8, 

eiceA6o)N  Ae  o  TTAyAoc  eic  THN 

6N    AyNA/Wei    MerA\H    eTTAppHCIAZ€TO 


INTERACTION   OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN.  87 

Here  the  Latin  text  is  conflate ; 

CVM   INTROISSET  AVTEM   PAVLV8  IN   SYNAGOGA 
CVM   FIDVCIA   MAGNA   PALAM   LOQVEBATVR. 

A  reference  to  Mark  viii.  32  will  shew  that  palam  loqui  is 
an  attempt  to  render  Trapprj&id^ecrOai, :  but  cum  fiducia  magna 
loqui  is  another  attempt  at  the  same  thing,  and  apparently  the 
first  translation  :  it  has  given  rise  to  ev  Swa/iei,  /jueyd\rj  in  the 
Greek. 

Another  case  where  the  conflation  of  two  possible  Latin  render 
ings  has  produced  a  corresponding  conflation  in  the  Greek  is 
Acts  xx.  18. 

It  should  run 

coc  Ae  TTApe[~€NONTo  npoc  <\YTON 
eineN  npoc  AYTOYC, 

the  first  line  of  which  was  rendered  in  two  ways : 

AD   VBI   VENERVNT   AD   EVM 

and 

SIMVLQVE   CVM   EBSET   (  =  ESSENT), 

and  the  Greek  accordingly  adds  at  the  beginning  of  the  second 
line 

OMCOC    eONTCON    &YTCON. 

In  Acts  xxii.  23  the  translator  has  had  before  him 

KAI    KONIOpTON    B&AAONTCON    6IC    TON    A€p<\* 

he  rendered  the  last  word  in  caelum  as  it  was  perfectly  right  to  do, 
caelum  being  the  regular  equivalent;  and  the  corrector  carried  back 
the  word  into  the  Greek  in  a  more  exact  form,  and  substituted 
ovpavov.  True,  the  Latin  text  is  lost  here,  but  the  Greek  tells  its 
own  tale. 

The  converse  correction  will  be  found  in  Matt.  xvi.  3, 

TTYPpAZGI    f<*P    CTYfNAZCON    O 

In  Matt.  xvii.  15,  the  words 

KAI  K&KCOC  exei 
would  seem  to  be  rightly  translated  by 

7  ET   MALE   PATITVR. 


88  INTERACTION   OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN. 

Must  it  not  then  be  by  reflex  action  that  we  find  in  Cod.  D 

KAI    KAK60C    TTACX6I  ? 

In  Luke  ii.  6  the  text  may  be  taken 

enAHc6HC<\N  AI  H/v\ep<M, 
which  the  scribe  rendered 

CONSVMMATI   SVNT   DIES; 

but  consummati  sunt  would  be   more   nearly  the   equivalent   of 
€Te\€o-0rj(rav,  which  is  placed  in  the  Bezan  text.     A  still  stronger 
correction  is  made  in  verse  21,  where  we  have  (rvvereKiaOrjaav. 
In  Luke  iv.  5  the  translator  rendered 

TTACAC   TAC    BAClAeiAC 
THC    OIKOYMGNHC 

by 

OMNIA   REGNA 
MVNDI, 

and  then  because  /c6oy*o9,  forsooth,  is  the  proper  word  for  mundus, 
we  have  the  Greek 

TOY  KOCMOY. 

In  Acts  xvi.  34  the  translator  was  obliged  to  use  a  periphrasis 
for  iravoitcei  and  so  he  gave,  properly  enough, 

ET   EXVLTABAT   CVM   TOTA   DOMV   SVA, 

and  the  Greek  takes  this  up,  and  we  have,  instead  of  the  original 


KAI    HfAAAlATO    CyN   TO)    OIKCO 

In  Mark  iii.  5  the  scribe  had  done  his  best  to  render  7ra>pa)<ri<; 
by  means  of  the  verb  emorior,  which  means  not  merely  to  die,  but 
to  become  void  of  feeling  (cf.  Celsus  v.  28.  14:  clavus...saepe 
emoritur);  but  the  reviser  put  the  more  exact  equivalent 
into  the  text  :  hence 


eni  TH  NGKpcocei  THC  KApAiAC  <\YTO>N 

SVPER  EMORTVA   CORDIS   EORVM. 


In   the  very  next  verse  he  rendered   cvpfiovKiov  eSiSovv  by 
consilium  fadebant,  and  again  the  Greek  was  corrected, 


noiOYNTec  KAT 

CONSILIVM   FACIEBANT  ADVERSVS  .EVM. 


INTERACTION  OF   GREEK   AND   LATIN.  89 

If  in  Mark  iv.  21  the  accepted  reading  is 
MHTI  epxerAi  o  AYXNOC, 

then  we  must  say  that,  by  some  confusion  between  accedo  and 
accendo,  the  text  of  Cod.  D  has  become  : 


MHTI    ATTT€T<M    O 

NVM   QVID   ACCENDITVR   LVCEENA, 

where,  however,  we  can  hardly  help  feeling  that  the  Beza  text 
ought  to  be  right.  In  any  case  the  variants  find  their  motive  in 
the  Latin. 

In  Mark  viii.  2 

npOCMGNOYCIN    MOI 

has  been  freely  paraphrased  by 

EX  QVO  me  SVNT; 
and  word  for  word  it  goes  back  into  the  Greek 

ATTO    TTOT6    CoAe   6ICIN. 

In  the  very  next  verse,  the  translator  gave 

DE   LONGE   VENERVNT, 

as  translation  of 

ATTO   MAKPO06N    6ICIN, 

and  then  elaiv  is  displaced  by  tf/caaw. 

In  Mark  viii.  13  e/*/3a?  is  expanded  for  Latin  readers  to 

ASCENDIT   IN   NAVEM, 

and  hence 

CNBAC  eic  TO  rrAoiON. 

In  Mark  vi.  36,  we  find 

INA  AireAeoNTec  etc  Toyc  erncTA  Arpoyc 

VT   EVNTES  •  IN   PROXIMAS   VILLAS. 

The  translator  rendered  TOI)?  KVK\O)  dypovs  by  in  proximas 
uillas:  but  proximas  did  not  seem  a  near  enough  equivalent  to 
the  Greek,  so  the  reviser  has  given  us  eyyio-ra. 

In  Mark  vi.  39  the  idiomatic  avuTrocria,  <rvp7r6<ria  was  trans 
lated  secundum  contubernia  ;  and  we  have  in  the  Bezan  Greek 

KATA   THN 


90  INTERACTION   OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN. 

Mark  vi.  47  gives  us 

IN    MEDIO   MARE 

as  the  translation  of  a  primitive 

£N    M6C60    THC    0AAACCHC. 

Harmony  is  restored  by  reading,  as  in  Cod.  Bezae, 

€N    MGCH    TH    6AAACCH. 

Mark  vii.  4  reads 

KM    ATT    AfOpAC    OTAN    eAGcOCIN 
ET   CVM   VENEBINT  A   FORO. 

It  would  seem  that  the  Latin  is  the  free  rendering  of  an 
dyopds,  and  that  the  two  last  words  in  Greek  are  an  addition  for 
the  sake  of  equivalence.  But  perhaps  the  added  words  are 
a  gloss  of  some  later  hand,  and  not  of  the  translator  ;  in  the 
Arabic  Tatian  Harmony  we  have  a  different  explanation,  viz. 
quod  emptum  est  ;  i.e.  they  wash  what  they  buy  from  the  market. 
It  is  clear  that  the  abrupt  air  dyopds  puzzled  the  translators. 

In  Mark  xi.  32  the  scribe  translated 

OTI    ONTCOC    TTpO<J>HTHC    HN 

by 

QVIA   VERB   PROFETA   ERAT, 


but  a  more  exact  equivalent  of  uere  was  aXT/^cG?,  which  accordingly 
is  put  in  the  Greek. 

Acts  iv.  21,  the  passage  to  be  translated  was 

MH    eyplCKONTGC    TO    TTCOC    KOAACOONTAI    AyTOyC, 

and  the  writer  gave 

NIHIL   INVENIENTES   CAV8AM   QVA   PVNIRENT   EOS, 

inserting  causam  just  as  the  Coptic  and  Syriac  versions  do, 
in  order  to  express  the  meaning  more  closely.  Then  alriav 
creeps  into  the  Greek  after  eu/nWoi/re?. 

23.     Omission  of  such  words  as  rj^pa  in  the  Greek  descrip 
tions  of  time. 

Acts  xvi.  11, 

KAI  TH  enioycH  eic  NCATTOAIN, 
the  proper  Latin  of  which  is 

ET   8EQVENTI    DIE   NEAPOLIM  ; 


INTERACTION   OF   GREEK    AND    LATIN.  91 

and  now  jpepa  must  be  restored  to  the  Greek,  so  that  we  have 
KAI  TH  enioycH  H/v\epA  eic 

Acts  iv.  5, 

ereNETO  Ae  eni  THN  AYPION 

where  the  word  jpepav  has  been  brought  in  from  the  Latin 

CONTIGIT   AVTEM   IN   CRASTINVM   DIEM. 

Another  way  of  removing  the  apparent  inequality  is  to  strike 
out  di&ni  in  the  Latin  :  we  find  in  Acts  iv.  3, 


KAI    e9£NTO    GIC   THpHCIN    €IC   THN 

ET   POSVERVNT   IN   ADSERTIONEM   IN    CRASTINV. 

Matt,  xxviii.  15 

THC    CHMGpON    HM€pAC 


for 

IN   HOERNVM   DIEM, 

where  ^pepa?  is  borrowed  from  the  Latin. 

With  these  cases  we  may  notice  Mark  vi.  2,  where 

KAI    reNOMGNOY    CABBATOY 

has  been  rendered 

ET   DIE   SABBATORVM, 

and  hence  the  Greek  becomes 

KAI    HMGpA    CABBAT60N. 

With  the  foregoing  we  may  take  the  cases  of  translation  of 
T{J  rplrrj  rj^epa  and  similar  expressions.  We  shall  find  that 
the  Latin  translator  renders  such  a  term  as  ry  rplry  rj^epa 
by  post  tres  dies,  or  post  tertium  diem.  When,  therefore,  the 
reviser  with  his  little  Latin  and  less  Greek  goes  over  the  text,  he 
finds  an  apparent  discord  between  the  languages;  although  the 
translator  meant  by  post  tertium  diem  the  third  day  after.  And 
so  he  corrects  the  Greek. 

Hence  in  Matt.  xvi.  21  we  have 


KAI    M6TA   TpeiC    HMepAC    ANACTHNAI 
ET   POST   TRES   DIES   RESVRGERE. 


Matt.  xvii.  23, 


KAI    M6TA   TpeiC    HM€pAC 

ET   POST   TRES   DIES   RESVRGET. 


92  INTERACTION   OF  GREEK   AND  LATIN. 

Acts  x.  40, 

TOYTON    O    6C    Hf€lp€N    M€TA   THN    TplTHN 
HVNC   D8   8V8CITAVIT   POST   TERTIVM   DIEVM. 

In  all  these  cases  the  correct  reading  would  seem  to  be  esta 
blished  as  777  rplry  ri^pa. 

The  argument  is,  however,  complicated  by  the  fact  that  in 
Mark  viii.  31  we  find 


M6TA   TpeiC    H/V\€pAC    ANACTHNAI 
ET  TERTIA  DIE   RE8VRGERE. 

Here  codices  a  k,  which  may  be  suspected  to  contain  our  most 
archaic  Latin  text,  read  post  tertium  diem:  so  there  has  been,  in  all 
probability,  a  correction  made  on  the  Latin  side.  But  the  matter 
will  require  a  closer  enquiry,  both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin. 

24.  Further  cases  of  elliptical  expression  in  the  Greek,  where 
the  Latin  text  has  proved  a  reactionary  influence. 

In  Acts  xiii.  22  the  text  should  run 

eypON  A&yeiA  TON  ICCCAI, 
which  is  rendered 

INVENI   DAVID   FILIVM   IESSAE, 

the  Latin  language  not  favouring  the  omission  of  filius.     Hence 
we  have  vlov  carried  over  into  the  Greek 

eypON  AAyeiA  TON  YION  IGCCAI. 

% 

In  John  xxi.  2, 

KAI  01  Toy  zeBeAAioy 
becomes 

ET   FILI   ZEBEDAEI, 

and  so  the  Greek  replaces  TOV  by  viol. 

25.  Confusion  between  d\\a  and  a\\d. 

If  we  turn  to  Matt.  xx.  23  we  shall  see  that  the  translator 
or  reviser  does  not  always  feel  sure  about  his  Greek,  where  d\\d 
and  aXXa  could  be  confounded  one  with  the  other  ;  for  he  renders 

OYK    6CTIN    €/V\ON    TOyTO 
AAAOIC    HTOIMACTAI 

by 

NON   E8T   MEVM  DARE 
ALII8   PRAEPARATVM   E8T, 


INTERACTION  OF  GREEK  AND  LATIN.  93 

and  we  may  very  well  ask  whether  there  is  any  case  of  reflection 
upon  the  Greek  text  from  such  misunderstandings  in  the  Latin. 
Let  us  look  at  John  vi.  23  ;  probably  the  original  was 

AAA&  HA06N  rrAoiApiA, 
but  here  d\\a  was  read  as  oXXa  and  rendered 

ALIAE   NAVICVLAE  VENERVNT  J 

and  then,  to  prevent  any  further  mistake  or  misunderstanding  in 
the  Greek,  the  text  is  changed  to 

&AAooN  rrAoiApeiooN  eA0ONTO)N. 

26.     Translator's  use  of  tune  for  /cat. 

The  translator  has  often  avoided  the  monotony  of  the  sentences 
connected  by  teal,  by  using  tune  as  a  substitute,  with  the  ultimate 
effect  either  of  displacing  /cal  by  rore,  or,  at  all  events,  of  pushing 
rore  into  the  Greek  text  : 

e.g.  Mark  i.  36, 

KAI  K<vreA«u>£AN  AYTON 
TOTC  CIMCON  KAI  01  MGT 


ET  CONSECVTI  8VNT  EVM 

TVNC  SIMON  ET  QVI  CVM  EO   ERANT. 

Here  tune  has  got  into  the  Greek  in  the  second  line,  and  hence 
we  have  both  readings  in  Greek  and  Latin. 
Mark  ix.  £5, 

TOTE  KA0ICAC  e(t>a>NHC€N  Toyc  •  iB  • 

TVNC  CON8EDIT  ET  VOCAVIT  -  XII  •, 

where  Tore  stands  for  a  primitive  icaL 

Mark  xiv.  27  is  a  similar  case, 

TOTG  Aerei  AYTOIC  o  me, 
and  the  same  thing  occurs  in  Mark  xiv.  34. 

We  shall  now  pass  on  to  give  a  series  of  similar  Latinizations 
which  do  not  so  readily  admit  of  being  grouped  together. 


CHAPTER  X. 

FURTHER  CASES  OF  LATINIZATION. 

THE  previous  chapter  contains  a  spicilegium  of  the  cases  of 
Latinization  which  occur  in  the  Codex  Bezae.  A  few  further 
instances  are  to  be  given  which  do  not  so  readily  admit  of 
classification. 

In  Matt.  v.  24  the  Bezan  reading  is 


KAI    TOT6 

npoc4>epeic  TO  Ao>poN  coy, 

where   7rpoo-<f>ep6i<i   for  Trpoafape  is  due  to  the  spelling  of  the 
Latin  : 

ET   TVNC   VENIENS 
OFFERES   MVNVS   TVVM. 

This  case  was  pointed  out  by  Wetstein. 
Matt.  v.  40, 

KAI    O    OeAoGN    COI    KplGHNAI 
KAI    TON    XeiTWNA   COY    A<\BeiN 

QVI  VOLVERIT  IVDICIO  CONGREDI 
ET  TVNICAM   TVAM   ACCIPERE  : 

upon  which  Middleton  remarks  (p.  481)  "This  has  strongly  the 
appearance  of  being  a  rendering  from  qui  uoluerit  (i.e.  o  6e\ayv  for 
TO)  6e\ovri)  by  some  one  who  did  not  look  forward  to  the  end  of 
the  sentence." 
In  Matt.  v.  46, 

TINA   MGIC60N    e?€TAI 

QVAM  MERCEDEM   HABEBETIS. 

Here  habebetis  is  apparently  a  dittograph  for  hdbetis,  but  it  has 
been  read  as  a  future  ;  and  the  Greek  altered  to  correspond.  Of 
the  change  in  the  Greek  there  seems  no  doubt  ;  there  is,  however 


FURTHER  CASES   OF   LATINIZATEON.  95 

some  reason  for  believing  that  the  Latin  error  is  not  palaeo- 
graphical,  but  belongs  to  the  dialect  of  the  translator,  who  used  a 
reduplicative  form  of  the  verb  habeo.  We  shall  return  to  this 
point  later  on. 

A  curious  case  which  seems  to  be  traceable  to  Latinization  is 
Matt.  ix.  20, 

KAI  lAoY  TYNH  AIMOPPOOYCA  AcoAeKA  €TH 

ET   ECCE   MVLIER  PLVXVM   SANGVINIS   HABENS  XII   ANNIS. 

fLerefluxum  sanguinis  habens  is  the  equivalent  of  alfwppoova-a. 
Knowing  what  we  do  of  the  mode  of  structure  and  reformation  of 
the  Greek  text,  we  feel  sure  that  habens  would  in  time  be  carried 
over  as  e^oucra.  But  if  it  were,  it  would  certainly  be  attached  to 
SwSe/ca  err),  and  then  we  should  not  be  surprised  at  the  reading 
which  we  find  in  Codex  L, 

SwSe/ca  eTTj  c^ovo-a  ev  TTJ  dcrOevela. 

This  reading  is  not  in  our  MS,  though  Stephen  refers  it  to  ft : 
he  often  confounds  Codices  D  and  L.  But  it  seems  to  be  an  error 
of  the  same  kind  as  those  which  we  are  studying. 

Matt.  x.  30, 

YMGON  Ae  KAI  AI  rpixec  THC  Kec|>AAHC, 

BED  ET   CAPILLI   CAPITIS   VESTRI, 

has  been  corrected  by  carrying  vp&v  to  the  end  of  the  sentence 
and  translating  sed  et  by  a\\a  teat. 
Hence 

AAAA  KAI  AI  rpixec  THC  K€<|>&AHC  YM<*>N- 

In  Matt.  xiii.  29  the  correct  text  would  seem  to  be 

6KplZO)CHT€   AMA   AyTOIC   TON    CITON, 

which  is  very  well  rendered 

ERADICETIS   SIMVL   ET   TRITICVM   CVM  EIS. 

This  goes  back  to  the  Greek  as 

expizcocHTe  AMA  KAI  TON  CGITON  cyN  AYTOIC. 

In  the  same  chapter  the  translator  has  twice  to  find  a  proper 
translation  for  '6 a a. 

In  Matt.  xiii.  44  he  renders  $a-a  e^ei  very  well  by  omnia  quae 
habet ;  and  the  Greek  takes  up  the  added  word  and  appears  as 

TTANTA   OCA   6X61, 


96  FURTHER  CASES   OF   LATINIZATION. 

In  v.  46  he  rendered  ova  elxev  by 


QVAE   HABEDAT, 

and  this  time  the  Greek  is  corrected  to 


encoAHceN  A 
In  Matt.  xiii.  48 

HN  ore  errAHpcoeH 
has  been  rendered 

CVM   AVTEM   INPLETA  PVERIT  •  EDVCENT   EAM, 

and  then  the  Greek  changes  to  the  Beza  reading 

ore  Ae  enAHpcoGn  •  ANCBIBACAN  AYTHN. 

In  Matt,  xviii.  9  the  translator,  with  pardonable  freedom,  has 
prefaced  a  new  clause  by  the  word  similiter, 

SIMILITER  .  ET   SI  OCVLV8   TVV8  •  SCANDALIZAT   TE, 

and  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  render  the  added  word  by  the 
prefixing  of  TO  avro  to  the  Greek 

TO  Ayro  ei  K&I  o  o<J>6AA/v\oc  coy  CKANA«\Aizei  ce. 
In  Matt,  xviii.  22, 

OY  A€|-C*>  coi  eeoc  €TTT<\KIC 

AAA    6COC    eBAOMHKONTAKIC    enTAKIC 

NON   DICO  TIBI   SEPTIE8 
BED   8EPTVAQIES  8EPTIES. 

Here  the  African  Latin  usage  is  perfectly  correct  ;  as  we  may 
see  from  Capella,  vn.  §  737,  "  sexies  septuagesies  dipondius  facit 
quadringentos  trigies  dipondius."  But  the  Greek  text  had  eTrra 
for  eTTra/a?  in  the  second  line,  the  Latin  usage  being  to  say 
"seventy  times  seven  times,"  and  the  Greek  "seventy  times  seven." 
The  reviser,  then,  seeing  that  septies  in  one  line  stood  for  errroK^ 
and  in  the  next  for  €TTT«,  has  corrected  the  Greek  text  to  the  form 
in  which  we  have  given  it  above. 

In  Matt.  xix.  28 

K&6IC6C06    KAI    &YTOI 

has  been  made  into 

KAGicecee  KAI  YMGIC 

because  the  Latin,  properly  enough,  had  given 

SEDEBIUS  ET/VOS. 


FURTHER   CASES   OF   LATINIZATION.  97 

In  Matt.  xx.  17  I  suspect  the  true  text  to  be 

MeAAcoN    Ae    ANABAIN6IN    O    IHC. 

To  translate  this  exactly  would  have  required  a  participial 
periphrasis  ;  hence  the  Latin 

ET  ASCENDENS   IHS   HIEROSOLYMA, 

from  which  the  Greek 

KM  ANABAINCON  o   me. 
In  Matt.  ii.  9  it  seems  as  if  in  rendering 

€TTANO)    Oy    HN    TO    TTAIAION 

by 

SVPRA   PVERVM, 

which  it  must  be  allowed  is  not  a  very  close  translation,  the  way 
had  been  made  for  the  Greek  corrector  to  write 


eTTANUi    TOY 

which  is  the  Bezan  reading. 

A  few  verses  on  there  is  another  instance  where  the  scribe 
had  to  render  the  words  TO  TTCU&IOV  several  times  ;  he  gave  puer  as 
the  equivalent,  but  in  these  cases,  Matt.  ii.  13,  14,  20,  the  corrector 
substituted  in  the  Greek  the  more  exact  equivalent  rov  jralSa. 

In  Matt.  xv.  9, 

TTOppO)    ATTexei    ATT    £MOY 

was  rendered 

LONGE   EST   A   ME, 

with  the  result  that  etrriv  displaces  airk^i  in  the  Greek. 
In  Matt.  xv.  27, 

KAI    p*P   TA    KYNAplA 

ecSiOYCiN  ATTO  TCON  yeix^iN, 
where  the  Latin  is 

ET   CAMS   ENIM 
EDENT   DE   MICIS, 

the  plural  verb  in  Greek  has  been  produced  by  the  parallel  Latin 
verb  in  the  corresponding  line. 

In    Matt.  x.  42  we  have  a  case  where  the  Latin  translator 
C.  B.  7 


98  FURTHER  CASES   OF   LATINIZATION. 


has  translated  tyvxpbv  by  aqua  frigida,  with  the  effect  of  forcing 
back  aqua  on  the  Greek  text1. 

TTOTHplON    YAATOC    YYXROY  *  GIC    ONOMA    M&6HTOY 
CALICEM   AQVAE   FRIGIDAE   IN   NOMINE  DISCIPVLI. 

In  Luke  xiii.  35  the  translator  seems  to  have  used  a  little 
freedom  in  rendering  eo>9  eiirrjTe,  by 

DONEC   VENIAT   VT   DICATI8, 

and  the  Greek  becomes 


ore 

In  Luke  xii.  51  he  rendered  Bovvai  elprjinjv  by  pacem  facere  : 
and  the  Bezan  Greek  shews 

AoKeire  OTI  CIPHNHN 

TTOIHCAI. 

In  Acts  xii.  15  we  have  the  passage 

01  Ae  eAepON  npoc 
o  ArreAoc  AYTOY  ecriN 

prettily  translated  by 

QVI   AVTEM   DIXERVNT  AD   EAM 
FOBSITAM  ANGELVS  EIV8  EST. 

Andfcyrsitan  goes  back  into  the  Greek  as  rvypv. 
Bearing  in  mind   the  equivalence  between  these  two  words 
in  the  translator's  or  reviser's  mind,  we  can  explain  Luke  xx.  13 

TYXON  TOYTON 

CNTpATTHCONTAI 

POR8ITAM  HVNC 
REVEREBVNTVR. 


The  Greek  should  read  To-w?,  but  the  other  was  the  reviser's 
word. 

In  Acts  iii.  22, 


GK    TCON 

coc  €MOY  AYTOY 

DE   FRATRIBVS   VESTRI8 
TAMQVAM   ME  IP8VM  AVDIETI8. 

1  Wetstein,  Proleg.  p.  32. 


FURTHER   CASES   OF   LATINIZATION.  99 

Here  the  Latin  is  perfectly  correct,  if  we  place  a  point 
between  me  and  ipsum:  but  the  reviser  has  run  the  two  words 
together,  and  corrected  the  Greek  from  <w<?  e'/Lte  avrov  to  w?  C/JLOV 
avrov ;  i.e.  "  you  shall  hear  him  as  if  it  were  myself." 

It  is  instructive  to  notice  that  in  c.  vii.  37,  where  the  same 
quotation  occurs,  the  text  has  been  fortified  against  misunder 
standing  by  a  point  as  well  as  by  the  line-division,  and  we  have 

DB   FRATRIBV8   VESTRI8   TAMQVAM   ME. 
IPSVM   AVDIETIS, 

and  no  error  in  the  Greek. 

In  Matt.  xxv.  10,  where  the  Greek 

ATTepXOMCNGON    A€    AYTCON    AfOpACAl 

has  been  translated  by 

CVM   VADVNT   EMERE, 

a  corrector  has  concluded  that  a  more  exact  equivalent  of  the 
Latin  would  be 

660C    YTT^fOYCIN    AJ-opACAI. 

In  Matt,  xxvii.  65  and  66, 

4>YA<\KAC  and  MCTA  TGON  <|>YAAKU>N 

stand  for 

KoycTcoAiAN  and  MGTA  THC  KOYCTCOAIAC 

because  the  Latin  is 

CVSTODES  and  CVM  CVSTODIBVS. 
In  Luke  viii.  30  the  text  probably  stood 

noAAA  r*p  eiCHA0€N  eic  AYTON  AMMONIA, 
which,  no  doubt,  was  rendered 

MVLTA   ENIM   INIERANT   DAEMONIA. 

But  enini  inierant  easily  became  enim  erant,  and  then  the 
Greek  was  corrected  to 

TTOAAA    r*P    HCAN    AAIMONIA. 

In  Luke  xxiv.  44  the  translator  had  nothing  in  Latin  to 
answer  to  the  Greek  wv,  and  of  course  he  paraphrased 

6TI    CON    CyN    YM|N 

into 

CVM  ESSEM  VOBISCVM. 

7—2 


100  FURTHER  CASES  OF  LATINIZATION. 

The  Bezan  Greek  now  stands 

€N    O)    HMHN    CyN    y/V\eiN. 

In  Matt,  xxviii.  19, 

MA0HT6YCAT6    TTANTA   TA    €0NH 

BATTTiCANrec  Ayroyc 

DOCETE   OMNES   GENTES 
BAPTIZANTES   EOS, 

we  might  maintain  that  ^airricravr^  was  rightly  translated  by 
baptizantes  :  but  it  may  be  suggested  on  the  other  hand,  in  view 
of  the  occurrence  of  paTni^ovre?  in  all  other  copies  except  the 
Vatican  Codex,  that  the  Greek  reading  (for  the  Latin  is  certainly 
right)  is  due  to  assonance. 

In  Mark  i.  10  the  scribe  had  to  render 


CXIZO/VNCNOYC  royc  oypANoyc, 
for  which  he  gave 

VIDIT   APERTOS   CAELOS. 

Hence  the  Greek  qvvyii&ovs. 
In  Mark  i.  16, 

A/V\4>lBAAAONT<\C    €N    TH    0&A&CCH 

would  naturally  be  rendered 

MITTENTES   RETE   IN   MARE. 

The  elliptical  Greek  is  brought  to  order  by  inserting  ra  Sltcrva 
over  against  the  Vulgar  Latin  retias.  (Note  that  the  Vulgar 
Latin  turned  the  neuter  plurals  into  feminine  singulars  ;  thus  in 
the  present  case  the  word  for  'a  net'  is  not  rete  but  retia.  A  good 
deal  of  confusion  arises  from  this  peculiarity.)  This  is  not  a  case 
of  assimilation  to  Matthew  /SaXXoi/ra?  a/j,<t>lfl\r)(rTpov,  but,  even 
if  it  were,  the  Latinization  remains,  for  dp<f>i{3\rj(rTpov  has  been 
replaced  by  rd  Si/crva,  which  must  be  under  the  influence  of  the 
form  retia. 

In  Mark  v.  15  the  translator  rendered  rov  Scu/jLovityfjievov 
by  ilium  qui  a  daemonic*  uexabatur,  and  thence  avrov  has  crept 
into  the  Greek  : 

KAI  OecopoyciN  Ayro 
TON  AAIMONIZOMCNON 

ET  VIDENT  ILLVM 
QVI  A  DAEMONIC  VEXABATVR. 


FURTHER  CASES   OF  LATINIZATION.  101 

The  same  mistake  occurs  in  the  next  verse 


AYTCO  T 

EI  QVI  DAEMONIC  VEXAVATVR. 

In  Mark  vii.  5  eVe/ja>T&>crii/  avrbv  was  rendered  by  interrogant 
eum...dicentes.  It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  we  find  Xeyovres 
thrust  into  the  Greek. 

In  Mark  vii.  25,  we  find 

AKOYCACA  nepi  AYTOY 

VT   AVDIIT   DE   EO, 

and  so  we  have  «?  prefixed  to  the  Greek  as  an  equivalent  for  ut. 
In  Mark  viii.  36, 


TI  r*P  k>4>eAHcei  TON 

CAN    KCpAHCH    TON    KOCMON 

QVID   ENIM   PRODERIT   HOMINI 

SI   LVCRETVR   VNIVER8VM   ORBEM. 

Here  tcepBrja-ai,  has  been  replaced  by  lav  tcepBijo-y  on  account  of 
the  rendering  si  lucretur. 

Mark  ix.  34, 

AieAexOHCAN 

TIC    MI2CON    fCNHTAI 


DI8QVIREBANT 
QVI8  ES8E  ILLORVM  MAIOR, 

where  esse  stands  for  esset.     Then  the  words  yevyrcu  avrwv  are 
added  to  the  Greek  text. 

Mark  x.  10, 

Ol    M&9HTAI 

nepi  Toy  AYTOY  Aopoy 


DISCIPVLI  EIV8 
DE   EODEM   8ERMONEM 
INTERROQAVERVNT  EVM. 

Here  de  eodem  sermone  is  a  free  translation  of  Trepl  TOVTOV, 
and  the  Greek  text  has  been  corrected. 

Mark  x.  12.  The  scribe  paraphrased  the  participial  con 
struction 

KAI    CAN    <\YTH    ATTOAyCACA   TON    ANApA   AyTHC 
AAAON    f^MHCH  •  MOIXATAI 


102  FURTHER  CASES  OF   LATINIZATION. 

and  translated 

ET   81   MVLIER   EXIET   A   VIRO 

ET  ALIVM   DVXERIT  •  MOECHATVR. 

This  is  intelligible  enough  in  Latin  ;  can  the  same  be  said  of 
the  reformed  Greek  ? 


KAI  CAN  TYNH  e5eA6H  ATTO  TOY  ANApoc 

KAI    &AAON    p^MHCH  •  MOIXATAI. 

Mark  x.  16, 

KM    eNAfKAAlCAMGNOC    AyTA 

has  been  misunderstood  :  the  scribe  was  not  quite  at  home  with 
the  word  ;  in  Mark  ix.  36  he  had  given  it  as  dvatc\i<rdfi€vo<;  :  here 
he  boldly  assumes  it  to  be  a  compound  of  /ca\e'o>,  and  renders  it 

ET   CONVOCAN8   EOS: 

then  the  Greek  becomes 

KAI    TTpOCKAAeCAMGNOC    AyTA. 

Mark  xiv.  1,  the  scribe  found 

HN    Ae    TO    TTACXA    KAI    TA    AZyMA. 


The  two  words  iraa^a  and  afyfjui  were  equivalent  to  him:  if 
d^vfjLa  had  stood  alone  we  can  guess  what  he  would  have  done  by 
a  reference  to  Luke  xxii.  7,  where  he  found 


HA66N    AC    H    HMGpA  T60N 

and  rendered  it 

VENIT  AVTEM   DIES   PASCHAE, 

and  the  reviser  went  back  and  corrected  the  Greek  text  to 

HA66N    AC    H    HM€pA  TOY    TTACXA. 

In  Mark,  then,  he  had   no  need  to  translate  rd  d&fjLa,  and 
discarded  it  ;  and  it  is  erased  accordingly  from  the  Greek. 

Mark  xiv.  36, 

OYX  o  er<*)  OeAeo 
AAA  o  CY  6eAeic, 

0e\€i<;  has  come  from  the  Latin 

NON  SJCVT  EGO  VOLO 
8ED  'SICVT  TV  BIS. 


FURTHER   CASES   OF   LATINIZATION.  103 

Mark  xiv.  56, 


noAAoi  r*p 
eAefON  KAT 

MVLTI   ENIM   FAL8VM  TE8TIMONIVM 
DICEBANT   ADVER8VS   EVM. 

Here  e\eyov  has  merely  come  in  to  balance  dicebant  in  the  same 
line. 

Traces  of  a  similar  error  may  be  found  in  the  following  verse. 
In  Mark  xvi.  11, 

KAI  oyK  enicreycAN  AYTO>, 

the  Latin  is  missing:  but  it  must  have  been 

ET   NON   CREDIDERVNT  El, 

where  ei  by  the  way  is  feminine,  so  that  the  Greek  has  been 
corrected  :  and  there  is  no  doubt  the  whole  Latin  sentence  simply 
stands  for  the  single  Greek  word 

HTTICTHCAN. 

The  prefixed  xal  shews  that  a/coucrai/re?  in  the  previous  clause 
was  rendered  by  audierunt  et. 
In  Luke  v.  8, 

o  Ae  CIMCON  npoceneceN  AYTOY  TOIC  TTOCIN 

SIMON   AVTEM   PROCIDIT   AD   PEDE8   EIVS. 

Here  the  Greek  should  have  yovacriv  for  iroa-Lv,  which  is  fairly 
translated  by  the  Latin  ad  pedes.  We  see  the  Greek  has  been 
corrected. 

Sometimes,  as  in  Acts  ii.  17,  the  reviser's  correction  can  be 
seen  to  underlie  an  error  of  the  text  :  we  have 

KAI    Ol    TTpecBYTepOl    eNYTTNIAC6HCONTAI 
ET   8ENIORE8   SOMNIA   SOMNIABVNT. 


Here  the    Greek  had   originally  evinrvLo^ 

which  was  rendered  by  somnia  somniabant;  but  the  reviser  corrected 
the  dative  case  of  the  Greek  into  the  accusative  of  the  Latin  ;  and 
the  evvirvia  dropped  out  as  a  dittograph  of  evvrrviaa-Oijaovrai,. 

In  Acts  ii.  47, 

KAI    6XONT6C    XAPIN    TTpOC    OAON    TON    AAON, 

the  translator  gave 

8  ET   HABENTE8   GRATIAM   APVT  TOTVM  MVNDV, 


FURTHER   CASES   OF   LATIN1ZATION. 

much  in  the  same  way  as  a  Frenchman  would  say  tout  le  monde; 
and  the  revising  hand  has  replaced  \aov  by  Koapov. 
In  Acts  iii.  24, 

KAI    TCON    KATe^HC    O    eA<\AHC€N 

is  due  to 

ET   EORVM   QVI   ORDINE   FVERVNT   QVODQVOD   LOCVTI   SVNT, 

quotquot  having  been  misspelt  as  is  common  throughout  our  text 
(t  =  d),  and  then  read  as  quod  ;  accordingly  oaot,  disappears,  giving 
place  to  o. 

Acts  v.  9, 

o  Ae  nerpoc  [npoc]  AYTHN  TI  OTI 


PETRVS   VERO   AD   EAM   QVID   VTIQVE 
CONVENIT   VOBIS, 

and    o-vveQuvrja-ev  is  substituted  as  a  more  exact   equivalent  of 
conuenit     This  case  was  noticed  by  Mill. 

Acts  vii.  1, 

ei  TAYTA  OYTCOC  exei 
was  rendered 

SIC   HAEC   SIC   HABENT. 

We  have  explained  in  a  previous  place  the  Vulgar  Latin  use 
of  sic  :  e^et  seemed  to  demand  a  singular,  so  we  have 


ei  APA  TOYTO  OYTCOC 
Acts  vii.  52, 

KAI    AHeKTGINA 

TOYC    npOKATAfreAAONTAC 

ET   OCCIDERVNT  EOS 

QVI   PRAENVNTIAVERVNT, 

where  AYTOYC  has  been  put  in  to  balance  eos. 
Acts  viii.  13, 

KAI    BAHTIC66IC    HN 

KAI  npocKAprepcoN 

ET  BAPTIZATV8   EST 

ET  ADHEREBAT   PHILIPPO, 

where   rjv  has   been    taken  with  painiaOds  and  so  KOI  became 
necessary  in  the  second  line. 


FURTHER   CASES   OF    LATIN IZATION.  105 

Acts  xiv.  4, 

HN    Ae    eCXICMGNON    TO    TTAH6OC 
DIVISA   AVTEM   ERAT   MVLTITVDO 

for  eV%iV077  for  the  sake  of  parallelism. 

Note  in  the  same  verse  the  effect  of  rendering  ol  pev,  ol  £e 
by  alii. 

KAI    01    MGN    HCAN    CyN    TOIC    lOyAAIOIC 

AAAoi  Ae  CYN  TOIC  AirocToAoic 

ET   ALII   QVIDEM   EHANT   CVM    IVDAEIS 
ALII   VERO   CVM   APOSTOLIS. 

Acts  xv.  26, 

KM  TTAYAa)  AN0ptoTTOic 

THN    YYXHN    ^YTCON 
BARNABA   ET   PAVLO    HOMINIBVS 
QVI   TRADIDERVNT   ANIM   SVAM. 

The  Latin  shews  the  original  to  have  been  TrapaSeSwicoaiv 
which  the  reviser  took  to  be  the  exact  equivalent  of  tradiderunt, 
and  made  the  necessary  vocalic  change. 

Acts  xvii.  23, 

6N    O)    H    rerP*MMeNON 

for 

EN  o)  enererp<MTTO, 

the  Latin  being 

IN    QVA  SCRIPTVM   ERAT. 

Acts  xix.  19, 

cYNCNefKANTec  TAC  BiBAoyc 

was  rightly  translated  so  as  to  bring  out  the  force  of  <rvv  by 

ADTVLERVNT    ET   LIBROS, 

and  real  is  inserted  against  et  in  the  Greek  text. 
Acts  xix.  30, 

OYK    eiCJN    AYTON    Ol    MA0HTAI 

was  changed  to 

01  MAGHTAI  eKcoAyoN, 

the  Latin  being,  however, 

DISC1PVLI    NON   SINEBANT. 


106  FURTHER  CASES   OF   LATINIZATION. 

The  scribe  had  already  translated  the  same  verb  in  a  different 
way:  for  in  Acts  xiv.  16  he  had  given  sanauit  omnes  gentes  as  a 
rendering  for  etatrev  iravra  ra  eOvi),  as  if  the  word  came  from 
Idopai.  Now  he  avoids  the  difficulty  by  changing  the  words. 

Acts  xx.  12, 

HrA|"€N    TON    N6ANICKON    ZCONTA 

for 

HfAreN    TON    TT&lAA   ZCONTA 

because  the  word  TralSa  had  been  rendered  in  the  Latin,  properly 
enough,  as 

ADDVXERVNT   IVBENEM   VIVENTEM. 

Acts  xx.  23, 

KATA   TTOAlN 

having  been  rendered  by 

PER   8INGVLA8   CIVITATES, 

an  additional  word  seemed  necessary  in  Greek  :  hence  we  have 

KATA   TTACAN    TTOAlN. 

A  very  complicated,  but  at  the  same  time  convincing  case  of 
reaction  will  be  found  in  Acts  xix.  2.9, 


KAI    CYN6XY0H    OAH    H    TTOAlC    AICXYNHC 

ET   REPLETA   E8T   TOT  A   CIVITA8   CONFV8IONEM. 

The  Greek  is  impossible,  and  must  be  due  to  correction  badly 
administered  ;  and  the  question  is,  how  did  the  impossible  reading 
aivxyvw  ari86  ?  Evidently  it  has  been  put  in  to  balance  cwifusio- 
nem.  Now  that  the  words  in  question  do  correspond,  from  the 
point  of  view  of  our  translation,  may  be  seen  from  Luke  xvi.  4, 
where  ala-^vvofiai,  is  rendered  confundor.  Further,  in  Matt.  xx. 
28,  in  the  long  interpolated  section  we  have  teal  /caraia-^vvdija-Tj 
as  the  equivalent  of  et  confondaris.  Moreover,  in  Luke  xiv.  9,  we 
have  /ACT*  aiwxyvris  rendered  by  cum  confusione,  and  in  Luke  ix. 
26,  05  yap  av  alTrea-^vvOrj  (for  lirawxyvdrj)  /jue  =  qui  enim  confusus 
fuerit  me.  There  is  therefore  no  doubt  about  the  origin  of  ala-^y- 
1/779,  and  the  Latinization  of  the  passage  is  demonstrated. 

The  next  question  is  whether  ala"xyvrj<i  is  a  pure  addition  to 
the  text,  or  whether  it  has  displaced  some  other  word  ?  In  favour 
of  the  latter  hypothesis  it  may  be  urged  that  ala"xvvrj<;  is  in  the 


FURTHER   CASES   OF   LATJNIZATION.  107 

genetive ;  this  looks  as  if  it  had  displaced  some  word  in  the  same 
case.  This  could  very  well  happen  if  the  word  a-vy^va-ew^  had 
stood  in  the  text,  its  genetive  case  being  dependent  on  a  preceding 
€7r\r}a-6rj.  The  present  Greek  text  may  then  be  regarded  as  a 
mixture  of  two  readings 

KAI    CYN6XY0H    OAH    H    TTOAlC 

and 

K<M  enAHc6H  oAh  H  TToAic  cyrXYcecoc. 

We  should  then  have  to  decide  in  some  way  between  the  two 
readings  in  the  matter  of  priority. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  hold  ala"xywr)<i  to  be  a  mere  addition 
from  the  Latin,  we  must  say  that  the  genetive  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  €7r\rjo-07)  was  also  carried  back,  but  subsequently  displaced  by 
the  original  reading  o-vve'^yO^.  The  problem  is  a  pretty  one, 
especially  in  view  of  the  early  attestation  of  both  the  suggested 
primitive  forms.  Of  one  thing  we  may  be  certain,  and  that  is  that 
the  Latin  is  ail  right  as  it  stands,  and  needs  no  correction  except 
the  erasure  of  the  final  ra.  Moreover,  we  are  certain  of  the  Latin 
influence  on  the  Greek  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Bezan  text.  Con 
cerning  the  other  points  at  issue  we  prefer  to  reserve  our  opinion 
for  the  present. 

We  have  now  verified  completely  the  hypothesis  to  which  our 
investigations  of  the  Beza  text  led  us,  viz.  that  the  Greek  text  has 
been  thoroughly  and  persistently  Latinized.  We  do  not  think  it 
will  be  doubted,  in  view  of  the  many  Latin  readings  which  we 
detect  in  the  Greek,  that  the  case  is  completely  proved.  It  will 
not  any  longer  suffice,  to  say  that  we  prove  consent  but  not 
corruption.  When  the  equivalents  of  obsolete  Latin  forms  turn 
up  in  the  Greek,  there  is  corruption;  when  Latin  verses  appear 
in  a  Greek  dress,  there  has  been  Latin  interpolation :  and  so 
we  have  a  clear  and  convincing  demonstration  of  conspiracy  as 
against  the  old-fashioned  hypothesis  of  concurrence.  Griesbach's 
hasty  dismissal  of  the  question  must  now  be  considered  an  un 
happy  blunder :  and  we  must  revise  our  critical  methods  accord 
ingly.  We  have  arrived  at  these  results,  without  complicating 
the  question  by  asking  whether  any  important  codices  or  any  of 
our  great  editors  were  in  the  conspiracy:  we  need  to  be  on  our 
guard  against  the  popular  prejudices  in  favour  of  great  names. 


108  FUltTIIBK  CAHKH  OF   LAT1NIZATION. 

It  is  by  this  time  clear  that  Dr  Hort's  opinion,  that  the  Latin  of 
Cod.  Bezae  has  been  forced  into  agreement  with  the  Greek,  must 
be  rejected:  the  force  is  in  the  majority  of  canes  exactly  in  the 
opposite  direction.  Starting  from  the  demonstration  of  Latinisrn 
in  the  Beza  Greek,  we  must  now  enquire  what  MSS.  have  absorbed 
similar  errors,  and  see  how  far  their  corrupted  texts  can  be 
restored.  And  this  is  no  slight  task,  and  for  the  criticism  of  the 
New  Testament  it  is  of  infinite  moment.  For  the  present  we  will 
simply  say  that  the  new  light  we  have  obtained  will  often  shine 
into  very  dark  corners. 

We  shall  presently  return  and  study  a  little  more  closely  the 
Vulgar  Latin  forms,  from  which  we  diverged  in  order  to  discuss 
the  question  of  Latinization  which  those  forms  forced  upon  us. 


CHAPTER  XL 
GENEALOGICAL  RELATIONS  DEDUCIBLE  FROM  THE  PREVIOUSLY 

DEMONSTRATED   LATINIZING   ERRORS. 

WE  will  now  take  a  glance  over  the  results  already  arrived  at, 
to  see  how  far  they  affect  other  New  Testament  texts.  We 
do  not,  of  course,  assume  that  our  judgment  is  final  in  regard  to 
the  development  of  error  in  each  one  of  the  passages  quoted,  but 
we  simply  say  that  our  results  have  been  tabulated  as  far  as 
possible  without  prejudice,  and  with  only  an  occasional  reference 
to  authorities  other  than  D,  whose  character  might  be  com 
promised  by  the  investigation.  But,  if  there  be  any  truth  in 
our  demonstration  of  the  process  of  Latinization  which  has  gone 
on  in  the  Codex  Bezac,  we  cannot  stop  at  this  point ;  we  want  to 
know  whether  any  errors  that  we  have  noted  affect  the  whole 
Latin  tradition,  and  whether  they  have  spread  beyond  that  tradi 
tion.  Now,  in  the  nature  of  the  case  many  of  the  errors  referred 
to  are  short-lived;  they  only  remain  for  a  few  generations,  and 
some  of  them  may  have  only  the  lifetime  of  a  single  copy.  At 
the  same  time  there  are  others  which  shew  a  remarkable  per 
sistence.  For  instance,  to  recur  to  a  case  previously  referred  to 
from  Matthew  v.  22,  whore  we  find  qui  pasritur  for  qui  irascitur ; 
we  are  almost  sure  that  this  error  arose  in  a  bilingual  Codex, 
for  it  is  the  error  of  a  bilingual  scribe  and  is  caused  by  the 
equivalence  of  a  Latin  p  and  a  Greek  p.  Now  we  have  pointed 
out  that  this  error  is  in  the  Codex  Claromontanus  of  Irenaeus, 
so  that  it  may  be  said  with  confidence  that  it  belongs  to  the 
translator  of  Irenaeus;  but  no  translator  would  have  invented 
such  an  extraordinary  reading;  it  must  therefore  have  had  its 
equivalent  in  the  Greek  text  of  Irenaeus  or  have  been  current  in 
the  Latin  Gospels  of  his  translator. 


110  GENEALOGY  OF  ABERRANT  TEXTS. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  Codex  k,  which  is  generally 
taken  to  be  an  African  version,  shews  the  same  reading.  The 
bilingual  error  must,  therefore,  have  been  widely  diffused.  And 
do  not  let  us  assume  that  this  error  was  absent  from  the  textual 
ancestry  of  D. 

Next  consider  the  reading  which  we  previously  discussed 
from  John  xxi.  22,  23.  The  concurrence  in  error  here  brings 
together  the  texts  D  d  a  b  c  /*  g  and  the  Vulgate  with  Ambrose 
and  Jerome :  the  smaller  group  formed  by  D  dff*  and  the  Vulgate 
being  perhaps  a  little  nearer  together  than  the  rest. 

In  Mark  ix.  15,  we  have  noted  the  concurrence  of  D  d  b  c  /2  i  k 
with  Tatian  in  the  misreading  and  corresponding  mistranslation 
of  irpooTpi^ovre^  by  irpoa^epovre^. 

In  Luke  xxiii.  53,  we  find  D  d  c  theb  appropriating  a  Latin 
hexameter  verse. 

In  Mark  v.  0 ',  all  the  Latins  seem  to  support  the  first  ctrrtv, 
the  second  is  added  by  the  company 

D  d  B  69.  124.  238.  346  b  cfglg2  i  I  q  vg. 
In  Mark  vi.  3,  elalv  is  represented  in 

T>dabcf/*glg*ilqvg. 

In  Mark  viii.  22,  note  the  substantial  concurrence  of  D  d  a  b  c  i 
in  the  expression  ex  quo  hie  sunt. 

In  Mark  ix.  34,  the  Latin  esset  has  been  carried  back  into 
the  Greek  of  D  and  21* :  and  in  a  different  form  by  13,  69,  346. 

In  Mark  x.  27,  the  added  etrriv  is  found  in 

D  al.  pauc.  a  b  c//2  k  q  vg. 

In  Mark  xiv.  36 3,  the  addition  of  itrrlv  has  Greek  support 
in  13,  124,  346. 

In  Luke  viii.  25,  the  addition  of  eariv  seems  to  be  in  all 
codices  except  BNALX.  1,  al.12.  Is  it  the  genuine  reading  ? 

In  Luke  i.  784,  either  tfBL  have  fallen  under  the  influence  of  a 
Latin  uisitabit,  or  D  and  most  of  the  other  texts  have  made  the 
converse  error  by  retranslating  uisitauit.  The  Latin  forms  are 
to  be  regarded  as  equivalent  and  interchangeable. 

1  Of.  sup.  p.  57.  a  p.  58.  3  p.  61.  4  p.  62. 


GENEALOGY  OF  ABERRANT  TEXTS.  Ill 

In  Matt.  xv.  32  ',  the  intrusive  hanc  is  found  in  a  number  of 
Greek  MSS.  ;  also  in  the  following  authorities 

[b]  cf[/1]  g*  me  Hilary  and  Ambrose. 

In  John  xvii.  11,  the  eccentric  conflation  has  influenced  the 
copies  D  d  a  c  e. 

In  John  viii.  26s,  the  intrusive  article  is  found  in 

D  d  a  bf/*  I  q. 
In  John  xiv.  30,  the  article  appears  in 

dab  c  ef/2  g  I  q  vg  and  1.  346.  21*  and  others. 

In  John   xvii.  14,  notice  the  agreement  between  D  a  c  f  q 
in  the  insertion  of  the  article. 

In  Mark  viii.  29,  the  addition  of  rovrov  to  the  Greek  finds 
a  corresponding  Latin  in 

a  b  cff*  gl  i  q 

and  the  Greek  is  followed  by  L.     The  same  addition  may  be  seen 
in  the  Memphitic  and  Peshito  Syriac. 

Matt.  ix.  26*,  the  curious  error  of  D  is  followed  by 

71.  435.  f  al.2  and  theb 

while  the  error  itself  assumes  an  underlying  Greek  text,  which 
is  found  in 

KG  1.  33.  118.  and  me. 

Matt,  xviii.  20  5  brings  together  for  an  astonishing  reading 


Acts  v.  32,  D  is  followed  by  E6. 

John  xii.  47,  d  and  e  agree  in  reading  meorum  berborum1. 

Acts  v.  3,  D  has  the  support  of  the  Vulgate. 

Matt.  x.  42  8,  the  Latin  tradition  is  all  for  minimis.  But  note 
that  Cod.  157  conflates  the  Greek  TO>I>  pucpwv  with  the  translation 
from  the  Latin  TO>I>  eXa^toro)!/. 

Matt.  xiii.  48,  the  same  thing  seems  to  be  true  for  icd\\iffra. 

These  two  instances  are  of  peculiar  importance,  in  that  they 
intimate  the  occurrence  in  the  Latin  either  of  an  irregular  trans- 


Cf.  p.  65.  2  p.  66.  3  p.  67.  4  p.  68.  5  p.  69. 

6  p.  70.  7  p.  71.  8  P-  72. 


112  fJKNKALOGY   OF   AJJEIIKANT   TEXTS. 

lation  of  an  adjective  in  the  positive  degree,  or  of  the  duplicated 
positive. 

The  reader  may  confirm  his  faith  in  the  existence  of  this 
duplicated  form  by  comparing  Matt.  v.  39  in  Cod.  k,  non  retristere 
adversus  neyuam  nequam;  where  nequam  nequam  represents  nequis- 
simum;  and  is  conclusive  in  favour  of  the  masculine  interpretation 
of  malo. 

In  Mark  i.  38  *,  we  have  again  a  difficulty  in  the  fact  that 
e%ri\6ov  is  only  supported  by  KBCL  33.  But  our  method  would 
shew  it  to  be  right :  for  the  other  reading  is  explained. 

Murk  xv.  14,  eicpa£ov  is  supported  by 

ADOKMPD  1.  69.  346  and  25  others. 

Assimilation  to  the  text  of  Matthew  may  have  contributed  to 
this  ? 

In  Luke  viii.  27,  we  are  again  confronted  with  a  dilemma 
between  KBLE  1.  33.  151.  157  me  reading  evebvo-aro  and  the 
other  uncials  and  cursives  supporting  D  and  the  Latin  tradition. 
Again  I)  would  seem  to  be  wrong. 

Matt.  xvi.  26*,  the  choice  lies  between 

NBL  1.  13.  22.  33.  6i.  157.  340.  y"r  efq  me  theb 

against  the  general  Latin  tradition  and  all  the  rest  of  the 
uncials  &c. 

Mark  x.  13.  The  right  reading  eTrerifirja-av  must  be  sought  in 
KBCLA. 

John  xvii.  14,  the  reading  of  D  (/ucret)  is  followed  by  aeq  and 
a  group  of  cursives. 

Murk  vi.  39,  tho  reading  ilvatc\i0rjvai  is  supported  by  tfBG 
1.  13.  28.  61).  2'*.  ul.'":  the  rest  of  the  company  being  with  D. 

Matt.  ix.  28",  1)  is  supported  in  teal  epxercu  by  a  b  c  <f  h  k. 

Mutt.  xiii.  4,  Cod.  B  alone  of  the  uncial  texts  with  13.  124 
scierri.s  to  have;  the;  original  reading. 

Matt.  xvii.  74,  we  find  tho  iincorniptocl  texts  to  be  KB  13.  124. 
34(5. 

Matt.  xx.  30,  wo  have  again  the  consensus  in  error  of  D  and 
the  LutiriH. 

1  p.  73.  *  p.  74.  3  p.  75.  4  p.  70. 


GENEALOGY  OF  AUERUANT  TEXTS.  113 

Matt.  xxi.  6,  D  arid  the  LatiriH  have  some  support  from  the 
Sahidic  and  Syriac ;  but  was  not  this  to  be  expected  in  such 
a  construction  as  participle  and  verb  ? 

Matt,  xx vi.  51.  Here  again  most  of  the  Latins  agree  with  I), 
and,  as  might  have  been  expected,  the  Syriac  versions. 

John  vi.  II1,  D  is  supported  in  its  error  by  tf  a  b  e  q  and  the 
Syriac  versions,  which  last  ought  perhaps  not  to  be  counted. 

John  xii.  36*,  1)  and  the  Latins  are  again  together  in  the  reso 
lution  of  the  participle  and  verb  into  two  verbs. 

Luke  v.  14,  shews  agreement  again  between  1)  a  et  other  old 
Latins  and  the  Vulgate. 

Luke  xv.  23, 1)  finds  no  support  outside  the  Latin  company  and 
Borne  versions. 

Mark  iv.  .SO,  the  aberrant  company  is 

D  13.  28.  69. 346.  2"*  b  c  e/9  i  q. 

Mark  vii.  25,  the  inserted  teal  is  given  by  DA,  from  the  Latins. 

Mark  x.  16",  D  is  accompanied  by  b  cff'*kq. 

Mark  x.  22,  we  have  D  in  error  with  bcff*q. 

Acts  xiv.  21 4,  the  Latinization  has  affected  AEIIP  as  well 
asD. 

Matt.  xiii.  22,  for  (nreipo^evo^  D  has  the  company  of  a  c  <f  ff'2  k. 

Matt.  xiii.  24,  (nrelpavri  is  the  reading  of  NBMXAFI  13.  33.  346 
al90.  It  is  surely  right ;  and  D,  with  the  later  uncials,  has  Latinized. 

Luke  ii.  16,  D  is  only  supported,  outside  the  Latins,  by  Cod.  61. 

And  so  we  might  continue  our  examination,  but  the  results  are 
sufficiently  patent :  we  may  say  that  the  hypothesis  of  Latinization 
is  shewn  conclusively  to  be  the  right  one  for  the  explanation  of  the 
text,  since  so  many  readings  of  D  are  unsupported  in  Greek,  while 
almost  all  are  followed  by  the  Latin.  Next  we  see  that  occasionally 
whole  battalions  of  later  uncials  take  up  the  Lati nixed  reading, 
while  a  small  company  remains  faithful,  usually  including  B. 

Amongst  the  codices  which  have  occasionally  Latinized  will  IK; 
found  ({LA,  &c. ;  whether  B  has  been  entrapped  in  any  cases 
into  error  is  a  question  which  must  riot  be  prejudged,  and  it  almost 
requires  a  special  and  extended  investigation  ;  but  it  looks  as  if 
B  had  escaped. 

1  p.  70.  *  p.  77.  3  p.  7M.  »  p.  81. 

c.  a  8 


114  GENEALOGY  OF  ABERRANT  TEXTS. 

The  majority  of  the  Latin  texts  (perhaps  all  of  them)  are 
derivable  from  a  common  source,  their  concurrence  in  singular 
errors  being  inexplicable  on  any  other  hypothesis,  but  whether 
this  source  be  European  or  African,  Gallican  or  Roman,  remains 
as  yet  uncertain.  And  this  being  the  case,  and  the  authority  of 
D  having,  for  the  greater  part,  been  reduced  to  that  of  d,  the 
practical  problem  is,  to  restore  the  lost  Western  text  in  its  prim 
itive  Vulgar  Latin  form,  and  to  reason  from  the  single  form  thus 
reached,  as  being  the  equivalent  of  a  very  early  Greek  MS.1 

So  extensively  has  the  Greek  text  of  Codex  Bezae  been 
modified  by  the  process  of  Latinization  that  we  can  no  longer 
regard  D  as  a  distinct  authority  apart  from  d.  In  the  first 
instance  it  may  have  been  such;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may 
have  been  the  original  from  which  the  first  Latin  translation  was 
made.  But  it  is  probably  safest  to  regard  D  +  d  as  representing 
a  single  bilingual  tradition.  The  process  of  Latinization  is  not  a 
late  one  consequent  on  the  rapprochement  in  a  bilingual  codex 
of  two  texts,  an  old  Western  Greek  and  an  old  Western  Latin 
respectively;  for  this  bilingual  tradition  goes  back  to  the  earliest 
times.  It  can  be  traced  in  Irenaeus,  in  the  ancestry  of  NCL,  and 
in  the  parentage  of  the  Egyptian  versions.  Any  residual  diver 
gences  between  D  and  d  are  due  to  unequal  criticism  of  correcting 
hands. 

1  In  Luke  xvi.  26,  d  reads 

chaus  magnum  confirmatus  est, 

where  cJiaus  came  in  through  the  loss  of  the  repeated  syllable  in  chasma  magnum. 

In  this  error  it  is  supported  by  b  cfffz  i  I  vulg.  Ambrose,  Hilary  and  Augustine. 

If  this  means  anything,  does  it  not  mean  a  common  Latin  original  for  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  in  the  authorities  referred  to? 


CHAPTER   XII. 

SOME  PHONETIC  AND  GRAMMATICAL  PECULIARITIES  OF  THE 
BEZAN  SCRIBE. 

1.     On  the  local  pronunciation  of  the  initial  letters  JU. 

An  examination  of  the  Codex  Bezae  will  shew  the  scribe's 
pronunciation  of  these  letters.  We  may  expect,  if  he  is  a  French 
scribe,  to  find  a  transitional  pronunciation  of  the  same  kind  as 
that  by  which  the  French  language  derived  such  a  word  asjusque 
from  de  usque  :  i.e.  we  may  expect  that  there  was  a  predominance 
of  the  d  sound  over  that  of  g. 

Turn  to  Acts  xx.  19,  where 

€N  TAIC  erriBoyAAic  TOON  IOYAAIGON 
is  rendered  by 

EX  INSIDIIS  AD  IVDAEIS. 

Here  ad  iudaeis  clearly  stands  for,  and  should  be  printed 
a  diudaeis. 

The  scribe  writes  diu  for  what  we  represent  by  ju,  so  that 
there  was  a  consonantal  sound  to  the  initial  letter,  something  like 
what  we  should  render  by  dy. 

Next  turn  to  Mark  x.  21, 


GK    N€OTHTOC 

AD   IVVENTVTE   MEA. 

Here  again  we  should  print 

A   DIVVENTVTE   MEA1. 

1  Notice  how  the  Vulgar  Latin  has  again  conserved  something  in  its  pronuncia 
tion  from  the  primitive  form,  if  we  may  assume  with  Curtius,  Gr.  Etym.  230,  that 
the  root  is  the  Sanskrit  devfi. 

8—2 


116  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

A  similar  case  occurs  in  the  Lyons  Pentateuch  where  the 
scribe  had  to  write  the  word  Jebusaeorum  ;  he  actually  wrote 
Zebusaeorum,  and  those  who  have  noted  the  interchange  in  the 
Old  Latin  texts  of  the  forms  zabulus  and  diabulus,  baptizo  and 
baptidio,  exorcizo  and  exorcidio  in  MSS.  will  see  what  the  archaic 
pronunciation  of  the  word  in  question  was.  It  could  not  have 
been  =  Yebusaeorum. 

We  see  the  same  thing  in  the  Lyons  Pentateuch  in  Lev.  x.  7, 
where  airo  7779  6vpa<;  rfj<;  <r/cr)vrjs  is  translated 

ad  ianua  tabernaculi. 

Certainly  the  words  should  be  divided  so  as  to  read  a  dianua. 

Under  the  same  heading  probably  belongs  the  Bezan  reading 
of  zosum  for  deorsum  (sometimes  written  diosum)  in  Acts  xx.  9, 
and  Cod.  k  (Matt.  i.  12)  dechonias  for  iechonias. 

2.     On  the  pronunciation  of  the  adjacent  letters  SR. 

Q"T)"fM 

We  find  ^™.p  >  for  SR  in  proper  names.     For  this  change, 

which  is  what  we  should  expect  in  a  Latin  MS.,  seeing  that  the 
Latins  render  Ezra  by  Esdras,  and  give  Hasdrubal  as  the  equi 

valent  of  Azrubaal  (7JD  *)ty),  our  text  furnishes  a  frequent  illus 
tration  in  the  spelling  of  Israel. 

E.g.  Matt.  ix.  34,  ev  l<rparj\  =  in  istrahel,  but  in  x.  6,  OLKOV 
€io-par)\  =  domus  israhel.  So  in  x.  23  (israhel). 

John  xii.  14,  TOV  io-Tparj\  =  istrahel. 

In  Luke  xxiv.  21,  we  again  find  the  spelling  israhel,  otherwise 
generally  the  spelling  is  istrahel1,  and  in  not  a  few  cases  the 
Greek  imitates  the  Latin  spelling. 

The  case  is  important  (1)  as  indicating  a  real  phonetic  difficulty 
amongst  certain  Latin-speaking  peoples  ;  (2)  because  the  influence 
of  the  Latin  text  on  the  Greek  appears  not  only  in  the  Codex 
Bezae,  but  also  in  the  famous  Codex  Vaticanus,  and  the  spelling 
carries  with  it  an  intimation  of  the  probable  existence  of  Western 
readings  in  that  text. 


1  On  p.  xlviii  Scrivener  says:  "iorpaijX  John  xii.  13;  Luke  ii.  32,  iv.  25;  Mark 
xii.  29.  iffTpaijXiTai  Acts  xiii.  16,  xxi.  28  (but  in  the  Latin  istrahel  in  26  other 
places,  r  trahelitae  in  3  others."  Compare  p.  xliii  :  "  ixtrahel  etc.  always  except  in 
Luke  ,.xiv.  21."  There  is  some  confusion  here. 


LATIN   PHONETICS   AND   MORPHOLOGY.  117 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  this  difficulty  of  pronouncing 
sr,  and  the  insertion  of  t  between  the  discordant  sounds,  can  often 
be  traced  in  the  Romance  languages  :  e.g.  the  French  ancetre  is 
from  antecessor,  through  an[te]cessre ;  connaitre,  from  cognoscere 
through  conoistre ;  etre  from  essere  by  estre.  It  does  not  however 
seem  that  the  modern  Italians  feel  the  difficulty  so  keenly  as  the 
ancient  Latins  and  the  French,  for  they  give  us  a  few  such  forms 
as  sradicare  sregolamento. 

3.  On  the  so-called  impure  S,  and  the  prefixed  vowel  that  often 
attaches  to  it. 

The  initial  s  in  Italian  when  followed  by  a  consonant  is  usually 
called  {s  impure.'  It  is  so  congenial  a  sound  to  the  Italian  language, 
that  it  has  been  extended  by  analogy  to  many  words  where  it 
does  not  etymologically  belong ;  but  on  the  other  hand  I  think  we 
ought  to  recognize  that,  the  further  back  we  go  in  our  study  of  the 
Italian  language,  the  more  likely  are  we  to  find  that  the  forms 
with  s  impure  are  genuine  forms  derived  from  the  archaic  speech. 

For  example,  let  us  see  what  Scrivener  says  of  the  Codex 
Bezae1 : 

Such  forms  as  sconspectu  Acts  vii.  46,  and  yet  more  scoriscatio  Matt.  xxiv. 
27,  scoruscus  Luke  xvii.  24,  scorusco,  xvii.  24  bis,  xxiv.  42  (aarpanrj  and  ao-i-pcwr™, 
\>\\t  fulgur  Matt,  xxviii.  3,  Luke  x.  18)  savour  more  of  the  initial  impure  s  of 
the  Italian,  which  plainly  sprung  from  the  Latin  ex,  e.g.  sbarcare,  scarnare. 

Now,  leaving  upon  one  side  the  question  as  to  whether  any 
cases  of  the  Italian  impure  s  can  be  conceivably  traced  to  the 
Latin  prefixes,  let  us  ask  whether  it  is  not  possible  that  after  all 
the  form  scoruscus,  which  our  MS.  so  decidedly  affects,  may  not 
be  archaic,  and  as  good  as  the  more  usual  coruscus.  According 
to  the  authorities  in  philology,  the  word  comes  from  an  ancient 
reduplicated  Sanskrit  root,  skar,  which  means  to  oscillate  rapidly 
backward  and  forward,  and  hence  to  gleam,  to  dazzle :  skar-skar, 
the  reduplicated  root,  being  easily  worn  to  scorsco  and  scorusco,  the 
middle  s  being  thus  a  testimony  to  the  ancient  initial  s  which  it 
duplicated 3. 

It  appears  then  that  the  scribe  who  wrote  the  first  copy  of  the 
Latin  of  Codex  Bezae  (for  the  peculiarity  is  evidently  primitive, 

1  p.  xlv.  2  Query :  add  ix.  29. 

3  Vani<?ek,  Etym.  W'nrterbucli,  p.  1246  (from  Brugmann). 


118  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND  MORPHOLOGY. 

and  similar  forms  have  probably  been  weeded  out  in  many  places) 
was  brought  up  in  the  use  of  Latin  which,  whether  provincial  or 
not,  was  marked  by  archaisms  of  speech.  It  would  clearly  be  unfair 
to  call  these  forms  early  French  or  early  Italian.  We  may 
perhaps  class  them  as  Vulgar  Latin  without  depreciating  their 
antiquity.  But,  having  noted  this  peculiarity  once,  let  us  point 
out  a  similar  feature  in  the  Greek  of  the  great  Vatican  Codex 
(Cod.  B).  Twice  in  the  last  chapter  of  Matthew  we  find  the 
scribe  of  B  writing  the  word  tcovo-TtoSla  in  the  form  afcovarcoSia. 
The  peculiarity  is  not  noted  by  Tischendorf,  but  this  is  probably 
due  to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  pay  attention  to  what  he  took 
to  be  a  mere  scribe's  blunder,  if  indeed  he  observed  it  at  all. 
What  shall  we  say  of  this  word  ?  it  is  clearly  a  Latin  loan-word 
in  the  Greek  text ;  its  prefixed  sibilant  is  certainly  not  a  savour 
of  an  Italian  impure  s :  it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  the  form 
is  a  reminiscence  of  a  Latin  Bible  with  which  the  scribe  may 
have  been  familiar,  although  I  can  very  well  believe  such  a  form 
would  be  hailed  as  a  proof  of  the  Western  origin  of  Codex  B. 
Obviously  the  real  explanation  is  that  o-Kovo-rcoSia  is  an  archaic 
form.  It  has  been  the  fashion  to  refer  custos  and  custodia  to 
a  root  kudh  =  K.ev0-a),  but  it  may  be  conjectured  that  the  root 
had  a  prefixed  spirant  and  is  rather  to  be  referred  to  sku,  to 
cover,  to  hide,  especially  since  we  find  the  form  preserved  in 
the  Latin  scutum  for  the  long  shield  which  covers  the  body. 

Accordingly  we  have  noted  a  second  instance  where  the  vulgar 
speech  of  the  New  Testament  writers  and  their  translators  would 
seem  to  be  archaic.  I  propose,  therefore,  to  regard  these  spellings 
scoruscus  and  scustodia  as  belonging  to  the  earliest  current  forms 
of  the  New  Testament  writers l. 

The  other  case  quoted  sconspectu  is  more  difficult ;  we  can 
scarcely  assume  that  any  such  form  as  scon  could  have  been 
current  after  Indo-germanic  times:  it  must  then  be  a  vulgar 
form  of  speech  ;  and  not,  I  think,  the  form  of  the  scribe  of  Codex 
Bezae,  but  of  some  earlier  scribe ;  for  we  shall  see  presently 

1  It  is  important  to  register  all  such  peculiarities ;  suppose,  for  example,  there 
should  be  reason  to  suspect  that  a  Latin  document  underlay  the  closing  verses  of  St 
Matthew's  Gospel,  we  should  then  read  in  xxvii.  65  not  habetis  custodiam  but  habete 
scustodiam. 


LATIN   PHONETICS   AND   MORPHOLOGY.  119 

that  the   JBezan   scribe  himself  does  not  shew  any  fondness  for 
the  impure  s. 

The  question  of  course  is,  as  to  whether  the  existence  of  such 
forms  connotes  a  peculiar  locality :  a  problem  which  is  not  by  any 
means  confined  to  our  Manuscript,  but  turns  up  constantly  in  the 
Vulgate  and  Italic  texts. 

For  example,  in  the  very  interesting  discussion  which  occurred 
not  long  since  in  the  pages  of  the  Academy  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  Codex  Amiatinus,  it  was  stated  by  Dr  Hamann  that 
the  scribe  must  either  have  been  an  Italian,  or  at  any  rate 
the  text  must  have  been  taken  from  an  Italian  exemplar.  For, 
said  he,  we  are  directed  to  Italy  and  to  no  other  country  by 
such  forms  as  senes  for  seneoc,  senia  for  xenia,  optimantum,  gigans, 
ancxiuSy  uncait,  sussaltastis,  ammirata,  quemmammodum,  cluserunt, 
hostia,  tophadius,  agusto,  ascultabant,  clodum,  adtractaverit,  redemet, 
histriatarum,  expendebat,  scandescet,  Spaniae,  totum  belli  impetu, 
in  tantum  arrogantiae  tumore,  incidemus  in  manu  Dei  et  non 
in  manus  hominum  etc.1 

Hamann's  assertion  was  met  by  Professor  Sanday,  who  in  an 
Appendix  to  the  second  volume  of  the  Oxford  Studio,  Biblica* 
discussed  the  instances  in  detail,  and  pointed  out  how  ill-supported 
were  Hamann's  rapid  generalisations.  Dr  Sanday  further  appealed 
for  some  fresh  light  on  the  subject  of  the  Codex  Bezae.  "The 
form  scandescet... in  Sap.  v.  23  has  many  analogies  in  that  remark 
able  MS.  Cod.  Bezae.... It  were  much  to  be  wished  that  we  knew 
where  God.  Bezae  itself  was  written.  The  common  view,  as  we 
have  seen,  assigns  it  to  the  South  of  France." 

We  have  done  our  best  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  book  to 
prove  that  the  Codex  Bezae  belongs  to  some  place  not  far  from 
the  Rhone  Valley,  and  we  hope  that  we  have  either  settled  the 
question  or  have  made  it  easy  for  some  one  else  to  settle  it. 
For  our  part,  we  take  that  for  a  fixed  point  of  departure.  And  it 
is  clear  that  with  this  for  our  starting  point  we  have  only  to 
discriminate  the  forms  which  actually  belong  to  the  Bezan  scribe 
from  those  forms  which  may  have  been  imported  into  his  text  by 
genealogical  transmission  from  earlier  copies. 

9  !  I  quote  from  Studia  Biblica,  n.  p.  286. 

2  pp.  309  sqq. 


120  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

Now,  bearing  in  mind  that  the  natural  tendency  of  the  French 
language  is  to  get  rid  of  the  impure  s  by  prefixing  a  vowel 
(e.g.  titienne,  tiable,  espfcer,  dcole  etc.),  we  must  expect  to  find 
in  our  text  cases  of  such  a  prefixed  vowel ;  and  we  should  be 
very  much  surprised  if  they  were  wholly  absent  from  a  writer 
who  follows  the  pronunciation  so  closely  in  his  writing. 

In  Luke  xviii.  32,  we  have 

iniuriabitur  et  espuent  in  eum. 

In  Acts  xvi.  19, 

quoniam  ispes  et  reditus  eorum. 

It  appears  from  these  instances  that  the  scribe  was  averse 
to  the  initial  combination  of  sp.  How  weak  it  was  in  French 
may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  in  many  cases  the  s  wore  away 
after  the  vowel  had  been  prefixed,  as,  for  instance,  in  6p6e  from 
spada1. 

How  then  are  we  to  explain  the  fact  that  a  scribe  who  was 
averse  to  the  combination  of  the  letters  sp  was  so  tolerant 
of  sc  ? 

We  have  suggested  that  one  way  out  of  the  difficulty  would 
be  to  defend  the  genuineness  of  the  form  scoruscus  which  we 
find  in  our  text.  It  is  a  curious  thing,  however,  that  the  modern 
Italian,  with  its  extravagant  fondness  for  words  beginning  with 
sc,  does  not  use  this  stem  except  in  the  form  coruscazione.  Yet 
it  must  have  been  a  popular  form,  at  least,  if  not  a  genuine 
one :  and  if  so,  why  does  it  not  turn  up  in  Italian  ? 

But  even  if  it  be  a  genuine  form  we  have  still  to  explain 
the  other  word  sconspectu.  So  that  if  such  a  form  be  thought 
impossible  in  Southern  France,  we  have  another  reason  for 
believing  that  the  Latin  archetype  of  Cod.  D  was  brought  from 
the  other  side  of  the  Alps. 

Ronsch2  draws  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  Codex  Vercellen- 
sis  has  a  parallel  instance  in  Luke  xxii.  31,  'postulavit  vos  ut 

1  The  prefixed  i  or  e  before  *  is  not  assumed  to  be  confined  to  France.    Konsch, 
Itala  u.  Vulgata,  p.  467,  gives  instances  of  it  from  the  Codex  Fuldensis,  which  is 
supposed  to  be  by  the  hand  of  Victor  of  Capua ;  from  the  Veronese  Psalter,  from 
Isidore  and  the  Codex  Toletanus  etc.,  and  one  instance  from  Tertullian.    We  note 
also  in  Cod.  Vercellensis,  Mark  ix.  20  ispumans. 

2  Itala  u.  Vulg.  p.  468. 


LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY.  121 

scribraret  tamquam  triticum.'  Here  D  reads  cerneret,  and  the 
Cod.  Veronensis  is  illegible  for  the  doubtful  word,  but  it  looks 
as  if  it  were  uentilet.  Possibly  scribraret  is  here  the  original 
translation.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the  impure  s  which  we  are 
discussing  is  an  Africanism  ? 

Upon  the  whole,  we  cannot  say  that  we  have  as  yet  come  to 
a  clear  understanding  upon  this  question:  but  it  may  be  more 
intelligible  as  our  investigation  proceeds.  The  fact  is  we  want  to 
know  something  more  definite  about  the  relations  of  Codex  Bezae 
and  the  Old-Latin  codices. 

We  may  compare  with  what  has  been  said  above  as  to  the 
obscuring  of  the  s  impurum  in  French,  what  Le  Blant  says  on  the 
subject  from  the  stand-point  of  epigraphy1. 

Des  vocables  iscala,  ispiritits,  Istephanus,  ispes,  ischola,  istetit,  ismaragdus, 
iscripsit,  istudium,  nous  avons  fait :  escalier,  esprit,  Etienne,  espoir,  e'cole,  ete", 

S  J  J*     .    7 


Our  results  confirm  his  as  to  the  form  ispes,  at  any  rate,  which 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  copyist's  blunder.  Le  Blant  adds  in  a 
note  to  the  following  effect  : 

D'apres  les  rapprochements  que  1'on  vient  de  voir,  les  mots  Stable,  &ang, 
estrade,  espdce,  dpine,  Jpoux,  escabeau,  escient,  espace,  Jpi,  estomac,  etat,  etrangler 
etc.  me  semblent  montrer  qu'en  latin  le  vulgaire  a  du  dire  istabulum,  istagnum, 
ispecies,  ispina,  isponsus,  iscabellum,  iscire,  ispatium,  ispica,  istomachus,  istatum, 
istrangulare. 

4.     On  the  interchange  of  final  M  and  NT  in  the  Codex  Bezae. 

We  frequently  find  an  equivalence  between  forms  ending  in 
ra  and  those  ending  in  nt  :  and  though,  at  first  sight,  it  seems 
as  if  we  had  to  do  with  a  merely  palaeographic  error  (which 
certainly  is  likely  enough  in  MSS.  like  Codex  Bezae  and  the  Lyons 
Pentateuch,  which  write  final  nt  in  a  single  letter,  by  crossing 
the  last  stroke  of  the  n),  yet  a  closer  examination  convinces  us 
that  the  error  is  phonetic,  and  that  the  final  nasal  sounds  are 
subject  to  confusion. 

First  let  us  look  at  some  of  the  cases :  then  at  the  causes. 

We  have  Acts  xi.  22,  Barnabant  for  Barnabam.  Acts  xii.  1G, 
eunt  for  eum. 

1  Inscriptions  chretiennes  de  la  Gaule,  p.  cxviii. 


122  LATIN    PHONETICS   AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

Perhaps  a  similar  case  occurs  in  Acts  xiii.  47, 

ut  sint  in  salutem  usquae  ad  ultimum  terrae, 

where  we  propose  to  correct  sint  into  sim. 
Now  turn  to  John  xvii.  14,  where  we  have 

et  mundus  odit  eos  quoniam  non  sum, 

where  it  is  clear  from  the  Greek  that  sum  stands  for  sunt.  We 
have  already  pointed  out  how  this  error  has  given  rise  to  a  remark 
able  conflation  in  John  xvii.  11,  where  the  Bezan  text  is  supported 
wholly  or  in  part  by  Codd.  ace. 

Now  this  singular  Latin  error  is  explained  at  once  by  the 
dialectical  forms  of  the  Vulgar  Latin,  from  which  sprang  the  Italian 
50?io,  which  is  both  first  person  singular  and  third  person  plural. 
Let  us  interrogate  the  Latin  inscriptions  and  see  where  this 
tendency  to  equivalence  shews  itself.  According  to  Sittl l, 

Auslautendes  NT  wird  nur  in  Italien  durch  nasales  M  ersetzt :  fecerum 
I.  N.  2037  (Nola),  2775,  2824,  7197.  Gruter,  686,  3  (Rom)  Ferret  catac.  de 
R.  5,  29,  68,  Orelli-H.  7360  (Rom):  convenerum  Marini  Atti  t.  40,  a  21 
(J.  218);  comparaverum  Fabretti  5,  11;  emerum  Bold.  53  b  6;  posuerum  ib. 
381,  1 ;  dedicarum  Orelli  3740  (bei  Lanuvium);  comparabirum  und  commenda- 
berum  Lupi  p.  24  (Tibur  J.  613). 

From  these  instances  collected  by  Sittl  we  see  the  direction  in 
which  to  look  for  the  origin  of  the  peculiarities  which  we  noted 
in  our  text.  They  are  certainly  more  Italian  than  French ;  and 
if  this  be  so,  then  we  again  suspect  that  the  text  of  Codex  Bezae 
came  to  Lyons  from  the  other  side  of  the  Alps 2. 

I  have  not  found  any  instance  of  this  error  in  the  Lyons 
Pentateuch. 

5.     On  the  inflexional  forms  in  the  Codex  Bezae. 

Let  us  now  see  how  it  stands  with  the  noun-inflexions  in  our 
Codex  :  how  do  they  answer  to  the  Vulgar  Latin  ? 

We  know  that  in  the  Vulgar  Latin  the  neuters  disappear, 

1  Die  lokalen  Verschiedenheiten,  p.  70. 

2  There  are  two  cases  of  the  kind  in  Cod.  &,  viz. 

Matt.  xiii.  54  stuperem  for  stuperent. 
xiv.  5  habebam  for  habebant. 

It  is  conceivable,  in  view  of  the  many  transcriptural  blunders  in  k,  that  these 
are  scribe's  errors ;  but  on  the  other  hand,  they  may  merely  be  intimations  that  we 
are  dealing  with  a  real  dialect,  which  was  not  French. 


LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY.  123 

taking  on  masculine  or  feminine  forms  as  the  case  may  be :  the 
neuter  plurals  in  particular  appearing  as  feminines  of  the  first 
declension1.  We  are  not  then  surprised  to  find  that  our  text 
writes  regularly  the  form  retia :  e.g.  John  xxi.  6,  retiam :  v.  8, 
retiam  piscium :  v.  11,  non  est  scissa  retia,  and  so  in  many  other 
places.  After  a  while  this  singular  form  will  develop  its  own 
plural  as  a  feminine  noun  ;  though  not  necessarily  the  classical 
plural ;  for  the  study  of  the  Romance  languages  shews  us  that  the 
formation  of  a  plural  by  the  addition  of  s  becomes  soon  a  rule,  as 
it  must  have  been  in  the  earliest  times  of  Latin  speech ;  what 
constitutes  the  motive  for  this  apparent  reversion  to  type  is  more 
difficult  to  see ;  it  may  be  the  influence  of  the  oblique  case ;  it  is 
however  certain  that  in  the  Prove^al  the  plural  of  such  a  word 
as  corona  is  coronas,  while  the  Old  French  gives  corone  corones : 
thus  we  find  an  s  established  at  a  very  early  period  indeed  in 
French  *. 

We  shall  expect  then  to  find  traces  of  neuter  plurals  which 
give  rise  to  feminine  plurals,  and  of  feminine  plurals  which  are 
made  by  the  addition  of  s. 

For  instance,  in  John  iii.  20,  we  have 

ut  non  arguantur  operas  eius  de  luce. 

Here  we  have  opera  turned  to  a  feminine,  and  the  new  plural 
formed  in  Vulgar  Latin  fashion. 
Again,  in  Acts  ii.  17,  we  have 

et  prophetabunt  fill  eorum 
et  filias  eorum. 

This  .5  does  not  appear  in  modern  Italian,  but  it  is  in  the 
Spanish  and  the  French.  Probably  we  may  say  in  our  case  that 
the  form  is  South-Gallic.  But  it  might  just  as  well  be  Spanish  ; 
and  indeed  we  need  to  know  a  great  deal  more  about  the  varia 
tions  of  the  Vulgar  Latin  before  we  speak  with  decision  on  such  a 
point. 

1  Thus  in  the  Lyons  Pent,  we  have  castrae  (dat.)  and  castra  (abl.);  and  for  cms 
we  find  crura. 

2  Schwan,  Altfranzosische  Gramm.  p.  90,  refers  this  final  s  to  the  influence  of 
analogy,  "  nach  Analogie  der  Feminine  der  lat.  iii.  Decl.  haben  auch  die  Fern,  der 
lat.  i.  Decl.  in  Nom.  Plur.  em  «  erhalten." 


124  LATIN    PHONETICS   AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

Having  shewn,  then,  that  our  MS.  sometimes  gives  us  the 
Vulgar  Latin  form  of  the  feminine  plural  of  nouns  ending  in  a  ; 
let  us  ask  whether  there  is  any  similar  phenomenon  with  regard 
to  masc.  nouns  with  o  stems.  Here  the  early  Latin  form  seems  to 
have  been  for  the  plural  to  end  in  oe  and  e,  which  was  probably  a 
survival  from  oes  and  es  :  but  all  the  words  which  occur  in  litera 
ture  make  the  plural  in  i.  Nor  does  it  seem  that  in  the  Old 
French  a  plural  form  in  s  is  developed  ;  thus  livre  and  not  livres  is 
the  Old  French  for  the  Latin  libri. 

There  is  one  case  in  our  MS.  which  seems  to  involve  such  an 
s  plural.  In  Acts  xi.  21, 


noAyc  TG  <\pi0MOC 
enecrpeyeN  eni  TON  KN 

MVLTISQVE   NVMERIS   CVM   CREDIDISSENT 
REVERSI   SVNT   AD    DNM. 

Here  the  verbs  shew  that  the  singular  number  of  the  Greek 
has  been  replaced  by  a  plural  :  we  must  then  either  say  that 
multis  numeris  is  a  nominative  plural,  or  that  it  is  an  unfortunate 
attempt  to  render  the  construction  known  as  the  ablative  absolute, 
which  was  never  completed  on  account  of  the  difficulty  with  the 
verb  ;  the  latter  would  seem  to  be  the  correct  explanation. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  oblique  cases  ;  we  find  in  the  Vulgar 
Latin  that  the  accusative  and  ablative  very  early  exchange  forms 
and  functions  ;  because,  for  example,  as  soon  as  the  final  m  of  an 
accusative  singular  ceases  to  be  sounded,  the  forms  of  the  two 
cases  are  usually  phonetically  equivalent. 

Hence,  for  example,  the  form  dono  dedit  is  really  only  the 
phonetic  weakening  of  donum  dedit.  May  we  say  then  that  in 
our  MS.  in  Acts  xiii.  22  the  rendering 

CO    KAI    eiTTGN    MApTYRHCAC 
CVI   ETIAM   DIXIT   TESTIMONIO, 

conveys  an  accusative  form  under  an  ablative  dress  ?  If  any  one 
doubts  the  phonetic  equivalence  in  our  scribe's  dialect  of  two  such 
cases  as  testimonium  and  testimonio,  let  him  look  at  Luke  x.  4 
where  he  will  actually  find  sacellum  written  sacellu  ;  Matt,  xxvii. 
51  a  susu  usque  deorsum-,  and  at  Luke  xvii.  24  where  we  have 
sub  caelu  for  sub  caelum  ;  and  let  him  notice  the  innumerable  cases 


LATIN   PHONETICS   AND  MORPHOLOGY.  125 

where   the   accusative   and   ablative   are    interchanged,   such    as 

Acts  xvi.  25, 

circa  mediam  uero  nocte, 

Acts  v.  15, 

ab  omnem  ualetuclinem, 

Acts  v.  26, 

cum  uim, 

etc.  etc.1 

The  Lyons  Pentateuch  shews  the  same  weakness  in  the  final 
letter:  we  have  dece  dextru  eu  lignu  none  qua  regnu  sempiternu 
signu  suu. 

One  consequence  of  this  practical  equivalence  of  the  cases 
would  seem  to  have  been  the  free  use  of  an  accusative  absolute, 
which  some  people  consider  to  be  an  Africanism.  The  combination 
of  the  two  cases  makes  the  oblique  case  of  the  Old  French,  the 
genetive  and  dative  being  replaced  gradually  by  the  use  of  prepo 
sitions. 

Before  leaving  the  consideration  of  the  accusative  case,  it  may 
be  proper  to  point  out  that  the  MS.  occasionally  shews  traces  of 
an  accusative  plural  formed  simply  by  the  addition  of  an  s  to 
the  singular,  just  as  it  must  have  been  in  the  earliest  period  of 
the  Latin  language,  when,  for  instance,  the  plural  of  navem  was 
navem  +  s  =  naves. 

I  have  noticed  in  Codex  k  in  Matt.  xii.  4  the  curious  case 
panems  propositions :  and  there  are  one  or  two  things  in  the 
Codex  Bezae  that  point  to  a  similar  recurrence  of  the  ancient 
usage.  For  instance,  in  Acts  xiv.  17, 

benefaciens  de  caelo  uobis 
imbrens  dans  et  tempora  fructifera 
implens  ciuo  et  iucunditate. 

Here  imbrens  stands  for  an  accusative  plural.  It  may,  however, 
be  said  that  this  is  only  a  palaeographic  assimilation  to  neighbour 
ing  words  in  the  adjacent  lines. 

1  The  weakness  of  the  filial  m  may  be  seen  by  studying  such  a  form  as  decem 
which  shews  no  final  consonant  in  Greek,  nor  in  Vulgar  Latin :  e.g.  John  vi.  70 
nonne  ego  uos  duodeci  elegi;  Matt,  xviii.  21  dece  railium  denariorum;  Luke  xiv.  31 
in  dece  milibus;  Luke  xix.  10  dece  ninas.  In  these  last  instances,  however,  the 
final  letter  was  represented  in  the  beginning  of  the  next  word.  In  Matt.  xvi.  10  we 
have  sept e  panes  where  m  is  lost  in  the  closely  related  letter  which  follows. 


126  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

But  this  explanation  will  not  do  for  the  following  cases  in  the 
Bezan  text. 
John  vii.  45, 

nemo  misit  in  ilium  manums. 
Mark  iii.  15, 

et  dedit  illis  potestatem 
curandi  ualetudinems. 

Leaving  then  the  oblique  case,  let  us  come  to  the  genetive 
case  which  is  replaced  in  Vulgar  Latin  by  the  preposition  de.  We 
find  a  number  of  instances  of  this  usage,  and  of  the  similar  usage 
of  ex,  in  our  MS.  of  which  the  following  are  perhaps  the  most 
remarkable. 

In  Luke  xi.  1, 

CinCN    TIC    TCON    MA6HTCON    AyTOy 
DIXIT   QVIDAM   DE   DISCIPVLIS   EIVS. 

Luke  xiii.  10, 

GN    MIA   T60N    CyNArOJC^N 
IN   VNA   DE   SYNAGOGI8. 

Acts  x.  25, 

eic  TCJN  AoyAeoN 

VNV8   EX   8ERVIS. 

Acts  xxi.  39, 

6N   TApCO)    A€   THC    KlAlKIAC 


TAB8E8I8   EX   CILICIAE, 

and  perhaps  Acts  ii.  30, 

GK  KApnoy  THC  KApAiAC  Ayroy 

DE   FRVCTVM   DE   PBAECORDIA   EIVS. 

It  is  important  that  all  these  forms  should  be  registered  and 
classified,  as  they  furnish  new  and  valuable  material  for  Romance 
philology,  and  add  to  the  knowledge  which  has  been  derived  from 
the  study  of  inscriptions.  I  do  not  see  anything  in  our  results, 
however,  that  is  in  conflict  with  epigraphic  conclusions.  A  refer 
ence  to  Le  Blant,  Inscriptions  chretiennes  de  la  Gaule  (p.  cxvi)  will 
shew  the  following  summary  : 

Des  le  vi*  siecle,  le  fran9ais  peut  se  pressentir.  Le  trouble  qu'apporte  la 
confusion  du  cas  fait  apparaitre,  k  cette  dpoque,  la  proposition,  Particle  de 
notre  langue  sans  flexions.  An  lieu  de  minuter  templi  on  dit  dejk  minester  de 
tempulo  ;  pour  membra  duorum  fratrum  un  marbre  porte  membra  ad  duo* 


LATIN   PHONETICS   AND   MORPHOLOGY.  127 

/retires,  forme  qui  subsiste  dans  notre  parler  vulgaire,  pour  indiquer  le  rapport 
de  possession.  Notre  pronom  qui,  invariable  aux  deux  genres,  se  montre,  des 
4ai,  sur  I'dpitaphe  d'une  religieuse. . . .  D'ispiritus,  que  Ton  entend  encore  aux 
offices  de  villages,  viendra  esprit.  Aiutare  offre  la  suppression  qui  nous  donnera 
le  verbe  aider.  Des  le  ve  siecle  santa  prdpare  le  mot  sainte.  Le  g  de  triginta 
s'oblitere  et  nos  peres  disaient  trienta  comme,  plus  tard,  nous  dcrirons  trente. 
Dej'a,  pour  eux  tanto,  comme  pour  nous  le  mot  tant,  indiqua  un  nombre  indd- 
termine'1. 

Just  as  the  cases  in  Vulgar  Latin  disappear,  or  almost  dis 
appear,  so  we  find  the  declensions  of  the  nouns  to  simplify:  the 
earliest  step  towards  this  is  the  resolution  of  the  so-called  fourth 
and  fifth  declensions  into  forms  that  can  be  classified  with  the 
others,  from  which  indeed  they  must  have  been  primitively 
evolved.  Thus  we  may  expect  to  find  dies  turn  into  dieus,  as  in 
Acts  x.  40, 

hunc  ds  suscitauit  post  tertium  dieum. 

And  in  the  case  of  nouns  from  the  so-called  fourth  declension, 
the  transference   to   the  second  frequently  causes   a  change   of 
gender;  e.g. 
Luke  ix.  4, 

in  quemcumque  domum. 
Luke  xxii.  21, 

ecce  manus  qui  tradct, 

unless   qui   tradet   should   be   the   simple    translation    of   Trapa- 
SiSovTos,  or  qui  has  ceased  to  be  inflected. 
Acts  iii.  11, 

in  porticum  qui  uocatur  Solomonis. 

6.     Pronominal  and  adverbial  enclisis  in  the  Vulgar  Latin. 

An  examination  of  the  Romance  languages  will  shew  many 
cases  of  the  enclitic  use  of  pronouns  and  adverbs ;  and  it  becomes 
a  matter  of  interest  to  examine  whether  any  of  these  occur 
in  our  text.  Let  us  take  for  instance  the  adverb  ibi:  this 
becomes  in  French  if  and  finally  y:  but  in  Italian  it  is  used 
enclitically  in  the  form  vi.  Suppose  then  we  find  in  John  xii.  2 
et  fecerunt  ei  cenam  bi, 

may  we  not  regard  the  word  as  used  enclitically,  and  far  gone  in 
the  process  of  decline  ? 

1  Our  MS.  shews  tempula  (Acts  xix.  24),  santi  (Acts  iv.  30),  etc. 


128  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND  MORPHOLOGY. 

And  is  not  the  same  thing  discernible  in  the  following  cases  of 
suffixed  pronouns  ? 

Matt.  ix.  19.     sequebatur  um. 

Matt.  xix.  21.     et  ueni  sequerem. 

Mark  vi.  26.     noluit  am  contristare. 

Luke  xi.  9.     dabite  for  dabit  ei. 

Luke  xiii.  7.    praeddeam. 

Luke  xiv.  12.     et  illi  reinuitente. 

Luke  xxiii.  39.     unus  autem  de  malignis  blasphemabat  urn. 

3  John  15.    salutante  amid. 

7.  Phonetic  Variations  in  the  Verb-Forms. 
We  must  now  say  a  few  words  about  the  confusion  in  the 
verb-forms :  we  have  already  pointed  out  that  in  the  archetype  of 
our  copy  there  was  a  confusion  between  sum  and  sunt  just  as 
in  modern  Italian.  It  is  probable  then  that  we  shall  find  some 
other  cases  of  confusion  between  the  nasal  terminations. 

One  common  case  is  the  writing  of  the  singular  for  the 
plural:  e.g. 

Acts  vii.  57.     exdamasset  for  exdamassent. 
Acts  xiii.  27.     kabitabat  for  habitabant. 
Acts  xx.  18.     esset  for  essent. 
Acts  xxi.  21.     drcumddat  for  drcumddant. 

Perhaps  we  may  add  Acts  xvi.  27, 

NOMIZCON  €Kne4>€YreNAi  joyc  AecMioyc 

EXISTIMANS   EFFVGIS8ET  CV8TODIAS, 

in  which  case  custodias  would  be  the  nominative  plural ;  but  may 
it  not  rather  be  that  effugisset  is  meant  for  the  infinitive  ? 
Remark  also 

Matt.  xvii.  14.     uenisset  for  uenissent, 
where  the  variation  has  affected  the  Greek. 

John  xx.  25.     dicebat  ergo  illi  alii  disdpuli, 
where  n  has  been  superscribed. 

Mark  vi.  1.     et  sequebatur  ilium  disdpuli  dus, 
where  n  has  been  superscribed. 

There  are  a  number  of  instances  of  this  confusion  in  the  text 
of  the  Lyons  Pentateuch. 

Another  important  change  of  which  our  MS.  shews  frequent 
traces  is  the  substitution  of  the  e  vowel  for  i,  especially  in  the 


LATIN   PHONETICS   AND   MORPHOLOGY.  129 

third  person  singular ;  and  since  we  sometimes  find  the  opposite 
error,  we  must  assume  the  sounds  to  have  been  nearly  equivalent. 
The  MS.  is  full  of  such  exchanges  (e.g.  Matt.  iii.  $,putetes=putetis; 
iv.  5,  suscepit  =  suscipit ;  v.  28,  omnes  =  omnis ;  v.  34,  sedis  =  sedes ; 
xi.  13,  omnes  =  omnis;  xii.  24,  potestes  =  potestis  etc.  etc.).  In  this 
respect  it  is  very  like  the  Lyons  Pentateuch,  which  has  scores 
of  such  confusions1. 

The  result  of  these  errors  is  apparent  in  the  language  and 
in  the  particular  texts  where  they  occur ;  in  the  language  because 
there  is  produced  an  approximation  between  a  number  of  present 
tenses  to  the  future  tenses,  which  assimilation  ultimately  makes 
way  for  the  introduction  of  a  new  future,  made  with  the  auxiliary 
habeo ;  and  in  the  particular  texts,  because  there  is  a  bilingual 
reaction  from  the  modified  Latin  to  the  Greek. 

Fof  instance,  in  Luke  xxii.  21, 

TOY    TTAp&AlAONTOC    M€ 
QVI   TRADET   ME, 

where  tradet  is  not   meant  for  a  future,  but  for  a   present ;   cf. 
Mark  xiv.  20,  21  where  Trapa&iSorat,  is  twice  rendered  tradetur. 
Again,  in  John  xii.  25, 

qui  amat  animam  suam  perdet  earn, 

where  either  the  future  perdet  has  been  taken  as  a  present, 
or  conversely ;  for  the  Greek  MSS.  fluctuate  suspiciously  between 
a7ro\e<m  (D  etc.)  and  a-TroXXuet  (tfBL). 

M.  Robert  points  out  that  this  approximation  between  the 
present  and  future  tenses  holds  also  for  those  future  forms  which 
are  more  divergent  from  the  present  tense-forms :  thus  he  cites  as 
future  tenses  abominamini  iriquinamini  sanctificamini.  We  have 
the  same  thing  in  Cod.  Bezae :  Luke  vi.  21,  saturamini:  Acts  i.  5, 
baptizamini,  are  certainly  future  tenses. 

The  participial  formations  shew  great  variation,  the  following 
being  the  most  common  changes. 

NS  to  S. 

Luke  iv.  40.     impones  for  imponens. 
Luke  xii.  16.     dices  for  dicens. 

1  See  Robert,  pp.  Ixx,  Ixxi. 

c.  B..  9 


130  LATIN  PHONETICS  AND  MORPHOLOGY. 

NS  to  N. 

Acts  xix.  16.     insilien  for  insiliens. 

NS  to  NT. 

Luke  v.  16.     or  ant  for  orans. 
Acts  x.  20.     dubitant  for  dubitans. 

n 

Cf.  Luke  xv.  1.     era£  autem  adpropiant, 

where  adpropiant  would  seem  to  be  an  adjective1. 

These  confusions  may  be  illustrated  from  others  which  occur 
in  the  verb-forms  :  e.g. 

Acts  xxi.  21.     docens  for  doces2. 

Matt.  xvii.  27.     inueniens  for  inuenies. 

Luke  xiii.  25.     incipientis  for  incipictis. 

Matt.  v.  11.     dixerin  for  dixerint. 

Luke  xviii.  9.     con/idens  for  confident. 

Perhaps  Mark  iii.  11.     cum  uideret  ilium  (if  the  Greek  is  cdeapovv). 

Such  forms  are  difficult  of  classification :  in  the  Romance 
languages  the  participle  present  appears  in  French  as  chantant,  in 
Proven9al  as  chantans,  and  in  Italian  as  cantante.  The  general 
fluctuation  which  we  find  in  our  text  will  hardly  fall  exclusively 
under  any  of  these  heads. 

8.     On  the  use  of  the  Vulgar  Latin  future  in  the  Codex  Bezae. 
On  p.  xliv  of  his  introduction  to  the  Codex  Bezae,  Scrivener 
notes  the  peculiar  employment  of  habeo  as  an  auxiliary  verb : 

We  find  (he  says)  in  the  style  of  d  distinct  traces  of  the  employment  of 
Jiabeo  as  an  auxiliary  verb,  which  is  well  known  to  be  a  notable  characteristic 
of  the  modern  languages  of  Western  Euroi>e  (of  the  French  as  much  as  any) 
as  distinguished  from  the  Latin  whence  most  of  them  sprung.  In  Mark  xiv. 
27  a-KavdaXta-aa-ffai  (-&)3  is  rendered  scandalizari  habetis  by  d,  but  scandalum 
patiemini  by  ac,  scandalizabimini  by  /  and  the  Vulgate.  Habeo  is  used  three 
times  to  render  /** XXo>,  Luke  x.  1 :  xix.  4  :  Acts  i.  5,  although  the  Greek  word 
is  translated  by  incipio  25  times  (sometimes  very  awkwardly),  15  times  by 
the  future  participle,  three  times  in  other  ways. 

Now  there  is  something  which  all  these  examples  have  in 
common :  they  are  all  expressions  or  modifications  of  the  future 

1  The  scribe  of  the  Lyons  Pent.  (p.  50,  c.  17)  wrote  the  word  aperiens  as  aperient, 
but  corrected  his  own  mistake. 

2  The  Lyons  Pent.  (p.  55,  a.  21)  writes  offerens  for  offerex. 


LATIN   PHONETICS  AND  MORPHOLOGY.  131 

tense.  A  similar  case  will  be  found  in  the  Athanasian  Creed,  as 
given,  for  example,  in  the  Utrecht  Psalter,  in  the  sentence 

ad  cuius  aduentum  omnes 
homines  resurgere  habent 
cum  corporibus  suis, 

where  the  Greek  version  would  shew  either  a  future  tense,  or 
fjueXXo)  with  an  infinitive.  Scrivener's  statement  is  therefore 
not  quite  complete  as  to  the  use  of  the  auxiliary  in  French. 
It  should  be  shewn  that  the  French  future  can  be  analysed  so 
as  to  shew  the  form  in  Codex  Bezae.  That  is,  the  parallel  does 
not  lie  between  the  future  with  kabeo,  and  the  preterite  with 
avoir,  but  between  the  future  with  habeo,  and  the  French  and 
Provencal  future  in  ai,  as  donnerai,  for  example,  separated  into 
the  elements  doriner  +  ai. 

When  these  forms  are  placed  side  by  side,  we  see  in  what 
sense  the  future,  of  the  Vulgar  Latin  is  related  to  the  future  of 
the  French  and  other  Romance  languages1.  And  it  can  be  shewn, 
I  think,  that  in  some  Romance  dialects  the  attached  auxiliary 
verb  of  the  French  remained  capable  of  separation  from  the  infini 
tive  to  which  it  belonged. 

We  cannot  be  wrong  in  referring  a  peculiarity  which  we  find 
in  all  the  Romance  languages  right  back  into  the  Vulgar  speech 
of  the  Empire2. 

1  "Von  den  altlateinischen  Temporibus  sind  in  den  romanischen  Sprachen  nur 
erhalten  :  das  Prasens,  das  Imperfekt,  das  Perfekt  und  das  Plusquamperfekt.    Die 
beiden  Futura  werden  durch  Umschreibung  mit  habere  und  dem  Infinitive  des 
Prasens  gebildet,  z.  B.  cantare  abjo  cantare  abea."    Schwan,  Altfr.  Gram.  p.  12. 

2  It  is  curious  that  the  later  Greek  language  shews  also  a  future  formed  with 
fyw  and  the  infinitive;  but  there  is  no  linguistic  connexion  between  the  Greek 
and  Latin  forms.     The  earliest  trace  that  I  know  of  this  Greek  future  is  its  intru 
sion  into  Greek  MSS.  from  the  fourteenth  century  onward:  e.g.  Cod.  418,  S.  Sabae 
of  the  Jerusalem  Collection,  a  MS.  of  the  Invention  of  the  Cross,  has 


ff€      XW 

where  a  comparison  with  other  texts  shews 


this  MS.  is  probably  of  the  fourteenth  cent.,  and  another  curious  tract  of  nearly  the 
same  age  in  the  same  library,  Cod.  66  S.  Sep.,  containing  an  'AvnXoyla  between 
Christ  and  the  Devil,  has 

ol  ybp  ayyeXof  /xou  Qofiepol  etfftv    Kal  tav  <re 
jb)  afirois  irardi-etv  <re  fyovv. 

9—2 


132  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Ronsch,  Itala  und  Vulgata,  p.  447,  where 
we  shall  find  a  large  collection  of  cases  where  habeo  occurs  with  an 
infinitive,  under  the  heading  Grdcismen  des  Infinilivs. 

At  the  end  of  the  catalogue  of  cases  (p.  449)  Ronsch  adds  a 
note  saying  that  there  are  three  different  uses  of  habeo  in  his  list ; 
(i)  konnen,  vermogen,  im  Stande  sein  ;  (ii)  Nothwendigkeit ;  (iii) 
das  Futurum ;  and  under  this  last  head  he  refers  to  the  Romance 
Futures  and  their  origin  in  the  Vulgar  Latin.  ("Bemerkenswerth. 
ist,  dass  dieser  Gebrauch  von  habere  durchgehends  der  romani- 
schen  jFteraZbildung  zu  Grunde  liegt.")  It  would  have  been 
convenient  if  the  three  classes  had  been  separated,  for  we  clearly 
cannot  assume  that  every  writer  who  employs  habeo  in  one  of  the 
three  senses  will  necessarily  employ  it  in  the  other  two  senses. 
Moreover  it  is  important  for  us  to  know  how  far  this  Vulgar  Latin 
future  prevailed,  which  we  find  at  the  back  of  all  the  Romance 
languages.  Does  it  occur,  for  example,  in  Africa?  Or  may  we 
regard  its  occurrence  as  a  proof  that  the  copies  in  which  it  can 
be  traced  are  European  copies?  Let  us  see  what  other  cases 
there  are  of  the  translation  of  a  future  tense  by  the  present 
tense  habeo. 

In  John  viii.  22  the  Codex  Vercellensis  renders  aTTOKrevel 
avrov  by  occidere  se  habet,  where  we  see  that  the  future  really 
carries  the  force  of  /ieXXei  aTroKrelvew.  We  cannot  then  be  quite 
sure  whether  the  translator  was  working  literally.  Indeed  the 
same  objection  may  be  urged  with  regard  to  the  passage  quoted 
from  Cod.  Bezae :  Mark  xiv.  27  fficavSaXurao-Qai  looks  very  much 
as  if  //.eXXere  had  stood  at  one  time  in  the  text  and  been  removed. 

The  same  thing  is  true  of  Tertullian,  Marc.  iv.  39 :  "  quod  et 
ipsae  uires  caelorum  concuti  habeant"  is  not  an  immediate  quotation 
from  the  Gospel  (Luke  xxi.  26  <ra\ev0ii<rovTcu) :  Tertullian  is 
quoting  much  in  the  same  way  as  we  should  if  we  said  "  But  that 
the  powers  of  the  heavens  have  to  be  shaken."  And  indeed  almost 
all  of  the  fifty  or  more  cases  of  the  use  of  habeo  by  Tertullian  belong 
to  the  same  category.  They  are  not  pure  futures;  their  Greek 
eq.uivalent  involves  Bel  or  /zeXXei  or  o</>ei'Xet  in  almost  all  the  cases 
quoted.  On  the  other  hand,  the  frequent  occurrence  of  these 
fvturjs  of  necessity  in  Tertullian  may  indicate  the  very  ground 
oSit  which  the  later  Vulgar  Latin  future  tense  was  evolved. 


LATIN   PHONETICS  AND  MORPHOLOGY. 


133 


In  the  Palatine  version  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  we  find  a 
striking  case  of  a  genuine  future  : 
Vis.  iii.  9.  5, 


ayaOanoiciv  KOI  ov%  e£er«  TOTTOV 
velle  habetis  benefacere  et  non  habebitis  locum. 

Now  Haussleiter1  has  brought  forward  very  decided  reasons 
for  believing  the  Palatine  version  of  Hermas  to  be  an  African 
translation.  If  this  be  so,  then  we  can  draw  no  conclusion  as  to 
locality  from  the  occurrence  of  a  Vulgar  Latin  future  with  habeo2. 

It  may  be  of  interest  in  connexion  with  the  further  investigation 
of  the  place  and  time  of  the  Bezan  translation  to  see  how  far  this 
peculiarity  of  which  we  have  been  treating  prevailed  in  the  Latin 
of  Irenaeus.  We  premise,  then,  for  comparison,  that  the  following 
are  the  Bezan  instances  of  the  future  with  habeo. 


1  De  versionibus  Pastoris  Hermae  Latinis, 

2  It  may  be  interesting  to  note  how  the 
and  the  Vulgate  respectively,  render 
noted : 


Erlangen,  1884. 

two  versions  of  Hermas,  the  Palatine 
Here  are  some  cases  which  we  have 


PALAT. 

VULG. 

Vis. 

i.  1.  6. 

jtAXw  \tyciv 

incipio  dicere 

dictura  sum 

i.  1.  8. 

Twit  dyadw  TUV  /j.€\\6fT(t)i' 

gloriam  venturam 

futura  bona 

ii.  2.  3. 

rri  nf\\oti<rri 

quae  incipit  esse 

quae  futura  est 

ii.  2.  8. 

TOI)S  vvv  /t^XXovTas  dpvciff0ai 

qui  nunc  incipiunt 

denegaturi  sunt 

iii.  5.  5. 

ol  OVV  fJ.£\\OVT€S  fJLfTOVOflv 

si  ergo  coeperint 

acturi  sunt 

iii.  8.  11. 

a  trot  /xc'XXw  X^-yei? 

incipio  dicere 

incipio  dicere 

Mand.  iv.  3.  3. 

TOtJ  /ulXXoWt  TTHTTefelV 

qui  credituri  sunt 

qui  credituri  sunt 

iv.  4.  4. 

n£\\w  XaXeiP 

dicturus  sum 



xi.  7. 

/*AXw  X£yet» 



dicturus  sum 

xi.  18. 

/teXXw  \eyeu> 

dicturus  sum 



Sim. 

i.  1. 

/iAXere  KO.TOIKCIV 

habitaturi  estis 

habitaturi  estis 

i.  4. 

rl  fj.£\\fis  irotecv 

quid  facturus  es 

quid  facies 

iv.  1. 

ol  fji£\\oi>Tes  KOTOiKeiv 

qui  habitaturi  sunt 

qui  habitaturi  sunt 

v.  3.  3. 

?/x.e\Xe$  el^ai 

eras  futurus 

eras  futurus 

v.  3.  7. 

£//.eXXes  iroieiv 

erogaturus  eras 

facturus  eras 

v.  5.  4. 

6  /t^XXw  <re  fveptarav 

quod  quaero 

quod  quaero 

viii.  6.  2. 

/j.£\\ov<rav  Ka.0a.pkv  yevfadat 

puras  mentes  fu- 

puras  mentes  fu- 

turas 

turas 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  the  Vulgate  version  j^XXw  is  only  once  rendered  by 
incipio  :  in  the  Palatine  version,  however,  it  is  translated  in  the  Visions  five  times 
out  of  six  by  incipio  and  coepi.  I  have  found  no  case,  in  either  version,  of  what  is 
so  common  in  the  Bezan  text,  the  rendering  of  /xAXw  by  habeo  with  the  future. 


134  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

Mark  xiv.  27, 

OTI    TTANT6C    YMeic    CKANA<\AlCAC9<M 
QVI   OMNES   VOS   SCANDALIZARI   HABETIS. 

Luke  x.  1, 

oy  CMeAAeN  epxec6&i 

VBI   HABEBAT   VENIRE. 

Luke  xix.  4, 

HMeAAeN  Aiepxec9<M 

HABEBAT   TRAN8IRE. 

Acts  i.  5, 

KAI  o  MeAAejAi  AAMBANGIN 

ET   EVM    ACCIPERE   HABETI8, 

(where,  as  we  shall  shew  by  and  by,  the  Latin  is  the  original,  and 
is  probably  due  to  an  African  hand). 

In  twenty-five  other  cases  ^e\\co  =  incipio,  in  fifteen  cases  we 
have  a  future  participle  and  three  other  modes  of  translation  ; 
e.g.  Mark  xiii.  4,  yu,e\Xa  <rvvTe\ei<r0ai,  =  consummabuntur)  a  passage 
which  cod.  k  renders  by  incipiunt  perfici. 

Notice  also  the  curious  textual  changes  in  John  xiv.  30,  where, 
the  expression  ev  e/juol  OVK  e^eu  not  being  understood,  a  Latin 
interpreter  assumed  that  habet  was  a  sign  of  the  future  tense,  and 
that  a  verb  had  dropped.  Hence  in  a  d  we  have  invenire  added  : 
this  goes  back  into  D  as  evpeiv,  and  in  some  late  Greek  texts  and 
versions  (KIT,  etc.)  as  evprjttt.  « 

And  now  turn  to  Irenaeus  and  examine  some  of  the  similar 
phenomena  which  appear  in  the  Latin  text. 

In  ii.  296  =  Mass.  285, 

dtos  yap  6  (jie\\a)v  opao'dai 

is  rendered 

deus  enini  est  qui  habet  videri. 

Here  we  have  the  same  Vulgar  Latin  usage  :  but  more 
commonly  /LteXXw  is  rendered  by  incipio  as  in  i.  118  =  Mass.  62, 


avrrjv  irp<xf>r)Tfvctv 

is  rendered 

concalefaciens  animam  a  suspicions 
quod  incipiet  prophetare, 


LATIN   PHONETICS  AND  MORPHOLOGY.  135 

the  translation  being  almost  as  close  and  servile   as   in   Codex 
Bezae. 

Ini.  151=  Mass.  78, 

TOV  pcXXoproff  fls  avTov  KaTcp^€O~dai  '\v6pvmov 

is  rendered 

eius  qui  incipit  in  eum  descendere  Hominis. 
Inii.  48  =  Mass.  191, 

p.6<r)(os  \rnep  rfjs  av€vp(O~f(0s  TOV  vtutTtpov  irai8os  fjLf\\o)V  Ovta'Oai 
vitulus  qui  pro  inventione  minoris  filii  inciperet  mactari, 

and  so  in  a  number  of  other  cases. 

9.     Decline  of  the  prepositions. 

The  codex  shews  great  decay  in  the  forms  of  the  prepositions  ; 
some  of  which  are  far  gone  on  their  way  to  French  and  Italian ; 
while  others  are  only  slightly  changed. 

The  weakness  of  the  final  t  in  post  is  seen  when  it  comes  before 
a  word  beginning  with  either  t  or  d,  as 

Acts  xx.  29, 

pos  diesccssum  meum. 

Matt.  xxiv.  29, 

pos  tribulationem. 

Such  assimilations  between  neighbouring  words  are  however 
not  uncommon  in  our  text. 

We  notice  one  case  of  pos  for  post  in  the  Lyons  Pentateuch 
(pos  hoc). 

Sursum  is  a  word  which  is  more  changed  ;  and  becomes  almost 
French  in  its  form. 

In  John  iii.  31,  desusum,  and  so  in  Luke  i.  3 ;  in  Acts  ii.  19  it 
is  susum l. 

That  the  final  letter  was  not  sounded  appears  from  susu  in 
Matt,  xxvii.  51.  The  Lyons  Pentateuch  shews  two  cases  of  susum 
and  one  of  desusum. 

Trans  appears  as  tras  in  John  vi.  15  :  cf.  trasire  in  Luke 
xviii.  25.  In  Mark  v.  21  we  find  tranfretasset,  so  that  it  has  the 
same  weaknesses  as  a  participial  formation. 

1  This  is  the  form  which  appears  in  the  Peregrinatio  Sylviae  (IVth  cent.),  p.  46 : 
"ecce  et  commonetur  episcopus  et  descendit  et  sedet  susuin." 

1   0 


136  LATIN   PHONETICS  AND   MORPHOLOGY. 

Deorsum  =  diosum  in  Luke  iv.  10;  and  this  appears  as  zosum 
in  Acts  xx.  9.  We  note  deosum  in  the  Lyons  Pentateuch  once. 

Per  appears  once  as  sper :  Mark  v.  13,  sper  praeceps.  The 
scribe  has  separated  sper  from  the  previous  word  grex  by  a  point : 
otherwise  we  should  read  grexs  per.  Note  that  the  form  has 
been  traced  provisionally  to  ex  per;  Diez  notes  that  in  Wallachian 
per  becomes  pre  and  then  is  strengthened  to  spre\ 

There  is  nothing  in  all  this  which  is  discordant  with  our 
previous  location  of  the  MS. :  and  we  will  now  leave  the  study  of 
the  Latin  forms  in  the  MS.2,  and  see  whether  we  can  get  any 
further  light  from  the  Greek  side.  And  first,  a  few  preliminary 
remarks  on  the  Graecisms  in  the  Latin. 

1  Diez,  Gramm.  p.  756. 

2  Many  of  the  forms  discussed  in  this  chapter  may  be  paralleled  from  a  remark- 
able  seventh-century  Vulgar  Latin  MS.  of  the  Acts  of  Peter,  preserved  at  Vercelli, 
and  recently  transcribed  by  Gundemann  for  Lipsius'  Ada  Apocrypha.    For  instance, 
scoruscare  will  be  found  on  p.  68,  turbas  for  turbae  (p.  73),  componeretum  for  com- 
poneret  eum  (p.  51) ;  while  the  future  with  habeo  appears  in  such  expressions  as 
certare  habent  duo  ludaei  (p.  70),  quaecunque  consumere  habui  (p.  77). 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

SOME  PHONETIC  PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  BEZA  GREEK. 

1.     On  the  Graecisms  of  the  Latin  text  of  Codex  Bezae. 

Whether  the  Codex  Bezae  is  ultimately  derived  from  an 
African,  a  Roman  or  an  Old  French  rendering,  we  must  not  forget 
that  the  Roman  Church  was  a  Greek  Church  in  many  respects, 
and  the  Old  Gallican  Church  was  Greek  in  almost  every  respect, 
while  even  the  African  Church  had  a  Greek  element :  so  that  we 
need  not  wonder  if  we  find  some  Graecisms  on  the  Latin  side. 
For  an  illustration  of  the  diffusion  of  Greek  forms,  it  may  be  noted 
that  the  Peregrinatio  Sylviae,  of  the  end  of  the  IVth  century, 
which  has  been  referred  to  Southern  Gaul,  contains  traces  of  the 
influence  of  the  Greek  colonists'  speech  upon  the  Vulgar  Latin. 

Thus  Sylvia  says  of  the  services  in  Jerusalem, 

"  et  cata  singulos  ymnos  fit  oratio " 
"  qui  cata  singulos  ymnos  vel  antiphonas 
orationes  dicunt1." 

Moreover  the  Vulgar  Latin  knew  such  forms  as  cata  unam, 
however  harsh  they  may  seem  to  us,  and  out  of  this  form  was 
developed  the  Old  French  chadun  =  cheun. 

Our  MS.  shews  one  curious  use  of  dva  on  the  Latin  side :  it  is 
in  Luke  ix.  3, 

nequae  ana  duas  tunicas  habere. 

This  is  the  more  curious,  inasmuch  as  dva  is  omitted  in  the 
Greek  of  NBCFLE,  and  so  we  must  either  say  that  it  belongs 
purely  to  the  Latin  translator,  or  that  it  had  been  dropped  from 

1  Gamurrini,  Peregrinatio  Sylviae,  p.  45. 


138      SOME    PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   13EZA   GREEK. 

the  Greek  text  in  early  times ;  in  which  latter  case  might  it  not 
be  a  Greek  correction  carried  into  the  wrong  column  ? 

2.     Dialectical  changes  in  the  Greek  of  Cod.  Bezae. 

Now  let  us  examine  the  peculiar  forms  of  the  Greek  text 
of  our  MS.  just  as  we  did  in  the  case  of  the  Latin. 

One  of  the  first  things  that  we  shall  notice  is  the  irregularity 
of  the  aspiration.  Scrivener  gives  a  list  of  specimens  of  this 
peculiarity1  and  makes  no  attempt  to  analyse  them,  thus  leaving 
the  impression  that  the  greatest  confusion  prevailed  in  the  mind 
.of  the  primitive  scribe  to  whom  we  owe  our  Western  Greek. 

An  analysis  of  the  instances  given  will  shew  the  following 
results. 

Four  times  we  have  an  unusual  smooth  breathing  before 
evpia-fca)  (Matt.  [2]  +  Luke  -f  Acts);  three  times  a  similar  feature 
with  €£779  (/caTeffi),  all  in  Acts ;  once  with  ouro?  (Mark)  and  once 
with  eavTtov  (Mark). 

For  the  irregular  rough  breathing  we  have  rjbvva-ro  once 
(Mark) ;  three  times  the  rough  breathing  is  found  with  the  stem 
elbov  (Luke  +  Acts  [2]):  three  times  with  t&o?  (Matt.  [2]  +  Mark); 
once  with  o\£yo9  (Acts);  once  we  have  tyiaracrde  (Acts)  and 
once  €<f>ayd<yetv  (Acts) :  twice  we  have  such  cases  as  e/^oO,  e//,e 
(Mark  +  Acts) ;  observe  also  the  forms  e\7rtfo>  and  e\7rt9  (Luke 
+  Acts). 

Now,  if  this  be  madness,  there"  is  a  method  in  it :  for  the 
same  words  shew  a  tendency  to  the  same  aspiration.  The  rough 
breathing  with  clBov  is,  of  course,  the  lost  digamma;  the  same 
is  true  of  £8*09  whether  its  earlier  form  be  (rFeSto9  or  FeSto92. 

We  cannot  be  quite  sure  that  the  sixth-century  scribe  is 
responsible  for  the  spelling  of  this  latter  word,  because  it  occurs 
often  in  the  Vatican  MS.  and  once  at  least  in  the  Sinaitic;  but 
we  may  regard  it  as  a  genuine  dialectical  form  and  not  as  an  error. 
The  same  thing  is  true  of  Ihirk  which  had  a  digamma,  and 
consequently  appears  in  the  Latin  inscriptions  as  a  proper  name 
Helpis,  and  occasionally  with  a  strong  breathing  in  MSS.3  of  the 

i  p.  xlvii. 

*  Vani<?ek,  Etym.  1035.    Note  that  the  form  *a0'  idlav  is  discussed  in  Keil, 
Inscrip.  Thessal.  tres,  p.  10. 
»  See  Hort,  Introd.  145. 


SOME   PHONETIC    PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   BEZA   GREEK.       139 

New  Testament.  With  (iya)  the  case  is  more  difficult :  according 
to  Curtius,  Griech.  Etym.  p.  676,  "  there  can  be  no  doubt  in  other 
cases  that  the  spiritus  asper  has  crept  in  irregularly,  in  ayew  &c. 
...The  case  is  the  same  with  r^eiadai  which  no  one  thinks  of 
separating  from  ayew:  by  the  side  of  which  we  get  the  very 
rare  ayeiv — especially  as  the  derived  verb  now  and  then  itself 
shows  the  lenis."  It  is  sufficient  then  to  remark  that  this  case 
also  is  a  recognized  variation  and  not  a  scribe's  blunder. 

e(j)i(7TafjLat  is  again  quite  a  possible  form :  the  formation  of 
the  word  eVto-ra/Aat  is  uncertain,  and  we  cannot  say  positively 
that  the  word  is  a  derivative  from  lo-rrj/jbi.  If,  however,  its  origin 
should  be  sought  elsewhere,  the  analogy  of  the  forms  would  be 
sure  to  invite  the  aspirate  and  some  dialects  would  shew  it. 

The  case  of  e/i-e  and  epov  is  more  difficult :  it  is  complicated 
with  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  aspirated  rj/jLels  (which 
some  hold  to  be  merely  an  imitation  of  u/tet?,  while  others  will 
have  it  to  be  due  to  a  misplaced  spirant  from  the  middle  of  the 
word,  cf.  Sanskrit  asmat).  There  are  traces  of  aspiration  in  the 
inflexion  of  the  first  personal  pronoun  which  have  hardly  been 
adequately  explained.  Thus  we  have  the  Boeotian  IGOV  and  the 
Sanskrit  aham  to  equate  with  the  normal  Greek  form  fywv. 
Then  there  is  the  Latin  dative  mihi  against  the  Greek  e/W. 
It  is  possible  then  that  the  primitive  root  had  an  aspirated  letter, 
which  shews  itself  in  the  dialectical  forms  of  our  transcriber. 
Or  it  may  be  a  mere  vulgarism  of  the  province  where  he  was 
brought  up. 

6X/709  and  ySi'varo  are  more  obscure.  The  former  is  usually 
derived  from  a  primitive  root  lik,  and  Curtius  draws  an  analogy 
between  the  case  of  plo-yco  from  the  root  mik,  and  asks  whether 
it  is  possible  that  a  spirant  has  been  lost  from  the  middle  of  the 
word  and  compensated  for  by  a  rough  breathing.  In  the  ^Eolic 
dialect  the  word  was  accentuated  on  the  first  syllable,  which 
would  account  for  the  regression  of  the  spirant.  Nor  is  it  without 
importance  that  in  this  dialect  and  its  neighbour  the  Thessalian, 
the  form  oXtfo?  was  current,  which  is  the  more  curious  in  that 
the  ^Eolic  dialects  usually  replaced  the  f  by  <rS.  We  suspect 
then  that  the  form  of  our  MS.  is  an  Asian  dialect  form,  not  without 
connection  with  the  form  oXtgb?  (cf.  Ahrens,  De  Gr.  Ling.  Dial.  i. 

10* 


140      SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES  OF  THE  BEZA  GREEK. 

219).  But  we  must  be  careful  again  in  identifying  this  form  with 
the  dialect  of  our  scribe ;  it  recurs  in  other  early  MSS.,  e.g.  in 
Acts  xix.  23  in  KB,  and  it  may  be  the  primitive  form  for  the  Acts. 
For  the  other  word  ySvvaro  I  can  give  no  reason. 

So  much  for  the  eccentrically  aspirated  forms1.  As  to  the  unas- 
pirated  cases,  they  can  probably  be  put  in  a  satisfactory  light.  The 
most  curious  is  the  very  decided  case  /caregrjs.  Curtius  (p.  192) 
equates  this  with  ef  e^5  and  takes  it  to  the  same  root  as  e^co.  We 
may  regard  it  as  certain  that  in  the  district  represented  by  our 
writer  the  word  was  pronounced  without  a  breathing,  which  almost 
implies  that  €%o>  itself  had  the  lenis  (e#o>).  In  any  case  the 
scribe  is  quite  decided  as  to  the  form,  as  he  is  also  with  regard  to 

€Vpl<TKCi). 

We  may  say  then  that  the  group  of  words  shewing  eccentric 
aspiration  in  Codex  Bezae  constitutes  a  series  of  dialectical 
peculiarities  which  ought  to  enable  us  to  identify  the  nationality 
of  the  writer.  Let  us  examine  into  some  more  of  his  peculiarities. 
A  very  interesting  case  is  his  spelling  of  the  word  ^TWZ/. 

Matt.  x.  10, 

MHTe  Ayo  xei6coN<\c  MHTE  YTTOAHMATA. 
Luke  iii.  11, 

Aepei  AYTOIC  o  GXCON  Ayo  X'TCONAC. 

Everywhere  else  we  have  the  usual  form.  Now,  from  the 
second  of  these  instances  we  can  see  that  the  scribe  of  D  has 
corrected  his  copy :  he  not  merely  has  T  for  0,  but  he  emphasises 
it  by  putting  in  a  smooth  breathing  over  the  vowel.  We  may 
be  sure  then  that  he  read  yiQwvas  and,  taking  this  with  the  first 
case,  we  have  clearly  the  form  ^idwv  for  the  original  translator. 
This  might  be  due  to  the  influence  of  the  original  Semitic  form, 
but  when  we  find  that  the  Ionic  form  is  icidwv,  we  shall  probably 
be  able  to  divine  what  was  meant  by  the  scribe  of  the  Codex 
Bezae.  He  has  given  us  an  Asian  dialectical  form.  Indeed  the 
difference  between  the  Bezan  uncorrected  form  XL^^V>  an^  the 
Ionic  /cMv  is  not  so  great  as  might  be  supposed ;  for  the  Ionic 

1  The  study  of  these  mutations  of  the  breathings  is  not  without  effect  on  the 
text  of  the  N.  T. :  for  instance,  it  is  quite  within  the  bounds  of  possibility  that 
has  been  written  rrxyCjv  in  Matt.  xi.  19,  and  hence  corrected  to 


SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   BEZA   GREEK.       141 

and  some  other  Asiatic  dialects  retained  an  explosive  element 
in  the  pronunciation  of  the  aspirates  ;  and  we  see  this  constantly 
in  the  transliterations  made  by  our  scribe:  e.g.  in  Betsaida  for 
iSa',  and  the  apparent  metathesis  of  the  breathing  from 
to  KiQwv  occurs  often  in  our  text,  as  in  Acts  xvi.  16,  where 
we  have  irvOwva  represented  by  phytonem  ;  and  Acts  xvi.  11, 
samotrachiam  for  o-afjLoOpd/crjv;  cf.  also  Mark  vii.  9,  aTeOetre  for 


Let  us  examine  more  closely  this  question  of  the  explo 
sive  element  in  the  pronunciation  of  the  aspirates.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  by  Mullach1  that  this  substitution  of  K  for  ^  exists 
even  in  modern  times,  especially  in  the  dialect  of  Rhodes  ;  where 
we  find  €K(D,  o-To/mfo/iat,  reKvirr)^  ;  reXa)  is  found  for  #eXa>  amongst 
certain  Asiatic  Greeks2,  and  very  commonly  the  vulgar  speech  puts 
err  in  the  place  of  &6\  as  eyvcopicrTrjv,  ypa(f>6/j,aa-Te.  This  last  error 
is  very  common  in  Cod.  Bezae,  since  we  find  in  Mark  iv.  1, 
Kadrja-rai  for  Ka6r}crOaiy  where  the  word  cannot  be  an  indicative 
since  it  answers  to  the  Latin  seder  e.  In  Acts  xix.  25  we  find 
€7ria-Tacrrai  for  eV«rroo-0e.  Now,  it  is  concerning  such  forms  as 
these  that  Curtius  wrote  (Gr.  Etym.  p.  418)  as  follows:  "as  early 
as  in  my  review  of  Mullach  (Zeitschr.  vi.  236)  I  argued  that  this 
circumstance  was  only  to  be  explained  from  a  pronunciation 
of  6  in  which  a  hard  explosive  element  was  heard."  And  this 
explanation  is  probably  correct  ;  Arendt's  objection  that,  upon 
this  hypothesis,  the  forms  ^0,  <f>0  would  be  unpronounceable 
falls  to  the  ground  when  it  is  shewn  from  our  MS.  that  such  sounds 
were  not  pronounced.  Thus  we  find,  Mark  ii.  2,  crvvrjicd^a-av'. 
Mark  vii.  34,  SiavvicOrjTi  :  and  the  form  €/c0po<;  occurs  in  Matt. 
x.  36  ;  xiii.  35  ;  xxii.  44  ;  Luke  i.  74  ;  Acts  ii.  35  ;  xiii.  10  :  so 
that  this  must  have  been  the  regular  form  of  our  primitive  scribe, 
and  it  is  owing  to  correction  of  his  spelling  that  we  get  such 
forms  as  Mark  xii.  36,  €Kj(0ovs  (for  iic0povs)*. 

1  Grammatik  der  griechischen  Vulgar  sprachen,  Berlin,  1856. 

2  Will  this  help  us  to  explain  how  our  scribe  in  Matt.  xi.  19  came  to  write 


s  Cf.  Karsten,  De  Titulorum  lonicorum  Dialecto  Commentatio,  p.  13,  "antiquis- 
simis  temporibus  iis  locis,  qnibus  litera  aspirata  non  genuina  erat,  sed  ex  literis  t  et 
b,  p  eth,  k  et  h  oritur,  i.e.  in  elisione  earn  ob  causam  omissam  esse,  quod  assimilatio 
literarum  tenuium  ad  sequentem  spiritum  asperum  nondum  facta  erat,  sed  uterque 


142       SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   BEZA   GREEK. 

The  same  phonetic  explanation  furnishes  us  with  the  reason 
for  the  transcription  of  certain  proper  names ;  thus  we  find 
fiaOOaios  constantly  as  against  the  Latin  matthaeus,  shewing  that 
the  first  0  was  sounded  nearly  as  r.  Cf.  aafyfyvpa  =  sapphira  in 
Acts  v.  1. 

We  may  say  then  that  the  Greek  dialect  of  the  original  scribe 
of  the  bilingual  tradition  (and  perhaps  this  means  to  a  certain 
extent  his  successors  the  later  copyists)  was  marked  by  an  early 
pronunciation  of  the  aspirated  sounds  such  as  probably  prevailed 
amongst  the  Asiatic  Greeks  and  in  some  of  the  islands  near  the 
coast  of  Asia  Minor.  It  is  necessary  to  bear  this  peculiarity 
carefully  in  mind,  or  we  may  be  in  danger,  as  we  have  shewn  in 
similar  cases,  of  referring  important  and  characteristic  forms  to 
mere  scribal  errors  instead  of  to  nationality. 

Further,  when  we  find,  for  instance,  in  Mark  vi.  21,  the  form 
yeve'xXLois  we  are  not  to  dismiss  it  as  the  absurd  mistake  of  a  half- 
educated  person.  There  are  similar  changes  in  early  and  modern 
Greek  dialects.  And  we  must  ask  ourselves  the  question  as  to  what 
Greek  dialects,  early  or  late,  exhibit  the  change  of  0  into  ^.  Curtius 
draws  attention  to  the  occurrence  of  the  Doric  forms  o/m-%  by 
the  side  of  the  ordinary  Greek  opvi-0,  and  the  shorter  .form  opvi-, 
as  seen  in  the  accusative  form  opviv.  The  suggestion  is  the 
more  appropriate  to  our  case  inasmuch  as  our  MS.  actually  gives 
the  very  form  opvil*  in  Luke  xiii.  34 \  Moreover  this  form,  occur 
ring  as  it  does  in  the  spontaneous  variations  of  the  scribe,  is  not 
likely  to  be  other  than  a  genuine  dialectical  form.  I  mean  that 
Buttmann's  objection  to  it  as  being  a  mere  grammatical  refinement 
is  probably  wrongly  taken.  His  criticism  was  based  upon  the 
fact  that  the  literary  Doric  of  Pindar  and  Alkman  shews  0/01^09, 
,  etc.,  but  opvis  and  opviv  \  But  the  evidence  of  Photius 
opviff  nrap  'AX/e/zaz/t  Se  aira%  opvis)  would  seem  to  shew 
that  the  form  is  genuine. 

Now  this  form  is  set  down  as  a  Dorism  3 :   and  if  the  gramma- 

sonus  disiunctim  pronuntiabatur.  Hanc  autem  legem  non  solum  apud  lonas  et 
Aeolas  a  quibus  haec  sonorum  disiunctio  diutissime  servata  videtur  esse,  sed  etiam 
apud  reliquos  Graecos  antiquiorum  temporum  quondam  valuisse." 

1  It  appears  also  probably  as  a  Western  reading  in  the  Sinaitic  Codex. 

2  Ahrens,  n.  243. 

3  Ahrens  quotes  a  similar  change  of  irXifaw  for  7r\iJ0w  from  Cramer,  Anecd.  Oxon. 


SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES   OF    THE   BEZA    GREEK.      143 

rians  and  philologians  are  right  in  recognizing  it  as  such,  it  is 
probable  that  our  form  <y€V6x\loi<;  belongs  to  the  same  school, 
which  gives  us  two  possible  cases  of  Dorism  in  Codex  Bezae. 
The  Dorian  Dialect  held  its  own  against  the  common  speech  in 
many  of  the  Greek  islands  and  in  outlying  parts  of  the  Roman 
empire.  For  example,  Suetonius  observes  that  they  spoke  Doric 
in  the  island  of  Rhodes  down  to  the  time  of  Tiberius.  And  even 
where  the  set  speech  disappeared,  the  traces  of  it  were  never 
wholly  lost. 

But  as  to  the  explanation  of  the  form  in  question  we  are 
left  in  obscurity.  Curtius  thinks  that  the  ^  of  opvL^-  is  the 
mark  of  a  diminutive  suffix,  and  compares  the  "  ^  with  the  often 
recurring  diminutive  /c,  and  the  6  with  the  t  that  serves  the  same 
purpose  in  the  related  languages."  This  diminutive  idea  is  not 
altogether  foreign  to  such  forms  as  ^eve6\ov  from  76^09. 

A  further  peculiarity  of  our  writer's  dialect  is  a  weakness 
and  shifting  of  the  liquids.  In  this  respect  his  speech  was 
marked  by  a  feature  something  like  that  of  the  Romance 
languages  where,  in  final  syllables,  r  I  n  are  extremely  mutable  : 
e.g.  the  Spanish  hombre  =  hominem  :  the  French  timbre  =  tympa 
num  and  perhaps  tresor  for  tensaurus1.  The  Codex  Bezae  shews 
one  curious  substitution  of  epxoprcu  for  epxovrat,  Mark  xvi.  2. 
More  common  still  is  its  change  of  X  and  v.  Thus  we  have, 
Luke  xii.  35,  ol  Xv^Xot  ;  John  v.  35,  o  \v~x\ov  ex  errore  for  6 
Xir^Xo?;  Luke  xii.  55,  Trveovra  is  changed  to  7r\eovra.  These 
are  not  mere  barbarisms  :  the  occurrence  of  the  phenomenon  twice 
shews  that  Xi^Xo?  is  the  scribe's  dialectical  form  :  the  other  case 
we  should  dismiss  if  it  were  not  for  the  precisely  similar  case  of 
the  Greek  TrXev/jLwv  as  a  variation  of  TrvevpcDv,  along  with  the 
Latin  pulmo  (for  pulmori).  The  two  words  evidently  belong  to 
the  same  classification.  Pauli's  explanation  that  nrvev^wv  is  the 
later  form,  arrived  at  by  an  attempt  to  bring  the  word  into 
harmony  with  7ri>e&>,  breaks  down  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
MS.  shews  TTvea)  changed  to  TrXew.  Yet  the  antiquity  of  the  form 
would  seem  to  be  shewn  by  the  Latin.  We  shall  at  all 


i.  149.  6,  as  an  holism,  observing  however  that  the  regular  form  TrXi^otcra  is  found 
in  Sappho. 

1  See  Curtius,  Griech.  Etym.  p.  444. 


144       SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES   OF  THE   BEZA  GREEK. 

events  say  that  7rXeo>  is  an  early  collateral  form  of  Trvew,  preserved 
for  us  through  the  Latin  pulmon  and  through  the  vocabulary  of  the 
Greek  who  wrote  the  Beza  MS.1  The  genuineness  of  the  form 
Xt^Xo?  is,  I  think,  also  capable  of  demonstration,  however  eccentric 
it  may  seem  at  first  sight.  A  similar  change  of  sounds  may  be 
noted  in  Luke  i.  15  (peyap  evwriov  rov  tcv),  with  which  note  that 
Curtius,  Gr.  Etym.  329,  says  that  peyaipco  is  "  from  a  stem  with  p 
instead  of  the  X  appearing  in  peyaXo*" 

No  doubt  many  other  forms  in  our  Greek  text  are  capable  of  a 
similar  dialectical  elucidation.  For  instance,  the  form  Trav&otcci 
in  Luke  x.  35  is  in  harmony  with  the  Ionic  spelling  of  the  verb 
8e/copai  (as  for  instance  in  Herodotus),  and  with  the  proper  name 
of  a  Trojan  HdvSoicos  mentioned  in  Iliad  XL  4903.  The  same 
spelling  turns  up  in  ^Eolic  Greek,  as  in  Sappho  I.  22,  where  Ahrens 
observes  that  it  is  not  a  peculiarity  confined  to  that  dialect. 
Moreover  it  occurs  commonly  in  Doric,  as  upon  the  Heraclean 
Tables  I.  57,  and  in  Pindar4.  We  need  not  then  be  surprised  at  its 
occurrence  in  our  MS. 

Again,  we  find  in  our  text  twice  the  form  paa-Oo?  (Luke  xi.  27, 
xxiii.  29).  The  origin  of  this  form  seems  to  be  as  follows :  both 
the  ^Eolic  and  Doric  dialects  replace  the  f  of  the  primitive  form 
/Ltafo9  by  o-S.  And  there  is  some  grammatical  authority  for  be 
lieving  that  the  Dorians  changed  their  //.oo-So?  into  paa-Bos. 
Accordingly  Ahrens  (n.  84)  quotes,  though  without  committing 
himself  on  the  point,  the  following  from  Eustathius:  'HpatcXeCSris... 
\eyet  OTL  KOI  TOV  fJM<rSov  OVTCO  fjuaadov  \eyov<nv  ol  Aw/otet?  ical  TO 
A/reOSo?  Se,  (fyrja-iv,  apavres  TO  €  ^v6o^  <t>ao~L  The  authority  of 
grammarians,  without  some  support  from  philological  or  epigraphic 
considerations,  is  uncertain  enough.  But  the  suggestion  as  to  the 
existence  of  the  Dorism  is  worth  examination.  Other  forms  will 

1  Cf.  the  Latin  flare  and  the  English  blow.    We  shall  shew  later  on  that  the 
same  form  underlies  the  corrupt  Western  text  of  Acts  xxvii.  15. 

2  From  p.  547  it  appears  that  he  is  quoting  Buttmann,  Lexilogus,  I.  259. 
8  Vanicek,  p.  334. 

4  Lindemann,  De  Dialecto  lonica  recentiore,  p.  73,  shews  the  persistence  of  these 
forms  in  the  Asiatic  Greek.  "lones  in  nonnullis  vocabulis  tenues  servamnt,  velut 
in  StKOfjuu  a&m.  In  libellis  Luciani  mira  Codicum  constantia  non  leguntur  formae 
nisi  lonicae  teKOfj.au  et  aim;,  uno  excepto  loco  libri  de  astrologia."  He  gives  a 
number  of  similar  cases  from  the  later  literature  (Arrian  Ac.). 


SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES  OF  THE   BEZA   GREEK.      145 

suggest  themselves  in  this  connexion :  080709  and  oSayeco  occur  in 
Matt.  xv.  14  and  Luke  vi.  39  \ 

In  Luke  x.  31  we  have  Kara  rv)(a  (for  rv)(av)  where  we  should 
expect  rvxyv.  This  is  a  characteristic  of  the  ^Eolic  and  Doric 
dialects. 

In  Acts  viii.  21  we  have  aveBpatyaro  implying  the  form  Tpd<f>a), 
which,  like  TpaTrco,  rdpva),  characterizes  the  Doric  and  Ionic 
dialects ;  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  may  be  the  primitive  form 2. 

In  Luke  xx.  42  we  have 

ev  rrj  j3vj3\Q)  T&V 
and  Matt.  xii.  26, 

ev  rrj  ftv/3\G) 

We  may  infer  that  the  scribe  preferred  the  spelling  y8vyS\o<?  if 
not  pvj3\iov.  It  is  a  question  whether  he  is  Ionizing  or  not. 
According  to  Smyth3 

"Herodotus  has  /3u£\o9,  fivftXivos,  @vj3\lov.  A  complete 
mustering  of  these  words  in  Stein's  edition  shews  that  the  chief 
support  of  the  forms  with  i  is  derived  from  MSS.  P,  R,  while  in  one- 
seventh  of  all  passages  there  is  no  variant... The  variants  in  favour 
of  i  are  due  to  the  scribes  rather  than  to  the  influence  of  such 
actual  forms  in  i  as  we  find  as  early  as  400  B.C.  in  Attic.  The 
forms  in  i  continue  in  Attic  inscription  until  the  second  century 
B.C.,  after  which  @v/3\iov  is  the  normal  form." 

The  evidence,  then,  is  hardly  sufficient  to  demonstrate,  while  it 
may  suggest,  lonism ;  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  our  scribe's  dialect 
shews  the  form  /3u/3Xo9  only  and  not  j3v/3\lov,  the  reason  being 
that  in  the  latter  case  the  change  in  the  accent  gives  the  advantage 
to  the  i  vowel  and  accelerates  the  change  of  the  v  by  assimilating 
it  to  the  accented  syllable.  This  makes  us  believe  the  scribe's 
forms  to  be  dialectical  rather  than  literary4. 

1  There  is  a  trace  of  this  form  also  in  the  Vatican  MS. 

2  A  pretty  case  of  dialectical  variation,  which  I  am  unable  to  localize  further 
than  to  say  that  it  has  an  Asiatic  look,  is  j/T/ao-os  of  Acts  xiii.  6.    Taken  along  with 
the  Ionic  vijaaa  (duck),  we  ought  to  be  able  to  decide  that  the  idea  in  both  words  is 
that  of  swimming. 

8  Vowel  System  of  the  Ionic  Dialect,  p.  35  in  Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Ass.  1889. 
4  Cf.  Birt,  Da«  antike  Buchwesen,  p.  13  note. 

C.  B.  10 


146       SOME   PHONETIC   PECULIARITIES   OF   THE   BEZA   GREEK. 

A  curious  feature  of  the  Ionic  dialect  is  its  exchange  of  e  for  a 
in  certain  verb-forms,  such  as  ope&>,  roX//,e&>,  olSeco  etc.1 

And  the  same  feature  is  to  be  found  in  the  Codex  Bezae, 
where  we  have  epwreto  (Matt.  xv.  23  rfpcorovv)',  e/jL/Spi/jiea)  (John  xi. 
33  efjLJ3pt,fjLov/ji,evo<;)\  KarayeXea)  (Luke  viii.  53  KaT€ye\ovv)', 
(Acts  xii.  6  Koifjiovfievos) ;  reXevreo)  (Mark  vii.  10 
These  forms  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  accidental,  and  if  not  acci 
dental,  then  they  are  dialectically  significant. 

For  Ovpovpos  and  one  or  two  similar  forms  I  am  unable  to  give 
an  explanation. 

Reviewing  the  cases  which  we  have  brought  forward,  we  find 
many  traces  of  lonism,  and  a  few  Dorisms :  if  we  could  neglect 
the  Dorisms  we  should  probably  say  that  the  conditions  were 
satisfied  by  an  Asiatic  dialect  somewhere  north  of  Smyrna ;  and  if 
the  lonisms  could  be  neglected  we  should  probably  refer  to  that 
last  stronghold  of  Dorism,  the  island  of  Rhodes. 

Now,  when  we  take  the  two  together  may  we  not  say  that, 
since  the  name  of  the  Rhone  and  of  certain  cities  in  the  Rhone 
Valley  indicate  an  original  Rhodian  migration2,  and  since  the 
history  of  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienne  shews  that  there 
was  also  a  later  Ionic  migration,  all  the  conditions  for  the 
production  of  such  a  dialect  as  we  find  in  Codex  Bezae  are  met  by 
the  hypothesis  of  a  Greek  scribe  writing  in  some  one  of  the 
churches  or  monasteries  in  that  part  of  France :  always  beaiing  in 
mind  that  there  will  be  residual  peculiarities  which  are  to  be 
traced  to  the  primitive  hands  that  laboured  on  the  autographs  of 
the  New  Testament  books3  ? 

We  see  nothing,  then,  in  the  Greek  text  that  militates  against 
the  theory  that  we  have  so  strongly  supported  from  the  Latin ; 
viz.  that  Codex  Bezae  is  a  Gallican  bilingual  of  the  sixth  century. 

1  See  Smyth,  p.  21. 

2  Cf.  Jerome,  in  Galat.  lib.  ii.  "Massiliam  Phocaei  condiderunt,  quos  ait  Varro 
trilingues  esse,  quod  et  Graece  loquuntur  et  Latine  et  Gallice.     Oppidum  llhoda 
coloni  Ehodiorum  locaverunt,  unde  amnis  Bhodanus  nomen  accepit." 

3  We  ought  not  to  omit  a  reference  to  one  other  lonism  of  our  text ;  the  pluperfect 
formations  without  the  augment  are  very  common.      Scrivener  points  out  seven 
such  cases :  and  these  are  quite  sufficient  to  indicate  a  characteristic  of  the  tran 
scriber's  dialect,  especially  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  they  occur  all  through  the 
MS.  from  Matthew  to  Acts,  and  not  in  any  special  section  of  it. 


SOME    PHONETIC    PECULIARITIES    OF   THE    BEZA   GREEK.       147 

3.     Decay  of  the  Greek  prepositions. 

There  are  a  few  residual  forms  in  the  Greek  which  need  a 
word  or  two  of  explanation.  We  must  expect  an  occasional  streak 
of  Latin  influence  ;  indeed  this  has  already  been  alluded  to.  Such 
cases  are  Xeirpuxros,  (^Xo/yeXXetxra?  etc.  Probably  to  the  same 
influence  is  due  the  exchange  of  the  x  sound  for  s  in  aKcoXrj^, 
which  we  find  in  Mark  ix.  48.  The  typical  change  of  this  kind  is 
senes  for  senex  ;  which  is  one  of  Dr  Hamann's  test  cases  for  Italian 
forms.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  geographical  limits  can  be 
so  sharply  drawn. 

Besides  these  occasional  forms  we  have  to  notice  that  the 
Greek  prepositions  are  already  in  a  state  of  decay  :  we  find  /-te  for 
fjiera,  /ca  for  Kara,  and  a  for  ava.  The  following  are  some  of  the 
instances  : 


Luke  xv.  30.     Ka(f>ayovTi  for 

Mark  v.  27.     irt  rov  tyv  for  ntpi  rov  irjo-ov. 

Mark  x.  1.     KOI  fKciOev  do-ras  for  KOI  (K€idev  dvatrras. 

Luke  iv.  17.     drrrvgas  for  dvanrv£as. 

Acts  V.  39.      ov  Svvr)(rc<r6ai  KoXwai  avrovs  for  KaraXvaai  CIVTOVS. 

Perhaps 
Luke  xxiii.  43.     ro>  cTrXrja-ovri  for  (TriTrXrjo-vovri 

should  be  referred  to  a  similar  decline  of  the  language. 

It  will  be  said  that  these  are  accidents  ;  I  think  not  ;  we  find 
similar  traces  of  linguistic  change  elsewhere  ;  for  instance,  the  text 
of  Hernias  in  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  is  not  free  from  them. 

4.     Supposed  Alexandrian  forms. 

Concerning  the  supposed  Alexandrianism  of  such  forms  as 
e%r)\6o<rav  (Mark  viii.  11),  elSoo-av  (Mark  ix.  9),  rj\0oa-av  (Mark  ix. 
33)  I  have  no  information  to  add  to  the  well-known  fact  that 
similar  forms  occur  in  the  Septuagint., 


10—2 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
THE  CODEX  BEZAE  A  MONTANIST  MANUSCRIPT. 

WE  shall  now  endeavour  to  shew  that  the  ancestry  of  the 
Codex  Bezae  has  passed  in  its  earliest  stages  through  Montanist 
hands. 

The  first  point  to  which  we  desire  to  draw  attention  relates  to 
the  line-division  of  the  Codex  :  it  is  recognized  that  the  Codex 
Bezae  has  been  copied  from  a  MS.  similarly  divided  to  itself  with 
respect  to  the  lines ;  which  is  much  the  same  thing  as  saying  that 
the  line-division  is  ancient.  Indeed  it  was  natural  that  such  a 
system  of  division  should  spring  up  in  connexion  with  bilingual 
codices. 

Now  turn  to  Luke  xiii.  29,  30, 

K&l    HlOYCIN    ATTO    ANATOACON    KAI    AyCM60N 
KAI    BOppA    KAI    NOTOY    KAI    ANAKAei6HCONTAI 

EN  TH  BACiAeiA  TOY  ^Y  KAI  €IA°Y  eiciN 
ecxATOi  01  ecoNTAi  npcoToi  KAI  eiciN 
npanroi  01  ecoNTAi  ecxATOi 

ET  VENIENT  AB   ORIENTE   ET   OCCIDENTEM 
ET  AB   AQVILONE   ET  AVSTRO   ET   RECVMBENT 
IN   REGNO   DEI   ET   ECCE  SVNT 
NOVISSIMI   QVI   ERVNT   PRIMI   ET   SVNT 
PRIMI   QVI   ERVNT   NOVISSIMI 

The  point  to  be  noticed  is  the  way  in  which  the  words  ical  i&ov 
ela-iv  =  ET  ECCE  SVNT  have  attached  themselves  to  the  third  line. 
We  shall  now  shew  reason  to  believe  that  they  have  this  position 
by  a  long  inheritance. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  Acts  of  Perpetua  and  Felicitas  (c.  xi.), 
where,  in  the  vision  of  Saturus  we  find  a  description  of  the 
rapture  of  the  Martyrs  under  the  care  of  four  angels  to  the  gates 


THE   CODEX    BEZAE    A    MONTANIST   MS.  149 

of  Paradise,  where  they  were  received  and  welcomed  by  four  other 
angels.  Now,  the  angels  who  bear  them  on  their  way  are,  I  think, 
derived  from  the  Gospel,  "He  shall  send  forth  his  angels...  and 
they  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds  "  1  ;  hence 
these  angels  are  four  in  number  :  they  are  the  angels  of  the  four 
winds. 

But  according  to  the  passage  quoted  from  Luke,  the  elect  do 
indeed  come  from  the  four  winds,  but  the  description  is  worded 
so  as  to  end  a  clause  with  the  words  KCU  ISov  el&tv.  Accordingly 
we  find  in  the  Acta  Perpetuae  the  following  sentence,  "  et  dixerunt 
(sc.  alii  quatuor  angeli)  ceteris  angelis  :  Ecce  sunt,  ecce  sunt  :  cum 
admiratione."  This  passage  has,  hitherto,  been  unexplained  :  but 
in  the  light  of  the  text  as  arranged  in  Codex  Bezae,  we  begin  to 
see  what  it  means  :  it  is  an  early  commentary  upon  a  badly 
divided  text. 

Here  then  we  have  our  first  suggestion  that  the  Codex  Bezae 
has  as  regards  its  ancestry  passed  through  Montanist  hands  ;  we 
find  a  similarly  divided  text  in  the  hands  of  the  martyrs  of  Carthage. 
Let  us  follow  the  matter  a  little  further  and  see  whether  there  is 
anything  in  the  actual  text  to  confirm  this  opinion.  We  naturally 
look  for  such  points  as  (i)  the  manipulation  of  favourite  passages  : 
(ii)  the  insertion  of  glosses  which  carry  some  special  mode  of 
interpretation;  and,  in  particular,  we  should  look  for  light  on 
the  work  of  the  Spirit,  and  on  the  communication  and  interpre 
tation  of  visions. 

Under  the  heading  of  favourite  texts,  we  draw  attention  to  the 
singular  coincidence  between  the  reading  of  our  MS.  in  Acts  ii.  17, 

KAI    TTp04>HTeyCOYCIN    Ol    Y'OI    <\YTO)N 

KAI  eynvrepec 


ET   PROPHETABVNT   FILI   EORVM 
ET   FILIAS   EORVM, 

and  the  Latin  of  the  Acta  Perpetuae  (c.  i.) 

et  prophetabunt  filii  filiaeque  eorum. 

(The  Greek  text  of  the  Acta  has  corrected  the  textual  aberration.) 
The  same  reading  that  we  have  observed  in  Codex  Bezae  is  found 
in  Tertullian  (adv.  Marc.  V.  8)  and  elsewhere. 

1  Matt.  xxiv.  31. 


1.50  THE   CODEX    BEZAE   A   MONTANIST    MS. 

Is  it  unreasonable  to  suggest  that  the  change  to  fill  eorum 
has  been  made  by  some  one  who  was  interested  to  prove  \vhat 
we  know  Justin  to  have  affirmed,  that  the  gift  of  prophecy  had 
passed  over  from  the  Jewish  Church  to  the  Christian  ?  May  not 
such  a  change  be  Montanistic  ?  In  any  case,  note  the  striking 
coincidence  between  the  text  of  D  and  the  Carthaginian  text  of 
the  second  century. 

Again  ;  we  know  that  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  everywhere 
decorated  with  glosses,  so  that  we  might  almost  call  it  a  text  and 
a  commentary,  and  some  of  the  glosses  are  very  suggestive  and 
valuable.  Are  any  of  them  Montanist  ?  That  is  the  question.  Are 
there  any  glosses  that  refer  to  the  work  of  the  Paraclete,  and  to 
His  indwelling  ? 

In  Acts  vi.  10,  we  find 

OITINGC    OYK    ICXYON    ANTICTHN&I    TH    CO<J)I<\ 

TH    OyCH    €N    (\YTCO    K&l    TCO    TTNI    TCO    Af'^    <*>    eA<\Aei 


QVI   NON    POTEBANT   RESI8TERE   SAPIENTIAE 

QVAE   ERAT   IN   EO  ET    SPO    SANCTO   IN    QVO   LOQVEBATVR. 

Here  the  added  words  are  rf)  ovey  eV  auroS,  and  ru>  cvyiw  :  the 
wisdom  of  Stephen  was  an  indwelling  Wisdom  ;  the  spirit  which  he 
spake  by  was  the  Holy  Spirit.  "  Wisdom  in  all  ages  enters  into 
holy  souls  and  rnakes  them  friends  of  God  and  prophets." 

In  Acts  xv.  32  the  statement  that  Judas  and  Silas  were 
prophets  is  enlarged  on,  by  the  addition  that  this  was  because 
they  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit  : 


Ae  K<M  ceiA^c  KAI  AYTOI  npo<J>HT<\i 
ONTCC  nAnpeic  TTNC  AHOY 

IVDAS   QVOQVE   ET   SILAS   ETIAM   IPSI   PROPHETAE 
CVM   ESSENT   PLENI   SPO    SANCTO. 

In  Acts  xv.  29  the  Apostolic  injunction  to  Gentile  converts 
is  embellished  with  the  addition 


e  4>epoMGNoi 

6N    TCO    AflW    TTNI 


BENE   AGITIS  FERENTES 
IN   SANTO    SPO. 


THE  CODEX  BEZAE  A  MONTAN1ST  MS.          151 

In  Acts  xix.  2,  as  might  almost  have  been  expected,  special 
attention  has  been  paid  to  the  statement  about  the  Ephesians 
who  did  not  know  whether  there  was  a  Holy  Ghost;  and  they 
are  made  to  say  that  they  do  not  know  whether  any  people 
do  receive  Him. 

01  Ae  npoc  AYTON  &AA  oyAe  TTNA  AJ-ION  AAMBANOYCIN 

TIN6C    HKOyCAMCN, 

where  ouSe  stands  for  ouSe  el. 

Moreover  the  attention  of  the  reader  is  drawn  by  the  glossator, 
in  not  a  few  cases,  to  the  fact  that  the  holy  men  were  moved 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  :  thus,  instead  of  saying  in  Acts  xx.  3  that 
Paul  was  minded  to  return  through  Macedonia,  the  writer  of  the 
Western  text  tells  us 

eineN  Ae  TO  TTNA  Ayro)  ynocrpe^eiN 

AlA   THC   MAKCAONIAC. 

In  Acts  xix.  1  a  whole  sentence  is  prefixed  to  shew  that  Paul 
came  to  Ephesus  under  the  special  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit  : 
he  had  been  intending  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  but,  as  in  so  many 
other  cases,  the  Spirit  suffered  him  not  : 

eeAoNTOC  Ae  TOY  n&yAoy 

KATA   THN    lAlAN    BoyAHN 

TTOpeyecGAi  eic  iepocoAyM<\ 

eineN  &YTCO  TO  TTNA  ynocTpec^eiN  eic  THN  ACIAN. 

Probably   it   is   to   the   same   hand   that   we   owe   the   addition 
&ia  TTvev/jLaro?  aylov  in  Acts  iv.  25. 

Just  as  the  commentator  has  shewn  that  the  true  prophet  is 
possessed  by  the  indwelling  good  Spirit,  so  he  enlarges  on  the 
opposite  kind  of  possession.  The  girl  with  a  spirit  of  Python 
practises  divination  through  this  spirit  ; 


MANT6YOM6NH, 

where  the  words  8ia  TOVTOV  are  an  addition. 

Now  let  us  come  to  the  question  of  visions. 
In  Acts  xvi.  10,  where  Paul  sees  the  man  of  Macedonia,  the 
translator  adds  the  explanation 

1  1 


Io2  THE   CODEX    13EXAE   A   MONTAN1ST   MS. 


oyN  AIHTHCATO  TO  OP&MA  HMIN 

KAI    6NOHC<\M€N 

EXVRGENS   ERGO   ENARRAVIT   VISVM   NOBIS 
ET   INTELLEGIMVS... 

Now  compare  with  this  the   Montanist  visions   in  the  Acta 
Perpetuae  :  Perpetua's  vision  (c.  iv.)  concludes  with  the  words 

et  rctuli  statim  fratri  meo  et  intellexinms  passionem  csse  futuram  =  *a 
tvtifcos  diTjyrja-dfjLTjv  TO)  ddtXcpa)  KOI  fvoijvapcv  on  8eoi  naOflv  KTC. 

Again,  in  c.  viii.  the  visions  concerning  Dinocrates  end  with 
the  same  terms 


nai  €v6r)<ra  on  /zfrere'^  c/c  rail/  ri/zG>piwi>=timc  intellexi  translatum  eum  ease 
de  poena. 

So  in  c.  x.  (Vision  of  the  Wrestling-  Match)  we  end  with 
et  experrecta  sum  :  et  intellexi,  etc.  =  Kal  cgvirvi<r6r)v  '  KOI  (vorjo-a  KTC. 
It  seems  then  that  there  is  a  close  parallel  in  manner  between 
Perpetua's  account   of  her   visions   and    the   interpolating   hand 
in  the  Pauline  vision. 

One  other  parallel  to  the  Martyrdom  shall  be  given  from  the 
glosses  of  the  Acts.  In  Acts  iv.  24,  when  the  apostles  return  from 
the  Sanhedrin,  the  interpolator  tells  us  that  the  Church  recognized 
the  operation  of  a  Divine  Energy  in  what  had  occurred  : 

01  Ae  AKoycANTec  KAI  enifNONTec  THN  roy  6y  eNeppeiA 

AD   ILLI   CVM   AVDISSENT   ET   COGNOVISSENT   DI   VIRTVTE. 

Compare  with  this  the  effect  which  the  prison-life  of  the 
Martyrs  of  Carthage  produced  upon  their  keepers;  it  runs  in 
Latin  as  follows  : 

c.  ix.  Deindc  post  dies  paucos  Pudens,  miles  optio,  praepositus  carceris, 
qui  nos  magni  facere  coepit,  intelligent  magnam  mrtutem  [Dei]  esse  in  nobis. 

The  Greek  is  as  follows  : 

KOI  fter'  oXiyas  ijpcpas  Tlovdrjs  ns  (rrpaTiuTTjs  6  rfjs  (frvXaKrjs  Trpotora/if  vos  /u«ra 
(Tirovdfis  fjp£aro  r^as  ri^av  Kcii  do^dfciv  TOV  6cov  fwowv  dvvaptv  p.eyd\nv 
€ivat  TTfpi  i)/zar. 

Now  I  think  it  will  be  admitted  that  this  passage  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Martyrdom  is  decidedly  Montanistic;  that  it  was  so  felt 
and  understood  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  the  Greek  text 


THE   CODEX    BEZAE   A   MONTANIST   MS.  153 


has  been  slightly  reformed,  as  by  reading  Trepl  rjpas  for  ev 

and  by  the  addition  of  rov  Oeov.     But  the  idea  of  the  indwelling 

energy  is  Montanistic. 

The  conclusion  which  we  draw  from  the  series  of  coincidences  * 
here  described  is  that  the  Western  text  of  Luke  and  the  Acts  j 
is  a  Montanist  text,  earlier  in  date  than  the  time  of  Perpetua, 
and  that  it  was  a  familiar  subject  of  study  amongst  the  Cartha 
ginian  Martyrs.     Whether  this  implies  a  local  origin  for  the  text 
must  not  be  hastily  decided  ;  for  it  is  probable  that  all  the  three 
Churches,  Rome,  Carthage  and  Lyons,  Montanized  in  the  second 
century. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

FURTHER  PROOFS  IN  THE  TEXTUAL  INTERPOLATIONS  OF  THE 
THEORY  OF  LATINIZATION  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT  IN  THE 
ACTS. 

WE  have  shewn  reason  to  believe  that  the  Codex  Bezae  is 
a  Montanist  MS.,  basing  our  conclusion  upon  observed  phenomena 
in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But 
now  let  us  see  whether  these  interpolations  were  first  made 
on  the  Greek  or  the  Latin  side  of  the  text.  Happily  the  very 
first  case  that  presents  itself  in  the  Acts  is  a  crucial  instance. 
In  order  to  elucidate  it  we  will  transcribe  Acts  i.  2,  in  the  Greek 
and  Latin  : 

<\Xpi  HC  H/v\ep<\c 

<\N6AHM<J>6H    6NTeiA(\M6NOC    TOIC    ATTOCTOAOIC 

AIA  TTNC  <\noy  oyc  e5eAe2<\TO  [KAI  eKeAeyce 
KHpycceiN  TO  eyArreAioN] 

where  we  have  bracketed  the  words  which  constitute  the  gloss. 
The  Latin  is 

VSQVE   IN   EVM   DIEM 

QVEM  SVSCEPTVS  EST  QVO  PRAECEPIT  APOSTOLIS 
PER  SPM  SANCTVM  QVOS  ELEGIT  [ET  PRAECEPIT 
PRAEDICARE  EVANGELIVM]. 

Now,  in  order  to  clear  up  some  of  the  confusion,  observe  that 
quo  in  the  second  line  of  the  Latin  is  merely  a  wrongly  inserted 
correction  for  the  erroneous  quern  at  the  beginning  of  the  line. 
Probably  a  conjunction  has  been  displaced  by  the  quo  (?  et). 

In  the  next  place  observe  that  the  commentator,  in  order 
to  make  clear  what  it  was  which  our  Lord  enjoined  upon  His 
disciples,  adds  the  words 

et  praecepit  praedicare  euangelium. 


LATINISM   OF  THE   INTERPOLATIONS.  155 

Obviously  this  gloss  was  in  Latin,  praecepit  occurring  in  the 
text  as  the  word  to  be  explained,  and  appearing  again  in  the 
commentary.  The  Greek  then  has  taken  the  Latin  back  by 
a  new  translation  without  any  regard  to  the  equivalence  between 
the  first  praecepit  and  the  Greek  verb  eWeXXo^at. 

But  if  this  was  a  Latin  gloss,  we  shall  only  find  it  in  Latin 
copies,  or  in  those  Greek  copies  whose  ancestry  passes  through  the 
first  form  of  Codex  Bezae. 

Now,  the  addition  is  found  either  wholly  or  in  part  in 
Augustine,  in  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  in  the  Sahidic  Version  and  in 
the  Luxeuil  Lectionary :  i.e.  we  have  a  Gallican  Lectionary  of 
the  earliest  period,  an  Egyptian  Version,  and  two  African  fathers 
of  the  fifth  century.  It  must  be  owned  that  this  is  very  in 
structive  ;  we  are  not  surprised  at  the  conduct  of  the  Sahidic 
version,  for  we  detected  this  in  the  transference  of  a  Latin 
hexameter  in  Luke ;  but  we  are  at  first  a  little  surprised  at 
the  wide  area  of  country  covered  by  the  reading.  The  Sahidic 
text  probably  is  based  ultimately  upon  a  Roman  original :  D  and 
the  Luxeuil  Lectionary  are  Gallican;  and  the  fathers  quoted 
would  most  likely  get  their  texts  by  way  of  Carthage.  Is  it 
possible  that  an  interpolated  text  could  spread  so  far  ? 

There  are  two  more  glosses  on  the  same  page,  probably  by 
the  very  same  hand: 

Acts  i.  5, 

KAI  o  MeAAerAi  AAMBANCIN 

ET   EVM   ACCIPERE   HABETIS, 

which  is  attested  by  Hilary,  Augustine,  Maximus  of  Turin,  and 
the  Toledo  Lectionary. 
And  in  the  same  verse 

60)C    THC    neNTHKOCTHC 
VSQVE   AD   PENTECO8TEN 

is  attested  by  Augustine  and  the  Sahidic  version. 

We  note  again  the  concurrence  of  these  last  two  authorities. 

Just  in  the  same  way  as  we  recognize  a  Latin  hand  in  the 
glosses  in  the  Acts  by  means  of  the  word  praecepit,  common  to  the 
text  and  the  gloss ;  so  we  can  detect  some  other  instances  of  the 
same  workmanship. 

1  1  * 


156  LATINISM   OF  THE   INTERPOLATIONS. 

In  Acts  v.  39  the  words  are  added 


oyre  Y^eic  oyre  BaciAeic  oyre  TYRANNOI 
ATTexec9<M  OYN  ATTO  TCON  ANOpconcoN  TOYTOO 

NEC   V08   NEC   IMPERATORE8   NEC   REGES 
DI8CEDITE   ERGO  AB   HOMINIBVS   I8TIS. 

Now,  here  the  last  line  is  a  recapitulation  from  the  38th  verse, 
and  it  is  in  the  Latin  that  the  repetition  occurs,  and  not  in  the 
Greek,  as  we  may  see  by  comparing  the  text  with 

Acts  v.  38, 

ATTOCTHT6    ATTO    T60N    ANGpCOTTCON    TOyTCON 
DI8CEDITE   AB   HOMINIBVS   ISTI8. 

The  gloss  is  then  a  Latin  one,  and  evidently  by  the  same  hand 
as  before  :  its  Greek  is  merely  a  re-translation. 

A  similar  argument  applies  to  Acts  vi.  10,  where  the  words 

OITIN6C   OYK    ICXYON    ANTICTHNAI   TH    CO<f>IA 
QVI   NON   POTERANT   RESISTERE   8APIENTIAE 

are  repeated  at  the  end  of  the  verse  in  the  form 

NON   POTENTE8   AVTEM   RESISTERE    VERITATI, 

and  done  into  Greek  with  a  new  word  avro^Oakpelv  for  dvrurTrjvai 
(the  former  word  may  itself  be  borrowed  from  the  xxviith  chapter), 
so  that  we  have 

TH    OYCH    6N-  AYTlA)    KAI    TO)    TTNI    T60    AflCO    CO    eAAAei 

MH  AYNAMGNOI  OY  ANTO<t>6AA/v\eiN  TH  AAnSeiA, 
where  ov  stands  for  ovv. 

But  if  this  verse  be  glossed  by  a  Montanist,  as  we  suggested 
above  with  regard  to  the  words  rrj  ovo-y  ev  avra)  and  TO>  dylro 
then  we  may  say  that  the  rest  of  the  matter  added  to  the  verse 
is  by  the  same  hand.  We  also  include  in-  the  list  of  Montanist 
glosses  the  other  words  which  intervene  and  which  made  the 
repetition  necessary 

AIA  TO  eAerxec0Ai  AYTOYC  en  AYTOY 

M6TA   TTACHC   ITAppHCIAC 
QVONIAM  PROBATVR  ILLI8  AB  ILLO 
CVM  OMNI  FIDVCIA. 

But  this  expression  perd  Trdo-rjs  Trappy  a  la?  is  frequently  in 
serted  as  a  gloss  in  the  text  :  is  it  then  a  Montanist  expression  ? 


LATINISM  OF  THE  INTERPOLATIONS.  157 

Now,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  the  gloss  appears  again  in 
ch.  ix.  20:  though  this  part  of  Codex  Bezae  is  missing;  for  we 
can  restore  it  by  means  of  Irenaeus'  quotation  of  the  passage, 
which  undoubtedly  comes  from  the  same  text-  tradition; 


€v  rais  <ruvaya>yais,  <^>r](T\vt  ev  Aa/ia<rKo>  cKJpvar<rf  [/xera  iracrrjs  irappT)<rtas]  r&v 
in  synagogis,  ait,  in  Damasco  praedicabat  [cum  omni  fiducia]  lesura. 

Harvey  n.  63  =  Mass.  197. 
And  it  appears  also  in  the  gloss  added  in  xvi.  4, 

M€TA   TTACHC    TTAppHCIAC   TON    KN    IHN    \RN 
AMA   TTApAAlAONTGC 

CVM   OMNEM   FIDVCIAM   DNM    IHM    XPM 
SIMVL   TRADENTES. 

The  reason  why  the  Montanists  were  so  constant  in  using  this 
expression  is  that  it  occurs  in  connexion  with  the  prophetic 
enthusiasm  :  we  find  that  in  Acts  iv.  31  the  sentence  teal  €\d\ovv 
TOP  \oyov  TOV  deov  pera  Trapprja'ias  is  preceded  by  €7r\tf<r07)<rav 
aTravTes  TOV  dyiov  irvev^aro^. 

But  the  recognition  of  this  gloss  concerning  the  delegates  from 
the  Church  at  Jerusalem  as  Montanistic  probably  carries  with  it 
the  two  similar  glosses,  in  which  the  attempt  is  made  to  improve 
upon  the  unspiritual  decrees  of  the  Jerusalem  Council  by  the 
addition  of  some  evangelical  expansion.  And  this  consideration 
carries  us  to  Acts  xv.  29,  where  we  had  already  recognized  the 
words  <f>€p6fjL€voi  ev  TO)  d<y£o)  Trvev/jLari,  as  being  Montanistic,  and 
must  now  ascribe  to  the  same  hand  the  insertion  of  the  famous 
sentence 

teal  #<ra  pr)  6e\ere  eavrols  yeivecrOai,  erepw 

And  we  have  also  Acts  xv.  20, 
Kal  o<ra   j,r   0e\ov<riv 


the  Greek  forms  of  the  two  passages  being  a  little  nearer  together 
than  the  Latin. 

It  is  becoming,  by  this  time,  clear  that  there  is  an  internal 
connexion  between  the  greater  part  of  the  glosses  in  the  Acts. 
The  supposition  is  not  an  unnatural  one,  and  it  is  interesting  to 
see  how  capable  of  confirmation  it  is.  There  is  a  suspicious 


158  LATINISM   OF  THE   INTERPOLATIONS. 

family  resemblance  in  the  character  of  the  glosses,  in  the  language 
in  which  they  were  made,  and  in  the  copies,  versions  and  fathers 
that  attest  them.  A  number  of  these  witnesses  have  already 
been  alluded  to ;  but  we  may  further  note  that  a  gloss  in  iv.  32, 
which  appears  to  belong  to  the  same  family,  is  attested  by  DE, 
Cyprian,  Ambrose  and  Zeno,  while  in  the  previous  verse  another 
gloss  has  the  support  of  DE,  Irenaeus  and  Augustine,  where  again 
it  is  certainly  the  original  text  of  Irenaeus  and  not  a  translator's 
addition. 

In  v.  38,  to  which  we  have  alluded  above,  the  added  words  are 
attested  by  DE  34.  In  v.  39,  the  gloss  is  attested  in  some  form 
or  other  by  DE,  demid.,  the  later  Syriac,  Cod.  180  and  the  margin 
of  Cod.  33. 

In  vi.  10,  we  apparently  have  for  the  first  gloss  in  the  verse 
DE;  then  DE  and  the  Luxeuil  Lectionary.  Then  DE  and  the 
margin  of  the  Heraclean  Syriac :  and  last  of  all  DE,  the  Heraclean 
margin  and  the  Bohemian  version. 

The  famous  gloss  at  the  end  of  xv.  20  brings  together  D, 
Sahidic  version,  Ethiopic  version,  and  eleven  cursives,  together 
with  Irenaeus.  While  in  xv.  29,  the  first  part  of  the  gloss  brings 
together  very  nearly  the  same  attestation  with  the  addition  of 
Cyprian :  and  the  last  part  brings  in  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 

Numbers  of  similar  coincidences  of  attestation  may  be  found : 
but  we  need  not  record  them  all.  It  has  always  been  recognized 
that  there  was  a  peculiar  affinity  between  certain  members  of  the 
various  classes  mentioned  above.  But  it  becomes  intelligible  now 
that  we  have  seen  reason  to  suspect  that  these  glosses,  or  at  least 
a  great  part  of  them,  are  due  to  a  single  hand,  and  that  probably 
the  hand  of  a  Latin  Montanist. 

We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  influence  of  this 
Latinized  and  Montanized  copy  is  to  be  seen  in  the  following 
copies,  versions  and  fathers. 

DE,  tol.,  luxov.,  demid.,  Sahidic,  Heraclean  Syriac  (and  its 
marg.},  Bohemian,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Augus 
tine,  Hilary,  Zeno,  Maximus  Taur.,  Vigilius  Taps. 

No  doubt  it  may  seem,  at  first  sight,  rather  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  errors  of  a  single  copy  could  spread  so  far  as  Poitiers, 
Lyons,  Turin,  Verona,  North  Africa  and  Egypt ;  to  which  must 


LATINISM   OF  THE   INTERPOLATIONS.  159 

probably  be  added  Sardinia  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  birth 
place  of  Cod.  E,  and  perhaps  even  Spain  ;  but  this  is  just  the  point 
that  always  is  hard  in  connexion  with  the  Western  text :  the  way 
to  understand  it  is  by  recognizing  that  the  errors  in  question  are 
undoubtedly  errors  of  a  great  antiquity,  and,  if  that  is  not  sufficient 
to  explain  their  diffusion,  we  must  go  further  and  shew  that  they 
occurred  in  or  near  the  centre  of  ecclesiastical  distribution  for 
Latin  texts :  and  we  must  examine  the  errors  in  question  carefully 
with  a  view  to  recognizing  the  locality  to  which  they  originally 
belong. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
RELATIONS  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT  TO  THAT  USED  BY  IRENAEUS. 

BUT  if  the  Codex  Bezae  was  in  Lyons  as  far  back  as  the  sixth 
century,  as  we  have  tried  to  prove  by  a  variety  of  considerations, 
it  was  presumably  copied  from  an  earlier  bilingual,  also  in  Lyons : 
and  although  suspicions  have  arisen  in  our  mind  that  the  ultimate 
origin  of  the  Bezan  tradition  is  Cisalpine  if  not  African,  yet  we 
have  still  to  ask  the  question  as  to  the  time  that  the  Lyonnese 
succession  has  been  kept  up.  How  far  back  does  the  Gallican 
history  of  the  MS.  go  ?  Are  we  to  say  with  Scrivener  that  "  it  is, 
on  the  whole,  an  independent  translation  made  either  directly 
from  the  Greek  on  the  opposite  page,  or  from  a  text  almost 
identical  with  it;  that  the  translator  often  retained  in  his  memory, 
and  perhaps  occasionally  consulted,  both  the  Old  Latin  version, 
and  Jerome's  revised  Vulgate;  and  that  he  probably  executed  his 
work  in  Gaul  about  the  close  of  the  fifth  century1"? 

Each  of  the  three  statements  is  probably  an  error  :  the  trans 
lation  was,  indeed,  made  from  a  companion  Greek  text,  but  not 
the  Greek  text  as  now  read  in  the  MS.,  for  this  has  been  harmon 
ized  with  the  Latin,  to  say  nothing  of  some  other  changes  which 
have  crept  into  it.  The  translator  not  merely  remembers  the  Old 
Latin  version ;  he  is  himself  the  author  of  the  Old  Latin  version ; 
the  reference  to  Jerome  is  probably  a  delusion ;  last  of  all,  the 
translation  is  much  older  than  the  fifth  century,  as  we  have  by 
this  time  pretty  well  proved. 

1  p.  xxxi.    Cf.  p.  Ixiv,  « We  assign  to  the  Latin  version  of  Codex  Bezae  a  western 
province  (most  probably  Gaul)  and  a  date  not  higher  than  the  fifth  century. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT  TO  THAT  USED  BY  IRENAEUS.   161 

Or  shall  we  follow  Dr  Hort's  theory  which  makes  the  Codex 
Bezae  a  product  of  the  fourth  century  ?  Its  structure  he  de 
scribes  as  follows :  "  The  Greek  text  of  Codex  Bezae  is  substan 
tially  a  Western  text  of  cent.  ii.  with  occasional  readings  probably 
belonging  to  cent,  iv.1,"  while  in  speaking  of  the  Latin  versions 
he  says,  "In  the  fourth  century  we  find  current  in  Western 
Europe,  and  especially  in  North  Italy,  a  second  type  of  text  the 
precise  relation  of  which  to  the  African  text  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries  has  not  yet  been  clearly  ascertained2." 

I  take  this  to  mean  that  the  Latin  of  Cod.  Bezae,  which  has 
such  close  affinities  with  Codices  Vercellensis  and  Veronensis  and 
the  MSS.  used  by  Ambrose,  is  substantially  a  fourth  century  text. 
Its  method  of  composition  is  described  by  Dr  Hort  as  follows3: 

A  genuine  (independent)  Old  Latin  text  has  been  adopted  as  the  basis,  but 
altered  throughout  into  verbal  conformity  with  the  Greek  text  by  the  side  of 
which  it  was  intended  to  stand.  Here  and  there  the  assimilation  has  acci 
dentally  been  incomplete,  and  the  scattered  discrepant  readings  thus  left  are 
the  only  direct  Old  Latin  evidence  for  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament 
which  the  bilingual  MSS.  supply.  A  large  proportion  of  the  Latin  texts  of  these 
MSS.  is  indeed,  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  unaltered  Old  Latin  ;  but  where 
they  exactly  correspond  to  the  Greek,  as  they  do  habitually,  it  is  impossible  to 
tell  how  much  of  the  accordance  is  original  and  how  much  artificial  ;  so  that 
for  the  criticism  of  the  Greek  text  the  Latin  reading  has  here  no  independent 
authority. 

Now  if  our  investigation  shews  anything  it  proves  that  the 
artificial  agreement  of  which  Dr  Hort  speaks  is  due  to  a  specific 
cause,  viz.  Latinization  of  the  Greek  text ;  and  that  consequently 
it  is  the  Bezan  Latin  that  is  of  prime  importance4,  while  the  Greek 
has  no  certain  value  except  where  it  differs  from  its  own  Latin,  and 
must  not  any  longer  be  regarded  as  an  independent  authority.  And 
if  the  Greek  be  thus  relegated  to  a  secondary  position,  the  case 
not  only  calls  for  a  re-statement  of  the  theory  as  to  the  building 
of  D,  and  of  the  date  of  the  translation,  but  it  brings  up  another 
question  with  it,  that  namely  of  the  Bibles  respectively  in  use 

1  Introduction,  p.  148. 

2  Introduction,  p.  78.  3  Introduction,  p.  82. 

4  Consequently  Tischendorf  was  right  when  he  said,  Cod.  Sin.  proleg.  p.  xxxii. 
note  2,  "Italus  ejusdem  codicis  textus  (sc.  D)  a  quo  ipsum  Graecum  pependisse 
certum  est  etc. " 

C.  B.  11 


162  RELATIONS  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT 

by  Irenaeus  and  his  translator.  Dr  Hort  explained  the  wonderful 
agreement  between  the  Latin  of  Codex  Bezae  and  the  Latin 
of  Irenaeus  (for  there  are  many  cases  in  which  the  translator 
of  Irenaeus  is  nearer  to  the  Latin  of  D  than  to  the  Greek) 
by  representing  the  Bezan  Greek  as  co-eval  with  Irenaeus, 
and  the  Bezan  Latin  as  belonging  to  the  time  of  his  translator. 
And  this  led  him  to  deny  Massuet's  theory  that  the  text  of 
Irenaeus  was  translated  before  the  end  of  the  second  century 
and  was,  in  fact,  in  the  hands  of  Tertullian.  Accordingly  we  find 
him  saying1,  "  We  are  convinced  not  only  by  the  internal  character 
of  this  biblical  text  [i.e.  the  text  followed  by  the  translator], 
but  by  comparison  of  all  the  passages  borrowed  in  substance 
by  Tertullian,... that  the  true  date  of  the  translation  is  the  fourth 
century."  This  I  take  to  mean  that  the  Bezan  Latin  being  of 
the  fourth  century  (as  seen  from  its  concurrence  with  the  great 
North  Italian  texts),  the  Latin  quotations  in  Irenaeus  are  very 
largely  Bezan  Latin.  I  shall  attempt  to  shew  that  this  conviction 
is  a  misapprehension ;  and  shall  take  the  Bezan  Latin,  which 
we  have  seen  to  be  the  real  authority,  right  back  to  the  time 
of  Irenaeus,  instead  of  to  the  fifth  century,  as  Scrivener  suggests, 
or  to  the  fourth,  as  Hort  allows:  and  I  shall  try  to  take  the 
translator  of  Irenaeus  back  with  him,  for  the  sake  of  companion 
ship. 

It  is  admitted  then  in  the  first  place  that  there  is  a  wonderful 
concurrence  between  the  Biblical  text  of  Irenaeus  and  the  text 
of  Codex  Bezae.  They  combine,  especially  in  the  Acts,  in  readings 
that  are  nowhere  else  found,  and  which  are  so  obviously  erro 
neous  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  deny  genealogical  contiguity 
to  the  texts  that  contain  them,  especially  when,  as  in  the  present 
case,  geographical  contiguity  has  been  practically  proved.  Perhaps 
the  most  conspicuous  instance  of  all  these  is  a  coincidence  in  the 
Latin  in  Acts  iii.  14, 

Y/v\eic  Ae  TON  APON  KAI  AIKAION 
eBApYN<vre  KAI  HTHCATC  ANAPA  <J>ONGIA 

VOS  AVTEM   IP8VM   8ANCTVM   ET   IV8TVM 
GRABA8TI8  ET   PO8TVLA8TI8   VIRVM   HOMICIDA, 

1  Introduction,  p.  160. 


TO  THAT  USED  BY  IRENAEUS.  163 

which  Irenaeus  quotes  as1 

vos  autem  sanctum  et  iustum 
aggravastis  et  petistis  virum  homicidam. 

Now,  concerning  this  peculiar  reading,  we  first  find  out  its 
origin,  which  was  as  follows;  observe  that  the  Greek  text  as 
generally  edited  reads 

ijpvqcra<r0€  KOI  j/nycrao'^e, 

while  D  reads  in  the  second  place  ^njcrare,  probably  for  the  sake 
of  a  more  exact  agreement  with  its  Latin.  But  at  some  period 
in  the  transcriptional  history  this  rjTrjaaTe  perhaps  written  as  a 
marginal  correction  of  yrrjaaaOe  affected  the  first  word  qpvrjaaaOe, 
which  was  sufficiently  like  to  it  in  appearance,  and  the  latter  was 
read  as  rfrr^aare  by  the  insertion  of  a  single  letter.  The  trans 
lator  did  his  best  with  this  ^rrrjcrare  and  gave  it  a  signification, 
which  it  has  in  later  Greek,  so  as  to  mean  "ye  insulted  (or 
slighted)  the  holy  one  and  the  just  &c.";  for  this  aggravastis 
was  a  very  good  rendering:  but,  as  was  to  be  expected,  the 
revising  hand  took  the  Greek  to  task  for  insufficient  correspond 
ence  and  wrote  effapvpare. 

Now  of  this  error  we  say  that,  although  it  was  primitively 
a  Greek  error,  yet,  as  far  as  our  text  goes,  it  is  a  Latinizing  error, 
and  the  Latin  text  has  precedence  of  the  Greek.  But  the  trans 
lator  of  Irenaeus  had  this  rendering,  though  unfortunately  there 
is  no  Greek  text  extant  at  this  point  by  which  we  could  determine 
whether  Irenaeus  read  ejSapvvare.  Lastly,  Augustine  was  under 
the  influence  of  it,  for  Tischendorf  quotes  the  text 
^Ug<Pecc.  mer.  28  inhonorastis  et  negastis, 

which  would  seem  to  shew  that  Augustine  used  a  text  in  which 
aggravastis  had  been  corrected  to  a  more  conventional  word. 

Whether,  then,  our  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  error  in 
this  passage  be  correct  or  not  (and  we  shall  draw  attention  in 
a  future  chapter 2  to  another  solution  of  the  difficulty  which  has 
been  proposed)  it  is  clear  that  the  text  of  the  Codex  Bezae 
at  this  point  is  closely  related  to  that  of  the  Latin  Irenaeus ; 
and 'since  the  instance  quoted  is  only  one  out  of  many  similar 

i  Ed.  Harvey,  n.  55  =  Mass.  194.  2  c.  xvm.  p.  187. 

11—2 


164  RELATIONS   OF   THE   BEZAN   TEXT 

cases,  we  are  warranted  in  describing  the  two  texts  as  genea 
logically  contiguous.  And  this  means  on  the  one  hand  that,  if 
the  translation  of  the  Codex  Bezae  were  made  in  the  fourth 
century,  then  the  translation  of  Irenaeus  cannot  have  been  made 
in  the  second;  and  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  Codex  Bezae  is 
proved  to  contain  a  Latin  text  of  the  second  century,  there  is  no 
a  priori  objection  to  the  theory  that  the  translation  of  Irenaeus 
belongs  to  the  same  century,  and  in  fact  there  is  no  objection 
at  all  provided  only  that  reasonable  grounds  be  asserted  for  such  a 
belief. 

Now  the  difficulty  of  the  case  lies  in  the  relations  between  the 
Greek  and  Latin  of  Irenaeus.  So  little  of  the  Greek  of  Irenaeus 
is  preserved,  that  in  appealing  to  the  evidence  of  that  father,  we 
are  liable  at  any  moment  to  the  counter-assertion  that  the  text  is 
not  really  that  of  the  Greek,  but  is  merely  an  expansion  or  alte 
ration  of  the  translating  scribe.  And  even  in  those  readings  which 
may  safely  be  carried  back  to  the  original  text  of  Irenaeus,  we 
have  to  prove  not  merely  that  the  Codex  Bezae  and  Irenaeus  are 
in  agreement,  but  that  they  are  in  agreement  in  Latinized  read 
ings,  if  we  are  to  shew  that  the  translation  in  the  Codex  must  be 
earlier  as  to  its  origin  than  the  great  work  on  Heresies. 

Perhaps  the  simplest  way  to  resolve  the  difficulty  is  to  confine 
ourselves  to  the  glosses  in  the  manner  suggested  in  the  last  chapter; 
for  these  glosses  have  a  frequent  internal  nexus  which  betrays  a 
common  hand,  and  the  evidence  of  one  gloss  in  a  group  can  be 
used  to  confirm  the  evidence  of  another  in  the  same  group.  And 
moreover  it  is  precisely  in  the  matter  of  expansions  of  the  current 
text  that  we  are  safest  in  arguing  from  the  text  of  the  trans 
lation  to  the  original  Greek  of  Irenaeus ;  for,  while  a  scribe  may 
translate  a  biblical  text  which  he  finds  before  him  in  the  language 
with  which  he  is  familiar,  he  is  very  unlikely  to  complicate  his 
rendering  by  additional  sentences  from  his  own  copy  of  the  scrip 
tures.  We  say  then,  (i)  that  the  Biblical  glosses  in  the  Latin 
Irenaeus  are  probably  to  be  referred  to  Irenaeus  himself;  (ii)  where 
these  glosses  shew  a  Latin  origin  (since  Latin  glosses  imply  a 
Latin  text),  they  are  decisive  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Latin 
translation. 

Take,  for  example,  the  glosses  which  describe  the  freedom  of 


TO   THAT  USED   BY   IRENAEUS.  165 

speech  which  the  apostles  experienced  under  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  ;  and  which  consist  in  the  insertion  of  the  terms 
/JLCTO.  Trapprjo-uis,  pera  iraa^  Trappy  cr  las,  cum  fiducia,  cum  omni 
fiducia  ;  which  certainly  betray  a  single  hand. 

In  Acts  vi.  10,  where  Codex  Bezae  makes  the  addition,  the 
passage  is  not  quoted  at  all  by  Irenaeus. 

In  Acts  ix.  20,  the  page  of  Codex  Bezae  is  lost,  but  the  passage 
is  quoted  in  Irenaeus,  and  the  same  gloss  occurs,  and  at  this  point 
happily  the  Greek  text  of  Irenaeus  is  extant  as  well  as  the  Latin  : 
we  have  as  follows  (n.  63  =  Mass.  197). 


f'v  rais  away&yais,  (frrjcriv,  tv  Aa/MHTKO)  (Kijpvo'O'c  /itra  iraarjt  irapprjtrlas  TOV 

VV,  OTt  OVTOS  €<TTIV  O  VIOS  TOV  QfOV  O  XpUTTOS. 

=  In  synagogis,  ait,  in  Damasco  praedicabat  cum  omni  fiducia  Icsum, 
quoniam  hie  est  Christus  filius  Dei. 

In  Acts  xvi.  4,  we  find  the  same  gloss  in  Codex  Bezae,  where  it 
forms  a  part  of  a  longer  passage,  in  which  the  glossator  has 
attempted  to  reform  the  unspiritual  character  of  the  decrees  of 
the  Jerusalem  Council  : 

M6TA    TTACHC    TTAppHCIAC    TON    KN     IHN    XPN 
AMA 


Now  since  these  three  Western  glosses  are  due  to  the  same 
hand,  we  infer  that  they  are  earlier  than  Irenaeus,  who  quotes  one 
of  them,  and  that  they  were  extant  in  the  early  Western  text,  for 
the  Codex  Bezae  has  two  of  them  (and  probably  had  the  third  in 
the  unmutilated  form  of  the  MS.). 

This  group  of  glosses  was,  therefore,  in  the  Western  text  before 
the  time  of  Irenaeus. 

The  only  question  that  remains  is  that  of  Latinity  ;  were  they 
originally  made  on  a  Latin  copy  ? 

Now  there  is  nothing  in  the  words  themselves  that  is  decisive 
one  way  or  the  other  :  pera  iraa^  TrappTjvias  might  just  as  easily 
be  inserted  in  a  Greek  tradition  as  cum  omni  fiducia  in  the  Latin  ; 
but  in  the  context  there  is  much  that  is  indicative  of  Latin  hands. 
We  have  already  pointed  out  that  in  Acts  vi.  10  the  remainder  of 
the  gloss  of  which  we  have  quoted  part  is  certainly  Latin.  And 
we  have  further  shewn  that  there  is  reason  to  connect  these  glosses 
with  others  in  the  Acts  which  are  clearly  the  work  of  a  Montanist 


166  RELATIONS  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT 

interpolator,  the  greater  part  of  whose  insertions,  if  not  the  whole 
of  them,  were  certainly  made  in  Latin. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  Western  glosses  in  question  were 
extant  in  Latin  before  the  time  of  Irenaeus.  Even  where  we  are 
not  able  to  say  decisively  that  the  glosses  in  the  Acts  come  from  a 
Latin  original,  we  are  able  to  prove  their  antiquity,  which  makes 
it  so  much  easier  for  us  to  argue  from  their  occurrence  in  the 
Latin  of  Irenaeus  to  their  existence  in  the  lost  Greek. 

For  instance  it  is  not  at  first  sight  easy  to  determine  whether 
the  gloss  in  Codex  Bezae  Acts  xv.  29, 

4>epo/v\eNOi  CN  TO>  Apco  TINGY/WATI 

FERENTES   IN  SANTO   SPO, 

is  from  a  Latin  or  Greek  original ;  but  since  it  is  found  in  Ter- 
tullian  (De  pudic.  12)  in  the  form 

rectante  (=vectante)  vos  spiritu  sancto, 
and  in  Irenaeus'  Latin  in  the  form  (li.  70  =  Mass.  199) 
ambulantes  in  spiritu  sancto, 

we  need  not  hesitate  to  refer  the  use  of  the  gloss  to  Irenaeus 
himself.  And,  indeed,  it  will  be  found  generally  true  that  the 
glosses  of  the  translator  of  Irenaeus  were  in  the  text  which  he 
worked  upon.  The  preserved  fragments  of  the  Greek  text  con 
firm  us  strongly  in  this  belief.  For  instance  in  Acts  iv.  31 
we  find  in  Codex  Bezae  the  gloss 

TTANTI  TCO  0eAoNTi  HiCTeyeiN 

OMNI   VOLENTI   CREDERE. 

This  passage  is  preserved  in  the  Greek  of  Irenaeus  as  well  as 
in  the  Latin ;  and  the  words  are  extant  in  both,  although  Harvey, 
following  Massuet,  declines  to  print  them  as  a  biblical  quotation. 
If  the  Greek  of  Irenaeus  had  been  lost  at  this  point,  we  should, 
perhaps,  have  had  difficulty  in  making  people  believe  that 
the  added  words  belonged  to  Irenaeus  himself.  But  they  are 
fortunately  preserved,  and  we  have  one  more  proof  of  the  safety 
in  reasoning  from  the  gloss  of  the  translator's  text  to  the  gloss  of 
his  copy.  Moreover  in  this  case,  we  are  fortunate  in  being  able 
to  detect  the  hand  that  made  the  gloss :  for  the  favourite  ex 
pression  of  the  author  of  the  group  of  glosses  which  we  were 


TO   THAT   USED   BY   IRENAEUS.  1G7 

just  now  discussing  occurs  as  a  part  of  the  genuine  text  at 
this  very  point : 

MGTA    TTAppHCIAC 
TTANTI    TO)    OeAONTI    TTICTeyeiN. 

We  can  hardly  doubt  that  it  was  the  sight  of  this  favourite 
expression  which  inspired  the  glossator  at  this  point  to  add 
a  few  more  words  by  way  of  explanation. 

Again  why  should  we  hesitate,  when  we  find  Acts  iii.  17 
quoted  in  Irenaeus  (n.  55  =  Mass.  194)  in  the  form 

sccundum  ignorantiam  fccistis  nequam, 

to  carry  back  the  nequam  to  his  Greek  text,  which  unfortunately 
is  lost?  But  this  word  is  clearly  due  to  the  Latin  translator 
of  the  Acts,  who,  in  rendering  Kara  dyvoiav  eVprifare,  disliked  to 
have  an  active  verb  in  his  text  without  an  object ;  and  so  in 
serted  a  word,  which  was  promptly  reflected  on  the  Greek.  Hence 
in  Codex  Bezae  we  have 

per  ignorantiam  cgistis  iniquitatcm, 

the  primitive  form  being  doubtless  nequam.  Does  not  this  look 
like  a  Latin  addition  to  the  text  of  the  Acts  ?  Many  similar  cases 
might,  no  doubt,  be  brought  forward.  But  perhaps  we  have 
said  enough,  in  view  of  the  proved  pre-eminence  of  the  Latin 
of  Codex  Bczae  over  the  Greek,  in  view  of  the  proofs  and 
suspicions  of  Latinity  in  the  glosses  of  the  Acts,  and  the  certainty 
that  some  of  them  were  extant  in  the  Greek  of  Irenaeus,  to 
convince  our  readers  that  the  Western  bilingual  is  not  a  fourth 
century  product  but  that  it  goes  back  to  the  times  before 
Irenaeus  and  before  Tertullian.  Whether  any  readings  of  later 
times  may  be  current  in  Codex  Bczae  is,  of  course,  an  open 
question :  but  the  actual  translation  and  many  of  the  glosses 
of  the  translation  seem  to  belong  to  the  period  which  we  have 
indicated. 

We  will  examine  presently  the  whole  body,  of  these  glosses 
in  the  Acts  in  a  special  chapter.  Now  let  us  turn  to  the 
question  of  the  Latin  of  Irenaeus.  If  our  reasoning  be  correct, 
it  is  no  longer  necessary  to  regard  this  as  a  fourth  century 
product.  Are  there  any  reasons  for  referring  it  to  an  earlier 
period  ? 

\  2 


168  RELATIONS  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT 

Let  us  then  say  a  few  words  about  Massuet's  theory  that  the 
Latin  translation  of  Irenaeus  was  known  to  Tertullian.  The  point 
is  not  exactly  material  to  our  argument,  but  it  is  an  interesting 
one.  If  we  are  wrong,  it  will  be  easy  for  Dr  Hort  or  some  other 
scholar  who  holds  with  him  to  put  us  right. 

I  take  it  that  the  translation  of  Irenaeus  was  made  either  in 
Lyons,  Rome  or  Carthage :  the  problem  is  thus  very  like  the  one 
of  determining  the  original  home  of  the  Western  bilingual.  But 
Carthage  is,  perhaps,  excluded  by  the  fact  that  Africanisms  do  not 
seem  to  have  as  yet  been  adequately  proved  in  the  text.  A  trans 
lation,  however,  which  was  made  either  at  Rome  or  Lyons  would 
rapidly  pass  to  the  sister  Montanist  Church,  and  furnish  the  mate 
rial  for  any  quotations  made  by  Tertullian.  There  is  nothing, 
then,  in  the  nature  of  an  a  priori  objection  against  Massuet's 
theory.  The  case  for  that  theory  is  stated  as  follows  by  Harvey1: 

Internal  evidence  persuades  the  judgment  that  Tertullian  wrote  his 
treatise  c.  Valentinum  after  A.D.  199,  with  this  version  before  his  eyes  : 
Massuet's  comparison  of  the  two  texts  in  his  second  dissertation  is  very 
convincing  :  when  the  translator  trips,  Tertullian  also  stumbles ;  and  too  many 
minute  peculiarities  of  nomenclature  and  style  are  found  to  agree  in  both,  to 
be  the  result  of  accident.  Cyprian  possibly2,  and  Augustine  certainly,  copied 
this  version3. 

The  evidence  of  Augustine  is  admitted,  and  we  may  turn  to 
Cyprian  :  the  extract  is  as  follows : 

Cuius  [Marcionis]  magister  Cerdon  sub  Hygino  tune  episcopo,  qui  in  urbe 
nonus  fuit,  Rornam  venit;  quern  Marcion  secutus,  additis  ad  crimen  aug- 
mentis,  impudentius  caeteris  et  abruptius  in  Deum  Patrem  creatorem  blas- 
phemare  instituit. 

With  which  we  have  to  compare  the  Latin  of  Irenaeus : 

Et  Cerdon... occasionern  accipiens  cum  venisset  Romam  sub  Hygino  qui 
nonum  locum  episcopatus  per  successionem  ab  apostolis  habuit...Succedens 
autein  ei  Marcion  Ponticus  adampliavit  doctrinam,  impudorate  blasphemans 
eum  qui  a  lege  et  prophetis  anmmciatus  est  Deus. 

It  seems  evident  that  Cyprian  has  been  reading  Irenaeus 
either  in  the  Greek  or  in  the  Latin  ;  or  in  the  Greek  as  quoted  by 
Hippolytus4. 

1  p.  clxiv.  2  Ep.  ad  Pompeium  (de  Cerdone). 

3  C.  lulian.  Pelag.  i.  3,  7. 

4  I  suppose  we  should  correct  77^170-6  SiSaffKaXclov  of  Hippolytus  into  r)0£i)<rc 


TO  THAT  USED   BY  IRENAEUS.  169 

Now  we  have  seen  that  in  some  form,  either  Greek  or  Latin, 
the  works  of  Irenaeus  were  current  in  North  Africa  before  Cyprian's 
time,  and  it  is  reasonable,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  Cyprian  is 
referring  to  Irenaeus:  and  Massuet  says  bluntly  that  Cyprian 
knew  no  Greek.  Dr  Hort  would  seem  to  believe  the  same,  when, 
after  speaking  of  the  way  in  which  Tertullian's  Scripture  quotations 
are  complicated  by  independent  translations  from  the  Greek,  he  re 
marks1,  "This  disturbing  element  is  absent,  however,  from  Cyprian's 
quotations,  which  are  fortunately  copious  and  carefully  made." 
But  if  Cyprian  was  not  in  the  habit  of  using  the  Scriptures  except 
in  the  African  Latin  form,  still  less  is  he  likely  to  have  consulted 
the  original  Greek  of  Irenaeus. 

I  do  not,  however,  lay  any  stress  on  the  fact  that  Cyprian 
agrees  with  the  translator  of  Irenaeus  in  making  Hyginus  the 
ninth  bishop  of  Rome,  where  we  should,  from  Irenaeus'  statement 
elsewhere,  have  expected  eighth,  for  the  recovered  text  of  Irenaeus 
in  the  Philosophumena  shews  the  same  reading  in  Greek.  On 
the  whole,  however,  there  is  a  fair  possibility  that  Cyprian  used  a 
Latin  Irenaeus. 

This  brings  us  very  near  to  Tertullian  ;  and  we  may  say  that 
the  only  objection  to  Massuet's  theory  is  that  Tertullian  seems  to 
have  often  translated  independently  from  the  Greek  in  the  case  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  therefore  any  coincidence  which  may  be 
found  in  his  extracts  from  Irenaeus  with  the  Latin  translation, 
made  at  Lyons  or  Rome,  may  be  purely  accidental.  Let  us  see 
then  whether  Tertullian  is  translating  entirely  de  novo.  We  admit 
that  in  handling  the  New  Testament  he  was  fond  of  "immediate 
and  original  renderings,  the  proportion  of  which  to  his  quota 
tions  from  the  existing  version  is  indeterminate  but  certainly 
large4." 

For  instance,  we  find  in  Irenaeus3  that  the  translator  had  to 
deal  with  the  sentence 


o  (vrjp^aro  p.ev  fv  rots  nfpi  rov  Noui/  not  rqv  'AAjj&tai/,  airf&Kq^e  Se  fls  TOVTOV 
TOV  irapaTpairevra. 


if  we  are  to  retain  an  agreement  with  the  Latin.    Irenaeus  must  surely  mean 
that  Marcion  exaggerated  the  teaching  of  Cerilon:  and  so  does  Cyprian. 
1  p.  78.  2  Hort,  Introd.  p.  78. 

3  Ed.  Harvey,  i.  14  =  Mass.  8. 


170       RELATIONS  OF  THE  BEZAN  TEXT  TO  THAT  USED  BY  IRENAEUS. 

He  renders  it  as  follows : 

quae  exorsa  quidcm  fuerat  in  iis  quac  sunt  crga  Nun  ct  Alethiam ;  deri- 
vavit  autem  in  hunc  [Aeonem,  id  est  Sophiam]  dernutatam,  (1.  demutatum) : 

where  a  reference  to  the  Latin  of  (309  I.  =  Mass.  1 30),  "  audent 
dicere,  quia  a  Logo  quidem  coepit,  derivatio  an  tern  in  Sophiam," 
shews  that  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  reading,  derivatio  in  this 
case  standing  for  dTroa/crj^^a  or  aTroovo?^?. 

Now,  according  to  Stieren,  this  is  not  the  right  rendering; 
"haec  vox  non  respondet  graecae  aTrecrK^e.  Verteridum  erat 
irrupit  scu  incidit."  If  Stieren  be  right  it  is  curious  that  Tertul- 
lian  should  translate  in  the  same  way.  But  whether  it  be  a  right 
translation  or  not  of  the  medical  term  used  by  Irenaeus,  and  we 
are  not  disposed  to  support  Stieren's  objection,  it  is  certain  that 
Tertullian  uses  the  word,  and  not  merely  uses  it,  but  explains  it, 
jmt  as  one  explains  a  word  in  a  difficult  text,  and  just  as  one  does 
not  do  in  making  one's  own  translations  with  any  degree  of  freedom. 
Accordingly  Tertullian  says  "  in  hunc  autem  id  est  Sophiam  deri- 
varat,  ut  soleut  vitia  in  corporc  alibi  connata  in  aliud  membrum 
perniciem  suam  efflare."  If  Tertullian  had  been  translating  de 
novo  he  would  not  have  needed  this  long  explanation  of  the 
obscure  translation ;  nor  would  he  have  added  the  other  gloss 
"id  est  Sophiam!'  for  he  would  have  simply  translated  in  hanc, 
with  or  without  the  addition  of  Sophiam.  The  fact  is,  he  had 
a  rude  rendering  to  handle,  and  just  as  later  copyists  inserted 
in  Irenaeus  the  explanation  (Aeonem,  id  est  Sophiam),  so  Tertullian 
adds  id  est  Sophiam.  He  may  even  have  found  the  gloss  already 
in  his  Latin  text. 

No  doubt  much  more  might  be  said  in  favour  of  the  opinion 
that  Tertullian  glosses,  comments  on  and  amends  an  already  exist 
ing  text.  He  could  not  have  done  otherwise  with  a  barbarous 
Gallic  or  Vulgar  Latin  version,  and  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised 
at  the  treatment.  We  are  disposed  then  to  believe  that  Massuet's 
theory,  to  which  we  refer  the  reader,  may  after  all  be  true,  and 
that  the  Latin  version  of  Irenaeus  found  its  way  very  early  into 
the  library  of  the  Church  of  Carthage. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

RELATION  BETWEEN  THE  TATIAN  HARMONY  AND  THE  BEZAN 

TEXT. 

WE  have  now  shewn  reason  for  believing  that  the  whole  body 
of  Western  Latin  readings  go  back  into  a  single  bilingual  copy, 
the  remote  ancestor  of  the  Codex  Bezae :  and  we  have  also  seen 
that  the  Greek  of  the  Beza  text  owes  the  greater  part  of  its 
textual  and  grammatical  peculiarities  to  the  reflex  action  of  its 
own  Latin. 

We  have  also  furnished  material  for  a  very  decided  belief  that 
this  peculiar  revised  Greek  or  its  Latin,  and  perhaps  both  of  them, 
passed  into  Egypt,  presumably  to  Alexandria,  and  there  became 
the  parent  of  one  at  least  of  the  corrupt  Egyptian  versions,  viz. 
the  Thebaic  or  Sahidic. 

So  that  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  if  the  belief  should  expand 
to  a  conviction  that  Western  readings  are  to  be  looked  for  in 
Alexandrian  Codices  ;  and  that  not  because  of  the  great  antiquity 
and  consequent  world-wide  diffusion  of  Western  readings,  but 
simply  because  Rome  is  the  ecclesiastical  parent  of  Alexandria. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  this  suggestion  is  nullified  by  the  fact 
that  the  Syriac  readings  present  the  same  eccentric  forms  and 
features  as  the  Western  Latin  texts  ;  and  surely,  it  will  be  said, 
no  one  can  possibly  maintain  that  the  Syriac  versions  date  from 
any  such  origin  as  a  Graeco-Latin  bilingual.  Let  us  then  examine 
a  little  into  this  point,  and  without  prejudice  :  the  New  Testament 
criticism  is  so  full  of  burning  questions  that  we  must  be  careful 
not  to  anticipate  solutions;  but  it  also  bristles  with  unsolved 
problems,  so  that  we  may  be  prepared  for  surprises. 


172  RELATION   BETWEEN   THE   TATIAN   HARMONY 

The  Syriac  texts  of  the  New  Testament  are  usually  reckoned 
to  be  a  series  of  successive  revisions,  the  two  earliest  forms  being 
the  so-called  Curetonian  Syriac  or  Old  Syriac,  and  the  Peshito 
Syriac  or  Syriac  Vulgate.  Closely  connected  with  these  is  the 
Harmony  of  Tatian,  which  has  recently  been  recovered  in  an  Arabic 
version  and  was  already  known  by  the  extracts  from  it  and  the 
running  commentary  made  upon  it  by  Ephrem  the  Syrian.  This 
Harmony  then  was  current  in  the  second  century,  and  it  is 
certainly  very  closely  related  to  the  Old  Syriac  and  the  Vulgate 
Syriac. 

The  prevalent  belief  as  to  the  true  relation  between  them  is 
that  the  Harmony  is  the  elder,  and  that  the  Old  Syriac  of  Oureton 
stands  in  relation  to  it  just  as  one  of  the  Old  Latin  versions  might 
stand  to  a  primitive  Latin  Harmony  ;  only  its  relation  may  be 
closer  than  that,  for  it  is  suspected  that  the  Old  Syriac  may 
have  been  constructed  indirectly  out  of  the  very  fragments  of  the 
Harmony  by  a  scribe  who  was  perfectly  familiar  therewith.  How 
ever  that  may  be,  we  have  to  ask  ourselves  the  explanation  of 
these  Eastern- Western  readings.  And  we  must  interrogate  them 
until  we  get  a  series  of  satisfactory  answers,  which  may  lead  us  to 
a  hypothesis  that  is  adequate  for  the  explanation  of  the  known 
coincidences  between  the  readings. 

We  begin  with  John  xvi.  21,  which  appears  in  Ciasca's  Latin 
translation  from  the  Arabic  in  the  following  form 

"  Mulier  enim,  cum  ei  appropinquat  tempus  pariendi,  opprimit 
earn  adventus  diei  partus  eius." 

Now  the  following  considerations  will  shew  that  Tatian  used 
a  text  in  which  was  the  word  ^pepa  instead  of  Spa.  First  the 
words  adventus  diei  partus  convince  us  of  this :  and  next,  a  refe 
rence  to  the  critical  apparatus  shews  the  same  reading  in 

D  248  a  b  c  ef2  and  syr80* , 

the  latter  version,  which  probably  derives  ultimately  from  Tatian, 
shewing  the  words  which  are  equivalent  to  dies  parturitionis.  So 
that  Tatian  and  the  Peshito  agree  in  their  text  at  this  point,  and 
the  reading  is  a  conspicuously  Western  one:  it  has  only  two 
Greek  texts  chronicled  for  it  by  Tischendorf,  and  of  these  one 
is  conspicuously  Latinized.  The  reading  then  is  a  decidedly 


AND   THE   BEZAN    TEXT.  173 

Western  one  :  it  belongs  to  that  errant  crew  which  we  have  so 
often  detected  in  following  the  primitive  Latinized  bilingual.  Does 
it  not  seem  as  if  the  translator  of  this  text  had  used  a  translator's 
freedom  and  paraphrased  the  expression  "  the  woman's  hour,"  and 
explained  it  by  "  the  day  of  parturition,"  or  at  all  events  had 
translated  &pa  as  if  it  were  rj^epa  ?  But  if  this  be  so,  Tatian 
has  used  the  primitive  bilingual  or  some  associated  text.  It  is 
even  conceivable  that  he  never  used  a  Greek  text  at  all ;  but  only 
a  Latin  copy. 

The  second  instance  to  examine  is  one  to  which  allusion  has 
already  been  made ;  I  mean  the  reading  Trpoaxepovres  for  Trpoo-- 
T/3e%orTe?  in  Mark  ix.  15,  where  the  corrupt  Greek  is  read  by  D 
and  supported  by  6  c  ffz  i  k,  arid  the  Arabic  is  represented  by  prae 
gaudio  properantes. 

Did  Tatian  use  a  Greek  copy  which  had  the  corruption  ?  It  is 
certainly  possible,  though  perhaps  not  likely,  when  no  other  Greek 
traces  of  the  reading  are  forthcoming  than  those  in  D ;  on  the 
other  hand,  if  he  used  a  Latin  copy,  the  error  was  not  only 
possible,  but  almost  inevitable ;  for  we  may  easily  see  that  the 
error  must  have  been,  at  first,  universal  in  Latin  texts.  Certainly 
in  this  case  the  probability  is  in  favour  of  a  Latin  original. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Luke  xxi.  25, 

KAI    6TTI    THC    fHC    CYNO\H    69NCON 

ET   8VPER  TEKRAM   CONFLICTIO   GENTIVM. 

So  the  text  runs  in  Codex  Bezae. 

The  word  awo^  was  not  a  very  easy  one  to  render,  but  I  think 
it  will  be  admitted  that  D  has  made  a  very  spirited  translation, 
carrying  with  it  the  idea  of  the  hurling  together  of  masses  of  men 
in  battle.  Codex  Vercelleiisis  renders  it  compressio,  Brixianus 
occur 'sus,  others  pressura,  as  if  the  Latin  versions  had  found  especial 
difficulty  with  the  word  as  it  stood  in  the  Greek  or  in  the  first 
Latin  rendering.  Now,  the  Curetonian  Syriac  and  the  Peshito 
have  given  us  words  equivalent  to 

complosio  manuum  gentium, 

and  that  this  stood  originally  in  Tatian  may  be  derived,  not  merely 
from  the  coincidence  of  the  Old  and  Vulgate  Syriac  texts,  but  from 
the  conflate  text  which  appears  in  Ciasca's  edition 


174  RELATION   BETWEEN   THE   TATIAN   HARMONY 

et  in  terra  pressura  gentium 
et  frictio  manuum  prae  gemitu 
sonitus  maris  etc. 

Here  pressura  gentium  stands  for  a-vvo^rj  edvwv  ;  but  frictio 
manuum  is  the  equivalent  also  of  crvvo^,  as  may  be  seen  from 
the  Cureton  text  ;  the  text  is  therefore  conflate,  and  the  correct 
reading  is  frictio  manuum  gentium.  But  how  does  this  manuum 
come  in  ?  Evidently  it  must  have  arisen,  not  from  the  Greek  o-vvoxn 
which  might  easily  have  found  an  equivalent,  but  from  a  reviser's 
reflection  upon  the  spirited  word  conflictio.  Conflictio  of  what  ? 
and  the  imagination  suggested  the  completion  of  the  elliptical 
expression  by  means  of  the  word  manuum. 

Does  not  this  look  as  if  the  archetype  from  which  Tatian  made 
his  mosaic  was  a  Latin  or  Latinized  text  ? 

Now  let  us  turn  to  Luke  v.  8.     In  the  Beza  text  it  stands 


ATT  e/woy 

DICENS    ROGO    EXI    A   ME. 

Here  the  word  '  rogo  '  is  a  translator's  addition  to  the  Latin  : 
it  occurs  elsewhere  in  our  text  as  an  expansion  :  for  instance  there 
is  Acts  xxi.  39,  where  Seopai  is  rendered  by  rogo  obsecro,  and  a 
number  of  similar  cases  may  be  pointed  out  in  the  Old  Latin. 

Now,  the  word  in  the  passage  quoted  from  Luke  goes  back 
into  the  Greek,  and  it  appears  in  the  Old  Latin  authorities,  as  c  ef. 

But  it  is  clearly  a  Western  reading  of  an  early  type  ;  we  may 
say  then,  when  we  find  it  also  in  the  Peshito,  that  it  probably 
came  there  by  way  of  Tatian,  and  a  reference  to  Ciasca's  Latin 

shews  us 

Domine,  peto  a  te,  ut  a  me  recedas. 

We  are  disposed,  then,  to  the  belief  that  Tatian  has  here 
absorbed  a  Latin  reading,  nor  is  our  conviction  sensibly  weakened 
by  the  fact  that  the  reading  turns  up  also  in  the  Gothic  version. 

In  Mark  i.  13  we  find  Codex  Bezae  reading 


rrpoc  THN 

AD   IANVAM   EIVS, 


and  supported  in  the  added  word  avrov  by  cff*glq.  We  should 
certainly  be  disposed  to  call  this  a  genuine  Western  reading  :  but 
notice  that  it  is  in  Tatian  in  a  slightly  modified  form 

et  erat  omnis  ciuitas  congregata  ad  ianuam  Jesu. 


AND  THE  BEZAN  TEXT.  175 

In  John  xiii.  14  D  reads 


TTOCO)    MAAAON    KAI    YM^IC    O<J)€lA€T6 

&AAHAu>N  NinreiN  royc  noA^c. 

Here  the  words  TTOO-W  fid\\ov  are  due  to  the  free  translation 
of  the  Latin  scribe  who  gave 

QVANTO  MAGIS   ET   VO8  DEVETIS 
INVICEM   LAVABE   PEDES. 

But  this  reading  acquired  great  Latin  currency,  for  we  find  it  in 
a/2  g,  &c. 

It  appears  also  in  the  Peshito  Syriac,  which  must  have  derived 
it  ultimately  from  Tatian,  for  Ciasca's  Latin  has 

quanto  magis  aequum  est  etc., 

and  the  text  of  the  early  Syrian  father  Aphraates  had  the  same 
or  similar  prefixed  words  \ 

Again,  we  see  that  the  phenomena  are  explicable  by  the  use  of 
a  Latinized  text  on  Tatian's  part. 

In  John  xiv.  9  the  Latin  of  the  Beza  text  is  against  the  Greek 
in  reading 

et  non  cognouistis  me  philippe. 

The  error  was  an  extremely  easy  one  in  the  Latin  text,  a  mere 
matter  of  a  single  letter  ;  but  it  spread  widely,  for  it  is  in 

a  b  cfff*  e  q 

and  the  Vulgate,  in  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Hilary  and  Novatian. 

Surely  this  is  a  distinctively  Latin  reading,  and  not  the  less  so 
because  we  find  it  in  the  Ethiopic  version.  Observe  then  that 
Tatian  had  the  plural  (teste  Ephrem*);  and  the  Latin  of  Ciasca 
is  nondum  cognovistis  me. 

Now  let  us  look  at  Luke  xxiv.  29.     The  Bezan  text  is 

M6INON    M60    HAACON    OTI    TTpOC    CCTiepAN 
K&IKA6IK6N    H    HM6p<\ 
MANE    NOBISCVM   QVIA  AD   VE8PERVM 
DECLINAVIT  DIES. 

»  Zahn,  rattan'*  Diatessaron,  p.  203,  gives  "wie  miisst  dann  ihr  etc." 
8  Zahn,  p.  206. 


176  RELATION    BETWEEN   THE   TATIAN   HARMONY 

Notice  here  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  line  KOI  has 
dropped  before  /ce/cXitcev  (read  by  itacism  as  tcaircXiicev).  Under 
the  influence  of  this  error  eVrtV,  which  stood  at  the  end  of 
the  first  line,  has  been  removed  from  the  Greek  text.  Accordingly 
the  Latin  texts  a  b  c  e  ff*  I  represent  a  text  from  which  earlv  teal 
is  absent.  Surely  this  is  an  error  which  may  properly  be  called 
Western  ;  because  the  Latin  texts  all  agree  in  dropping  the 
repeated  syllable  tcai,  and  no  other  Greek  authority  than  D  is 
found  for  the  reading.  Now,  the  Tatian  text  as  given  by  Ciasca 
reads 

Mane  apud  nos  quia  dies  iam  declinauit  ad  tenebras, 

and  the  Curetonian  Syriac  shews  the  influence  of  a  similar 
reading. 

We  say  then  that  the  influence  of  the  Western  bilingual  is 
perceptible  in  the  Tatian  text.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the 
associated  Curetonian  version  ;  for  example 

In  Luke  xxiii.  39  Codex  Bezae  reads 


OTI    €N    TO)    AYTCO    KplMATI    €1 
KM    HM6IC    £CM€N    KAI    HMfelC    M6N 
AlKAIGOC    &Il&    f&P    <*>"    €TTp<\£<\M€N 
ATTOAAMBANOM6N 

QVONIAM   IN    IP8O   IVDICIO 
BT   NOS   SVMV8   ET   NOS   QVIDEM 
IV8TE  DIGNE   ENIM   8ECVNDVM   QVOD   EGIMVS 
RECIPIMV8. 

Now  here  the  Greek  text  has  dittographed  the  words  /ecu  rf/jLels 
and  made  ical  jfjuels  eoy-tei/  out  of  them,  which  the  Latin 
renders,  omitting  the  superfluous  word  el  The  addition  has 
affected  Cod.  C,  the  Sahidic  and  Coptic  versions,  and  the  Cure 
tonian  Syriac. 

Reviewing  the  instances  which  have  here  been  given,  we  see 
that  the  Western  text  which  Tatian  used  was  not  merely  a  Greek 
text  into  which  transcriptional  errors  had  crept,  but  a  text  which 
had  stood  in  a  bilingual  copy  and  had  been  affected  by  its 
accompanying  translation.  For  some  of  the  errors  in  Tatian  are 
Latinizing  errors.  But  if  this  be  true  for  a  single  one  of  the  errors 
examined,  we  are  obliged  to  admit  that  a  Latin  translation  of 
the  Gospels  already  existed  in  Tatian's  time  ;  and  that  being  so, 


AND  THE  BEZAN   TEXT.  177 

we  conclude  further  that  the  text  which  Tatian  employed  was 
either  an  early  Latin  text,  or  the  Greek  of  an  early  bilingual  text. 
The  two  hypotheses  are  not  so  very  far  apart ;  and  either  can  be 
supported  from  the  phenomena  exhibited  by  the  variants  of 
Tatian's  text:  upon  the  whole,  I  incline  to  think  that  a  Latin 
text  was  employed.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  too  decided 
on  this  point,  until  further  evidence  is  produced.  We  shall 
discuss  in  a  separate  chapter  the  cases  where  the  pleonasms  of  the 
Latin  translator  have  been  projected  on  the  text  of  Tatian. 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  have  been  led  is  an  astonishing 
one:  the  hydra-headed  Western  text  has  been  resolved  into 
a  single  form;  that  form  is  the  primitive  Western  bilingual; 
its  apparently  Eastern  character  is  a  delusion,  for  the  Old  Syriac 
texts  lean  on  a  Graeco-Latin,  and  perhaps  simply  on  a  Latin  base. 
That  the  Sahidic  version,  and  other  Egyptian  attestation,  sometimes 
complicates  the  question  by  an  apparently  greater  geographical 
distribution  than  would  seem  to  be  possible  for  truly  Occidental 
readings,  is  an  illusion  arising  from  the  fact  of  our  ignorance  that 
the  Sahidic  version  demonstrably  has  stolen  Latin  readings.  The 
Western  text  is  now  no  longer  the  '  conceivably  apostolic '  edition 
which  Dr  Hort  suggests,  but  it  represents  the  successive  trans 
lations  and  retranslations  of  actual  Occidental  tradition. 

This  text  was  translated  into  Latin  before  the  time  of  Tatian, 
and  the  primitive  bilingual  in  which  the  translation  stood  is  a 
document  of  a  patriarchal  dignity  and  largely  capable  of  restoration. 
We  will  presently  proceed  to  intimate  where  this  translation  was 
made. 

But  before  going  further  we  must  ask  a  similar  question  to  the 
important  one  which  occupied  us  in  relation  to  the  Latin  trans 
lations  ;  the  question  of  reflex  action.  If  either  the  Greek  or  the 
Latin  of  the  Western  text  passed  into  Syriac,  was  there  any 
reaction  from  the  Syriac  on  the  Greek  or  Latin  ? 


C.  B.  12 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
DOES  THE  CODEX  BEZAE  SYRIACIZE? 

THOSE  who  have,  like  ourselves,  sought  to  explain  the  per 
plexing  textual  anomalies  of  the  Western  readings,  have  generally 
fallen  back  either  upon  the  hypothesis  of  reflex  Latinism  or  upon 
reflex  Syriasm.  And  it  has  usually  happened  that  the  Syriac 
hypothesis  has  been  taken  up,  because  the  Latinizing  theory  was 
supposed  to  be  no  longer  tenable. 

Certainly  it  is  not  a  theory  against  which  we  ought  to  be 
prejudiced  in  advance.  There  are  some  things  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  that  perhaps  will  never  yield  to  any  other  mode  of  elucidation. 
Take  for  example  Mark  viii.  10,  which  in  Cod.  D  reads 

KAI    HA66N    €IC   TA   OpIA   MeAefdAA 
ET  VENIT  IN   PARTE8  MAGIDAN. 

Here  most  early  texts  give  us  ^a\^avovOdy  so  as  to  read 

fafav  els  TO.  pcpr)  AoX/iaj/ov&i. 

But  since  the  letters  \fiavovda  are  an  almost  exact  transcript 
of  the  Syriac  for  els  ra  fjieprj,  we  have  a  text  which  is  equivalent  to 


and  it  is  clear  that  the  text  is  dittographed  and  that  the  real  name 
has  dropped  out. 

If  this  explanation  be  the  right  one,  we  have  lighted  upon 
a  case  in  which  all  Greek  MSS.  except  D  have  a  Syriac  error  !  An 
astonishing  thing,  but  not  an  impossibility. 

Let  this  instance  suffice  to  shew  that  it  is  by  no  means  an 
unreasonable  thing  to  look  for  Syriac  corruptions  in  the  New 
Testament  text. 


DOES   THE   CODEX   BEZAE   SYRIACIZE  ?  179 

Such  a  suspicion  is  confirmed  when  we  turn  to  history :  the 
Western  Church,  especially  in  Gaul,  was  constantly  and  from  the 
first  under  Oriental  and  Greek  influences.  First  and  foremost 
amongst  these  influences  was  the  presence  of  traders.  Let  us  look 
at  what  Salvian  of  Marseilles  (writing  in  the  fifth  century)  says 
about  that  city J. 

Nam  ut  de  alio  hominum  genere  non  dicam  consideremus  solas  negotia- 
torum  et  siricorum2  omnium  turbas,  quae  majorem  ferme  civitatem  universam 
partem  occupaverunt,  si  aliud  est  vita  istorum  omnium  quam  meditatio  doli 
et  tritura  mendacii,  aut  si  non  perire  admodum  verba  aestimant  quae  nihil 
loquentibus  prosunt. 

And  that  this  influence  of  Eastern  traders  is  not  limited  to 
Marseilles  and  the  neighbourhood  may  be  seen  from  the  stories 
in  Gregory  of  Tours :  for  example,  a  Syrian  trader  got  himself 
appointed  bishop  of  Paris,  apparently  by  unfair  means,  and  when 
elected  applied  to  the  Church  offices  the  principle  that  'to  the 
victor  belong  the  spoils/  Accordingly  Gregory  tells  us 3 

Eagnimodus  quoque  Parisiacae  urbis  episcopus  obiit.  Cumque  germanus 
eius  Faramodus  presbiter  pro  episcopate  concurreret,  Eusebius  quidam 
negotiator  genere  Syrus,  datis  multis  muneribus,  in  locum  eius  subrogatus 
est ;  isque,  accepto  episcopate  omnem  scole  decessoris  sui  abiciens,  Syros  de 
genere  suo  eclesiasticae  domui  ministros  statuit. 

The  same  Gregory  of  Tours  tells  us4  that  he  translated  the 
story  of  the  Seven  Sleepers  into  Latin  by  the  aid  of  John  the 
Syrian :  "  quod  passio  eorum,  quam  Siro  quodam  interpretante 
in  Latino  transtulimus,  plenius  pandit " ;  but  it  is  difficult  to 
determine  from  what  language  the  translation  was  made.  Under 
the  date  A.D.  585 8  he  relates  an  account  of  the  entry  of  the 
king  into  the  city  of  Orleans,  and  of  his  being  met  by  a  crowd 
of  people  carrying  banners  and  singing  in  the  language  of  the 
Latins,  the  Syrians,  and  even  the  Jews 6. 

1  Salvian,  De  Gubern.  Dei,  iv.  14. 

2  Rittershusius  suggests  sericorum,  but  it  is  more  likely  syrorum. 

3  Greg.  Tur.  Bk  x.  p.  438  (ed.  Arndt  et  Krusch). 

«  Greg.  Tur.  Gtor.  Mart.  c.  94.  5  Bk  vin.  p.  326. 

6  "Bed  cum  ad  urbem  Aureliensem  venisset,  erat  ea  die  solemnitas  beati  Martini, 
id  est  quarto  nonas  mensis  quinti.  Processitque  in  obviam  eius  immensa  populi 
turba  cum  signis  adque  vixillis,  canentes  laudes.  Et  hinc  lingua  Syrorum,  hinc 
Latinorum,  hinc  etiam  ipsorum  ludaeorum,  in  diversis  laudibus  varie  concrepabat, 
dicens:  Vivat  rex,  regnumque  eius  in  populis  annis  innumeris  dilatetur." 

12—2 


180  DOES   THE   CODEX    BEZAE    SYRIACIZE  ? 

The  only  difficulty  with  such  statements  is  that  of  determining 
whether  the  term  Syrus  means  anything  more  than  a  Greek.  It 
is  certain  that  the  Oriental  influence  in  Gaul,  say  in  the  fifth 
century,  was  very  great ;  but  they  do  not  seem  to  have  discrimi 
nated  much  between  the  various  Eastern  nationalities.  Occasionally 
we  meet  with  more  specific  statements.  For  example,  there  is 
the  case  of  St  Abraham,  of  whom  Sidonius  Apollinaris  gives  us 
an  account.  This  good  man  came  to  France  from  the  East, 
probably  from  the  kingdom  of  Persia  \  having  fled  from  the  per 
secutions  brought  on  the  Christian  people  beyond  the  Euphrates 
by  King  Isdigerdes  (A.D.  420).  He  settled  not  far  from  Clermont, 
and  built  a  church  in  honour  of  Saint  Cyriacus,  where  miracles 
were  performed  after  his  death,  if  we  may  believe  Gregory  of  Tours. 
Here  then  is  a  bona-fide  case  of  an  Eastern  ascetic,  a  Syrian, 
transplanted  into  the  very  region  to  which  our  manuscript  belongs : 
and  we  have  no  doubt  that  many  more  such  cases  occurred,  and 
that  communications  between  the  East  and  the  West  were  even 
more  open  in  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era  than  they 
are  to-day. 

There  is  nothing,  then,  which  is  a  priori  absurd  or  difficult 
in  the  theory  that  Syriac  texts  may  have  re-acted  on  the  Western 
texts  from  which  they  were  derived,  whether  those  texts  be  found 
in  Gaul  or  elsewhere.  We  are  not  limited  to  any  possible  influence 
of  the  immediate  school  of  Irenaeus  and  his  successors.  Even 
political  influences  come  to  our  aid  in  this  investigation ;  for,  as 
Duchesne  points  out2,  we  have  to  bear  in  mind  that  many  reunions 
of  Oriental  bishops  took  place  in  Milan  in  the  fourth  century, 
and  in  particular  that  Auxentius,  who  was  bishop  of  Milan  from 
A.D.  355—374,  was  a  Cappadocian. 

In  dealing  then  with  the  Codex  Bezae,  which  was  certainly  in 
Gaul  in  the  sixth  century  and  whose  text  may  be  under  ancestral 
Gallican  influences  for  some  time  before  the  sixth  century,  even  if 
the  translation  itself  be  not  primitively  Gallican,  we  hold  ourselves 
at  liberty  to  use  with  freedom  the  hypothesis  of  Semitic  re-actions 
on  a  Greek  text. 

1  Sidonius,  ep.  17 ;  Tillemont,  xvi.  257 ;  Stokes,  Ireland  and  the  Celtic  Church, 
p.  173. 

*  Revue  Critique  for  15  July,  1890. 


DOES  THE  CODEX   BEZAE  SYRIACIZE  ?  181 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  a  similar  question  has  come  up 
in  connexion  with  the  translation  of  Irenaeus  and  with  the  text  of 
Irenaeus  himself.  Harvey,  for  instance,  claims  for  Irenaeus  "a 
respectable  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  a  very  per 
ceptible  familiarity  with  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  in 
a  Syriac  version1."  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the 
name  Irenaeus  may  be  a  substitute  for  some  Semitic  name ;  and 
says2:  "  S.  Irenaeus,  who  was  of  eastern  extraction,  had  in  all  pro 
bability  a  more  familiar  acquaintance  in  his  early  years  with  some 
Syriac  translation  than  with  the  Greek  original  of  the  Scriptures 
of  the  New  Testament."  Accordingly  he  makes  many  attempts  to 
shew  how  the  Western  readings  of  Irenaeus'  New  Testament  are 
to  be  arrived  at  by  the  process  of  corruption  of  Syriac  texts : 
for  example,  in  the  opening  words  of  Irenaeus'  preface  the  ex 
pression  \6yov$  ^IrevSels  KCLI  yevea\oylas  iLaralas  ainves  ^rjTijcreis 
fj,d\\ov  Trape^ovcn  is  brought  into  harmony  with  the  current 
Greek  texts  of  the  New  Testament  by  equating  /larata?  =  eV  al? 
/u-aratoTT/?  =  ^»crA  K&ol&Qo.l  =  ^»orA  &vA  r^L&QD.i,  which  is 
the  Syriac  equivalent  for  aTrepavrovs.  And  he  applies  the  same 
method  more  or  less  successfully  in  a  number  of  other  cases. 

I  do  not  however  see  that  his  method  is  very  different  from 
the  general  attempt  to  explain  Western  readings  in  the  New 
Testament  by  means  of  Syriasms.  It  has  been  recognized  that 
many  of  what  are  called  Western  readings  are  just  as  much 
Eastern  readings;  they  are  supposed  by  Dr  Hort  to  have  had 
their  origin  in  Asia  Minor,  while  we,  for  our  part,  hold  that  they 
are  truly  Western :  whichever  of  these  hypotheses  be  correct,  the 
affinity  between  the  text  of  the  Old  Syriac  and  the  Diatessaron 
of  Tatian,  and  the  so-called  Western  Greek  and  Latin  versions, 
is  so  decided  that  they  have  to  be  treated  together.  Consequently 
there  have  from  time  to  time  been  suggestions  made  that  the 
texts  of  the  New  Testament  which  we  call  Western  contain  a 
Syriac  element,  which  is  something  different  from  the  Aramaisms 
that  may  have  coloured  the  speech  of  the  primitive  evangelical 
writers  ;  an  element  which  can  be  eliminated,  and  by  the  study  of 
which  we  can  explain  the  occurrence  of  some  at  least  of  the 

1  Harvey,  Irenaeus,  p.  cliii. 
8  p.  1,  note. 


182          DOES  THE  CODEX  BEZAE  SYRIACIZE  ? 

primitive  and  perplexing   forms  in   the  early  text  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Now,  this  hypothesis  is  a  very  inviting  one  and  has  engaged 
the  attention  of  a  number  of  writers,  especially  those  who  desired 
to  explain  the  text  of  the  Codex  Bezae.  For  example,  a  reference 
may  be  made  to  I.  D.  Michaelis'  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  and  the 
notes  of  Herbert  Marsh  on  the  same1,  from  which  we  will  quote  a 
sentence  or  two  by  way  of  illustration.  Michaelis  speaks  of  the 
probability  that 

The  Syriac  has  had  an  influence  on  the  Latin,  especially  in  those  examples 
where  an  error  is  committed  that  might  happen  more  easily  to  the  Syrian 
than  the  Latin  translator.  The  Latin  text  is  properly  a  composition  of 
several  ancient  Latin  versions,  one  of  which  must  have  been  made  by  a  native 
Syrian,  as  appears  from  the  Syriasms  found  in  the  Latin  text  of  several 
ancient  MSB.  that  greatly  exceed  in  harshness  the  Syriasms  of  the  Greek 
Testament:  this  Syriac  translator  was  probably  guided,  in  obscure  passages, 
by  the  version  of  his  own  country,  the  effects  of  which  appear  to  this  very 
day  in  the  Vulgate. 

But  Michaelis  does  not  push  this  theory  to  an  extreme,  for  he 
recognizes  that 

The  wonderful  harmony  between  the  two  most  ancient  versions  of  the  New 
Testament,  one  of  which  was  spread  throughout  Europe  and  the  north  of 
Africa,  the  other  propagated  from  Edcssa  to  China,  could  have  had  no  other 
cause  than  similarity  of  the  Greek  MSS.  in  the  West  of  Europe  and  the  East 
of  Asia. 

Since  Michaelis  wrote  these  words  the  textual  affinities  have 
become  more  decided  by  the  discovery  of  older  forms  of  the  Syriac 
version,  yet  it  cannot  be  said  that  his  hypothesis  has  been 
confirmed  or  demonstrated. 

Another  hypothesis  nearly  related  to  that  of  Michaelis  is  that 
of  Schulz,  who  in  his  discussion  of  our  MS.8  maintained 

Etiam  Graecum  codicis  D  sermonem  ab  interpretatione  aliqua  eaque 
Oriental!  (forsan  Syra)  pruritus  pependisse,  aut  eiusmodi  versionem  in  ex- 
arando  hocce  libro...una  cum  Graeco  quodam  antigrapho  adhibitam  fuisse. 
Nam  alia  ratione  sumpta  haud  facile  crediderim  solvi  posse  cuncta,  quae 
libri  mira  indoles  divinationi  nostrae  obiicit,  aenigmata. 

1  Marsh's  Michaelis,  Vol.  n.  part  1,  p.  26. 

8  Disputatio  de  Codice  Cantabrigiensi ,  Wratislaviae,  MDCCCXXVII.  p.  16. 


DOES   THE   CODEX   BEZAE   SYRIAC1ZE  ?  183 

Schulz,  then,  in  modern  language  maintains  that  the  Western 
Greek  text,  as  exhibited  by  D,  is  corrected  from  or  conflate  with 
a  Syriac  copy.  But  he  does  not  do  more  in  illustration  of  his 
thesis  than  collect  a  number  of  readings  in  which  D  and  the 
Peshito  Syriac  agree.  He  could  scarcely  get  to  the  heart  of  the 
mystery  that  way. 

Now,  when  we  note  these  suggestions  which  are  made  in  the 
hope  of  explaining  Western  readings,  we  ought  to  ask  whether 
there  is  any  promise  of  the  obtaining  of  any  further  light  in 
this  direction,  or  whether,  on  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  Syriac 
reaction  upon  Greek  and  Latin  texts  ought  to  be  dismissed 
with  as  much  confidence  as  we  should,  for  example,  dismiss 
the  opinion  of  Kipling  and  Schulz  that  the  Codex  Bezae  was 
written  in  Egypt,  or  Bengel's  view  that  it  was  related  to  the 
Anglo-Saxon. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  best  way  to  approach  such  an 
enquiry  would  be  to  examine  the  Codex  Bezae  for  individual 
Syriasms,  rather  than  for  coincidences  of  reading  with  Syriac 
versions ;  just  as  we  began  our  study  of  the  Old  Latin  text 
by  detecting  some  of  its  archaisms. 

For  instance,  when  in  John  xi.  14  we  have  Lazar  for  the 
translation  of  Lazarus,  and  note  the  same  error  in  the  Old  Latin 
Cod.  a,  which  perhaps  derives  it  from  the  same  source  as  d, 
we  may  say  that  there  is  either  a  Syriasm  or  a  Hebraism 
in  the  text,  and  apparently  on  the  Latin  side  of  the  house. 
In  Luke  xiii.  14  again  we  find  in  die  sabbat,  which  need 
not  be  a  scribe's  blunder.  When  we  find  in  Luke  ix.  1,  teat 
egova-iav  CTTI  iracrav  Scupoviov  we  suspect  that  the  feminine 
adjective  is  due  to  the  Semitic;  in  fact  the  Curetonian  text 
has  in  this  place  rtlwoi.  When,  again,  we  frequently  find  the 
scribe  of  D  spelling  camellus  instead  of  the  conventional  form, 
both  in  Greek  and  in  Latin,  and  remember  that  the  last  letter  of 
the  Hebrew  7J&-H  is  a  double  letter,  we  might  perhaps  suspect 
Semitic  influence ;  but  on  the  other  hand  observe  it  is  the  spelling 
of  the  Lyons  Pentateuch  and  of  some  Romance  languages. 

In  Acts  xiii.  6  we  have 

ONOMATI    KAAOYMGNON    BAp'l'HCOYA 
NOMINE  QVI   VOCATVR   BABIESVAM, 


184  DOES  THE   CODEX   BEZAE   SYRIACIZE  ? 

and  the  form  of  the  name  suggests  at  once  a  Syriasm  both 
in  the  text  arid  in  the  rendering.  The  true  reading  in  this 
passage  is  very  difficult  to  determine,  but  it  seems  as  though 
some  copyists  had  taken  offence  at  the  name  (Bapiycroiis  in  such  a 
connexion  and  had  deliberately  changed  it,  something  in  the 
same  way  as  the  Rabbis  changed  Moses  into  Manasseh  in  the 
account  of  the  idolatrous  priest  in  the  Old  Testament;  accordingly 
the  Syriac  version  reads  r^snojL.  is  or  son  of  the  Name. 
In  the  West,  however,  it  seems  to  have  been  held  sufficient 
to  change  the  common  Greek  form  'I^o-oO?  to  the  Semitic  form. 
There  are,  then,  at  least  shadowy  hints  of  non  -primitive  Syriasms. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  a  more  decisive  instance  : 

In  John  xi.  54  we  have 


ATTHAGeN    6IC    THN 

GAM(J>oYpeiN  erryc  THC  epHMOY  eic  e4>p<MM 

TTOAlN 

BED   ABUT   IN    REGIONEM 

SAPFVRIM   IVXTA   DESERTVM   EFREM   QVAE   DICITVR 
CIVITAS. 

On  this  curious  reading  Dr  Hort  remarks  as  follows  :  "  perhaps 
a  local  tradition,  though  the  name  has  not  been  identified  with 
any  certainty.  Sepphoris  is  apparently  excluded  by  its  geo 
graphical  position." 

It  would  be  extremely  interesting  if  tradition  had  here  pre 
served  the  name  of  our  Lord's  brief  sanctuary  in  a  time  of 
increasing  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  rulers  ;  but  we  are 
inclined  to  suspect  taat  ^afi^ovpeifjb  is  a  mere  corruption  from  the 
Syriac  words  answering  to  "whose  name  is  Ephraim";  it  is  easy 
to  see  how  a  Syriac  text  which  contained  the  words 


could  be  read  as  "  the  city  of  Samphurim." 

Nor  is  this  a  mere  random  conjecture  ;  notice  how  artificially 
the  word  has  been  thrust  into  the  text  so  as  to  lengthen  the  line 
unreasonably,  so  that  we  might  call  it  both  in  appearance  and  in 
matter  a  conflate  text.  And  then  let  us  pass  on  to  another 
precisely  similar  instance.  In  Ephrem's  commentary  on  Tatian's 
Harmony1  we  find  "Patres  nostri  in  hoc  monte  adoraverunt. 
1  Ed.  Moesinger,  p.  142. 


DOES  THE   CODEX   BEZAE   SYRIACIZE  ?  185 

Haec  de  Jacob  et  filiis  ejus  dixit,  quia  in  Monte  Sichem  aut 
in  Bethel  aut  in  Monte  Samgriazim  adorarunt."  Ephrem  is 
commenting  upon  the  verse  John  iv.  20,  and  he  is  in  some 
confusion  as  to  the  identification  of  the  mountain,  as  to  whether 
it  be  the  mountain  of  Shechem  which  might  mean  either  Ebal  or 
Gerizim,  or  whether  it  means  Bethel,  or  the  mountain  Samgriazim. 
Now  this  is  a  similar  case  to  the  preceding,  and  involves  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  Syriac  words  "  whose  name  is  Gerizim," 


Of  course  it  is  possible  that  in  either  of  the  cases  we  have 
mentioned  the  letters  %a/j,  might  be  the  first  syllable  of  a  lost 
'S.afAapia,  but  the  concurrence  in  error  is  so  peculiar  that  we  can 
hardly  accept  such  an  explanation,  against  the  simple  and  natural 
one  given  above. 

In  this  last  case  Mar  Ephrem  is  evidently  perplexed  about  the 
name  which,  if  his  text  had  been  quite  clear,  would  have  needed  no 
comment  ;  that  is,  he  found  it  in  the  text  upon  which  he  had  been 
working,  and  we  have  therefore  to  suggest  that  Tatian  had  inserted 
the  name  of  the  mountain  in  his  text.  Such  a  proceeding  would  be 
quite  in  harmony  with  many  of  his  other  expansions  and  eluci 
dations  of  the  Scripture.  But  this  drives  us  back  to  the  first  case  ; 
for  the  two  belong  so  suspiciously  together  that  we  are  obliged 
to  ask  whether  ^a^ovpeifju  is  not  also  a  corruption  of  a  Tatian 
text.  And  this  leads  us  again  to  the  wider  question  ;  has  the 
Tatian  Harmony  in  any  way  reacted  on  the  Western  text  ?  and  are 
any  of  the  assimilations  or  conflations  in  D  due  to  reflex  action 
from  this  source  ? 

In  Acts  xiv.  27  we  have 


OCA    O    0C    eTTOIHCGN 
MCTA    TCON    YYX60N    &YTOON, 

where  the  reading  has  every  appearance  of  conflation  and  is  sin 
gular  to  our  MS.  The  ordinary  reading  eV  avrofc  seems  to  have 
been  replaced  by  per  avrwv,  which  passed  into  the  Syriac  as 
^^ocpdiT  °ki  ^^  for  ^€0*  eavrwv,  and  has  come  back  to  reside 
in  a  literal  translation  in  the  Greek  text. 

These  are  the  principal  traces  of  actual  Scmitism  which  we 


186          DOES  THE  CODEX  BEZAE  SYRIACIZE  ? 

find  in  our  MS.  Such  as  they  are,  they  are  either  the  accidents  of 
a  Semitic  hand  or  they  are  reflex  actions  from  the  Tatian  Harmony. 
It  does  not  seem  as  though  they  constituted  a  general  solution  to 
the  New  Testament  text  riddle. 

If  we  had  not  known  that  the  MS.  was  French,  we  might 
possibly  have  urged  that  the  use  of  de  for  a  genetive  was  a  form 
of  speech  to  which  a  Semitic  hand  was  disposed :  cf.  the  Syriac 
use  of  the  prefix  .1.  Or  we  might  have  drawn  attention  to  the 
use  of  the  prosthetic  vowel  which  prevails  in  Syriac  as  widely  as 
in  old  French  (e.g.  fc_O*:i\vooK'  for  o-rdSiov,  r^CVJ^QOT^  for  crroa, 
K'ttL^a^oorc!'  for  aro^ela  arid  the  like).  But  we  are  satisfied 
that  where  such  forms  occur  in  our  MS.  they  are  Gallicisms,  even 
though  they  should  occur  in  the  Greek  (as  in  Mark  xi.  8,  ean- 
fidSas  for  o-rt/SaSas). 

If  we  had  not  known,  by  examination,  the  extent  to  which  the 
Latin  had  re-acted  on  the  Greek,  we  should  perhaps  have  been 
tempted  with  Kipling  to  scent  Semitism  in  the  recurrence  and 
superfluity  of  the  connective  fcai.  But  we  see  clearly  that  it 
arises  from  the  translation  of  a  participle  and  finite  verb  by  two 
verbs  with  a  conjunction,  which  said  conjunction  has  a  trick  of 
returning  on  the  Greek  text.  As  to  the  instances  brought  forward 
by  Michaelis  and  Harvey,  they  deserve  a  closer  examination.  Per 
haps  the  best  of  them  are  as  follows. 

In  Mark  i.  41  *  the  reading  /cal  opyicrQels  l/crewa?  rrjv 
avrov  is  explained  by  a  confusion  between  }o^.i  and 
which  would  give  the  necessary  crTrXayxwo-tfet?. 

We  are  convinced,  however,  that  the  real  explanation  is  some 
thing  much  more  simple  ;  it  arose  out  of  a  misunderstanding  of 
the  African  Latin  motus,  which  was  ambiguous  in  its  meaning. 
If  the  reader  will  refer  to  the  Acts  of  Perpetua  he  will  find  two 
instances  of  the  use  of  the  word.  In  c.  3  we  have 

"tune  pater  motus  in  hoc  verbo" 

where  the  corresponding  Greek  is  Tapa%0ek,  and  in  c.  13 
"et  moti  sumus   et   complexi  illos  sumus," 

*  Marsh's  Michaelis,  n.  233. 


DOES   THE   CODEX   BEZAE   SYRIACIZE  ?  187 

where  the  Greek  is  (nr\ayxyi,cr6evTe<;.     The  word  might  be  used 
both  of  passion  and  of  compassion. 

We  may  be  sure  then  that  the  primitive  Latin  text  was  motus, 
which  was  misunderstood  by  some  later  readers,  and  a  correction 
imported  into  the  Greek.  We  have  a  modern  instance  of  the  very 
same  peculiarity  in  Zahn's  recent  restoration  of  the  text  of  Marcion1. 
Zahn  quotes  from  Tertullian  the  following  remark  on  Luke  xiv.  21, 
"  Hoc  ut  patrifamiliae  renuntiatum  est,  motus  tune  (bene  quod  et 
motus,  negat  enim  moveri  deum  suum,  ita  et  hoc  [v.  1.  hie]  meus 
est),  mandat  de  plateis  et  vicis  civitatis  facere  sublectionem  "  : 
and  having  established  the  word  motus  for  Marcion's  text,  which 
certainly  looks  as  if  Tertullian  were  quoting  from  a  known  Latin, 
version,  Zahn  goes  on  to  say:  also  sicherlich  nicht  opyiaOek. 
Accordingly  he  projects  back  an  impossible  Kivr)6ds  upon  Marcion's 
text.  A  beautiful  but  unnecessary  instance  of  modern  Latinization  ! 

In  Acts  iii.  14, 

Y/v\eic  Ae  TON  &n°N  KAI  AIKAION 


VOS  AVTEM   IPSVM   SANCTVM   ET   IVSTVM 
GRABASTIS, 

it  is  proposed  to  explain  the  reading  by  a  change  of  \^  (negare) 
to  .ISA  (gravare).  The  reading  is  an  important  one2,  on  account 
of  its  occurrence  in  Irenaeus;  we  have  already  endeavoured  to 
explain  it  in  a  previous  chapter  as  a  Latinization  of  a  misread 
Greek  text. 

In  Acts  iii.  17, 

OTI    YM€IC    MEN    KATA    AfNOIAN    enpA?<\T6    TTONHpO 
GOCTTep    K<M    Ol    <\PXONT€C    YM^N 

QVIA   VOS 

O 

QVIDEM    PER   INORANTIAM   EGISTIS   INIQVITATEM 
SICVT   ET   PRINCIPES   VESTRI, 

where  the  eVpafare  Trovrjpbv  is  said  to  be  for  ^.^oiia^i,  perhaps 
under  the  influence  of  oAjtr»  in  the  next  line3.  But  here  too 


1  Geschichte  des  Neutestamentlichen  Kanons  Bd.  ii.  Zweite  Halfte,  i  Abtheilung, 
p.  478. 

58  See  Harvey,  Irenaeus,  n.  55=  Mass.  194. 
3  Harvey,  Ibid. 


188  DOES  THE   CODEX   BEZAE   SYRIACIZE  ? 

we  have  probably  nothing  more  than  a  reflex  action  from  the 
translation  into  Latin. 

Many  other  cases  may  be  found  in  Michaelis  and  in  Harvey,  but 
they  are  by  no  means  as  convincing  as  one  has  a  right  to  expect. 
(Harvey's  textual  criticism  is  never  of  a  very  high  order.)  We 
cannot  then  say  that  they  or  we  have  brought  forward  any  clear 
evidence  of  wide-spread  Syriacizing  in  the  Codex  Bezae.  Sporadic 
traces  there  may  be,  and  perhaps  a  few  Tatianisms;  but  not 
much  beside.  The  latter  form  of  corruption  may  appear  not  only 
in  the  use  of  actual  readings  but  perhaps  also  in  the  form  of 
harmonistic  confusion. 

It  is  undeniable  that  there  is  a  great  deal  of  harmonistic  error 
in  the  Codex  Bezae.  The  only  trouble  in  laying  such  errors  at 
any  individual  door  lies  in  the  fact  that  all  Harmonists  are 
likely  to  make  certain  combinations,  and  to  some  of  them  a  scribe 
is  liable  who  never  used  a  Harmony  in  his  life.  We  will  point  out 
a  few  cases  of  this  tendency,  without  any  desire  to  draw  an  extreme 
conclusion  from  them. 

In  Luke  xi.  30  there  is  added  at  the  end  of  the  verse, 


KAI    K&960C 

8N    TH    KOlAlA   TOY    KHTOyC 
TRIG    HMCp&C    K<M    TpIC 
OYTCOC    KAI    O   Y'OC   TOY   AN0pO)TTOY    eN    TH    I"H. 


The  appendix  is  a  somewhat  rude  representation  of  Matt.  xii.  40, 
and  can  scarcely  be  in  its  primitive  form,  one  would  think.  But, 
in  any  case,  in  Tatian  the  passage  Matt.  xii.  40  followed  Luke  xii.  30, 
as  we  may  see  by  a  reference  to  the  Arabic  version  published  by 
Ciasca. 

In  Luke  xxiv.  1  we  have  the  addition  • 


€N 
TIC    Ap<\   ATTOKYAlCCI    TON    AlGON. 


This  is,  perhaps,  from  Mark  xvi.  3,  and  we  notice  that  the 
Arabic  Harmony  puts  the  passages  together: 


Luke  xxiv.  1, 


portantes  quae  paraverant 
aromata ; 


DOES  THE   CODEX  BEZAE   SYRIACTZE  ?  189 

Mark  xvi.  3, 

et  dicebant  in  semetipsis 
quis  revolvet  nobis  lapidem 
ab  ostio  monument!. 

Here  D  has  the  following  of  c  and  the  Sahidic,  and  we  should 
prefer  to  believe  that  the  error  had  a  Latin  origin,  so  as  to  agree 
with  a  previously  observed  delinquency  of  this  group.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  may  be  harmonistic. 

In  Luke  xix.  45  the  text  of  D  is  very  involved :  he  has 
expanded  the  account  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  from  John 
and  Matthew  ;  but  this  need  not  surprise  us ;  for  Tatian  regards 
the  account  in  John  as  the  same  as  that  in  the  Synoptics,  and 
welds  the  two  stories  together.  According  to  D  then  we  have 
eAScoN  Ae  eic  TO  iepON  HP^ATO  CKBAAAeiN 

TOYC    TTtoAoyNTAC    €N    AYTCO    KAI    ACOpAZONTAC 
KAI    TAC   TpATTGZAC   TCON    KOAAyBlCTCON 

eSexeeN  KAI  TAC  K&OeAp&c  TCON  naiAoyNTco 
TAC  nepiCTepAC... 

Here  we  follow  Luke  as  far  as  TrwXoiWa?,  where  it  is  pretty 
evident  that  the  text  of  Luke  ended ;  the  next  words  answer  to 
Matt.  xxi.  12,  /cal  ayopd&vTas  ev  TO>  iepa)  KOI  ra?  rpaTrefa?  TWV 
Ko\\v/3i(TTQ)v,  but  here  something  has  dropped  out,  probably  the 
words  Kareo-rpetfrev  (from  Matt.)  and  wv  ra  /cep/tara  (from  John  ii. 
15);  et-€X€ev  is  from  John,  and  the  rest  of  the  passage  is  from 
Matthew. 

We  can  now  compare  with  the  Arabic  Tatian  which  shews 

et  numularios  quorum  aes  effudit  et  subvertit  mensas  et  cathedras  venden- 
tium  columbas. 

It  is  then  possible  that  a  mental  or  an  actual  reference  to 
Tatian,  or  to  some  other  Harmonist,  may  be  the  cause  of  the 
expansion  of  the  narrative. 

The  case  of  Luke  xix.  27  is  somewhat  more  difficult :  we  have 
Matt.  xxv.  30  added  at  the  end  of  the  verse.  Now,  the  Arabic 
Tatian  carefully  separates  the  two  parables  of  the  talents  and  the 
minae  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  Zahn  seems  to  think  that  in  the 
primitive  Tatian  they  formed  part  of  one  account.  Accordingly 
he  shews  how  the  passages  run  together  in  Ephrem's  Commentary 
and  in  the  Homilies  of  Aphraates.  In  particular  the  text  of  Ephrem 


190  DOES  THE   CODEX   BEZAE  SYRIACIZE  ? 

ran  thus  (Moesinger,  p.  218),  "Talenta  sua... abscond! t  illud... 
auferte  ab  illo  talentum...sint  lumbi  vestri  praecincti...et  accensae 
lucernae  vestrae,"  where  the  beginning  is  from  Matt,  and  the  end 
from  Luke.  Now,  if  Tatian  or  some  earlier  Harmonist  really 
joined  the  passages  together,  as  we  may  well  believe,  we  need 
not  be  surprised  at  the  added  verse  in  Cod.  D. 

Other  instances  for  study,  in  the  line  of  harmonisation,  will 
readily  present  themselves.  We  will  examine  one  further  case 
before  leaving  the  point. 

Let  us  turn  to  Matt,  xxvii.  8 ;  we  may  verify  the  following  state 
ment  from  the  forms  of  the  Tatian  Harmony  that  have  come  down 
to  us.  that  Tatian  not  merely  harmonised  his  four  Gospels,  but 
that  he  also  expanded  them,  when  he  thought  fit,  from  the  Acts 
and  Epistles.  One  such  case  is  this  apparently  double  account  of 
the  death  of  Judas,  where  Tatian  appended  the  details  which  he 
found  in  the  Acts  (eXatcrjcre  yaeo-o?),  as  a  post-mortem  experience. 
Thus  in  Ephrem's  Commentary  we  have  "  abiit  et  se  suspendit  et 
mortuus  est "  ;  followed  by  references  to  Acts  i.  18. 

Now,  when  the  scribe  of  the  Bezan  text  copies  Matt,  xxvii.  8, 
he  writes 

propter  quod  appellatus  est  ager  ille  •  echeldemach  hoc  est  ager  sanguinis  • 
usque  in  hodiernum. 

The  peculiar  spelling  of  echeldemach  shews  that  we  have  here 
a  transposition  from  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts :  but  this  would 
be  natural  enough  for  Tatian,  first,  because  we  know  he  borrows 
from  the  account  in  Acts ;  next,  because  he  was  obliged  to  exhibit 
some  such  form  in  translating  the  Greek  ^coplov  ai/taro?1. 

Finally,  it  may  be  interesting  to  contrast  the  method  of  Tatian 
with  that  of  the  Western  text;  Tatian  aims  at  supplementing 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  from  the  other  three  :  the  Bezan  text, 
which  is  conceivably  Tatianized,  makes  its  chief  expansions  in  the 
text  of  Luke. 

1  I  pass  by  the  difficult  question  as  to  the  form  of  the  word :  merely  saying  here 
that  I  believe  the  primitive  form  was  "pi  ?pn  the  sleeper's  field  or 
which  in  Galilean  patois  was  pronounced  nearly  as  KOI 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

LOCAL  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE  WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE 

ACTS. 

AND  now  we  have  at  last  succeeded  in  tracking  the  Western 
corruptions  to  their  origin.  At  least  we  have  gone  so  far  with 
the  matter  as  to  say  that  we  know  to  what  cause  (viz.  systematic 
Latinization)  to  attribute  the  major  part  of  the  variants  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles:  and  although  there  is  still  much  to  be  said 
with  regard  to  the  variants  in  the  Western  Gospels,  I  think 
we  may  safely  attack  the  question  of  local  origins,  keeping  our 
attention  chiefly  on  the  text  of  the  Acts,  and  avoiding  hasty 
generalisations  with  regard  to  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Testa 
ment.  We  have  shewn,  as  we  believe,  if  the  canon  hold  that 
community  of  reading  implies  community  of  origin,  that  the 
Old  Latin  texts  are  all  from  one  fountain ;  however  much  they 
may  have  emended  their  Greek  from  their  Latin,  and  translated 
and  re-translated,  they  go  back  into  a  single  root  which  we  call 
the  primitive  Western  bilingual.  And  this  primitive  bilingual 
must  be  very  ancient.  A  study  of  its  interpolations  in  Luke  1 
and  the  Acts  shewed  it  to  be  a  Montanist  text,  probably  known  j  f  * 
to  the  Martyrs  of  Carthage.  A  study  of  the  relations  between  D 
and  the  Sahidic  version  intimates  that  it  passed  through  the 
hands  of  those  persons  who  made  the  eclectic  Egyptian  copies 
and  versions ;  this  carries  it  back  beyond  the  time  of  Origen,  who 
may  be  responsible  for  Alexandrian  textual  eclecticism,  and  who 
in  any  case  was  probably  one  of  the  worst  textual  critics  the 
New  Testament  has  ever  had.  The  coincidences  between  D  and 
Irenaeus  take  us  again  to  a  primitive  translation  that  cannot 
be  as  late  as  the  end  of  the  second  century.  And  finally,  an 


192  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF  THE  PRIMITIVE 

/7  !  examination  of  the  relics  of  Tatian's  Harmony  and  of  the  Syriac 
versions  shews  reason  for  believing  that  the  bilingual,  at  least  as 
far  as  concerns  the  Gospels,  is  older  than  Tatian1. 

But  the  actual  determination  of  the  local  origin  of  the  Latin 
text  has  been  a  problem  that  has  hitherto  defied  solution;  we 
must  not  even  assume  that  the  same  origin  will  be  the  birthplace 
of  the  Latin  Gospels  and  of  the  Latin  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
nor  that  all  the  Gospels  were  primitively  translated  by  the  same 
hand  and  in  the  same  place. 

Now,  the  right  way  to  settle  such  a  question  does  not  consist 

in  citing  puzzling  remarks  of  Augustine  as  to  the  relative  merits 

of  Italian  and  African  texts,  and  the  superior  verbal  fidelity  of  the 

African  rendering:  these  criticisms  only  result  from  Augustine's 

observation  of  discrepancy  between  texts  current  in  North  Africa 

,  and  texts  current  in  Italy  in  his  own  day:  they  are  not  scientific. 

1   It  may  be  doubted  whether  Augustine  or  Jerome  had  the  slightest 

I   idea  as  to  where  the  New  Testament  was  originally  translated, 

or   even  that   there   was   a   single   primitive   translation.     They 

merely  saw  a  variety  of  types  of  Latin  text  around  them,  and 

they   criticised   them   superficially  and   used   them   eclectically; 

Origen  did  much  the  same  with  the  Greek  texts  in  Alexandria. 

One  of  the  first  suggestions  to  occur  in  such  an  enquiry 
as  this  is  that  we  should  test  the  various  texts  for  Africanism. 
Indeed  this  is  the  only  course  open  to  those  who  undertake  to 

1  It  is  pleasing  to  find  that  at  this  point  my  researches  lead  to  the  same  con 
clusion  as  those  of  Besch.  I  am  surprised  at  this,  for  in  many  points  I  suspect  my 
results  are  fatal  to  some  of  his  reasonings  with  regard  to  the  uncanonical  sources  of 
the  New  Testament;  but  in  the  following  points  we  seem  to  agree. 

Besch,  Agrapha,  pp.  350,  351,  "Es  ist  namlich  der  Cod.  Cantabr.,  oder  vielmehr 
dessen  Archetypus,  mit  welchem  fast  sammtliche  patristischen  Citate,  vorab  sammt- 
liche  lateinische  zusammenhangen.  Denn  der  Archetypus  des  Cod.  D  ist  ohne 
Zweifel  die  Quelle  der  altlateinischen  Versionen  gewesen.  Von  diesen  altlateinischen 
Versionen  aber  sind  die  lateinischen  Autoren  vor  Hieronymus  beherrscht,  so  nament- 

lich  luvencus,  Hilarius,  Augustinus Nun  es  ist  aber  ausser  Zweifel,  dass  der 

Archetypus  des  Cod.  D,  welcher  bis  in  das  zweite  Jahrhundert  zuriickzudatieren 
ist,  auf  die  vornicaenischen  Vater  griechischer  Zunge,  vorab  Clemens  und  Origenes, 
wie  iiberhaupt  auf  die  Alexandriner,  grossen  Einfluss  ausgetibt  hat,  dass  er  aber 
auch  mit  Tatian  sich  beruhrt,  folglich  bis  in  lustins  Zeiten  seme  Spuren  zuriickver- 
folgen  lasst.  Thatsachlich  schrumpft  also  die  grosste  Zahl  der  griechischen  und 
lateinischen  Parallelcitate  beinahe  auf  einen  einzigen  Hauptzeugen  zusammen,  wel 
cher  in  einem  Archetypus  des  Cod.  D  zu  erkennen  ist." 


WESTERN   TEXT  OF  THE   ACTS.  193 

prove  that  the  primitive  text  is  African.  It  is  not  enough 
for  them  to  say,  as  they  do,  that  Tertullian  evidently  knew  of  a 
translation  of  the  New  Testament :  for  the  underlying  assumption 
that  this  translation  could  only  have  been  made  shortly  before 
Tertullian  used  it  is  not  verifiable,  and  indeed  it  is  probably  far 
from  the  truth.  The  search  for  individual  Africanisms  has  not, 
however,  been  a  very  successful  thing.  Some  persons  deny 
altogether  the  existence  of  an  African  dialect  distinct  from  the 
Vulgar- Latin.  But  such  a  position  is  hardly  a  tenable  one :  it  is 
surely  impossible  that  the  Latin  spoken  in  a  Punic  country 
should  shew  no  variations  of  style  or  matter  from  the  Latin 
spoken  amongst  the  Celts  or  the  Lombards. 

The  best  investigation  of  the  subject  is  that  made  by  Sittl1, 
who  goes  straight  to  the  inscriptions  for  the  peculiar  forms  of 
speech,  and  tests  the  literature  by  the  inscriptions.  But  Sittl 
could  find  no  satisfactory  catalogue  of  Africanisms  in  the  Old 
Latin  texts,  and  while  he  admitted  the  substantial  Africanism 
of  some  parts  of  the  Latin  Old  Testament,  and  believed  in  the  j  fy 
existence  of  a  special  version  associated  with  Tertullian,  he 
concluded  that  the  so-called  Italic  version  had  its  origin  and 
home  not  in  Africa  but  in  Italy.  He  further  conjectured  that,  if 
it  had  arisen  in  Rome,  Augustine  would  have  called  it  Romana 
and  not  Itala ;  and  suggested  some  smaller  Italian  city — say 
Naples — as  the  centre  of  emanation  of  Latin  texts.  But,  as  we 
have  already  intimated,  Augustine  was  not  likely  to  know  any 
thing  in  the  world  about  the  primitive  habitat  of  texts,  so  that 
this  suggestion  of  Sittl  is  valueless. 

On  the  whole  we  must  admit  that  no  very  definite  conclusions 
have  as  yet  been  reached,  and  I  propose  to  begin  the  exami 
nation  de  novo,  not  with  the  hope  of  resolving  the  whole  of  the 
ambiguities  of  the  ancient  Western  textual  history,  but  because 
it  is  only  by  trying  patiently  to  solve  a  part  of  the  problem  by 
a  new  examination,  that  the  way  can  be  made  for  some  one  else 
to  solve  the  remaining  part. 

Let  us  begin  then  with  the  Western  text  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  confine  our  attention  for  the  present  to  that. 
When  we  say  that  it  is  an  early  text,  and  that  it  is  a  Montanizing 

1  Die  lokalen  Verschiedenheiten  der  lateinisctien  Sprache,  Erlangen,  1882. 
C.  B.  13 


194  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PRIMITIVE 

text  and  a  Latinizing  text,  there  is  nothing  decisive  as  to  locality 
about  either  of  these  statements:  but  we  cannot  be  far  wrong 
in  adding  that  this  practically  shuts  us  up,  in  seeking  for  the 
centre  of  textual  distribution,  to  the  three  cities,  Rome,  Lyons 
and  Carthage :  because  all  these  Churches  have  a  strong  Latin 
element,  and  all  of  them  Montanize,  the  order  of  intensity  being 
probably  Carthage,  Lyons,  Rome:  each  city  furnishing  one  noted 
teacher  at  least,  who  was  tinctured  more  or  less  completely  with 
the  Montanist  ideas,  viz.:  Tertullian,  Hennas,  and  Irenaeus, 
the  order  of  intensity  being  that  of  the  names1.  But  before 
we  can  get  any  further,  we  must  examine  the  data  of  the  case 
more  closely. 

We  must  not  assume  that  these  Montanist  glosses  are  coeval 
or  collocal  with  the  primitive  bilingual ;  but  we  may  begin  by 
saying  that  their  distribution  textually  is  very  wide,  and  they 
must,  as  a  body  of  glosses,  be  very  early.  Here  we  part  company 
from  Dr  Salmon,  who  remarks  that  he  has  "  found  reason,  on 
investigating  the  history  of  Montanism,  which  clearly  is  combated 
in  the  Muratorian  fragment,  to  think  that  it  did  not  make  its 
appearance  in  the  West  until  a  little  after  the  year  2002!" 

If  a  single  one  of  the  group  of  Montanist  glosses  be  traced  in 
the  text  of  Tertullian,  and  another  in  the  text  of  Irenaeus,  it 
would  be  enough  to  prove  that  the  Montanist  edition  of  the  Acts 
was  much  earlier  than  the  year  200,  and  what  becomes  then  of  the 
theory  of  third-century  Western  Montanism  ?  The  fact  is  that 
neither  the  history  nor  the  character  of  Montanism  is  as  yet 
properly  understood  ;  the  eyes  of  even  judicious  critics  having 
been  dimmed  through  a  long  heredity  of  heresy-hunting.  But, 
when  we  on«e  realize  the  fundamental  spiritual  aims  of  Monta 
nism  (instead  of  merely  treating  it  as  an  outward  division  of  the 
Church),  however  much  such  aims  may  be  liable  to  fanatical 
extravagance,  a  number  of  difficulties  become  clear  to  us  in  the 
history  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  to  say  nothing  of  the  illumi 
nation  thrown  upon  the  text  of  the  Codex  Bezae.  Every  verse 
of  the  Old  Testament,  or  of  the  New,  which  treats  of  the  descent  of 
the  spirit  of  prophecy  is  a  hinge  in  the  Montanist  system.  If 

1  We  may  limit  the  Montanism  of  Irenaeus  to  the  earlier  years  of  his  life. 

2  Introd.  to  New  Test.  p.  62. 


WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS.  195 

they  read  in  the  Old  Testament  that  the  Sophia  enters  into  holy 
souls  in  all  ages  and  makes  them  friends  of  God  and  prophets, 
this  magnificent  statement  is  the  reason  why  S.  Priscilla  says  that 
Christ  appeared  to  her  in  female  form  and  imparted  to  her  the 
Sophia  l.  The  passage  in  the  book  of  Wisdom  is  seen  to  be  a 
key-text,  and  so,  when  the  Montanist  glossator  comes  to  the  state 
ment  in  the  Acts  that  the  opposers  could  not  resist  the  wisdom 
that  was  in  Stephen,  he  felt  constrained  to  add  a  few  remarks 
about  the  Sophia,  which,  as  an  imparted  principle,  dwelt  in  Stephen. 
We  must  also  have  a  regard  to  Montanist  proof-texts  in  the  New 
Testament  :  for  here  one  of  the  fundamental  texts  is  John  xvi.  8, 
"  The  Paraclete  shall  convince  the  world."  That  is  why  the  gloss 
in  Acts  vi.  10  adds  the  words  "  since  they  were  convinced  by 
Him,"  meaning  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  not  Stephen  ;  "  quoniam 
probatur  illis  ab  illo."  So  that  a  study  of  a  system  of  glosses  like 
these  in  the  Acts  furnishes  us  with  what  we  may  call  the  quint 
essence  of  the  Montanist  theology. 

No  less  light  is  thrown  by  the  same  study  upon  the  difficult 
questions  of  textual  criticism.  Let  us  give  a  single  illustration  : 
the  case  of  the  famous  interpolation  (or  omission)  in  John  vii.  53  — 
viii.  11.  Dr  Hort  thinks  that  "few  in  ancient  times,  there  is 
reason  to  think,  would  have  found  the  section  a  stumbling-block 
except  Montanists  and  Novatians  V 

Evidently  Dr  Hort  did  not  think  that  Montanist  tampering 
with  the  text  amounted  to  much  ;  we  on  the  contrary  have  found 
reason  to  believe  that  it  was  a  very  far-reaching  influence  :  and 
that  in  the  present  instance  the  Montanist  Churches  either  did 
not  receive  this  addition  to  the  text,  or  else  they  are  responsible 
for  its  omission  ;  but  at  the  same  time  it  can  be  shewn  that  they 
knew  the  passage  perfectly  well  in  the  West  ;  for  the  Latin 
glossator  of  the  Acts  has  borrowed  a  few  words  from  the  section  in 
Acts  v.  18, 

KAI  enopeyOH  eic  GKACTOC  eic  TA  iAiA 

ET   ABIERVNT   VNVSQVISQVE   IN    DOMICILIA3. 


Of.  Origen,  Homil.  in  Jerem.  xiv.  5,  T/S  &  yevva.  irpwfr/rras  ;  77  <ro<f>la  TOV  0cov' 

v  ovv  r6"   Ofytot  £yu>  HJTIJP,  ws  rlva.  /*€  £re/c«,  w  <ro<f>la  ; 
8  Introd.  Notes  on  Select  Readings,  p.  86. 
3  The  origin  of  the  gloss  is  confirmed  by  the  words  added  a  little  lower  down 

13—2 


196  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF   THE    PRIMITIVE 

I  think  it  may  be  safely  said  that  more  than  forty  of  the  trouble 
some  glosses  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  can  be  set  down  with  a 
confidence  that  borders  closely  on  certainty  to  the  hand  of  the  Latin 
Montanist  referred  to  above.  And  nothing  can  be  more  important 
for  the  acquiring  of  right  views  with  regard  to  the  genesis  of 
New  Testament  readings  than  such  a  fact  as  this.  For  the  attes 
tation  of  such  a  group  of  readings  is  demonstrably  capable  of 
combination  and  can  be  replaced  by  a  single  factor;  and  the 
evidence  of  this  single  factor,  when  it  stands  by  itself,  is  of  the 
nature  of  a  proved  corruption. 

The  reader  will  be  interested  to  work  this  point  out  for  himself, 
and  he  will  be  surprised  to  find  the  power  of  this  Montanised 
copy :  he  will  find  its  influence  in  almost  all  Latin  texts  and 
fathers;  he  will  trace  it  in  Cod.  E,  which  is  probably  a  direct 
descendant  of  Codex  Bezae,  and  in  a  stray  cursive  or  two  ;  he  will 
find  it  in  the  Sahidic  and  Ethiopic  versions,  shewing  that  it  passed 
to  Alexandria  ;  in  the  margin  of  the  later  Syriac,  which  represents 
a  Greek  MS.  which  Thomas  of  Heraclea  consulted  in  Alexandria; 
and  probably  in  the  Syriac  text  itself,  perhaps  in  both  of  its 
recensions,  though  this  is  a  point  which  may  require  more  exami 
nation.  It  will  not,  however,  be  found  in  the  Great  Uncials,  nor 
in  the  ordinary  Greek  texts  and  fathers.  Wide  as  its  scope  is, 
this  text  and  its  descendants  are  not  universal  in  their  influence. 
The  lines  on  which  it  moves  can  be  marked  out,  the  areas  over 
which  it  is  current  can  be  shaded  in.  And  if  this  explanation  be 
a  correct  one  for  the  diffusion  of  the  single  group  of  readings 
referred  to,  then  it  is  a  vera  causa  for  similar  textual  phenomena ; 
and  we  say  unhesitatingly  that  the  occurrence  of  a  given  reading  in 


in  the  text;  viz.  ^fpflei/res  TO  wpwi,  which  is  an  adaptation  of  John  viii.  1. 
The  man  who  made  this  addition  not  only  knew  the  Gospel  of  John,  but  knew  it 
in  its  (supposed)  interpolated  form.  Moreover,  it  looks  as  though  the  interpolation 
was  made  from  the  Latin  side.  Thus  our  body  of  glosses  furnishes  important  evi 
dence  for  the  antiquity  of  the  doubtful  section. 

Those  who  are  interested  in  this  particular  subject  will  find  that  the  semi- 
Montanist  Hermas  knows  the  disputed  section ;  for  in  the  fourth  Mandate,  Hermas 
discusses  the  problem  of  the  woman  who  has  been  convicted  of  adultery,  and  the 
duties  of  the  husband  and  wife  are  laid  down  by  the  Shepherd,  who  finally  sums 
up  his  teaching  by  the  words,  o&  diSwfu  &4>op^v  tva  avri)  ij  irpafa  otfrwj  ffvvreXrjrai, 
dXXd  el *  rb  fj.-rjK^Ti  afiaprdvetv  rbv  T]^o.prr\n(yro..  The  disputed  section  was  therefore 
known  in  Rome  and  to  Hermas. 


WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   ACTS.  197 

Western  texts  and  in  the  main  body  of  the  versions  is  no  proof  at 
all  that  the  reading  did  not  originate  in  Rome,  or  even  Carthage, 
but  rather  is  a  suggestion  to  the  contrary. 

We  have  only  dealt  hitherto  with  those  glosses  and  changes 
which  may  be  considered  to  be  demonstrably  Montanistic ;  it  is 
probable  that  a  number  of  the  remaining  textual  excentricities  in 
the  Acts  may  have  to  be  set  down  to  the  same  cause  ;  for  it  is 
extremely  unlikely  that  we  should  always  have  been  able  to  detect 
the  glossator  at  his  work,  or  that  his  corrections  should  always 
have  been  so  highly  coloured  as  to  be  capable  of  immediate 
identification.  In  any  case,  it  can  be  proved  that  a  number  of 
the  remaining  glosses  are  from  a  Latin  hand,  whether  contem 
poraneous  with  the  former  or  not.  For  example,  the  first  four 
glosses  in  the  Acts  are  as  follows : 

Acts  i.  2  et  praecepit  praedicare  evangelium  [lux :  sah :  Aug :  Vig.Taps.]. 
i.  4  de  ore  rneo  [lux  :  aeth  :  Aug :  Hil.]. 
i.  5  et  eum  accipere  habetis  [tol :  Aug :  Hil :  Max.Taur.]. 
i.  5  usque  ad  pentecosten  [sah :  Aug.]. 

Of  these  the  first,  third  and  fourth  belong  to  the  Latin  Monta- 
nized  edition.  What  of  the  second  ?  Its  attestation  shews  it  to 
be  as  decidedly  Latin  as  the  first  or  third  or  fourth ;  in  its  nature 
it  is  evidently  the  mere  paraphrase  of  a  translator :  we  may  con 
clude  then  that  it  is  a  Latin  gloss  :  whether  it  be  by  the  Monta- 
nist  hand  or  not,  we  can  scarcely  venture  to  say  dogmatically  ; 
but  the  attestation  agrees  very  well  with  such  a  supposition. 

This  belief  in  the  fundamental  Latinity  of  many  of  the  eccentric 
Bezan  readings  is  confirmed  in  another  way :  just  as  we  were  able 
to  prove  the  Montanist  glossator  to  be  a  Latin  by  the  fact  of  the 
repetition  of  a  clause  of  his  text  in  the  same  Latin  but  in  a  differ 
ent  Greek  dress,  so  we  can  argue  for  a  number  of  readings  in 
which  the  glosses  in  the  Bezan  .text  appear  in  a  different  Greek 
form  elsewhere,  as  for  instance  in  the  Codex  Laudianus. 

For  example,  in  Acts  ii.  13  the  Latin  gloss  appears  as  in 
indicium  in  e  and  in  the  Latin  of  Irenaeus,  and  in  the  equivalent 
in  iudicio  of  d\  but  the  Greek  in  Codices  DE  is  different;  et? 
KpivLv  D ;  et?  KpiTijpwv  E.  Hence  we  see  that  the  reading  must 
be  primitively  Latin  ;  and  we  shall  probably  be  not  far  from  the 


198  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE 

mark  when  we  say  that  Codex  E  is  the  resultant  of  two  texts  ; 
one  a  Greek  text,  and  the  other  the  detached  Latin  of  a  bilingual. 
Another  good  example  is  Acts  v.  15,  where  we  have 

D     d7rr)\\a<r<Tovro  yap  OTTO  Tra<rr)S 


E     KOI  pvo-Owo-w  airb  TTCUTTJS  a<r0cvias 

$s  fixev- 
d    et  liberabantur  ab  omnem  valetudinem 

quern  habebant  unusquisque  eorum. 
e    et  liberarentur  ab  omni  valetudine 

quam  habebant. 

Here  again  it  is  clear  that  the  Greek  of  E  is  a  reformed 
rendering  of  what  is  substantially  the  same  Latin  as  in  the  Bezan 
Codex. 

Or  we  may  examine  Acts  v.  38,  where  E  has  changed  the 
fjLidvavres  ras  ^eipa?  =  non  coinquinatas  manus  of  D  into  fjio\vvov- 
T€?  ra?  xetpa9  =  non  coinquinantes  manus.  But  this  case  is 
probably  a  part  of  a  Montanist  gloss  which  we  have  already  dis 
cussed  ;  so  that  we  are  the  more  sure  here  of  the  priority  of  the 
Latin. 

It  will  be  seen  then  by  what  precedes  that  the  Latin  origin  of 
others  of  the  glosses  in  the  Acts,  besides  those  which  are  more 
definitely  Montanistic,  can  be  clearly  established  x. 

1  The  reasoning  as  to  the  fundamental  Latinity  of  the  Western  text  wiU  apply 
also  to  those  places  in  the  Acts  where  the  evidence  of  D,.or  of  D  and  E,  is  not 
forthcoming,  but  where  the  attestation  has  otherwise  the  same  constituents. 

For  example,  when  we  find  in  Acts  xxvii.  15  after  ImSfores  the  addition  T$ 
ir\tm>Ti  Kal  ffvffTelXavres  ra  iffrla,  we  should  handle  the  reading  in  the  following 
manner.  First,  we  note  the  curious  form  ir\tom  for  irvtovri,  which  we  recognize  to 
be  the  Bezan  form  from-  Luke  xii.  55  (Kal  orav  vbrov  irXtovra).  It  stands,  therefore, 
as  the  equivalent  for  the  Latin  flanti,  and  the  three  Greek  MSB.  44,  112,  137,  which 
testify  in  favour  of  vXtovri,  may  be  assumed  to  have  taken  it  from  the  same  source, 
namely  the  glossed  bilingual 

So  much  for  the  Greek  spelling,  which  intimates  a  single  Western  copy,  of  the 
Bezan  type.  Tischendorf  points  out  that  the  evidence  of  the  Heraclean  Syriac  is 
for  a  textyZanfri  et  collegimus  artemonem.  Here  again  the  combination  of  authorities 
is  undoubtedly  Western  ;  but  it  cannot  be  the  earliest  form  of  the  gloss,  for  fianti 
without  a  substantive  makes  no  sense.  It  must  therefore  be  a  corruption  for  flatui 
(FLANTI  =  FLATVI).  Accordingly  we  find  in  Bede  the  note  "Haec  alia  translatio 
manifestiuB  edidit:  et  arrepta  navi  cum  non  possent  occurrere  vento,  commodata 
navi  flatibus  colligere  vela  coeperunt."  The  Greek  text  is  therefore  a  literal  trans- 


WESTERN   TEXT   OF  THE  ACTS.  199 

With  the  view  of  confirming  the  reader's  belief  in  the  funda 
mental  Latinity  of  these  glosses,  we  will  now  draw  attention  to  the 
remarkable  results  which  follow  from  this  analysis  of  the  Latinizing 
factors,  by  turning  to  the  passage  Acts  xiii.  12, 

IA60N    A€    O    AN0YTTATOC 

TO  refONoc  e0AYMAcetsi 
KAI  enicreyceN  TOJ  0o> 

eKTTAHCCOM6NOC    €TTI    TH    AlA*XH    TOY    *Y 

TVNC   CVM   VIDIS8ET   PROCONSVL 

QVOD   FACTVM   EHT   MIRATV8   EST 

ET   CREDIDIT   IN   DO 

STVPENS   8VPER   DOCTRINA   DNI. 

First  remark  that  the  words  edav^aa-ev  KOI  and  T&>  Qe&  are 
glosses.  The  latter  is  an  obvious  translator's  expansion  and 
presents  no  difficulty.  But  the  former  is  more  obscure.  Follow 
ing  the  line  of  our  previous  experience  with  the  glossed  text,  we 
suspect  that  we  have  here  a  double  translation  (or  else  an  African 
pleonasm)  in  the  rendering  of  etcTrXrjacropevos  by  miratus  est  and 
stupens.  If  this  be  the  true  explanation  we  shall  probably  be  able 
to  support  it  by  similar  usage  elsewhere.  Let  us  turn  to  the 
Codex  Bezae  in  Matt.  xix.  25  :  here  we  have 

AKOYCANT6C    A€    Ol    MA0HTAI    eJCTTAHCCONTO 


AVD1ENTES   AVTEM   DISCIPVLI   BTVPEBANT 
ET   TIM  VERY  NT    VALDE   DICENTE8. 

lation  of  a  misread  Latin  gloss.     Other  cases  of  the  same  kind  can  no  doubt  be 
given. 

If  the  reader  is  interested  in  tracing  the  glosses  to  their  common  origin,  he  is 
advised  to  fix  his  attention  closely  on  the  pair  of  companion  MSB.  D  and  £,  and  to 
study  their  glosses  side  by  side,  as  shewn  above  in  our  text.  Another  pretty  case  of 
the  same  phenomenon  will  be  found  in  Acts  xiv.  7,  where  D  has 


KM    €KeiNH6H    OAON    TO    TTAH0OC    6TTI    TH 
O    AC    TTAyAoC    KM    B&pN&BAC 

AteTpiBoN  €N  AYCTPOIC 

ET   COMMOTA   EST   OMNIS   MVLTITVDO   IN   DOCTBINI8 
PAVLVS   AVTEM   ET    BARNABAS 
MOBAS   FACIEBANT   IN   LY8TBI8. 

E  reads  rbv  \6yov  TOV  OeoO*    KCL!  e£fir\ri<r<TeTo  iracra  77  iro\vir\tjdia  firl  rrj 

6  di  HaOXos  jccU  Bapfd/Sas  5i.trpi.pov  tv  Avffrpois,  while  his  Latin  is  practically 
the  same  as  that  of  D. 


200  LOCAL  ORIGIN   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE 


Now  here  the  same  verb  eWXrJrTo/Luu  turns  up,  and  again 
we  have  a  gloss  in  the  Greek  text,  viz.  the  word  efoftijOijo-ai'. 
Evidently  it  is  a  case  of  double  translation  agreeing  almost  ver 
batim  with  the  former  case  ;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  primitive 
Latin  rendering  was  pleonastic,  for  on  turning  to  Cod.  Vercellensis 
we  have  mirabantur  et  timebant,  and  so  in  Cod.  Veronensis  :  other 
Old  Latin  texts  shew  the  same  pleonasm,  though  some  reduce 
it  back  to  a  single  term,  no  doubt  by  omission  of  the  alternative 
rendering. 

But  if  this  reasoning  be  correct,  since  the  pleonastic  translation 
is  found  in  D  a  b  c  eff  *  g*  it  must  be  a  part  of  the  primitive  render 
ing  of  the  text  of  Matthew.  And  this  arouses  our  suspicions  that 
the  original  rendering  in  Matthew  and  the  translation  of  the  Acts 
are  by  the  same  hand  ;  and  that  the  particular  gloss  in  the  Acts 
of  which  we  are  speaking  is  due  to  the  first  translator. 

Nor  is  this  all  :  for  the  gloss  in  Matthew  found  its  way  into 
the  text  of  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  which  gives 

ooco 

So  that  we  suspect  that  the  Curetonian  text  was  made  from  a 
Latinized  copy.  Moreover  it  is  included  in  the  preceding  that  the 
whole  of  the  translation  into  Latin  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts  (more 
exactly,  Matthew  and  Acts)  is  earlier  than  the  Curetonian  Syriac1. 
There  are  doubtless  many  other  cases  of  these  pleonastic  trans 
lations  in  the  Gospels  (as  distinct  from  conflations),  and  we  can 
sometimes  detect  them  by  noticing  that  separate  Latin  copies  take 
up  detached  parts  of  an  extant  pleonastic  rendering.  For  instance, 
if  we  find  in  Codex  Bezae  the  form  possessionem  heredetatis  for 
K\rjpovo/jLiav  (as  in  Acts  vii.  5),  we  may  be  pretty  sure  that 
Cod.  E  which  is  related  to  D  will  drop  one  or  other  of  the  words, 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  on  turning  to  the  Codex  we  find  that  he 
contents  himself  with  hereditatem.  No  doubt  there  is  much  to 
be  done  in  the  study  of  the  parallel  Latin  versions,  with  a  view  to 
the  detection  of  the  pleonasms  and  barbarisms  of  the  first  render 
ing.  The  foregoing  instance  is  given,  as  has  been  said,  merely  as 
a  suggestion  of  the  right  method  of  procedure,  and  of  the  results 

1  The  Arabic  Tatian  in  the  parallel  passage  Mark  x.  26  shews  a  similar  render 
ing  of  ^eTrXifavovro,  admirabantur  .  .  .iam  timidi. 


WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS.  201 

that  will  follow.  For  the  present,  however,  all  that  we  need  to 
deduce  from  the  study  of  the  case  with  which  we  started  is  that 
it  furnishes  no  exception  to  the  theory  that  the  major  part  of 
the  glosses  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  Acts  are  primitively  Latin 
glosses. 

One  other  remarkable  case  of  Latin  glossing  shall  be  given, 
before  we  plunge  deeper  into  the  question  of  local  and  temporal 
origins  for  the  Latin  text  of  the  Acts ;  it  is  the  gloss  in  Acts 
xii.  10 : 

et  cum  exiH.sent  descenderunt  septem  grades 
et  processerimt  gradum  unum. 

I  must  confess  that  there  are  few  things  that  have  so  deceived 
me  in  the  Bezan  text  as  this  gloss  about  the  seven  steps  of  the 
prison  at  Jerusalem  has  done.  Its  innocent  touch  of  originality 
had  almost  led  me  to  join  Bornemann  in  his  worship  of  the 
Western  idol.  But  we  are  saved  by  the  study  of  other  passages, 
from  which  we  have  learned  that  we  must  not  expect  in  such 
a  text  to  find  the  footprints  of  a  commentator  who  had  been 
in  the  prison  at  Jerusalem  and  had  counted  the  steps  as  he  came 
out.  And  knowing,  as  we  do,  that  in  one  passage  at  least,  and 
probably  in  a  number  of  others,  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke  the  text 
has  Homerized,  we  see  our  way  to  explain  the  perplexing  inter 
polation.  First,  we  fix  our  minds  upon  the  Latin  text,  which 
is  clearly  not  the  same  as  the  Greek.  On  the  hypothesis  that 
the  Greek  is  a  rendering  of  the  Latin,  we  need  not  assume  that 
it  was  necessary  to  write  1-01)9  ?'  y8a#/zoik:  it  will  be  sufficient 
to  translate  septem  gradus  without  the  article ;  'they  (Peter 
and  the  angel)  came  down  seven  steps  and  went  on  one  step.' 
The  writer  is  imitating  Poseidon's  descent  from  the  mountains  of 
Thrace  (Iliad  xiii.  17), 

AimVa  $  €%  opeo?  fcarefftjcreTo  TraiirdkoevTos 

KpaiTrvd  TToa-l  irpoftifids,  rpepe  8'  ovpea  jj,aicpd  /ecu  v\rj, 

Tpl<?  fJLev  opegar'  icov,  TO  Se  rerparov  ifcero  reK/jiwp. 

And  just  as  Poseidon  makes  his  descent  with  a  hop,  skip  arid 
jump  from  Samos  to  Aegae,  so  rapidly  does  the  angel  carry 
Peter  from  the  middle  of  the  prison  into  the  heart  of  the  city. 
Notice  the  concurrence  of  the  language, 


202  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE 


=  descenderunt  =  tcarefirjaav. 
=  processenint  =  7rpo<rrj\0av. 

The  change  in  the  numbers,  from  three  steps  and  a  step  to 
seven  steps  and  a  step,  is  suggestive  of  metrical  exigency,  just  as 
we  found  in  the  passage  borrowed  from  the  story  of  Polyphemus, 
where  twenty  carts  had  replaced  the  two  and  twenty  carts  of 
Homer,  in  order  to  make  a  Latin  hexameter.  We  may  suspect 
then  that  here  the  same  hand  has  been  at  work  as  we  detected 
in  the  Gospel  of  Luke1.  It  is  a  case  of  the  use  of  a  Latin  metrical 

1  It  may  be  asked,  what  was  it  that  provoked  Homerization  of  the  passage  in 
the  first  instance?  In  the  Polyphemus  passage  it  is  the  cave  and  the  great  stone; 
but  what  was  the  motive  here?  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  first  thing  which 
drew  the  attention  of  the  annotator  was  the  abrupt  introduction  of  the  AyyeXoj 
Kvpiov.  To  one  accustomed  to  pagan  literature  this  would  easily  recall  Hermes  ; 
and  that  the  writer  did  make  the  mental  connection  with  the  winged  herald  of  the 
gods,  will  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  he  immediately  alters  the  text  from  irardi-at 
rty  w\cvpiit>  TOV  IMrpov  to  vtf£as  8t  KT!  (  =  pungens  autem  latus  Petri).  In  other 
words  the  AyyeXot  wakes  Peter  by  a  thrust  of  his  wand  and  not  by  a  stroke  of  his 
hand.  Headers  of  Homer  will  recall  at  once  the  conventional  description  of  the 
&yye\o*. 

€'i\€TO  8t  pdftSov,  ry  T   dvSpuv  cS  ///tiara  0£\yei 
wv  £6£\ci,  TOVS  8'  avre  KO.I  VTTV&OVTO.S  tyelpet' 
TTJV  fjLfra  xf/xri"  £xwv  Torero  Kparvs  'ApyeHpbvTrjs. 

(II.  xxiv.  343.) 
(Od.  v.  47.) 

This  explains  the  perplexing  pt/£a;,  of  which  I.  D.  Michaelis  rightly  said  in  his 
Curae  in  Versionem  Syriacam,  p.  107,  "Hie  sine  dubio  ex  latinizante  codice  corruptus 
est  Syrus.  Cum  enim  solus  Cantabrigiensis  legat  v6£at,  pungent,  quam  lectionem  ex 
latinis  patribus  Lucifer  Calaritanus  expressit,  Syrus  habet  CQ^OX=pupugit  ilium 
atque  ex  ipso  olim  expresserat  Arabs."  Strange  to  say,  Lagarde  seems  to  have 
accepted  vi5|a?  as  the  primitive  reading  ! 

.Returning  to  our  commentator,  the  next  thing  that  would  strike  him  would  be 
the  directions  given  by  the  &yye\os  Kvpiov  to  Peter;  calcia  te  calciamenta  again 
suggests  Homer,  and  the  idea  that  Peter  and  the  angel  are  going  to  fly  through  the 
air  :  we  have  only  to  recall  the  description  given  by  Homer  of  the  flights  of  Pallas 
and  Hermes  : 

'  inrb  Troa<r\v  fdjffa.TO-Ka\a  irtdiXa 
xpfocia,  rd  fjuv  <ptpov  i)nb  ^0'  vyp^v 
r}8'  IT'  dweipova  ycuav  dfjta  irvoL-gt  dvt/j.oio. 

The  escape  of  Peter  was  then  a  genuine  flight,  in  which  he  was  assisted  (i)  by 
the  presence  of  the  angel,  (ii)  by  the  use  of  his  sandals.  We  are  thus  able  to  explain 
all  the  perplexing  corruptions  in  the  passage.  They  are  due  to  a  Homerizing  Latin 
scribe. 


WESTERN   TEXT  OF   THE  ACTS.  203 

text  of  the  New  Testament,  or  of  glosses  from  a  Latin  translation 
of  Homer.  In  any  case,  I  think  we  may  feel  some  confidence 
in  the  theory  which  asserts  the  priority  of  the  Latin  glosses  over 
their  Greek  conjugates. 

But  ought  we  not  to  go  one  step  further,  though  I  can 
well  imagine  some  one  suggesting  that  the  steps  already  taken 
are  sufficiently  Olympic,  and  may  we  not  in  the  final  stride 
perhaps  touch  the  goal  ?  The  writer  who  inserted  that  picture 
of  a  flight  from  prison  into  the  city  lived  in  a  place  where 
the  prison  was  high  above  the  city,  and  overlooked  it :  how  else 
could  he  have  used  the  word  /careffrj  or  thought  of  Poseidon's 
descent  from  Olympus  ?  He  must  have  been  in  some  city  where 
people  went  up  when  they  were  committed  to  prison,  and  came 
down  when  they  recovered  their  freedom.  Such  a  case  as  that  of 
S.  Perpetua  at  Carthage  suits  the  description,  where  the  prison 
was  on  the  Byrsa,  hundreds  of  feet  above  the  town,  so  that 
Perpetua  describes  the  visit  of  her  father  to  her  in  the  words 
'de  civitate...ascendit  ad  me.'  The  suggestion,  then,  arises  that 
perhaps  the  glossator  in  question  was  a  Carthaginian.  So  we  are 
brought  back  again  to  the  question  of  the  African  origin  of  the 
Western  text,  and  we  must  proceed  to  test  for  Africanisms,  to  the 
best  of  our  limited  ability. 

Bearing  in  mind,  then,  the  fundamental  Latinity  of  nine 
tenths  of  the  Western  readings,  let  us  turn  to  the  gloss  in 
Acts  xv.  11, 

CYNKATATe6e/v\eN60N  Ae  TO>N  TTpecByTepcoN 
TOIC  YTTO  TOY  nerpOY  eipH/weisioic 

DESPONENTES   AVTEM   PRESBYTERO8 
QVAE   A   PETRO   DICEBANTVR. 

Here  the  Latin  shews  the  remarkable  feature  of  the  accusative 
absolute  instead  of  the  ablative  absolute.  Now  there  is  some 
reason  to  believe  this  usage  to  be  an  Africanism:  the  Corpus 
Inscriptionum  shews  eight  cases  of  the  peculiarity  amongst  the 
African  inscriptions ;  and  I  see  .  that  Haussleiter  in  his  tract 
on  the  Versions  of  Hermas1  maintains  that  this  is  the  most 
certain  of  Africanisms :  "  in  certissimis  Africae  testimoniis  nume- 
randam  esse  puto  miram  accusativi  absoluti  pro  ablativo  absolute 

1  4  *  l  De  versionibus  Pastorls  Herniae  Latinis,  p.  44. 


204  LOCAL   ORIGIN    OF   THE    PRIMITIVE 

positi  comtrtictionem  ;  quam,  si  inscriptionum  latinarum  volumina 
adhuc  iuris  public!  facta  perlustres,  nusquam  nisi  in  titulis 
Africis  animadvertes.  Ut  legimus  in  titulo  publico  c.  a.  290 
(nr.  8924)  (Aurelius  Litua),  qui...  rebel  les  caesos,  multos  etiarn 
et  vivos  adprehensos  sed  et  praedas  actas,  repressa  desperatione 
eorum  victoriam  reportaverit."  Haussleiter  is  using  the  point 
in  proof  of  his  thesis  of  the  Africanism  of  the  Palatine  Version  of 
Herraas  :  and  if  his  argument  be  a  correct  one,  we  must  apply  it 
to  the  case  which  we  are  discussing:  let  us  see  then  whether 
there  are  any  other  cases  of  the  kind,  excluding  of  course  such  as 
arise  from  the  intrusion  or  extrusion  of  a  silent  final  in1. 
In  Acts  xx.  12  we  find  the  gloss 


ACTTAZOMGNCON    A 
SALVTANTES   AVTE[M   E]OS, 

which  is  another  case  of  the  same  kind. 

It  maybe  urged  that  salutantes  here  is  not  really  an  accusative 
but  a  nominative,  as  is  shewn  by  the  following  line 

ADDVXERVNT   IVVENEM    VIVENTEM, 

but  we  must  remember  that  it  has  been  rendered  into  Greek 
from  the  Latin  as  a  genetive  absolute,  which  is  somewhat  of 
a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  meant  for 
an  accusative. 

In  Acts  v.  38  we  have  the  curious  gloss 

MH    MIANANT6C    TAC    X^IRAC 
NON   COINQVINATAS   MANVS. 

Here  again  the  Latin  text  has  suspiciously  the  appearance 
of  an  accusative  absolute,  though  the  Greek  has  rendered  as 
if  it  read  coinquinantes,  which  we  should  certainly  have  expected. 
Further,  we  have  in  Acts  xiv.  19, 

MORAS  FACIENTE8   EOS   ET   DOCENTES 

as  the  equivalent  of  a  Greek  genetive  absolute. 

Here  then  we  have  two  clear  cases,  and  two  doubtful  cases, 
of  accusative  absolute  on  the  part  of  the  translator  or  glossator  ; 
and  this  certainly  invites  the  hypothesis  that  we  have  definite 

1  e.g.  Acts  ii.  33,  pollicitationem  sps  sancti  accepta. 


WESTERN    TEXT   OF   THE   ACTS.  205 

traces  of  Africanism.  Let  us  see  whether  there  are  any  other 
cases  in  the  rest  of  the  text. 

Acts  iii.  7  is  doubtful 

et  adpraehensum  eum  dextera  rnanu  suscitabit. 

A  more  likely  instance  is  Acts  xvi.  37 

anetios  caesos  iios  publice 

indemnatos  homines 

romano.s  ciues  miserunt  in  carcerem, 

but  even  this  is  not  perfectly  conclusive.  It  is  conceivable 
that  the  same  idea  of  the  equivalence  of  the  accusative  and 
ablative  when  used  absolutely  is  responsible  for  the  rendering 
in  Acts  xix.  29,  where  we  have 

macedonibus  comitibus  pauli, 
as  a  rendering  of 

MaK(8<ji>as  (TW(K$ijp.ovs  IlavXov. 

But  it  must  be  admitted  that  we  have  a  very  decided  suggestion 
of  the  existence  in  the  Acts  of  the  supposed  African  accusative 
absolute,  especially  in  the  glosses. 

Possibly  the  Gospels  may  furnish  us  with  some  cases:  e.g.  there 
is  John  xii.  37, 

TOC&YTA  Ae  Ayroy  CHMIA  nenomKOTOC 

TANTA    AVTKM    AB   ILLO    SIGNA    FACTA, 

which  looks  extremely  like  the  accusative  absolute 
Again,  in  Matt.  xvii.  9, 

ET   DESCENDENTEN   DE   MONTE 
PRAECEPIT   ELS   DICENS   IHS, 

where  descen denies  is  the  equivalent  of  Karaftaivovrtov  avrwv,  but 
the  Greek  text  has  been  corrected  back  from  the  Latin  so  as  only 
to  shew  Ka-raftaivovTes  \ 

1  In  the  nature  of  the  case  such  forms  would  rapidly  be  eliminated;  and  perhaps 
we  ought  to  be  surprised  that  there  are  so  many  traces  of  them  left.  Sometimes  we 
may  find  the  accusative  absolute  in  the  very  article  of  death  and  disappearance.  A 
case  may  be  taken  in  Acts  xiv.  20,  where  I  feel  pretty  confident  that  the  detached 
nominative  absolute 

CIRCVMEVNTF.R    ENIM    DISCIPVLI    EIVH 

is  a  correction  for  an  accusative.  Here,  too,  the  reader  will  find  his  Greek  text 
coloured. 


206  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE 

We  must  not,  however,  put  more  weight  than  it  will  bear  on 
the  theory  of  the  Africanism  of  the  accusative  absolute.  If  Hauss- 
leiter's  criterion  is  a  correct  one,  it  is  so  for  the  first  centuries  of 
the  era.  Later  on  we  find  cases  of  it  in  Merovingian  documents, 
as  Diez  shews  (Gramm.  der  Rom.  Sprdchen,  in.  267).  But  most 
of  the  cases  given  by  Diez  are  cases  where  there  is  no  longer  any 
distinction  between  accusative  and  ablative,  the  m  of  the  accusative 
not  being  sonant:  e.g.  adprehensum  unum  rusticum  de  civitate 
acceptum  ab  eo  pads  praetium,  etc.  More  important  are  two 
instances  from  Brdquigny's  Diplomata  dated  in  543  (illas  mspectas), 
and  in  712  (inspectas  ipsas  praeceptiones) :  but  these  seem  to  be 
legal  formulae,  and  so  are  not  perhaps  to  be  judged  by  grammatical 
standards.  Our  position  is  this,  that  the  Old  Latin  texts  of  the 
New  Testament  shew  primitive  traces  of  the  use  of  the  accusative 
absolute,  and  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  the  early  accusative 
absolute  to  be  African. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  near  Middleton  came  to  de 
tecting  this  Latin  accusative  absolute  in  Codex  Bezae  :  for  he  says 
(Greek  Article,  p.  480),  "  e^e\e6vra  (in  Mark  xi.  12)  appears  to  me 
to  be  here  purposely  employed  in  the  sense  of  a  Genitive  absolute, 
and  the  following  passage  is  similar  in  a  degree  which  can  hardly 
be  imputed  to  accident :  in  Luke  ix.  37... if  Kare\06vra  avrov  do 
not  mean  quum  descendisset  I  can  make  nothing  of  the  place... 
no  critic,  I  presume,  will  wish  to  regard  them  as  examples  of  the 
elegant  attic  accusative  absolute." 

Let  us  turn  to  the  other  peculiarities  which  are  supposed  to 
characterize  the  African  dialect. 

Of  these  the  most  striking  is  the  so-called  tumor  Africanus ; 
which  consists  in  the  conjunction  of  a  substantive  with  a  synonymous 
genetive  (e.g.  avaritiae  cupido,  feritatis  crudelitas,  etc.1). 

Let  us  see  whether  any  of  these  are  found  in  our  texts.  We 
naturally  suppose  that  in  a  literal  translation  they  will  hardly 
occur ;  and  moreover,  if  they  do  occur,  the  reviser  who  equalizes 
the  Greek  and  Latin  texts  by  the  law  of  numerical  justice,  will 
probably  excise  them.  But  let  us,  at  all  events,  examine  the 
matter :  for  we  may  find  traces  of  the  original  rendering. 

1  For  examples,  cf.  Sittl,  p.  93. 


WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   ACTS.  207 

Acts  vi.  5, 

et  non  dedit  ei  possessionem  heredetatis  in  ea, 

where  the  single  Greek  word  K\rjpovo^Lav  is  rendered  by  the 
double  expression  in  Latin.  And  we  may  also  note  the  double 
translation  hereditate  possidete  in  Matt.  xxv.  34. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  this  mannerism  is  at  the  root  of  the 
perplexing  reading  in  Acts  vii.  46,  where  we  have 

et  petiit  tabernaculum  inuenire 
sedes  domui  iacob. 

Here  we  have  a  double  rendering  of  a/crj^cofia,  and  the  second 
rendering  is  itself  a  double  translation  and  is  African,  for  domui 
is  a  genetive  formation  in  the  vulgar  Latin  (e.g.  Luke  ix.  55, 
nescitis  cuius  spiritui  estis  ;  Mark  iii.  17,  quod  est  films  tonitrui). 
But  if  such  a  rendering  had  ever  stood  in  the  text,  it  was  almost 
certain  to  appear  in  the  Greek  as  rq>  OLKW  ;  and  this  is  actually 
found  (horresco  referens  !)  in  KBH  as  well  as  in  Codex  D. 

Possibly  we  might  apply  the  same  method  to  Acts  xiii.  15, 

ANApec  (\AeA<t>oi  ei  TIC  CCTIN  Aopoy  CCKJ>IAC 

VIRI    FRATRES   SI   QVIS   EST   SERMO    ET   INTELLECT  VS. 


Here  the  original  Greek  is  certainly  \e>709,  without  o-o^ta?;  and 
one  of  two  things  has  happened  ;  either  ^0709  has  been  rendered 
by  a  double  translation  sermo  et  intellectm,  which  would  thus  con 
tain  the  two  possible  meanings  of  ^0709  ;  or  else  sermo  intellectus 
is  a  pleonastic  translation  of  Xcyyo?,  which  would  explain  haw  the 
genetive  <ro</>ta9  crept  in,  if  we  allow  for  a  subsequent  corruption 
of  \0709.  But  the  first  explanation  may  seem  to  many  persons 
the  more  natural  one. 

In  xix.  9  we  have 

6NGOTTION    TOY    TTAH6OYC 

IN   CON8PECTV   MVLTITVDINI8   GENTIVM, 

and  a  subsequent  insertion  of  TOON  CONCON  in  the  Greek  :   but  here 
the  double  genetive  may  conceivably,  though  I  do  not  believe  it, 
be  nothing  more  than  a  conflation  of  two  separate  translations. 
Acts  xx.  19, 

M6TA    TTACHC    T<MT€INO4>pOCYNHC 
CVM    OMNI   HYMILITATI   SEN8VI, 


208  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE 

where  sensui  is  a  genetive,  is  somewhat  more  like  the  African 
pleonastic  usage,  but,  inasmuch  as  the  two  words  are  not  equivalent, 
and  both  of  them  underlie  the  Greek,  it  would  hardly  be  fair 
to  call  it  a  case  of  tumor  Africanus.  But,  taking  all  the  cases 
together,  I  think  we  have  suggestions  of  something  more  than 
conflation.  The  same  suspicion  of  African  pleonasm  is  aroused  in 
the  text  of  the  Gospels. 

An  interesting  case,  but  again  not  a  conclusive  one,  will  be 
found  in  Mark  ii.  5, 


M6T  opfHC 

CVM   IRA   INDIGNATIONI8, 

where  a  word  seems  to  have  dropped  after  inctignationis,  in  which 
case  we  should  have  a  double  rendering,  in  true  African  style,  of 


So  in   Luke  xvi.   24,  we  have  ry  faoyi  ravrrj  rendered  by 
in  ustione  ignis  hujus. 
In  Mark  vi.  43, 

KAI     HpAN     KA&CM&TCON 

iB  •  KO<}>INOYC  nAHpeic 

ET   8VHTVLERVNT   FRAGMKNTORVM 
XII  •  COFINOS   I'LKNOH. 

Here,  as  we  may  see  by  reference  to  the  other  Old  Latin  texts 
(afff*gl  g*  i  I),  the  original  K\d<rpaTa  was  translated  by  reliquiae 
fragmentorum.  Our  text  erases  the  first  word  (as  also  do  b  c  q) 
and  then  changes  the  Greek  of  the  second. 

Other  forms  of  pleonasm  are  current  in  African  writers,  such 
as  the  use  of  a  synonymous  adjective  with  a  substantive,  or  of 
synonymous  substantives  or  adjectives  with  no  conjunction.  In 
examining  such  cases  in  the  Codex  Bezae,  the  same  uncertainty 
attaches  to  the  matter  as  we  have  pointed  out  above  ;  we  are  not 
able  without  a  close  study  of  documents  to  distinguish  a  pleonasm 
from  a  conflate  translation.  We  shall  content  ourselves  with  point 
ing  out  a  few  scattered  instances  in  the  MS.,  leaving  the  reader  to 
draw  the  conclusion. 

John  xvii.  23, 

I'NA  COCIN  TeTeAio)/v\eNoi 

VT  SINT    PERFECTI   CONSVMMATI. 


WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE   ACTS.  209 

John  v.  2, 


6N  TH  npo-BATiKH 

IN   NATATORIA   PISCINA, 

where  a  word  seems  to  have  been  dropped  before  natatoria.     (Of. 
Actus  Petri  cum  Simone  c.  xiii.  piscinae  adjacenti  natatoriae.) 
Luke  xx.  24, 

figuram  cuius  habet  imaginem  et  superinscriptionem. 

Mark  x.  18, 

nisi  solus  unus  deus, 

where  the  pleonasm  has  coloured  the  Greek. 

Luke  viii.  8, 

cecidit  super  terram  bonam  et  uberam, 

which  goes  back  into  the  Greek  as 

€ir((T(V  €7rt  TTJV  yfjv  KoXrjv  KOI  dyaQiji', 

where  dyaOrjv  is  usually  said  to  result  from  assimilation  to  the 
parallel  gospels. 

In  Mark  vi.  51  we  have  an  original  text  ical  \iav  eV  eaurofr 
rendered  by  et  plus  magis  inter  se,  and  the  effect  of  the  pleonasm 
is  to  throw  back  an  additional  Tre/o^rcrcS?  on  the  Greek  text. 
In  the  Bezan  text  we  find  only  Trepwo-o)?  extant;  in  XBLA 
we  have  \iav  only,  which  seems  to  be  the  original  reading, 
but  the  Latin  texts  keep  the  pleonasm  with  much  constancy 
(cf.  a  f  gl  g*  i  q  which  read  plus  magis,  and  e  which  has  magis 
plus).  But  perhaps  the  best  proof  of  the  correctness  of  this  theory 
of  pleonastic  African  renderings  with  subsequent  reflexion  on  the 
Greek  text,  will  be  to  take  a  case  which  has  hitherto  baffled 
all  explanation,  and  to  indicate  the  progressive  degeneration  of 
the  Western  text. 

Few  passages  have  caused  me  so  much  perplexity  as 
Luke  xiii.  8, 

CKAVfW    nepi    AYTHN    KAI    B<\ACO    KO<J>INON 

KonpicoN 

FODIAM   CIRCA   ILLAM   ET   M1TTAM   QVALVM 
8TERCORI8. 

The  word  used  by  D  (qualum)  means  a  wicker-basket,  and  has 
C.  B.  I* 


210  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PRIMITIVE 

been  changed  in  the  other  Western  texts  into  cofinum  agreeably 
to  the  Greek  in  Cod.  Bezae ;  thus  we  find 

cofinum  stercoris 
in  a  b  off*  i  I  and  q. 

Now  in  such  cases,  if  the  Bezan  Latin  shews  a  different  word 
from  the  other  Latin  codices,  it  will  generally  be  found  that 
the  Bezan  word  is  the  older  form;  but  how  in  the  present  case 
are  we  to  explain  either  of  the  forms  ?  We  suspect,  by  long 
experience,  that  icofyvov  in  the  Greek  is  merely  a  reflexion  from 
the  Latin,  but  why  should  the  Western  translator  render  tcoTrpia 
by  qualum  stercoris  ? 

The  answer  is  that  he  used  the  pleonastic  form 
squalem  stercoris, 

and  the  word  squalem  early  became  corrupted  into  qualum  \ 

Another  verification  of  the  theory  may  be  found  in  the  fact 
that  where  the  primitive  Latin  rendering  is  suspected  to  be 
pleonastic  we  find  the  oldest  Latin  texts  divide  on  the  reading,- 
one  half  of  the  reading  being  preserved  in  one  group  of  texts  and 
the  other  half  of  the  reading  being  preserved  in  another ;  so  that, 
while  at  first  sight  it  seems  as  if  we  had  two  independent 
translations,  a  closer  examination  shews  the  disjecta  membra  of  a 
single  rendering.  A  good  instance  for  study  will  be  found  in  the 
translations  of  K\rjpovo/j,€co,  K\7jpovoftia.  In  Matt.  v.  4  we  have  in 
d  hereditabunt,  and  in  b  possidebunt,  while  the  original  pleonasm  is 
preserved  in  a,  hereditate  possidebunt.  Or  take  the  case  of  Mark  x. 
22,  where  an  original  translation  of  /CTtj^ara  in  the  sense  of  '  real 
and  personal  estate'  appears  in  the  versions  as  follows:  b  has 
multas  pecunias  et  agros ;  k  the  nearly  equivalent  multas  divitias 
et  agros ;  while  d  only  shews  multas  pecunias,  but  has  in  its  Greek 
a  reflected  ^p^^na,  which  has  displaced  the  original  tcrrf/tara. 

This  bifurcation  of  the  Latin  versions  is  very  noticeable  with 
the  adverbs  and  conjunctions2  which,  as  Sittl  points  out,  are 
often  used  pleonastically  in  the  African  dialect.  For  example, 
Sittl  quotes 

licet  et 

1  Curiously  Tischendorf  quotes  the  MS.  as  actually  reading  squalum,  but  there  is 
no  trace  of  an  '  s '  in  the  text. 

a  The  simplest  case  of  the  kind  is  perhaps  Acts  xvii.  23,  inveni  etiam  et  aram. 


WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   ACTS.  211 

from  Tert.  De  Virg.  Vel.  §  6  where  we  have  perhaps  the  remains 
of  a  primitive 

licet  etvsi ; 

and  from  the  African  Latin  of  the  commentary  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  on  the  Pauline  epistles,  he  quotes 

licet  si  (p.  202,  18), 

and 

licet  Hi  et  (p.  197,  12), 

which   are   cases,   certainly   of   pleonasm,   and   probably   of  the 

tautological  form 

licet  etsi. 

What  shall  we  say  then  of  Mark  vi.  23  which  in  the  Codex  Bezae 
reads 

licet  dimidium  regni  mei, 

where  licet  is  supported  also  by  a  *  q  vy ;    while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  MSS.  b  off*  give 

etiamsi, 

and  gl  has  preserved 

licet  etsi, 

which    has    a    suspicious    appearance    of    being    the    primitive 
pleonasm  ? 

Three  verses  lower  down  in  the  same  chapter,  we  find  again  a 
curious  bifurcation  in  the  testimony,  for  d,  supported  by  i,  reads 

et  contristatus  est  rex 
mox  audiit, 

but  c  ffz  replace  mox  by  ut. 

The  earliest  form   of  the  gloss  (for  it  is  a  gloss,  though   it 
has  been  carried  over  into  the  Beza  Greek  as  0*9  ^/covaev)  was 

probably 

mox  ut  audiit, 

and  in  fact  the  codex  (f  has  preserved  the  double  reading1. 

We   say,  then,  that  both    the  Acts  and   the  Gospels  arouse 
suspicions  of  African  pleonasm 2. 

1  These  minute  pleonasms  meet  us  at  all  points  in  African  documents  and  give 
rise  to  much  confusion :  there  is  a  curious  case  in  the  Muratorian  Canon,  where  se 
publicare  vero  arises  out  of  a  pleonastic  sed  publicari  vero. 

a  Compare  also  what  has  been  said  above,  p.  199,  of  the  double  renderings  of 


212  LOCAL   ORIGIN   OF   THE   PRIMITIVE 

In  the  use  of  the  degrees  of  comparison  Sittl  points  out  many 
peculiarities  in  African  writers,  though  he  is  careful  not  to  commit 
himself  to  the  theory  that  the  forms  are  exclusively  African. 

Such  are  the  intensification  of  a  comparative  by  magis  and 
plus ;  the  unsymmetrical  use  of  connected  adjectives  in  different 
degrees  of  comparison;  the  use  of  the  genetive  of  comparison; 
comparatives  constructed  with  a  and  ab ;  the  use  of  comparatives 
and  superlatives  in  the  place  of  adjectives  of  the  positive  degree 
etc.  For  my  own  part,  I  cannot  think  that  we  are  yet  in  a 
position  to  speak  of  such  things  positively  as  Africanisms,  though 
they  look  very  like  it;  yet  there  are  many  instances  in  the 
Codex  Bezae  which  would  fall  under  one  or  other  of  Sittl's  classi 
fications. 

For  example,  Matt.  xii.  42,  plus  ionae  is  a  genetive  of  com 
parison,  taken  over  from  the  Greek. 

Matt.  xii.  45  peiora  prioribus  shews  a  comparative  where  we 
should  expect  a  positive  in  a  literal  translation  (rwv  irputTtov). 

.The  same  verse  shews  et  generationi  huic  pessimae,  which  is  a 
possible  African  superlative  for  Trovijpa. 

Matt.  xxii.  36  gives  us  quod  mandatum  in  lege  mains  (fjueyd\7)). 

Matt.  xiii.  48  collegerunt  meliora  in  vasis. 

John  xiii.  16  neque  apostolus  maior  eius  qui  misit  eum. 

Luke  vii.  28  qui  minor  est  eius  in  regno  caelorum. 

Matt.  xii.  6  quia  a  templo  maior  est  hie. 

The  usage  of  the  last  case  a  templo  may  be  the  direct  result  of 
Punic  influence :  cf.  the  Hebrew  comparative  formed  by  prefixing 
the  preposition  f£). 

Two  interesting  cases  of  the  same  kind  occur  in  the  Ziegler 
fragments  of  the  Pauline  Epp.,  viz.  2  Cor.  i.  5  nihil  minus. .  .ab  his 
qui  valde  sunt  apostoli,  and  Heb.  vii.  26  altiorem  a  caelis.  These 
Ziegler  texts  are  to  be  reckoned  as  African. 

Now  let  us  review  the  course  of  the  argument  as  regards  the 
origin  of  the  Western  text  of  the  Acts. 

The  text  was  Montaiiized  at  a  very  early  date,  and  the 
Montanist  glosses  shew  a  decided  use  of  the  African  accusative 
absolute.  We,  therefore,  ascribe  the  Montanization  to  an  African 
hand. 

Of  the  other  glosses  we  find  some  which,  while  not  definitely 


WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS.  213 

Montanistic,  are  suspiciously  Carthaginian.  For  example,  there  is 
the  case  of  Peter  flying  down  to  the  city  from  the  prison.  We 
have  also  the  case  of  pleonastic  translations  which  are  best 
explained  as  Africanisms.  One  of  these,  viz.  the  expansion  of  the 
Latin  and  Greek  in  Acts  xiii.  12,  is  suspected  of  being  a  primitive 
feature  of  the  Latin  text.  It  is  possible,  then,  that  we  have 
to  describe  the  Codex  Bezae  as  a  Carthaginian  text  which  has 
been  glossed  by  (mainly)  Carthaginian  hands.  But  if  this  be  so, 
the  text  must  have  passed  at  a  very  early  period  in  its  history  to 
Rome  ;  for  it  became  diffused  (with  the  major  part  of  its  glosses) 
over  the  whole  of  the  Western  world,  to  say  nothing  of  Upper 
Egypt  and  Syria.  Moreover  there  is  one  passage  in  the  Acts 
which  seems  to  imply  that  the  Codex  Bezae  or  one  of  its  ancestors 
actually  passed  through  Rome.  I  refer  to  Acts  xviii.  2 


XO>plZec6&l    TTANTAC    lOyAAIOyC    ATTO   THC    pCOMHC 
DISCEDERE   OMNES   IVDAEO8   EX   VRBEM. 

Now  in  Carthage  ex  urbe  does  not  mean  the  same  thing  as  airo 
T^?  'Pco/jLijs.  We  can  see  this  in  a  variety  of  ways.  For  instance, 
in  the  Acts  of  Perpetua  dnrb  rrjs  TroXew?  (if  any  argument  can  be 
drawn  from  the  Greek  form  :  for  the  words  are  not  in  the  Latin) 
probably  means  simply  Carthage.  Again,  if  Haussleiter's  theory 
of  the  African  origin  of  the  Palatine  version  of  Hermas  be  correct, 
the  opening  words  of  the  book  shew  us  the  rendering  of  et<? 
'PW/JLTJV  by  in  urbe  Roma.  A  Roman  translator  would  probably 
have  simply  said  in  urbe.  We  might  also  refer  to  the  Muratorian 
Canon  for  similar  renderings,  but  this  we  will  not  do,  because 
it  is  not  yet  agreed  whether  the  original  of  the  Canon  was  in 
prose,  nor  whether  its  translation  into  Latin  is  of  Roman  or 
African  origin1. 

We  suspect,  then,  that  the  first  translator  of  the  Acts  wrote 
ex  urbe  Roma  ;  and  that  Roma  was  afterwards  removed,  possibly 
to  balance  the  Greek  and  Latin  texts,  but  more  likely  because  the 
text  had  itself  passed  to  Rome,  where  ex  urbe  was  sufficient. 
Now,  if  the  Montanized  recension  of  the  Acts  passed  to  Rome 
it  is  clear  from  the  diffusion  of  the  text  that  it  must  have  passed 

1  Moreover  the  Muratorian  Canon  shews  both  forms:  "  profectionem  Pauli  ab 
urbe,"  and  "  temporibus  nostris  in  urbe  Roma,"  "cathedra  urbia  Romae." 


214      LOCAL  ORIGIN  OF  PRIMITIVE  WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS. 

there  very  early,  and  have  become  the  official  Latin  text.  And 
this  would  seem  to  require  that  it  was  introduced  at  Rome 
when  Montanism  was  in  the  ascendant  there.  The  most  likely 
period  for  this  is  the  episcopate  of  Soter  or  Eleutherus.  Tertullian 
tells  us  that  when  Praxeas  came  to  Rome  he  persuaded  the 
Roman  bishop,  who  favoured  the  Montanists  of  Asia,  and  acknow 
ledged  the  prophetic  gifts  of  SS.  Montanus,  Priscilla  and  Maxi- 
milla,  to  recede  from  that  position  and  recall  the  letters  of  peace 
which  he  had  issued.  In  this  way,  says  Tertullian,  Praxeas 
"put  to  flight  the  Paraclete."  This  means  that,  historically, 
Montanism  was  at  its  highest  point  in  Rome  under  a  certain 
bishop,  who  is  unhappily  nameless.  It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to 
determine  which  Roman  bishop  is  meant.  The  evidence  of  the 
early  Church  would  seem  to  point  to  Soter;  for  Praedestinatus 
tells  us  that  Soter  wrote  against  the  Montanists  and  that 
Tertullian  wrote  against  Soter1.  This  would  place  the  maximum 
of  Roman  Montanism  between  the  dates  160  and  170  A.D. 
Modern  opinion,  however,  has  inclined  to  see  the  bishop  in  question 
in  the  successor  of  Soter,  Eleutherus,  which  would  bring  us  to  a 
slightly  later  date.  The  reader  will,  however,  see  that  we  cannot 
well  go  farther  down  in  date  consistently  with  the  belief  in  the 
diffusion  of  the  Moritanized  copy,  which  was  known  to  Irenaeus 
when  he  wrote  his  treatise  on  Heresies,  which  Harvey  places 
between  182  and  188.  It  seems  to  be  difficult  to  place  the 
Montanized  Roman  edition  later  than  170  A.D.,  and  it  may  be 
a  decade  earlier.  And  then  behind  this  glossed  edition  we  have 
the  unglossed  (probably)  Carthaginian  text  which  must  be  a 
number  of  years  earlier.  How  many  years  shall  we  say  ?  Festina 
lente. 

1  Praedest.  Haer.  26  and  86. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

FURTHER  ATTEMPTS  AT  CLASSIFICATION  OF  THE  GLOSSES  IN  THE 
WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS. 

WE  will  now  try  to  carry  the  classification  of  the  glosses  in  the 
Acts  a  step  further  :  and  by  means  of  the  unity  of  the  attestations, 
the  similarity  of  the  doctrinal  tendencies,  and  the  parallelisms  in 
the  Greek  or  Latin  texts  of  the  glosses,  we  shall  be  able  to  reduce 
all  or  nearly  all  of  these  glosses  to  their  proper  groups. 

First  we  will  make  a  list  of  the  principal  glosses  accompanied 
by  the  chief  of  the  attesting  authorities  as  given  by  Tischendorf, 
printing  them  in  Latin  where  there  is  some  good  reason  to  believe 
them  to  have  originated  in  that  language,  and  in  Greek  when  the 
matter  is  more  doubtful.  For  convenience  of  reference  we  number 
the  glosses  successively  as  they  occur  in  the  text  : 

ACTS 

1  i.  2  et  praecepit  praedicare  evangelium  D  lux  sah  Aug  Vig-Taps 

2  i.  4  de  ore  meo  D  lux  aeth  Aug  Hil 

3  i.  5  et  eum  accipere  habetis  D  tol  Aug  Hil  Max-Taur 

4  i.  5  usque  ad  pentecosten  D  sah  Aug 

5  i.  12     TO  SidaTTfM  ovov  dvvarbv  'Iov8aiov     40  aeth 


6  ii.  1      KOI  fylvfro  tv  rats  rjpcpats  fKfivais         D 

7  ii.  33    hoc  donum  quod  DE  tol  sah  syr"*  syi*  ut 

ar6  Iron  Did  Amb  Phi- 
last 

8  ii.  37     rare  Travrfs  ol  <rvvf\06vT(t  KOI  D  syrpmg 

9  ii.  37     et  quidam  ex  ipsis  D 

10  ii.  37     ostendite  nobis  DE  tol  syrpm*  Aug 

11  ii.  41     et  credentes  D  syrpmg  Aug 

12  iii.  1      fv  df  rais  qpepais  fKfivais  D 

13  iii.  1     TO  8(i\(iv6v  D 

i  r. 


216 


FURTHER  CLASSIFICATION   OF  THE  GLOSSES  IN 


ACTS 

14 

iii.  3 

15 

iii.  7 

16 

iii.  11 

17 

iii.  13 

18 

iii.  17 

19 

iii.  22 

20 

iv.  1 

21 

iv.  9 

22 

iv.  14 

23 

iv.  18 

24 

iv.  24 

25 

iv.  25 

26 

iv.  31 

27 

iv.  32 

28 

v.  8 

29 

v.  15 

30 

v.  18 

31 

v.  21 

32 

v.  22 

33 

v.  35 

34 

v.  36 

35 

v.  38 

36 

v.  38 

37 

v.  39 

38 

v.  41 

39 

vi.  1 

40 

vi.  3 

41 

vi.  5 

42 

vi.  8 

43 

vi.  10 

44 

vi.  10 

45 

vi  10 

46 

vi.  10 

47 

vi.  13 

ovros  drtvia-as  rois  o<f>0a\pols  avrov 
stetit  et 

CK7TOpCVOp.fVOV  8f  TOV  TlfTpOV  KT€ 

in  judicium 

TTOVTjpOV 


Trpos  TOVS  irarepas  TI^WV 
TO.       iaTa  Tavra 


a  vobis 


noifjo-ai  rj 


avrav  TTJ 
et  cognovissent  dei  virtutem 
per  spiritum  sanctum 


omni  volenti  credere 

et  non  erat  accusatio  in  eis  ulla 

«repo>r»70-a>  &€•   et  apa 

et  liberabantur  ab  omne  valetudine 

quern  habebat  unusquisque  eo- 

rum 
et  abierunt  unusquisque  in  domi- 

cilia 

exurgentes  ante  lucem 
et  aperuissent  carcerem 
ad  principes  et  concilium 
avros  81  avrov 
a8(\(poi 

non  coinquinatas  manus 
nee  vos  nee  imperatores  nee  reges  : 

discedite  ergo  ab  hominibus  istis 
arrooroXot 
tv  TJj  diaKovia  TVV 
ri  ovv  f< 


per  nomen  domini  lesu  Christi 

quae  erat  in  eo 

sancto 

quoniam  probatur  iUis  ab  Illo  cum 

omni  fiducia 
non  potentes  autem  resistere  veri- 

tati 
adversum  eum 


Dreg 

Dreg 

Dreg 

DE  syr*"«  Iren 

D  syr1""8  Iren  Aug  Am- 
brst 

DE  sah  aeth  Iren 

D  reg  syr"11  syrpni«  ar« 
Thphyl 

DE  reg  syr»tr  aethpp  ar" 
Iren  Gyp 

Dreg 

D  reg  syrpmg  Lucif 

D 

[reading  early  and  attest 
ation  confused] 

DE  Iren  Aug 

DE  Cyp  Ambr  Zeno 

D 

DE  Lucif  vg 


D 

D 

D  syrp  vg 

Dsah 

D 

D 

DE 

DE  syrp  demid 

D  syrp  demid  33ms  180 

D  syrp  180 

D 

D 

D 

DE  sah  syrp  180 

DE 

DEvg 

DE  syr" "* 

DE  syr"-"*  bohem 
Daeth 


THE  WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS. 


217 


ACTS 

48 

vi.  15     foraros  tv  /A«(ra>  avrwv 

D 

49 

vii.  4     /cat  oi  irarepcs  r^n^v  ot  irpo  rfpotv 

DE  syrp  Aug 

>    ' 

D  Iren 

50 

vii.  6     irpos  avrov 

51 

vii.  21     irapa  rov  norafjiov 

DE  syrp 

52 

vii.  24     /cat  fupv^rtv  avrov  fv  ry  a/i/ia> 

Daeth 

53 

vii.  26     rt  rroietrf 

D 

54 

vii.  33     *at  eyeVro  (pavf)  irpbs  avrov 

D 

55 

viii.  1     qui  manserunt  Hierusalem 

D  sah  Aug 

56 

viii.  6     as  8e  TJKOVOV 

D  syr"*  ar6  aeth 

57 

58 

viii.  19    rogando  et 
viii.  24     TrapaxaXco 

D 

D  syrp  137  180  Const 

59 

viii.  24     rovratv  ra>i>  xawv 

DE 

60 

viii.  24     os  TroXXa  K\aia>v  ov  o~if\vpiravev 

D  syrpmg 

61 

viii.  37     respondens    dixit    Philippus  :     si 
credis  ex  toto  corde  tuo  licet  : 

E  vg  demid  tol  arm  syi* 
Iren  Cyp  Thphyl 

et  respondens  spado  ait:  credo 

filium  dei  esse  Christum  Jesum 

62 

ix.  4     <TK\rjp6v  o-ot  TTpos  K€vrpa  XaKTi'£eti/ 

E  syr"*  syrp  ar6 

63 

ix.   5       <TK\r)pOV  <TOl  KT€ 

vg  tol  syi* 

64 

ix.  20    cum  omni  fiducia 

Iren 

65 

ix.  37    quum  autem  esset  Petrus  Lyddae 

syrp 

66 

ix.  40    in    nomine    domini    nostri    Jesu 

sah  syrp  arm  Amb  Cyp 

Christi 

67 

x.  25     irpoo-fyyifrvros  8e  rov  Uerpov  icre 

D  syrp  •"* 

68 

x.  28    melius 

DAug 

69 

x.  33     7rapaKaXa>i>  frBtiv  Trpos  »)ftas 

D  syrpmg 

70 

x.  33     ev  rax*1 

D 

71 

xi.  2     dia   inavov  \povov  r}6e\r)a'(v  Tropev- 

Dsyrp 

flrjvat 

72 

xi.  2     /cat  7rpoo-<pa>i/»70-as...xap«'  ™v  &fOV 

Dsyi* 

73 

xi.  17     ut  non  daret  eis  spiritum  sanctum 

D  syr"  bohem  Aug 

credentibus  in  eum 

74 

xi.  25     aKovvas  8«  ort  SaOXos  KT€ 

D  syrp  ••« 

75 

xi.  27     erat  autem  magna  exultatio  ;  re- 

DAug 

vertentibus  autem  nobis 

76 

xii.  1     €v  rfj  'lovfiai'a 

Dsyrp 

77 

xii.  3    comprehensio  ejus 

Dsyi*"8 

78 

xii.  3     «rt  rovs  irto~rovs 

D  syr"-"* 

79 

xii.  7     Petro 

D  sah  syrp  aeth 

80 

xii.  10    descenderunt    septem    grados   et    D 

[processerunt]  gradum  [unum] 

81 

xii.  15     forsitam 

D  syr"*  ar8 

82 

xii.  20     c  £•  aui<poTfp<&v  rotv  iro\«ov 

Dsyrp 

83 

xii.  21      icaraXXayeWos  8e  avrov  rots  Tuptots 

Dsy^ 

218 


FURTHER  CLASSIFICATfON   OF  THE  GLOSSES   IN 


ACTS 

84 

xii.  23 

85 

xii.  23 

86 

xiii.  8 

87 

xiii.  15 

88 

xiii.  19 

89 

xiii.  28 

90 

xiii.  41 

91 

xiii.  44 

92 

xiii.  44 

93 

xiii.  45 

94 

xiii.  50 

95 

xiv.  2 

96 

xiv.  2 

97 

xiv.  4 

98 

xiv.  7 

99 

xiv.  9 

100 

xiv.  9 

101 

xiv.  10 

102 

xiv.  19 

103 

xiv.  25 

104 

xiv.  27 

105 

XV.  1 

106 

xv.  2 

107 

xv.  2 

108 

xv.  4 

109 

xv.  5 

110 

xv.  7 

111 

XV.  11 

112 

xv.  13 

113 

xv.  20 

114 

xv.  23 

115 

xv.  26 

116 

xv.  29 

117 

xv.  29 

118 

xv.  30 

dirb  TOV 

eVl  £toV  KOI  OVTOiS 

quoniam  libenter  audiebat  eos 

[Xoyov]  KOI  o~o<pias 

TWV  a\\o(pv\(i)v 

KpivavTts  avTov  naptftaMtav 

KOI  co~iyr)<rav 

eycvcTo  de  naff  o\rjs  KTC 

iro\vv   re    \6yov   noirj(rap.€vov    irtpi 

TOV  KV 

contradicentcs  et 
tribulationem  magnam 


6  8e  Kvpios  €O"(M)K€v  Ta%v 
adherentes  propter  verbum  dei 
[verbum  dei.]      et    cominota  est 

omnis    multitude   in   doctrinis. 

Paulus  autem  et  Barnabas  moras 

faciebant  in  Lystris 


dreviaas  fie  o  Hav\os 

aroi  \(ya>  fv  reS  ovd/zart  TOV  KV  ITJV  \v 

moras  facientes  eos  et  docentes 
evangelizantes  eos 


KOI  ir€pi7rarf)T€ 

e\eyfv  yap   6  U.av\os...diro   'lepov- 


0vpav 


oiras  Kpi0to<riv  eV  avrois 
KOI    on  ijvoi£(v  rots 


ol    8e    irapayyei\avTcs...TOvs 
fivrepovs 


Se 


pO)V  Tof  VTTO  TOV 

surgens 

KOI  o<ra  P.TJ  6(\ov<riv...p.fj  Trotetre 
eVtoroX^i/  TTC  pie  \ova-av  rade 
fis-  iravra  Tretpao-ftoi/ 
icai  oo-a  /i))  deXere  <re 
ferentes  in  sancto  spiritu 
oXiyais 


D 
D 

DE  syr* 

D 

Dsyi* 

D 

D  syr1" 

DE  syrp 

D[E] 

DEIP  syr"  Chr 

D 

D  [syrp •••] 

DE  demid  syrpn 

D  syrpmg 

DE 


DE 
DE 

CDE  sah  syr1611  syrp  mg  arm 

[Iren] 

CDE  syrp  mg  arm  ar*  etc. 
Dsyi* 
D 

D  sah  syrp  mg 
D  syrpmg 

D  syrp  137 
HL  etc.  Thphyl 

D  syrp  mg 

D  syrp  •**  137 
Dsyrp 


D  sah  aeth  Iren 

CD  sah  aeth  syrp  ••* 

DE  syr^"1'  137 

D  sah  syi*  aeth  Iren  Gyp 

D  Iren  Tert 

D 


THE  WESTERN   TEXT  OF  THE   ACTS. 


219 


119 
120 
121 


123 

124 
125 

126 
127 


128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 


134 
135 
136 

137 

138 
139 
140 

141 
142 

143 

144 
145 
146 

147 

148 
149 
150 


ACTS 

xv.  32  pleni  spiritu  sancto 

xv.  34  c8o£e  oe  ro)  2iXa  empc'ivai  avrov 

xv.  34  P.OVOS  8c  'lovftas  fnopevBrj 

xv.  38  els  o   cW/i</>di?0*ai',  TOVTOV  prj  elvai 

avv  avTols 

xv.  41  irapa&io'ovs  ras  evroXas  TO>V  irpecrftv-     D  tol  syrpmg 


CD  sah  aeth  cop  syr* 

D  tol  arm 

Dtol 


ra  €0VT)  ravra 

cum  omni  fiducia  dominum  Jesum 

Christum  simul  tradentes  et 


xvi.  1 
xvi.  4 

xvi.  9     Kara  irpoo~a>irov  avrov 

xvi.  10  exurgens  ergo  enarrabit  visum 
nobis  et  intellegimus  quoniam 
provocavit  nos  dominus 

xvi.  11     tji  bt  (iravptov 

xvi.  16    per  hoc 

xvi.  19 

xvi.  22 

xvi.  30     rovs  XotTTOVff  d(T(f)a\ia-afi(vos 
xvi.  35     (TvvfjXdov  ol  orpaTTjyol  eirl  TO  OVTO 
els  TTJV  dyopdvj  KOI 
TOV  crfttr/ioi/  TOV  yeyovora 


xvi.  35 
xvi.  39 
xvi.  39 

xvi.  40 

xvii.  6 
xvii.  12 
xvii.  12 

xvii.  13 
xvii.  15 

xvii.  19 
xviii.  2 
xviii.  4 
xviii.  6 

xviii.  8 
xviii.  11 
xviii.  12 
xviii.  12 


irapay(v6p.fvoi  p,€Ta  <pi\a>it  TroXXaiv 
qyvoj(rap.€V  TO.   naff   vpas  art   f<rrc 

dlKdtOl  KT€ 

TOVS   d8f\<povs    diTfyqaavro 

oaa  KTf 
et  dicentes 

quidam  vero  credere  noluenint 
et  viri  et  mulieres  pleres  credide- 

nuit 


yap  fls  avrovs  Kijpv£ai  TOV  \oyov 
cogitantes  et 

ot  *cat  KartpKTjo-av  tit  TTJV  'Axatav 
et  interponens  nomen  domini  Jesu 
TroXXoC  &f  \6yov  yftvoptvov  KCU  ypa- 


D  syr'-"* 
D 


Dsyr" 
D  sah 


D  syrpn*  137 

D 

D 

D 

Dsyr" 


per  nomen  dni  nostri  ihu  xpi 
cv  Kopivfo 
o~vv\a\^o-avrfs  peff 


D  syi*  137 

D 

D  syi*  137 

D 

D 

D137 

D 

D  syr"11  ar" 
D 

D  syi*  137 
D  syi*-1"15 
D  syr" ••• 
Dsyr""* 

D  syi*"*  137 

D  syr"*  syr"  ar6  aeth 

D 

D  sah  syi* 


220 


FURTHER   CLASSIFICATION   OF   THE   GLOSSES   IN 


ACTS 

151  xviii.  13 

152  xviii.  19 

153  xviii.  25 

154  xviii.  26 


clamantes  et 


155 
156 
157 
158 
159 

160 


xviii.  27 
xviii.  27 
xviii.  27 
xviii.  28 
xix.  1 

xix.  2 


161 

xix.  5 

162 

xix.  6 

163 

xix.  6 

164 

xix.  8 

165 

xix.  9 

166 

xix.  14 

167 

xix.  14 

(repeated 
from  v.  13) 

168 

xix.  20 

169 

xix.  25 

170 

xix.  28 

171 

xx.  3 

172 

xx.  12 

173 

xx.  18 

174 

xx.  24 

175 

xx.  24 

176 

xxi.  1 

177 

xxi.  5 

178 


xxi.  16 


179  xxii.  28 

180  xxiii.  9 

181  xxiii.  24 


ev  rfj  Trarpi'St 

cv  de  TTJ  'E<pco-(p...o~vvKaTav€vcravTos 


in 


a7ro5e£<i>iTat  TOV  avftpa 
ds  TTJV  'A^aiai/ 
8ia\fy6fifvos  /cat 
volente    vero     Paulo...  re  verti 

Asiam 
[neque    spiritum    sanctum]    acci- 

piunt  quidam  [audivimus] 
f  i?  a(f)ffriv  dpapTtaiv 
cTfpais 
et  sentiebant  in  seipsis  quod  et 

interpretabantur   illis   hi    ipsi  : 

quidam  autem  [prophetabant] 
cum  fiducia  magna 
TWOS  dirb  o>pas  c  eats  dfKarrjs 
et  introierunt...coeperuntinvocare 

nomen 
praecipimus  tibi  [per]  Jesu[m]  quern 

Paulus  praedicat 

et  fides  dei  convalescebat 


8pap.6vrfs  fls  TO  ap.(po8ov 
clnev  de  TO  irvtvpa  avT<o 


tas  Tpitriav  f)  KOI 

TOV  \6yov 

'Iov8aiots  KOI  " 

KCU  Mvpa 

sequenti  autem  die  ambulavimus 

viam  nostram 
et  cum  venerunt  in  quendam  civi- 

tatem  fuimus 
quam  facile  civem  Romanum  te 

dicis 

quid  est  in  hoc 
((po^dr}    yap    prfrroTc     dpirao-avres 

avTov  ol  'louSaiot  diroKTCvtam  KCU 

avTos  p.CTa£v  €yic\r)fjia  (\T)  a>s  np- 

yvpiov 


D  sah  syrpm«  137 
D 

D  syrp  m* 

D  syi*mB 
D  Syrp-mg 
D 

D  137 
D 


D 

D  syi* 

D  sah  syr*" 

syrp-mg 


D  syrp  mg 
D  137  syr*"* 
D 


D  syrpmg 


D 

D  sah  syrp 

D  syrpm*  137 

D  syrp-mB 

D 

D 

D  tol  Lucif  Amb 

D  sah  Lucif 

Dsah 

D 

D  syrp-mg 
bohem  Beda 

syr"*  ar* 
syrp  137 


THE  WESTERN  TEXT  OF  THE  ACTS. 


221 


ACTS 

182  xxiv.  10    defensionem  habere  pro  se :  statum    syr"5'"18 

autem  assumens  divinum  dixit 
ex  multis  annis  es  judex 

183  xxiv.  27     TOV  8e  IlavXov  cuurfv  «/  rrjpTjfffi  8ia     syrpmg  137 

Apovo-tXXai/ 

184  xxv.  3    illi  qui  votum  fecerant  quomodo    syrpmg 

obtinerent...ut  in  manibus  suis 


185 
186 


xxv.  25 
xxvii.  15 


et  hie  ut  traderem  etc.  etc. 


syrp-mg  bohem 


syrp 

tol  syrp  137  cKt 

syrp  demid  tol  bohem 


flanti     (1.     flatui)     et    collegimus    syrp  137  c""  Beda 
artemonem 

187  xxvii.  41     eo  ubi  syrtis 

188  xxviii.  30     'lov&uW  re  ical  "EXXi/i/ay 

189  xxviii.  31     quoniam  hie  est  Christus 

190  xxviii.  31     per  quern  incipiet  totus  inundus    syrp  demid  tol 

judicari 

Here  then  are  190  selected  glosses  from  the  Acts,  of  which 
probably  none  will  find  a  defender ;  so  that  they  are  not  really 
various  readings  at  all,  but  portions  of  commentary. 

Let  us  now  see  whether  and  how  far  these  are  reducible  to 
distinct  hands,  in  the  manner  which  has  been  pointed  out  pre 
viously.  We  quote  the  glosses  by  the  numbers  prefixed  to  them, 
and  group  them  by  their  peculiarities  in  doctrine,  language,  and 
attestation,  the  classification  being  less  certain  where  the  number 
is  placed  within  brackets.  For  convenience  we  will  attach  to  the 
separate  glossators  a  Greek  letter. 

a.     The  following  glosses  are  Montanistic. 

(a)     Doctrine  of  the  Reception  of  the  Paraclete  emphasized,  and  other 
allusions  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit,  as  Energy,  Sophia  &c. : 

3.  4.  [7]  24.  [25]  43.  44.  45.  73.  110.  117.  119.  159.  160.  171 
(6)     Doctrine  of  prophecy  and  of  the  reception  of  prophetic  gifts : 

75.  119.  163 

(c)  Doctrine  of  the  power  of  the  sacred  Name : 

42.  66.  101.  145.  147.  [166] 

(d)  Visions  and  their  manner  of  interpretation : 

127 

(e)  Doctrine  of  irapprjo-ia : 

37.  45.  64.  125.  [164] 
Probably  gloss  37  carries  with  it  the  previous  gloss  36. 


222  FURTHER   CLASSIFICATION    OF   THE   GLOSSES   IN 

(/)     Sharp  distinction  between  believers  and  unbelievers,  and  necessity 
for  faith  with  baptism  : 

9.  11.  26.  61.  139.  140.  [168] 
(g)    Contempt  for  runaways : 

122 

(A)  Glosses  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  Apostles  preached  the  Gospel, 
to  wit,  the  Word  of  the  Lord  and  the  Person  of  the  Lord : 

1.  92.  97.  98.  125 

(i)  Glosses  to  get  rid  of  the  bareness  and  unspirituality  of  the  decree  of 
the  Council  at  Jerusalem : 

113.  116.  117 

(k)     Similarity  of  attestation  brings  together  such  passages  as 

1.  [2]  3. 

0.  The  following  gloss  belongs  to  the  person  whom  I  distin 
guish  as  the  Homerizer : 

80 

7.  The  following  are  probably  due  to  double  translations, 
pleonasms,  &c.  of  the  first  translator : 

10.  15.  17.  [35]  47.  50.  [51]  57.  58.  59.  69.  70.  [76]  79.  81.  87.  93.  94. 
105.  112.  129.  [130]  131.  138.  143.  148.  151.  156.  162 

The  following  pairs  of  glosses  fall  together,  from  the  coinci 
dences  in  language  : 

&  60  and  141  (&aXi/«rai>a>). 

*•  72  and  92  (multum  verbum  faciens). 

r.     The  following  are  likely  to  be  by  the  same  hand,  since  they 
involve  obscure  assimilations  to  the  text  of  the  Gospels  : 
30  (which  carries  31  with  it).  86.  98 

f  The  two  following  glosses,  which  speak  of  the  believers  as 
the  just  men,  probably  go  together  : 

95.  136 

ff.  The  following  involve  textual  repetitions  in  the  Latin,  made 
necessary  in  most  cases  by  the  interpolation  of  glosses,  and  giving 
rise  to  two  types  of  Greek  : 

37.  46.  [98]  167 


THE    WESTERN    TEXT   OF   THE   ACTS. 

6.  Glosses  of  the  nature  of  lectionary  prefaces,  or  reader's 
expansions  and  connections : 

6.  [8]  12.  16.  65.  [71]  118.  124.  128.  [146]  148.  155  and  perhaps 
others. 

i.  A  group  of  bold  and  startling  expansions  of  the  narrative, 
the  major  part  of  which  certainly  proceeded  from  a  common  hand : 

[32]  [33]  [59]  60.  74.  [82]  83.  84.  85.  06.  106.  100.  [120]  [121]  132.  133. 
134.  135.  136.  142.  144.  154.  [155]  156.  157.  158.  [150]  165.  170.  177.  178. 
179.  181.  182.  183.  184.  185 

The  remainder  of  the  glosses  are  difficult  to  classify. 

Now  let  us  see  whether  these  ten  imagined  glossators,  whom 
we  have  selected  from  the  conceivable  190  hands  in  the  text,  can 
be  connected  with  one  another. 

If  we  turn  to  the  group  of  glosses  in  Acts  vi.  10,  we  have  a 
natural  feeling  that  they  all  belong  to  the  same  hand,  for  they 
occur  at  the  same  place,  and  have  a  common  tendency  :  it  seems 
reasonable  to  believe  therefore  that  gloss  46  which  is  a  mere 
repetition  in  the  Latin  belongs  with  43,  44,  45  which  rendered  it 
necessary.  This  makes  the  glossator  77  the  same  as  a. 

Again  a  comparison  of  glosses  97  and  98  shews  the  common 
connecting  term  "  the  word  of  God  " :  it  is  likely  then  that  these 
are  by  the  same  hand  ;  for  they  are  nearly  adjacent  in  the  text, 
and  have  a  common  idea.  Hence  we  have  placed  97  and  98  under 
a  (A):  but  97  also  contains  98  (on  suspicion);  and  this  agrees  with 
what  has  just  been  deduced  that  ij  and  a  are  the  same  hand. 

But  98  also  turns  up  in  r  on  the  ground  of  its  imitation  of  a 
sentence  in  the  Gospels. 

It  may,  therefore,  be  said  tentatively  that  as~rj  are  one  and  the 
same. 

The  identity  of  77  with  a  would  seern  to  follow  also  from  the 
fact  that  it  contains  the  gloss  37,  which  is  one  of  the  very  decided 
cases  of  the  Trappijcria  which  so  often  occurs  in  our  text. 

Let  us  say,  then,  tentatively  that  the  groups  of  glosses  are  not 
all  independent;  but  that  the  most  important  of  them  are  the 
translator  (7),  the  Montanist  (a  +  r  +  77),  the  Homerizer  (@),  a  scribe 
who  has  lectionary  usage  in  his  mind  (0),  and  a  daring  commen 
tator  *. 


224  FURTHER   CLASSIFICATION   OF   THE   GLOSSES   IN 

We  credit  the  Montanist  now  with  the  glosses 

1.  [2]  3.  4.  [7]  9.  11.  24.  [25]  26.  30.  31.  36.  37.  42.  43.  44.  45.  46.  61. 
64.  66.  72.  73.  75.  86.  92.  95.  97.  98.  101.  110.  [Ill]  113.  116.  117.  119. 
122.  125.  127.  136.  139.  140.  145.  147.  159.  160.  163.  [164]  [166]  167.  [168] 
171.  [172] 

Now  let  us  see  how  the  attestation  of  these  errors  is  grouped : 
we  have  traces  of  the  Montanizer  in 

CDE  137  lux  tol  reg  demid  sah  aeth  syr**  ar«  syr""1  syr"-"«  bohem 
Iren  Tert  Gyp  Aug  Vig-Taps  Hil  Did  Amb  Philastr  Max-Taur. 

Now  the  doubtful  members  in  this  very  Western  group  are 
Codex  C  and  the  Peshito  Syriac  with  its  daughter  the  Arabic.  It 
is  hard  to  believe  in  the  dependence  of  their  text  on  the  Monta- 
nized  text  when  they  occur  so  rarely  in  support  of  special  readings. 

The  examination  shews  that  Codex  C  only  attests  the  gloss 
101,  and  syr**  the  two  glosses  7, 101,  and  the  Arabic  the  gloss  7. 
It  would  seem  then  that  these  two  glosses  are  wrongly  included 
in  the  body  of  the  Montanist  readings.  We  therefore  detach  them, 
and  assign  them  provisionally  to  some  earlier  date. 

This  allows  us  to  make  the  provisional  statement  that  the 
Western  elements  in  Cod.  C,  and  the  primitive  Syriac  translation, 
are  earlier  than  the  Western  Montanist  glosses. 

But  we  can,  upon  this  hypothesis,  make  the  chronological  land 
marks  more  conspicuous.  For  we  know  that  gloss  80  antedates 
the  Syriac  translation  which  took  up  and  transmitted  the  i/vfa<?  of 
the  Homerizer :  we  say  then  that  the  chronological  order  (since  the 
Homerizer  is  certainly  a  Latin)  is 

Latin  translation, 
Homeric  gloss, 
Primitive  Syriac. 

Now  let  us  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  glosses  which  are  attested 
by  Cod.  C.  We  find  that  they  are  five  in  number,  viz.  101,  102, 
108,  114,  120.  And  it  is  possible  that  these  Western  elements 
of  Cod.  C  are  antecedent  to  the  Latin  rendering,  though  they 
belong  to  the  Western  text,  geographically  speaking.  They  shew 
no  decided  traces  of  Latinism,  for  the  gloss  102,  which  is  the  most 
likely  to  be  primitive  Latin,  may  very  likely  be  a  part  of  the  first 
translation,  and  have  been  found  in  the  translator's  Greek. 


THE   WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE  ACTS.  225 

We  say  then,  still  in  a  tentative  manner,  that  the  probable 
order  in  time  is 

Western  glosses  of  Cod.  C, 
Latin  translation, 
Homeric  gloss, 
Primitive  Syriac, 
Montanist  glosses. 

Now  the  Sahidic  glosses  have  been  shewn  to  contain  a  large 
proportion  of  the  Montanist  element:  we  recognize  the  Sahidic 
and  its  companion  the  Ethiopic  in  such  a  group  as 

1.  [2]  42.  66.  113.  116.  127. 

There  is  no  mistaking  the  significance  of  this  evidence :  we 
cannot  easily  evade  the  conclusion  that  the  Sahidic  text  is  later 
in  date  than  the  body  of  the  Montanist  glosses.  We,  therefore, 
add  the  Sahidic  to  the  previous  list,  so  as  to  give 

Western  glosses  of  Cod.  C, 
Latin  translation, 
Homeric  gloss, 
Primitive  Syriac, 
Montanist  glosses, 
Sahidic  version. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  we  assign  the  Montanizer  roughly 
to  the  date  160  A.D.,  or  a  little  later.  The  original  Latin 
rendering  must  evidently  be  many  years  earlier ;  indeed  we  sus 
pect  that  it  must  have  been  in  existence  in  the  early  part  of 
the  second  century.  But  the  reader  will  have  seen  that  we  have 
not  pretended  that  our  investigation  is  complete,  or  that  our  con 
clusions  are  final.  We  are  throwing  lines  across  chasms  which  we 
hope  to  bridge  by-and-bye. 


C.  B.  15 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

LOCAL  AND  TEMPORAL  ORIGIN  OF  THK  PRIMITIVE  WESTERN 
TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

WHEN  we  pass  to  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  we  are  discussing 
very  much  the  same  problem  as  the  preceding ;  for  the  probability 
is  very  high  that  the  translation  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
is  only  a  sequel  and  complement  to  the  rendering  of.  the  Gospels 
into  the  vulgar  tongue.  The  translation  of  the  Gospels  might 
be  perhaps  the  earlier  work,  but  that  is  all  the  difference.  Hence 
there  is  a  presumption  that  if  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  in  its 
Latin  dress  passed  from  Carthage  to  Rome,  the  Gospels  had 
preceded  it ;  or  if  Rome  was  the  place  of  publication  for  the  one, 
it  was  probably  so  for  the  other.  We  can,  if  we  wish,  leave 
the  exact  direction  of  motion  of  the  primitive  copy  an  open 
question,  until  a  definite  conclusion  forces  itself  upon  us. 

But  in  approaching  the  subject  on  its  own  merits,  apart  from 
such  suggestions  as  have  been  presented  in  the  previous  enquiry, 
we  have  a  harder  problem  in  some  respects  in  the  case  of  the 
Gospels  than  in  that  of  the  Acts.  For,  although  there  are 
numerous  glosses  in  the  Gospels,  they  do  not  shew  the  same 
unity  of  design,  nor  the  same  definiteness  as  to  the  time  and 
place  of  production,  as  do  the  Montanist  glosses  in  the  Acts. 
There  is,  indeed,  one  striking  Western  reading  which  is  perhaps 
Montanistic ;  I  mean  that  beautiful  variation  of  the  Lord's  prayer 
which  replaced  the  two  clauses 

aytaor^ro)  TO  ovopa  aov 
€\0fTO)  jj  /3a<rtXtta  o~ow 

by  the  single  sentence 

cXdcrca  TO  ayiov 


PRIMITIVE    WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  227 

Now  this  variation,  which  in  the  form  we  have  given  is  taken 
from  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (De  Or  at.  Doin.  §  3),  was  known  both 
to  Tertullian  and  to  the  ancestry  of  Codex  Bezae1.  The  former 
appears  by  a  reference  to  Tertullian's  treatise  against  Marcion 
(iv.  26)  where,  in  discussing  the  successive  clauses  in  the  Lord's 
prayer  (and  we  see  no  reason  to  assume  that  it  was  Marcion's 
text  rather  than  his  own),  he  proceeds  in  the  following  order 
"Cui  dicam,  pater?... A  quo  spiritum  sanctum  postulem  ?...Eius 
regnum  optabo  venire,  quern  numquam  regem  gloriae  audivi?... 
Quis  dabit  mihi  panem  quotidianum...  ?"  Here  Tertullian  has 
certainly  explained  the  second  clause  of  the  Lord's  prayer  in 
harmony  with  the  peculiar  form  preserved  by  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 
And,  as  I  think  Dr  Sanday  pointed  out,  there  are  signs  in 
the  text  of  Cod.  Bezae  that  something  of  the  same  kind  once 
stood  here :  for  we  have  in  Luke  xi.  2 

<\n&C9HTCO    ONOMA    COY    e<J>    HAAAC 
8A2fCTlFICETVR   NOMEN   TVVM   SVPEK   NOS. 

(The  article  is  omitted,  as  commonly  in  D,  being  unbalanced  in  the 
Latin.)  We  may  then,  I  think,  say  we  have  here  either  a  Monta- 
nisCic  or  a  Marcionite  gloss :  the  former,  if  it  belongs  to  the 
text  immediately  antecedent  to  the  Tertullian  text:  the  latter, 
if  it  can  be  pushed  back  to  an  earlier  period.  Beyond  this  some 
what  obscure  instance,  I  do  not  know  of  any  definite  Montanistic 
touches  in  the  Gospels.  So  that  the  argument  will  not  at  first 
statement  move  pari  passu  with  the  case  of  the  Acts :  perhaps 
because  the  Gospels  were  well  fixed  in  Latin  before  Montanus. 
We  can  however  proceed  in  another  way. 

We  may  affirm  that  the  earliest  Western  readings  of  which 
we  have  any  historical  knowledge  are  exactly  like  the  rest  of 
the  Bezan  readings  in  that  they  have  a  suspicion  of  Latinizing 
attaching  to  them.  For  example,  what  are  we  to  say  of  the  famous 
dispute  in  regard  to  the  reading  of  Matt.  xi.  27  (ovSels  e^/vw 
rov  TraTepa),  which  was  such  a  favourite  passage  from  the  Gnostic 
standpoint,  and  of  such  antiquity  that  we  can  trace  it  onwards 
from  Justin  and  Marcion  to  Irenaeus  and  Clement  and  Origen  ? 

1  It  actually  occurs  in  Mr  Hoskier's  Codex  (Ev.  G04).    A  full  discussion  of  this 
variant  will  be  found  in  Chase,  The  Lord's  Prayer  hi  the  Early  Church,  pp.  25—27. 

15—2 


228  LOCAL   AND   TEMPORAL   ORIGIN    OF   THE 

Does  it  not  look  very  much  as  if  some  one  had  harmonized 
the  Latin  'novit'  (which  was  a  right  translation  of  the  Greek 
ywcoo-tcet,  or  eiriyivootricei)  with  its  bilingual  conjugate  by  means 
of  a  new  translation  ?  We  have  had  cases  enough  of  this  kind  to 
make  us  speak  very  confidently  on  such  a  point.  Nor  is  there 
any  difficulty  in  the  supposition,  for  Justin  and  Marcion  are  both 
Roman  teachers,  and  Alexandrian  texts  can  be  shewn  to  inherit 
directly  the  earlier  peculiarities  of  the  Western  bilingual.  In 
dealing  then  with  Western  readings  we  suspect  Latinization  from 
the  earliest  periods  of  textual  history.  That  is  the  first  position 
we  take. 

In  the  next  place  we  have  learnt  from  our  study  of  the 
growth  of  the  Western  text  of  the  Acts  to  distrust  entirely 
the  assumption  that  there  are  no  such  things  as  heretical  and 
factional  depravations  of  the  text.  As  far  as  we  are  able  to 
judge,  one  half  of  the  Roman  world  Montanized  its  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  the  readings  thus  produced  are  found  from  the 
banks  of  the  Tyne  to  beyond  the  Cataracts  of  the  Nile.  Hence 
we  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  Dr  Hort  can  be  right  when  he 
says1  that  it  is  his  distinct  belief  "  that  even  among  the  numerous 
unquestionably  spurious  readings  of  the  New  Testament  there 
are  no  signs  of  deliberate  falsification  of  the  text  for  dogmatic 
purposes."  The  statement  seems  too  strong;  and  while  we  are 
willing  to  admit  that  the  transcription  of  the  New  Testament 
in  its  successive  stages  has  been  accomplished,  in  the  main, 
with  excellent  intentions,  there  are  certainly  places  where  a 
foreign  and  factional  hand  can  be  detected.  Surely  it  is  a  curious 
thing  that  the  Latin  of  Codex  Bezae  shews  the  reading  in 
Luke  xviii.  19 

nemo  bonus  nisi  unus  ds  pater2. 

Has  that  added  word  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  no  meaning 
in  the  controversies  of  the  second  century  ?    And  if  it  has  any 

1  Introduction,  p.  282. 

8  From  the  Marcionite  standpoint,  Christ  was  not  to  he  spoken  of  as  either  good 
or  had.  hut  as  occupying  a  middle  position:  hence  Hippolytus  sums  up  the  teaching 
in  the  words  x&>Pis  ywtffcw  fr«  irerrfKaidcKa.^  TT)J  Tftciiovla.*  Ttfieplov  Ka/<ra/x>s  KO.TC- 
\i}\v06Ta  avrbv  avudev,  pfoov  6vra.  Aca/coO  Kal  &ya0ov,  dt$d<rK€iv  iv  rats 
Philos.  vii.  31. 


PRIMITIVE    WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  229 

meaning,  is  it  not  a  dogmatic  alteration  ?  Is  it  not  Marcionite  in 
appearance?  Does  it  not  occur  in  the  very  Gospel  of  which 
Marcion  gave  a  new  recension,  and  in  view  of  this  is  it  a  mere 
error  that  Epiphanius  assigns  the  reading  to  the  authorship 
of  Marcion  ?  Must  not  the  reading  go  back  in  date  to  the  days 
of  Marcion,  when  we  find  that  Irenaeus  attacks  the  Gallican 
Gnostics  for  their  use  of  the  passage  ? 

Or  take  another  instance  ;  it  is  the  fashion  to  print  Matt.  xix.  17 
in  the  form 

ri  fie  fparas  Trepi  rov  ayaBov ; 

a  text  of  which  we  should  certainly  say  a  priori  that  it  was  a 
Gnostic  depravation.  Most  assuredly  this  is  a  Western  reading,  for 
it  is  given  by  D  a  b  c  e/1'2  gl  h  I  and  the  vulgate,  a  striking  piece 
of  unanimity.  Further  we  notice  that  D,  as  its  custom  is,  has 
erased  the  unbalanced  article  rov ;  and  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  of  the  three  cursives  which  Tischendorf  cites  in  support 
of  the  text  (1.  22.  251)  one  has  this  same  peculiarity  of  dropping 
the  article,  while  the  allusion  which  Origen  makes  to  the  passage 
shews  the  very  same  omission  (009  Trepi  dyaOov  epyov  epcorrj- 
OevTos).  Surely  these  facts  are  significant  enough  to  make  one 
believe  that  the  texts  in  question  derive  the  passage  from  the 
Western  bilingual. 

But  it  will  be  said  that  we  have  also  to  deal  with  NBL 
and  certain  versions.  Well !  According  to  Westcott  and  Hort 
tf  and  B  were  both  written  in  the  West,  probably  at  Rome. 
Did  Roman  texts  never  influence  one  another1  ?  But  we  will 
simply  say  in  a  tentative  manner,  that  if  the  clause  in  question 
be  not  genuine,  it  would  go  far  towards  proving  that  the  Roman 
Gospels  did  not  escape  altogether  from  Gnostic  glosses  in  the 
second  century.  The  advantage  of  this  position  is  that  we  may 
find  a  series  of  chronological  landmarks  by  means  of  which  to  set 
in  order  the  different  stages  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  texts  and  the 
various  versions. 

One  of  the  best  things  to  attempt,  then,  is  to  test  the  Western 

1  We  will  admit  that  the  subject  demands  a  more  careful  consideration,  and  we 
remember  that  it  has  not  really  been  proved  that  the  two  great  Uncials  are  Roman 
in  origin.  Their  history  remains  to  be  written. 


230  LOCAL   AND   TEMPORAL   ORIGIN   OF  THE 

text  generally  for  Marcionism,  and  we  cannot  take  a  better 
example  than  Luke  xxiii.  2 

TOVTOV  cvpov  8iao-Tp€<povTa  TO  fQvos  fJ/icSr, 
Koi  K<a\vovra  <f)6povs  diSovai  KaiVapt. 

Here  was  a  tempting  passage  for  those  whose  anti-Judaic 
theology  had  brought  them  to  the  necessity  of  altering  all  those 
places  where  the  Gospel  of  Luke  had  spoken  approvingly  of 
either  the  Jewish  nation,  the  Jewish  law,  or  the  Jewish  prophets. 
Christ  himself  was  accused  of  hostility  to  the  race  !  So,  without 
stopping  to  enquire  whether  Christ  was  rightly  or  wrongly 
charged  with  antagonism  to  the  Jews,  a  Marcionite  or  Gnostic 
hand  added  to  the  accusation  words  which  Epiphanius  gives  in 
the  form 

KOI  KdTaXvovra  TOP  vofiov  /cat  rovs  7rpo(prjTasl. 

(It  was  quite  natural  for  a  Marcionite  to  make  this  addition, 
for  the  same  sect  altered  Luke  xvi.  17  so  as  to  read 

fVKOTTWTfpOV    8f    €O~TIV    TOV    OVpdVOV    KOI    TT)V  yfjv  7rapt\6elvy  (OS  KOI  (')  VOflOS  K.O.I  Ol 

TWV  \oya)v  TOV  Kvplov  fjiiav  Kcpaiav  7Tf(reti>.) 


By  this  means  the  Marcionite  placed  himself  by  the  side  of  the 
Saviour  at  the  moment  of  his  trial;  it  was  as  if  he  said  '£70; 
elju  Xptcrroi).  And  so  successful  was  the  interpolation,  and 
so  widely  was  the  Roman  Church  Marcionized  in  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  that  the  reading  is  found,  not  indeed 
in  Cod.  Bezae,  but  in 

bee  ff'2  il  q  etc. 

Its  Greek  attestation  is  zero,  except  for  the  passage  in  Epi 
phanius  :  yet  we  need  not  doubt  that  it  stood  in  the  ancient 
Roman  bilinguals. 

But  this  is  not  all  ;  the  process  of  interpolation  was  carried 
still  further.  The  Marcionites  having  made  an  ally  of  Christ,  as 
against  the  reproaches  of  the  orthodox,  inserted  a  second  gloss,  by 
means  of  which  another  arrow  of  the  orthodox  hunter  was  diverted 
to  the  Founder  of  the  Faith.  There  is  a  mysterious  gloss  at 
the  name  part  of  the  text  which  we  have  quoted  above,  which  has 

1  Epiph.  c.  Marc.  316.  Cf.  Iren.  i.  xxvii.  2  (  =  Mass.  106),  Marcion  dicit..."Iesum 
...in  hoininis  forma  iiianifestutum  his  qui  in  ludaea  erant,  dissolventeni  prophetas 
et  legem  et  omnia  opeia  eius  Dei  qui  niundum  fecit." 


PRIMITIVE   WESTERN   TEXT   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  231 

almost  disappeared  from  current  texts.  It  appears  in  Epiphanius 
in  connection  with  the  previous  gloss,  for  Epiphanius  says  that 
Marcion  also  added  the  words, 

KOI  diroorptyovra  rag  yvvalnas  KOI  T&  re'/evcr, 

at  the  close  of  the  passage  which  we  have  quoted  above.  And 
when  we  turn  to  the  Old  Latin  texts,  we  actually  find  the  words 
in  question,  in  a  longer  and  more  significant  form,  at  the  end  of 
v.  5.  Here  Codd.  c  e  give  us 

et  filios  nostros  et  uxores  avertit  a  no  bis; 

non  enim  baptizantur  sicut  et  nos,  nee  se  mundant. 

Now  what  does  this  mysterious  passage  mean  ?  Why  should 
Christ  be  charged  (absurd  anachronism !)  with  erroneous  forms  of 
baptism,  and  with  misleading  women  and  children  ?  The  answer 
is  that  these  are  heads  of  the  indictment  against  Marcion  and  his 
followers,  who  do  not  hold  to  the  perfunctory  method  of  baptism, 
but  demand  a  severe  ascetic  preparation  for  the  rite.  Let  us  hear 
what  Tertullian  says  on  the  matter : 

(adv.  Marc.  I.  29) :  "  Non  tinguitur  apud  ilium  caro  nisi  virgo, 
nisi  vidua,  nisi  coelebs,  nisi  divortio  baptisma  mercata,  quasi  non 
etiam  spadonibus  ex  nuptiis  nata,"and  again  (adv.  Marc.  IV.  11)  : 
"nuptias  non  conjungit,  conjunctas  non  admittit,  neminem  tingit, 
nisi  caelibem  aut  spadonem,  morti  aut  repudio  baptisma  servat." 

These  passages  will,  I  think,  shew  conclusively  what  is  meant 
by  the  curious  gloss  in  c  e  concerning  the  alienation  of  wives  and 
the  refusal  of  baptism.  We  see,  then,  two  stages  of  Latin  Marcio- 
nite  corruption  in  this  passage.  And  although  Cod.  D  has  escaped, 
it  is  probably  only  by  means  of  the  grace  of  repentance ;  such  an 
attestation  as  we  find  above  must  surely  have  involved  the  original 
of  the  Bezan  text.  It  is  sufficiently  shewn  then  that  the  glosses 
are  demonstrably  of  a  Marcionite  character. 

And  now  we  begin  to  stand  on  firmer  ground,  for  the  problem 
has  again  become  similar  to  that  which  we  worked  out  for  the  Acts; 
and  the  hypothesis  is  invited  that  the  primitive  Western  bilingual 
is  earlier  than  the  days  of  Marcion  and  shews  traces  of  having 
passed  through  a  process  of  Marcionization.  On  this  hypothesis 
we  shall  expect  to  find  traces  of  Western  textual  disturbance  in 
1  6 


232  LOCAL   AND  TEMPORAL   ORIGIN   OF   THE 

the  neighbourhood  of  those  places  where  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius 
accuse  Marcion  of  adulterating  the  records. 

For  instance,  we  are  told  that  Marcion  tampered  with  the  text 
of  Luke  iv.  16,  where  Christ  comes  into  the  synagogue  of  His 
native  place  and  reads  from  the  prophets.  We  do  not  exactly 
know  how  far  the  knife  of  the  reviser  cut  at  this  point  ;  but  we 
do  know  that  he  never  called  Christ  a  man  of  Nazareth,  if  he 
could  help  it,  for  fear  of  fulfilling  a  prophecy  ;  and  that,  according 
to  his  theory  and  Gospel,  Christ  had  appeared  suddenly  from  heaven 
("de  caelo  in  synagogam").  It  is  generally  reckoned,  therefore, 
that  Marcion  omitted  the  words 


and 

Kara  TO  dados  avrta. 

Now  let  us  see  whether  these  Marcionite  omissions  have  left 
any  mark  on  the  Western  Latin  text.     First  take  Cod.  e,  and  we 
find  that  the  words  Kara  TO  elwdos  avrat  are  omitted  !     Then  turn 
to  Codex  Bezae  and  examine,  first  its  Greek,  and  then  its  Latin  : 
eA0coN  Ae  eic  NAZApeA  onoy  HN 

KATA   TO    eiO)6OC    €N    TH    HMGpA    TCON    CABBAT60N 
6IC    THN    CYNArWfHN. 

Note  the  omission  of  red  pappevos  and  of  avrw  after  eicoObs,  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  text  has  undergone  Marcionite  revision. 
The  Lord  was  not  reared  in  Nazareth,  nor  is  it  his  custom  to  visit 
the  Nazarene  synagogue,  but  only  there  is  a  custom  of  visiting  the 
synagogue  generally  :  then  turn  to  the  Latin 

VENIEN8   AVTEM    IN   NAZARED   VBI    ERAT 
NVTRICATV8   INTROIBIT  •  SECVNDVM   CONSVETVDINEM 
IN   8ABBATO  •  IN   SYNAGOGAM, 

and  notice  how  the  colometry,  as  marked  by  the  inserted  points, 
has  been  deranged  by  the  restoration  of  the  missing  words.  Is  it 
not  curious  that  the  confusion  should  occur  at  the  very  point 
-where  Marcion's  history  opens  ? 

Why  is  it  that,  again,  when  we  find  Marcion  in  his  book  of 
Contradictions  maintaining  that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament 
who  sent  down  fire  from  heaven  at  the  request  of  Elias  could  not 
be  the  good  God  who  sent  his  Son  (for  Christ  refused  to  bring 
down  fire  from  heaven  at  the  request  of  his  disciples),  that  the 


PRIMITIVE   WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  233 

text  of  Luke  ix.  54,  55,  where  the  latter  story  is  told,  has  such 
significant  glosses  ?  First  we  are  told  by  a  large  company  of 
uncial  texts  and  Western  authorities  to  add  the  words 

o>s  Kal  'HXiaff  trroirjo-fv, 

which  was  just  the  gloss  for  a  Marcionite  exegete  to  have  made, 
since  it  kept  before  the  reader's  mind  one  of  the  main  points  of  the 
system  of  Marcion. 

Then  we  find  the  added  sentence 

KM  eineN 
oyK  oiAAre  noioy  TINGY/WATCC  ecre 

ET   DIXIT 
NESCITIS  CVIVS  SPIRIT VI1   ESTIS. 

Dr  Hort  says  that  both  these  passages  are  Western ;  we  add 
that  if  so  they  are  probably  Marcionite,  and  that  the  meaning 
of  the  latter  passage  is  that  the  disciples  were  acting  as  though 
they  belonged  to  the  Just  God  rather  than  to  the  Good  God. 

We  should  say  then  that  Western  copies  of  the  Gospels  suffered 
from  deliberate  Marcionization.  But  let  us  take  a  more  simple 
instance  of  textual  variation,  where  no  dogmatic  tendency  is 
involved. 

Marcion  is  charged  with  having  removed  the  word  aicoviov 
from  Luke  x.  25. 

The  Bezan  text  is 

Tl    TTOIHCAC    ZCOHN 
AltONION    KAHpONOMHCCO 

QVID   FACIENS   VITAM 
AETEENAM   HEREDITABO. 

Here  there  is  no  sign  of  any  erasure  having  taken  place.  But 
it  is  extremely  likely  that  such  did  occur  in  certain  Old  Latin  texts2. 
We  remember  the  fondness  of  the  old  translation  for  rendering 
K\rjpovofji€(i),  tc\rjpovofj,ta  by  two  words  possidere,  kereditare:  and 
on  turning  to  the  other  Old  Latin  texts,  as  for  instance  a  6,  we 
find  '  possidebo '  in  place  of  '  hereditabo.'  Does  it  not  look  as  if 
the  primitive  bilingual  had  used  both  words  ?  But  if  it  did, 
'  aeternam '  was  very  likely  to  have  been  ousted  in  the  interests  of 
numerical  equivalence.  We  think  it  probable,  then,  that  the  same 

1  Spiritui  is  a  genetive. 

2  The  word  aeternam  is  in  fact  missing  in  Cod.  g*. 


234  PRIMITIVE   WESTERN   TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS. 

mode  of  reasoning,  which  we  applied  to  the  Montanist  glosses  in 
the  Acts,  applies  also  to  cases  of  real  or  reputed  Marcionization 
in  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  and  especially  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 
That  is  to  say,  the  corruptions  are  Latinizations,  and  we  believe 
the  primitive  translation  lies  behind  Marcion  and  behind  Justin. 

The  case  of  Marcion  can  hardly  be  distinguished  textually, 
either  as  to  time  or  locality,  from  that  of  Tatian.  Now  the  text 
of  Tatian  has  been  known,  for  a  long  while,  to  be  phenomenally 
Western.  We  do  not  believe  that  these  Western  readings  arose 
either  in  Syria  or  in  Asia  Minor.  Our  opinion  is  that  they  are 
Roman  and  belong  to  bilingual  texts  of  an  early  period.  The  sub 
ject  demands  a  special  treatment,  but  there  is  surely  nothing 
incredible  in  the  supposition.  We  know  that  Tatian  studied  and 
taught  in  Rome,  and  it  is  therefore  reasonable  to  find  him  using 
Roman  texts.  Much  of  our  perplexity  has  been  cleared  away  by 
realizing  the  textually  metropolitan  character  of  the  Eternal  City. 
Much  more  has  disappeared  by  tracing  the  effect  of  undoubtedly 
Latin  texts  on  Egyptian  copies  and  versions.  If  Rome  furnished 
texts  to  Alexandria  and  Upper  Egypt,  there  is  not  the  slightest 
difficulty  in  her  ministering  to  the  needs  of  Edessa,  especially 
when  a  great  teacher  from  that  part  of  the  world  was  discipling 
and  being  discipled  in  the  City. 

Closely  connected  with  this  question  is  that  of  the  origin  of 
the  Curetonian  Syriac,  which  furnishes  another  landmark  for  the 
textual  variations.  This  subject  also  has  to  be  investigated  afresh  : 
we  are  prepared  to  believe  that  the  Curetonian  text  is  a  trans 
lation  from  a  Western  bilingual.  But  whether  it  is  older  than 
Tatian  or  younger  is  a  point  which  must  be  carefully  re-examined. 
On  these  questions,  then,  we  may  reserve  our  judgments,  for  it  is 
probable  that  the  life-histories  of  one  or  two  other  codices  may 
have  to  be  written  before  we  can  reach  a  definite  conclusion.  In 
the  meanwhile  we  need  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  every  con 
sideration  that  we  know  of  indicates  the  antiquity  of  the  Latin 
Gospels:  and,  whether  they  were  rendered  into  the  vulgar  tongue 
in  Carthage  or  Rome,  their  date  is  far  earlier  than  one  would 
suspect  from  the  language  of  modern  writers,  who  usually  content 
themselves  with  saying  that  the  Old  Latin  was  made  before  the 
time  of  Tertullian. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
FURTHER  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  THE  SOLUTION  OF  THE  PROBLEM. 

OUR  next  step  must  be  to  deal  with  the  actual  glosses  in  the 
Bezan  text  of  the  Gospels,  in  order  that  we  may  determine 
whether  they  can  be  classified,  and  to  what  periods  in  the  history 
of  the  Church  they  ought  to  be  referred.  And  we  must  try 
to  find  out  in  what  order  the  various  renderings  of  the  Greek 
Gospels  into  other  tongues  occurred,  the  problem  involving  one 
more  term  for  the  Gospels  than  for  the  Acts,  on  account  of  the 
existence  of  the  Tatian  Harmony  in  Syriac.  It  is,  however, 
rendered  more  simple  by  the  fact  that  Tatian's  name  is  itself 
a  chronological  landmark ;  and,  if  we  only  knew  the  primitive 
form  of  his  work  a  little  better,  we  should  rapidly  arrive  at 
important  conclusions,  for  we  should  have  identified  a  body  of 
Western  readings  that  were  necessarily  anterior  to  a  given  date. 
It  is  unfortunate,  then,  that  so  much  is  still  obscure  with  regard 
to  the  details  of  the  primitive  Harmony.  Nevertheless,  in  spite 
of  all  difficulties  and  of  our  imperfect  data,  we  feel  sure  that 
the  problem  is  a  soluble  one. 

But  in  conducting  the  investigation  we  must  be  prepared  for 
surprises.  In  the  field  of  New  Testament  Criticism  the  un 
expected  is  always  happening :  hypotheses  which  have  been 
reckoned  outworn  reappear,  and  popular  and  attractive  modern 
theories  have  frequently  to  be  discarded.  One  needs  a  new 
conscience  in  the  matter  of  Church  History,  and  a  quickened 
conscience  in  the  matter  of  palaeography,  and  the  general  history 
of  literary  transmission.  The  foregoing  pages  will  have  furnished 
sufficient  instances  of  what  we  mean.  Who  would  have  supposed 
from  the  study  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  as  usually  read  and 

1C* 


236         FURTHER   SUGGESTIONS    FOR   SOLUTION    OF   PROBLEM. 

written,  that  the  Montanist  movement  and  the  Marcionite 
movement  which  preceded  it  had  so  completely  swept  over  the 
Western  Church  ?  We  are  accustomed,  on  the  contrary,  to  regard 
the  Roman  Church  as  strained  clear  of  every  heresy,  as  if  the 
successive  heresies  were  a  series  of  gnats  which  had  settled 
accidentally  in  the  "new  wine's  foaming  flow,"  and  which  had 
merely  to  be  removed  by  the  deft  hand  of  some  Defender  of  the 
Faith.  But  Justin  would  have  taught  us  differently  if  we  had 
read  him  aright,  for  he  tells  us  that  Marcion's  teaching  was 
diffused  amongst  every  race  of  men1.  Tertullian,  too,  shews  what 
the  force  of  the  first  Marcionite  teaching  must  have  been  by 
his  comparison  of  the  later  heretics,  in  his  day  expelled  from 
the  Catholic  Church,  to  swarms  of  wasps  building  combs  in 
imitation  of  the  bees2.  Nor  are  there  wanting  other  intimations, 
both  literary  and  epigraphic,  of  the  scope  of  the  movement. 
When  we  understand  this  rightly,  we  are  not  so  much  surprised, 
as  we  should  otherwise  have  been,  at  finding  Marcionite  readings 
in  the  Western  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

Again,  as  we  have  intimated  above,  we  may  have  to  allow  for 
some  unknown  terms  in  palaeography.  It  has  often  been  tacitly 
assumed  that  the  earliest  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  were 
faithful  representations  of  the  primitive  script  down  to  the 
minutest  traces  of  punctuation  and  of  abbreviation.  We  have, 
however,  taken  pains  to  shew  that  all  things  did  not  remain 
unchanged  from  the  first  century  down  to  the  time  of  production 
of  the  Vatican  and  Sinaitic  Codices.  And  in  particular  we  can 
give  reasons  for  believing  that  the  primitive  abbreviations  were 
quite  different  to  what  we  find  in  the  extant  Codices  ;  and  that 
the  text  has  in  very  early  times  been  affected  by  false  reductions 
and  misunderstandings  of  these  abbreviations. 

So,  also,  with  regard  to  the  literary  influences  of  the  time. 
At  first  sight  it  seems  strange  that  we  should  affirm  that  Homeric 
and  metrical  glosses  crept  into  Western  texts.  But  this  difficulty 
simply  arises  from  not  realizing  what  a  scholarly  education  was 
like  in  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  Homer  was  the 
Bible  of  the  expiring  faith,  and  the  staple  of  pagan  education. 


1  Apol.  I.  26  KarA  irav  yfros 

2  "Faciunt  favos  et  vespae:  faciunt  ecclesias  et  Marcionitae.  " 


FURTHER   SUGGESTIONS    FOR   SOLUTION   OF   PROBLEM.        237 

It  was  no  more  strange  that  a  scribe  should  gloss  from  Homer 
than  that  a  modern  writer  should  give  a  New  Testament  turn  to 
his  speech.  The  reader  will  find  this  brought  out  very  clearly  in 
Hatch's  Hibbert  Lectures,  from  which  we  give  an  extract  which  is 
peculiarly  apposite : 

"The  main  subject-matter  of  this  literary  education  was  the  poets.  They 
were  read,  not  only  for  their  literary,  but  also  for  their  moral  value.  They 
were  read  as  we  read  the  Bible.  They  were  committed  to  memory.  The 
minds  of  men  were  saturated  by  them.  A  quotation  from  Homer  or  from  a 
tragic  poet  was  apposite  on  all  occasions  and  in  every  kind  of  society.  Dio 
Chrysostom,  in  an  account  of  his  travels,  tells  how  he  came  to  the  Greek 
colony  of  the  Borysthenitae,  on  the  farthest  borders  of  the  empire,  and  found 
that  even  in  those  remote  settlements  almost  all  the  inhabitants  knew  the 
Iliad  by  heart,  and  that  they  did  not  care  to  hear  about  anything  else." 

(Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  30.)     Cf.  pp.  52,  53. 

In  the  second  century  we  have  evidence  enough  of  the  way 
in  which  the  verses  of  Homer  were  threaded  through  all  the 
literature  of  the  time.  Tertullian  tells  us1  that  we  must  not 
be  so  much  astonished  at  the  liberties  which  the  heretics  take 
with  the  Scriptures  when  we  find  that  secular  writings  are  treated 
with  the  same  freedom  (cum  de  secularibus  quoque  scripturis 
exemplum  praesto  sit  eiusmodi  facilitatis).  "  In  our  own  day, 
says  Tertullian,  we  have  seen  the  verses  of  Virgil  wrought  into 
an  entirely  new  story.  Further,  the  tale  of  Medea  has  been  told 
in  Virgilian  verse.  A  relation  of  my  own  has  Virgilianized  the 
Tablet  of  Cebes.  And  are  there  not  persons  who  are  called 
Homer-Centonists,  who  by  gathering  verses  far  and  wide  make 
new  compositions  of  their  own?" 

It  is  possible  that  Tertuliian's  comparison  was  due  to  Irenaeus ; 
for  we  find  the  Valentin  ians  compared  by  Irenaeus  to  these  very 
Homerizers,  and  their  method  of  hermeneutic  combinations  of 
texts  and  terms  from  all  parts  of  the  New  Testament  to  the 
artificial  conjunctions  of  the  Homeric  Cento.  And,  to  illustrate 
what  he  means,  Irenaeus  (i.  ix.  4)  gives  a  specimen,  where  the 
subject  is  the  descent  of  Hercules  to  fetch  the  dog  Cerberus, 
and  the  lines  are  borrowed  from  all  parts  of  the  Odyssey  and 
Iliad.  It  is  interesting  to  notice  the  attempts  of  the  translator 

1  De  Praescript.  Haeret.  39. 


238        FURTHER  SUGGESTIONS   FOR   SOLUTION   OF   PROBLEM. 

of  Irenaeus  to  do  the  new  poem  into  Latin  hexameters1.  After 
reading  this  bit  of  diversion  on  the  part  of  Irenaeus  and  his 
translator,  we  can  believe  anything  of  the  second  century ;  it 
is  no  longer  strange  that  metrical  glosses  should  occur,  when 
we  find  men's  minds  so  full  of  them ;  nor  is  it  surprising,  when 
we  see  the  way  that  the  translator  of  Irenaeus  went  to  work,  if 
we  should  find  a  doubtful  or  disputed  quantity  in  the  verse,  as 
in  the  passage  interpolated  in  the  Bezan  text. 

But  it  is  not  merely  in  the  glosses  that  have  crept  into  the 
text  of  the  New  Testament  that  we  trace  the  student  of  Homer ; 
we  suspect  that  there  are  some  of  the  New  Testament  writers 
themselves  that  have  felt  his  influence  and  reflected  it  in  their 
speech.  But  be  that  as  it  may,  we  must  certainly  be  prepared 
for  such  an  influence  in  the  accretions  which  occur  so  plentifully 
in  Western  New  Testament  texts. 

A  few  concluding  remarks  may  now  be  made  as  to  the  way  in 
which  we  shall  probably  find  the  remainder  of  the  solution  of 
the  riddle  of  the  Western  texts  of  the  Gospels. 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  we  are  dealing  with  a 
chronological  problem ;  we  have  to  determine  the  dates,  or  the 
superior  and  inferior  limits,  of  certain  textual  phenomena.  This 
chronology  can  be  approached  in  three  ways : 

(1)  The  actual  quotation  of  aberrant  readings  by  second 
century  Fathers.  For  instance,  a  Tatian  reading  must  either 
have  originated  with  Tatian  or  be  antecedent  to  him :  a  Marcionite 
reading,  if  it  contain  definite  Marcionite  teaching,  must  have 
originated  with,  or  be  later  than  Marcion,  and  probably  not  much 
later.  Thus  we  have  a  scale  for  the  chronology  of  the  readings 
which  is  marked  with  the  names  of  such  teachers  as 

Marcion, 

Justin, 

Tatian, 

Montanus, 

Irenaeus, 

Tertullian  &c. 

1  E.g.  "  Et  senes  et  pueri  et  nondum  nuptae  puellae  Plorantes  multum  ac  si 
mortem  iret  ad  ipsam,"  but  perhaps  the  verses  have  suffered  in  transcription. 


FURTHER   SUGGESTIONS    FOR   SOLUTION    OF   PROBLEM.         239 

(2)  We   have   the   chronology  of  the  Versions:    where   the 
primitive  form  of  a  version  can  be  inferred  from  the  MSS.  which 
constitute  its  tradition,  each  version  furnishes  an   inferior  limit 
for  the  time  of  origin  of  a  large  group  of  aberrant  readings.     The 
order   of  the  versions  must  be  determined;   it  will  probably  be 
found  that  the  three  most  closely  connected  versions  stand  in  the 
order  : 

Old  Latin, 
Old  Syriac, 
Sahidic. 

(3)  We  have  to  find  the  times  of  the  separate  hands  that 
can  be  traced  in  readings  and  glosses,  as  the  Homerizer,  the  first 
Gnostic  hand,  the  Montanizer  and  the  like. 

Now,  it  is  probable  that  no  solution  would  be  reached  by 
working  with  a  single  scale  taken  out  of  the  three  ;  to  reach 
success  we  must  keep  them  all  three  in  mind,  and  work  with 
them  placed  side  by  side.  The  moment  we  do  this,  the  burning 
questions  appear  ;  such  as  these  : 

Is  the  Old  Latin  earlier  than  Marcion? 

Is  the  Curetonian  Syriac  older  than  Tatian  ? 

Does  the  Homerizer  antedate  the  Curetonian  text  ? 

These  and  similar  questions  are  the  crucial  points  of  the 
enquiry:  and  we  have  already  given  suggestions  of  the  way  in 
which  they  are  to  be  answered  in  our  study  of  the  body  of  glosses 
in  the  Acts.  Probably  the  best  way  to  proceed  would  be  to  deal 
with  the  final  chapters  of  Luke  where  the  intrusive  glosses  are  so 
thick.  We  must  test  them  and  try  to  find  out  whether  they 
are  by  a  single  hand.  One  or  two  of  them  are  suspiciously 
metrical  and  Homeric.  If  we  go  back  five  verses  from  the 
Homeric  gloss  in  Luke  xxiii.  53  we  find, 

xxiii.  48, 


PERCVTIENTES   PECTORA   ET   FRONTES 
REVERTEBANTVR. 


The  man  who  wrote  this  expanded  sentence  seems  to  have  had 
in  his  mind  a  Latin  verse 

reversi  frontes  et  pectora  percutiebant, 


240        FURTHER  SUGGESTIONS   FOR  SOLUTION   OF   PROBLEM. 

describing  the  wailing  of  the  Trojan  women  over  the  death  of 
Hector.  But  if  this  were  the  same  hand  as  before,  the  attes 
tation  ought  to  shew  signs  of  agreement  in  the  two  cases:  in 
Luke  xxiii.  53  it  was  D  c  theb:  in  the  new  case  we  have  no 
traces  in  the  Egyptian,  but  the  ancestry  of  Cod.  c  once  had 
the  reading,  for  it  has,  by  a  happy  fortune,  erased  pectora  and 
left  frontes.  Here  then  is  a  second  gloss  by  the  same  hand 
as  the  former. 

If  we  work  through  the  body  of  glosses  we  shall  ultimately 
get  a  clear  idea  of  the  attestation  of  the  collection,  and  be  able 
to  fix,  with  some  closeness,  the  date  of  the  glossator.  But  the 
problem  is  not  solved  by  stating  it ;  and  we  find  that  much 
searching  of  the  extant  Copies,  Versions  and  Fathers  is  necessary 
before  we  can  give  the  formal  solution.  Moreover,  I  find  that  it 
will  probably  be  necessary  for  me  to  re-examine  and  perhaps  to 
re-edit  the  extant  Homeric  Centones,  and  some  associated  docu 
ments  which  throw  great  light  upon  the  textual  questions  of 
these  last  chapters  of  Luke.  In  our  next  chapter  we  shall  take 
up  a  few  points  in  dialect  and  palaeography  which  will  help  us 
towards  a  final  settlement  of  the  question. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

ON   THE   COLOMETRY   OF   THE   CODEX   BEZAE. 

SOMETHING  ought  to  be  said  with  regard  to  the  line-division 
which  prevails  in  the  Codex  Bezae,  for  it  is  certainly  very  ancient 
and  often  constitutes  a  traditional  interpretation  of  the  text, 
which  is  of  the  highest  value. 

The  earliest  known  Greek  texts  contained  in  the  famous  Uncial 
MSS.  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  are  destitute  of  any  but  the 
most  rudimentary  division  of  sentences.  It  is  true  that  a  break  in 
the  sense  is  sometimes  intimated  by  a  slight  space  in  the  text,  or 
the  commencement  of  a  new  paragraph  by  a  new  line,  or  by 
thrusting  out  on  the  margin  of  the  text  the  first  letter  in  a  new 
sentence  which  happens  to  fall  on  the  margin.  Sometimes, 
too,  a  catalogue  of  names,  which  is  particularly  hard  to  read 
in  a  continuous  text,  is  found  broken  up  into  separate  lines,  as, 
for  example,  the  genealogy  in  St  Luke.  But,  in  spite  of  these 
and  similar  attempts  at  interpunction,  the  early  Uncials  cannot  be 
described  as  anything  else  than  continuous  texts. 

When,  however,  the  texts  of  the  New  Testament  became 
regularly  read  and  divided  into  sections,  and  especially  when  they 
were  read  in  bilingual  congregations,  the  attempt  was  made  to 
break  up  the  passage  read  into  the  proper  limbs  or  cola :  and 
this  process  so  facilitated  the  translation  of  the  Scripture,  and  the 
reading  and  understanding  of  what  had  been  translated,  that  after 
a  while  the  colometry  became  conventional,  and  was  propagated 
from  one  MS.  to  another,  by  interpunction,  and  from  one  MS.  to  its 
descendants  by  copying  the  text  line  by  line. 

C.  B.  16 


242  ON   THE   COLOMETRY   OF   THE   CODEX   BEZAE. 

It  is  not  then  surprising  that,  as  we  read  the  text  of  the  Codex 
Bezae,  the  conviction  forces  itself  upon  us  that  its  colometry  is 
very  ancient. 

Scrivener  points  this  out  (p.  xvii.),  remarking  as  follows  : 

"Now  since  it  will  appear  clearly  hereafter  that  the  manuscript  as  it 
stands  at  present  was  closely  and  exactly  copied  from  another,  perhaps  almost 
contemporary  to  itself,  similarly  divided  in  respect  of  o-n'^ot  though  not  simi 
larly  paged,  it  will  follow  that  the  model  from  which  the  latter  was  taken  is 
older  still,  dating  perhaps  as  early  as  or  earlier  than  the  time  of  Origen.  The 
reader  will  not  doubt  that  the  ancient  ort^oi  were  being  gradually  dissolved 
in  course  of  time  by  successive  transcribers,  if  he  pays  any  attention  to  their 
actual  condition  in  Codex  Bezae." 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  Scrivener's  state 
ment,  for  which  the  evidence  in  the  shape  of  dropped  and  repeated 
lines  is  abundantly  sufficient.  The  restoration  of  the  precise  primi 
tive  colometry  is,  however,  not  so  easy :  though  the  scribe  of  the 
Bezan  text  has  done  his  best  to  help  us  by  means  of  interpunction 
in  cases  where  his  lines  do  not  agree  with  the  primitive  model : 
and  in  almost  every  case  where  there  is  a  dividing  point  in  the 
middle  of  a  line  in  the  Bezan  text,  it  is  because  two  cola  have  been 
run  together,  or  because  in  some  other  way  the  regular  colometry 
has  been  deserted. 

I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  believe  this  primitive  colometry 
to  be  very  early.  For  it  is  not  confined  to  Codex  Bezae.  Take 
for  example  Codex  k  and  study  its  interpunction,  and  we  shall 
find  that  it  is  not  original  nor  arbitrary,  but  that  it  is  in  the 
main  the  same  as  existed  in  the  ancestral  text  from  which  Codex 
Bezae  is  derived.  Here  is  a  specimen,  taken  from  a  random  page 
of  Cod.  k : 

Mark  x.  35    et  accedunt  ad  eum  iacobus 
et  iohannes  fili  zepdaei  dicen 
tes  magister  quod  petierimus  • 

37  dona  nobis  •  et  dixerunt  illi 
da  nobis  •  ut  unus  a  dextram 

38  et  unus  a  sinistra  •  hP  autem 
respondens  dixit  illis  •  nescitis 
quit  petatis  potestis  bibere  ca 
licem  etc. 

Here  are  five  points  of  distinction  in  the  sense  of  the  passage  : 


ON  THE  COLOMETRY  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE.  243 

how  closely  they  coincide  with  the  structure  of  the  Bezan  text 
may  be  seen  by  transcribing  the  lines  of  D  at  the  same  place : 

et  accesserunt  ad  eum  iacobus 

et  iohannes  •  fill  zebedei 

et  diciint  illi  magister 

uolumus  ut  quodcumque  petierimus  te 

praestes  nobis 

ad  ille  dixit  illis  praestabo  nobis 

et  dixerunt  ei  da  nobis 

ut  onus  ad  dexteram  tuam  •  et  unus  ad  sinistra 

sedeamus  in  gloria  tua 

Et  ihs  respondens  ait  illis 

nescitis  quid  petatis  potestis  bibere  calicem. 

Notice  that  the  interpunction  of  k  not  only  agrees  closely 
with  the  D  lines,  but  that  where  k  has  dropped  portions  of  the 
text,  it  is  whole  lines  of  D  that  are  missing. 

Another  instance  will  perhaps  make  the  point  clearer.  Let  us 
turn  to  Mark  viii.  35  :  here  the  text  of  D  is  arranged  thus : 

animam  suam  saluam  facere  •  perdet  earn  • 
propter  euangelium  saluam  faciet  earn, 

and  either  the  first  hand  or  a  revising  second  hand  has  added,  for 
the  missing  line,  partly  at  the  end  of  the  first  line  and  partly 
between  the  lines,  the  words 

qui  autem 
perdiderit  earn. 

Now  turn  to  Cod.  k  and  we  find  the  passage  given  thus : 

salua 

re  animam  suam  perdet  ilia 
propter  euangelium  autem 
saluauit  illam, 

where  it  is  seen  that  the  line  dropped  in  D  and  afterwards  restored 
is  dropped  also  in  k  and  not  restored. 

Clearly  then,  if  the  Western  text  could  be  edited  in  its  primi 
tive  colometry,  it  would  be  an  advantage  from  the  standpoint  of 
criticism,  and  would  assist  us  in  distinguishing  between  inter 
polations  and  omissions. 

Moreover,  we  may  strongly  suspect  that  the  same  colometry 
underlies  the  Curetonian  Syriac ;  and  that  traces  of  it  can  still  be 

16—2 


244  ON    THE   COLOMETRY    OF   THE   CODEX   BEZAE. 

seen  in  the  arrangement  of  that  peculiar  text.  For  example,  in 
Matt.  xvii.  12,  13  Codex  Bezae  has  transposed  two  lines  of  text 
over  two  other  lines,  thus  producing  the  following  effect : 

TOT€    CYNHKAN    Ol    MA0HTAI 

OTI  nepi  TCOANNOY  TOY  BATTTICTOY  eineN  AYTOIC 

OYTCOC  KM  o  Y'oc  TOY  AN6pomoY  •  /weAAei  TIACX!  fn  AY™. 

Now  the  Cureton  text  has  restored  the  right  arrangement  of 
the  verses,  but  it  betrays  heredity  from  the  erroneous  arrange 
ment  in  repeating  the  word  ourw?  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  after 
eiTrev  avrois  ("  concerning  John  the  Baptist  he  spake  to  them  so"). 
Now  this  awakens  our  suspicion  that  the  colometry  of  D  is  behind 
the  arrangement  of  the  Curetonian  text J. 

Such  a  theory  will  require  a  more  extended  examination  than 
can  be  given  in  these  pages ;  but  we  may  easily  find  some  tests 
and  illustrations  of  it ;  and  first  let  us  open  the  text  at  random, 
say  at  Luke  ix.  32.  Let  us  transcribe  a  few  lines  from  Codex 
Bezae,  marking  by  a  vertical  bar  the  places  where  the  punctuator's 
mark  occurs  in  the  Syriac. 

petrus  autem 

et  qui  cum  eo  erant  •  erant  grauati  somno  | 
euigilarites  autem  uideruut  gloriam  eius  | 
et  duos  uiros  qui  simul  stabant  cum  eo  | 
et  factum  est  cum  separarentur  ab  eo  | 
dixit  petrus  ad  ihm  |  magister 
bonum  est  nobis  hie  esse    uis 
facio  hie  tria  tabernacula  |  unum  tibi  | 
et  unum  moysi  |  et  unum  heliae 
nesciens  quid  dicit  •  |  haec  autem  eo  dicente  | 
facta  est  nubs  et  obumbrauit  eos  | 

The  colometry  in  the  two  texts  is  seen  to  be  closely  parallel : 
in  the  sixth  line,  '  magister '  makes  a  slight  displacement,  and  in 
the  seventh,  the  Syriac  does  not  render  '  vis.'  The  Bezan  text 
has  slight  spaces  for  the  mention  of  the  three  tabernacles,  and  in 
the  last  line  but  one  it  has  a  dividing  point  where  the  Cureton 
text  has  one,  intimating  an  original  line  in  the  words 
nesciens  quid  dicit. 

1  The  reader  will  be  interested  to  know  that  the  displacement  is  found  also  in 
the  Old  Latin  texts  a  6  c  e  ff*  ff*  g1,  and  perhaps  in  Justin. 


ON  THE  COLOMETRY   OF  THE  CODEX   BEZAE.  245 

We  may  add  a  few  striking  instances  of  colometric  agree 
ment  between  the  texts  in  question  in  order  to  make  the  point  at 
issue  clearer. 

In  Matt.  xxi.  18  the  final  word  in  the  verse  (esuriii)  is  marked 
in  the  Cure  ton  text  with  a  point  before  and  a  point  after,  indi 
cating  that  the  word  is  a  colon  or  line  by  itself.  Turning  to  the 
Codex  Bezae,  where  the  Western  colometry  is  so  well  preserved, 
we  find 

mane  autem  transiens  in  ciuitatem 
esuriit  •  et  uidens  &c. 

where  again  the  point   that  follows  esuriit  shews  that  it    once 
ended  a  line. 

Next  let  us  turn  to  John  vi.  64,  where  the  Latin  is 

qui  sunt  qui  non  credunt 
ct  quis  esset  etc. 

The  first  line,  and  by  consequence  the  first  word  (et)  of  the 
next  line,  has  been  lost  in  Cod.  e  and  in  the  Curetonian  text. 
Note  the  agreement  in  line-  omission  between  the  Old  Latin  and 
Old  Syriac  texts  :  the  fact  is  that  Cod.  e  and  the  Old  Syriac  are 
closely  related. 

Again,  let  us  turn  to  John  vii.  5,  where  the  Greek  is 

oiAe  n*P  01  <\AeA(J>oi  AYTOY 
eic  AYTON  TOTC 
AYTOIC... 


the  inserted  Tore  is  simply  a  translator's  '  tune,'  such  as 
we  so  often  find  at  the  beginning  of  sentences  in  the  Old  Latin  : 
but  by  mishap  it  got  into  the  wrong  colon,  and  so  the  effect  pro 
duced  was  that  the  brethren  of  our  Lord  did  not  at  that  time 
believe  on  him.  So  suitable  was  the  insertion,  that  it  becomes  a 
permanent  Western  addition,  and  is  gradually  pushed  further  and 
further  back  into  the  verse  ;  it  is  added  before  fratres  by  a  c  ffz  q, 
after  eius  by  efl,  after  crediderunt  by  bd.  Moreover  the  error 
passed  into  the  Curetonian  Syriac  and  into  the  Tatian  Harmony, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  Arabic  ("  ad  hoc  usque  tempus  ").  It  is 
just  from  such  points  as  these  that  we  may  safely  argue,  when  we 
are  discussing  the  genealogy  of  MSS.  ;  and  we  can  see  here  an 
undoubted  Western  error,  which  in  the  first  instance  is  due 


246  ON   THE  COLOMETRY   OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

merely  to  the  colometric  arrangement,  travelling  as  far  East  as  it 
was  possible  for  it  to  travel. 

In  John  iv.  24  we  have  a  passage  in  the  Curetonian  text  which 
Tischendorf  rightly  describes  by  the  words  "  mire  confusa  sunt "  : 
he  does  not,  however,  notice  that  the  confusion  is  capable  of  reso 
lution,  and  that  we  can  determine  its  cause.  The  genesis  of  the 
error  is  as  follows :  the  Western  colometry  had  divided  the  verse 
in  the  following  manner : 

spiritus  deus 

et  adorantes  in  spiritu 

et  ueritate  adorare  oportet. 

i.e.  "God  is  a  spirit:  and  those  who  worship  Him  in  spirit  it  behoves  also 
to  worship  in  truth." 

The  Curetonian  text  took  up  the  misunderstanding  induced  by 
the  colometry  and  gave  the  sequence  "  Deus  enim  spiritus  est,  et 
illi  qui  adorant  eum  spiritu,  etiam  oportet  eos  adorare  veritate." 
Upon  this  text  a  corrector  went  to  work,  erasing  the  final  veritate 
and  suggesting  for  insertion  the  correct  reading 
qui  adorant  eum  spiritu  et  veritate. 

All  of  this  goes  into  the  text,  with  the  following  conglomeration 
as  the  final  result : 

"Deus  enim  spiritus  est  et  illi  qui  adorant  eum  spiritu  etiam  oportet  eos 
adorare  qui  adorant  eum  spiritu  et  veritate." 

But,  as  the  comparison  of  the  texts  shews,  we  must  regard  the 
Western  colometry  as  the  prime  cause  of  the  error. 

Many  more  instances  may  be  given  of  similar  phenomena. 
It  is  rare  for  the  Curetonian.  text  to  do  anything  without  Western 
assistance,  and  in  most  cases  the  Western  bilingual  is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  matter.  If  the  Cureton  text,  recklessly  and  to  the  damage 
of  the  sense,  drops  a  colon,  the  omission  will  generally  be  supported 
or  explained  by  the  Old  Latin :  e.g.  in  John  v.  28  the  Curetonian 
text  drops  oVt  fyxerai  a>pa.  A  reference  to  the  Bezan  text  shews 
it  to  be  a  primitive  line.  If  the  Western  text  repeats  a  line  or 
two,  in  its  earliest  copies,  the  chances  are  that  the  Curetonian 
text  will  shew  signs  of  it.  Take  for  instance  John  v.  39.  There 
is  reason  to  believe  that  in  the  early  Western  Greek  there  was  a 
repetition  of  the  words  f6n  v/twfr  So/cure  &v  avrals  Jo*?"  aitoviov 


ON  THE  COLOMETRY  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE.       247 

e^eiv  Kal  eicelvaL  elcriv  at  ^laprvpova-at,  Trepl  epov  (probably  three 
lines  repeated  ex  errore).  Consequent  upon  the  repetition  we 
have  a  double  translation  in  Cod.  a  and  Cod.  6,  so  that  the  passage 
runs  as  below :  and  not  only  so,  but  the  repeated  passage,  in  two 
distinct  renderings,  turns  up  in  the  Curetonian  text.  The  reader 
may  compare  the  versions. 

Cod.  a. 

in  quibus  vos  existimatis 
in  illis  vitam  aeternam  habere : 
illae  sunt  quae  testimonium  dicunt  de  me. 
in  quibus  putatis  vos 
vitam  habere: 
hae  sunt  quae  de  me  testificantur. 

Cod.  6. 

quoniam  putatis  vos 

in  ipsis  vitam  aeteruam  habere : 

et  ipsae  sunt,  quae  testimonium  perhibent  de  me. 

in  quibus  putatis  vos 

vitam  habere : 

haec  sunt  quae  testificantur  de  me. 

The  Curetonian  text  is  substantially  the  same  as  these  Latin 
texts,  omitting,  naturally  enough,  the  words  'sunt  quae'  in  the 
last  line:  and  the  Armenian  text  has  preserved  a  part  of  the 
repetition  (probably  from  a  Syriac  original),  for  it  reads  the 
repeated  part,  excepting  the  last  line.  Does  it  not  seem  reason 
able  to  refer  the  whole  confusion  to  line-repetition  in  Western 
texts  ?  But  if  the  hypothesis  of  conflate  renderings  be  preferred, 
we  must  still  say  that  the  Curetonian  text  owes  its  version  to 
a  Western  copy. 

Nor  is  the  interest  in  this  primitive  colometry  confined  to 
textual  questions:  it  has  its  bearing,  as  we  have  seen  above, 
on  the  interpretation  of  the  text.  For  a  good  example,  we  may 
take  the  first  verses  in  St  John's  Gospel,  allowing  for  the  lines 
in  Cod.  Bezae  and  the  punctuation  in  the  Curetonian  text,  and 
restoring  the  primitive  Western  arrangement  as  follows  : 

*Ev  apxfi  %v  o  \6yos  KCU  o  \6yos  fjv  npbs  rbv  QeoV 
^  7  KOI  Qeos  tfv  o  \6yos. 

ovros  TJV  ev  apxfj  irpos  TOV  Qcov 


248       ON  THE  COLOMETRY  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

irdvra  di    avrov  tytvcro  KOI  \topis  avrov  (ytvcro  ovdev 

o  yeyovw 

tv  avrw   £0)17  f(mv. 

Here  it  is  clear  that  o  yeyovev,  which  is  marked  by  dividing 
points  before  and  after,  is  a  primitive  line,  evidently  the  remaining 
part  of  the  preceding  sentence:  but  unfortunately  the  second 
point  became  lost  in  the  tradition  of  the  text,  and  as  a  result 
the  words  became  attached  to  the  following  line,  so  producing 

o  yeyovfv  tv  OVTU  fay  fornv. 

The  text  of  Codex  Bezae  shews  that  this  cannot  have  been  the 
primitive  colometry.  Yet  the  new  arrangement  of  the  text 
has  been  made  the  basis  of  a  good  deal  of  exegetical  subtlety! 

Perhaps  we  have  said  enough  to  shew  that  there  existed  an 
early  Western  colometry,  probably  in  the  first  bilingual  (i.e.  Graeco- 
Latin)  text:  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  text  has 
by  means  of  its  colometric  errors,  and  its  actual  transmitted  line- 
division,  affected  the  Old  Syriac  and  probably  all  other  Syriac 
texts:  and  if  this  be  the  case,  we  have  another  argument  in 
favour  of  the  derivation  of  the  Curetonian  text  from  an  early 
Roman  copy1. 

1  In  a  note  appended  to  his  edition  of  the  Acts  of  Perpetua  (p.  97)  Mr  J.  A. 
Robinson  has  pointed  out  a  number  of  passages  of  the  New  Testament  which  are 
quoted  in  the  letter  of  the  Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  in  a  form  which  suggests 
retranslation  from  a  Latin  Bible.  Moreover  he  shews  very  strong  reasons  for 
believing  that  this  Latin  text  was  already  divided  into  cola;  for  the  words  of  the 
Epistle  (§  22)  rrjs  Tnjyijs  TOV  VdaTos  rfc  farrjs  <?£i<Woy  IK  rrjs  p-qUos  TOV  xp<-<rrov  imply 
that  in  John  vii.  37,  38  the  words  6  iriffretuv  e/j  fat  were  attached  to  the  previous 
sentence  7r/>6s  /*e  KO.I  mvtru.  And  this  is  precisely  the  colometric  division  and  inter 
pretation  which  we  find  in  Codd.  d  e.  If  the  colometric  Latin  text  was  current  in 
the  Rhone  valley  in  A.D.  177  we  may  speak  confidently  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Old 
Latin  version. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 
ON  THE  ABBREVIATIONS  IN  THE  TEXT  OF  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

THE  conventional  forms  of  abbreviation  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  sides,  respectively,  of  the  Codex  Bezae  will  be  found 
roughly  tabulated  in  Scrivener's  account  of  the  text,  the  Greek 
forms  on  p.  xviii.:  and  the  Latin  on  pp.  xliii.,  xliv.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  need  to  repeat  them ;  but  a  few  remarks  may  perhaps 
be  made  on  the  subject. 

The  abbreviations  which  we  find  in  Greek  texts  (and  the 
same  thing  is  true  of  the  Latin  texts,  which  shew  an  early 
agreement  with  the  Greek)  are  the  result  of  a  tendency  of  the 
scribes  to  represent  often-repeated  words  by  a  single  sign ;  we 
may  reasonably  suppose,  then,  that  the  conventional  abbreviations 
have  been  arrived  at  gradually,  and  not  per  saltum.  It  is  more 
than  likely  that  the  word  ©eo?  was  abbreviated  before  the  word 
TTvevpa,  and  the  word  irvev^a  probably  before  any  one  thought 
of  abbreviating  'I0paij\  or  'lepotxraX^//,.  For  example,  in  the 
Codex  Bezae  we  do  not  find  any  abbreviation  at  all  for  such 
forms  as  Aa/3$>,  'lepovo-aXrjfji,,  &c.  Hence  we  are  entitled  to 
assume  that  the  number  of  conventional  forms  has  been  arrived  at 
gradually. 

In  the  next  place  we  can  see  that  the  final  form  which  was 
conventionally  recognized  has  been  arrived  at,  in  many  cases, 
by  a  number  of  separate  attempts  at  the  abbreviation  of  the 
repeated  word.  Thus  the  Codex  Bezae  shews  us  variations  of 
a  peculiar  character;  we  find  Trarrfp  sometimes  written  as  Trap1 
though  the  conventional  form  is  Trrjp,  shewing  that  two  attempts 
were  made  to  abbreviate,  by  leaving  out  the  middle  consonant 

1  E.g.  Johnxiv.  29;  xv.  2. 


250  ABBREVIATIONS   IN   THE   TEXT  OF   CODEX   BEZAE. 

and  one  or  other  of  the  vowels.  In  the  same  way  we  find  ' 
shortened  into  to-,  the  usual  form,  and  lycr,  which  we  recognize 
at  once  as  very  ancient,  for  it  is  the  same  which  appears  in  Latin 
as  ihs,  where  the  middle  letter  is  commonly  supposed  to  be  an  h, 
but  is  really  the  Greek  H.  The  misunderstanding  is  very  early, 
as  may  be  seen  from  the  attempts  in  early  MSS.  to  write  the 
name  as  if  it  contained  a  Latin  h:  thus  Scrivener  points  out 
in  Codex  Laudianus  the  occurrence  of  the  forms  ihesus  and 
hiesum:  where  the  error  is  patent  enough;  the  Greek  letter 
having  become  an  aspirate.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  behind  the 
conventional  abbreviations  found  in  our  early  Uncial  texts  there 
is  an  array  of  earlier  forms,  attaching  themselves  to  the  more 
commonly  repeated  words  and  to  the  more  sacred  names. 

But  this  is  not  all :  a  study  of  the  Codex  Bezae  and  kindred 
documents,  whether  Latin  or  Greek,  will,  I  think,  shew  that 
in  the  early  stages  a  single  sign  was  employed  for  all  cases  of  the 
substantives  abbreviated.  Now  this  may  be  seen  in  three  ways : 
First,  when  a  scribe  finds  an  abbreviation  of  this  kind,  susceptible 
of  misunderstanding  or  misreading,  he  frequently  writes  the  word 
out  at  length,  so  as  to  avoid  the  misunderstanding ;  but  sometimes 
he  continues  to  copy  the  superposed  bar  or  curve  which  intimates 
an  abbreviation  in  the  text.  We  may  prove  this  from  the  Codex 
Bezae. 

In  Luke  vii.  3  we  have 

% 

qui  erat  illi  honoratus  et  audiens  de  ihs, 

where  we  notice  that  the  scribe  has  given  us  the  nominative  case 
instead  of  the  ablative,  clearly  because  the  abbreviation  ihs  stood 
for  all  cases. 

So  in  John  xvii.  3  we  have  quern  misisti  ihs  xpm,  and 
Acts  xiii.  32  suscitavit  dnm  ihs  xpm.  But  we  often  find  the  word 
written  in  full,  under  the  sign  of  abbreviation,  as  Scrivener  has 
pointed  out:  "thus  dei  is  met  with  122  times  (but  never  in 
the  Acts);  deo  24  times  (in  the  Acts  only  vii.  40;  x.  4);  deum 
only  in  John  vi.  46;  x.  33."  These  instances  from  the  Codex 
Bezae  can  be  paralleled  from  other  sources. 

But  the  next  way  in  which  we  see  the  truth  of  our  hypothesis 


ABBREVIATIONS   IN   THE  TEXT  OF  CODEX   BEZAE.  251 

as  to  the  existence  of  an  early  single  sign  of  abbreviation  for 
all  cases  of  the  noun  is  that  it  often  happens  that  an  ignorant 
scribe,  in  attempting  to  reduce  the  abbreviation  to  a  more  usual 
form,  produces  barbarisms.  Perhaps  the  best  cases  of  this  kind 
occur  in  the  old  Latin  Codex  k.  If  we  turn  to  Dr  Sanday's 
account  of  this  MS.  in  Old  Latin  Biblical  Texts,  No.  ii.,  we  shall  see 
this  clearly  enough :  we  may  transcribe  a  passage  (p.  clviii.)  by 
way  of  illustration : 

"The  usage  of  the  MS.  in  regard  to  the  sacred  names  is  very  peculiar  and 
striking.  There  is  great  variety  of  forms,  though  some  will  be  found  to  pre 
dominate.  Here  even  more  than  elsewhere  all  the  rules  of  grammar  appear 
to  be  set  at  defiance :  any  form  is  made  to  stand  for  any  case" 

Dr  Sanday  then  collects  from  the  MS.  the  various  abbreviations, 
viz.: 

DS  =  DEUS. 

DI  =  DEUS,    DEI,    IHS. 

DE  =  IHS. 

DEI  (thus,  with  the  mark  of  abbreviation). 

DM  =  DEUM. 

DOM  =  DEI,   DEU8  (?),    IHS  (?),   DEO,   DEUM,    DOMINUS,    DOMINI,    DOMINO, 

DOMINUM,   DOMINE. 
Also   DOM',   DOM°,   DOMD,    DOM*. 

HI  =  HIESUS,    HIE8U,    HIESUM. 

Also  if",  ii",  Him,  HI",  iHn. 

HIg  =  HIE8US,  HIESU,  HIESUM. 

HIS  =  HIE8US. 

HS'  =  HIE8US. 

i7:  =  HIE8US. 

HS:  =  HIE8U8. 

H8  =  HIESUS,  HIESUM. 

An  examination  of  this  list  will  shew  that  the  early  forms 
of  abbreviation  were  very  comprehensive  and  that  much  confusion 
resulted;  one  way  out  of  the  confusion  seems  to  have  been 
to  attach  a  small  letter  to  the  abbreviation  by  which  the  termi 
nation  could  be  indicated. 

The  third  way  in  which  we  are  confirmed  in  our  belief  of  the 
existence  of  early  simple  and  comprehensive  forms  of  abbreviation 
is  that  the  earliest  MSS.  shew  signs  of  textual  depravation  which 

17* 


252     ABBREVIATIONS  IN  THE  TEXT  OF  CODEX  BEZAE. 

can  hardly  result  from  any  other  cause  than  this.  For  instance, 
it  was  common  in  the  second  century  to  read  John  i.  18  in  the 
form 


0C 

in  place  of  the  received  text 

O   MONOfeNHC    YC- 

It  is  conceivable  that  we  have  here  a  misunderstanding  of  a 
primitive  abbreviation  which  stood  for  all  cases  alike,  and  in  this 
particular  instance  represents  the  genetive  case  (povoyev^  Beov). 
The  variant  #609  is  not  explicable  by  the  supposition  of  a  mis 
reading  of  yc,  for  it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  Y'OC  was 
abbreviated  at  all  in  the  earliest  texts  :  and  it  may  be  suspected 
that  YIOC  is  merely  an  expansion  derived  from  the  Latin,  unigenitus 
filius  Dei. 

Perhaps  the  instance  which  we  have  selected  by  way  of  illus 
tration  is  an  unfortunate  one,  in  that  the  explanation  may  be 
challenged  as  falling  under  the  condemnation  of  what  Dr  Hort 
calls  "verdicts  of  oracular  instinct1";  but  whether  the  illustration 
be  a  good  one  or  a  bad  one,  satisfactory  or  unsatisfactory,  I  think 
the  point  as  to  the  nature  of  the  early  abbreviations  of  the  text 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  misunderstandings  to  which  they 
were  liable,  can  be  considered  as  established  by  the  various 
instances  to  which  we  can  draw  attention. 

In  the  Codex  Bezae  there  are  numerous  various  readings  which 
have  arisen  from  the  confusion  of  the  conventional  abbreviations 
inter  se.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  primitive  abbreviations 
for  the  Latin  deus  and  dominus,  it  is  demonstrable  that  they  were 
frequently  in  confusion.  We  may  prove  this  by  some  selected 
cases. 

In  Acts  xiii.  5  we  have 

adnuntiabant  verbum  di  (rov  icv). 

Here  the  Latin  text  is  certainly  right,  for  there  is  no  variation 
worth  mentioning  in  the  critical  apparatus  ;  but  the  accommodated 
Greek  text  has  read  the  Latin  as  domini. 

1  Two  Dissertations,  p.  vii. 


ABBREVIATIONS  IN  THE  TEXT  OF  CODEX  BEZAE.     253 

Turn  next  to  Acts  xiii.  43 :  where  we  have  the  opposite  form 
to  the  preceding  ;  and  where  the  gloss 

transire  uerbum  dm 
is  the  equivalent  of 

8if\0fiv  TOV  \6yov  TOV  foov. 

Without  venturing  to  say  which  of  these  is  the  correct  reading, 
we  may  remark  their  present   divergence,  and  suspect   that  it 
is  due  to  the  misreading  of  a  sign  of  abbreviation. 
Next  turn  to  Acts  xiii.  46,  where  we  have 

loqui  verbum  dni  (TOV  0v), 

in  which  we  see  the  same  confusion :  here  the  Greek  is  certainly 
right,  and  domini  is  a  false  correction  of  an  abbreviated  dei. 
In  Acts  xvi.  34  we  have 

credens  in  dno 
as  the  rendering  of 

TTeTTtOTevttBS    C7TI    TOV    6(OV. 

It  is  almost  certain  that  tfeo?  and  not  ftvpios  is  the  right  word 
in  this  passage ;  may  we  not  then  say  that  dno  is  a  misreading  of 
the  abbreviation  for  deo  ?  Sometimes  we  may  find  the  two  Latin 
forms  confused  in  almost  adjacent  passages :  in  John  xx.  13  we 
have  quid  tulerunt  dom,  where  the  equivalent  is  certainly  tcvpiov, 
but  in  xx.  17  et  dom  meum  et  dom  uestrum,  where  the  abbreviation 
no  less  certainly  stands  for  Qeov. 

Perhaps  these  instances  will  suffice  (that  we  be  not  further 
tedious)  to  shew  how  the  Western  text  has  been  affected  by  the 
transcriptional  confusion  of  its  primitive  abbreviations. 

Can  we  be  wrong  in  saying  further  that  in  any  case  of  variation 
between  the  parallel  forms  of  0eo9  and  /cvpios,  the  authority  of 
Western  texts  is  the  minimum  ?  I  know  that  here  we  are  on 
difficult  ground,  and  that  the  reader  is  already  thinking  of  a 
famous  disputed  text,  but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  propose 
to  read  e/cfcXrjo-iav  TOV  Oeov  in  Acts  xx.  28,  regarding  the  adverse 
evidence  of  D,  E,  Irenaeus,  and  the  general  Western  company  as 
of  very  small  weight  upon  the  opposite  side  of  the  question.  And 
this  statement  is  not  made  in  consequence  of  any  special  prejudice 
in  favour  of  the  combination  of  the  two  oldest  uncials  (tfB),  with 
which  the  received  text  happens  at  this  point  to  agree. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

ON  DOUBLE  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  GREEK  TEXT  IN  THE  OLD 
LATIN  AND  OLD  SYRIAC  VERSIONS. 


WE  will  first  make  a  table  of  some  of  the  most  remarkable 
of  these  double  translations  in  the  four  Gospels. 

Matt.  ii.  8  venite  renuntiate  Tatian  (arab)  syr™ 

Matt.  viii.  5  rogavit...et  obsecravit  syr0" 

Matt.  xiv.  32  cessavit  et  quievit  Tatian  (arm)  [cf.  a  b  d] 

Matt.  xv.  23  sequitur  et  clamat  Tatian  (arm)  syr0"'  b 

Matt.  xix.  25  stupebant  et  timuerunt 

Matt.  xxv.  34  hereditate  possidete 

Mark  iii.  5  ira  indignationis 

Mark  v.  13  impetum  fecerunt  et  ceciderunt 

Mark  x.  26  admirabantur...timidi 

Mark  x.  51  domine  rabbi 

Mark  xiv.  38  alacer  et  promptus 

Luke  i.  17  perfectam  consummatam 

Luke  ii.  48  dolentes  et  tristes 


Luke  iv.  20 
Luke  v.  8 
Luke  viii.  8 
Luke  ix.  61 
Luke  x.  39 
Luke  xii.  13 
Luke  xv.  4 
Luke  xvi.  2 
Luke  xvi.  24 
Luke  xviii.  5 
Luke  xxiii.  28 
John  xi.  39 
John  xvii.  23 
John  xxi.  7 
John  xx.  16 


abiit  ac  sedit 

rogo  exi 

bonam  et  uberam 

ire  remmtiare 

venit  et  sedit 

terram  et  hereditatem 

vadit  et  quaerit 

veni  redde 

in  ustione  ignis 

vado  et  devindico 

plangere  et  lugere 

accedite  et  auferte 

perfecti  consummati 

misit  se  et  salibit 

domine  magister 


d 

d 

b  e  Tatian  (arab)  Peshito 

Tatian  (arab) 

D  a  b/2  i  Tatian  (arab) 

Tatian  (arab)  (arm) 

[cf.  dab] 

ad  e/2  gllq  syr™  Tatian 

(arm) 

Tatian  (arab) 

cdef  Tatian  (arab)  Peshito 
a  c  d  e  syr0"  Tatian  (arm) 
a  gl  syr""  Irenut 
Tatian  (arab)  syr™ 
syr™ 

a  d  e  f  syr8"'  Tatian  (arab) 
syr*" 
d 
d 
[d] 

Tatian  (arm) 
d 
d 
d 


DOUBLE   TRANSLATIONS   OF  THE   GREEK.  255 

Now  a  survey  of  these  peculiar  renderings  will  shew  that 
there  is  a  good  deal  of  internal  connection  between  pairs  of  them, 
which  cannot  be  explained  away  by  any  theory  of  assimilation  or 
cross-references.  For  let  us  examine  some  of  them  closely:  the  first 
reference  (Matt.  ii.  8)  shews  that  Tatian  and  the  Curetonian  text 
agree  in  the  formula  venite  renuntiate  as  a  translation  of  diray- 
f/e/Xare.  But  that  it  is  not  merely  the  trick  of  the  first  Syriac 
translator  may  be  seen  from  the  somewhat  similar  case  where,  in 
Luke  ix.  61,  we  find  ire  renuntiare  as  a  rendering  of  diroTd^aadai, 
in  the  Old  Latin,  the  Old  Syriac  and  in  the  translation  of 
Irenaeus.  It  seems  then  that  the  reading  of  the  Curetonian 
Syriac  (r^Qj*f^  Kwr^)  is  arrived  at  by  means  of  a  Latin 
rendering  which  had  translated  aTrord^aa-Bai,  by  renuntiare  in 
stead  of  abrenuntiare,  and  added  the  expansion  ite. 

Take  the  next  case  in  the  list :  we  find  that  the  Curetonian 
Syriac  in  Matt.  viii.  5  has  rendered  the  verb  irapaKokw  by  Togo  et 
obsecro.  How  thoroughly  conventional  this  is  in  Latin  may  be 
seen  not  only  from  Latin  inscriptions,  but  from  the  text  of  the 
Old  Latin  Gospels.  The  Bezan  text  has  frequent  expansions  by 
means  of  such  a  translation,  which  give  rise  to  subsequent  additions 
in  the  Greek,  or  to  subtractions  in  the  Latin,  and  not  always  to 
subtractions  of  the  superfluous  word,  but  sometimes  some  other 
word  in  the  sentence.  The  object  in  such  cases  is  to  make  the 
Greek  and  Latin  as  nearly  as  possible  equal  in  the  number  of 
words. 

For  example,  in  Acts  xxi.  39  Sco/iai  <rov  is  rendered  by  rogo 
obsecro :  and  our  list  of  selected  double  readings  shews  us  e%e\6e 
rendered  by  rogo  exi  (Luke  v.  8)  both  in  the  Bezan  text  and  in 
the  Arabic  Tatian. 

In  the  next  passage,  Matt.  xiv.  32,  which  is  from  the  Armenian 
Tatian,  eKoiracrev  has  been  rendered  by  two  almost  synonymous 
words :  this  of  itself  is  suspicious,  for  it  looks  like  a  case  of  African 
pleonasm ;  and  the  suspicion  thus  awakened  is  confirmed  by  noticing 
that  the  Codex  Vercellensis,  the  Codex  Veronensis,  and  others  have 
cessavit,  but  the  Codex  Bezae  has  quievit. 

The  passage  Matt.  xv.  23  shews  a  similar  expansion  in  the 
Curetonian  text,  the  Armenian  Tatian  and  in  the  Codex  Vero 
nensis.  The  errors  can  hardly  be  independent,  and,  if  that  be 


256  DOUBLE   TRANSLATIONS   OF   THE   GREEK 

admitted,  then  either  the  Curetonian  text  has  been  drawn  from 
a  Western  copy,  or  one  of  the  great  Western  copies  has  been 
touched  up  by  a  Syriac  hand. 

In  Matt.  xix.  25  we  find  the  translators  in  a  perplexity  over 
the  rendering  of  egeTrXrja-o-ovTo.  The  Bezan  translation  is  certainly 
peculiar,  consisting  of  an  imperfect  tense  followed  by  a  perfect : 
Codd.  a,  b  read  mirabantur  et  timebant  valde ;  Cod.  /  mirabantur 
valde,  as  if  by  the  erasure  of  one  word  from  the  combination  in 
a,  b.  We  may  be  sure,  then,  that  there  was  a  primitive  double 
rendering  in  the  Latin. 

On  turning  to  Acts  xiii.  12,  we  find  a  double  rendering  of 
€K7r\r) (ro-6 ftei/o?  by  miratus  est  stupens,  which  is  similar  in  character 
to  the  passage  in  Matthew,  and  has  given  rise  to  a  reactionary 
error  in  the  Greek  text.  So  that  we  are  confirmed  in  believing 
the  error  to  be  truly  Western  and  Latin.  But  it  appears  in  the 
Curetonian  text ;  and  not  only  so,  but,  on  looking  at  the  Tatian 
Arabic  in  Mark  x.  26  (admirabantur  timidi),  we  can  see  traces 
and  signs  of  a  similar  error.  In  Mark  vi.  52  we  find  efurravro 
translated  in  a  similar  manner  by  stupebant  et  mirabantur,  and 
KOI  edavna^ov  added  to  the  Greek.  Is  it  not  the  simplest  solution 
to  carry  all  these  errors  back  to  a  primitive  Graeco-Latin  text  ? 

Matt.  xxv.  34  shews  the  traces  of  a  primitive  Latin  pleonastic 
rendering  of  /c\v]povofj,rjcraTe :  we  should  be  suspicious  at  once  of 
such  a  rendering  as  that  in  Codex  Bezae  (hereditate  possidete): 
it  must  be  either  a  conflation,  or  a  primitive  African  pleonasm  : 
that  it  is  the  latter  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  in  Acts  vii.  5  the 
Bezan  text  gives  us 

possessionern  heredetatis 

as  a  rendering  of  tcXripovo/jLiav.  We  could  hardly  find  a  better 
example  of  the  usage  of  the  early  African  writers.  Codd.  a  b 
remove  the  superfluous  '  hereditate  '  in  Matthew.  But  the  Cure 
tonian  Syriac  in  Luke  xii.  14  shews  signs  of  having  had  two 
words  in  its  primitive  text,  for  it  reads  "  terram  et  hereditatem," 
where  '  terram  '  seems  to  stand  for  '  possessionem.'  We  suspect 
then  again  that  the  Curetonian  pleonastic  renderings  are  not  all 
of  them  original. 

In  Mark  v.  13  the  Arabic  Tatian  has  et  cucurrit  grex  ad  ver- 


DOUBLE  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  GREEK.  257 

ticem  et  praecipitatus  est  in  mare,  which  seems  to  represent  the 
same  Syriac  as  in  the  Peshito  (cucurrit  et  cecidit),  the  Cureto- 
nian  text  being  wanting.  But  this  translation  by  means  of  a 
double  verb  is  in  Cod.  b,  fecerunt  impetu[m]  ire...et  ceciderunt, 
and  in  Cod.  e,  ierunt  cum  impetu...et  ceciderunt.  The  Syriac  text 
seems  to  rest  again  on  a  Western  bilingual. 

Mark  x.  51  shews  a  double  translation  of  paftftovvi  by  domine 
rabbi.  This  reading  has  coloured  some  of  the  oldest  of  the 
Western  texts :  so  that  it  is  hardly  to  be  described  as  a  conflation. 
For  we  find,  on  referring  to  John  xx.  16  in  the  Codex  Bezae,  that 
the  same  word  is  expounded  to  mean  domine  magister  ("ilia 
dicit  ei  ebraice  rabboni  quod  dicitur  domine  magister  ").  We  may 
be  sure,  then,  that  the  primitive  Latin  version  had  rendered  the 
word  pleonastically1. 

What  are  we  to  say,  then,  when  we  find  that  the  Tatian  text 
has  given  us  in  the  Arabic  just  such  a  double  rendering  ?  For  in 
Mark  x.  51  we  find 

Domine  mi,  et  praeceptor,  &c. 

The  primitive  rendering  of  /carea-Kevacr^evov  in  Luke  i.  17  was 
pleonastic,  as  we  may  see  by  comparing  the  parallel  textib.  For, 
though  the  text  of  D  says 

praeparare  domino  plebem  opnsummatam, 

Cod.  a  prefers  to  read  perfectum,  and  b  perfectam;  we  suspect 
then  a  primitive  rendering 

perfectam  consummatam, 

which  would  be  decidedly  African  in  character. 

And  our  list  of  double  readings  shews  us  that  at  John  xvii.  23 
we  have  a  very  similar  case,  where  the  line 

VNA  COCIN  T€TeAia>MeNoi 
is  rendered  by  the  Bezan  text 

VT  SINT  PERFECTI  CON8VMMATI. 

Here  we  have  no  Syrian  confirmation  as  far  as  I  know,  nor  is 
it  necessary  that  all  of  such  compound  readings  should  pass  into 
the  Syriac.  What  we  notice  is  that  the  Old  Latin  texts  originate 

1  In  the  passage  in  John  we  have  a,  'domine';  e,  'magister  et  domine';  ff*t 
'magister,  domine';  and  of  course,  in  the  Greek  of  D,  ictipie  SiScurxaXf. 

C.  B.  17 


258  DOUBLE   TRANSLATIONS   OF  THE  GREEK. 

such  readings  freely,  and  in  some  cases  pass  them  on  to  other 
versions,  either  directly  or  by  means  of  a  Greek  text  that  has  been 
doctored  from  its  translation. 

How  wide  this  influence  is  may  be  seen  from  the  gloss  in  Luke 
ii.  48,  the  effects  of  which  are  felt  in  almost  all  Old  Latin  texts,  as 
well  as  in  the  Curetonian  text  and  in  Tatian.  There  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  this  variant  has  any  Greek  support,  except  by 
accidental  reflection  from  the  Latin;  and  it  will  be  difficult  to 
maintain  that  it  is  not  a  genuine  Latin  one,  although  we  see  that 
all  the  Syriac  texts  have  been  influenced  by  it. 

So  in  Luke  xv.  4,  where  the  vulgar  Latin  origin  of  the  gloss  is 
almost  evident  from  the  language  (with  which  we  may  compare 
the  vado  et  devindico  in  Luke  xviii.  5).  Yet  here  also  we  have  the 
two  Old  Syriac  versions  in  line. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  some  of  the  double  renderings  which 
we  observe  in  the  old  so-called  Western  texts  are  Latinisms ;  and 
that  the  Syriac  versions  owe  them  to  Western  bilingual  influence ; 
and  since  we  observe  the  same  phenomenon  in  this  group  of 
readings  which  has  been  so  often  detected  elsewhere,  viz.  the 
signs  of  an  internal  nexus  between  the  Curetonian  text  and  the 
Tatian  Harmony,  we  are  again  brought  to  suspect  that  both  these 
texts  are  to  be  traced  ultimately  to  a  Western  bilingual  origin ; 
and  that  they  are  not  independent  one  of  the  other. 


CHAPTER  XXVT. 
SOME  PECULIAR  FORMS  AND  SPELLINGS  IN  THE  CODEX  BEZAE. 

i.     On  a  curious  African  form  of  the  verb  'habeo.' 

Every  one  who  has  worked  at  all  at  the  study  of  the  textual 
authority  of  the  various  versions  of  the  New  Testament  will  know 
how  labyrinthine  is  the  question  of  the  tenses  that  are  used,  and 
how  difficult  it  is  to  determine  in  each  case  the  Greek  tense  which 
stood  in  the  translator's  copy. 

Not  only  is  the  question  affected  by  the  Semitic  instincts  of 
the  first  composers  who  write  Hebrew  constructions  in  Greek, 
which  they  leave  to  later  hands  to  emend  and  reform ;  but,  as  we 
have  shewn  abundantly  in  previous  investigations,  the  fact  that 
the  tenses  in  Greek  are  not  parallel  to  those  in  Latin  has  produced 
reactions  upon  the  Greek  text  which  are  of  the  nature  of  the  most 
deep-seated  of  textual  errors. 

But  this  is  not  all :  the  primitive  Latin  translation  was  not 
made  into  the  classical  tongue  but  into  the  tongue  of  the  people, 
and  this  tongue  is  almost  a  different  language  to  the  polite  Latin 
which  scholars  study.  The  vulgar  not  only  used  different  words, 
but  they  used  the  same  words  differently  as  far  as  force  and 
meaning  are  concerned.  Their  verbs,  for  instance,  were  far  gone 
in  the  process  of  decline  from  full  inflection ;  and,  in  particular, 
the  future  tense  had  become  so  like  to  the  present  tense  in  many 
verbs,  partly  by  the  disappearance  of  the  futures  in  -bo,  partly  by 
the  thinning  of  the  characteristic  vowels,  that  the  auxiliary  future, 
in  its  pre-Romance  form,  had  already  been  called  into  service 
when  the  first  Latin  rendering  of  the  New  Testament  was  made. 
It  becomes  very  important  to  collect  and  classify  all  the  colloquial 
forms  which  we  can  find  in  our  Old  Latin  texts,  and  to  use  them 

17—2 


260  SOME   PECULIAR   FORMS  AND  SPELLINGS. 

both  for  the  advancement  of  philological  study,  and  for  the  inter 
pretation  of  the  texts  in  which  they  occur. 

In  working  through  the  Bezan  text,  which  is  the  best  monu 
ment  that  we  have  of  the  Old  Latin  Gospels,  I  was  struck  with 
the  recurrence  of  a  peculiar  form  of  the  verb  habeo.  When,  for 
example,  one  found  in  Matt.  v.  46 

quam  mercedem  habebetis, 

the  first  thought  was  that  it  was  a  simple  palaeographical  error 
of  a  dittographed  syllable,  so  that  habetis  had  been  made  into 
something  very  like  a  future  tense,  and,  as  was  to  be  expected, 
the  Greek  had  been  corrected  to  match  the  supposed  future 
from  e%€T€  to  efere.  But  as  one  read/  through  the  codex,  the 
error  repeated  itself  so  often  and  so  variously  that  the  theory  of 
palaeographical  cause  broke  down  under  the  strain  ;  and  although 
it  was  perfectly  true  that  the  revising  hand  in  the  Greek  had 
made  the  same  assumption,  viz.  that  habebo  was  a  future  tense, 
the  second  thought  came  that,  perhaps,  after  all,  it  was  not  a 
future  but  an  African  form  of  the  present.  Let  us  then  look  at 
some  of  the  cases  where  the  doubtful  word  occurs. 
In  Matt.  vi.  2  we  have  again 

mercedem  non  habebitis, 
and  here  the  Greek  has  not  been  tampered  with  ;  it  shews 


Next  turn  to  John  vi.  53 

non  habebitis  in  uobis  uitam, 

where  the  Greek  is  e^ere. 
In  John  xvi.  22 

mine  quidem  tristitiam  habebitis, 

the  Greek  should  be  e^ere,  but  has  been   corrected   under  the 
influence  of  the  Latin  to  efere. 
In  Acts  xviii.  18  we  have 

habebebat  enim  orationem, 

and  I  think  these  five  instances  will  shew,  and  especially  the  last, 
that  we  are  not  dealing  with  a  palaeographical  blunder,  but  with 
an  actual  verb  form. 


SOME   PECULIAR   FORMS  AND   SPELLINGS.  261 

Now  if  this  be  the  case,  we  must  look  for  further  traces  of  the 
form,  on  the  hypothesis  that  in  many  cases  it  has  been  corrected 
away.  Are  there  any  such  signs  that  the  eccentric  form  once 
stood  more  regularly  than  it  now  does  in  the  Old  Latin  tradition 
of  the  New  Testament  text  ?  Let  us  examine  the  Codex  Bezae 
on  the  point. 

In  Luke  xv.  4  the  text  is 


TIC   AN0pCOTTOC   €5   Y^GON    QC   €561 
QVIS  EX  VOBIS  HOMO  QVI  HABET. 

Here  the  time  text  is  not  05  egei  but  €^v,  and  it  is  clear  that 
the  Greek  is  derived  from  the  Latin  ;  we  suspect  then  that  there 
originally  stood  habebit  on  the  Latin  side. 

In  John  xiv.  30  the  Latin  text  is 

iam  non  multa 

loquar  uobiscum  uenit  enim  huiiis 
mundi  princeps  et  in  me  non  habet 
nihil  [inuenire]. 

The  text  of  this  passage  has  undergone  some  peculiar  changes  : 
and  the  attestation  of  the  variants  is  conflicting  :  but  we  can  see 
that  correctors  have  been  at  work  to  change  the  present  tenses 
into  futures  (veniet,  habebit):  for  amongst  the  Old  Latins  fg 
we  find  veniet;  and  the  Arabic  Tatian  has  both  veniet  and 
habebit.  We  suspect  then  that  the  trouble  began  with  a  reading 
habebit  in  the  Vulgar  Latin  :  and  that  at  a  very  early  period  this 
doubtful  word  was  read  as  a  future. 

ii.  On  the  primitive  translation  of  the  word  '  disciple  '  in  the 
Old  Latin. 

The  first  translation  which  was  made  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts 
did  not  render  the  word  paQyifa  by  the  Latin  discipulus  but  by 
the  participle  discens.  This  has  been  pointed  out  by  Dr  Sanday 
in  his  study  of  the  Old  Latin  Codex  k.  He  says1,  "  at  the  back  of 
A;  is  an  older  form  of  the  Version  still  :  a  form  not  much  dissimilar 
from  k,  but  with  some  features  of  greater  antiquity  ;  a  form  which 
had  systematically  discentes  for  discipuli  ;  felix  for  beatus,  etc." 

The  same  thing  might  have  been  suspected  from  the  instances 
of  the  use  of  the  word  given  in  Ronsch,  Itala  und  Vulyata,  p.  107. 

1  Old  Latin  Biblical  Texts,  n.  p.  xc. 


262  SOME  PECULIAR  FOKMS  AND  SPELLINGS. 

For  Ronsch  quotes  instances  of  its  use  not  only  from  the  Codex 
Bezae,  but  from  Codd.  b  c ;  and  from  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian. 

I  have  a  few  words  to  say  concerning  this  form,  because  it  is 
one  of  the  many  little  details  which  so  constantly  turn  up  in 
attestation  of  the  theory  of  derivation  of  all  Latin  copies  from  a 
single  primitive  rendering. 

Suppose,  for  example,  we  are  comparing  Codices  d  and  e  in  the 
Acts :  we  soon  find  that  there  is  a  common  root  to  the  two  manu 
scripts  ;  and  that  much  of  the  earlier  common  type  that  underlies 
the  two  texts  can  be  recovered.  It  is  interesting  to  see  that  the 
scribe  of  E  also  found  the  form  discens  in  his  manuscript,  and  in 
Acts  vi.  5  we  catch  him  altering  the  Greek  to  pavOavovrcov, 
because  he  did  not  realize  that  discens  could  be  a  proper  rendering 
of  /jui6r]Trj<;. 

The  same  form  is  also  found  in  Cod.  e  of  the  Gospels,  as  may 
be  seen  from  Luke  xvi.  8  "  dixit  autem  ad  discentes  suos." 

We  will  now  shew  that  it  must  have  been  in  the  ancestry  of  a 
number  of  other  Old  Latin  Codices  of  the  Gospels,  besides  bcdek 
to  which  we  have  referred  above. 

Suppose  we  turn  to  Luke  xix.  37,  which  in  the  Bezan  text 
stands 

ad  discensum  mentis  oliuarum 
coepit  onmis  multitude  discipulorum 
gaudentes  laudare  deum  etc. 

For  '  discipulorum '  there  stood  originally  '  discentium  ' ;  but 
this,  under  the  influence  of  the  words  in  the  previous  line  'ad 
discensum/  was  easily  changed  into  '  descendentium/  so  that  it 
read  "the  whole  multitude  of  those  going  down  the  mountain 
began  to  praise  God,  etc."  Accordingly  /  rjr1  still  read  'discentium/ 
not  having  fallen  into  the  error :  the  codex  </2  reads  '  descenden 
tium/  so  does  the  Amiatinus  :  the  codex  Fuldensis  '  discenden- 
tium/  etc.  There  is,  therefore,  no  doubt  about  the  original  reading, 
nor  about  the  genesis  of  the  error.  But,  as  often  happens,  when 
a  text  has  been  corrupted  in  some  respect,  the  short  and  drastic 
method  of  dealing  with  the  difficulty  is  to  leave  the  corrupted 
word  or  sentence  out,  so  we  find  in  the  present  case  that  the  MSS. 
a  c  i  I  have  omitted  the  word ;  and  this  is  tantamount  to  a  proof 
that  they  also  at  some  time  read  '  discendentium/  and  therefore 


SOME    PECULIAR   FORMS   AND   SPELLINGS.  263 

had  '  discentes '  in  their  ancestry.  We  knew  this  already  of  Cod.  c: 
our  list  now  includes  abcdefglg-ikl.  Nor  is  this  all,  for  we 
find  the  Curetonian  Syriac  in  the  same  company,  for  the  omission 
of  the  word:  and  we  have  one  more  suggestion  of  the  Latin 
or  Graeco-Latin  text  that  lies  behind  this  venerable  translation. 

iii.  On  a  curious  phonetic  change  in  the  dialect  of  the  translator 
of  the  Old  Latin  Version. 

In  the  text  of  the  Codex  Bezac  there  are  some  signs  of  an 
interchange  between  the  m  and  p  sounds,  which  seems  to  bo  in 
capable  of  any  explanation  except  a  phonetic  one. 

For  example,  in  Acts  xiii.  34  we  have 

suscitauit  cum  a  portals, 

as  if  the  last  word  were  almost  equivalent  in  sound  to  '  mortals/ 
In  Luke  xiv.  1  we  have  the  reverse  error, 

mandacare  rnancin 

for  '  panem ' :  the  equivalence  of  the  sounds  being  seen  from  the 
fact  that  the  errors  take  place  in  either  direction,  m  for  p  or  p 
for  m. 

Now,  that  this  confusion  is  not  due  to  a  later  hand  working 
on  the  Bezan  tradition,  but  to  the  first  hand,  may  be  seen  as  follows. 
In  John  vi.  49  the  translator  had  to  render  oi  Trarepe?  vpwv  e<f>ayov 
TO  pdwa  ev  rfj  €pijfj,a) :  and  just  as  in  the  passage  in  Luke  he 
wrote  'panem'  as  'manem,'  so  here  he  confounded  'mannam'  with 
'  panem '  and  gave  the  latter  word.  Hence  we  find  in  the  Bezan 
text 

patrcs  uestri  manducaucrunt  panem 

in  closer  to. 

From  this  the  Greek  text  is  then  doctored,  so  as  to  bring  in 
rov  aprov  to  match  'panem':  and  finally  'mannam'  gets  inserted, 
probably  by  a  later  hand,  at  the  end  of  the  sentence  after  'deserto/ 

Now,  the  antiquity  of  the  error  can  be  seen  by  the  fact  that 
'  panem '  has  been  added  in  the  four  Latin  texts  a  b  d  e.  But 
further  than  this,  it  turns  up  in  the  Curetonian  text,  where  it  has 
displaced  TO  \Lavva,  which  had  not  been  restored  in  the  text  from 
which  the  materials  of  the  Curetonian  text  were  derived.  If  this 
explanation  be  correct,  we  have  a  decisive  instance  of  the  existence 
of  Latin  readings  in  the  Curetonian  text. 

1  8 


264  SOME   PECULIAR  FORMS  AND   SPELLINGS. 

It  would  be  rash  to  identify  on  such  narrow  data  the  nationality 
of  the  translator.  But  we  may  point  out  that,  at  all  events,  the 
circumstances  are.  not  adverse  to  the  theory  of  a  Carthaginian 
hand.  For  if  the  two  sounds  approximated,  it  must  have  been 
by  the  means  of  an  agreement  with  the  sound  of  the  letter  6. 
That  the  Punic  speech,  like  the  modern  Arabic,  tended  to  replace 
the  p  sound  by  b  is  seen  from  two  inscriptions  from  Leptis,  cited 
by  Schroder1,  where  medicos  is  equated  to  &O1P1,  which  is  clearly 
the  Hebrew  X£TT  And  the  occurrence  of  an  element  of  the  6 
sound  along  with  m2  may  be  seen  from  the  cases  cited  by  Schroder 
from  the  Poenulus  of  Plautus  where 


sille 
mucomp 

It  is  quite  possible,  then,  that  the  confusion  which  we  have 
noted  as  surviving  in  the  Bezan  text  between  m  and  p  is  a  trace 
of  the  Punic  dialect.  For  in  two  of  the  instances  quoted  the 
betacized  m  is  a  final  letter,  so  that  the  case  is  quite  different 
from  the  inserted  sound  which  we  find  in  such  a  word,  say,  as 
Lampsacus,  where  the  change  in  the  consonant  is  due  to  the 
following  sibilant. 

We  leave  it,  therefore,  as  a  point  to  be  enquired  into  further, 
whether  the  Vulgar  Latin  of  North  Africa  did  not  betacize  the 
m-sound3.  If  it  did,  we  have  something  like  the  same  phonetic 
phenomenon  surviving  in  the  Codex  Bezae. 

iv.  On  a  confusion  between  est  and  venit  in  the  primitive  form 
of  the  Old  Latin  New  Testament. 

A  study  of  the  various  Old  Latin  texts  will  bring  to  light  a 

1  Die  Phonizuche  Sprache,  p.  113. 

3  Cf.  the  phonetic  changes  by  which  Cod.  6  made  medianum  into  pede  piano. 
Remark  also  pedimus  for  pedibus  in  Acta  Perpetuae,  c.  xi.  (Cod.  Casinensis). 

3  We  may  compare  an  error  in  the  first  chapter  of  Matthew  (i.  5)  in  Cod.  k,  which 
is  held  to  contain  an  African  text  :  here  Rachab  is  written  Pacham  :  the  confusion 
between  R  and  P  is  due  to  the  bilingualism  of  the  scribe  :  the  error  in  the  last  letter 
is  phonetic.  The  same  thing  occurs  in  Cod.  Bezae  in  Matt.  i.  13,  where  we  have 
eliecib  and  heliacib  for  eliakim. 


SOME  PECULIAR  FORMS  AND  SPELLINGS.  26l> 

number  of  cases  in  which  there  is  a  very  decided  confusion  between 
the  verb  '  to  be '  and  the  verb  '  to  come.'  For  instance,  in  Matt, 
xxv.  6  the  S.  Germain  Codex  (gl)  reads 

ecce  sponsus  est  uenit, 

where  Wordsworth  remarks  "  there  is  a  two-fold  rendering  repre 
senting  a  variation  in  the  Greek  text."  That  is,  we  have  a  conflation 
of  translations  of  two  different  Greek  words,  according  to  the  editor 
of  the  Codex.  The  Greek,  however,  seems  not  to  have  any  verb ; 
and,  if  there  were  no  other  cases  besides  this  one,  we  should  probably 
be  justified  in  regarding  it  as  a  case  where  the  literal  translation 

ecce  sponsus 

which  we  find  in  Cod.  Bezae  had  been  filled  up  by  two  different 
expansions,  one  of  which  may  find  its  motive  in  the  following 
egepxea-Oe  of  the  text :  e.g.  Cod.  b  has  venit,  and  Cod.  Sangallensis 
has  venit  (epxerai);  while  the  other  form  ecce  sponsus  est  may  still 
be  lurking  in  the  Old  Latin  versions;  its  existence  is,  however, 
sufficiently  proved  from  the  S.  Germain  text. 

But  there  are  other  similar  instances;  in  Luke  xxii.  27  we 
have 

ego  autein 
sum  in  medio  nostrum  ueni  etc. 

where  again  we  notice  the  double  rendering ;  and  here  it  seems  as 
if  the  verb  eipi  really  belongs  to  the  text.  If  so  it  is  curious  that 
it  should  have  a  double  rendering.  Was  the  word  elfii  originally 
absent  from  the  text  ?  If  not,  how  did  it  get  changed  into  veni? 
The  whole  passage  is  in  great  confusion  in  the  Bezan  text. 
In  Acts  xxi.  27  we  have  the  Latin 

qui  ab  Asia  erant  ludaei  uenerant, 
which  probably  represents  an  original  text 

ol  OTTO  TTJS  'Aortas  'louSmot, 

though  it  has  been  altered  in  the  Bezan  text  to 

ot  8c  d[iro\  rfjs  'Atrias  'loydatot  eXqXv^oreff, 

so  as  to  represent  the  Latin  more  closely. 

This  case,  then,  seems  to  be  like  the  first,  where  the  missing 
verb  had  been  filled  up  by  erant  and  venerant  in  two  renderings, 

1  8  * 


266  SOME    PECULIAR   FORMS   AND   SPELLINGS. 

and  the  results  combined.  But  the  recurrence  of  the  double  form 
in  the  Bezan  Latin  makes  us  suspicious  that  something  primitive 
is  lurking  here.  Is  it  possible  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  feature 
of  the  African  Latin  in  such  expressions  as  est  venit,  sum  veni,  erant 
venerant  ? 

Something  of  a  similar  character  comes  to  light  when  we  turn 
to  Cod.  k  in  Mark  xiii.  33, 

nescitis  enim  quando  tempus  uenict, 

where  d  reads  sit.     Cod.  a  does  not  shew  any  verb,  being  thus  in 
more  close  harmony  with  the  Greek :  but  Codd.  d  k  are  closely 
related  to  one  another  and  to  the  primitive  Latin  version:  how 
are  we  then  to  explain  the  concurrence  of  sit  and  veniet  ? 
In  Luke  vii.  12  the  Codex  Bezae  gives 

et  multus  populus 
ciuitatis  cum  ea  erat, 

and  the  Greek  has  taken  on  the  form  (rvve\r)\v0€i  avrfj  as  if  to 
answer  to  a  Latin  venerat  or  convenerat. 

But  it  seems  clear  that  the  Greek  text  is  rjv,  which  we  find  in 
XBCH  and  other  MSS.  :  and  in  fact  we  have  erat  in  the  Latin  of  D. 
What  are  we  to  say  to  this  ?  If  there  are  two  independent  alter 
native  translations  of  the  Greek  rjv,  viz.  erat  and  venerat,  how  does 
it  come  to  pass  that  traces  of  both  of  them  are  in  the  Codex 
Bezae,  one  of  them  in  the  Latin  and  the  other  by  reflection'  in 
the  Greek?  Does  it  not  look  as  if  there  had  been  a  primitive 
rendering  erat  venerat  ? 

In  John  xiii.  1  we  have  again  a  suspicious  variation.  Cod. 
Bezae  reads  in  the  Latin 

quia  uenerat  eius  hora, 

and  Codd.  a  b  have  uenit  for  uenerat. 

The  Greek  texts  divide  over  j\0ev  and  e\rj\v0ev,  but  the 
Greek  text  of  Cod.  Bezae  offers  us  a  reading  Traprjv,  which  is 
its  own  invention  and  therefore  probably  comes  from  its  Latin. 
The  word  is  a  very  good  representation  of  the  meaning,  but  it 
is  suspicious  that  an  attempt  should  have  been  made  to  intro 
duce  a  verb  which  was  a  compound  of  dpi 


SOME   PECULIAR   FORMS   AND   SPELLINGS.  267 

Now  turn  to  Acts  xvii.  6 

OTI    Ol    THN    OIKOYM€NHN    ANACTATCOCANTGC 

OYTOI  eiciN  KAI  eN6AAe  n&peiciN 

QVIA  QVI  ORBEM  TERRAE  INQVITAVERVNT 
HI  SVNT  ET  HOC  VENERVNT. 

The  word  elaiv  in  the  Greek  is,  of  course,  intrusive  and  comes 
from  the  Latin ;  and  then  the  question  arises  as  to  the  insertion 
of  sunt.  We  may,  perhaps,  say  that  it  was  because  the  translator 
misunderstood  the  force  of  the  strong  KOI  in  the  Greek,  and  there 
fore  supposed  a  verb  to  be  required  with  hi.  The  explanation 
may  be  sufficient,  but  it  is  curious  that  we  have  the  collocation  of 
the  same  two  verbs  as  before.  Is  it  not  conceivable  that  the 

sentence 

hi  sunt  et  hue  uenenmt, 

may,  after  all,  be  good  African  Latin  for  ' are  come  hither  also/ 
and  not  need  any  correction  or  apology  ? 

If  this  explanation  be  correct,  we  can  see  the  motive  for  the 
textual  variation  in  six  at  least  out  of  the  seven  cases  mentioned 
above.  We  suggest,  therefore,  that  the  African  Latin  had  a  usage, 
not  unlike  that  of  the  Syriac,  of  combining  a  verb  with  the  auxiliary 
in  the  same  tense  with  itself. 

If  this  could  be  established,  it  would  be  natural  to  refer  to 
such  a  form  of  speech  for  the  origin  of  the  French  and  Italian 
use  of  the  auxiliary  sum  with  venio,  as  in  je  suis  venu  etc.,  which 
form  is,  I  believe,  generally  explained  by  Romance  philologers  by 
a  reference  to  the  Latin  ventum  est. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 
CONCLUDING  REMARKS  ON  THE  GLOSSES  IN  LUKE. 

WE  may  now  fairly  claim  to  have  proved  our  theory  of  Latin- 
ization  as  regards  the  Western  text  of  the  New  Testament;  for 
the  Greek  text  of  Codex  Bezae  has  been  shewn  to  involve  a  series 
of  re-translations  from  the  Latin,  and  many  of  the  added  glosses 
are  due  to  second  century  hands,  which  tampered  with  the  text 
in  the  interests  of  elucidation  and  edification. 

Of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which  have  undergone 
revision  in  this  way,  the  two  which  have  suffered  the  most  are  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  and  the  Acts:  in  the  Gospel  the  later  chapters 
have  suffered  most  from  the  interpolator  and  the  commentator. 

In  reference  to  the  Acts  we  have  already  given  the  solution 
with  sufficient  detail,  and  there  are  not  many  interpolations  or 
readings  left  unexplained.  But  with  the  Gospel  the  problem  is 
more  obscure;  and  the  resolution  of  the  difficulties  is,  as  we 
intimated  in  a  previous  chapter,  a  harder  piece  of  critical  work. 
We  shall  however  conclude  our  discussion  by  examining  a  single 
page  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  in  Codex  Bezae,  a  page  which  is  as 
full  of  errors  and  corruptions  as  any  in  the  whole  of  the  Gospel. 

Turn,  then,  to  fol.  279  b  and  fol.  280  a  of  the  MS.,  which  give 
respectively  the  Greek  and  Latin  which  stand  on  the  257th  page 
of  Scrivener's  edition,  and  contain  the  text  of  Luke  from  c.  xxiii. 
v.  34  to  v.  45.  The  text  of  this  page,  judged  by  any  imagined 
standard,  is  in  great  confusion.  But  taking  our  Ariadne's  thread, 
the  proved  Latinization  of  notable  passages  in  the  Western  text, 
we  see  at  once  how  to  remove  a  number  of  errors. 

For  example,  in  v.  35  Oe&p&v  was  rendered  somewhat  thinly  by 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS   ON  THE  GLOSSES   IN   LUKE.          269 

the  Latin  widens:  so  the  reviser  corrected  the  Greek  back  to  opwv, 
which  was  the  exact  equivalent  of  the  Latin.     Hence  we  have 

KAI    6ICTHK6I    O    A&OC    OpCON 
ET   STABAT   POPVLVS   VIDENS. 

Again  in  v.  36:  the  translator  rendered  the  aorist  iviirai^av  by 
the  Latin  imperfect  deludebant,  and  the  reviser  who  harmonized 
the  text  and  the  translation  gives  us  accordingly  an  imperfect  in 
the  Greek, 

eNenezoN  Ae  <\YTO>  KAI  01  CTPATIWTAI 

DELVDEBANT  AVTEM   EVM   ET  MILITES. 


In  v.  38  the  abrupt  Greek  6  fia&iXevs  T&H/  'lovbauov  OVTOS  was 
rendered  rex  iudaeorum  hie  est:  and  the  added  verb  of  the  Latin 
was  restored  on  the  Greek  side. 

When  the  translator  has  varied  the  order  in  a  construction 
made  up  out  of  a  participle  and  verb,  as  he  often  does,  and 
naturally  enough,  the  reviser  accommodates  the  Greek  to  the 
rendering:  so  we  find  in  v.  34 

8tap.€pi£op.(vot  de  ra  t/zarta  avrov  IjSaXoi/  K\ijpovs 

is  rendered  by 

partiebantur  autem  uestimenta  eius  mittentes  sortem, 
and  the  Greek  finally  becomes 


So  in  v.  40 

firiripc*v...€<t>T)  becomes  increpabat...dicens, 

and  the  final  Greek  is 

cirfrifjM  .  .  .X  tyatv. 

These  instances  will  shew  that  the  same  general  influences  are 
at  work  on  the  text  at  this  point  as  we  have  detected  elsewhere. 
Now  let  us  turn  to  errors  of  a  more  pronounced  kind:  w.  43,  44 
read  in  our  text  as  follows  : 

K<M  crpA<t>eic 

npoc  TON  KN  eineN  AYTO>  MNHCOHTI  MOY 
EN  TH  HAA6p<\  THC  eAcycGcoc  coy 
AnoKpieeic  Ae  o  ic  eirreN  AYTW  TO>  CTTAHCONTI 

6ApC€l    CHMGpON    MGT   €MOy    €CH 

6N  TOO  n&p<\Aeicco 


270          CONCLUDING   REMARKS   ON   THE  GLOSSES   IN   LUKE. 

ET   CONVER8V8 

AD   DOM   DIXIT   ILLI  MEMENTO  ME 
IN  DIE  ADVENTVS  TVI 

RESPONDEN8  AVTEM   IHS  DIXIT   QVI   OBIVRGABAT   EV 
ANIMEQVIOR   ESTO  HODIE  MECVM  ERIS 
IN   PARADISO. 

The  first  thing  we  notice  is  that  the  peculiar  arpafals  has  no 
attestation  whatever  except  in  one  of  the  recensions  of  the  Acta 
Pilati  (B,  c.  x.),  which  gives  the  singular  paraphrase 

KOI  <rrpa(f)(\s  TTpos  Tov  'li/aovj/  Xe'yft  avr<j>'    Kupte,  orav   flacri\(v<rfls,   fii;  pov 


Now  let  us  look  at  the  perplexing  addition 

TO>  enAHCONTi. 

The  Latin  rendering  shews  that  this  stands  for 
TOO  eninAHCCONTi, 

and  that  as  it  stands  it  means  'the  one  who  rebuked  him/"  i.e. 
the  robber  who  rebuked  the  other  robber.  Now  if  we  look  closely 
at  our  text  we  shall  see  that  this  gloss  has  got  into  the  text  at  the 
wrong  spot:  for  there  is  no  difficulty  at  this  place  in  knowing 
which  robber  is  in  question  ;  and  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  a 
displacement  has  occurred  and  that  the  original  gloss  was 

ille  qui  obiurgabat  eum, 

and  was  meant  to  stand  two  lines  higher  up  :  but  only  the  ille  got 
into  the  text  at  this  place  where  it  was  promptly  changed  into  illi 
and  a  corresponding  avrw  was  added  in  the  Greek.  We  see  then 
that  qui  obiurgabat  eum  was  not  meant  for  a  dative  as  the  Greek 
has  taken  it,  and  the  gloss  must  have  arisen  on  the  Latin  side.  We 
see  this,  farther,  from  the  fact  that  obiurgabat  is  evidently  the 
equivalent  for  the  eirerLfia  of  v.  40,  so  that  if  the  Greek  had  been 
the  first  form  we  should  have  had  eTririfjLija-avTt  and  not  eVt- 
7r\i]cr(7ovTi.  It  follows,  then,  that  obiurgabat  must  have  been  the 
primitive  Latin  rendering  in  v.  40,  and  not  increpabat  which  the 
Codex  Bezae  now  shews.  This  is  verified  by  turning  to  the 
Codex  Vercellensis  which  has  actually  preserved  the  obiurgabat. 
So  far,  then,  everything  is  clear  :  we  are  dealing  with  a  misplaced 


CONCLUDING   REMARKS  ON   THE   GLOSSES   IN   LUKE.  271 

marginal  Latin  gloss  which  stood  primitively  in  the  margin  as 

ille 

qui 

obiurgabat 

eum, 

and  which  finally  broke  into  two,  and  got  into  two  separate  places 
in  the  text. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  Acta  Pilati:  and  here  we  find  that 
several  of  the  chief  authorities  for  the  text  in  recension  A  read 

KOI  flirfv  o  €tririfjiT)(ras  rov  ertpov  avrov  ro>  'irjo-ov'  nvijo-Qrjri  /zov  /ere. 

Here  then  we  have  the  very  same  gloss  occurring  at  the  place 
where  our  analysis  shewed  that  it  was  meant  to  stand  in  Codex 
Bezae.  But  if  this  be  the  case,  there  is  certainly  some  connection 
between  the  two  texts.  Nor  does  it  seem  perfectly  clear  that  the 
Acta  Pilati  took  it  from  a  Western  bilingual,  for,  as  we  see,  the 
Latin  gloss  is  in  the  Codex  Bezae  both  wrongly  inserted  and 
wrongly  translated.  We  should  prefer  to  believe,  if  the  position 
were  tenable,  that  the  gloss  in  the  early  Western  text  at  this 
point  is  due  to  one  of  the  sources  of  the  Acta  Pilati;  but  the 
matter  is  very  obscure. 

Now  let  us  turn  back  to  v.  37, 

AeroNrec  •  x<*ipe  o  B<\ciAeyc  TCON 
TrepireeeisiTec  Ayreo  K<\I 


DICENTES   HABE   REX   IVDAEORVM 
INPOXENTES   ILLI   ET   DE   SPINIS 
CORONAM. 

Not  a  word  of  this  is  genuine,  except  the  introductory  \eyovres  ! 
Scrivener's  remark  upon  this  verse  is  as  follows  :  "  very  much  out 
of  place,  since  the  scene  of  this  act  of  mockery,  as  assigned  by  the 
other  three  evangelists,  is  Pilate's  Praetorium."  No  doubt  it  is 
very  much  out  of  place,  but  then  there  was  a  reason  for  it.  The 
Acta  Pilati  do  not  refer  to  the  scene  in  the  soldiers'  hall,  but  place 
the  Coronation  with  thorns  at  the  time  of  the  Cwcifixion.  Accord 
ingly  the  text  of  Tischendorf's  first  recension  is  as  follows  : 

C.   x.      KOI  (£r)\dfv  6  'Irjo-ovs  etc  rov  irpatrapiov  Kai  01  8vo  KaKovpyot  &vv  avroi. 
KCU  OT€  dirfj\0av  fir\  rov  rairov,  f£(8v(rav  avrov  ra  ip-aria  UVTOV  KOI 
avrov  \cmov  KOI  (rrf(pavov  f 


272          CONCLUDING   REMARKS   ON   THE   GLOSSES   IN  LUKE. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  Acta  Pilati  definitely  assign  the  pro 
ceedings  on  the  part  of  the  soldiers  to  the  place  and  time  of  the 
Crucifixion,  exactly  as  is  done  in  the  Bezan  text. 

Our  readers  will  see  how  interesting  and  how  difficult  the 
discrimination  of  the  sources  here  becomes.  We  might,  of  course, 
simply  affirm  that  the  Acta  Pilati  had  borrowed  from  a  Western 
copy  of  the  Gospels:  but  this  hardly  seems  adequate,  for  what 
motive  can  we  assign  for  such  a  displacement  in  the  Western  text 
of  the  Gospel,  unless  perhaps  it  be  found  in  the  fact  that  no 
mention  was  made  in  Luke  of  the  Crowning  ?  Moreover  we  find  in 
the  same  error  with  the  Codex  Bezae  two  other  important  authori 
ties,  viz.  Cod.  c  and  the  Curetonian  Syriac,  for  Cod.  c  reads 

aue  rex  iudaeomm  salua  temetipsum 
imposuerunt  autem  et  de  spinis  coronam, 

and  the  Cureton  text  answers  to 

\aipf  fl  (TV  fl  o  [BaaiXfvs  r<av  'lovSmW  craxrov  (rcavrov.  KOI  TrcpicQrjKav  «ri 
TTJV  KtfjiaXfjv  avrov  orf<f)avov  c'£  axavdoiv. 

It  is  clear  then  that  the  Western  error  in  question  is  very 
ancient:  nor  is  it  easy  to  see  from  what  early  document  these 
primitive  Western  texts  could  have  derived  their  accretion.  The 
presumption  is  that  the  source  is  Latin,  but  this  carries  us  only  a 
little  way.  But  perhaps  we  ought  not  to  expect  to  solve  all  these 
problems  at  the  first  statement ;  and  if  we  have  been  successful,  as 
we  hope  we  have,  in  removing  in  our  earlier  pages  many  difficulties 
from  the  textual  criticism  of  the  New  Testament,  we  may  reason 
ably  ask  for  longer  time  to  discuss  questions  that  resist  resolution. 

Claudite  iam  riuos,  pueri:  sat  prata  biberunt. 


CAMBRIDGE:  PRINTED  BY  c.  J.  CLAY,  M.A.  AND  SONS,  AT  THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS.