Studia Biblica et ecclesiastica : essays chiefly in Bibliocal and patristic criticism

πο: ποι

“} ᾿ = . ao
χὰ = = ry > i! Ne νὴ Ὶ
. ‘ ᾿ ‘ ὃ ὦ
5 . = ‘ ᾿ pe ¥
! ; - 2 aa A
ἡ 5 4 ™ - ὰ, Ἢ —
Pa ΓΙ, - Ἢ Ns 7)
a7. ot
ΒΕ .
. “%
ors Ἵ
ic ᾿
-
- at
vi

as ον ;
oN eek ws τ ὦ :
‘ re ἢ 7
“δ΄. ...2 “ὁ
oT ee ee, - 7
een See ,
ΩΣ τὰ
΄ - .
Φ Ἂ συ a
; ‘ Σ ᾿ > >, A ee dep Ran ‘eh ἐπῶν
of ~ ὦ : ii, 7 “ΝΟ - δι arr GOR ae,
Ἷ fa ’ a 73% ν
Care 5 4 ξ =~ rt 2

ον *
ν" ῃ
\ a = se. ἢ
Ar ih . Gok
Ὰ ae Fe ΣΝ
a" “ΑΚ
Ψ > ae
oa Α τ

ΓΕ Σ ᾿ 2
᾿ ἐὸν ahi Ps
he er Ee τὰ

» ’
᾽ are
ἜΣ δι 8
« .
᾿ ᾿
A eh ie A Ὁ
᾿ .' » ¥
ν -
Pe! y
a
*

ESSAYS

IN

BIBLICAL ARCHAOLOGY AND CRITICISM

Rondon
HENRY FROWDE

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE

AMEN CORNER, E.C,

STUDIA BIBLICA

ESSAYS

IN BIBLICAL ARCHAOLOGY AND CRITICISM

AND KINDRED SUBJECTS

BY

MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF OXFORD

[4]
Oxford er a
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

M DCCC LXXxV

[ All rights reserved |

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2008 with funding from

Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/studiabiblicaeteO1 oxfouoft

PREFACE.

In the autumn of the year 1883, finding ourselves
recently appointed to the three chairs which represent
the interpretation of Holy Scripture in the University,
we took counsel together to find some means of assisting
students in our department outside the formal way of
instruction by lectures. Since then we have met on four
Monday evenings in every Term for the purpose of read-
ing and discussing papers on Biblical Archeology and
Criticism, including also some other kindred subjects
which it seemed very desirable to embrace in our pro-
gramme. The Essays contained in this volume have all
been read at these meetings, but they have since been
recast and in some cases substantially modified by the
writers, each of whom is responsible for his own paper
or papers, and for none of the rest. We cannot doubt
that the meetings have been of use both to those who
read papers and to those who heard them. We believe
that they have done something to stimulate an independent
study of the Holy Bible and of the history of the periods
during which its books were written. They have also, we
hope, deepened the sense of fellowship in work, which it is
one great privilege of University life to foster, and drawn
together younger and older men who are labourers in the
same important field. These Essays are now published by
the kindness of the Delegates of the Clarendon Press in the

v1 PREFACE.

hope that they may reach a larger circle than can be
gathered in a single room.

The papers are arranged (with the exception of the
last) in a kind of historical order, beginning with those
that relate to the Old Testament and coming . down,
through the New Testament, to the second century A.D.
The volume has been some little time in preparation, but
we cannot wholly regret the delay in its appearance, as
it has enabled us to add the last two papers in the
volume, which were read more recently than the rest.

Should this volume be favourably received we shall
hope to continue the series as material is gathered
together in our hands.

S. R. DRIVER.
WILLIAM SANDAY.

JOHN WORDSWORTH.
May 7th, 1885.

CONTENTS,

I. Recent Theories on the Origin and Nature of the
Tetragrammaton
S. R. Driver, D.D., Christ Church, te
Professor of Hebrew, Dec. 3, 1883.

Il. The Light thrown by the Septuagint Version on the
Books of Samuel

F. H. Woops, B.D., Tutor of St. John’s College,
May 5, 1884.

III. On the Dialects ae: in Palestine in the time of
Christ :

Ap. Neupaver, M.A., Exeter * College aes
in Rabbinical τ τες and Sub-Librarian
of the Bodleian Library, Feb. 18 and May
12, 1884.

IV, On a new Theory of the Origin and Composition of
the Synoptic Gospels proposed by G. Wetzel

A. Epersuerm, M.A., Christ Church, Nov. 19,
1883.

VY. A Commentary on the Gospels attributed to Theo-
philus of Antioch

W. Sanpay, M.A., Exeter College, Ireland Pro-
fessor of Exegesis, Oct. 29, 1883.
VI. The Text of the Codex Rossanensis (3) .
W. Sanpay, Feb. 4, 1884.

VII. The Corbey St. James (ff), and its relation to other
Latin versions, and to the cae πῶ οἵ
the Epistle : : :

Joun Worpsworts, M.A., B.N_C., Oriel Pro-
fessor of Interpretation, Feb. EE, 1994.

Vil

PAGE

21

39

75

89

103

113

oe pees a
VIL A Syriac Biblical Manuscript of the Fifth Century
with special reference to its bearing on the text
of the Syriac version of the Gospels
G. H. Gwiti1am, M.A., Fellow of Hertford
College, May 26, 1884. :

IX. The date of 8. Polycarp’s Martyrdom, : ᾿

T. ΒΆχΡειμ, Μ.Α., St. John’s College, Feb. 25,
1884.

X. On some newly-discovered Temanite and Nabataean
Inscriptions

Ap. NEUBAUER, Nov. 17, 1884.

XI. Some further Remarks on the Corbey St. James (ff).
W. Sanpay, Feb. 9, 1885.

τῷ here
nor a

RECENT THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN AND
NATURE OF THE TETRAGRAMMATON.

[S. R. Driver. |

In the Khorsabad inscription of Sargon!, that monarch
names, among those who had attempted insurrection against
him, one Ya-w-li-’i-di, king of Hamath; the word is ac-
companied by an indication that part of the compound is
the name of a deity: and the supposition that this name
is Yahu is confirmed by the remarkable fact that in a parallel
inscription the same king bears the name J/ubid. A Hama-
thite king, it appears, could be called indifferently Yahubid
or I/ubid, much in the same way that the king of Judah
who before he came to the throne bore the name of Eliakim,
was known afterwards as Jehoiakim. The discovery that
the name Yadu was thus not confined to the Israelites led
Schrader, in 1872, to the conjecture that it may have come
to both Hebrews and Hamathites alike from Assyria; and
the conjecture was adopted, and supported with positive
arguments, by Friedrich Delitzsch, son of the well-known
commentator, in his book What was the Site of Paradise ?
published in 1881.

I will begin by stating briefly Professor Delitzsch’s theory,
and the grounds upon which he defends it.

1 Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., 1872, p. 3 ἢ; 1883, p. 23:
Records of the Past, ix. p. 6.

B

2 Origin and Nature

The view generally held hitherto by scholars has been that
Yahweh is the original form of the sacred name, of which Yahu
(found only in proper names) and Yah are abbreviations.
Professor Delitzsch adopts an opposite opinion, arguing
as follows :—

1. Yahweh was never the name of the God of Israel in the
mouth of the people; the popular name was always 17° or 7),
as is shown by the fact that the former constitutes part of no
proper name, while large numbers are compounded with the
latter.

2. The abbreviations themselves show that the significant
part of the word was felt to lie in the ya, which was always
retained, although upon the usual theory this would be
merely a prefix.

3. It is improbable that a name handed down from remote
times would have included the abstract idea of deimg: such
a signification bears the impress of a later period of theological
reflexion.

4. Yahu was a name of God among other Canaanite nations
besides Hebrews. In addition to Yahubid just cited, there
are besides, the Damascene Ya’-/u-’ found in an inscription
of Esarhaddon!; the Pheenician Addai*, Yoel*, Bithias*, the
Philistine Mitinti, Sidkd, Padi, names of kings of Ashdod,
Ashkelon, and Ekron respectively, mentioned by Sennacherib®,
and formed precisely like the Hebrew Mattithiah, Zedekiah,
and Pedaiah, the Hamathite Yoram (2 Sam. vii. 10), the Hittite
Uriah, and the Ammonite Jodiah 5, all of which show traces
of the same name. If Yahu was thus a general Canaanite
name, it cannot well be derived from M7: for this root,

1 KAT., p. 24, note; p. 207, 24.

2 A Tyrian Suffete, named in Menander (Schroder, Phoen. Gramm., p. 152).

35x), on the fifth Maltese inscription (Wright, in the Z DMG. xxviii. 143 ἢν;
Nestle, Israelitische Eigennamen, 1876, p. 86).

* Verg. Aen. i. 738; Schréd., p. 114.

5 KAT., pp. 289-290 (on the Taylor-cylinder).

6 The name of the Hebronite Hoham (Josh. x. 3) is too uncertain to
be added (Baudissin, Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, 1876, i.
Ρ. 224).

of the Tetragrammaton. 3

though known to Aramaic and Hebrew, is not Pheenician?.
Its source, therefore, must be sought not in Palestine, but in
Babylonia, the common home of nearly the entire Canaanitish
Pantheon ; and remarkably enough, a sign denoting God (7/w),
which hitherto had been read ideographically, has been dis-
covered to have a phonetic value, and to be pronounced ἢ, or
with the ending of the Assyrian nominative ya-. In other
words, among the old Accadian population of Babylonia,
from whom the Semitic immigrants derived their cuneiform
writing, the supreme God bore the name J, which, in the
mouths of the Semitic Babylonians, would readily become
Ya-u.

Delitzsch accordingly propounds the following theory. The
forms Yahu, Yah, current among the people, are of foreign
origin. The form Ya/weh, on the other hand, is distinctively
Hebrew: it is a modification of Yahu, so formed as to be
connected with ΓΙῚΓΤ ¢o de, and designed to express a deep
theological truth: this prevailed among the prophets and
priests, but not among the people generally. A distinction,
it will be observed, is drawn between Yahu and Yahweh, and
the theory is guarded thereby against the objection to which
it might otherwise be exposed from a theological point of
view. Delitzsch does not divest Yahweh, the usual form met
with in the Old Testament, of the associations attached to it on
the ground of Exod. iii and vi: he argues, on the contrary, that
Yahu is the foreign word which was transformed into Yahweh
just for the sake of giving expression to the truths taught in
those passages. In fact, Yaku has no real connexion with
Yahweh, and is merely the material framework upon which it
is modelled.

The theory, however, though not open to objection upon
theological grounds, is not free from difficulties in other
directions, and exception was taken to it in most of the notices

1 In Phenician, as in Arabic and Ethiopic (ΠῚ jieri by the side of
UAQ esse), the substantive verb is ]1) (e.g, 027729 13) in the remarkable
inscription, relating to sacrifices, found at Marseilles).

B 2

Δ Origin and Nature

of Professor Delitzsch’s book. C. P. Tiele, in the Zheologisch
Tijdschrift for March 1882, declared himself unconvinced, and
recently it has been examined at greater length by F. A.
Philippi? in the second part of the Zeitschrift fir Volker-
psychologie for 1883 “, whose arguments against it I proceed
now to state.

1. It is an exaggerated and untenable view to treat Yah
as the popular form. In all colloquial expressions, in the
language of every-day life, we uniformly in the Old Testament
find Yahweh: it is used even in formulae of swearing and other
common phrases, where a shorter form, if in use, might have
been naturally expected to occur: of the shorter forms, yahu
is confined entirely to proper names (where the longer one
would have been cumbrous; imagine such a word as
my 1), and yah to proper names and poetry,—and even
in poetry chiefly in later liturgical forms (e.g. Halleluyah,
twenty-four times out of forty-seven*), Against the suggestion
that possibly editors or scribes substituted at a later date
the longer form, the testimony of Mesha is decisive; on
his stone (line 18) he writes Yahweh *: the longer form must
accordingly have been in popular use in the ninth century
B.c. And in proper names abbreviations in accordance
with the normal methods of the language (as 17) and ΓΙῸ
would be) would not be against analogy.

2. The contractions do not cause difficulty. The transition
from Yahweh to -2 (1—) would not be made at once, but
gradually. The last syllable being apocopated, after the

1 Author of several important contributions to the comparative study of the
Semitic languages, in particular, Wesen und Ursprung des Status constructus
(1871), an article on the Root of the Semitic verb in Morgenldndische For-
schungen (Leipzig, 1875), on the numeral ¢wo in Semitic, in the ZD MG., 1878,
p. 21 ff., ete.

JE Paty mit.

3. According to B. Davidson’s Concordance (London, 1876). [Is. xxxviii.11 bis.]

* The reading admits of no doubt: Néldeke and Dr. Wright do not question
it; and the suggestion made since this paper was read to vocalize Yahwa and
to treat this as the name of a man (E. King, Hebrew Words and Synonyms, i.
p. 35) is devoid of probability. The sense of 553 is determined naturally by
the context, which is here strongly in favour of 7)7» being the name of a God.

.

νυ δά, νιν «, — --.

of the Letragrammaton. 5

analogy of verbs 6 and 1%, there arose first yahw; next,
the final w being first vocalized and then dropped, came yahu
and yah (with the aspirate sounded — fT)": after a while the
aspirate ceased to be sounded, though it continued always to
be written: and thus, though it is true that at last, in proper
names, only the sound ya remained, its continuity with the
earlier stages was unbroken, so that its real origin would
always be felt. The forms, moreover, in which %— or %—
alone appears (as "TJIY, ΓΛ) are at best of uncertain
derivation: it is possible that they are not connected with
yah at all “.

3. The objection drawn from the abstract nature of the
idea shall be considered presently ; the name, it is probable,
was understood to express a moral, not a metaphysical,
conception of being.

4. The Philistine names are too uncertain in their for-
mation for an argument to be based upon them; and the
others? are too isolated to prove a general worship of a deity

1 The apocopation causes no difficulty: it is in strict accord with other
analogies presented by the language. The habit of apocopating the imperfect
tense of verbs π΄) was so familiar to the Hebrews that a word of similar
formation, especially when forming the second part of a compound name, must
have lent itself to it quite naturally. The phenomenon is isolated because
other names of the same form from verbs 7’ do not occur (the form is itself
a rare one): ΠῚ) is shortened as naturally to ὙΠ) in IY? as ΠῚ) to
ww? after the waw conversive in IAW) (in pause st).

2 Renan, in an article Des Noms T. héophores apocopés in the Revue des
Etudes jwives, v. (1882), p. 161 ff., regards the termination in these cases as
disguised forms of the suffix of the 3rd pers. sing., referring to God. Others
treat at least the -ai as adjectival (see Ewald, § 2736; Olshausen, § 217 a, δ).
In an appendix to this essay will be found a representation and description
(which I owe to the kindness of R. 8. Poole, Esq., Keeper of Coins and Medals
at the British Museum) of a remarkable coin found in the neighbourhood of
Gaza, and bearing the letters ὙΠ᾿.

’ As regards Yo’el (5x»), Dr. Wright, in the Transactions of the Bibl.
Archeol. Soc., 1874, p. 397, had already remarked that the vocalization is
conjectural. Whether, however, Nestle (/.c.) is right in connecting it with
bx, voluit (517), and interpreting strong-willed, must remain uncertain: it
is at any rate precarious to seek support for this meaning in the 197) and 198)
of the Sinaitic Inscriptions (Levy in the ZDMG. xiv. pp. 408, 410): for the
proper names in those inscriptions appear mostly to have Arabic affinities
(Blau, ib., xvi. p. 377; Néldeke, xvii. p. 703 f.). See also the Corpus Inser.
Sem., p. ὍΣ

6 Origin and Nature

Yahu—individual eases of borrowing from Israel are no
improbability.

5. Admitting a Babylonian yaw, it is difficult to under-
stand how a Hebrew ya/u can have arisen from it: the form
which the regular phonetic laws would lead us to expect is
γᾶ; and if yaw became in Hebrew indiscriminately WT), or
17, how is it that the latter appears never at the end of
a compound proper name, the former never at the beginning ?
This difference can be accounted for upon the ordinary view,
but not by Delitzsch’s theory. ‘The WM abbreviated from
mm, when standing at the beginning of compound names
became y*hau, y°h6, after the analogy of 22 fromm *123,
because γᾶ}, in such a position, as part of a compound word
with an accent of its own, would have drawn the tone unduly
back, whereas 7 for W, in the second part of the com-
pound, was excellently adapted to receive the tone.’

The question of a Babylonian yaw is an intricate one,
and cannot be satisfactorily discussed exeept by those who
have made the cuneiform inscriptions their particular study.
But the discussion may fortunately be dispensed with. Not
only do both Tiele and Philippi raise objections to Delitzsch’s
reasoning, contending, for example, that the Assyrian 7 itself
is not satisfactorily established as the name of a deity, but
Professor Sayee, whose authority is not less than that of
Professor Delitzsch, has declared! that his attempt to derive
Yahweh from an Accadian origin is unsuccessful. Our know-
ledge of Babylonian mythology, he remarks, is tolerably
complete: and no such name as Yahweh is contained in it.
A derivation from the Accadian, which Professor Sayce
abandons, need surely not occupy our attention further ®.

The rejection of a Babylonian origin for the Tetra-

1 The Modern Review, 1882, p. 853.

2 Mr. King, τι. 5., pp. 15, 24, is of opinion that the ultimate source of
m7 is the Accadian An or Anu; but such a position (as may readily be
imagined) is defensible only by aid of a series of assumptions, philological and

critical, of the most questionable kind. An examination in detail is, I venture
to think, needless.

of the Tetragrammaton. 7

grammaton does not, however, preclude the possibility of its
having some other foreign, non-Hebraic, origin. Older
scholars had indeed already suggested this, on the strength
of certain notices in Greek writers!; and as the view has
been recently revived, I may be allowed, for the sake of com-
pleteness, to consider it briefly here, referring for further
particulars to the full examination of it by Count Baudissin
in the first volume of his Studien zur Semitischen Religions-
geschichte (1876), p. 181 ff. Several ancient authorities (6. ο΄.
Diodorus Siculus?, Origen, Theodoret, Jerome) speak of the
God of the Jews under the name *[dw: and the same name
appears in some of the Gnostic systems *. Here it is evidently
derived from the Old Testament, being found by the side of
other names plainly of Hebraic origin. This is the case not
only in the lists given by Irenaeus and other ancients, but
also on the Gnostic rings and amulets, representations of
which havebeen given by Macarius*, Montfaucon ὅ, Kopp °,
C. W. King’, and others. Abrasax, for example, we learn
from Irenaeus, was the name given to the First Cause in the
Basilidean system*®. If therefore we find the name IAW
coupled with CABAQO or AAQNAT under the strange com-
posite figure which denoted Abrasax—the head of a hawk, or

1 See the article; Jenovan, by Mr. W. A. Wright, in Smith’s Dict. of the
Bible, i. p. 953 f. .

2 i. 94 Παρὰ δὲ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις Μωυσῆν [sc. προσποιήσασθαι τοὺς νόμους αὐτῷ
διδόναι] τὸν Ἰάω ἐπικαλούμενον θεύν.

3 The names of the spirits which, according to the Ophites, presided over the
seven planets, are thus given by Irenaeus (i. 30, 5) :—‘ Eum enim qui a matre
primus sit Jaldabaoth vocari; eum autem qui sit ab eo, Iao; et qui ab eo
Sabaoth; quartum autem Adoneum et quintum Elaeum et sextum Oreum,
septimum autem et novissimum omnium Astaphaeum.’ Origen (c. Cels., vi. 32)
rightly perceived that the third, fourth, and fifth of these were derived from
the Hebrew Scriptures.

4 Abraxas seu A pistopistus (Antwerp, 1657).

5 1) Antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures, Paris, 1722 (vol. ii. p. 353 ff. :
Supplém., 1724, p. 209 ff.).

5 Palaeographia Critica (Mannheim, 1817-1829), vols. 3 and 4.

7 The Gnostics and their Remains (London, 1864). Specimens of the in-
scriptions (without, however, the figures) are given in abundance by Baudissin.

8 Tren. i. 24, 7. Abrasax (the letters of which, estimated numerically, equal
365) was the princeps or ἄρχων of the 365 heavens.

ὃ Origin and Nature

sometimes of a jackal, the arms of a man, one arm often
bearing a whip, with two serpents diverging below as legs—

Reverse: IAW CABAW |.

it will not surprise us; some mystic meaning or magical
power may well have been supposed to reside both in the
figure and in the name. If it was known (as it certainly
must have been*) that the Jews hesitated to pronounce the
name, its value as a magical token would be the greater.
But what are we to say when we read the name IAQ, as we
often can, associated with the image of the youthful Horus,
resting on a lotus leaf—Horus, the Egyptian god of the
awakening life of spring ?

From ‘The Gnostics and their Remains,’ pl. iii. 8°.

* King, pp. 35, 234.

* Allusions are frequent, e.g. Philo, Vita Mosts, iii. 25 end, 26 (ii. p. 166,
Mangey). See Lev. xxiv. 16 in the Versions.

* Elsewhere the Abrasax and Horus figures are combined (also with the
name Ἰάω), as in pl. vii. 4.

of the Tetragrammaton. 9

Here ᾿Ιάω stands alone, unaccompanied by any Jewish or
Christian symbol. From this evidence, taken in conjunction
with some notices (especially the reputed oracle of the Clarian
Apollo!) which appeared to connect Id with the Pheenician
“Adwvis”, Lenormant, in 1872°, considered it clear that the
populations of Phenicia and Syria recognized a god ‘Iam, and
threw out the suggestion that the name was an old one, de-
noting properly the eaistent, which, as being the least closely
attached to a definite mythological personage, might have been
the model upon which the Mosaic Yahweh was constructed.
Not, however, that Lenormant supposed Yahweh to be derived
from Ἰάω : from the beginning, he adds, the Israelitish name
was used in an altogether different sense from the Pheenician ;
the resemblance was purely external: though the similarity
of name, he thought, might help to explain the readiness with
which the Israelites afterwards exchanged the worship of
Yahweh for a Canaanitish cult. But the grounds for such
a theory are precarious: the Hamathite and Pheenician
names are not numerous enough to bridge over the chasm
which separates the late classical times (at which ‘Ido is first
attested) from the age of Moses. Baudissin, after a careful
examination of the facts, concludes, with great probability,

* Macrobius (fifth cent. a.D.), Saturnalia, i. 18 :—
Ὄργια μὲν δεδαῶτας ἐχρῆν νεοπένθεα κεύθειν
Ἔν δ᾽ ἀπάτῃ παύρη σύνεσις καὶ νοῦς ἀλαπαδνός.
Φράζεο τὸν πάντων ὕπατον θεὸν ἔμμεν᾽ Ἰάω;
Χείματι μέν τ᾽ ᾿Αἴδην, Δία τ᾽ εἴαρος ἀρχομένοιο,
Ἤέλιον δὲ θέρευς, μετοπώρου δ᾽ ἁβρὸν ᾿Ιάω.
The verses are cited for the purpose of establishing the identity of Helios and
Dionysus.

* The grounds for the identification may be seen in Lenormant, Lettres
Assyriologiques, First Series, tom. ii. pp. 193 f., 209-212, or more fully in
Movers, Die Phinizier (1841), i. 542-547. They consist chiefly in the
similarity (πάντων ὕπατος) or identity (ἁβρός) of the epithets applied in the
oracle to “Idw, and in other ancient writers to Adonis (e.g. Theocr. xv. 128
ἁβρὸν Αδωνινν ; partly also in a connexion supposed by some of the ancients to
subsist between Dionysus and Adonis on the one hand (Plutarch, Symp., iv.
5, 3), and the God of the Jews on the other (on account, probably, of observ-
ances connected with the Feast of Tabernacles: ib. iv. 6, 2; Tacit. Hist., v. 5,
who, however, himself rejects the identification).

3.1.6. pp. 196-201.

10 Origin and Nature

that ‘Iam with the Horus figure is simply derived, as in the
previous cases, from the Old Testament, and its occurrence
in that connexion is merely a piece of religious syncretism,
such as meets us often elsewhere in Gnosticism, especially
when its home is in Egypt (pp. 205-207). Baudissin discusses
at the same time the identification of this "Iam with Dionysus
or Adonis, and the oracle of Apollo: his conclusion with
regard to the latter is that even if it be admitted to be the
work of a Greek in pre-Christian times?, it would not follow
that the ᾿Ιάω named in it was other than the God of the
Jews himself: and that consequently that name could not be
alleged as the source whence the Jewish Yahweh was derived.
The Greek *Idw, it may be concluded, is everywhere dependent
on the Hebrew TW “.

Professor Sayce, lastly, though, as we saw, not admitting
its Accadian origin, still attaches weight to Delitzsch’s
arguments for Yahu being the original and popular form ; and
expresses himself inclined to assign to it a Hittite origin.
How important the great Hittite empire of Kadesh on the
Orontes was in the ancient world we know now from many
sources. Hamath, Professor Sayce remarks, appears to have
been a sort of Hittite dependency: Abraham had dealings
with Hittites: David had not only a Hittite warrior, Uriah,
but was on friendly terms with a king of Hamath: the kings
of the Hittites are spoken of, long after David’s time, as
ready to give help to a king of Israel (2 Kings vii. 6);
and the inscriptions mention no names compounded with
yahu, except in Israel and Hamath. Yahweh, he concludes,

1 This oracle has been usually regarded as spurious, but the authority of
Lobeck has led it to be viewed in some quarters with greater favour; and it
is defended accordingly by Land (see the next note) and Lenormant (J. c.).
Kuenen, Leligion of Israel, i. 399 Β΄, argues strongly on the other side.

* The theory of a Canaanitish origin of the name 717) had been proposed in
a somewhat different form by J. P. N. Land in the Theol. Tijdschrift, 1868,
p. 156ff. It was criticized by Kuenen in 1869 (Religion of Israel, i. 400),
who pointed to the song of Deborah, as in his judgment conclusive against it.
Land's reply may be read in the Tijdschrist for 1869, p. 347 ff. Tiele, Histoire
Comparée des Anciennes Religions (1882), p. 349 f., agrees with Kuenen.

of the Tetragrammaton. ΤΙ

was as much the supreme God of Hamath as of Israel?,
Should this conjecture be discarded, he is disposed to fall back
on the view of Professor Robertson Smith (see below), that
the word denoted originally the sender of lightning or rain.

The general conclusion at which we arrive is, that while
there are no substantial grounds for abandoning the ordinary
view that yahu and yah are abbreviated forms of Yahweh, the
possibility of a foreign origin for the latter cannot, in face of
the Phcenician and other non-Israelitish names in which it
seems to appear, be altogether denied. This, indeed, is the
opinion of the most competent scholars of the present time.
Thus Hermann Schultz, writing in 1878 ?: ‘The opinion that
the word may once have been current in a wider circle of
peoples than Israel alone, cannot be said to be exactly refuted.’
While concluding himself that it is most probably of Hebrew
origin, he concedes that a different view is still tenable and
that the name ‘may have only acquired a definite religious
significance in Israel.’ Dillmann® and Delitzsch * express
themselves similarly: the latter remarking that more ought
perhaps, under the circumstances, to be granted than the
conclusion of Baudissin (p. 223) that the God of the Jews
was adopted by some of the neighbouring peoples into their
Pantheon. But, like Schultz, both these scholars are careful
to add, that, even if that be so, the name received in Moses’
hands an entirely new import ὅ,

τ Stade (Gesch. Israel’s, i. p. 130 f.) following Tiele (1. 6., p. 350 f.) conjectures
that it may have been borrowed by Moses from the Kenites. The Egyptian
anuk-pu-anuk, which was compared (after Brugsch) by Ebers, in Durch Gosen
zum Sinai, 1872, p. 528 (the note is omitted in the 2nd edition of 1882), is
declared by Le Page Renouf (Hibbert Lectures, 1879, p. 244 f.; Academy,
Xvii. (1880), p. 475) to mean I, even I, and not to be capable of the rendering
ich bin, der ich bin.

? Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 488 f.

" Exodus und Leviticus (1880), pp. 33 bottom, 34.

* Herzog’s Real-encyclopéddie, vi. (1880), article JEHOVAH, p. 507.

5 Kuenen expresses himself most emphatically against such theories as have
been here discussed, Hibbert Lectures (1882), pp. 58-61, 310f. And Dillmann,
notwithstanding his concessions to logical possibility, views them evidently with

disfavour. The history of the name (on Israelitish ground) prior to Exod. iii.
14 is uncertain. As is well known, the two main sources of the Pentateuch,

12 Origin and Nature

Assuming then Yahweh to be a derivative of MAN fo Ze,
we may proceed now to consider the signification attaching
to it. In form, Yas/weh belongs to a class of words hardly
found in Hebrew beyond a few proper names?, but used
somewhat more widely in Arabic and Syriac*, which are
considered to denote an object or person from some active or
prominent attribute. Jacob, the supplanter, Isaac, the laugher,
Jephthah, the opener, Jair, the illuminator, are familiar
examples of the same formation. Hebrew scholars will,
however, at once perceive that the vocalization Yahweh (which
we may here assume to be the correct one, or at least the
most probable by far that has been proposed *) may belong to
two conjugations or voices, may have a neuter or a causative
force, may express grammatically either 76 that is, or he that
causes to be. Formerly the name was supposed almost

P (the Priests’ Code) and J, differ in their representation of the antiquity of
the name: in J it is used from the beginning (cf. Gen. iv. 26), P consistently
eschews it till Ex. vi. 3. (The passage Ex. iii. 9-14 is assigned by critics to
E.) But though promulgated anew, and with a fresh sanction, by Moses, it
can hardly have been unknown before, though its use may have been more
limited. It is an old and not improbable conjecture of Ewald’s (Iist., ii.
Ῥ. 150f.), based partly on the name of Moses’ mother Yochebed, partly on the
early occurrence of the abbreviated form Yah (in the Song, Ex. xv. 2), and
confirmed by the singular expression in the same verse, ‘God of my father’
(ef. iii. 6, xviil. 4), that the name was current in the family of Moses (comp.
Delitzsch, Genesis, p. 29 f.; Dillmann, pp. 28, 54); see also, now, Konig, Die
Hauptprobleme der altisraelitischen Religionsgesch., 1884, p. 27. The derivation
of προ is obscure: but philological reasons are decisive against the
opinion that it means shown of Yah; for not only are proper names com-
pounded with participles almost unknown in Hebrew, but a transition such
as that from 79879, which such a compound would have given (cf. ΠΡΌΣ,
mpm) to ΠΡ Ὁ, is altogether without precedent: where does the disappear-
ance of x lengthen a preceding vowel, or indeed take place at all after a
quiescent shwa’? (Comp. Delitzsch on Qoh., xii. 5.)

1 See Olshausen, Lehrbuch, § 277g; Stade, Lehrbuch (1879), § 259.

* Dietrich, Abhandlungen zur Hebr. Grammatik (1846), pp. 136-151.

® See the correspondence between Dietrich and Delitzsch (bearing in par-
ticular on the vocalization of the second syllable), published recently in Stade’s
Zisch, fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1883, pp. 280-290: 1884, pp. 21-28.

On the origin of the form ΠΙΠῚ, which appears on the margin, and sometimes
also in the text, of Greek MSS. of the Old Testament (cf. Field, Hexapla, on
Ps. xxy. 1), and which passed thence into Syriac MSS., see, in addition to
Jerome, Lp. 136 ad Marcellam, the Scholion of Jacob of Edessa (a.p, 675),
published with explanations by Nestle, in the ZDMG. xxxii. (1878), pp. 465-
508 (also p. 735 f. and xxxiii. 297 ff.).

of the Tetragrammaton. ἧς

universally to convey the sense ἦ6 that is, but latterly there
has been a growing consensus in favour of he that causes to be,
Not, indeed, that this interpretation is a new one; it is as
old as Le Clere, who, in his Commentary on Exod. vi. 3 (1696),
both gives the pronunciation Yahweh, and explains the name
as=yeveo.ovpyov. In more modern times the same view has
been favoured (in some instances independently) by authorities
of considerable weight: it was thrown out as a suggestion by
Gesenius! in 1839 (creator or life-giver), and is adopted by
Land ?, Lagarde 5, Kuenen*, Schrader®, Baudissin °, Nestle’,
H. Schultz’, Tiele®. Not by all, however, quite in the same
sense. Kuenen, for instance, interprets the name as denoting
the giver of existence: Schrader and Schultz as the giver of
life and deliverance: Lagarde and Nestle, following Le Clere 1°,
as he who bringeth to pass, 1.6. the performer of his promises.
Lagarde finds similarly in Exod. vi, in the contrast between
Lt Shaddai and Yahweh, the transition from the idea of God’s
might to that of his covenant faithfulness. The thought is a
suggestive one; but even in this, the most favourable form
of the causative view, there are difficulties which are a
serious obstacle to our accepting it.

It is true that 77 is used of the fulfilment of a promise
or prediction (1 Kings xiii. 32 ὝΣ ΓΙ FT AT 53), but hardly

1 Thesaurus, p. 577 note. 2 L.c., 1868, p. 158 (de levengever, Schepper).

3 ZDMG. xxii. (1868), p. 331; Symmicta, i. 104: supported with further
arguments in the Psalterium jucta Hebraeos Hieronymi (1874), p. 153 ff. (ori-
ginally creator) and Oriautalia, ii. (1886), pp. 27-30. [G@étt. Gel. Anz., 1885,
p. 91: ‘He who calls into existence the events of history, whence the idea
of performer of promises must have necessarily developed.’ |

* Religion of Israel, i. 279, 398 (΄ probably ’).

5 In Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon, s.v. 6 Lc. (1876), p. 229.

7 Isr. Higennamen, p. 88 f. 8 Lc. (1878), p. 487 ff.

9 Histoire Comparee, etc., p. 345 (Celui qui fait étre: the explanation Je suis
celui qui suts is an adaptation, not the primitive sense of the word).

10 «Uno verbo Graece non ineleganter dixeris γενεσιουργὸν existentiae effec-
torem, qua voce Clemens Alexandrinus aliique Patres usi sunt, ut significetur
ὃς τὴν γένεσιν πάντων ἐργάζεται. The Patriarchs, he continues, had known
God as El Shaddai, but had not seen the fulfilment of his promises which ‘jam
(aym2) ut esset facturus erat, Hine Deus hic orationem orditur his erbis
mim ‘2x, hoe est, is sum qui re praestiturus sum quod olim promisi.’

14 Origin and Nature

in the abstract, without the object of the promise being indi-
cated in the context: and the fact that scarcely any Semitic
language uses the causative form of 77, whether in the sense
of creating or bringing to pass, appears to make it additionally
improbable'. The same lexical consideration tells further
against the view that the name had in its origin, before it
was spiritualized as in Exodus, some other causative force, such
as, e.g. he who causes to fall (se. rain, or lightning’). It is
true, as Arabic shows, that ¢o fa// was almost certainly the
primitive meaning of the root; it even occurs once with this
sense in Hebrew?: but it is questionable whether the causal
form used absolutely would have conveyed such a special
meaning as this, without the object being distinctly expressed.
Rather, as Professor W. H. Green observes*, it would signify
the destroyer—6;8\ is used in the Qor’an (53, 54) of God’s
ruining or throwing down the cities of the Plain.

1 The exception is in the case of Syriac: but even there, to judge by Payne
Smith’s Thesaurus, the use is rare, the few examples given being of late date,
and apparently artificial formations such as Syriac lends itself to readily, so
that they justify no inference as to what may have been the usage some 2000
years previously. The question has been recently a subject of controversy in
Germany. Delitzsch, in the Zeitschr. fiir Luth. Theologie, 1877, p. 593 ff.,
criticizing the explanation of 717 as a hifil, had observed that whenever, in
post-Biblical times, a causative of 717 was required (in philosophical termin-
ology) the piel was the form employed; and quotes an explanation of 17» by
Aaron ben Elijah, of Nicomedia, the Karaite (in his D»n yy, written in 1346,
and published by Delitzsch in 1841 in the Anekdota zur Gesch. der mittelalter-
lichen Scholastik, p. 93) as the 717 59 7172 ΣΡ, the source of all being.
Nestle, in the Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, 1878, p. 126 ff., answers
that this explanation of n)7» by the piel may have been determined by the
shwa@ under the », and appeals in support of its having been a hifil to the
examples in Syriac. He appears, however, to make more of these latter
than they deserve. Lagarde’s most recent discussion of the subject is in his
Orientalia, ii. (1880), p. 28f., which is in fact a reply to Delitzsch, though
that scholar is not named. It remains a possibility that 717» may have had a
causal idea, but the arguments advanced by Lagarde do not appear to me to
have made it probable. Even Schultz, though inclined to regard the causal
sense with favour, nevertheless expresses himself with reserve, when he says
(p. 487), ‘It cannot be denied that the view has great probability: but in no
case can it be regarded as certain.’

2 W. Robertson Smith, Old Test. in the Jewish Church, p. 423.

8 Job xxxvii. 6. See Fleischer in Delitzsch’s Commentary (Engl. Tr.) ; or
Dr. Wright’s luminous note in the Trans. Bibl. Arch. Soc., iii. (1874), p. 104 ff.

* Moses and the Prophets (New York, 1883), p. 42.

of the Tetragrammaton. 15

It appears then that Yahweh cannot be safely regarded
except as a neuter (ga/); and we must take as our guide in
its interpretation the parallel passage in Exod. i, which,
indeed, is clearly meant as an exposition of what it implies.

In an instructive essay on this question, in the British and
Foreign Evangelical Review for 1876, Professor Robertson Smith
observes that the modern disposition to look on Yahweh as a
causal form is in large measure a protest against the abstract
character of the exegesis of Exod. 11.14. A double exegetical
tradition, he proceeds to remark, is connected with that verse,
the Palestinian, deriving from it the idea of God’s eternity and
immutability, and the Hellenistic or Alexandrian, deriving
from it the idea of his absolute nature (already in LXX. ὁ ὦ»).
Either of these views, but especially the latter, assigns to the
revelation an improbably abstract, metaphysical character, and
moreover does not do justice to the word or the tense employed.
M7 is γίγνομαι, not εἰμί ; and FPOAN suggests the meaning
come to be, or will be, rather than am. The phrase denotes thus
not γέγονα ὃ γέγονα, but either γίγνομαι ὃ γίγνομαι or ἔσομαι ὃ
ἔσομαι. This was seen by Franz Delitzsch! and Oehler’, who,
adopting the former of these alternatives, observe that the name
does not express fixity, but change,—not, however, a change
regulated by ecaprice, but by design and conscious choice—
‘7 am,—not that which fate or caprice may determine, but—
‘that I am, what my own character determines. It implies
that God’s nature cannot be expressed in terms of any other
substance, but can be measured only by itself (cf. the phrases
iv. 13; xxxili. 19; 2 Kings vill. 1). But further, since 7
is not mere existence, but emerging into reality (werden,
γίγνομαι, come to pass), it implies a living and active per-
sonality, not a God of the past only, but of the future, one
whose name cannot be defined, but whose nature it is ever to
express itself anew, ever to manifest itself under a fresh aspect

1 Commentar iiber die Genesis (1872), pp. 26, 60 (der Begriff des V. 77, oder
mn, nicht sowol der des ruhenden, als des bewegten Seins, oder der Selbst-
bethitigung ist, w.s.w.).

* Theology of the Old Testament, § 39.

τό Origin and Nature

(ein immer im Werden sich kundgebendes), whose relation to
the world is one of ever progressive manifestation (in stetem
lebendigem Werden begriffen ist). It denotes him, in a word,
not as a transcendental abstraction, but as one who enters into
an historical relation with humanity.

If we interpret 7°T7N as a future, we get a somewhat
different meaning. This rendering is found in Rashi (eleventh
eentury), who paraphrases ‘ J τοῦδ be with them in this affliction
what I will be with them in the subjection of their future
captivities’.’ So Ewald, in his last work? (regarding Exod. iii.
as an effort to import new meaning into a word the sense of
which had become obscure and forgotten), explains ‘J will be
it,’ viz. the performer of his promises; ver. 12, God says, ‘I
will be with thee;’ ver. 14 explains how: ‘J wil/ be it! I
(viz.) who will be it, will be, viz. what I have promised and
said. This is the view adopted also by Professor Smith,
though he construes more simply, ‘I will be what I will be.’
From the use of 7 wi// de just afterwards by itself, he argues
that TIN WR is epexegetical and not part of the name
itself. He next points out how this J wil/ de rings throughout
the Bible,—‘I will be with thee, with them, their God, ete., and
finds in this often-repeated phrase the key to the name here.
‘I will be’—something which lies implicitly in the mind of
him who uses the name: in the mouth of the worshipper, ‘ He
will be it, an assertion of confidence in Jehovah as a God who
will not fail or disappoint his servants: in one word, 716 will
approve himself. At the same time what he will be is left

' The paraphrase is suggested evidently by Berachoth, οὐ (quoted in the
commentaries ad loc.) :---Ὁ ΠΣ 1198 79 ΠῸ Ὁ) TA’ pA ΓΝ WAR ION WTR
ἼΩΝ ΠῚ 32 WIYW] DIOY WAN IN) ΠῚ Dayw2 DIDyY ony ON SRI)
Mas OT WON 79 ΠῚ ΡΠ 0) JOR ANNya ΠῚ.) ΠῚ ὈΝῚ Fw 19739 2Dd
Dx πῆ, Similarly, Jehudah ha-Levi (twelfth century), who, commenting
on ΠΝ, Cusart, iv. 3 (p. 262, ed. Buxtorf: p. 304, ed. Cassel), writes :—
TON) DNW WRI) NYPD) NYPD WR OYYT ninpRA DWM ϑΊΣ) ΟΝ 12 m1)
ΟΝ 705 ΠῸ Ὑλ Τ᾽ DV Now ΠῸ wad od AD OND ITIP ὙῸ Ὁ ADD NI
MAR TOR WIE) AAR OT) WORX ἽΝ NSD NIT) Ὁ) SxwN ΠῚ ANd ἽΝ ΟΠ
BOT 79172 TNT WPI Ox ΟΥΌΡ2 Ὁ NYA OT NEON WR NVI DPD

299090)9ap) OADY
2 Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott (1873), ii. p. 337f.

of the Tetragrammaton. 17

undefined, or defined only in terms of himself, for the very
reason that his providential dealings with his people in their
ever-varying needs are inexhaustible—are more than can be
numbered or expressed. The vagueness is intentional, as
when Moses says, ‘Send now by the hand of him that thou
sendest,’ i.e. send me, then, if it must be so. So here, ‘I will
be that which I am to be’ to you: what I have promised and
you look for; I will approve myself—though ow he will
approve himself is an ἀνεκφωνητόν. And in Hos. i. g Professor
Smith finds an allusion to the phrase, ‘I will save Judah
by (or as) Jehovah their God;’ but to Ephraim he says, ‘ Ye
are not my people, and J wi// not be for you.’ The promise
made to Moses is there withdrawn from Ephraim.

This view is, undoubtedly, an attractive one. Dillmann,
indeed, objects that the principal fact, viz. what Jehovah will
prove himself, is not expressed, but must be supplied in
thought: but the substantive verb may well be understood
in a pregnant sense, give evidence of being. It differs, however,
but slightly from that of Oehler and Delitzsch. The essential
point in both is that they see in 7177 not the idea of abstract
existence (such as is denoted by the unfortunate rendering ¢/e
Eternal), but of active being, manifestation in history. The
principal difference is that on the one view this is conceived as
realized in history at large: on the other, in the history of Israel
in particular. On the whole, the meaning of 717 and TN
MAN WN may probably be best explained as follows:
Mim denotes He that is—is, viz. implying not one who barely
exists, but one who asserts his being, and (unlike the false
gods) enters into personal relations with his worshippers. He
who in the mouths of men, however, can only be spoken of as
He is becomes, when he is speaking in his own person, L az ;
and the purport of the phrase in ii. 14 15, firstly, to show
that the divine nature is indefinable, it can be defined ade-
quately only by itself; and secondly, to show that God, being
not determined by anything external to himself, is consistent
with himself, true to his promises, and unchangeable in his

ο

18 Origin and Nature

purposes. The latter aspect of the name became certainly
prominent afterwards: and the prophets, by many allusions},
show that they saw in it the expression of moral unchange-
ableness’”.

To sum up briefly the substance of what has been said.
The theories of the origin of the name, or the meaning once
attached to it, relate to the time prior to Exod. 111. 14: their
truth would in no way invalidate or affect the revelation there
given, so that they may be considered impartially upon their
own merits. Upon their own merits they cannot be regarded
as established. The theory ofan Accadian origin unquestionably
breaks down ; the theory of some other non-Israelitish origin
rests, at least at present, upon an insecure foundation, and is
rejected by the most competent Old Testament scholars of
every shade of theological opinion. The ᾿Ιάω of the Greek
writers is late; and nothing can be built upon it till it has
been shown not to be derivable from the Old Testament tradi-
tion itself. The Hamathite and Phoenician names cannot be
explained away: the possiility of a point of contact with non-
Israelites remains ; but we await further discoveries. So much
for the name, as a name. Then as to the meaning. The
possibility of a stage in which the name denoted the author of
some physical phenomenon is undeniable. There is no positive
evidence adducible in its favour; though some minds may be
influenced by the weight of analogy. Similarly, though from
the time when Exod. 111. was written, the name must have been
understood by Jews in the neutral sense ὁ γιγνόμενος, the
possibility of a prior stage when it was interpreted in the
sense [le that causeth to be (or to come to pass) must be con-
ceeded. More than this cannot be said: positive evidence is
again not fortheoming. Indeed, the advocates of this opinion
hardly contend for more: both Kuenen and Schultz, for
instance, speak very cautiously. The considerations advanced
in support of the theories which have been discussed are not, I

1 B.g. Isa. xxvi. 4, 8, xli. 4; Hos. xii. 6; Mal. iii. 6.
2 Comp. Philippi, /.c. p.179f.; Dillmann, p. 35, both of whom regard the
word as having the sense of a Qal.

of the Tetragrammaton. 19

venture to think, sufficiently strong to render them plausible :
no ground appears at present to exist for questioning either
the purely Israelitish origin of the Tetragrammaton, or the
explanation of its meaning which is given in Exod. iii. 14.

Coin found near Gaza, referred to on page 5.

The following is Mr. Poole’s description :—

‘ Obv. Bearded male head, three-quarter face towards r., in crested Corinthian
helmet. 2

‘Rev. HAA (7). Deity resembling the Greek Zeus, clad in mantle, seated
r. in a car to the axle of which wings are attached, holds in r. eagle or hawk ;
in front, below head of Bes or of a Satyr 1.; the whole in a dotted square,
Silver. Weight 50-7 grains.

‘Published by J. P. Six in the Numismatic Chronicle, 1877, p.229, as struck
probably at Gaza, but for this there is no authority. See also Combe, Vet. pop.
et regum numi qui in Mus. Brit. adservantur (1814), p. 242°, and pl. xiii, 12;
De Luynes, La Numismatique des Satrapies et de la Phénicie (1846), p. 29'»
and pl. iv. (‘‘Sohar”).

‘The legends in Phcenician and Aramaic characters on coins give (a) names
of kings or satraps: (Ὁ) names of towns or gods of towns, so specified,—besides
dates; generally (a) and (4) are combined on the different sides of the same
coin. I know of no instance of the name of a god occurring without the
qualification of the name of the mint, as Baal-Tarz on coins of Tarsus. I am,
therefore, inclined to read 17 asa proper name. That the reading is correct
I am not sure, as the form of the second letter is strange for 7.’

Respecting the origin and use of bx and its relation to pdx,
a discussion has recently arisen in Germany which is sufficiently
cognate to the subject of the preceding essay to be mentioned here,
and which deserves the attention of those interested in such questions.
It is contained in the following articles: 1. Lagarde, Orientalia,
ii. (1880), pp. 3-10 [connects Sx not with Siw but with by];
2. Noldeke in the Monatsberichte der Kin.-Pr. Akad. der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin for 1880, pp. 760-776 [adduces evidence, chiefly
from inscriptions, to show that the vowel in £/ was originally

C 2

20 Origin and Nature of the Tetragrammaton.

long|; 3. Lagarde in the Géttingische Nachrichten, 1882, pp. 173-
192 (= Mittheilungen, 1884, pp. 94-106), [reply to No. 2]; 4. Nestle
in the Theol. Studien aus Wiirttemberg, 1882, Heft iv. pp. 243-258
[ conjectures ods to be the plural of bx]; 5. Néldeke in the
Sitzungsberichte of the same Berlin Academy, 1882, pp. 1175-1192
[criticism of No. 4, and answer to No. 3]; 6. Lagarde in the
Mittheilungen, pp. 107-111 and 222-224. The course taken by
the discussion has been indicated in outline; but no abstract of
the argument is here attempted: the field covered by it is so wide
that in order to be properly appreciated it must be studied zn
eatenso*.

My friend, Mr. 1). 5. Margoliouth, of New College, while examining
an Ethiopic MS. recently acquired by the Bodleian Library (MSS.
Aeth. 9. 5), and containing the same Preces magicae xii discipulorum
as No. 78 in Dillmann’s Catalogue of the Ethiopic MSS. of the

3ritish Museum, has observed M17) vocalized almost exactly as by
Epiphanius and Theodoret (Ἰαβέ). The passage occurs (fol. 6?) in
a list of magical names of Christ said to have been given by him to
his disciples. As the context is curious, I transcribe a portion of

it (vocalization unchanged) :—

DAPPL AGU: VICI, ἀπο ευ": APY NYA:
Gf; fre: NA: OME: BAVTAA: NYA: SPA:
“696. POLES. σῶς ASML: ρῶς AA: NYA: 2RAZ
AGG: NYAS WL: MTEL: NLA: TAR: AA:
AA: NYAS NAR: Wr AN: NYA! τα υ: AAPY:
ALAS OFC. NV... PBS PESO: ἐσ): ee

‘And after that he told them his names : /yéhé, i.e. terrible ;
Sirahé, i.e. great ; Demn@él, i.e. mighty;...... Meryon, i.e. all-
watching ; O’e, i.e. helper; Aphrdn, i.e. saviour; Manédtér, i.e.
shepherd ; CEL, hI: protector of all; Axhdé, i.e. patient ; Elohé,
1. 6. supporter of all;...... Ydwé, Yawé, i.e. faithful (and) just.’

? See also Professor Francis Brown’s note in the Preshyterian Review (New
York), 1882, pp. 404-407; and (still more recently) M. Halévy in the Revue
des Etudes juives, 1884 (ix), pp. 175-180 (pp. 161-174 on 77>, maintaining
its Israelitish origin, and explaining nearly in the sense of Rashi).

ΠΡ

THE LIGHT
THROWN BY THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION
ON THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL.

[F. H. Woops. ]

TuE object of the following paper is to attempt to give
a fair estimate of the value of the LXX as a critical autho-
rity with special reference to the Books of Samuel; and at
the same time to point out the most important passages In
which that version throws light upon the original text, or
the manner of its composition. The limits required in a
paper of this kind compelled me in most cases to select only
a few examples by way of illustration, and made a more
complete view of the subject impossible.

The critical value of the LXX rests mainly on the fact
of its great antiquity. At the lowest computation it must
be many centuries older than the oldest existing Hebrew MS.,
and some centuries older than any other translation of the
Hebrew text. Again its extreme literalness, in these books
especially, gives it often much of the value which an actual
Hebrew MS. would possess. Hebrew phrases are represented
with an exactness which is defiant of Greek idiom and not
unfrequently of Greek grammar as well. Such phrases as ἐξ
ἡμερῶν els ἡμέρας, τ Sam. 1. 33 καὶ προσέθετο ἔτι... ὀμόσαι,
1 Sam. xx. 17 3 καὶ ἀπηγγέλη τῷ βασιλεῖ Δαυίδ, λέγοντες, 2 Sam.
‘vi.12; and ὥσπερ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὥσπερ αὐτούς, 2 Sam. xxiv. 3, enable
us easily to reproduce the Hebrew text from which they are
translated, and examples of such a kind might be multiplied
indefinitely. In much the same way even the imperfect

22 The Text of the

knowledge of Hebrew which the translators frequently ex-
hibit is often a real gain to the critical student. The
translations of 52 by ἐν ἐμοί in 1 Sam. i. 26 and SDM by
προστεθήσεσθε in 1 Sam. xii, 25 (ef. xxvii. 1) are just such
mistakes as a Hebrew novice might make. But in all such
cases it 1s easy enough to see what is the reading which the
LXX represents, and at the same time the disregard of an
intelligible sense, in their scrupulous desire to reproduce
exactly the Hebrew original, shows that the translators
would never have altered the text to improve the meaning.
Whenever they appear to have done so, we must assume,
either that the LXX text represents a different reading of
the Hebrew, or that the MS. which they translated from was
defective. In another way also the imperfect knowledge of
the translators serves the Biblical critic a good turn. They
frequently transliterated the Hebrew words which they were
unable to translate, showing again their almost supersti-
tious anxiety to give an exact equivalent to the Hebrew.
Thus in 1 Sam. 11, 18 we find ἐφοὺδ B46, though curiously
enough the words are rendered στολὴν ἔξαλλον in 2 Sam. vi.
14, pointing perhaps to the work of a different translator or
a later reviser. The words Ἱερίμ in 1 Sam. xv. 3, 8, and
Νάβαλ in 2 Sam. iil. 33, 34 are evidently regarded as proper
names'. Sometimes transliterations were made because
the Hebrew words, being of a technical character, or for
other reasons, were too well known to require translation.
Thus such a phrase as ᾿Αδωναὶ σαβαώθ in 1 Sam. i. 11
is to be accounted for, and perhaps also νέβελ in i. 24.
A more remarkable feature is the occasional representation of
a Hebrew by a Greek word, which happens to have a similar
sound, though no philological connexion. Thus in 1 Sam,

* Other examples are Meood in I. xiv, 1, 6, 11, 12; épyaB, xx, 19; εἰς τὴν
ἀματταρί (7725) in xx, 20; ἀραφώθ and σαφώθ in II. xvii. 19, 29. Not unfre-
quently we find the Hebrew word side by side with the translation, either pre-
ceding or following it, one of the two being the insertion of a later reviser, as
τὰ ἐμπρόσθια (ἀμαφέθ), I. v, 4; θέμα (épyaB), vi. 11, 15; (Ἰάαλ) δρυμός, xiv. 25 ;
θεοῦ πίστις (φελλανὶ μαεμωνί), xxi. 2; συνεχόμενος (veecapdy), xxi. 7; (Μέσσερα)
στενήν, XXiV, 23,

Books of Samuel. 23

ν. 4 ῥάχις seems to have been suggested by Pp, and νυκτι-
κόραξ is the translation of SP in xxvi. 207.

Unfortunately we have certain drawbacks to set against
these advantages of the LXX. In the first place the Hebrew
MS., or MSS., employed by the translators, appear to have
been in several places illegible, or at least defective. To
this is due in a large measure the constant misrepresentation
of names of persons and places, the interpreters not being
able, as with ordinary words, to guess the meaning by what
they expected to find. In this way only can we account for
such renderings as εἰς δουλείαν in 1 Sam. xiv. 40 and ἐπάνω
διακοπῶν in 2 Sam. v. 20. Again, the translators’ imperfect
knowledge of the language they were translating, if it has
some advantage, as already maintained, has also some dis-
advantages. They occasionally seem to have omitted words or
passages which they were unable to translate. This is the
most natural way of accounting for the omissions of 1 Sam.
xii. 1 and 2 Sam.i.18. The first is interesting as showing
that the absence in the Hebrew of the numbers describing
Saul’s age and length of reign must belong to a very ancient
condition of the text.

The greatest hindrance, however, to the use of the LXX
for critical purposes is that the Greek text is itself obviously
in a very different state from that in which it left the trans-
lators’ hands. And we hope to show satisfactorily that many
of the peculiar readings of the LXX, as we now have it, are not
the fault of the translators, but have been introduced into the
Greek text at a later date. The two oldest and best complete
MSS. of the LXX are the Alexandrian (A) and the Vatican(B)?.
These differ in some cases very considerably from each other.
It is, however, prettiy clear, by a comparison of each with the
Masoretic text, that A has been revised by reference to the
Hebrew, and so represents a later recension of the Greek text

τ We find similar examples in the translation of ΤΠ by τόκος in Ps. lv. 12,
Ixxii. 145 AID by τρόφη, Ps. exi. 5; and ip by τοπάζιον in Ps. cxix. 127.

3 The Sinaitic (x) contains only a fragment of 1 Chron, and the greater part
of the poetical and prophetical books.

24 The Text of the

than B, though in a few isolated cases (as in 1 Sam. x. 12;
Xiv. 20,41; 2 Sam. xxi. 1) the reading of B is evidently a
corruption of A. We are therefore justified in general in
taking B rather than A as the basis for comparative criticism.

Now if we compare B with the Masoretic text, we shall
find that it contains a large number of short passages not
found in the latter. By far the majority of these are alter-
native renderings of some passage already otherwise trans-
lated, and have most probably been inserted into the text
from marginal glosses. The Hexapla, and other similar
editions of Origen, no doubt, did much to produce this result.
In the Book of Judges many of the passages so inserted are
known to be from the translation of Theodotion. These
alternatives are in most cases easily detected, as, for example,
in I Sam. 11. 24; 2 Sam. v. 15, 16. One of the alternatives,
generally the first in order, usually agrees nearly with the
Masoretic text. Sometimes, however, both alternatives differ
from it considerably, as in 1 Sam. xxi. 13. Not unfrequently
one of the alternatives is derived from a different reading
of the Hebrew text, and differs considerably from the other,
so that at first sight it appears to be an arbitrary insertion.
Thus in 2 Sam. 11. 22, 23, καὶ ποῦ ἐστι ταῦτα; ἐπίστρεφε πρὸς
᾿Ιωάβ is merely an alternative of καὶ πῶς... Ἰωάβ, the former
being probably a translation of νυ τὸν ap by TN, the
latter agreeing verbally with the Masoretic text; so also ἐν
ἰσχύϊ in 2 Sam. vi. 5 is the alternative of ἐν ὀργάνοις ἧρμοσ-
μένοις, as shown by verse 14, where the latter alone is the
rendering of the Hebrew jy 58; Μολχόμ in 2 Sam.
ΧΙ]. 30, ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ in 2 Sam. xiv. 6, τοῦτο ἐγὼ ἄρξομαι
in 2 Sam. xvill. 14, καὶ ἐπίγνωθι σεαυτῷ in 2 Sam. xix. 7,
are alternatives of a similar kind! In some cases an
attempt has been made to combine the alternatives into one
sentence, as in 2 Sam. xviii. 18, by the insertion of the
words ἐν 7 between the alternatives ἔλαβε... στήλην and

* See also 1 Sam, xiv. 47; 2 Sam. xv. 34; xix. 7, 18, 43; xx.18. In the last
καὶ ἐν Δὰν (+73) is evidently a corruption of 73}.

Books of Samuet. 25

ἐλήφθη... . στήλην, and the alteration of ἕκαστοι (B) into
ἕκαστον (Α) in I Sam. v. 4.

Besides these alternative renderings we find several clauses
which are evidently additions to the original text. These
are very various in kind. Thus the clauses καὶ otvov καὶ
μέθυσμα οὐ πίεται, καὶ πάσας Tas δεκάτας τῆς γῆς αὐτοῦ, and
καὶ ἄρτοις, in I Sam. 1. II, 21, 24, appear to be additions
derived from the Levitical law, not unlike the references to
fasting so frequently inserted in the MSS. of the New Tes-
tament. In other cases insertions have been made to give
greater fulness to the narrative, where the concise form of the
story much better accords with the spirit of the Hebrew
language. Of this we have a remarkable example in the
words of David to Goliath in 1 Sam. xvil. 43, in answer to
Goliath’s question ὡσεὶ κύων ἐγώ εἰμι, οὔο, Can we imagine that
any Hebrew writer would have put in David’s mouth such
a tame reply as οὐχί, GAN ἢ χείρων κυνός ὃ The words καὶ
πορεύεσθε... ἐνώπιόν μου, in 1 Sam. xxix. ΤΟ, appear to be an
insertion of a similar kind. The long insertion in 2 Sam. xi.
22, πάντα τὰ pyuata...TO τεῖχος, is evidently an expansion of
the narrative derived almost verbatim from verses 19-211.
Such insertions are obviously analogous to the later para-
phrastic expansions of the Targums, and are probably due
to the influence of the oral teaching of Jewish Scripture.
In many cases the insertion has been made of historical
notes referring to a later stage of Jewish history, as in
2 Sam. vill. 7, ὃ: xiv. 27; xxiv. 25. Insertions of this
kind may be the work of a later reviser, whether of the
Hebrew text from which the LXX was made, or of the
LXX translation itself, it is impossible to determine with
certainty. The interpolation, however, of ὅτι μείζων... πρώτη
in 2 Sam. xill. 15, suggested probably by our Lord’s words

1 The insertions διδοὺς εὐχὴν τῷ εὐχομένῳ in 1.11.9, οὐχὶ πορεύσομαι... Ἰσραήλ
and tis... ὅς in xvii. 36, καὶ γυναῖκα in xxx. 2, and ἀπὸ Δὰν ἕως Βηρσαβεὲ in
II. vi. 19, 6 ποιήσας τοῦτο in xii. 7, καὶ ἐξελέξατο... πυρῶν in xxiv. 15, are
probably expansions of a similar kind,

26 The Text of the

in Matt. xii. 45, seems to show that additions of this kind
were sometimes made at a very late date. We may compare
with this last the remarkable insertion, in Ps. xiv, of the
quotations in Rom. iii, 13-18, and of Jer. ix. 23, 24 in
1 Sam. ii. το. The last, differing as it does verbally from
the LXX text of Jeremiah, must either be derived from a
Hebrew source or from an independent translation of the
Hebrew.

It seems hardly consistent with the evident aim of the
translators to represent with such scrupulous accuracy the
Hebrew original, to suppose that any of these interpolations
were added at the time of the translation. But, whatever
be their origin, they are in most cases easy to detect, and
cannot be considered to detract very materially from the
critical value of the LXX. We now come to others which
have more the character of variae lectiones. First, we may
notice the addition of some word, such as the name of the
person or place referred to, or some other short phrase, to
complete the sense, as ἐπὶ Ἰσραήλ in 1 Sam. xv. 23, 6 βλέπων
in 1 Sam. xvi. 4, Ἰεβοσθέ in 2 Sam. iv. 2. On the other
hand, we frequently find expressions of the same kind in the
Masoretic text, and not in the LXX; so that, if we apply
in such cases the canon by which the shorter reading is to
be preferred to the longer, we must often accept the reading
of the LXX to the exclusion of that contained in the Maso-
retic text. There is little doubt, therefore, that we should
omit such readings as san-pd in Sam. xxii. 19b, bap in
EY. 10, qban-bx in xxvi, 14, ;NIM. in 2 Sam. iv. 12 ἢ.
The omissions in 1 Sam. xxix. 9, xxx. 7 are more doubtful.

There are also many instances in which an apparent in-
sertion of the LXX ends or begins with the same, or nearly
the same, words as have lately occurred, and should therefore
more probably be regarded as an omission in the Masoretic
text from /omeoteleuton. This will be easily recognised as
the true explanation of the omissions of εἰς ἄρχοντα... ἔχρισέ σε

Κύριος in 1 Sam. x. 1, καὶ προσάγουσι τὴν φυλὴν Marrapi εἰς

Books of Samuel. ay

ἄνδρας 1n X. 21, καὶ ἀναβαίνουσιν ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραήλ and καὶ τὸ κατά-
λειμμα. ... Γαλγάλων in xi. 5,15. It is extremely improbable
that Samuel would have gone, as the Hebrew text of this
last passage has it, to Gibeah, Saul’s home, instead of his
own home at Ramah; whereas Gibeah was the most natural
place for the assembling of Saul’s forces, as it is stated in the
LXX, and the place where, according to the next verse, we
actually find them. This is doubtless too the true explana-
tion of the additional clauses, τί ὅτι... τῷ λαῷ σου ᾿Ισραήλ in
1 Sam. xiv. 41, which not only make what in the Masoretic
text is unintelligible quite clear, but throw a most interest-
ing light on the use of the Urim and Thummim as a sort of
sacred lots, δῆλοι being a frequent rendering of O° VIN in the
LXX (e.g. xxvill. 6), and ὁσιότης being here obviously a ᾿
representative of OOM. In this instance we must, with A,
omit the words δὸς δή, a curious insertion from δὸς δήλους
above. I must leave it to others to decide whether we
should on similar grounds accept ὃν dv... υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ in verse 42,
or regard it as one of those paraphrastic expansions above
noticed. We have also good examples of omission by
homeoteleuton in the Masoretic text of 2 Sam, xiil. 21 and 34.

It frequently happens, however, that what at first sight
look like omissions from this cause in the Hebrew prove, on
closer examination, to be merely alternative renderings of
the LXX, because, from the nature of the case, these alterna-
tives generally begin or end with the same words as the
clauses to which they correspond. Thus in 1 Sam. xv. 3,
καὶ ἐξολοθρεύσεις... ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ is clearly an alternative of καὶ
πατάξεις... ἐξ αὐτοῦ, and we have no reason therefore to depart
from the Masoretic text. In 2 Sam. xv. 18, which will be
noticed again lower down, and in xix. 18 we have striking
examples of the same ambiguity. There are other cases in
which the additions of the LXX are probably accidental in-
sertions, because we can trace the sources from which they
appear to be derived. Thus in 2 Sam, xiii. 27, the words

la /
καὶ ἐποίησεν ᾿Αβεσσαλὼμ πότον κατὰ τὸν πότον τοῦ βασιλέως

28 VD AGED Rt

may have been inserted from 1 Sam. xxv. 36, the only other
shearing feast described in the Old Testament. Similarly in
2 Sam. xix. 10 the words καὶ τὸ ῥῆμα παντὸς ᾿Ισραὴλ ἦλθε
πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα are clearly derived from the eleventh verse,
In both these passages, however, the differences in the word-
ing of the Greek show that the insertions must have already
existed in the Hebrew MS. from which the Septuagint trans-
lation was made!

On the other hand, we find several passages in which the
LXX itself omits clauses by homeoteleuton which are found
in the Masoretic text. We have more or less certain examples
of this in 1. Sam. 11. 32, xxv. 13, xxvi. 5, xxxi. 6, 2 Sam. xvi.
16, xvii. 18. If we accept the genuineness of the Maso-
retic text in all such cases, we ought in fairness to accept
the so-called additions of the LXX where their insertion
cannot be adequately accounted for, and their omission may
be traced to such a frequent source of textual corruption.

Some few of the additions in the LXX are, on the other
hand, insertions from homeoteleuton. Thus in 2 Sam. vil. 25,
the words Κύριε παντοκράτωρ Θεὲ τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ have been in-
serted from verse 27, where they rightly follow the words
ἕως αἰῶνος. In 2 Sam. xi. 18 there is a similar insertion
of the words λαλῆσαι πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα from verse 19. And
we find an example of precisely the same sort of insertion
in the Masoretic text in 2 Sam. vi. 3 and 4, where a com-
parison with the LXX shows that the words MYA... WWM
have got into the text from the same cause. For, had the
LXX reading been the result of an omission from homaote-
Teuton, that version would have read the words τὴν καίνην
after ἅμαξαν in verse 4.

There are some passages in which the LXX is more than
a critical authority in determining the text, and throws
important light on the way in which the Books of Samuel
were composed. The omissions of B in chapters xvii. and xviii.

1 On the other hand the additions of I. viii. 18, II. xxiv. 13, are probably
intentional amplifications derived from the immediate context.

Books of Samuel. 29

of τ Samuel seem quite conclusive in proving that these
chapters are composed of two separate accounts of the en-
counter of David and Goliath, one of which only was found in
the Hebrew MS. or MSS. to which the Septuagint translators
had access. If we read separately and continuously the parts
of these chapters omitted by B, xvii. 12-31, 50, 55—Xvill. 5,
XVill. 9-11, 17-19, 29 b-30, and the remaining parts contained
in B, we get two nearly consecutive narratives throughout :
whereas the difficulties are almost imsuperable if we regard
the whole, as it stands in the Masoretic text and our English
version, as one continuous history. It will be sufficient to
mention one difficulty which is removed, or at least greatly
lessened, if we regard these separate portions as fragments
of two independent accounts of this portion of David’s career.
One of the greatest puzzles of commentators is the fact that
in xvii. 55 Saul asks Abner whose son David is, and Abner
replies that he cannot tell; whereas, according to xvi. 21,
David was Saul’s own armourbearer. Various unsatisfactory
explanations have been given of the remarkable ignorance
which Saul and Abner both showed, as e.g. that Saul in
his fits of madness did not know David by sight, or that
a considerable interval had elapsed since his appointment
and subsequent return to his home. But the difficulty is
at once removed, or at least changed in character, when
we find that both question and answer belong to the ac-
count, omitted by the LXX, in which David is said to have
been sent by his father from Bethlehem as a stranger to
his brothers; whereas in the other account, which the LXX
preserves, it is implied that he was present with the army
when Goliath uttered his challenge. The difficulty of re-
eonciling the two accounts still remains; but becomes a
historical, rather than a critical one, and hardly greater
than we find in other parts of the Bible, where different
accounts of the same event are preserved, as in the Gospels.
The independence of these two accounts becomes clearer still
if we omit certain connecting sentences, which by their omis-

30 The Text of the

sion in B are proved to have been inserted when or after
the two were blended into one narrative. The first part of
xviii. 6 and the last part of xvii. 21 are obviously additions
of this kind, the first being inserted to justify the compiler
in going back again to the events of the previous chapter,
the second to connect the accounts of the offer by Saul of
each of his two daughters. It is highly probable that similar
connecting links were introduced in the portions of the nar-
rative not found in B; but as this narrative does not exist
in an independent form, these must be, more or less, a matter
of conjecture. It is not improbable that xvii. 15, and
perhaps 16, are additions of this kind: the first being added
to account for David not being with Saul, and the second
referring the reader back to the description of the Philistine
in verse 4, whereas the first part of verse 23, as it exists in
the Hebrew text, most naturally describes Goliath’s first
appearance. If this view is correct, there must have been
some alteration, perhaps by omission of Goliath’s words, of
the last part of verse 23.

There are other instances in which the LXX seems to point
to a combination of more or less distinct narratives of the
same event, At the end of chap. iii. and the beginning of
chap. iv. of 1 Samuel, we have a very remarkable addition
in the LXX. The last part καὶ ἐγενήθη .. . πόλεμον is a natural
commencement of the description of the battle with the
Philistines, and has been probably omitted by homaoteleuton
from the Hebrew text. The middle portion from καὶ ‘HAL...
Κυρίου is like statements which we constantly find scattered
throughout the Hebrew narrative, but usually at the com-
mencement of the subject. It is not therefore out of place if
we regard it as an introduction to chap. iv, showing how the
disasters which followed were a punishment to Eli and his
sons. Nor is it unsuitable in connexion with what goes
before, contrasting as it does the position of Samuel and Eh,
Keil seems therefore needlessly severe when he writes, ‘At
the close of verse 21, the LXX have appended a general

Books of Samuel. 21

remark concerning Eli and his sons, which, regarded as a
deduction from the context, answers no doubt to the para-
phrastic treatment of our book in that version, but in a
eritical aspect is utterly worthless.’ (Translation, Clark’s
Series, p. 52.) The first part of this insertion, καὶ ἐπιστεύθη

. ἕως ἄκρων, is evidently an alternative of verse 20. But it
differs from the alternatives we usually meet with, partly in its
paraphrastie character—the alternatives generally differ but
little in form of sentences and order of words, the chief dif-
ferences being due to variations of reading—partly also in not
immediately preceding or following the passage it represents}.
Now it is remarkable that the intermediate words, καὶ
προσέθετο. . . Σαμουήλ, resemble in their general meaning
verse 19, so much so, that, if we had only the LXX without
the help of the Hebrew, we might very naturally suppose
that the whole of verse 21 to ἕως ἄκρων was another form of
verses Ig and 20. Is it not possible that this is the true
explanation, and that we have here an instance in which
part of an alternative form of the narrative has got into the
Hebrew text? We have a somewhat parallel example in the
next chapter. Before verse 16 καὶ εἶπεν... πρὸς ‘HAL is evi-
dently an alternative of verse 14. But it also differs from the
ordinary type of alternative in the same two respects as the
last. The differences are just such as we should expect in two
forms of the same narrative, and the alternatives are separated
by an intermediate sentence. Now this intermediate καὶ “HAt

. ἐπέβλεπε more naturally precedes verse 16 than follows
verse 14, explaining as it does the reason why Eli had to ask
the question, the reason, according to the custom of Hebrew
writers, generally coming first. Besides this it is difficult to
reconcile the statement of verse 13 that Eli was ‘ watching’
(Hebrew M24) with the mention of his blindness in this
verse. On all these grounds there seems considerable reason

? 2 Sam. i. 19-23 and xviii. 17 are no real exceptions to this rule, the inter-
mediate words in each case being only a single phrase may fairly be regarded as
part of the alternative, and pointing therefore to a variation in the order of the
words,

12 The Text of the

for regarding verses 15 and 16 to πρὸς “Πλί as an alternative of
verses 13 and 14. So that here again we probably find
part of an alternative form in the Masoretic text.

In chap. v. the LXX again seems to show that the narra-
tive has been compiled from two different accounts of the
events narrated. The last half of verse 3, καὶ ἐβαρύνθη... τὰ
ὅρια αὐτῆς, is obviously an alternative of verse 6, and agrees
almost exactly with the Masoretic form of that verse, while
verse 6 as it stands in the LXX differs very considerably from
it, containing two additional statements in the phrases καὶ
μέσον ... μύες and καὶ ἐγένετο... πόλει, while it omits MN
mona ne TIIWN, to say nothing of the reading vais,
which, however curious it may be, is evidently the analogue
of ἕδρας in the other form. In the fourth verse the words
ἕκαστοι. . . πρόθυρον are an alternative of καὶ κεφαλὴ .... ἐμ-
πρόσθια (the Hebrew word ἀμαφέθ being of course a second
alternative of ἐμπρόσθια, and probably the earliest reading).
Here the differences are less considerable and more analogous
to the usual type of alternatives; vet the word ἕκαστοι cannot
easily be explained as originating from our present Hebrew
text. For though ἕκαστον (the reading of A) might at first
sight appear to be a translation of W'S, a corruption of UN,
we cannot thus explain the omission of καὶ before, and Adyar,
or some word corresponding to it, after, ἕκαστον. But the
difficulty is removed if we regard this as a fragment from
another form of the narrative. The sentence may have
originally begun καὶ βραχίονες ἕκαστοι, or in some such way.
The reading of ἕκαστον in A is most probably a correction to
make the word agree with fxvos, and so connect this with the
other alternative. Now if we assume the integrity of the
Masoretie text of this chapter, we must suppose that the
original Septuagint translation contained only one of these
alternatives in both the fourth and sixth verses (probably the
latter in each case, as being the most unlike the Masoretic text),
that a later reviser, comparing that translation with some
Hebrew MS. or some other Greek translation of a Hebrew

Books of Samuel. 23

Ὁ)

MS. nearly resembling, if not identical with, the Masoretic
text, introduced the other alternatives καὶ κεφαλὴ... τὰ ἐμ-
πρόσθια (or ἀμαφέθ) and καὶ ἐβαρύνθη .. . ὅρια αὐτῆς as marginal
elosses ; and that, lastly, what was probably the original form
of the sixth verse was transposed by a still later reviser to the
second verse, while the two glosses naturally enough found
their way into the text. The great objection to this view is
the number of hypotheses it involves. Can we not find a
simpler solution of the difficulty ? Now let us suppose for an
instant that we only possessed this account in the LXX. We
should, I think, strongly suspect (considering how frequent
such alternatives are) that the first part of verse 4 is also an
alternative of the first part of verse 3, with which it almost
verbally agrees. If this is the case, we must conclude, as was
shown to be highly probable in the last two discussed examples,
that the narrative, even in its Hebrew form, has been compiled
from two distinct accounts of Dagon’s fall (which must have
happened only once), much in the same way as it has been
shown that the two accounts of David and Goliath have been
combined. The only serious difficulty is the phrase, found
both in the Hebrew and the Greek, in verse 3: ‘And they
took Dagon, and set him in his place again;’ but this can
be explained as a connecting -link inserted when the two
accounts were combined, like those in the XVIIIth chapter
already noticed. ‘This theory of the origin of our present
chapter cannot be considered as definitively proved, but seems
on the whole to afford the simplest explanation of the differ-
ences which exist between the Masoretic text and the LXX.
I have purposely not mentioned the remarkable insertion in
verse 5, ὅτι ὑπερβαίνοντες ὑπερβαίνουσι, because it may very
probably be a later gloss, arising out of a traditional explana-
tion of Zeph. i. 9, and, if so, has no direct bearing on the
question. We have, I believe, another example of the exist-
ence of alternative forms in the Masoretic text in 2 Sam. iv. 6.
Here, at first sight, it is very tempting, with Thenius,
Kirkpatrick, and others, to accept the LXX reading; but
D

24 The Text of the

there are several objections to our doing so. (1) It does not
altogether remove the awkward repetitions of the Hebrew
text, the clause καὶ ᾿Ιεσβοσθὲ ἐκάθευδεν ἐπὶ τῆς κλίνης αὐτοῦ, in
verse 7, being very clumsy after καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκάθευδεν ἐν τῇ
κοίτη. (2) The differences between the LXX and Hebrew
cannot be entirely accounted for by the ordinary causes of
textual corruption. (3) It is at least very remarkable that
the Masoretic text, as it stands, should form such a complete
doublet, if it is nothing but a corruption of the true text
preserved ea /ypothest in the LXX rendering. It seems
therefore far more reasonable to regard the former as the
combination of two alternative forms, similar to those already
adduced in 1 Sam. 111. iv. and v. The geographical note
about the Beerothites introduced in verse 3, and still more
the story of Mephibosheth’s lameness in verse 4, show
that this portion of the narrative has undergone a later
revision. The LXX reading of verse 6 is probably due to the
completion by conjecture of what was only legible here and
there, and the repetitions of the Hebrew narrative probably
helped to mislead the translators. Of course there may be
some slight corruptions in the Masoretic text, as in 1p
O° and the pointing of 7377; but these do not affect the
general question.

Tt remains to add a few important passages, in which the
LXX seems to suggest a more probable reading than that
of the Masoretic text. There can hardly be any doubt that
in 1 Sam. i. 5 we should read DDN, the origin of the LXX
πλήν, instead of the unintelligible word ΘΝ. In verse 15
ἡ σκληρὰ ἡμέρα is evidently a translation of OW Mwp, which
is exactly parallel to OY MWP in Job xxx. 25, and preferable
to NI ΤΡ, which would mean, not ‘sorrowful,’ but ‘ obsti-
nate. The LXX reading of vi. 19 is far from certain, but
it at least helps us out of a great moral difficulty; and
yet is not likely to have arisen out of any intention of the
translators to do so, being quite unlike any of the insertions
which are elsewhere found in that version. It will be seen

Books of Samuel. 35

o

that, according to the reading of the LXX, the death of the
people of Bethshemesh was directly due to a local quarrel,
and is only indirectly referred to Divine agency. It has
a further probability from the fact that its omission in the
Masoretic text may have arisen from homaoteleuton. In ix.
25, 26 for 7AM, WASW we should probably read TAN
(cf. Prov. viii. 16) and 35W) (or 123W%): ‘And he made
a bed with Saul upon the roof, and he (or they) slept.’ This
agrees better with verse 26. In x. 27 WITMOD “ΓΤ, to which
the LXX points (ef. Gen. xxxviiil. 24), is a much more intel-
ligible reading than ΓΤ 37. The words should, as in
the LXX, begin the next chapter: ‘And it came to pass, after
a month’s time or so.’ In xii. 11 we may safely alter {72
into ΤΊ, it being evident that Samuel is speaking of some
well-known judge, such as Barak, In xiv. 18 the LXX 758
is better than }IN, the Ark being never used as the vehicle
of an oracular response, and being in all probability nowhere
near Saul at the time. In xiv. 21 there is much to be said
in favour of OY for OMY, the people alluded to being
probably the slaves,who took advantage of their chance of escap-
ing from their Philistine masters!. The LXX ἐργάβ (apydB) in
Xx. 19, 41 is probably a transliteration of an original Hebrew
JANN, which in verse 19 has been corrupted into 3377, in
verse 41 into JANTT. The word, which appears only in the
Gileaditish Argob, would mean ‘a mound.’ In xxiii. 6 the
additional clause, καὶ αὐτὸς μετὰ Δαυίδ, gets rid of the diffi-
culty arising from the fact that David could not have been
αὖ Keilah at the time of Abiathar’s escape. In xxvii. 10 the
reading bx (ἐπὶ τίνα) makes good sense, and avoids such
a doubtful construction as ὩΣ τ ΟΝ ; but possibly we may
do better to adopt the reading ἴδ, which is favoured by the
Targum and Syriac. In 2 Sam. vi. 2 ἐν ἀναβάσει is some-
times explained as a translation of an original πον (cf.
1 Chron. xiii. 6), supposed to have dropped out of the text

1 In 1 Sam. xiii. 3, on the other hand, 07197 is certainly correct.

D 2

26 The Text of the

from its resemblance to WWW aby, which, according to this
view, is correctly translated by τῶν ἀρχόντων ᾿Ιούδα. If, how-
ever, we omit in Chronicles O73" ΠΡ ΠΝ, which is
evidently one of the paraphrastic additions characteristic of
that book, we get sais AWS rat cpebtjaie corresponding to
m7, syn of Samuel, showing that the latter (probably
a corruption of 7 by) is evidently the name of the
place to which the ark was taken, the previous }!2 probably
being inserted by some scribe who understood it, as did the
LXX translators, of the princes who brought the ark, Τ is
more probable therefore that ἐν ἀναβάσει and τοῦ ἀναγαγεῖν
are alternative renderings of mbynn. In 2 Sam. xv. 18 we
have a long insertion describing the movements of David's fol-
lowers, which at first sight appears to have been omitted from
the Masoretic text by omeoteleuton. But on closer examination
it is evident that the passage is made up of three alternatives,
partly following, partly included in,and partly overlapping each
other. That is to say, in verse 18, Kal ἔστησαν ἐπὶ τῆς ἐλαίας
ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ καὶ πᾶς 6 λαὸς Kal παρῆσαν ἐπὶ χεῖρα αὐτοῦ" καὶ πᾶς
ὁ Χελεθί, καὶ πᾶς 6 Φελεθί corresponds to καὶ ἔστησαν ἐν οἴκῳ τῷ
μακράν. Καὶ πάντες οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἀνὰ χεῖρα αὐτοῦ παρῆγον, καὶ
πᾶς Χελεθὶ καὶ πᾶς ὁ Φελεθί, and Hebrew snbor. Seite
of verses 17, 18, the latter resembling the Hebrew text, the
former differing from, and therefore probably representing,
the original LXX. Again, παρεπορεύετο ἐχόμενος αὐτοῦ, καὶ
πάντες οἱ περὶ αὐτόν, καὶ πάντες of ἁδροί, καὶ πάντες οἱ μαχηταὶ
ἑξακόσιοι ἄνδρες corresponds obviously to ἀνὰ χεῖρα αὐτοῦ παρῆ-
γον (παρῆσαν ἐπὶ χεῖρα αὐτοῦ), καὶ πᾶς [ὁ] Χελεθί, καὶ πᾶς ὁ
Φελεθί, καὶ πάντες οἱ Γεθαῖοι οἱ ἑξακόσιοι ἄνδρες and the Hebrew
UN... OD, and was probably the effort of a later translator
to render the Hebrew into more idiomatic Greek. This is
shown from the Greek idioms ἐχόμενος αὐτοῦ, of περὶ αὐτόν,
and the translations (strange enough) of the names Chere-
thites and Pelethites, which are otherwise left untranslated
by the LXX; but there is no reason to think that this trans-

lator had before him a different Hebrew text. The only

Books of Samuel. 37

remaining questions with regard to reading are whether we
should adopt, with the original LXX, 92797 MW instead of
ΡΓ ΓΙ MD in verse 17, and transpose oyn-55 and
yay - in verses 17 and 18, or read one of these alterna-
tives in both verses. In 2 Sam. xvii. 3 it can hardly be
doubted that the LXX gives us a far more intelligible and
forcible reading. The Masoretic text is probably due partly to
a small omission by omeoteleuton, partly to a faulty pointing
and division of words. The original Hebrew probably was
nearly as follows:

ΡΞ ANS INS we we? ΤῪ ows obo aw

In xvill. 22 εἰς ὠφέλειαν is clearly an explanation, and
according to Gesenius the true explanation, of the Hebrew
FN, and appears at first sight to be a remarkable exception
to the literalness we almost universally meet with in the
translation of these books. But it is very probable that the
word πορευομένῳ, which follows, is really an alternative, being
a translation of MN, and, if so, most likely the original
LXX reading. This view is all the more probable from the
fact that the following καὶ εἶπε (WON) is evidently an alter-
native of τί γὰρ ἐὰν (ΓΤ ΓΤ), which is very awkward here,
and probably got in from the preceding verse, where the LXX
has no alternative reading.

There are several passages in which the LXX seems to point
to a corrupt Masoretic text, even though it does not suggest
an altogether satisfactory emendation, as in 1 Sam. ix. 24,
Xlll. 21, xiv. 14, 23-26. The LXX reading of 2 Sam. xxi. 1
presents peculiar difficulties. The word ἀδικία (B) cannot
easily be explained as a marginal gloss, or an alternative
reading. Most probably therefore it is a corruption of διὰ τὸ
(A), and the clause διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν θανάτῳ αἱμάτων (ον ὃν
DWI ΓΛ) is an alternative, and probably the original
rendering of the last phrase, and an early corruption of our
present Hebrew text.

We may briefly sum up the results of our inquiry as fol-

48 The Text of the Books of Samuel.

lows: (1) If we leave out from the LXX what are obvious
additions, and select, in cases of alternatives, that which differs
most from our present Hebrew text, and make due allowance
for errors likely to arise from the difficulties of translation by
persons inexperienced in decyphering badly written or badly
worn MSS., and not critically acquainted with the language
they were translating, we shall be able to regain for the
most part a Hebrew text many centuries older than that of
our Hebrew Bibles. (2) By comparing this with the Maso-
retic text we can see clearly that both the latter and the
LXX have been subject to several, and precisely similar, causes
of corruption. (3) This comparison, by the help of the ordi-
nary canons of textual criticism, enables us to recover in
several cases the original reading of the Hebrew. (4) Even
when the LXX does not enable us to restore the true Hebrew
text, we can sometimes, by the wide differences between the
two, conclude almost with certainty that a reading is corrupt,
and save ourselves the useless labour of trying to force a
meaning out of a passage which, as it stands, has none.
(5) Lastly, we can in some degree learn the way in which
such books as those of Samuel have gradually grown out of
earlier narratives, in many cases handed down, it is probable,
by oral tradition.

S12)

TIT.

ON THE DIALECTS SPOKEN IN PALESTINE
IN THE TIME OF CHRIST.

[Ap, NEvBAUvER. |

Ir has always been held that the language of the Jews in
Palestine after their return from the Babylonian captivity,
down to the conquest by the Arabs of Palestine, was partly
the modernised Hebrew (as it is to be found in the Mishnah,
in the Hebrew parts of the Talmud, and in the Midrashim),
partly an Aramaic dialect intermixed with Hebrew words
and forms. Were these two dialects spoken simultaneously
by all classes and in all provinces of Palestine, or has one
dialect given way to the other, and if so, at what epoch?
It will be our endeavour in the course of the present essay to
supply an answer to these questions. But before proceeding to
our investigations with the help of the scanty documents at
our disposal, we must allude to the opinions which have been
held during the last hundred years on the language spoken
by Jesus and his immediate disciples. 4

Isaac Voss! was the first to say that it was absurd to sup-
pose that Judea alone could have escaped the fate of the pro-
vinces conquered by the armies of Alexander the Great, and
have preserved its own language instead of adopting that of
the conquerors ; and he concluded accordingly that Greek was
the only language spoken in Palestine since Alexander. Voss

' De oracul, Sibyll., p. 290; Resp. ad iterata P. Simon. object., p. 3753
Resp. ad obj. theol. Leyd.

40 The Dialects of Palestine

was closely followed by Diodati!, who sought to prove that
the mother language of the Jews in the time of Jesus was
Greek, known under the name of the Hellenistic language.
Bernard De Rossi? devoted a special monograph to refute
Diodati, in which he proves that the language of the Jews at
the time of Jesus, which he himself and the apostles spoke,
was no other than the mixed dialect which De Rossi calls
Syro-Chaldee ; according to him the Hellenistic language
was not current in Palestine. De Rossi’s dissertation was
reproduced in German, with notes, by Pfannkuche*®, who ac-
cepts its conclusions entirely. Of course the impossibility of
the idea that Greek was the only language of the Jews in
Palestine was ere long realized, and a compromise was pro-
posed by Prof. Paulus*, of Jena, who held that the current
language of the Jews in Palestine at the time of Jesus was
indeed an Aramaic dialect, but that Greek was at the same
time so familiar in Palestine, and more especially in Galilee
and Jerusalem, that Jesus and his disciples had no difficulty
in using it in their public speeches whenever they found
it convenient. The arguments of Prof. Paulus, which we
cannot reproduce in their entirety, but some of which we
shall have to mention later on, were refuted by Silvestre de
Sacy° without great difficulty. The two dissertations of

' Dominici Diodati J. C. Neapolitano de Christo graece loquente exercitatio,
Neap., 1767.

* Della lingua propria di Cristo ὁ degli Ebrei nazionali della Palestina da’
tempi de’ Maccabei, Parma, 1772.

* Ueber die palistinische Landessprache in dem Zeitalter Christi und der
A postel, ein Versuch, zum Theil nach de Rossi entworfen, von Heinrich Friederich
Pfannkuche (in vol. viii. of Eichhorn’s Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen
Litteratur, pp. 365 to 480). English translation, by John Brown, D.D., in
Clark’s Biblical Cabinet, 1832, vol. ii. pp. I to go.

* Verosimilia de Judaeis Palaestinensibus, Jesu atque etiam Apostolis non
Aramaea dialecto sola, sed Graeca quoque Aramaizante locutis. Particula prima
et altera, Jenae, 1803. These two dissertations have become very scarce.
I have not been able to see them. The contents of them are known to us by
De Sacy’s dissertation. See the following note.

* 8. de S. (Silvestre de Sacy), Littératwre orientale, in 9. i. pp. 125 to 147 of
Magazin encyclopédique, ete., rédigé par A. L. Millin, Paris, 1805,

an the Time of Christ. 41

Prof. Paulus and the remarks of Hug! on the Greek language
in Palestine Dr. Roberts? elaborated into a volume, the
first part of which is entitled, ‘On the language employed
by our Lord and his disciples;’ Dr. Roberts’ conclusion,
which is summed up by Dr. Bohl* in the following words,
‘Christ spoke for the most part in Greek, and only now and
then in Aramaic,’ differs but slightly from that of Paulus.
It would take us too far to recount the opinions of the
various authors who have written ‘Introductions’ to the
study of the New Testament, and who naturally allude to our
subject ; we can only draw attention to special monographs
and articles. Of recent date may be mentioned the essays of
M. Renan*, Dr. E. Bohl®, and Prof. Franz Delitzsch® re-
lating to the language of Jesus; they all range themselves
beside De Rossi and De Sacy, maintaining that the language
of the Jews in Palestine was a kind of Hebrew.

If it could be admitted that the Jews during the Baby-
lonian exile had gradually forgotten, or willingly given up
the Jehudith language (as Isaiah" calls it, in opposition to
the Aramith of the Assyrians) for the Babylonian Aramaic
dialect®, the question about the language spoken by them in
Palestine at the time of Hillel and Jesus could be settled

τ Einleitung in den Schriften des neuen Testaments, von Joh. Leonhard Hug,
3te Aufl., Th. 2, p. 44 seqq.

® Discussions on the Gospels, in two parts. Part I. On the language employed
by our Lord and his disciples. Part II. On the original language of St. Mat-
thew’s Gospel, and on the origin and authenticity of the Gospels. By Alexander
Roberts, D. D., 2nd ed., 1864.

3 Forschungen nach einer Volksbibel zur Zeit Jesu und deren Zusammenhang
mit der Septuaginta-iibersetzung, von Eduard Bohl, Wien, 1873, p. 3.

* Histoire générale et systtme comparé des Langues sémitiques, premiére
partie, Histoire générale des Langues sémitiques, 3rd ed., Par., 1863, p. 224 5666,

5 See note 3.

5 Saat auf Hoffnung, Jabrg. xi, Heft 4, p. 195 seqq., von F. D. (Franz
Delitzsch), and in The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible
Society. A contribution to Hebrew philology, by Prof. Franz Delitzsch, Leipzig,
1883, pp. 30 and 31.

7 Isaiah xxxvi. 11; 2 Kings xviii. 26.

® See Biblisches Realwérterbuch, etc., ausgearbeitet von Dr. Georg Benedict
Winer, article Sprache (3rd ed., 1848, Bd. ii. p. 499).

42 The Dialects of Palestine

without difficulty: it would be of course a dialect approach-
ing that of the Zargumim. There are, however, objections
to this view. In the first place, it is scarcely credible that
the short period of the Babylonian exile would have been
sufficient for a nation to completely change its dialect, even
when both are of the same family of languages, as is un-
doubtedly the case with Hebrew and Aramaic. Had the
Jews not brought back their own dialect to Palestine, and
had they spoken Aramaic instead of Jehudith, there would
have been no occasion for Nehemiah! to say, ‘And their
children spake half in the speech of Ashdod and could not
speak in the Jews’ (Jehudith) language, but according to the
language of each people.’ On the other hand, the language
in which the prophets of the exile, as well as Ezra and Nehe-
miah, address themselves to the Jews is still good Hebrew,
and in some respects even classical Hebrew. The greater
part of those who returned to Jerusalem must have therefore
spoken Hebrew, most likely intermixed more or less with
Aramaic words, but not so transformed grammatically as to
be termed Aramaic. It is therefore doubtful whether the
words, ‘So they read in the book in the Law of God dis-
tinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand
the reading’, apply, as stated in the Talmud*, to the be-
ginning of a Targum. As in many other instances, the
Rabbis in so explaining had in view their own time, when
the reading of the Targum was a general custom (first
century B.C., or even later*). ‘Giving the sense of the
Law®’ may mean, and probably does mean, ‘ giving an exe-
getical interpretation,’ which at all events was necessary for
the people in general. The Hebrew of the book of Esther,
1 Nehemiah xiii. 24.
2 Thidem, viii. 8.

* See for the passages, Targum Onkelos, herausgegeben und erliutert von
Dr. A. Berliner, Berlin, 1884, Th. ii. p. 74.

* See thidem, p. 89, and Die Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge der Juden, historisch
entwickelt, von Dr. Zunz, Berl., 1832, p. 8.

5 Nehemiah viii. 8,

am the Time of Christ. 43

which was beyond question written after the captivity, and
very likely for general reading and not only for a few
literati, represents the language spoken by the Jews who
returned to Jerusalem. The same language (though cer-
tainly deteriorated) we find also in the books of Chronicles.
It is possible that a minority of the ten tribes who joined the
exiles, on their return to Palestine, having been associated
much longer with Aramaic-speaking populations, had for-
gotten the Hebrew tongue, if they had ever spoken it at all.
The Ephraimitie Jews, who undoubtedly formed a majority of
the Samaritans, knew but little Hebrew at the time when
the exiles returned to Palestine’. But for this Aramaic-
speaking minority, Ezra and Nehemiah could have scarcely
arranged a Targum in the busy time of re-establishing the
Mosaic institutions amongst the new comers. Consequently,
we must conclude that at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah
the Hebrew was still spoken generally in Judea, and more
especially in Jerusalem.

Although there is a great gap between the Old Testament
(excepting Esther, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes”) and the
Mishnah (we mean the earliest parts® of the Mishnah, which
date from the second century B.c.) as regards documents in
the spoken language by the Jews (none of the Apocryphal
books existing in the original language), we may still affirm,
following the best critics, that the book of Sirach was

X

1 See Biblisches Realwirterbuch, etc., ausgearbeitet von Dr. G. B. Winer,
article Samaritaner (3rd ed., 1848, Bd. ii. p. 372), and Fragments of the
Samaritan Targum, by J. W. Nutt, London, 1878.

2 That Ecclesiastes is a work of the time of the second Temple is now
generally admitted, e.g. by Prof. Delitzsch and Dean Plumptre.

3. Such is the early part of the tractate Aboth or sayings of the Jewish
fathers (see Dr. Ch. Taylor’s edition, Cambridge, 1877); a part of the tractate
of Yomd or the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement (see J. Derenbourg, Essai
de Restitution de Vancienne rédaction de Masséchet Kippourim, Revue des
Etudes juives, t. vi. p. 41 seqq.); and many other parts (see the excellent
dissertation by Dr. D. Hoffmann, with the title of Die erste Mischna und die
Controversen der Tannaim, Berlin, 1882; Jahres- Bericht des Rabbiner-Seminars
zu Berlin pro 5642, 1881-1882).

44 The Dialects of Palestine

written originally in Hebrew'. The Talmnd, it is true,
quotes sayings from this book in Hebrew and in Aramaic’,
but it is beyond doubt that the latter are translations from
the Hebrew, made at a later time, when Aramaic became the
language of the majority. The same was the case with the
book of Tobit, of which an Aramaic version has been pub-
lished lately from an unique MS. in the Bodleian Library *.
From the books of Maccabees we do not find a quotation in the
Talmudical literature. The title ‘ Roll of the Hasmoneans,’
given by a Rabbi of the tenth century A.p.*, may refer to a
Hebrew or an Aramaic original. Indeed, the ‘ Rolls of Fasting
Days’ is the title of a treatise written in Aramaic®. Origen®
gives another title for the original of the book of Maccabees,
viz. Σαρβὴθ SapBave ἔλ, on the meaning of which critics do
not agree. Some take it as Aramaic, meaning either the
revolt of the rebels of God* or ‘genealogy or history’ of
the prince of the children of God’; others explain it from
the Hebrew ‘Book of the family of the prince of the sons of
God®.’ However, even if the title were Aramaic, it would
not prove that the book itself was originally written in this
dialect. The Aramaic, as in the case of Sirach, might be a
later translation from the Hebrew. The few words to be
found on the coins of the Hasmoneans are Hebrew’’. We

2 See Real-Encyklopddie fiir protestantische Theologie und Kirche, etc.,
herausg. von Dr. J. J. Herzog und Dr. ας ΤΩ. Plitt, Leipzig, 1877, article Apo-
eryphen (by E. Schiirer, Bd. i. p. 484 seqq.).

2 See Rabbinische Blumenlese, von Leopold Dukes, Leipzig, 1844, pp. 67 to 84.

8 The Book of Tobit, a Chaldee text, etc., ed. by A. Neubauer, Oxford, 1878.

4 ΣΟ ma ndban. See nidiqa ΠῚ (0°1DID "Ὦ), by Simeon of NIN»
(Kayyar ?), ed. Venice, 15.48, fol. 141 ὦ.

5 nyoyn nban. See Essai sur Vhistoire et la géographie de la Palestine
d apres les Thalmuds, ete., par J, Derenbourg, partie i. p. 439 seqq. ; Geschichte
der Juden, von H. Graetz, vol. iii (3rd ed.), p. 597 8664.

6 See Eusebius, ist. Heel. vi. 25.

ΤῸΝ ὩΣ Πρ. A. Geiger, Urschrift, etc., Breslau, 1857, p. 205.

8 nanw. Jahn and Grimm (see Curtiss, The name Machabee, Leipz., 1876,
Ῥ. 30).

9 ὃν Δ 7H ΠΔ ἼΒΌ. See J. Derenbourg, op. cit., p. 450 seqq.

19 See Coins of the Jews, by Frederic W. Madden (vol. ii. of The Inter-
national Numismata Orientalia, London, 1881),

an the Time of Christ. 45

read on them soup niin, ‘freedom of Jerusalem,’ and
not 17 ΝΡ ΘΟ or sndinad; but there are also words which
are not biblical, such as MIN, ‘freedom.’ Had the spoken
language been at that time an Aramaic dialect, and not the
modernised Hebrew, the Maccabean princes would, according
to our opinion, have put on their coins either pure biblical
words or Aramaic words. As they have employed neither
the one nor the other, we must take it for granted that the
popular language in Jerusalem at least, and perhaps also in
Judea, was the modernised Hebrew. This view is confirmed
by the language in which the ethical sayings, which I believe
may be considered as a popular literature, are written’. In
the collection known as the Pirgé Aboth, ‘sayings of the
fathers’,’ in which every saying is recorded with the name
of its author, we find that from the earliest, which is reported
in the name of the men of the great synagogue, down to
those connected with the name of Hillel, they are all written
in the modernised Hebrew with a gradual increase of new
words. In the case of Hillel only do we find sayings both in
Hebrew and Aramaic.

Similarly the aggadico-homiletical literature on the
Pentateuch and the prophetical lessons, to be found in
the Mekhilta*, the Pesigta of the Haftaroth*, and the

1 When Moses desired to do miracles before Pharaoh, he, according to the
Talmud, told him: ‘Art thou going to bring straw to Aphraim, pottery to
Kefar-Hanayah [now Kefar Anan; see our Géographie du Talmud, Paris,
1868, p. 179], wool to Damascus, magicians to Egypt [1. 6, coals to Newcastle] ?’
ὉΠ PWIA PWD 733A WII WI) ΠΥ ῚΡ OPIDY? D150 ANE Jan
(Midrash Bereshith Rabbd, ch. 86; Bab. Talmud, Menahoth, fol. 85a. See
Dukes, Rabb. Blumenlese, No. 650; Moise Schuhl, Sentences et Proverbes du
Talmud et du Midrasch, Paris, 1878, No. 322).

2 max pip. Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, etc., by Charles Taylor, M.A.,
Cambridge, 1877.

3 Mechilta (xn°2) de R. Ismael, herausgegeben mit Noten, Erklarungen,
Indices und einer ausfiihrlichen Einleitung versehen von M. Friedmann, Wien,
1870. This book contains expositions on Exodus,

* The Pesigta (xnpDdb, sections ?) seems to have been in the first instance
composed for the prophetical lessons (Haftaroth) read on special Sabbaths be-
fore and after the oth of Ab (the day of the destruction of Jerusalem). This
redaction still exists in the MS. of the Bodleian Library, Opp. Add. No. 97

46 The Dialects of Palestine

Sifré’, are nearly throughout in modernised Hebrew. Homi-
letic expositions, however, are usually addressed to the people
in general, and not to /iferati. Again, the casuistical decisions
deposited in the Mishnah (the greater part of which was
written from 200-5 B.c.”), the Zhosifta* and the Sifrd*,
are written (excepting a few passages) in modernised He-
brew’. And certainly these are not all written for the
schools. The prescriptions for the ceremonies of the Sabbath
and feast-days®, and of the prayers’, served as a guide to
the people in general; and even the Temple ceremonies®*,
addressed only to the priests, must have been suited also for
unlearned priests’, who no doubt understood the modernised
Hebrew as their usual language. The discussions between the
Sadducees and the Pharisees, which we believe are reported in
the Mishnah verdatim, are also in modernised Hebrew!®. The
witnesses for determining the new moon were examined by
the Sanhedrin in modernised Hebrew!!. The advice which

(our Catalogue, No. 152). Another enlarged redaction of it is attributed to
R. Kahna, edited from the then known MSS. by S. Buber, Lyck, 1868.
And a third form is entitled *n17 xnpop, ‘the great Pesiqta,’ edited
critically by M. Friedmann, Wien, 1880. The prefaces to both these Pesiqtas
are highly instructive. We cannot discuss here the relation of these three
redactions one to the other. Compare also the excellent chapter on the subject
by L. Zunz, in his book Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden historisch
entwickelt, Berlin, 1832, pp. 226 seqq. and 239 seqq.

1 The Sifré (1D) contains, like the Mekhilta, expositions on Numbers
and Deuteronomy. Last and best edition by M. Friedmann, Wien, 1864.

2 See p. 43, note 3.

3 xnppin. Literally, additions to the Mishnah or an enlarged Mishnah.
See the edition of Dr. Zuckermandel, 1877 to 1882.

#x29pp. This book, also called Thorath Kohanim (0°27) nn), contains
expositions on Leviticus. The best edition is that by H. Weiss, Wien, 1862.

5 See Z. Frankel, Hodegetica in Mishnam, ete. (in Hebrew), Lipsiae, 1859,
p. 304 seqq.

® Contained in the part of the Mishnah called Moéd.

7 Contained chiefly in the tractate Berakhoth.

8. Contained in the tractate Yomd.

® yan op jm. It is even supposed (Mishnah, Yom, i. 6) that the high
priest could be unlearned.

10 Yadayim, iv. 4 to 8.

11 Mishnah (ed. Lowe), Menahoth, x. 5 ΝᾺ ὙΠ DIDIN WOW ΝᾺ OT) ION
2. VSPR VEEP 19 DO IDIN OF DPR... wow; Rosh hash-Shanah, ii. 9
Way 92 51] FDTD ἩΓΕ . Ὁ ΠῚ2}} IN MND Wi,

am the Time of Christ. - 47

king Jannaeus gives to his queen Salome to make peace with
the Pharisees is in Hebrew’. The colloquial conversation in
the schools was in modernised Hebrew’. Popular songs in
the Temple and outside are to be found in the same dialect*.
It is told in the Talmud that the damsels who went out on the
Day of Atonement in the vineyards, rejoicing to have passed
the great feast, exclaimed in Hebrew: ‘Young man, lift up
thine eyes and see whom thou choosest. Set not thine eyes
on beauty, set them rather upon family and birth*” Miriam,
daughter of Bilgah, who was an adherent of the Greeks
during the Maccabean wars, is reported to have apostrophised
the altar in Hebrew, saying: “Λύκος, Λύκος, thou hast de-
stroyed the wealth of Israel, and hast not stood by them in
the hour of their sorrow®!’ The gallows on which Nicanor’s®
head and feet were suspended, bore, according to the Talmud,
a Hebrew inscription in the following terms’: ‘The mouth
which spoke in guilt, and the hand which stretched out

1 Bab. Talm., Sotah, fol. 226 D28w Ὁ RD DWIIDA JO ΠῚ ON
DwWPlady aT ΤῸΝ Ὁ pMwyNw Dwiywp) Ὁ ΤῸ DvIANTA 15 NON DWI
DMI5) 13.

2 Tt is said in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pesahim, vi. 1, fol. 33a) that the
elder of the family Bethera (at the time the presidents of the Sanhedrin ; see
Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. iii. p. 214) had forgotten the rule (halakhah)
about the sacrifice of the Passover when it fell on a Sabbath. Some of the
disciples reminded them that there was the Babylonian Hillel, who frequented
the schools of Shemayah and Abtalyon, and who certainly would be able to tell
them what was to be done. Then we read the following sentences: > ΥὙῸΝ
TMT MDD ON YT 11) ) 2 ΝῚ ΠΡ Ὁ NX Wo ww ww: 9771 TN 1733 FRI
nyow 1 oR 15 NIP ITdwW Non 1200 Ww IW) IN? ON Naw ΠΝ
7? >>) NID... NIWA ΠΝ ΠΠῚΥῚ ON ΠΩΣ nv) ὙΌΣ ΠΟΣῸΝ mw) pa.
Ὑ Δ ΜῚ Myowy) ΡΝ.

3 On the last day of the feast of the Tabernacles (the day of the water-
drawing festival, St. John vii. 37), the priests not only recited prayers and
psalms, but pronounced also the following words: 437 DIpNI WA 1327NIIN
M528 Wows ΠῸῚΡ DIMNNwW) ΠῸΠῚ ΠΡ OIE.” 99°97 OR ὈΠ᾿ ΠΝ
yay πὴ (Mishnah, Sukkah, v. 5).

* Mishnah, Taanith, iv. 12 [NN 9X8 3912 FANS Ὁ ARI WTI 12} δὼ
nmTpwnd. pee yo 323 yay.

5 Tosifta, Sukkah, ch. 4 TNIOYT ND) ΝῺ Dw ODI] NX N37 7ANR
pws nywaom; Bab. Talm., Sukkah, fol. 566 ANN nD 1D DIP) Dip?
PIT ΠΡῸΣ o> WI ANN ON) IRI? FW 73100 19d.

6 Josephus, Antiquities, XII. x. 5.

7 Jer. Talm., Taanith, ii, 13 TINIA WOWW WA) ΤΟΝ IAIW TET.

48 The Dialects of Palestine

with pride. Deeds were also drawn up in modernised
Hebrew!. When Simeon the son of Shetah recalled to the
Sanhedrin his colleague, Judah son of Tabai, who took flight
to Alexandria in the time of the persecution of the Pharisees
under king Jannaeus, he wrote in Hebrew the following :
‘From me Jerusalem, the holy town, to thee Alexandria,
my sister. My husband dwells in thee, and I remain deso-
late?.’ No comparison can be drawn between the Latin of
the middle ages and the modernised Hebrew, the Latin
having never been read by the people, whereas the Talmudical
literature contains popular elements from the earlier times.

That the Aramaic dialect was used simultaneously with the
modernised Hebrew cannot be doubted. During the dominion
of the Seleucidae, when Syriac became the official language
in Asia®, many Jews made themselves acquainted with the
ruling language, and technical terms were naturally borrowed
by the Jews in general, as was later the case with Greek
under the Romans. The Mishnah mentions vessels in the
Temple* with Aramaic inscriptions, but also with Greek
inscriptions®, <A tradition states that Johanan the high
priest heard a voice of heaven (Lath gol) coming from the

1 Bab. Talm., Rosh hash-Shanah, fol. 18b 5172 772 2219D2) J) 3 πῶ
ΤΣ 9x5, referring to the time of the Maccabees.

2 Bab. Talm., Sotah, fol. 47@ 8°VT3DD9R 93°9 WIPTA wy Dwi 190
ΠῸ Ὁ ΔΘ 21 TINA Iw ya. nN. Further illustrations could
easily be adduced, but we think they would be superfluous. We shall quote
only one other instance. Agrippa I. was known as a fervent observer of the
ritual ceremonies, unlike his ancestors. It is said in the Mislhnah (Sotah,
vii. 8) when he read in the Temple the section of the king (Deut. xvii. 14
seqq.) and arrived at the passage (v. 15), ‘Thou mayest not set a stranger over
thee, which is not thy brother,’ he shed tears (he having been of the _Idumean
race). The wise men (0° 97) pacified him, saying, ‘Do not fear, Agrippa,
thou art our brother, TNX ITN TNR DON TAR DON ὈΒ ΣΝ NV ON.
See also J. H. Weiss, Zur Geschichte der jiidischen Tradition (in Hebrew),

Wien (1871), i. p. 113, a valuable work, of which three volumes have
appeared,

8 Les Apétres, by M. Renan, p. 228.

* Sheqalim vi. 6 yprny popN pnIN popn, ‘shekels of this year and of
last year.’

5 Tbhidem, iii. 2 ΔῸΣ ND NDdN, a, B, y. The word Alpha is also often
used in the Mishnah in the sense of first. Tekoa is the Alpha for oil (see
Géographie du Talmud, p. 129). Michmash is Alpha for flour (tbidem, p. 154).

on the Time of Christ. 49

sanctuary, saying in Aramaic, ‘The young men who waged
war against Antiochus are victorious!. Immigrations from
Babylonia and from the northern parts of Palestine, where
Aramaic dialects were spoken, contributed most likely to the
spread of Aramaic in Jerusalem. Judea seems to have pre-
served a purer Hebrew, as compared with Galilee?. <A
striking instance is reported in the Talmud ®, illustrating the
dialect of Judea. The word ΓΙ ΓΤ was used in Judea in
the sense of MODI, ‘betrothed,’ the root bearing the same
sense in Leviticus xix. 20. At the same time, probably, the
use of Targums became general, and Aramaic began to be
employed in liturgical formulae, such as the Qaddish *, ‘sancti-
ficat,’ and the first sentence of the introduction to the Hagga-
dah, or the history of the exodus of Egypt, recited on the
Passover evening®. Of course the precise date of the compo-
sition of these prayers cannot be given, but most likely they
belong to the time when the Babylonian Hillel acquired his
great influence in the schools. Letters which Gamaliel (the
elder) addressed to the inhabitants of upper and lower Galilee,
on the fixing of the new moon, are also in Aramaic®. A
gradual immigration of Greek-speaking Jews from Egypt
and Asia Minor introduced Greek to Jerusalem ; and the use of
it was further stimulated by contact with the Roman officials,
and in an even greater degree by the Graeco-mania of Herod
and his immediate successors. -

We find accordingly, in the last century B.c., the following
probable results concerning the languages spoken in the Holy
Land: (1) In Jerusalem, and perhaps also in the greater
part of Judea, the modernised Hebrew and a purer Aramaic

A D1DIND NIIP TINT NPY riya, Jer. Talm., Sota ix. 13 (fol. 245).

3 See p. 51. 8 Bab. Talm., Qiddushin, fol. 6 a.

* wp, used in daily and festival prayers.

5 n727, beginning ΝΣ» NOM NT, ‘like that was the bread of affliction.’
See, however, Lundshuth, ΠΡ Ὁ Ὁ 13 (Berl., 1855), p. iii, who believes it to
be of Babylonian origin.

δ DIY) NAW? PIDINIW ANN ΠΝ Χ 2 ITNT ANDY NII 32 NIN
++ -J129 SID ὙΠῸ (Tosifta, Sanhedrin, chap. 2).

E

50 The Dialects of Palestine

dialect were in use among the majority of the Jews. (2) The
Galileans and the Jewish immigrants from the neighbouring
districts understood their own dialect only (of course closely
related to Aramaic), together with a few current Hebrew
expressions, such as proverbs and prayers. (3) The small
Jewish-Greek colony and some privileged persons spoke
Greek, which was, however, a translation from the Hebrew
rather than genuine Greek, in a word, a Judeo-Greek jargon.
All these dialects, more or less intermingled, continued to be
used till the time when the schools were gradually transferred
to Galilean towns! (about 150 a.D.), when the Galileo-
Aramaic dialect appears in /a/akhic discussions and also in
aggadic dissertations. At this time we hear of Judah the saint
pronouncing the following opinion: ‘Of what use is the Swrsz
(Syriac in a wide sense) in the Land of Israel? Let us use
either the Holy language or Greek*. The Holy language
here means the modernised Hebrew or the language in which
the Mishnah and contemporary books® are written. Much
stress is indeed laid upon the knowledge of it. The passage
‘Speaking to (of) them *’ is applied to show that a father ought
to teach his son the Holy language as his first language®.
Another saying: is,‘ He who inhabits the Land of Israel and
speaks the Holy language is certain to be an inheritor of
the world to come®.’ This modernised Hebrew has never
died out amongst the Jews, and it is still employed in our
days in exegetical and casuistical commentaries, and even in
correspondence, as the only means of general communication
amongst the Jews scattered throughout the world’.

1 The schools were transferred from Yabneh in Judea to Ousha, Shefaram,
Sepphoris, and Tiberias in Galilee.

* Bab. Talm., Sotah, fol. 40 ὃ FVD) IN TWD YDTID yw) DR IW? Pra
M91? FW) ἘΝ ΤΡ.

3 See pp. 45 and 46. * Deut. xi. 10.

5 Sifré, sect. apy, § 46 (ed. Friedmann, p. 83 a).

© Jer. Talm., Sheqalim iii, end. See Dukes, Nachbiblische Geschichte der
hebrdischen Sprache, Heft 1; Die Sprache der Mischnah, p. το.

7 See our report on Tulmudical and Rabbinical Literature (fifth annual
address of the President to the Philological Society, 1876, p. 37 seqq.)

an the Time of Chrest. 51

The Aramaic dialect, known as Avami in a general sense, is
also called the language of Jerusalem! in opposition to the
Babylonian dialect. We have already had an example of the
name Sursi, The Galilean dialect is specially mentioned as
having an indistinct pronunciation of the gutturals (which
was, and still is, characteristic of the Samaritans), and also as
a dialect in which syllables were swallowed in such a way
that the meaning of words and phrases often became doubt-
ful to a southern Jew. The Talmud has many amusing
anecdotes about this dialect, of which we may quote a
few 3.

A Galilean went about calling out, ‘ Who has mar to sell?’
Whereupon he was asked, ‘Fool of a Galilean, what dost
thou want; an ass (4amor) to ride upon; wine (emar) to
drink; wool (‘imar) for a dress, or a sheep skin (imar) to
cover thyself withal*?’ This negligence in the pronunciation
of gutturals we find also in other localities near Galilee.
It is related in the Talmud that the inhabitants of Bethshean
(Seythopolis), of Haipha and Tabaon (Tab‘ain?) were not ad-
mitted to recite the prayers publicly in the synagogue, because
they pronounced a/leph like ain, and vice versa®. In Judea, it
is said, the study of the law was preserved because care was
taken there for the right pronunciation ; whilst in Galilee,
where the pronunciation was neglected, the study of law
did not exist®. The Talmud refers most likely to the fact
that there were no schools for casuistic discussion at an
early period in Galilee. Another example given in the
Talmud illustrates the contraction of several words into one,
by which the meaning of a sentence was completely altered.

1 See Dukes, op. cit., p. 3.

2 See above, p. 50, note 2. .

3 Bab. Talm., Erubin, fol. 53 δ.

# avdeba Td ΥἹΌΝ ἸΝῺ) TOR JRO? TON ὙΠ2 INT INP TTT 9202 ΝΥΠΤῚ
ΠΝ ΟΝ WOR IN WId9Nd JOY Nw) WOM IN 252} Wor ΠΥ.

5 Ibidem, Meguillah, fol. 246 JRO ΓΔ ὍΝ ND TNT 5282 PTV PR
PIN parydy pay PHN prypw 28 ἢ)» Ὁ IN NII | MI WIN NP.

® Ibidem, Erubin, fol. 53 Ὁ.

E 2

52 The Dialects of Palestine

A Galilean woman inviting a friend to take a glass of
milk with her, said to her, tokAlikhlebi (may a lion devour
thee !), contracting in this fashion the three words thei okhlik
hella’. It is probable that Jesus, through better educa-
tion, or by a personal effort, pronounced sounds more in
accordance with the Judean manner, since we do not find
any allusion in the Gospels to his having been mocked, as
was the case with Peter, on account of his Galilean pro-
nunciation. It may be of interest to allude here to two
other particulars respecting Galilee, mentioned in the Tal-
mudic writings. We are told, firstly, that persons sometimes
have two names, the one as used in Judea, and the other
in Galilee’. In fact, we find that some of the Apostles
had two names, a Hebrew one and a Galilean or a popular
one, for instance, Simon and Cephas. The same was the
case with the Maccabees, but what was exceptional in Judea
was probably a general rule in Galilee. Secondly, it is stated
in the Talmud, that Galileans were wandering preachers, and
excelled especially in the aggadic or homiletic interpretation
of the biblical texts, which was often expressed in the form
of a parable*®. This fact may partly explain how the popular
teaching of Jesus had such success in Jerusalem, where this
mode of interpretation seems to have been exceptional. The
ageadic interpretations were individual interpretations, whilst
the halakhah (dogmatic or casuistic rules) were mostly
quoted as traditional. Jesus, however, spoke in his own name,
even in his halakhic teaching, contrary to the practice of the
schools, That is the meaning probably of what is said of him,

1 Come, I shall give thee to eat milk. Tbidem x19 " 530 for 7.5218 NN
nab. See for other passages, Winer’s Chalddische Grammatik fiir Bibel und
Targum, ed. Fischer, Leipzig, 1882, p. 32.

* Tosifta, Gittin, ch. 8.

3. See La Géographie du Talmud, p. 185. We quote one instance only: 75
NNIOD NII Day Noy SYN VIVAITID... ΤΝ ὅλ NIT wT. In allusion
to bad administrators imposed as a punishment on a town, it is said, as a
Galilean explained, when the shepherd gets angry with his flock he gives them
a blind sheep as leader. Comp. Matt. xv. 14; Luke vi. 39.

an the Time of Christ. 53

that he taught ‘with authority, and not as the scribes,’ who
appealed to traditions 1.

The Aramaic dialect of the north (Sursi and Galilean) was
the popular language in the last century B.c. It is called
the language of the iévéryns* in opposition to the learned or
Holy language. Proverbs written in it are introduced with
the words ‘ proverb of the ἰδιώτης 3, or ‘as people say*.’ When
Hillel gives an explanation in the popular language, it is
said, ‘ Hillel explains in the language of the common people,
In the New Testament it is called Hedraisti®, and in the
Apocrypha and Josephus the language of the country’. It
was in this dialect that the latter at first wrote his historical
work. Although Josephus says that the Jews could under-
stand the Syrians, the Jewish Aramaic was nevertheless a
distinct dialect in some respects, as may be seen from the
words λαμάδ (in Syriac lemana®), Boavepyés'° (in Syriac bene
rama), and of the form ᾿Εφφαθά 1", recorded as having
been uttered by Jesus, who, as is now generally admitted,
addressed himself to his disciples and to his audience in the
popular dialect. This appears not only from the Aramaic
words left in the Gospels by the Greek translators (which
will be enumerated below for completeness’ sake), but more
especially from his last words on the Cross’, which were
spoken under circumstances of exhaustion and pain, when
a person would naturally make use of his mother tongue,

1 Matthew vii. 29.
2 Dukes, Die Sprache der Mishnah, p. 11.
DIT 2 Ὁ Ὁ.
ΣΝ ἽΝ very frequent.
Bab. Talm., Baba Mezia, fol. 104 a.
‘EBpaioti; τῇ Ἕβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ, John v. 2; Acts xxi. 40; Xxil, 2.
Ἢ πάτριος φωνή, 2 Macc. vii. 21, 27; xii. 37; Josephus, De Bello Jud.,
Prooem. i; V. vi. 3; Antig., XVIII. vi. 20.
* Matthew xxvii. 46.
μος.
10 Mark iii, 17. See also p. 56.
7 frosd tS.
12 Mark vii. 34. See p. 56.
15 Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34.

wo

“2 δ. ἡ ν»»

54 The Dialects of Palestine

and from the fact that it is mentioned that he spoke to
St. Paul in Hebrew!. It is a weak argument to say that
had Jesus always spoken in the popular dialect, viz. the
Galileo-Aramean, there would have been no occasion for
the author of the Acts to state that he spoke to St. Paul
in Hebrew; and yet this is one of the chief arguments of
writers on the other side*. The contrary is the case: the
author of the Acts, not remembering the Hebrew words
spoken to St. Paul, or not being able to supply them from
his own knowledge of Hebrew, was obliged, in order to be
believed, to state that Jesus spoke to St. Paul in Hebrew.
We shall see later on how little the Jews knew Greek, and
how much less they cared to know it; so that St. Paul, in
order to gain a hearing, was obliged to speak to them in
their Aramaic dialects®. Would anyone venture seriously
to maintain that St. Peter spoke Greek when he ad-
dresses himself to the ‘men of Judea and all that dwell
in Jerusalem ‘4,’ and that, too, at Pentecost, when all the
prayers were offered in Hebrew? How would the Medes,
Elamites, and Arabians have understood if he had spoken
Greek? What else do the words ‘are not all these which
speak Galileans?’ mean but that the Apostles usually spoke
to the people in the Galilean dialect? Why should the men
of Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphyla?®, etc. be
astonished that the Apostles spoke Greek, if it had been
their usual language ? Why should the chief captain ὃ wonder
that St. Paul could speak Greek, if the Jews were generally
known to be familiar with it? Is not the watchword Μαρὰν
047, which passed to the Greek-speaking populations of
Asia Minor, a sufficient proof that the speech of the first

1 Acts xxvi. 14.

* See Dr. Roberts’ Discussion, etc. (full title, p. 41, note 2), p. 74 seqq.
3 Acts xxi. 40; xxii. 2.

* Acts ii. 14.

5 Acts ii. 9 seqq.

6 Acts xxi. 37.

’ x Corinthians xvi. 22. See pp. 57 and 73.

an the Time of Christ. 55

Christians was Aramaic? Not to speak of the evident
Semitic diction! contained in the Gospels of St. Matthew
and St. Mark, who, as is stated by the early fathers, and as is
now generally admitted, made use of collections and sayings
written in Palestine by the first Christians. What language
did Jesus speak when he said*, ‘Whosoever shall say to his
brother vaca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoso-
ever shall say moreh, shall be in danger of hell-fire,’ but the
popular dialect, in which vaca (rega) was a weaker expression
than moreh®, for it is no unusual phenomenon for a foreign
word to have a stronger meaning than the native one?

The following is the list of the Semitie words preserved in
the writings of the New Testament * :—

St. Matt. iii. 7 Φαρισαῖος -- SWB.
iv. 10, ete. caravas=NIOD.
Vv. 22 paxd=Npr.
Vv. 22 yeevva=OIN2.
vi. 24 pappova= SIO.
xii, 24 Beageporr=oray Sys’.
xxi, g ‘Qoavyd=NI7 PWT or NIT PWN.

1 Tt is impossible to quote the whole literature on that subject. It will be
sufficient to refer to Lightfoot’s Horae [Hebraicae, and to Dr. Edersheim,
Life and Times of Christ, London, 1884, 2nd edition.

2 Matthew v. 22.

3. Jbidem. This word became a standing expression in the Mitrash for ‘fool.’
See the Athenaeum, 1881, p. 779 (No. 2834), where Dean Stanley’s suggestion
that moreh is derived from the Hebrew is contradicted.

* We give the list of these words according to the method of Pfannkuche,
viz. according to their occurrence in the various books of the New Testament.
Prof. E. Kautzsch in his Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramdischen, etc., Leipzig,
1884, gives an alphabetical list of the Aramaic words occurring in the New
Testament writings. We have added from his list the words composed with
Bap (13, p. 57).

5 xp is used in the Talmud as empty and stupid, just as 111, pit. See
Neue Beitrage zur Erléuterung der Evangelien in Talmud und Midrasch von
Aug. Wiinsche, Leipzig, 1878, p. 47. The confusion of Tsere (Segol) and
Pathah is possible. Qaraitic MSS. point indifferently with the one or the other.

6 5ya3 seems to be a dialectal form of 1721 (81135), bee. In some places
there was a Baal of the flies and in others of the bee. Compare Isaiah vi. 18.

56 The Dialects of Palestine

St. Matt. xxiii. 7 paBBi= 2).
XXV1. 2 πάσχα =NTIDE.
XXVil. 33 yoryobd=NAyaba *
xxvil. 46 “HAl, ἡλὶ 23, λαμὰ capayeavt ions ὌΝ
“ApRs wd.
St. Mark iii. 17 Boavepyés=W2) "22 or wy Pelee
v. 41 ταλιθὰ κοῦμιΞτε VOIP nop.
vii. 11 κορβάν ΕἸ ΞΡ.
vii. 34 ἐφφαθά--ΓΙΓΊΕΓῚ ἡ,
x. 51 ῥαββουνίΞε ΠΣ “3
xiv. 36 ’ABBd=NAN.
St. Luke 1. 15 σίκεραΞε NID.
St. John i. 43 Kyngas=N5D%5.
Iv. 25 Meoolas= Nw A
2 Βηθεσδά -- NTO mn’,
xix, 13 Dassata= NDA.
Acts i. 19 “Axed ddpa=8O7 Opn’.
ix. 36 Ταβιθά-- ΕΓ ιδ΄,
1 On the omission of the second A, see Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 11.
2 "The variant Ἔλωΐ (Mark xv. 34) represents the Aramaic form ‘75x,
which might be the original form pronounced by Jesus.
5. The guttural pronunciation of » is represented by ¥.
‘ The aspiration of n was neglected by the Galileans,

Ὁ This form is used in the prayers for God. The title of 11 is applied first
to Gamaliel the elder.

© ΤῸΝ is the possible original of ‘pool.’ Compare ΤῸΝ, Numbers xxi. 15
and elsewhere.

7 The field of blood. The reading δαμάχ is analogous to Sepax for xD
(Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 8); δαμάχ scarcely represents the word 7127, to sleep, to
die, since the substantive death is always expressed by the word xn. For
field of death (why not rely upon the translation of the time, which is to be
found in the Acts?) ought to be δαμχά, x201. To suppose a participial form
127 (Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 172) is forced.

* Feminine form of "Ὁ (35). Compare Mishnah, Berakhoth, ii. 7, and p, 60.

an the Time of Chrvst. 57

1 Cor. xvi. 22 Μαρὰν ἀθάτ- ΕΝ YD".
Apoe. ix. 11 "ABadéidv= P7aN.
Xv1. τό “Αρμαγεδών ΞΕ] ἼΔΩ araic

>

Proper names compounded with the word bar (73), ‘son,
belong also to the vocabulary of Aramaic words in the New
Testament. The following occur :—

BapaBBas=NAN V2, St. Matthew xxvu. τό.
BapfoNouatos= "DOM AE doth ex
Βαριησοῦς --- 1? a, Acts xiii. 6.
Βαριωνᾶ -- 2} ἽΞ, St. Matthew xvi. 17.
BapyaBas=NAl VS, Acts iv. 36.
BapoaBBas=NID ὝΞ, ibid. 1. 23.
Baprimaios=NIIN VD, St. Mark x. 46.

It is possible that the two passages quoted from a gospel
in the following story in the Talmud might turn out to be
original Aramaic words in the New Testament.

The passage seems to us of such importance for the New
Testament literature, that we have thought it worth while to

reproduce it in its entirety: Δ Υ WAT mibw ΝΙΝ
ΝΘ ΟῚ ssa mt oni Syeda part nos yds
wa ΝΠ Sapo Not sow Spw mnt ΓΞ ΩΣ
mond Sos santt sw mS πῦον oa opm
sm sos ow) vat 333 bod wry. o> mins
sna open 7'34’p art ona ans 5’x vb ands

1 The words certainly mean, Our Lord come or has come (see p. 73). To take
it as the transliteration of 7NX 01719 (Lowe and others before him) is against
the rules of transliteration. Besides, anathema would be ὉΠ or DAM»
without the word Tne.

2 We give an eclectic text according to the variations reported in Rabbi
Raphael Rabinovicz’s Variae Lectiones in Mishnam et in Talmud Babylonicum,
ete., Shabbath, fol.116a,b. See also The Fragments of Talmud Babli Pesachim,
etc., edited with notes by W. H. Lowe, Cambridge, 1879, pp. 67 and 68, and
Religionsgeschichtliche Studien yon Dr. M. Giidemann, Leipzig, 1876, p. 67
(Die Logia des Matthius als Gegenstand einer talmudischen Satyre),

58 The Dialects of Palestine

mrdnoms PANN pba sown σ΄ nye sd sna
ma xn twa py ma nas) awot ane
ams > Sey ὙΠ ὝΠΟ pow sons ama ya
2ssnpot mars mo ΟΦ snd ἼΩΝ aod son
ons TWAT SAMS po ΠΡΟ xb yo ΤΣ an
a. an ΣΝ ΠΟΣῚ snes by spond ΜΌΝ
sum ma > mas nov xd sma sa ope

wwawd wom stor ans Δ ΕΝ Paws

‘Emma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was the sister
of Rabban Gamaliel. There was a philosopher* in the
neighbourhood who had the reputation that he would not
take a bribe. They wished to have a laugh at him, so she
brought to him a golden candlestick, came before him, and
said : “I wish to have a portion of the property of my father.”
The philosopher said: “ Divide it.” R. Gamaliel said to him:
“Tt is written in the Law given to us by God, Where there
as a son, a daughter shall not inherit.” The philosopher answered
him: “From the day you were removed from your land the
Law of Moses was taken away and the Lvangelion® given,
and in it is written, Ze son and the daughter will inherit alike.”
Next day, R. Gamaliel in his turn brought to him a Libyan
ass. ‘The philosopher said to him: “I came to the end of
the book®, where it is written, 7 am not come to take away

1 According to another reading, considered by Dr. Gtidemann (op. cit., p. 71)
as the older one, "ΠΝ NNMUN.

2 According to another reading ])">2 ΥὙΣ.

3. Τὴ the editions x2).

* Philosopher is taken in controversial passages in the Talmud for a
Christian doctor, By a corrupt reading of the Munich MS. we should read
episcopus for philosopher (see Lowe, op. cit., p. 68).

5 According to the other reading ‘another Law.’

® According to another reading of the Evangelion, Dr. Giidemann (op. cit.,
p- 92) concludes from these words that the Logia ended with the passage
following. We abstain from deciding one way or another. Anyhow, Dr.
Giidemann’s dissertation on the subject is worth consideration. Why no notice
has been taken of it by Hilgenfeld (see p. 59, note 5), nor by Mr. Lowe, we
do not know.

in the Time of (ἤἦγτςεέ, 59

from the Law of Moses, but* to add to the Law of Moses am
I come, and it is written in it, Where there is a son, a daughter
shall not inherit.’ Emma said to him: “ Let thy light shine
in the candlestick 7.” R. Gamaliel said: “The ass has come
and knocked down the candlestick.” ’

This passage has all the appearance of genuineness. Gama-
liel is the grandson of Gamaliel the elder, and Eliezer is
the famous Eliezer, son of Hyrcanos, disciple of R. Johanan
ben Zakkai, who was often in communication with Judaeo-
Christians. Of course the passage,‘ Where there is a son, a
daughter shall not inherit,’ refers to Numbers xxvii. 9, and
may be the words of a halakhah, now lost. The words ‘ It is
written in the Law’ may thus introduce a tradition ascribed
to Moses as part of the revelation given to him on Sinai’®.
The words ascribed to the Gospel (or, according to the
other reading, ‘to the other Law’), viz. ‘The son and the
daughter will inherit alike,’ are compared with Luke xii.
134; and ‘I am not come to take away from the Law of
Moses,’ etc., is supposed to be taken either from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews’, or from the Logia of St. Matthew ®.

1 Reading 85x, or even without it (see J. H. Weiss, Zur Geschichte der
jidischen Tradition, i. p. 233, note 1), if we take the word "ΒΥ Ὁ in the sense
of completing, which is the meaning of adding to it, according to the notion of
the Rabbinical schools; xnbD1n, for instance, means the complete Mishnah
with the additions, but not additions to the Mishnah. If we were allowed to
translate nm) by ‘to destroy,’ lit. to lessen, which is possible, the Tal-
mudical sentence would correspond to the words of St. Matthew v. 17 οὐκ ἦλθον
καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. In the ordinary sense ‘ of taking away and adding’
the reading of 8), ‘nor,’ is justified by a Rabbinical authority of the seven-
teenth century (see Lowe, op. cit., p. 68).

2 We read 8anw2 for 821).

3. ΣΟ Mwn>d 795m occurs often in the Talmudical literature. See Z.
Frankel, Hodegetica in Mishnam, p. 20.

* See Giidemann, op. cit., p. 75, where the word ris is ingeniously explained.

5 See A. Hilgenfeld, Evangeliorum secundum Hebraeos, etc., ed. altera,
Lipsiae, 1884, p.15; E. B. Nicholson, The Gospel according to the Hebrews,
London, 1879, p. 146 seqq., where the date 71-3 for the Talmudical story is
arbitrary. Of course, according to the reading of the old edition which we
have adopted in our translation (see above, p. 58, note 2), the saying is taken
from the Logia, but it might have been also in the Gospel according to the
Hebrews.

° By Dr. Giidemann, see above, p. 57.

60 The Dialects of Palestine

Adopting the following conjecture, Dr. Gidemann argues for
the Logia. He takes the word 8AM (ass) in the sense of
‘bushel’. Gamaliel presented to the philosopher a bushel
with gold or silver, which put out the light of the candle.
This, according to Dr. Gtdemann, would be an allusion to
the passage ‘ Neither do men light a candle and put it under a
bushel, but on a candlestick.’ In fact, in another Talmudical
passage we find an analogous story, where it is said that
a man presented two bushels of gold (MID Ξξ μόδιο-).

We have purposely abstained from any comparison of
the ἐογία and other of Jesus’ sayings with those occurring
in the Talmud, the dates of the latter being uncertain, and
the wording mostly being different. We shall only quote
one passage out of the Ilidrash rabboth*, which represents
the genuine language of that time. On the passage, Prov.
xvill. 21, ‘ Death and life are in the power of the tongue,’
the following history is applied: R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said
to his servant Tabi, ‘Go and buy for me in the market good
provisions.” He went out and bought for him a tongue.
Then Simeon told him, ‘Go and buy for me bad provisions,’
and Tabi bought again a tongue. Simeon ‘said, ‘When I tell
you to buy good provisions, you buy a tongue; and when
I tell you to buy bad provisions, you buy a tongue also.’
Tabi answered, ‘ From the tongue cometh both, good and bad ;
it cannot be better when it is good, and it cannot be worse

when it is bad’ 5 ἼΩΝ Δ γιοῦ TS ΘΠ ΠῚ
wr ord pan ΡῈ) Npw yo Nav ὙῊΣ par pw oTay
wr md pan pa spi yo swe cd par pp 5's
sass ἼΔΥ γον od 51 os wav ὙἹΣ ΒΝ san 95%

1 Hebrew ὙΠ (op. cit., p. 84), which stood in the Semitic text for the
word μόδιος, and became ΝΥ by some ignorant copyist. x15 Libyan is an
addition, no doubt. In the Talmudical parallel passages we find instead of
nvon the words 3171 Ὁ nD, ‘a young ass of gold,’ which is a more impossible
object to be presented. Dr. Giidemann notices also that the parallel passage
has instead of Ὁ Ὁ, ‘ knocked over, the word 753 (713), ‘ extinguished.’

* On Leviticus, ch. xxxiii (according to the Bodl. MS., No. 2335).

ἦγ, the Time of Christ. 61

sana mr Ὁ γ0 ob yar ΠΝ gwen Te Tb Noe
soo ΠΡ sop ND ΜΓ NIwT I
op anova med sna te. Compare the Epistle
of St. James ii. 8-10.

The language of the Palestinian Talmud (or, as it is
commonly called, the Talmud of Jerusalem), which consists
of discussions by natives of Galilee, and which is really a
Galilean composition, represents, according to our opinion,
the language which the disciples of Jesus spoke and wrote.
The gutturals are constantly in this dialect interchanged,
Δ) is written for ΓΤ, δὲ for ΓΙ, which is thus often not pro-
nounced at all, as we have seen in the word ᾿Εφφαθά.
Very often the δὲ and the ΓΤ are omitted altogether: we find,
for instance, WWD for WN; R. Ba for R. Abba (whence the name
Rabba); Lazar for Eleazar, as in the name of Lazarus in
the Gospels. The labial letters are pronounced in the
Jerusalem Talmud more softly than in the Babylonian. In-
stead of 3 and Ὁ they use va; for the Galilean Rabbis have
often ὦ. For 5 we find ἃ; thus, the locality 35 is in the
Jerusalem Talmud 32. Even 4 and 3 are interchanged,
as in Antolinus instead of Antoninus®. From this we may
perhaps explain the name \Np3)*, given to one of the disciples
of Jesus in the Talmud, and usually regarded as= Nicodemus.
This name, however, is written in the Talmud Naqdimon.
It is more probable that by "83 is meant St. Luke (Luqa),
whom the Rabbis treated as a disciple of Jesus. Two words
are often united into one in the dialect of the Jerusalem
Talmud. For JTS TN, ‘they are,’ we read janes; 257
for ΝῊ Por, 5 ΕΟ τῦ ΤΙ sc τ Ξ for PaNw ma, ‘ inhabitants
of Beth Shean. We have seen the same occur above in
the mouth of a Galilean woman®. ‘The vocabulary of the
Jerusalem Talmud is peculiar as compared with that of the

1 MS. thrice 555, 2 See above, p. 56.

5. See Z. Frankel, Introductio in Talmud Hierosolymitanum (in Hebrew),

Vratislaviae, 1870, p. 8.
* Bab. Talm., Sanhedrin, fol. 43 a. 5 See above, p. 51.

62 The Dialects of Palestine

Babylonian Talmud. If, therefore, any attempt be made
to translate New Testament texts into their original idiom,
the language chosen for the purpose must be the dialect
of the Talmud of Jerusalem’.

Josephus has also Aramaic words in his Greek work. Thus
he remarks that the Hebrews call red, ᾿Αδωμά (ΝΥΝ) ;
priest, χαναίας (872713); Pentecost, ᾿Ασαρθά (NIAYY); a lame
man, χάγειρας (N7VAN). He has also the words Adda and
φάσκα“. That he makes a distinction between the Hebrew
(or rather Syro-Aramaic) and the Babylonian-Aramaie dialect
results from the passage where he says concerning ‘ Abanet’
(QIAN), a Zelt, ‘we have learnt from the Babylonians to call
it "Ἔμίαν,᾽ which corresponds to ΑΥ̓ΤῚ in the Onqelos Targum,
a word which occurs in the same sense in the Babylonian
Talmud 5,

As to the Greek spoken by the Jews in Palestine, in
spite of the passage quoted above*, to the effect that in
Palestine either the Holy language or the Greek should be
spoken, few, we believe, had a substantial knowledge of it.
Let us examine how, and at what period, Greek could have
become universal (according to Dr. Roberts’ view), or indeed,
even prominent in Palestine.

If the Greeks are mentioned in the Old ΠΕΣ under
the name of Yawan, there was certainly no intercourse during
the period of the first Temple between Ionians and Jews.
At the time of Alexander the Great, Jews settled in Egypt,
Asia Minor, and probably also in Greece. These we shall
find mentioned under the name of Hellenists. Their con-
nexion with the mother-land was maintained by their going
to Jerusalem for feast-days, and by their sending offerings

1 Contrary to Prof, Delitzsch’s opinion, who says (The Hebrew New Testa-
ment, etc. [see p. 41, note 6}, p. 31), ‘The Shemitic woof of the New Testament
Hellenism is Hebrew, not Aramaic. Our Lord and his apostles thought and
spoke for the most part in Hebrew.’

2 See Siegfried, Zeitschr. fiir die Alttest. Wissenschaft (by B. Stade, 1883,

p- 32 seqq.); and Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramdischen, etc., p. 7.
* yon, Erubin, fol. 104 b. * See above, p. 50.

am the Time of Christ. 63

and sacrifices to the Temple’. But we may infer that they
still all spoke, more or less, their native Hebrew dialect, for
no mention is made of interpreters being required for them
either in the Temple or outside of it. No doubt some of
them settled later in Jerusalem, and at the time of Jesus,
amongst the 480 synagogues which Jerusalem then pos-
sessed 3, there would naturally be a Hellenistic one. History
does not record that Alexander or his immediate successors
had constrained the conquered nations to adopt the Greek
language. That in new towns like Alexandria, Seleucia,
Ctesiphon, and others, Greek was prevalent cannot be doubted,
since the settlers were Greeks, but the lower class, represent-
ing labourers, servants, and even soldiers, could not have
been all brought over from Greece, but were taken from
the surrounding towns and villages; these would still con-
tinue to use their own dialects, and would acquire only a
scanty knowledge of Greek. Such is the case now in Belgium
with French and Flemish, in Alsace with French and
German. To say that Greek was universally spoken, and
that therefore Palestine could have been no exception to
the rule, is at all events exaggerated. Antioch and other
Syrian towns would not give up Syriac, as will be seen
further on®, The Pheenician towns still knew Pheenician,
as may be inferred from the coins with double inscriptions,
Pheenician and Greek *. In Palmyra we find provisions for
taxes payable to the Romans drawn up in Greek and Pal-
myrene®. In Egypt, Coptic survived till the twelfth
century A.D. In Armenia, Armenian is even now spoken.
From the Acts, 11. g-12, we see that the Parthians, Medes,
Elamites, the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea,
Cappadocia, ete. spoke languages other than Greek. Indeed,

1 See Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. iii. p. 35.

2 Ibidem, p. 391.

3 See below, p. 70.

* Renan, Histoire des Langues sémitiques, p. 196.

° M. de Vogiié, Journal astatique, 1883, i. p. 231 seqq.; ii. p. 149 seqq.
Sachau, Zeitschr. der deutschen morg. Gesellschaft, 1883, p. 562 seqq.

64 The Dialects of Palestine

Bernhardy! states that the Greek spoken in Asia Minor
was not more than a kind of jargon. Pfannkuche? observes
rightly, ‘A conquered nation suffers the deprivation of its
national language, and the obtrusion of another ¢ofal/y different
from its own, only when the conqueror overturns the
previously existing organization of the state, transports the
greater part of the inhabitants, and gives their former abodes
to foreign colonists, who inundate the whole country, and
must be far more numerous than the remaining original
inhabitants. This is the only condition which makes the
complete extinction of a national language possible, but that
condition never existed under the mild sway of the Romans
in Palestine.’ To this the following note is appended by the
translator of Pfannkuche: ‘The translator does not recollect
any instance in history where even that condition has proved
effective. The political organization of the ancient Britons
has been overturned over and over again, and still they
preserve their ancient language in its different dialects ; so
the Basks theirs; Italy, at all events, suffered the obtrusion
of no foreign tongue, although its own was modified. The
Mantshu Tartars, I apprehend, entirely overturned the
political organization of China; but the conquerors did not
introduce their own language, although far preferable to that
of the natives, and more apt to the adequate expression of
thought . . . The political organization of Prussian Poland
was completely overturned, and many efforts made to in-
troduce German, and still the Poles preserve their language.
In short, I must doubt whether any political measure, though
ever so violent, can completely extirpate the national language
of any country.. We may add in the case of Poland under
Prussia that there is compulsory education and general
military service, both of which are most powerful factors
in extinguishing a language. Other not less striking

1 Quoted by Dr. Bohl in his Forschungen, ete. (see full title above, p. 41,
note 3), p. 64.
2 English translation (see above, p. 40, note 3), p. 31.

zu the Time of Christ. 65

examples, from modern times, may be quoted. How little
have the Alsatians, especially the rural population, adopted
the French language in the course of nearly two centuries of
French rule, in spite of their being satisfied with the French
government, in spite of the frequent intercourse between
Alsatians and French, and the institution of High Schools
where French was exclusively taught. It is natural, therefore,
that the Jews with their general spirit of exclusiveness and
with their contempt for pagan worship, manners and customs,
should not have hastened to exchange their native and holy
language for the Greek. That a number of Greek words
were introduced into the vernacular Hebrew, cannot be
doubted. But they consist of names of instruments, such
as we find in Daniel}, vessels used in the Temple or at home,
and also some satirical expressions?. What better proof
ean there be that Greek did not become familiar to the
Jews in Palestine through their conquerors, than the fewness
of the verbs which have been introduced in their vernacular,
as far as we can judge, from the Mishnah, the Targumim, the
Talmud of Jerusalem, and the early homiletical literature * ?
There are certainly more French words in German than Greek
in the Hebrew vernacular, though it will hardly, we suppose,
be imagined that the Germans adopted the French language
during the occupation by Napoleon.

Such then is the conclusion which we reach from a considers
ation of the spoken language. The written literature suggests
exactly the same inferences. No apocryphal book, as far
as our knowledge goes, was composed in Greek by a
Palestinian Jew. Very few sayings in Greek are quoted in
the Midrashic literature, and the few which occur are referred
to Rabbis who came from Greek-speaking towns, such as

ο, L
(Mélanges Graux, Paris, 1883, pp. 235-244).
* See Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischnah von Dr. Abraham Geiger,
Breslau, 1845, p. 20 seqq.
% See Beitrdége zur Sprach- und Alterthums-Forschung aus jiidischen
Quellen von Dr, M. Sachs, 2 Hefte, Berlin, 1852-4, i. p. 4 seqq.

E

1 See Hartwig Derenbourg, Les mots grecs dans le livre biblique de Daniel

66 The Dialects of Palestine

Cxsarea, Antioch, and elsewhere’. Some Grecised names
which Josephus mentions, such as Alkimos for Jehoiakim,
Jason for Joshua, Antigonos and others do not indicate more
than that some of the Jews affected Greek manners and
customs; they prove nothing as to the bulk of the nation,
Civil acts written in Greek, and Greek signatures *, were
declared valid by authority of the civil power. Did the Jews
know Latin when they signed civil acts in Latin? Certainly
not. However, even if we were to adopt the idea that
under the friendly treatment which they received at the
hands of Alexander the Great and his immediate successors,
the Jews, in order to please their benefactors, endeavoured,
like the other conquered tribes, to assimilate themselves to
Greeks, the current in this direction would certainly have
ceased with their persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes. Nor
could such a short time as elapsed between Alexander the
Great and Antiochus have been sufficient to introduce a
foreign language amongst the mass of the nation. We may
meet the suggestion by appealing to the continued existence of
Welsh, in spite of the friendly rule of the English, to the
imperfect Russification of Poland and Germanization of Posen
and Silesia. All that the Jews in Palestine learned of Greek,
so far as we can judge, was at most a few sentences, sufficient
to enable them to carry on trade and to hold intercourse with
the lower officials. And even this minimum certainly ceased
after the Maccabean victory over Antiochus Epiphanes, for it
was the interest of the Asmonean princes to keep the Jews
aloof from the influence of the neighbouring dialects. The
coins at that time were struck with Hebrew inscriptions 3,
the official language and that of the schools was exclusively

1 See Dr. Lewy’s essay, entitled Ueber die Spuren des griechischen und
rimischen Alterthums im talmudischen Schriftthum (Verhandlungen der
dreiunddreissigsten Versammlung deutscher Philologen und Schulminner in
Gera yom 30 September bis 2 October, 1878), p. 77 seqq.

2 Tosifta, Baba Bathra, ch. 9.

5 See above, p. 44.

am the Time of Christ. 67

the vernacular Hebrew?. And what happened in Jerusalem
was imitated also in Galilee, except in towns exclusively
inhabited by Greeks, where the Jews, when in the minority,
might have acquired a fair knowledge of conversational
Greek, but not to such an extent as to enable them to speak
in public, and still less to be able to interpret the Law in the
synagogues. The inhabitants of Beth Shean or Scythopolis
are mentioned as pronouncing Hebrew badly, and Scythopolis
is considered an exclusively Greek town2. In fact, we may
boldly state that the Greek translation of the Bible was
unknown in Palestine except to men of the schools and
perhaps a few of the Hellenistic Jews. On the contrary, it is
said in the Talmud that when the Greek translation of the
Seventy appeared, there came darkness upon the earth, and the
day was as unfortunate for Israel as that on which the golden
calf was made*. We believe that all the quotations in the
early Gospels are derived from a traditional and unwritten
vernacular Targum. Hence many of the differences in
reading. The dominion of Herod was too brief to introduce
the Greek language, and the troubles with the Romans which
arose subsequently were certainly no inducement to Jews to
adopt Greek. Had Greek been generally spoken and taught,
why should the Talmud record a general exception in favour
of Gamaliel*, and later, in the second century, when the
schools were already active in Galilee, in favour of the family
of Judah the saint, the redactor of the Mishnah°, that they
should be allowed to learn Greek, because they had to conduct
negotiations with the government? The Hebrew inscription
on the cross together with the Greek and the Latin® is an
evident proof that there were a great number of Jews who
did not know Greek. If we are not mistaken, it is now

1 See above, p. 47 seqq.

2 See above, p. 51.

3 Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. p. 78, note 3.

* Lewy, Ueber die Spuren des griechischen, ete. (see p. 66, note 1), p. 79-

5 Dukes, Die Sprache der Mischnah, p. 7.
δ St. John xix, 20.

F 2,

68 The Dialects of Palestine

generally admitted that the earliest writings of the Christians
in Palestine and the neighbouring countries where they took
refuge after the destruction of Jerusalem were uniformly in
a vernacular Hebrew, and not in Greek’. Had a majority
of the Jews spoken this language, some of these records must
have been composed in Greek. Josephus wrote his history
in Hebrew for the benefit of the Jewish nation’, and he
acted as interpreter between the Jewish defenders of Jeru-
salem and the Roman generals*. And when he remarks
that the Jews cannot pronounce Greek purely, his meaning,
as it appears to us, is, that they did not learn it in a classical
sense, but that their knowledge consisted of barbarous Greek,
such as they would hear from foreigners who came from the
Greek provinces, and which was only a kind of jargon. The
Roman legions themselves at Jerusalem were mostly com-
posed of Syrians* whose Greek could by no means have
been classical. Speaking of the Syrians, we may take them
as an argument, how unready Semitic nations are in exchang-
ing their own dialect for another not of the same family.
The Syrian Christians, though likewise under the dominion
of Rome, and employing a great number of Greek words
in their translations of the Gospels and other writings, never
gave up their own language, which is spoken to the present
day°®. The Arabs in Algeria have not yet learned much
French, and the Arabs in Syria know not a sentence of
Turkish, in spite of having been under Turkish rule for four
centuries and professing the same religion as the Turks.

We must now briefly refer to the Jews in Egypt and
Asia Minor. These had gradually forgotten their vernacular
Hebrew. There were no schools to preserve the knowledge
of it even amongst the better classes, and daily intercourse with
the Greek population soon resulted in its being abandoned

1 See Michel Nicolas, Etudes sur les Evangiles apocryphes, Paris, 1866.

* Proémium to the Antiquities.

3 Wars, V. vi. 3.

* Ibidem, V.ix.2; VI.ii. 1. Contra Apionem, I. 9.
* Nenan, Histoire des Langues sémitiques, p. 268.

an the Time of Christ. 69

altogether. Indeed, tenacious as Jews were in their own
land, and as they are now in the countries where they live
together, yet they readily adapt themselves to the habit
of a country where they are received as free citizens, and
exchange their vernacular for the language spoken by the
people amongst whom they dwell. Indeed, the second or at
most the third generation of immigrating Jews know not
a word of the language spoken by their parents. Take, for
instance, the English Jews, who are either of Dutch-Spanish
or of German-Polish extraction, very rarely of Italian, as
was the case with the family of the late Prime Minister.
They all speak English, none of them know Dutch or
Spanish, and only a few German, unless they have learnt
it as a foreign language. The same is the case with the
French, Italian, and German Jews. Only where they are
kept by themselves, as is the case in Russia and Turkey, and
not admitted to offices, do they cling to the language of their
ancestors. So the Russian Jews still speak the medieval
German, and the Jews at Salonica, Constantinople, and Smyrna
speak the Spanish of the fourteenth century. But the Jews in
Egypt, and more especially at Alexandria, had so soon
forgotten their Hebrew that a Greek translation of the
Pentateuch became a necessity for their synagogues before
they had been settled there a single century. Possibly
a Greek translation of the Pentateuch existed before it was
written down (if there is any historical truth in this state-
ment) for one of the kings of the Ptolemean dynasty. Here,
to judge from the Greek style of an Aristeas, Aristobulus the
author of the Sibyllines, and, above all, Philo, the Jews must
have frequented Greek schools. Philo, it can be proved to
demonstration, knew very little Hebrew, if indeed he knew any
at all’. In Asia Minor, Jewish congregations are mentioned
in all parts, in Bithynia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia,
Lyeaonia, Phrygia, Lydia, Galatia, and Pontus. Cyprus,

See Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien, p. 142 seqq.

70 The Dialects of Palestine

Rhodes, and Crete had also many Jews. They are likewise
mentioned in Greece itself, in Macedonia, Thessaly, Boeotia,
Attica, and the Peloponnese’. All these Jews, far away from
Palestine, spoke only Greek, with the exception of the few who
learnt Hebrew in the schools of Jerusalem, like St. Paul, or
others who were but recent immigrants from Palestine and
with whom the apostle conversed in vernacular Hebrew.
Indeed, very few Rabbis are mentioned in the Talmud as
coming from the Greek provinces?. From inscriptions in
the synagogues and epitaphs published by Stephanie in the
memoirs of St. Petersburg *, we see that they used freely
and exclusively the Greek language. Even the common
word shalom found in the catacombs of Rome, Naples, and
later even at Venosa *, is not met with in the inscriptions of
Asia Minor. The same is the case with the tomb-inscription
at Smyrna, discovered by Mr. Ramsay, and now edited by
M. Reinach ®. These Jews, no doubt, read the Old Testa-
ment in Greek, and through them the Bible became known,
more or less, to the heathen, as may be seen from quotations
made by the apostles in writings addressed to Gentile Chris-
tians. The Jews of Cwsarea and Antioch alone had a fair
knowledge of Hebrew, so far as we can judge from the Talmud,
and that was natural; Czsarea was close to Palestine, and at
Antioch Syriae was still spoken, a language which is so
nearly related to the vernacular of Palestine. Those men-
tioned are mostly popular preachers (Aggadists), and they
freely use Greek sentences, even in an absurd way®. The

1 Acts ii. 8 seqq. ? See above, p. 66.

5’ Parerga Archaeologica, St. Petersburg, 1859, p. 200 seqq. See also
Epigraphische Beitriige der Juden von Dr. M. A. Levy (Jahrbuch fir die
Geschichte der Juden und des Judenthum, Leipzig, 1861, Bd. ii, article v),
Ῥ. 272 seqq.

4 See Iscrizioni inedite o male note, greche, latine, ebraiche di antichi
sepoleri giudaici del Napolitano, edite e illustrate da G. I, Ascoli (Atti del IV
congresso internazionale degli orientalisti, Firenze, 1880, vol. i), p. 239 seqq.

° See Inscription grecque de Smyrne. La Juive Rufina, by Salomon
Reinach, Revue des Etudes juives, tom. vii. p. 161.

® See Dr. Lewy’s essay (full title, p.66, note 1) and the Supplementary
Notes.

zn the Time of Christ. ΠῚ

Galilean Rabbis were no longer able to pronounce against the
study of Greek, having seen and heard from travellers, such
as R. Aqiba and R. Meir, how important, and how widely
spread the Greek language was amongst the Jews in Asia
Minor. Moreover, the Greek Jews undoubtedly contributed
to the support of the Rabbis and their schools in Palestine,
for the Jews here were by no means rich. They had very
little to hope from Babylonia, since the schools of that
country became rivals of the Palestinian or rather Galilean
schools. We find, therefore, in the second century R. Simon
ben Gamaliel! saying that the Law can only be adequately
translated into Greek. Another Rabbi applies the words of
Genesis ix. 27, ‘ Japhet shall dwell in the tents of Shem,’ to
the Greek language. R. Jehudah the saint, towards the
end of the second century, says, ‘Of what use is Syriac
in Palestine? Let us use only either Hebrew or Greek?’
Not only was it permitted at Cesarea that the prayer
Shema* might be recited in Hellenistic, but a new Greek
translation of the Bible was made under the auspices of
R. Agiba by Aquila. It will not be in place here to discuss
who this Aquila was; the Talmud calls him a_ proselyte,
and it is remarkable that Ongelos the Aramean translator +
is mentioned as having been a proselyte likewise. In any
case, Aquila the translator cannot be identified with the
Aquila mentioned in the Acts. Indeed, the Rabbis saw
that the Jews in Asia Minor could only use the Greek
translation of the Bible, which then became also current
among Christians. A complete return to Hebrew being thus
an impossibility, they caused a new translation to be made in
the literal sense of the interpretations followed in the schools.
R. Joshua and R. Eleazar® praised Aquila for his translation,
and applied to him the passage of the Psalms: ‘Thou art

1 Jer. Talm., Meguillah, i. 11; Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. p. 94.

3 Bab. Tali., Sotah, fol. 49 ὃ.

5 Frankel, Vorstudien zur Septuaginta, p. 58.

* See Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii. p. 97 5864.
5 Ibidem, p. 96.

Y Seer ere tes

72 The Dialects of Palestine

fairer than the children of men.’ The Rabbis began to read
Greek books, and some of them even busied themselves with
Greek philosophy. It is said of Elishah ben Abhuyah
(about 160 4.p.) that he preferred Greek studies to those of
the law. Greek songs (Homer?) were always on his lips?.
In another passage, R. Aqiba explains the prohibition not to
read ‘ outside’ books by the books of Homer *; Aqiba, as well
as Elishah, pursued mystic studies, and Homer was already in
the time of Anaxagoras explained allegorically*. Epiphanius
says* that the Gnostics and other sects found support in
Homer for all their arguments, and appealed to his writings
as we appeal to the Bible. R. Meir frequently held con-
versations with a philosopher called in the Talmud Eunomos,
of Gadarah®, a town of the Decapolis, where, according to
Strabo ©, many Greek philosophers were settled.

When the Galilean schools ceased to exist, and the Talmud
of Jerusalem had been written down, we lose sight of the
Jews in Palestine. Arabic takes the place of Greek, but we
know from non-Jewish documents that in Byzantium the
Jews used the Greek translation of the Bible in the
synagogues’. We find Greek words in the exegetical and
philosophical works of the Qaraites, who wrote on the
Bosphorus in the eleventh century*. There exists a Greek
translation of the Book of Jonah*, made at Corfu in the

1 Bab. Talm., Hagigah, fol. 15 6 WON 7°D1BD POP RF 27177 107 ND ITN

WP ΤΣ PV. PI MEO WAIT WITT M32 Wy WD ΠΡῸΣ WN OY Wy.
Lewy, Ueber die Spuren des griechischen, etc., p. 80.

2 pvon. Jer. Talm., Heleq. x. Explained also (see Graetz) by daily read-

ing from ἡμέρα.
3 See Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen (4th ed.), vol. i. p. 931.
* Haeres, i. 200.
5. ΔΤ Dyn22N for 1727. See Graetz, op. cit., 5. iv. p. 469; identified

with Οἰνόμαος Γαδαρεύς.

6 Syria, ii. 29. 7 Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. v. p. 435.

® See Steinschneider, Catalogus Codicum Hebr. Bibl. Lugd. Batav. (1858),
MS. Warner, No. 41.

® MS. Opp. Add. 8, 19 (our Catalogue, No. 1144). This is probably a
remnant of the old use of translating the lessons of the prophets (Zunz, Die
Gottesdienstlichen Vortrdge, Berlin, 1832, p. 8). This translation is, we believe,
the earliest mo!ern Greek text we possess in prose. We hope to publish it
shortly.

am the Time of Christ. Ye:

twelfth century, in MSS. of the Bodleian Library and that of
Bologna. This is the earliest example of modern Greek
prose. In the prayer-book of the Greek rite a great number
of hymns are to be found in Greek, or sometimes in Hebrew
with the Greek translation’. A version of the Pentateuch
in Greek was printed as early as 1547, together with a
Spanish translation, for the use of the Jews in Turkey ὅ.
There are in existence documents enough for writing a
grammar of Jewish Greek, which we believe would throw
some light on the grammar of the Septuagint as well as of
that of the New Testament writings.

1 Sp. Pappageorgios, Merkwiirdige in den Synagogen von Corfu im
Gebrauche befindlichen Hymnen (Abhandlungen und Vortriige des fiinften inter-
nationalen Orientalischen Congresses, Berlin, 1882, i. p.226 seqq.). The Bodleian
Library possesses several MSS. containing hymns in Greek.

2 Constantinople, fol. 1547. See Steinschneider, Catalogus Librorum
Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, 1852-1860, No, 122.

Supplementary Notes.

P. 50. M. Halévy (Revue des Etudes juives, t. ix. p. 10, note 2)
thinks that the Talmudic Sursi means the language of Ashdod, or
the Nabataean dialect. According to his conjecture, the word
‘bastard’ (111919, Zach. ix. 6) refers to the Nabataeans (see below,
p-. 229).

P. 556. M. Rubens Duval in his review of Professor Kautzsch’s
Grammar (Revue des Etudes juives, t. ix. p. 144) finds Ewald’s
explanation of ῥάκα from yp,‘ shabby’ (in German, Lump), preferable
to the jp suggested by Professor Kautzsch (see also Noldeke,
Gittingische gelehrte Anzeigen, 1884, p. 1023). We do not remember
a single instance where shabby in an Oriental language would be
employed as a reproach. We believe that Np after all is the best
explanation, since this occurs in the Talmud as a reproach.

P. 57. From the form δ ΣΝ, ‘our master,’ occurring in the
Nabataean inscriptions discovered by Mr. Doughty, M. Halévy
conjectures (Revue des Etudes juives, t. ix. p. 9) that Mapay add
represents NM NIN, ‘our Lord, come.’ Cf. vai ἔρχου, Rey. xii. 20
(see also Néldeke, ibidem).

Specimens to p. 70, note 6,

74 The Dialects of Palestine, ete.

Jer. Talm., Rosh hash-Shanah, i.3. R. Eleazar, arguing that God
gives the first example of keeping the commandments, while a king
of flesh and blood is arbitrary in this respect, uses the following
Greek sentence: ὈΞῪ IN DID) IN pydp3a N15, Πρὸ βασιλέως ὁ νόμος
ἄγραφος (read ΘῚΞ)Ν). This was perhaps a current proverb.—
Ibidem, Shebuoth, 111. 10, we read that R. Menahem stated in the
name of Resh (R. Simeon ben) Laqish: if a man who sees rain coming
down exclaims, }}033 15D NP, Κύριε, πολὺ ἔβρεξεν (according to
another reading O°D2173N), he is guilty of a vain oath—Ibidem,
Yebamoth, iv. 2, we read that R. Abahu (of Caesarea) having been
asked whence he knew that a child born at seven months could
live, answered, ‘I know it from your own language.’ NDIN ND",
NOON (read NON) NOY Ζῆτα ἑπτά, fra ὀκτώ, Ζῆτα is connected fanci-
fully with ¢jv.— We read in the Pesigta Rabbathi, xl, bx PRY? TON
ods ΠΊΩΝ 19 ἼΩΝ ΠΟ awn os Dyn) wNT mT aN DTN
wd mbryd Ὁ ποινὴ aw soa abd aw xd pay wap yor awn vd me
jpA NT ANN nm, ‘Isaac said unto Abraham his father, My
father.... Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for
a burnt offering? And Abraham said, God will provide himself a
lamb (Gen. xxii. 7, 8). God will provide for himself the sacrifice ;
and if not, thou (mw) shalt be the burnt offering, my son.’ Av is
explained as the accusative pronoun σέ (see Ed. Friedmann, p. 170 ὦ
and Dr. Giidemann’s vocabulary of the Greek and Latin words
occurring in this Pesiqta, a.v. nv).—Bab, Talm., Shabbath, fol. 31 a,
the word jn (Job xxviii. 28), ‘behold,’ is connected with the Greek
ἕν, and translated ‘the fear of the Lord is the one thing which
God asks from man.’ jn is understood in the same sense in other
passages.

70

TY.

ON A NEW THEORY OF THE ORIGIN
AND COMPOSITION OF THE SYNOPTIC
GOSPELS PROPOSED BY G. WETZEL?.

[A. Eprrsuer™. |

At the outset of this paper I would wish it clearly under-
stood that my purpose is not to present an exhaustive review
of the opinions entertained by scholars on the origin and
composition of what are known as the Synoptic Gospels ;
still less, a criticism of their views. Least of all is it my
object to state or defend the conclusions at which in the
course of study I may have arrived. My task is much more
simple and humble. On a question of such primary “import-
ance as this, every new contribution is of interest, and every
proposed new solution of the difficulties claims the attention
of the student. It is as promising, and in part giving, a new
explanation of the origin of our Synoptic Gospels that I pro-
pose to lay before you the theory which Pastor Wetzel has
advanced, with only such review of other theories as the subject
demands—and, indeed, Wetzel has made 7—and with only such
criticism as may be suggested by a statement of the facts.

I need scarcely remind you that what may be called the
criticism of the Gospels occupies a field both wider and nar-
rower than that of the Gospel-narratives. The former deals
with the origin, composition, and sources of the Gospels as a
whole,—and with their narratives and other contents only in
so far as they bear on the general question of their orzgines.

1 Die Synoptischen Evangelien, etc., von G. Wetzel, Heilbronn, 1883.
3 The Review by Dr. Wetzel is both comprehensive and able, and it has been
followed in the present paper.

76 A New Theory

On the other hand, the criticism of the Gospel-narratives
deals primarily with their contents: with the text itself, the
genuineness or spuriousness of certain parts of it, and its

meaning—and it enters on the question of authorship and
composition only in so far as these bear on the understanding
of the text itself. Naturally the two have an important
bearing upon each other. Thus our understanding of the
text of the fourth Gospel will be very different, if we regard
it as Ephesian and of the second century, from what it would
be if we treated it as the work of the Apostle John. Simi-
larly our view of divergences or accordances in the Synoptic
Gospels, or of the insertion in, or omission from, one or the
other of them of certain narratives or traits—and with it
our explanation of the text—will be greatly influenced ac-
cording as we regard these Gospels as either redactions,
Bearbeitungen, of one original Gospel (‘ Ur-Evangelium’), or
else as supplementations—or it may be amplifications, or even
rectifications—by the two other Evangelists of the first and
oldest. Gospel, which they had before them; or, finally, as all
springing alike from a common tradition in the Church.

As regards the Synoptic Gospels, with which we are at present
exclusively concerned, the very name indicates the character
of the problem. Formerly, the expression Synopsis of the
Gospels simply meant a bird’s eye view of the Gospel-history,
derived from what we now call a harmony of the Gospels.
But in our modern wsvs the term Synoptic Gospels indicates
the common, general character and contents of the first three
Gospels as distinguished from the fourth. And this, as regards
the subject-matter of these three narratives, and their general
2, events and discourses—

9

selection of, and mode of reportin
in short, their general character, style, and treatment of the
Gospel-history. The designation, which seems to have been
introduced by Griesbach, has, as Canon Westcott notes, been
brought into general use by Neander. Thus the term Syn-
optic Gospels raises at once the twofold question: (1) Whence

the striking agreement in these three Gospels—first, in the

of the Synoptic Gospels. rhe

selection of the matter; secondly, in the succession of the
narratives; thirdly, in the mode of their presentation—and
this not only as regards thoughts but even the wording ?
(2), and equally strikingly, whence their remarkable diver-
gences in these three respects ?

In other times, indeed, there was a short and easy way
of dealing with such questions. You simply cut the knot
by the sword of verbal inspiration, or dictation of the sacred
text. The Evangelists had not derived their materials from
one another, nor from a common original, nor from the con-
sensus of tradition in the Apostolic circle, but alike the thoughts
and the words had been dictated to them from above—and
all that we had now to do was to ascertain how they were
to be harmonised. But modern criticism can no longer
be satisfied with such foreclosing, rather than answering, of
the question. I am not now referring to negative, but to
positive and believing criticism, While thankfully retaining
(I speak, of course, on my own part) what we hold to be
intrinsically true and scientifically capable of ample defence—
our belief in the Divine inspiration of the Gospels, we think
of their writers, not as impersonal machines, but as inspired
men, who in the preparation of their narratives availed them-
selves of the usual sources of historical composition, and whose
writings (as regards their human aspect) are subject to all
the ordinary canons of historical criticism. And having
arrived at this general conclusion, we can address ourselves
fearlessly, although with even more than usual reserve and
caution, to the study of the literary origin of the Gospels, well
assured that the results of the fullest historical investigation
will establish the truth of Holy Scripture, and that anything
that may seem to the contrary must be due to hasty inferences,
or to insufficient consideration of both sides of the question,
or else to want of such information, as, if we possessed it,
would remove our difficulties.

On what theory, then, of their composition are we to
account for the threefold agreement and the threefold

78 A New Theory

differences between the Synoptic Gospels? Before stating
the theory of Dr. Wetzel let me give a brief historical syn-
opsis of the attempted explanations.

In general these may be arranged in three groups, to
each of which, as well as to their subdivisions, the names
of certain critics attach. I would call them: the mutual
dependence-hypothesis; the original Gospel- or original docu-
ments-hypothesis ; and the original tradition- or oral Gospel-
hypothesis. Let us examine each in briefest manner.

Firstly, according to the mutual dependence-hypothesis, the
affinity between the different Gospels is explained by their
mutual use. Here the question would arise, What is to be
regarded as the chronological order of the three Gospels ?
Six different answers have been proposed, according as you
place one or the other Gospel first in the order of time. The
various arrangements of the Gospels are as follows:

a. According to some, St. Matthew comes first; from him
St. Mark ; and from both St. Luke. So St. Augustine, Bengel,
Credner, Hilgenfeld, Hengstenberg. And here this other ques-
tion arises, whether it was the Hebrew or the Greek Gospel
of St. Matthew (the latter: Hug)?

ὦ. Others arrange the order thus: St. Matthew, St. Luke,
St. Mark. So Griesbach, De Wette, Theile, Strauss, Gfrorer,
Schwegler, Baur, Delitzsch, Bleek, Anger, K6stlin, and Keim.

c. Others begin with St. Mark. Thus: St. Mark, St. Mat-
thew, St. Luke. So Storr, Thiersch, Reuss, Meyer, Tholuck,
Tobler, Plitt, Weiss.

d. Or else: St. Mark, St. Luke, St. Matthew. So Herder,
Lachmann, Br. Bauer, Hitzig, Holtzmann, Volkmar.

e. Lastly: Some place St. Luke first. Thus: St. Luke, St.
Matthew, St. Mark. So Heubner, Rédiger, Schneckenburger.
jf. Or else: St. Luke, St. Mark, St. Matthew. So Vogel.

I ought to add that at least one writer (Saunier) supposes
the dependence to have been, not on a written copy of the
Gospels, but on memory.

From this classification you will observe, first, that there are

of the Synoptic Gospels. 79

few names in favour of the absolute priority of St. Luke,
and among them only those of Schneckenburger and Rodiger
which claim special attention. Secondly, that as between the
priority of St. Matthew and St. Mark authorities are some-
what evenly divided, the balance being in favour of the
priority of St. Matthew, although of late the weight of
opinion has turned in favour of the priority of St. Mark; and
that, in support of each view, you have distinguished names
on the positive, as well as the negative side of criticism.
Thirdly,—and I trust the inference will not be regarded as
eynical,—that, since learned opinions are so evenly divided on
the subject, there can scarcely be any decisive evidence as
to the priority of either one or the other Gospel, or indeed
in favour of this hypothesis generally, which the Germans
call the Benitzungs-Hypothese.

Secondly. According to the second hypothesis, which I
have called the original Gospel- or original documents-hypo-
thesis, the Synoptic Gospels all rest on one original Gospel,
which, however, is no longer extant, and to which various
additions were afterwards made. This theory was first
broached by that original exegete, Eichhorn. Eichhorn
supposed that the common sections in the three Gospels were
taken from this Ur-Evangelium, the differences and specialities
of each being accounted for by the later additions already
mentioned. You will notice that this scarcely satisfactorily
accounts for such questions as these, why two Evangelists
record an event which is omitted by the third, or why one
records what the other two omit. Again, as there are
differences (though only in detail) even in those accounts
which are common to all the three Gospels, it was further
assumed that this original Gospel and the additions to it
had been written in Hebrew, and then differently translated
into Greek—the writers, or rather those who finally redacted
our Synoptists, having in their version of the original Gospel
and of its additions also made use of the existing translations.

Although I have to remind myself and you that the object

80 A New Theory

of this paper is not to make detailed criticism, I cannot
help expressing the feeling that, like many other explana-
tions—theological, exegetical, and philosophical—this does
not so much spring out of the facts, as it is rather adapted
to them. It seems not like the natural covering of a plant,
but like a garment made to measure, fitted on and altered
to suit the figure. For the sake of completeness let me add,
that this Ur-Evangelium, or derivation-hypothesis, has been
differently presented. Some critics maintain:

a. That the original Gospel was the Aramzan (or Hebrew)
St. Matthew, which contained the sections common to all
the Gospels (Heilmann), or else that the matrix of all was
a translation of it into the Greek (Bolten).

Before proceeding, I should perhaps say that this second
might be combined with the first hypothesis. For you may
hold that the Evangelists were dependent on each other, and
yet that their writings were derived from an original which
was the basis of that one existing Gospel, on which the others
were severally dependent. Thus, according to Baur, there was
an original Matthew; from this, the canonical Matthew; from
this again, the original Luke; from the two latter, Mark; and
finally, the canonical Luke. This gives five documents. Weiss,
en the other hand, has it, that from the Apostolic original
Gospel (Ur-Matthzus) came Mark, and from both, Luke
and the canonical Matthew (independently of each other)—
our St. Matthew being not Apostolic at all. Ewald marks
not less than nine formations, of which St. Luke is the last.

ὁ, There are critics, such as Hilgenfeld and Schwegler, who
hold by an original Gospel of the Hebrews.

c. Eichhorn, as we have seen, speaks of a Greek translation
of it and of certain additions to it.

εἴ. Lastly, in this direction, we have the view which assumes
the existence of various sources—notes, records, ete.—which
served as the original basis of the Gospels. So Schleiermacher.

Thirdly. We now turn to the third, commonly known as
the tradition-hypothesis, or, as Canon Westcott has happily

of the Synoptic Gospels. 81

designated it, that of the oral Gospel. It had best be presented
in the form originally given it by Gieseler. That scholar
reminds us that oral tradition, rather than written composition,
was in accordance with the genius of the ancient Hebrews.
Similarly, he suggests, the Evangelical history had for a time
been orally transmitted, and by frequent repetition assumed a
peculiar type, which was afterwards presented in the written
Gospels. I have hitherto purposely omitted all reference
to living English divines. But there need not be any
reserve in stating that this is the view advocated by
Canon Westcott, in his Introduction to the Study of the
Gospels. He speaks of an oral Gospel, which formed the
basis and substance of Apostolic teaching, as traced in the
Acts and Epistles, centring ‘in the crowning facts of the
Passion and Resurrection of the Lord, while the earlier
ministry of Christ was regarded chiefly in relation to its ©
final issue.” In these respects, he supposes, ‘the Synoptic
Gospels exactly represent the probable form of the first oral
Gospels.’ ‘In their common features they seem to be that
which the earliest history declares they are, the summary of
Apostolic preaching, the historical groundwork of the Church.’
Then, as regards the probable order of precedence of the forms
of the narratives, he ranges them: as St. Mark, St. Luke,
St. Matthew, although he adds that ‘it is, of course, possible
that an earlier form of the Apostolic tradition may have been
committed to writing at a later period.’

It must be admitted that this theory is not only attractive,
but that prima facie it contains evident elements of truth.
The Gospel-history, specifically that of Christ, would natur-
ally be the great centre of interest, alike to Christians and
unbelievers (and hence the subject of preaching); and it would
continue such, the more, that so few had personally known
Christ, or followed Him for any length of time, and that even
this small band was continually decreasing by death. All the
more earnest would be the desire to possess an authentic record
of the great facts of Christ’s life and death. But it is another

G

82 A New Theory

question whether this desire would not have led to, and
indicated the necessity, not of an oral, but of a written
Gospel. Besides, to my mind, this theory, if standing alone,
would leave a number of questions unanswered, some of them
of deepest importance. Whence—if the oral Gospel be the
sole basis—whole sections peculiar to only one Gospel, such
as the Perzan section in St. Luke, or even the history of
the forerunner of Christ, not to speak of much else, say, in
the procemium of the third Gospel? Besides, these sections,
by their language and style, make, at least upon my mind,
the impression of separate documents lying at the foundation
of the narrative—some strongly Hebraic or local, such as
the introductory portions of St. Luke. Similarly, the tradi-
tion-theory, if alone, does not account for the opposing
phenomenon of the occurrence of not only similar but iden-
tical portions, not merely in the discourses (where perhaps
it might have been preserved in tradition), but in the his-
torical parts of the Gospels!. To these must be added such
considerations as that evidently Christ and His Apostles
spoke in Aramxan. Whence then, on the tradition-hypothesis,
the verbal agreements in the Greek ? Again, on the tradition-
hypothesis, whence such a phenomenon as that St. Mark
alone has scarcely anything peculiar to himself and distinctive ὃ
Further, whence the accordance in the arrangement of the
material in the three Gospels which is far greater than the
differences? whence also this, that out of the many miracles
and events in the life of Christ, the three Synoptists mostly
choose the same for their narration? If it had been derived
exclusively from an oral Gospel we would have expected
here rather differences.

To this review of the various opinions held you will perhaps
allow me to add a brief criticism. It appears to me, that

? Wilke here makes an apt distinction between what he calls that in the
narratives which might depend on the memory of the writer (such as certain
facts and speeches), and that which would depend on his reflection (Gedichtniss-

miissig; Reflexionsmiassig). But there is literal agreement in the latter also
between the three Evangelists.

of the Synoptic Gospels. 83

neither of the three theories mentioned is sufficient, alone and
by itself, to explain all the facts of the case. Besides the diffi-
culties already stated, this has to be added about the tradition-
hypothesis, that if, as we must believe, there were various
sources or media of this tradition (not one, but several narrators)
we should scarcely expect that the issue would be one oral
Gospel. Rather would the tendency of such traditions be to
diverge. On the other hand, besides the attractiveness of the
tradition-hy pothesis, this element of great importance attaches
to it—to which even such negative critics as Wittichen have
been obliged to give due weight—that accord in the different
Gospels establishes and presupposes a consensus of earliest
Apostolical tradition, with which historical criticism has to
deal as a fact that cannot be overlooked nor set aside.

I must here venture to express the opinion ‘that no theory
of the origination of the Gospels can be satisfactory, unless
it go hand in hand with (I had almost said, be preceded by)
an inquiry not only into the general purpose of the Gospels
as written documents, but into the specific object of each
individual Gospel. I am aware that I am here treading, or
at least approaching, dangerous ground. It may be that I am
making concessions to the Tiibingen school—to what is known
as the Zendenz-Kritik, which traces in almost every narrative
of the Gospels design and purposes: the manifestation of an
internecine war within the Church, or else cunning attempts
at conciliation. I can scarcely express in too strong language
my dissent from this Zendenz-Kritik, alike on ethical, critical,
and literary grounds. Yet there is this underlying truth in
it, that alike the Gospel-narrative and its different narrations
must in their varied selection have had some raison d’étre.
Such a razson d’étre would, if ascertained, also give them,
whether viewed in their combination or separately, a bond
of unity. And it is in the recognition of this unity and
rationalness that the charm of the theory of the Tubingen
school lies, since it seeks to solve the problem by reducing the
existing diversity to an underlying unity of purpose and plan.

G 2

84 A New Theory

Our reference to the Zendenz-Kritik leads us back to the
book more immediately under review. Of late critical
opinion has chiefly reverted to the theory of an original Gospel
—not indeed one of our present canonical Gospels, but an
Ur-Evangelium outside the canon. And here the difference
between critics lies mainly in this, whether this Ur-Evangelium
was an original Matthew or an original Mark. Brief remarks
must be made on each of these two views.

First, the existence of an original Matthew is chiefly,
though not exclusively, advocated by the school of tendency-
criticism, that is, by those critics who discern in each
Gospel a peculiar tendency, perhaps I should rather say,
a party-aim and animus. Thus Schwegler puts it in this
manner. Originally Christianity was what we term Ebionite.
This Ebionite Christianity found expression in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, which was a Jewish-Christian
party-work. From this Gospel according to the Hebrews
proceeded, by a modification of its Ebionism, the Gospel
by St. Matthew. Again, in opposition to the Ebionite, there
was the direction, known as Pauline Christianity, which
found expression in the Gospel of Marcion!, and this Pau-
linism, once more modified, appears in the Gospel according
to St. Luke. And the antagonisms already modified in
these two Gospels were finally smoothed into a harmony
in the Gospel of St. Mark. Without attempting either
detailed examination or criticism of this view, it may be
said that it has been rendered quite untenable, when it
was shown (by Volkmar) that the Gospel of Marcion was
not an original Luke, but our canonical Luke in a form suited
to the views of Marcion. As regards the Gospel according
to the Hebrews, most eritics also consider it a corrupted
retranslation of St. Matthew into Hebrew.

Secondly, I have still briefly to notice the theory which
speaks of an original Mark. It was propounded in 1838
by Weisse in his Lvangelische Geschichte. He maintained

’ See the analysis of it in Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,
PP. 479-472.

of the Synoptic Gospels. 85

that the first and third Gospels originated from the second,
and from a collection of discourses, to which Papias is sup-
posed to refer. This hypothesis was next developed by the
supposition of an Ur-Markus. This chiefly by Wilke, and it
is represented by Volkmar.

I am not by any means disposed cursorily to set aside this
theory. Whatever may be thought of an Ur-Markus, it appears
to me—alike from its conception, style, and language—that
the Gospel by St. Mark is the oldest, as well as the simplest,
and, if I may use the expression, the freshest of the three.
But I must not here commit myself either to definite state-
ments or strictures, nor even to such remarks as would require
a much fuller treatment than I can attempt at present.

The theory in question was adopted and modified by
Holtzmann in 1863, in his work Die Synoptischen Evangelien.
He traces two sources in our Gospels. He considers that the
principal of these was the Ur-Markus, which he designates 4,
and which he supposes to have related the deeds of Christ, the
miracles, ete. The second he designates A’, and supposes to
have been a collection of discourses by St. Matthew. Our
canonical Mark omits a number of things from document 4;
the two other Gospels have used besides 4, also A: St. Luke
more than St. Matthew. The view of Holtzmann was sub-
stantially adopted by Weizsiicker—although he somewhat
differently describes the two sources 4and A. Another slight
modification of this view was made by Weiffenbach in his work
Die Papias-Fragmente tiber Markus und Mattheus, 1878, Suffice
it to say, that he places before the Ur-Markus yet another, an
Ur-Ur-Markus. This original Mark really contained the notes
taken by Mark from the preaching of St. Peter—a kind
of diary, without chronological order or arrangement. Next,
these notes were arranged, and this is the Ur-Markus; or, as
Weiffenbach calls it: ‘the narrative Synoptic foundation-
work’ (‘die erzihlende Synoptische Grundschrift’). Thence
the canonical Mark was derived, and from the Ur-Markus, alone
with the discourses of St. Matthew, the other two Gospels,

86 A New Theory

It is this Markus-Hypothesis which Dr. Weltzer subjects
to a detailed examination in the work which I am introducing
to your notice. He proceeds to do so (1) by a discussion of the
import of the well-known testimony of Papias (Euseb. Hist.
Feel, ii. 39); (2) by a consideration of what in Germany are
called the Doub/etten in the Gospels, that is, such discourses and
narratives as are supposed to appear in one and the same Gospel
in a twofold recension. Holtzmann, however, holds that such
certainly exist only in three, or at most four, instances, viz. :
(2) St. Mark iv. 25; Doubletten of it: St. Matt. xiii. 12=
St. Luke vii. 18=St. Matt. xxv. 29=St. Luke xix. 26;
(2) St. Mark viii. 34, 35; Doubletten: St. Matt. xvi. 24, 25=
St. Luke ix. 23, 24=St. Matt. x. 38, 39 =St. Luke xiv. 27, 33;
(c) St. Mark viii. 38; Dowbletten: St. Matt. xvi. 27=St. Luke
ix. 26=St. Matt. x. 32, 33=St. Luke xii. 8,9; (d) St. Mark
xii. 9-13; Doubletten: St. Matt. xxiv. 8-14=St. Luke xxi.
12-19 =St. Matt. x. 17-22=St. Luke xii. 11,12. (3) Weltzer
considers the theory in connexion with the different quotations
from the Old Testament in the Gospels, in answer to the con-
tention that these different modes and kinds of quotation point
to the different sources of the Gospels. (4) He discusses
at length the reasoning of Holtzmann as to the supposed
linguistic peculiarities of the two fundamental documents, 4
and A, which are said to reappear in our canonical Gospels.

I must, in conclusion, refer to the last modification of the
Matthew-hypothesis, as being connected with the name of
B. Weiss!, whose writing’s are so well known. Indeed, his com-
mentaries are little else than an elaborate attempt to prove in
detail his theory, that all the Gospels arose out of one ‘ Apostolic
foundation-work’ (Grundschrift) by St. Matthew—it need
scarcely be said, not our canonical Matthew. This Grundschrift
does not, however, represent a wholly free, original product by
St. Matthew, but embodies that type of narration formed in
the oldest circle of Apostles. This oldest document was not

1 See the criticism by Beyschlag, in the Studien und Kritiken for 1881,
p. 571.

of the Synoptic Gospels. 87

merely a collection of discourses, but an account of the most
important teachings of Christ and of the most prominent events
of His Life. With the help of this fundamental document
St. Mark wrote his Gospel, availing himself also besides of
communications by St. Peter. By combination of this original
document with the canonical Mark the other two Gospels
arose——St. Luke being wholly independent of St. Matthew.
The limits of this paper prevent further details. Nor indeed
are they necessary, since what has to be said regarding the
theory of Wetzel himself can be compressed into short space.
Generally speaking, I can only so far agree with Wetzel as
that our inquiry should start from what, as it seems to me, is
the only stable historical notice we possess in regard to this
question: the proemium to St. Luke’s Gospel. Wetzel
holds the tradition-hypothesis, but in such modified form as,
I think, will scarcely recommend itself to your minds. He
sets out by stating that, in the primitive Church in Jerusalem,
the Hellenists especially knew little of the life and work of
Jesus, since they had lived in other countries, and had only
become believers on their return to Palestine, or during a visit
to it. It was primarily to these Hellenists that one Apostle,
either exclusively or principally, gave instruction, in their
own tongue, the Greek. This Apostle was Matthew. And
this explains why the first Gospel was called after him.
Besides, he was best suited for that work, since his former
avocations must have rendered him familiar with the Greek.
Those who attended his lectures either remained in Jerusalem,
or returned to their homes in other lands. Their requirements
explain the origin of the written Gospels. The hearers of
St. Matthew first asked the Apostle frequently to repeat the
principal portions of his lectures. And St. Matthew came to
catechize his hearers on the main portions of his narration.
A successive stream of hearers gave to these lectures a fixed
type. And so St. Matthew came gradually to select, in these
lectures, certain portions as the most important, since his
hearers could not have retained all in their memories. This

88 A New Theory of the Synoptic Gospels.

selection, presentation, and arrangement of events soon acquired
astereotyped form. Strictly speaking, the Apostle had wished
to present a chronological narrative, and in. the main he had
done so. But, as he could only give his hearers a selection
from the material at his command, it was natural that
the chronological arrangement should sometimes have been
subordinated to that of subjects (Sach-Ordnung). Besides, his
memory sometimes failed. Hence he had inserted discourses
and events, not exactly in their proper succession, but with a
view to the best arrangement of the subject, and not without
frequent variations of order. What the Apostle taught, that
his hearers learnt—sometimes by heart (as, for example, the
Lorp’s Prayer), at other times by taking notes of it. In this
manner various Gospel-narratives came into circulation. Three
out of their number (the ‘many’ to which St. Luke refers)
deserved to be permanent. These are our Synoptic Gospels.
Substantially they are the lectures of St. Matthew, but they
also contain additions from other sources. Thus the history
of the Infancy in the first and third Gospels—which is not
related by St. Mark—was taken from other, and, as compared
among themselves, diverging sources. Otherwise also St. Luke
sometimes derived his narrative from other sources than the
lectures which he had attended, preferring, for reasons not
stated, those sources of information. Thus the lectures of
St. Matthew, committed to memory, or notes taken by the
hearers, together with subsidiary sources of information, con-
stituted the materials of which our canonical Gospels are
composed—and among them that of St. Mark is the simplest
and oldest.

Such is the theory of Dr. Wetzel, which I have undertaken
to lay before you as being the latest contribution on the sub-
ject. But, while fully acknowledging the care and learning
of its author, it scarcely seems to require detailed criticism at

our hands,

Mi

A COMMENTARY
ON THE GOSPELS ATTRIBUTED TO
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH.

[W. Sanpay. |

Zahn, Dr. Theodor, Forschungen zur Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons.
Il. Theil: Der Lvangelien-commentar des Theophilus von Antiochien,
Erlangen, 1883. III. Theil, Beilage iii, Nachtrdge zu Theophilus, 1884.
Harnack, Dr. Adolf, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der alt-
christlichen Literatur: I. Band, Heft iv, Der angebliche Evangelien-
commentar des Theophilus von Antiochien.

Tue paper! that follows is an attempt to present briefly, to
English students of early Christian literature, some of the
main points in a controversy which has recently arisen, and is
still being prosecuted with great activity, between two of the
most eminent of the scholars who are working at that field in
Germany. The limits of space at my disposal will, I fear,
make it difficult for me to do justice to the learning and
closeness of reasoning which are displayed in equal measure
on both sides. Dr. Zahn’s argument especially is liable to
suffer by compression. His own complaint? has truth in it,
that the kind of points that he urges are not to be judged off
hand on the strength of the superficial knowledge derived
from compendiums of Church history or doctrine. Where
the early growth and first germinal appearance of ideas aré
concerned, a bald abstract must needs dispense with those
qualifications and gradations which make a proposition rea-

1 Tt should perhaps be explained that this paper was read, at rather short
notice, as the first of the series, when the scale and character of the Essays were
still matter of experiment. It has been slightly altered, so as to include a
reference to Dr. Zahn’s second article, which has since appeared.

* Forschungen, iii. p. 231.

go On a Commentary ascribed

sonable and defensible that otherwise would not be so. I
cannot conceal my belief that Dr. Zahn is fighting a losing
cause. I think that he has been led away by something of
the eagerness of discovery ; and it is natural that he should
hold tenaciously a position to which he has once been com-
mitted. But I believe, at the same time, that he had a case
in the first instance that was quite worth stating. I do not
doubt that his arguments are put forward in perfectly good
faith; they are stated with much ability, and with a
thoroughness and closeness that Iam afraid is not common
in English controversy. The one thing that is really to be
regretted is that in its later phases so much heat should have
been imported into a discussion that ought to proceed quite
objectively. We are all liable to error; and so long as work
is sound and honest it reflects no discredit that some one else
should find out two or three new facts or hit upon a new
train of argument that upsets our own conclusions. Both
the disputants may be assured that in England, at least, our
respect for them is too firmly established to need sup-
port —which indeed it does not receive — from personal
recriminations.

Theophilus of Antioch is one of the precursors of that
group of writers who, from Ireneus to Cyprian, not only
break the obscurity which rests on the earliest history of the
Christian Church, but, alike in the East and in the West,
carry it to the front in literary eminence and distance all their
heathen contemporaries. The contribution which Theo-
philus himself makes to this body of literature is not great.
Eusebius !, and after him Jerome ’, tell us that he wrote a
book against Marcion and one against the heresy of Hermo-
genes, both of which are lost. A third treatise, in three
books, addressed to Autolycus has been preserved, and is
that from which our knowledge of the writer is chiefly
derived*. But besides these Jerome speaks of Commentaries

1 H. E. iv. 20 ἢ. 3 De Vir. ill. 25.
3 The doubts as to the identity of the author of these works, raised by Dod-

ΓΞ ti

to Theophilus of Antioch. ΟΙ

on the Song of Songs and on ‘ the Gospel,’ which he regarded
as inferior to the other works in elegance and diction.

Now a Commentary bearing the name of Theophilus of
Antioch was published, in 1576, in vol. v. of the Magna bib-
liotheca Veterum Patrum, by Margarin de la Bigne. The
Commentary was in Latin, and therefore purported to be a
translation. No account was given of the MS. from which
the text was taken. And from that day to this, though
diligent search has been made for it, the MS. has not been
found. There is, however, no suspicion attaching to De la
Bigne. He undoubtedly had before him a real text, which
he has reproduced with a fair degree of accuracy.

A proof that the text had not been largely tampered with
is seen in the treatment of the ancient headings of the four
books into which the Commentary is divided. The heading
of Book I is this: 8. P. nostri Theophili patriarchae Antiochent
commentariorum sive allegoriarum im sacra quatuor Evangelia.
But the heading of Book II passes from Theophilus of
Antioch, whose date is 170-180 a.D., to his better-known
namesake, the contemporary and bitter opponent of Chry-
sostom, who was bishop of Alexandria in 385-412: 8. P.
nostri Theophili, archiepiscopi Alexandrini, allegoriarum in
Evangelium secundum Marcum liber secundus. And the like
heading is kept, mutatis mutandis, for the next two books
dealing with the two remaining Gospels. Zahn and Har-
nack agree in inferring from this that the patriarchae An-
tiocheni in the heading of the first book is a eritical correction
on the part of the editor, based upon his knowledge of the
mention of certain Commentaries of Theophilus of Antioch by
Jerome.

This brings us to the next step in the process by which the
Commentary came to be attributed to Theophilus of Antioch.
The direct evidence clearly counts for little or nothing. But it
was upon the indirect evidence that Dr. Zahn took his stand.

well and revived by Erbes, seem to be sufficiently answered by Harnack
(Texte u. Untersuch. i. p. 287 f£.).

92 On a Commentary ascribed

Jerome not only mentions Commentaries by Theophilus of
Antioch three times over, but on one occasion (Zp. 121 ad
Algasiam) he quotes from the book at some length. His
quotation is an exposition of the parable of the Unjust
Steward, which he introduces thus: Theophilus Antiochenae
ecclesiae septimus post Petrum apostolum episcopus, qui quatuor
Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens, ingenti sur
monumenta dimisit, haec super hac parabola in suis commentariis
est locutus. Now the passage which Jerome quotes reappears
in the Commentary published by De la Bigne. This may be
set down as the first fact of real significance.

Dr. Zahn took hold of a further point in the description just
given of Theophilus’ Commentary. Jerome speaks of its author
as quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta compingens: and
Dr. Zahn tries to show that this description corresponds to the
phenomena of the printed Commentary, contending that what
is implied is not so much that Theophilus first constructed a
Harmony of the Gospels and then commented upon it, as
that he took texts from each in somewhat irregular order.
Here perhaps we may not be quite able to follow him.

But in another direction he seemed to be more successful.
On the occasion to which I have referred Jerome quotes from
the Commentary with distinct acknowledgment. But on
examination it is found that there are a number of other
passages in which the language of Jerome coincided with
that of the Commentary, but without anything to show that
he was quoting from a previous writer. Nor was Jerome the
only writer who stood to the Commentary in this relation.
Similar coincidences were found with a number of other
writers, most plentifwlly with Arnobius junior, a Gallican
presbyter or possibly bishop, about whom not very much is
known, but who is set down as having lived at a date not
earlier than 460 A.D.

In all these parallelisms there is no external mark of
quotation, either in the printed Commentary or in the writer
with whom the coincidence occurs, to show on which side the

to Theophilus of Antioch. 93

priority lay. Neither the Commentator on the one hand, nor
Jerome or Arnobius on the other, made any confession of
borrowing. In other words, it seemed to be a case of what
we should call simple plagiarism. And the question arose,
Who was the plagiarist? Previously to Dr. Zahn the
current opinion had been that the Commentator wrote in
the sixth century, and borrowed freely from his predecessors.
Dr. Zahn undertook to show that the reverse was really the
case ; and he tried, by an elaborate comparison of the passages,
to prove that the priority was on the side of the Commentator.
Arguments of this kind are always delicate and difficult
to bring to a positive conclusion. There were, however,
some points that struck me as being in Dr. Zahn’s favour.

In the first place I was quite prepared to believe in any
degree of what we should call ‘ plagiarism’ on the part both
of Jerome and the other ecclesiastical writers in question.
There is abundant evidence that the state of opinion on such
a point was very different in ancient times from what it
is now. That a writer should borrow from his predecessors
was the natural thing rather than otherwise. And it did not
by any means always follow that the borrowing would be
acknowledged.

I was therefore quite ready to admit that Jerome, Ambrose,
Arnobius, and the rest, might have drawn upon some older
Commentary without naming it. And, on the other hand,
there seemed a certain prima facie probability that the work
printed by De la Bigne was that Commentary. Here we had
only two alternatives. Either it was the original work at
the base of all these later writers, or else it was a wholesale
compilation. But not a word was said, either by way of
introduction or incidentally, admitting any kind or degree of
compilation. If the Commentary was not an original work,
as it seemed to profess to be, then it could only be set down
as a very bare-faced production.

I was somewhat loth to adopt this conclusion. But,
without following Dr. Zahn through all his proofs, some of

94 On a Commentary ascribed

the instances quoted seemed to tell more or less distinctly
against it. The coincidences were most abundant with Latin
writers, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, Juvencus, not to speak of
later writers, like Bede. But there were some coincidences
also with the Greeks.

‘Why, the supposed Theophilus asks1, ‘was not Christ
conceived by a simple virgin, but by one already betrothed ?’
And he gives four reasons. ‘ First, in order that the descent
of Mary might be exhibited by the genealogy of Joseph
(ut per generationem Joseph origo Mariae monstraretur ) ;
secondly, that she might not be stoned by the Jews as an
adulteress ; thirdly, that on her flight into Egypt she might
have the solace of a husband ; fourthly, that her birth-giving
might escape the devil, by leading him to suppose that Jesus
was born from a married woman and not from a virgin.’
This fourth reason is ascribed by Jerome to Ignatius. It is
found in other writers. And Basil the Great expressly gives
it as proceeding from one of the ‘ancients. Similarly
Origen, in his Homilies on St. Luke, refers to one of the
πρεσβύτεροι an interpretation of the parable of the Good
Samaritan, which Dr. Zahn contends to be that of Theophilus.
His words in the Latin version are, aiebat quidam de pres-
byteris volens parabolam interpretari. And the two inter-
pretations, though not identical, seem to be sufficiently near:
the priest and Levite are (practically) the Law and the
Prophets; the Samaritan is Christ. But the passage which,
I confess, carried most weight with me was one in which the
Commentary presented an almost verdatim coincidence with a
letter of Cyprian’s. The comment was on the words of
institution in the Last Supper: Hie est corpus meum.
Corpus suum panem dicens, de multorum granorum adunatione
congestum, populum hune quem assumpsit indicat adunatum,
Hic est calix sanguinis mei. Sanguinem suum vinum appellans,
de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum et in unum coactum,
item congregationem nostram significat commixtione adunatae mul-

1 On Matt. i. 18 (Zahn, Forschungen, ii. p. 32 ff.).

to Theophilus of Antioch. 95

titudinis copulatam*. With this is to be compared Cyprian,
Ep. 69 ad Magnum, ο. 5: Nam quando Dominus corpus suum
panem vocat de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, populum
nostrum quem portabat indicat adunatum: et quando sanguinem
suum vinum appellat de botruis atque acinis plurimis expressum
atque in unum coactum, gregem item nostrum significat com-
mixtione adunatae multitudinis copulatum.

Here there could of course be no doubt that we have a
direct transcription of one writer by the other. And in
asking oneself which had the priority it seemed natural to
bear in mind the character of the composition in each ease,
The passage in Cyprian occurs in the course of a letter,
dealing not directly with any question of interpretation,
but with the question whether baptism by the followers of
Novatian ought or ought not to be repeated. But on the
face of it it seemed more probable that, in an exposition of
Scripture coming in thus incidentally, the writer of a letter
should quote from a Commentary than that a commentator
should set down, without any hint of quotation, an extract
from a letter. It might also be thought that the expres-
sion populum quem assumpsit bore a greater appearance of
originality than the less intelligible and indeed rather curious
quem portabat of Cyprian.

But prima facie probabilities, as this discussion tends to
show, will only carry us a short way. When we turn to
the parallel to which Dr. Zahn, with his usual combina-
tion of candour and learning (for a little onesidedness in
reasoning’ is quite compatible with complete straightforward-
ness in the presentation of facts), himself directs us, viz.
Cypr. Ep. 63 ad Cuaecilium, 6. 13, where not only is por-
tabat repeated and enlarged upon, but almost identical phrase-
ology is used in reference to the mixing of the chalice,
quando autem im ecalice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus
adunatur et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit adunatur et
Jungitur ; though the possibility of suggestion from without

1 Zahn, Forschungen, ii. p. 62.

96 On a Commentary ascribed

still remains, it becomes more natural to suppose that Cyprian
is working out a thought of his own; and all that we should
have to assume would be a greater diligence on the part of
the author of the Commentary in seeking matter for his
compilation, and a little greater skill in adapting the matter
so found to his purpose.

However, this is an after-thought. For the moment I
contented myself with noting the coincidence, and I confess
that it gave a certain bias to my judgment in favour of the
Commentary. I was therefore all the more glad to find, on
paying a farewell visit to the Bishop of Durham, that he
too leant to a similar conclusion. That Dr. Zahn had proved
his whole case that the Commentary was by Theophilus, he
did not think, but he was prepared to regard it as probable
that Jerome, Ambrose, Arnobius, and the rest, were quoting
from the Commentary rather than the Commentary from
them; in other words, that it was an early and original work.

This was the kind of view that I was inclined to hold in
Sept. 1883, and I proposed to myself to test it in three ways:
(1) by a more careful examination of the coincidences with
early writers, such as Cyprian and Origen; (2) by trying to
ascertain how far the Commentary possessed that character
of unity which Dr. Zahn claimed for it, and which quite upon
the surface, though with some exceptions, it seemed to possess ;
and (3) by examining more in detail the characteristics of the
Biblical text which the Commentary presented.

The materials for this last Inquiry had been laboriously
collected by Dr. Zahn ; and it might have had some interest,
as tending to show to what stage in the history of the Latin
text of the Gospels the Commentary, as it has come down
to us, really belonged?

But whatever might have been the result of these inves-

1 There are a few coincidences with ὦ and e, both of which represent early
types of text, but a reading like primus in Matt. xxi. 31 (Zahn, Forschungen,
ii. p. 204) is most suspicious: the mass of Old Latin MSS. have novissimus,

and primus is only found in ¢, f, and the printed Vulgate, which have all been
corrected by comparison with the Greek,

to Theophilus of Antioch. 97

tigations—and in the light of what we now know they could
hardly have been very favourable—there would still have re-
mained some serious difficulties in the way of accepting Dr.
Zahn’s hypothesis. He indeed grapples with them bravely
and does his best to minimise their significance, but when
all was said a stubborn residuum still remained.

The difficulties in question took the shape of apparent
anachronisms. Margarita pretiosa est trinitas sancta, quae
dividi non potest, nam in unitate consistit. The genuine
Theophilus ad Autolycum used the term τριάς, and for the stress
upon the idea of unity Zahn seeks parallels not only in
the Dionysii of Rome and Alexandria, but in Clement, Ter-
tullian, and Athenagoras.

Per caecum naturaliter non videntem et illuminatum significat
humanum genus originali peccato detentum... ut Uluminationem
nostram auctori imputemus potius quam natwrae. Such expres-
sions have a suspicious ring of Augustinianism about them,
which Dr. Zahn tries to lessen by quoting originis vitium from
Tertullian.

Lapides pro paganis ait propter cordis duritiam ; and celeriter
ite ad gentes, hoc est paganos. Here pagani are said to stand
for ‘dwellers in the country,’ ‘rustic, uncultivated people.’

But strongest perhaps of all is the comment on Luke xvii.
34: In lecto esse monachos significat qui amant quietem, alienr
a tumultu generis humani et domino servientes, inter quos sunt
boni et mali.

It is no doubt interesting to know that in Ps. Ixvill. 6
(A.V. ‘God setteth the solitary in families’) Symmachus trans-
lates the word for ‘solitary’ by μοναχοί, the LXX by povdrpo-
ποι, Aquila by μονόζωνοι, and to know further that Eusebius,
in commenting upon the passage, speaks of these μοναχοί as
forming a special τάγμα by the side of widows and orphans
on the one hand, and prisoners on the other, while he finds a
special application for each of the other renderings—because
they are few they are povoyeveis ; because their lives are
uniform μονότροποι ; because they are solitary μονήρεις ; and

H

98 On a Commentary ascribed

because they wear a peculiar kind of girdle μονόζωνοι. It is
interesting too to have it pointed out that Aphraates, writing
in A.D. 337, has a somewhat similar description, but with less
emphasis on the important particular of ‘solitariness.’ In-
stances like these may tend to throw back the beginnings of
Monasticism to an earlier date than that at which we have
been accustomed to place them. Or it is possible that the
word μοναχοί may be used in a wider sense than the technical
one.

A single difficulty of this kind might perhaps be got over,
if very strong reasons could be shown on the other side; but
four such phrases as ¢rinitas quae dividi non potest, originale
peecatum, pagani, monachi, must be allowed to be exceedingly
formidable. And there are yet others.

It was natural that Dr. Harnack, in his searching reply to
his former colleague, should insist strongly upon these ana-
chronisms. But they do not constitute the whole of his argu-
ment. He contests the ground all along the line, and it
must be confessed with marked ability. Dr. Zahn would
say that our ignorance as well as our knowledge makes for
the negative conclusion—that we assume that ideas and de-
signations do not exist at a time previous to that at which
we are ourselves familiar with them. Something may be
deducted on that score, but not so much as is required. There
is always a great temptation to controversialists to lose sight
of the proportion in things. And Dr. Zahn, it is to be feared,
has succumbed to that temptation. Carried away by zeal
for his subject—a most honest and singleminded zeal, to
which his learning has supplied abundant fuel—he has pursued
fine and subtle reasoning’s to such an extent that the plain
and simple indications have dropped out of sight. But with
the average reader it is just these plain and simple indi-
cations that tell most strongly. And in eriticism, as in life,
they are the safest guide to follow.

Upon the whole, then, it appeared that Dr. Harnack had
distinctly the best of the argument. The probabilities on

to Theophilus of Antioch. 99

his side were by far the more definite and tangible. But he
was able in an appendix to throw a yet more decisive weight
into the scale. Seldom, indeed, has a controversy culminated
so rapidly, and seldom has a literary argument received such
opportune and such striking confirmation. The preface to
Zahn’s volume is dated February 1883, and Harnack’s reply
was already written when on May roth he received a commu-
nication from the director of the Royal Library at Brussels,
which altered at a stroke the whole complexion of the
problem. This was nothing less than the description of
a MS. which proved to contain the very Commentary that
was the subject of discussion. The MS. claimed to have been
written at the instance of a certain Nomedius, who is known
to have been Abbot of the Monastery of Soissons in the
years 695-711; so that the MS. itself would belong to the
extreme end of the seventh or beginning of the eighth
century. It was not, however, the MS. from which De la
Bigne had taken his editio princeps. It contained just what
that MS. apparently wanted—the preface, in which the nature
and origin of the Commentary were explained. In an elabo-
rate phraseology, borrowed largely from Virgil, the writer
compares himself to a bee which collected its honey from
flowers of every kind. ‘So I,’ he says, ‘a servant of the Lord,
at your instigation have composed a spiritual work culled
from the commentators (tractatoribus defloratis opusculum
spiritale composui), a work to bring forth an ecclesiastical
swarm, avoiding, like Grynean yews, the bitter speeches of
the envious. There is in it too nectar of sweetest taste caused
by breath divine! It seems impossible to put on this any
other construction. The work is evidently composed in the
most complete good faith. The compiler makes no secret
of his method. If the writers of an older age are rifled of,
their sweets it is only that he may fill his cells with honey
that he offers for the use of his contemporaries. He is care-
ful to avoid the deadly heretical yew, but from the nectar

1 Texte, etc., I. iv. 166f
H 2

100 On a Commentary ascribed

that he has stored he hopes to feed and send forth a swarm
of busy ecclesiastical bees.

An ounce of fact is worth a pound of theory; and this
unlooked-for contribution of fact seemed as if it must put
a stop to all further debate. One was tempted to go a little
further down in the passage from the Georgics that the
nameless editor who had given rise to so much speculation
had in his mind, and see there a summary of this battle of
the critics. “71 motus animorum—for there were even then
some motus animorum !

‘Hi motus animorum atque haec certamina tanta
Pulveris exigui jactu corapressa quiescunt.’

But no! the thought would have been premature! The
indefatigable Zahn has now brought out a third part of his
series of Forschungen, dealing mainly with that very interest-
ing subject of investigation—the fragmentary traces of the
Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria; and in a long appendix
he returns to the charge about Theophilus. It cannot be
said that the motus animorvm are assuaged; on the contrary,
the heat of the combat has become such as to eall forth a
solemn protest from his opponent in the columns of the
Theologische Lnteraturzeitung, and the old position, not very
greatly contracted, is still maintained with stubborn resolu-
tion. One concession is made independently of the Brussels
MS. ‘Ten passages are identified as borrowed from Eucherius,
Bishop of Lyons (6. 434-450). These passages Dr. Zahn
allows to have the priority as compared with the Commen-
tary, from the main body of which he believes them to be
separated by certain characteristic differences. Whereas the
coincidences with Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine are often
very free, those with Eucherius are close and exact. One
of the passages is introduced by an ?fem aliter (= ἄλλως,
ἄλλου), which is common enough in Catenae, but is not found
elsewhere in the Commentary. They oceur in groups near
each other. They deal with dogmatic questions such as were
current in the time of Eucherius, and are not allegorising

ΣΝ

to Theophilus of Antioch. IOL

Scholia like the rest of the Commentary. And, lastly, they
stand alone, without any other attestation to make an earlier
origin for them probable.

These sections then, and two others of less importance
which he is not able exactly to identify, Dr. Zahn sets down
to an interpolator some time between a. D. 450-700, leaving
open the question how much further the added matter
may extend. He then throws out the suggestion that
the interpolator may be also the author of the preface in the

_ Brussels MS. If so it would be an inaccurate and verbose

but yet a recognisable (?) description of his procedure, and
the bulk of the Commentary would still be vindicated for
Theophilus.

Dr. Zahn reiterates, expands, and augments with fresh
detail, a number of his previous arguments, thoroughly to
test and examine all of which would require a diligence
equal to his own. But meantime the old difficulties pagani,
monachi, peccatum originale, stick in one’s throat. And these,
taken together with the admission as to Eucherius and the
precarious nature of the distinction which it is sought to
establish between the acknowledged interpolations and the
rest of the Commentary, may be held to justify us in taking
the Brussels preface literally as it stands, and adopting the
compilation theory as at least the simplest and easiest hypo-
thesis. I am not aware of any phenomena that stand
seriously in the way of it.

χὰ κα

103

VI.

THE TEXT
OF THE CODEX ROSSANENSIS (2).

[W. Sanpay. ]

Gebhardt, Oscar von, Teate und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur ; I. Band, Heft iv, Die Evangelien des Matthaeus und des
Marcus aus dem Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, Leipzig, 1883.

Some three (four) years ago there appeared a sumptuous
volume’, by the eminent critics O. von Gebhardt and A.
Harnack, containing the description of an ancient MS. of
the sixth century, hitherto unused in editions of the Greek
New Testament, and lost to sight and knowledge in the
Cathedral Library of the town of Rossano in Calabria, not
very far from the site of ancient Sybaris. The description of
which I speak was, however, especially tantalising to the
textual critic, because it was confined to the external charac-
teristics of the MS. and said very little about the text. It is
true that externally the MS. presented features in their way
of considerable interest. In the first place it was one—and if
not quite the largest, probably on the whole the most im-
portant—of several extant specimens of the Codd. Purpurei of
the Greek Bible. These MSS. had their vellum dyed purple,

‘and the letters seem to have been written upon it with a

chemical preparation of silver and gold*. Jerome speaks
scornfully of these purple codices as a kind of éditions de luxe,
which he would leave for his opponents to prize for the
magnificence of their outward appearance, while he himself

1 Evangeliorum Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, Leipzig, 1880.
* Dr. Scrivener (Introd. p. 25, ed. 3) says ‘stamped rather than written ;’
but see Gardthausen, Griechische Palaeographie, p. 84 f.

104 The Text of the

was content with a poorer material, if only it offered (as his
own translation did offer) a purer text (Praef. in lib. Job, ad
jin.): a maxim which, by the way, might with advantage have
been taken to heart by some modern editors of Biblical MSS.
The practice must from this have attained considerable dimen-
sions in the time of Jerome. Most of the extant examples
date from the sixth century. After that date they become
rare in the East, which observed a greater sobriety in such
matters than the West. Three of the most important MSS.
of the Old Latin, 4 (Cod. Veronensis), e (Cod. Palatinus),
jf (Cod. Brixianus), and the famous Cod. Argenteus of the
Gothic version are written in this way. Under Charlemagne
and his successors silver and gold were lavishly used, but the
purple dye more sparingly: in the Cod. Aureus at Stockholm
alternate leaves are purple.

More important still, from the same external point of view,
is a collection of miniatures, at the beginning of the volume,
representing scenes from the close of our Lord’s earthly
ministry, beginning with the raising of Lazarus and ending
with the scene in which our Lord and His accusers both
appear before Pilate. After the Agony in the Garden are
interpolated, in the present order, the healing of the man born
blind (St. John ix), and the Good Samaritan; so that it
is clear in any case that the present order is not original.
And it is highly probable that Gebhardt and Harnack are
right in supposing that the miniatures still preserved are only
the remains of a larger collection, the rest of which have been
lost. The miniatures are said to present a close resemblance to
some of the mosaics at Ravenna (p. xxvii). There is only
one other Biblical MS., and that also a Codex Purpureus (of
Genesis, at Vienna), which contains illustrations of the same
date—the sixth century. And the scarcity of these forms of
art at this period gives them an additional value.

This date, the sixth century, seems to be generally accepted,
so far as the information at present accessible allows, by the
scholars who have examined the subject. A more precise

9 ie etal ~~?

Codex Rossanensis. 105

definition may perhaps be possible, but will require a renewed
examination of the MS. It is worth notice that the addi-
tional matter, the Zp. ad Carpianum, the κεφάλαια, ete., which
the MS. contains, are written though in the same hand, in
smaller characters, differing, as it would appear, somewhat
considerably from the main body of the text. A similar
phenomenon was observed by Tregelles in the Catena which
accompanies the Codex Zacynthius (2). It is found also in
Cod. Guelpherbytanus I (P. Gospp.). And the beginnings of
something of the same kind may be seen in the Cod. Alexan-
drinus, where the subscriptions to St. Matthew and St. Mark
and the superscription of the latter Gospel are said to be
different in style from the body of the text, though they also
are probably by the same hand.

It was not, however, my intention to go particularly into
these points of external description. I will only therefore
summarise them briefly by saying that the MS. is written in
uncial letters of silver (the three opening lines of each Gospel
in gold) on a purple ground, the colour, especially on the
smooth side of the leaf, being for the most part well preserved.
It consists of 188 leaves of fine vellum, containing the
Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark, damaged towards the
end of the latter Gospel and ending at Mark xvi. 14 (it there-
fore possesses the disputed verses). The sheets are arranged
in quinions (like B), with original signatures in silver uncials
at the lower right hand corner’. The present dimensions are
30.7 centim. (134 in. Serivener) high by 26 centim. (103 in.)
broad. The writing is in two columns of 20 lines to a
column and 9-12 letters to a line. The MS. has the Epistle
of Eusebius to Carpianus, containing an account of the use of
the canons which follow; a table of the Eusebian Canons ;
the so-called Ammonian sections, and the Eusebian Canons
noted in the margin ; a table of κεφάλαια or longer sections,

1 There are two rather important misprints in Scrivener’s account of the
MS. (Introd. p. 158, ed. 3). It ends at Mark xvi. 14, not xiv. 14; and the
gatherings are quinions, not quaternions.

106 The Text of the

and headings corresponding to the κεφάλαια at the top of the
page. Itis illuminated and mutilated ; its designation is Σ.

And now to come to the inside of the MS. and the character
of its text, which is the subject more especially before me.
Our curiosity in respect to this has been only recently satis-
fied. The editors hoped, when they brought out the first
instalment of their description of the MS., to have an oppor-
tunity of inspecting it at leisure either in Rome or Naples.
Failing this, they were prepared to return to Rossano. And
Von Gebhardt set out thither in the spring of 1882, taking
with him an artist to reproduce the miniatures and a photo-
grapher from Naples to reproduce both the miniatures and
specimens of the writing. His disappointment may be
imagined when, upon his arrival at Rossano, all access to the
MS. was refused him on the pretext that the Chapter
themselves were about to publish a complete edition of it.
Considering that this learned body, of some forty-eight
persons, did not even know in what language the MS. was
written, the prospect of an edition brought out under their
auspices is not very encouraging. And the world at large
would doubtless have been better pleased to see it m the
practised hands of the two German scholars. Perhaps the
uncomfortable disclosure just mentioned may have had some-
thing to do with the refusal. At any rate, it is to be hoped
that higher influences may intervene to prevent the work
being carried out by altogether incompetent persons or
deferred till the Greek Kalends. But in the meantime there
was nothing for it but that Von Gebhardt and his cavaleade
must return with their purpose unaccomplished. And, as a
consequence, we have now to be content with the original
collation made by Von Gebhardt and Harnack at their
first visit, hurriedly indeed, but with as much care as time
permitted. The text of the MS. is printed from the collation
in the third issue of the Zexte wad Untersuchungen.

I have not had time to examine with any care more than
the readings of the first ten chapters of St. Matthew, and

Codex Rossanensis. 107

just those sections of the latter half of the Gospel which
> (Rossanensis) has in common with its fellow purple MS. N
(fragments at London, Rome, Vienna, and Patmos). But
this examination, together with the classified collection of
readings given by Von Gebhardt in his introduction to the
text of the MS., will enable us to form a sufficient idea of its
general character.

Turning, then, to the beginning of St. Matthew's Gospel,
we observe at once that our MS. has the ordinary spelling of
the proper names, Boo¢, ᾿Ὧβήδ, ᾿Ασά, ᾿Αμών, and not Boés
with 8 Β & (Bobiensis) and the Egyptian versions, Ἰωβήδ
with δὶ B Οὗ A Egyptt. Aeth. Arm., or the very pecuilar’Acdd
of δὶ BC (D in Luke iii.) Egyptt. ete., and ᾿Αμώς of the same
list of authorities somewhat strengthened. It has Σολομῶντα
(v.6) with A and a few others, as against Σολομῶνα, not only
of the best, but of a majority of the MSS. After Δαυεὶδ δέ it
inserts 6 βασιλεύς with the mass of the MSS, and Textus
Receptus, against δαὶ B IT, Egyptt. Cur. Pesh., 4 of the Old
Latin, and others. In fact, so far as the genealogy is
concerned, it presents a thoroughly commonplace text, re-
lieved only by a single reading, which does not at all redound
to its credit, the insertion of the name “Iwaki in v. ΤΙ,
᾿Ιωσίας δὲ ἐγγέννησεν [τὸν ᾿Ιωακίμ. “Iwaki δὲ ἐγγέννησεν]
τὸν ᾿Ιεχονίαν, which is obviously put in to make good an
apparent defect in the genealogy; and besides that it does
not tally with the express statement that the genealogy
contained only fourteen generations between David and the
Babylonian Captivity, is only supported by a quite weak
body of authorities, M U and others, with the two later Syriac
versions. In v. 18, however, = has γένεσις with the older
MSS., against γέννησις of EK L and the later ones. But this
is the solitary spark of originality throughout the chapter.
In the insertion of γάρ after μνηστευθείσης, in the compounds
παρα-δειγματίσαι and δι-εγερθείς, and in the insertion of τὸν
[υἱὸν] αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον it keeps in the most beaten of
beaten tracks.

108 The Text of the

A similar character is observed throughout chap. 11. The
order Ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεύς in v. 3, ἔστη for ἐστάθη in ν. 9, ὑπὸ
for διὰ ᾿Ιερεμίου in v. 17, the insertion of θρῆνος καί before
κλαυθμός in the quotation that follows, and the form Ναζαρέθ
all duly appear. In one point φαίνεται κατ᾽ ὄναρ in v. 19 =
goes with 8 B D Z and the older versions against the later
authorities, and in v. 22 it omits ἐπί (in the phrase βασιλεύει
ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ιουδαίας) with ἐξ B, some cursives, and Eusebius.

In chap. iii, of the readings I have noted eight agree with
the common text, while ποταμῷ is inserted after “lopddvy
(in v. 6) with 8 B Οὗ M Ain what the strong attestation
proves to be a right reading, though otherwise it might be
suspected, and in v. 8 καρπὸν ἄξιον is read instead of καρποὺς
ἀξίους of the Textus Receptus, but only with the great majority
both of MSS. and versions.

It will be observed in the last chapter that = stumbles just
as a commonplace MS. may be expected to stumble. It
completes what seem to be defective expressions, adding αὐτοῦ
after ἡ τροφή, τὸ βάπτισμα. It fills in the missing proper
name 6 δὲ Ἰωάννης, for the sake of clearness. It removes an
asyndeton in v. 2, and substitutes καί for a rather tautological
δέ inv. 16. The same sort of phenomena may be observed
persistently. In chap. iv. there is an insertion of ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς
just of this character, ἵστησιν and λέγει assimilated to sur-
rounding presents in vv. 5, 9, and ἐπὶ [παντὶ ῥήματι] sub-
stituted for ἐν because of ἐπ᾽ ἄρτῳ preceding. To the credit
side may be placed the insertion of an article before ἄνθρωπος
and omission of a superfluous subject in v. 18, but in each
case with overwhelming authority. When Σ is right it takes
care, as a rule, to have a substantial backing.

In the Sermon on the Mount it has increased opportunities
of going wrong with the multitude, and it makes good use of
them. Here are some of its more conspicuous blots. I can
only regard in this light the insertion of the Doxology after
the Lord’s Prayer, against the general consent of all authorities
older than the fourth century, with the exception of the Old

Codex Rossanensis. 109

Syriac, the Thebaic or version of Upper Egypt and ἀ of the
Old Latin, the last two in variant forms. We must now add
the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, bat also with a variation.
Without wishing to underrate this last accession to the
evidence, it cannot be held to counterbalance the great pre-
ponderance of ante-Nicene authority. The long insertion in
v. 44 from the parallel passage in St. Luke naturally finds a
place. Glosses like [πᾶν πονηρὸν} ῥῆμα and ἐλεημοσύνην for
δικαιοσύνην in vi. I are adopted. Additions like ἐν τῷ φανερῷ
in vi. 4,6 come in to heighten the antithesis ; and the various
corrections of style by which the later text is characterized are
almost all represented. It is noticeable that one reading,
ἀντιμετρηθήσεται for μετρηθήσεται in vii. 2, found in &, though
it has gained a footing in the Textus Receptus, has only
cursives and some Old Latin MSS. in its favour. Here, as in
a number of other cases, = heads the list for the debased text.
Summing up the result for the three chapters Matt. v—vui,
I find that there are thirty-six places in which = joins the
Textus Receptus in what is probably a wrong reading. There
are several instances in which Σ᾽ joins a long array of weightier
authorities in deserting the Textus Receptus. In v. 39 it strikes
out a bolder course, ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει (pres.) εἰς (for ἐπὶ) τὴν
δεξιὰν σιαγόνα. For the first two variations from the Textus
Receptus Σ is allied with 8 B alone of uncials. For σιαγόνα,
without cov, it has the solitary support of δὲ (with cursives and
some MSS. of the Old Latin). Again in the reading προσέχετε
δέ in vi. 1, 5 joins a small group, δὲ L Ζ 33, Memphitic version,
which I see is followed (with δέ in single brackets) by Westcott
and Hort. On the surface one might have been disposed to
set it down as rather an Alexandrine correction of style by
removing the asyndeton. In vii. 9, 10 ὃν ἐὰν αἰτήσῃ followed
by καὶ ἐὰν αἰτήσει, = has just stopped short of adopting the
whole of the amended text: αἰτήσει is a single relic of the
original reading. In the narrative verses at the end of
chap. vii. > has rightly the simple verb ἐτέλεσεν and οἱ
γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν, but in both cases with a strong backing.

110 The Text of the

The audacity of v. 39 and vi. 1 has no other parallel in these
chapters.

The remaining chapters, vili-x, offer merely a repetition of
the same phenomena. FT aults of the kind already noticed
are plentiful, especially supplementary and explanatory in-
sertions. Once or twice, as in vill. 32 ἡ ἀγέλη without τῶν
χοίρων, and ix. 13 ἁμαρτωλούς without the addition of εἰς
μετάνοιαν, the temptation has been resisted. But in these
cases there is a strong supporting phalanx in the background.
The same, or nearly the same, holds good of the two other most
important right readings which Σ᾽ presents in these chapters,
Γαδαρηνῶν in vill. 28, and ἐσκυλμένοι καὶ ἐριμμένοι in ix. 56.

It is hardly necessary to go into further detail. A precisely
similar character pervades all the later sections that I have
examined. And it is abundantly confirmed by the instances
collected by Von Gebhardt. The latter gives several in-
teresting lists. First, two, containing in all some 86 distinct
readings, in which & is in error with little or no support.
Then a list in which ¥ joins what had hitherto been singular
or subsingular readings of 8 11 times in the two Gospels, of
C 20 times, of D 16 times, of A τὸ times, and of ®, the hypo- .
thetical uncial which forms the common stock of the eursives
13, 69, 124, 346, 13 times. In this company the other
cursives 1, 28, 33, 81,157 are often included. Besides, 1 is in
agreement twice, 33 and 157 each four times, either alone or
with a few other subordinate authorities.

Next Von Gebhardt works out a problem which is of
special interest. I have said that the MS. which presents
the closest external resemblance to = is N, the other leading
Codex Purpureus of the Greek Testament. It is therefore
an obvious question to ask, How are they also related as
regards their text? The answer is not uncertain. The two
MSS. have the closest resemblance. N, it will be remem-
bered, is a series of fragments amounting in all to about 334
verses in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. In
these there are as many as thirty-three hitherto singular

Codex Rossanensis IYI

readings of N in which = joins. And there are thirty-four
others in which N and = go together, not indeed alone, but
with little further support. From these instances Von Geb-
hardt justly infers that the two MSS. are near descendants
of the same common exemplar. In fact he thinks that both
may have been copied from it directly.

Lastly, he gives a list of readings in which Σ᾽ joins with a
comparatively small group of the oldest MSS. These are in
all fifty-two for the whole two Gospels with 1749 verses, which
certainly cannot be considered a large proportion. Perhaps
the most interesting of these readings are: in St. Matthew
vii. 28 Γαδαρηνῶν just mentioned, with B Οὗ M and vir-
tually N* A, the graphic ἐπέσπειρεν for ἔσπειρεν in the
parable of the Wheat and the Tares with ΝΡ B alone of
uncials (well supported, however, by the Latin authorities
and Fathers), ᾿Ιωσήφ for ᾿Ιωσῆς or ᾿Ιωάννης as the name of
our Lord’s brother in xiii. 55, κακῶς ἔχει for κακῶς πάσχει
with δὶ B L Z in xvii. 15, οἰκετείας for θεραπείας with BI L
and others in xxiv. 45. In St. Mark iv. 21, = also has that
curious clerical error ὑπὸ for ἐπὶ τὴν λυχνίαν with δὶ B* Φ 33.
In iv. 28 Dr. Hort contends for the peculiar reading πλήρης
σῖτον (πλήρης being treated as indeclinable) on the strength of
C* only with two lectionaries and partial support from B D and
one cursive. Σ now presents the same reading as C*. With
the exception of ταλιθὰ κοῦμ for κοῦμι and τὸ εἰ δύνῃ I hardly
think that there is another reading of even secondary interest
in St. Mark. In all such crucial texts as υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ i. I, ἐν
τοῖς προφήταις 1. 2, αἰωνίου κρίσεως for αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος
ἴῃ ill. 29, εὐθέως ἀκούσας for παρακούσας in v. 46, ἐποίει for
ἠπόρει In Vi. 20, καθαρίζον for καθαρίζων In vii. 19, καὶ νηστείᾳ
in 1x. 29, even the interpolation πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται
in ix. 49, and in the retention of the last twelve verses, = goes
with the crowd.

Summarising then, we should imagine that the Codex
Rossanensis was just such a MS. as would delight the heart
of the Dean of Chichester. In very many places it supplies

112 The Text of the

the oldest extant uncial authority for the common reading.
In the great majority of other cases it votes steadily on the
same side. It shares to a very slight extent in the heresies
of NB. It is found in the long array with the great mass of
later documents and Fathers. It is innocent of Origenian or
Eusebian mutilation.

On all these points = lends its support decidedly to the
defenders of the traditional text. And yet even they, we
should think, must accept its alliance with some little mis-
giving. Of the eighty and odd manifestly wrong and
scantily supported readings which it contains, many are
obviously mere assimilations of the text of one Gospel to
another, or due to other equally unmistakeable causes of
corruption. And yet there is no difference in kind between
these readings and those which form so large a part of the
characteristic text of the great mass of MSS. And the
suspicion must ultimately force itself upon the mind, whether,
after all, this great numerical majority can be so pure as it is
supposed to be, and whether, after all, the process of wholesale
correction and emendation which is asserted of it has not
some foundation.

As for the Codex Rossanensis it is a typical example of the
representatives of this emended and corrected text. Its
character 1s essentially eclectic. It borrows, now from one
source and now from another, whatever tends to make the
narrative more flowing and more complete. In his original
account of the MS. Von Gebhardt laid some stress on the
affinities of its text to that of the Old Latin version. To the
best of my belief he does not repeat this remark in his later
publication. It is true that the MS. has a little sporadic
relation to the Old Latin, but hardly more than it has to
other forms of ante-Nicene text. Its own fundamental text
is a mosaic, like that of the many other MSS. that are allied
with it. And the wonder chiefly is that a MS. of such early
date should have so few readings that bear the stamp of
originality.

πα

Vif.

THE CORBEY Sr. JAMES (ff), AND ITS RELA-
TION TO OTHER LATIN VERSIONS, AND
TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE
EPISTLE?.

[J. Worpswortu. |

TEXT OF THE EPISTLE.

History of the MS. Martianay. P. Dubrowsky. Rediscovery. Belsheim.
V. Jernstedt. Description, contents, date.

I. Relation to other Latin versions. Amount of agreement with Cod.
Amiatinus. ff ante-hieronymian. How far did St. Jerome revise the Epistles?
The Itala (and Vulgate) based on an independent version. The version quoted
in the Speculum (m) also independent in its origin. Optatus’ evidence am-
biguous. Jerome probably used a fourth version. All are as old as the
fourth century. Chromatius used our version, which is probably the oldest.

II. Our version made from a Greek text; but from a text differing in a
striking manner from the current editions. Instances of the difference. Hypo-
thesis of two Greek versions from an Aramaic original: (A) points in favour of
this in the text ; (B) parallel cases establishing the a priori probability of such
an original: our Lord’s usage, St. Paul, St. Matthew, St. Peter, (Epistle to the
Hebrews,) Josephus; (C) character of the Greek too classical to have been
written by either of the reputed authors. Summary.

? This Essay is based upon a review which appeared in the Guardian, Jan.
oth, 1884, and a paper read on Feb, 11th of the same year. But it has been
entirely rewritten, and I hope much improved. The author has to thank his
colleagues and Dr. Hort for some very kind help in rendering it less incomplete
and inaccurate. The reader is also referred to Dr. Sanday’s paper at the end of
the volume for further considerations on the relation of the text to other Latin
versions. Dr. Hort proposes to edit the Epistle critically and has made large
preparations for the purpose. He is not inclined, I may remark, to accept my
hypothesis as regards the Aramaic original.

115

Fol,20.89.

EXPLICIT EPISTOLA BARNA

BE -.: INCIP EPISTL IACOBI FELICITER -.:

1.1 Jacobus dei et dni ihu xpi seruus XII tribus quesunt
in dispersione sali- *Omne gaudium existimate frafres mei
quando in uarias temptationes incurritis ὃ scientes quod probatio
uestra operatur sufferentiam *sufferentia autem opus consum
matum habeat ut sitis consuwmati & integri in nullo deficien
tes °& si cui uesfrum deest sapientia petat a deo quia dat

omnibus
simpliciter & non inproperat & dabitwr illi - ὃ p&at autem in fi
de nihil dubitans- Qui autem dubitat similis est fluctui
maris- quia uento fertur & defertur ‘nec sper& se homo
ille qué accipi& aliquit adno - ὃ homo duplici corde incons
tans in omnibus ulis suis- ° elori&ur autem frater humilis in alti
tudine sua !°locuples autem in humilitate sua quo sicut flos
feni
transi& 1] ori&ur enim sol cum estu suo & siceat fenum &

flos eius

1. 1 Ad initium lineae I-in mq., et sic ULis] ii, 20, OLmnis] iii. 1, N[umquid}
iii, 12, δὲ S{ii) iv. 11.
12

Tol. 89 B.

116 The Corbey Manuscript ΓΕ,

cadit & dignitas facie ipsius perit sic & locuples in actu suo
marcescit: 13 Beatus uir quia sustinuerit temptationem
qué probatus factus accipi& coronam uite quam promitt& eis
qui eum diligunt- ‘Nemo qui temptatur dicat quo a deo
temp
tatur devs autem malorum temptator non est- temptat ipse ne
minem 15 unusquisque autem temptatur a sua concupiscentia
abducitur & eliditur- 1° Deinde concupiscentia conci
pit & parit peccatum- peccatum autem consummatum adquirit
mortem+ 1° Nolite errare fratres mei dilecti 17 omzis datio
bona & omne donum perfectum desursum descendit a patre lu
minumz aput quem non est permutatio uel modicum obumbra
tionis ‘uolens peperit nos uerbo ueritatis ut simus
primitie conditionum eius 15 scitote fratres mei dilecti- sit
autem
omnis homo uelox ad audiendum tardus autem ad loquen
dum + tardus autem ad iracundiam: *iracundia enim uiri
iustitiam
dei non operatur: “1 Et ideo exponentes omves sordes &
abundantiam malitie - per clemezciam excipite genitum
uerbum
qui potestis saluare animas uesfras ὁ estote autem factores uer
bi & non auditores tantum aliter consiliantes Ὁ quia si qwzs au
ditor uerbi est & non factor hie est similis homini res

icienti faciem natali sui in speculo aspexit se recessi
ti fi tali sui i lo *4aspexit se & t

12

quia m. p., quis corr. eadem manu, temptationem credo, a Merouingica ;
temptetionem Belskeim ; temptictionem Jernstedt.

17 perfectum MS., sed pf in rasura.

#1 clemencia m. p., sed eadem corr. potestis MS. sine rasura. Belsheim
credit -is erasum a πὶ. Ὁ. sed deceptus est puncto, a calami lapsu, sub -i- littera
(lernstedt.).

1.5} of the Epistle of St. Fames. ney,

2

et in continenti oblitus est qualis erat *° qui autem respexil Fol.21.90.
in [l]egem consummatam libertatis & perseuerans non audi
ens obliuionis factus sed factor operum hic beatus erit in
operibus suis- *° si qu[is] autem putat se religiosum esse Non in
frenans linguam suam sed fallens [co|r suum, huius uana est re
ligio- ὁ Religio autem munda & inmaculata apud domimum
hee est uisitare orfanos & uiduas in tribulatione eo

rum seruare se sine macula a seculo- II.1Fratres mei
Nolite in acceptione personarum habere fidem diii nostri ihu
xpi honeris: *si autem intrauerit In synagogam uestram
homo: anulos aureos in digitos habens in ueste splen
dida- intr& autem pauper in sordida ueste ὥ respiciatis autem
qui uestitus est ueste candida & dicatis tu hic sede bene
& pauperi dicatis tu sta aut sede illo sub scamello meo

4 diiudicati estis inter uos ἰδοῦ! estis iudices cogitationum
malorum- ὅ Audite fratres mei dilecti nonne devs elegit pau
peres seculi locupletes in fide & heredes regni qwod expro
misit diligentibvs eum- ° Uos autem frustratis pauperem
nonne diufit]es potentantur in uobs & ipsi uos tradunt

ad iuditia 7 nonne ipsi blasphemant in bono nomine

quod uocituz est in uobis *Si tamen lege consummamini

35 regem m. p-, legem corr.

% quis corr. ex que, Jernstedt. Contra Belsheim. In cor, co- est in rasura,
ubi widetur fuissehu-. Nimirum omissurus erat cor suum scriba, sed cum serip-
sisset hu- animaduertit errorem (Iernstedt.).

IT. } acceptione m. p., acceptatione corrector, fortasse non m. p., Ternstedt.
Contra Belsheim.

® diues m. p., diuites corrector (ut 26, ef II. 1).

Fol,90. Β.

20

118 The Corbey Manuscript (II. 8.

regale seewadum seripturam- Diliges proximum tuum tanquam
te benefaci
tis: 9.51 autem personas accipitis peccatum operamini a lege
tradue
ti tamquam transgressores 1° qui enim tota lege seruauerit
peccaue
rit autem in uno factus est omnium reus- 1 Nam qui dixit non
moechaberis - dixit & no[n] occides- si autem non moecha
beris
occideris autem factus est transgressor legis - 1” sic loquimini &
sic facite quasi a lege liberalitatis iuditium sperantes - 1° iudi-
tium
autem non miserebitur ei qui non fecit misericordiam - super
gloriatur autem misericordia iuditium + 15 Quit prodest fratres
mei
si quis dicat se fidem habere opera autem non habeat -
numquit potest fides eum sola saluare 7° siue fratev siue soror
nudi sint & desit eis uictus cottidianus- *°dicat autem illis
ex uestris aliquis uadite in pace- calidi estote & satulli
non dederit autem illis alimentum corporis: quid & prodest
sic & fides si non habeat opera mortua est sola 1*sed dicet
aliquis tu operam habes ego fidem habeo ostende mihi fidem
sine operibus + & ego tibi de operibus fidem+ 1° tu eredis quia
unus devs: bene facis: & demonia credunt & contremescunt
Uis autem scire 6 homo uacue quozzam fides sine operibus
uacua
est: *! Abraham pater noster nonne ex operibus iusti
ficatus est- offerens Isaac filium suum super aram- ** uides
quoniam fides

11 moech-,o exe facta. non secundum fuit noci, confusione orta ex uerbo
sequenti. Post autem sec. punctum addidit corrector,

29. U- extra lineam.

-

III. 7.1 of the Epistle of St. ames. 119

communicat cum operibus suis & ex operibus fides confirmatws ; Fol. 22.91.
25 & impleta est scriptura dicens- Credidit abraham domino &
esti
matum est ei ad iustitiam & amicus dei uocatus est + 2. Uidetis
quontam
ex operibus iustificatur homo & non ex fide tantum *°similiter
& raab fornicaria nonne ex operibus iustificatus est cum
suscepiss& exploratores ex: XII. tribus filiorum israhel & per
aliam ulam eos eleciss&&- *°sicut autem corpus sine spiritu
mortuum est
sic fides sine opera mortua - est+ III. 1 Nolite multi magistri
esse
fratres mei scientes qvonwiam maius iuditium accipiemus -
? multa autem
erramus omzes- si quis in uerbo non erat hic erit consum
matus
ἘΠῚ - potens est se infrenare & totum corpus: *Si autem
equorum frenos in ora mittimus ut possint consentire
& totum corpus ipsorum conuertimus: *ecce & naues tam mag:
ne suzt & a uentis tam ualidis feruntur- reguntur autem
paruulo gubernaculo & ubicumzque diriguntur uolump
tate eorum qui eas gubernant ‘sic & lingua paruulu mem
bruzz
est & magna giloriantur: Ecce pusillum ignis in quam
magna silua incendium facit ° & lingua ignis seculi iniquita
tis: lingua posita est in membris nostris que maculat totum
cor
pus & inflamwmat rotam natiuitatis & incenditwr a gehenna
7Omnis autem natura bestiarum siue uolatilium repentium &

natantium

35 opera m. p., opere corr, =opere.
IIT, * uolumptate m. p., uoluntate corr. 7 O- extra lineam.

Fol. 91 Β.

120 The Corbey Manuscript [Π|. 7.

domatur & domita est + nature autem humane *lnguam nemo
hominum domare potes¢- inconstans malum plena ueneno
morti
fera °in ipsa benedicimus dominum & patrem & per ipsam
maledicimus
homines qui ad similitudinem dei facti βρέ 1°ex ipso ore
exit bene
dictio & maledictio- Non dec& fratres mei haec sic fieri
Unum
quit fons ex uno foramine bullit duleem & salmacidum -
Numquid potest fra¢7es mei ficus oliuas facere- aut uitis ficus
sic nec salmacidum duleem facere aquam- 1 Quis sapiens et disci
plinosus in uobzs demonstrat de bona conuersatione ope
ra sua in sapientie clemextiam: ‘si autem zelum amarum
habetis
& contentionem in precordiis uestris quit alapamini men
tientes contra ueritatem ' non est sapientia que descendit
desursum sed terrestris animalis demonetica: 1° ubi autem
zelus & contentio inconstans ibi & omne prauum nego
tium 11 dei autem sapientia primum sazcfa est - deinde pacifica
& uerecun
die consentiens plena misericordie & fructuz bonorum
sine diiudicatione inreprehensibilis sine hypocrisi ὃ fructus
autem iustitiz in pace seminatur qui faciunt pacem- IV.1 Unde
pugne et unde rixe in uob/s nonne hine ex uoluptatibys uestris
que militant in membris ues/ris *concupiscitis & non habebitis

occiditis & zelatis & non potestis impetrare+ rixatis

® Post linguam punctum est, fortasse a serviba digito deletum.
2 N- extra lineam.

fructum pro fructuum MS,

IV. ? rixatis + & pug- m.p., deinde erasum.

Se πῆς ΤῸ

IV. 13,] of the Epistle of St. fames. 121

& pugnatis & non habetis propter qvod non petitis ὅ p&titis Fol.23.92.
& non acci
pitis propter hoe qvod male petitis ut in libidines ues¢ras ero
getis * for
nicatores- nescitis quoniam amicitia secw/i inimica da est -
Quicumqve
ergo uoluerit amicus secvli esse inimicus dei perseuerat ° aut
putatis qvoniam dicit scriptura ad inuidiam conualescit βρὲ
ritus qui
habitat in uobis *maiorem autem dat gratiam- propter quod
dicit - devs
superbis resistit- humilis autem dat gratiam ‘subditi estote deo
resistite autem zabolo: & fugi&a uobis ®accedite ad dominum &
& ipse ad uos accedit- Mundate manus peccatores & sancti
ficate corda uesfra duplices corde °lugete miseri ὧς plorate
risus uester in luctum convertatur & gaudium in tristitiam
10humiliate uos ante dominvm & exaltabit uos- *!Nolite
retractare de alterutro frater- Qui retractat de fratre
et iudicat fratrem suum retractat de lege & indicat legem -
Si autem iudicas legem+ now es factor legis sed index * unus
est legum
positor & index qui potest saluare & perdere- Tu au/em quis és
qui iudicas proximum~- Jam nune qui dicuzt hodie aut cras
ibi
mus in illaw ciuitatem & faciemus 101 annum & negotiamur -
& lucrum faciemvs “qui ignoratis crastinum: 7° Que autem
uita
uestra momentum enim est- per modica uisibilis- Deinde &
exter
minata propter qvod dicere uos oport&- si dominus uoluerit

1 S- extra lineam.
Inter ™ εἰ © lineola addita est a m. recenti inter index (index lapsu Belsh.)
εἰ unus, 2 + =est. 15 uita im rasura.

ΗΝ ΣΝ μὰ ......:........

122 The Corbey Manuscript [IV. rs.

Fol. 92.B. & uinemus & faciemus hoe ant illud- 1° nune autem gloriami
ni in superbia uestra omzis gloria talis mala est 17 scienti
bus autem
bonum facere & non facientibus peccatum illis est V. liam
nune locuple
tes plorate ululantes in miseriis uesfris aduenientibys 2 Diuiti
e uestre+ putriervnt res uestre- tiniauerwat *aurum uestrvm -
& argentum
eruginauit & erugo ipsorum erit uobis in testimonium & man
ducabit carnes uesfras tazquam ignis tesaurizastis & in
nouissimis
diebus *& ecce mercedes operariorum qui arauervzt in agris
uestris
quod abnegastis clamabunt & uoces qui messi sunt ad aures
domini
sabaoth introierwnt ° fruiti estis super terram & abusi estis
cibastis cor
da ues¢ra in die occisionis ° damnastis & occidistis iustum non
resistit uo
bis 7 patientes ergo estote fratres usque ad aduentum domini
ecce agricola
expectat honoratum fructum terre patiens in ipso usquequo
accipiat matutinum & serotinum fructum+ ὃ Et uos patientes
estote confortate precordia uestra+ quoxiam aduentus domini ad
propiauit - ° Nolite ingemescere fra¢res in alterutrum nein iu
ditium incidatis ecce iudex ante ianuam stat 1° accipite expe
rimentum fratres de malis passionibus & de pacientia- Prophe
tas qui locuti suz¢ in nomine domini- 11 ecce beatos dicimus qui
sustinuervzé+ sufferentiam iob audistis & finem domini uidistis
quoniam uisceraliter dominus misericors est 1*ante omnia au/em
fratres mei

15 & faciemus MS.; aut faciemus DBelsheim.
V. 5. In man- pars n- abrasa est, 8 In propiauit p- est in rasura.

οςς ἀμ με Py oe. a
“ > « -

-

V. 20.] of the Epistle of St. Fames. 123

nolite iurare neque per celum neq ; per terram- nec alteru Fol.24.93.
trum
iuramentum sit autem aput uos est est non est non est-
ne in iuditium incidatis “anxiat aliquis ex uobis or&- hilaris
est: psalmum dicat 1 & infirmis est aliquis in uobis uoc&
presbyteros & orent super ipsum ungentes oleo in nomine
domini
15 & oratio in fide saluabit laborantem & suscitauit illum dominus
-& si peccata fecit remittuntwr ei- 'Confitemini alterutrum
peccata uesfra & orate pro alterutro ut remittatwr uobis-
Multum potest p&itio iusti frequens: 17 Helias homo erat
similis nobis & oratione orauit ut non pluer& & non plu
it in terra annis tribus ὅσ mensibus sex- 15 Sed iterum
orauit & celum dedit pluuium & terra germinauit fructum
suum - 19 Fratres mei si quis ex uobis errauerit a ueritate & ali
quis eum reuocauerit 2° qui reuocauerit peccatorem de erro
ris uia saluat animam de morte sua & operi& multitu
dinem peccati- EXPLICIT EPISTOLA
TACOBI FILII ZAEBEDEI -.- -.- τὸ

13 or & MS., sed m. recentior ligauit.
14 infirmis m. p., -mus corrector.

16 Tn potest petitio, -t p- sunt in rasura et inter eas duae tresue literae erasae.
Conicio primitus fuisse potest est (Lernstedt.).

20 neccatorem...animam MS.; peccatorum... annimam Belsheim.

124 The Corbey Manuscript

THE manuscript which is the subject of this Essay is not
a new discovery like the Codex Rossanensis, nor can it boast
anything like so great antiquity. It was written probably
not before the tenth century, and the text contained in it
has been before the world nearly 200 years. It was in fact
one of the first old Latin texts of the New Testament which
was ever printed. Yet its peculiarities have I think been
much overlooked and deserve attentive consideration 1.

In the year 1695, Dom Jean Martianay, of the con-
gregation of St. Maur, best known as the principal editor of
the Benedictine St. Jerome, published a small duodecimo
volume of New Testament texts, which has now become ex-
tremely scarce*. I have not been able to discover a single
copy of this book in Oxford, and I believe that the little
volume of notes, forming a sort of appendix to it, which I
was fortunate enough to meet with in Paris, is scarcely less
rare. Martianay’s texts were the Corbey St. Matthew usually
called ff,, to which he added a marginal collation of the same
Gospel from the St. Germain Bible (5), and the Corbey St.
James (ff) which is our immediate subject. It will be un-
necessary to occupy time with a discussion of the character
and fate of the two MSS. of St. Matthew on which I have
written at some length in the introduction to my edition of the
latter, in the first number of our Old-Latin Biblical Texts.
With regard however to the parentage of two out of Martianay’s
three MSS, it is just worth while to mention that the most
important portion of the great monastic Library of Corbey

' Drs. Westcott and Hort have no notes on select readings of St. James in
either volume of their edition, except incidental references. Tischendorf
however incorporates many readings of ff in his apparatus.

2 Vulgata antiqua Latina et Itala versio Evangelii secundum Matthaeum e
vetustissimis eruta monumentis illustrata Proleyomenis ac nolis nuncque primum
edita studio et labore D. J. Martianay, Pres. Bni,C.S. Mauri, Parisiis apud An-
tonium Lambin, 1695.

3. The Gospel according to St. Matthew from the St. Germain MS. (g,) now
numbered Lat. 11553 in the National Library at Paris, &c, Oxford, 1883. The
Corbey MS. of St. Matthew is now at St. Petersburg, where it is numbered
Ov. 3 (Ὁ. 326).

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 125

or Corbie on the Somme near Amiens (the parent house of
Corbey or Corvey on the Weser) was transferred to St.
Germain des Prés at Paris in or about the year 1638, and
incorporated with that very valuable collection. It naturally
shared the fortunes of the St. Germain Library in the troublous
times of the French revolution, and was largely pillaged. The
two Corbey MSS. edited by Martianay fell at this crisis into
the hands of Peter Dubrowsky, secretary of the Russian
Embassy at Paris, who transferred them, with the greater
part of his other acquisitions, to the Imperial Library at St.
Petersburg in or about 1805. But as no sufficient catalogue
of this library is accessible, it was long unknown whether
these two books still existed. The present home of our MS.
was first mentioned (as Dr. Hort informs me) by Muralt in
18481. The information was repeated by Oehler in 1856,
in his edition of Philastrius, and latterly by Gebhardt in his
editions of Barnabas (1875-6) and by Mr. F. 'T. Bassett in
his Commentary on this epistle. Mr. John Belsheim, a
Norwegian scholar, who has done good service in the pub-
lication of such texts, was, however, unaware of its existence
when he transcribed the Corbey St. Matthew in 1880.
When he published his edition of the Gospel he therefore
reprinted Martianay’s text of St. James as an appendix.
But soon after hearing that the MS. was still accessible
he took another journey to St. Petersburg, and published
the Epistle directly from the original in the course of last
year (1883).

The book in question when it was in the Corbey and St.
Germain libraries contained four treatises, viz. Philastrius
on Heresies (folios 1-69), Pseudo-Tertulian on Jewish Meats
(ff. 70-77), the unique Latin version of ‘ Barnabas’ (ff. 77-89),
and lastly our Epistle (ff. go-93). At present, however,
Philastrius is bound separately and the two volumes are now

1 Ed. de Muralt, Bulletin de la Classe Historico-philologique de 0 Acad. des
Sciences de Pétersbourg, tom. v. no. 1, 1848. Ocehler, Corpus Haereseologicum,
vol, i. p, ix., 1856,

126 The Corbey Manuscript "

numbered Ων. I. 38, and Qvy. I. 39. In the Corbey Library
the MS. first bore the pressmark 635, and in Dom Poirier’s
catalogue (made about A.D. 1791) it was numbered 717.

The MS. thus consists of ninety-three leaves of parchment
in quarto form, being about twenty-four centimeters high and
nineteen broad. Each page of the Epistle, except the first and
last, contains twenty-one lines. Mr. Belsheim has preserved
the original pages and lines, but has not given what is in
my opinion more important, namely, the original punctua-
tion, and I have therefore reprinted the text exactly as it
stands in the MS. This I am enabled to do by the kindness
of Professor V. Jernstedt, of the University of St. Petersburg,
who made a careful collation of it in October, 1884.

The date assigned by Dr. Alfred Holder is of the tenth
century. Others had previously conjectured it to be of the
eighth or ninth. I cannot myself form any opinion worth
speaking of, and I have not as yet been able to obtain a
photograph, but the great number of the contractions seems
rather to suggest the later date.

The object of this paper is chiefly to determine the character
of the text in its relation—firstly, to other Latin versions,
and secondly, to the Greek of the Epistle. In treating the
latter of these topics I shall advance an opinion with regard
to the original language of the book.

I. Relation of the text to other Latin versions.

We first naturally ask what is the relation borne by it to
St. Jerome’s revision. In considering this question we have
the advantage of Sabatier’s collections of patristic quotations
in his great work, Bibliorum Latinorum Versiones Latinae anti-
quissimae, in which he reprinted Martianay’s text. I have also
collated the Epistle with the Codex Amiatinus. This exami-
nation shows that there is no verse of it in which there is not
some agreement with the Vulgate, and none in which there is
not some difference from it. Occasionally the agreement extends
to a whole clause or even to two clauses of from ten to fifteen

of the Epistle of St. fames. 127

words in length—though there is only one instance of an agree-
ment of as many as fifteen continuous words, and that at the
commencement of the book!. The agreements on the whole
exceed the differences in amount; but the latter are almost
always in the more striking and difficult parts of the sentence,
while the agreements are in the simple and commonplace
words and phrases. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that
there is no single important noun or verb in which the
Corbey MS. agrees with the Vulgate. There can therefore,
I think, be no reasonable doubt that the text before us is
wholly Old Latin or ante-Hieronymian, not mved or con-
structed on a Vulgate basis. Whatever agreement there is
will then be due to the use of our text by St. Jerome, or some
of his predecessors, as material for a revision, not to mixture
on the part of the scribe of our MS.

Before considering the relations of our text to other Latin
versions in detail a few remarks of a general kind may not
be out of place. St. Jerome’s work on the New Testament
was, it must always be remembered, wholly one of revision, not
of translation, and he was by no means the first or the last
reviser that the Latin Church has known. His method of
procedure is only directly revealed to us by some words in his
letter to Damasus prefixed to his edition of the Gospels (in
A.D. 383). From them and from a comparison of various
types of MSS. we infer that he chose the Latin text which
had the greatest authority in Italy, and emended it where it
was very incorrect with the aid of ancient Greek MSS. and
probably of other Latin versions. The basis of St. Jerome’s
work is therefore provisionally called the Itala—to distinguish
it from African and other Old- Latin texts—this being the name
given by St. Augustine to the text which he commends in a
single passage of his book on Christian doctrine (il. 15). In the
Gospels it is now generally looked for in the MSS. of Brescia

1 «Tacobus dei et domini [ + nostri] ihesu christi seruus xii tribus que [tribu-

bus quae] sunt in dispersione salutem. Omne gaudium existimate fratres mei.’
The words in square brackets are the readings of the Codex Amiatinus,

128 The Corbey Manuscript

and Munich—f and g. In the other books we must, I suppose,
regard it as chiefly represented by the writings of St. Augus-
tine and the Freisingen and Gottweig fragments. Jerome’s
emendation of the Gospels was clearly hurried and perfunctory,
and he shrank from giving offence by introducing changes
which he knew would be popularly denounced as ‘needless.’
He left, however, a preface which expressly describes what he
had done in that portion of the New Testament. As no such
prefaces exist for the other books, it has been sometimes
doubted whether he carried his revision any further. This
doubt is, however, overborne by other evidence, and we are
bound to believe, on his own authority, that he revised the
whole New Testament, though he may have treated the other
books even more superficially than the Gospels !.

When we come to inquire concerning the special history of
St. James in the Western Church we are at once confronted
with the difficulty of its apparently late reception by Latin
writers. It is never quoted by Tertullian or Cyprian,
nor, I believe, by St. Ambrose*. St. Hilary quotes it

? Vallarsi’s collection of evidence on this point is the best with which I am
acquainted : see his edition, vol. x. p. xix. [0], The passages bearing on it are
Jerome’s own Catalogue of his Works and the following four Epistles, 112 (to
Augustine), 71 (to Lucinius), 106 (to Sunnia and Fretela), and 27 (to Marcella).
It is remarkable that in the last letter Jerome refers to three passages which
he had emended from the Greek, and that all of them are from St. Paul’s
Epistles, viz. Rom. xii. 11, where he read ‘ serving the Lord,’ 1 Tim. iii. 1, ‘ fidelis
sermo’ (for humanus), and ib. v. 19, ‘Against an elder receive not an accusa-
tion except before two or three witnesses, where Cyprian and Ambrosiaster omit
the saving clause altogether. Jerome indeed writes here ne receperis, while my
Vulgate MSS. have noli recipere, but he is probably quoting from memory.

? The two passages supposed by the Benedictine editors to be references to
St. James in the genuine works of St. Ambrose (tom. i. pp. 1071 and 1312) are
both probably to other passages of Scripture. The first is in Psalm cxviii, sermo 8,
§ 42, ‘ Vinculis enim peccatorum suorum unusquisque constringitur, sicut ipse
legisti: ligat nos vinculis carnis illecebra,’ and is supposed =James i. 14. But
without a doubt the reference is to Prov. v.22, see Sabatier on that place,
where this and other old renderings of the verse are given. The second in Lucam
ii. § 91, ‘ Purificate igitur vos, ut apostolus dicit ; quia purificavit se ille pro
nobis, qui purificatione non eguit’ is much more likely to be a reference to
1 John iii. 3 and 5. than to James iv.8. The supposed references in Novatian
de Trinitate ivy. and viii. are equally unsafe, and so are those in Anon. ad

of the Epistle of St. fames. 129

apparently only once and that in refuting Arian arguments'.
Its patristic use did not become common till the next genera-
tion, that of St. Augustine and St. Jerome, who cite it fre-
quently, the latter especially in controversy with Jovinian
(A. D. 393) and the Pelagians (A.D. 416 3)", It is a remarkable
fact that St. Augustine’s quotations (representing our supposed
Itala) are nearer the Vulgate than St. Jerome’s ὃ.

Granting, then, that this Itala, when further revised, became
the Hieronymian Vulgate, are we justified in supposing that it
was based directly on our Corbey version? Certainly not.
Our Corbey version may have been, and probably was, a
subsidiary source of the Itala, but the latter must have been
chiefly drawn from a wholly different translation. We are led
to this conclusion not only by the differences between // and
the patristic quotations, but by the singular character of the
book as it appears in the Vulgate. The current text of
St. James has a colour of its own, which forbids us to regard
it as a mere composite, smoothed down to the Hieronymian
level. It differs in method of translation almost as much from
other books of the New Testament as it does from our 77.
This may be shown by the following table, based on a note of

Novatianum de Lapsis (Galland. iii. p. 374 D) and S. Zeno Veron. de spe fide et
caritate (Gall. v. p. 111) and Tractatus i. 9. 2, de avaritia (ib. p. 122).

1 Hil. de Trin. iv. 8, p. 830, ‘quia et Iacobus apostolus dixerit apud quem
non est demutatio’ =i. 17.

2 The Dean of Chichester, who has kindly sent me a long list of references
from his great storehouse, adds that there are as many as 123 quotations from
this Epistle in St. Jerome and 389 in St. Augustine.

3 The Epistle, though early known and received in the Eastern Church and
by such Greek Western writers as Irenaeus, was apparently not received as
Scripture by the Latin Church till comparatively late, When St. Jerome wrote
his de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis (5. ν. Tacobus) in 392, he implies that it had
only recently acquired authority. ‘Iacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, cog-
nomento Iustus. . . unam tantum scripsit epistolam, quae de septem Catholicis
est, quae et ipsa ab alio quodam sub nomine eius edita asseritur, licet paullatim
tempore procedente obtinuerit auctoritatem.’ Perhaps (as Dr. Hort has sug-
gested to me) its association in this volume with three other uncanonical
writings may imply that the archetype of our book was written before it became
canonical in the West. It was, however, acknowledged by the Council of
Carthage in 397, in the first Canon of Holy Scripture perhaps ever promulgated
by such an assembly. See Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament.

K

130 The Corbey Manuscript

Dr. Westcott’s in his book Ox the Canon of the New Testament
(note p. 261 foll. ed. 1875) :—

VULGATE CORBEY
CHAP, GREEK. ST. JAMES. ELSEWHERE IN VULGATE, ST. JAMES.
ie, ἁπλῶς affluenter (simplicitas) simpliciter
i. 7. οἰέσθω aestimet (existimo) speret
i, 16, 19; ii. §. ἀγαπητοί dilecti or carissimi 20 times, but dilecti | dilecti
dilectissimi 1 Cor. xv. 58, and dilectis-
simi Heb, vi.9. C/. Rom. i.
43 Xvi. 9.
ii. 6. ἠτιμάσατε exhonorastis | (inhonorare or frustrastis
contumelia afficere)
i.21; V.15,2¢. | σώζειν saluare (saluum facere, salvus esse or | saluare
fieri)
ii. 23. ἐπληρώθη suppleta est | (implere) impleta est
iii. 17. ἁγνή pudica (castus and once sanctus, | Sancta
1 John iii. 3)
i. 21. ἀποθέμενοι abicientes (so | deponere six times) exponentes
Rom, xiii.12.)
νι ΤΙ. μακαρίζομεν | beatificamus | (beatam me dicent, Luke i. 48) | beatos dicimus
iV. 2. πολεμεῖτε belligeratis (pugnare, Apoc. ii.t6 ; xii.7,etc.) | pugnatis
Ve Its οἰκτίρμων miserator (misericordes, Luke vi, 36) misericors.

The striking divergence, even in simple words, between the
three Latin columns speaks for itself. We may therefore
conclude with safety that the Corbey St. James is not only
ante-Hieronymian, but that the Vulgate is founded (not on it,
but) on an entirely different version which, for the sake of
distinctness, I will call the Itala-Vuleate.

We have thus produced evidence for two early Latin
versions of our Epistle. A third equally distinct is known to
us by the quotations in the Specu/um (m),—a late African
text, though probably not St. Augustine’s. As these are not
accessible to everyone I print them from Mai (with Dr.
Sanday’s help), giving the Vulgate and Corbey parallels’.

1 Dr. Hort has recently made the important discovery that MS. Libri 16 of
the Ashburnham collection (deposited for a few months in the British Museum)
contains thirteen leaves of a better MS. of the Speculum than that used by Mai,
and ‘at least older than any which Weihrich knows of for his forthcoming
edition for the Vienna Academy. Moreover, they (with two leaves now lost)
make up the Fleury [Floriacensis] 10 and 12, occasionally cited by Sabatier.
There can be no doubt about the identification, though Sabatier’s inaccuracy is
unpleasantly illustrated by it’ (Letter from Cambridge, 4 Oct.,1884). M. Delisle
has recently described this discovery in a paper headed Le plus Ancien MS. du
Miroir de St. Augustin, Paris, 1884. The only passage from St. James con-
tained in these leaves is iv. 11-13% (c. 31 of the Speculum). Dr. Hort has
noticed two variations from Mai in these verses, viz. ‘ wobis (for wos) detrahere,’
and ‘ qui autem’ (for enim). He adds: ‘ Mai’s text, unchecked by other MSS.,
cannot safely be treated as more than an approximation ’ (Letter of 14 Oct., 1884).

of the Epistle of St. Fames

SpEecuLuM (m).

1.19. Sit uero omnis homo
citatus audire,

et tardus loqui,

piger in iracundia.

20 Tracundia enim uiri iustitiam
Dei non operatur.

26 Si quis putat superstitiosum
se esse, non refrenans
linguam suam, sed fallens
cor sum (sic), huius uana
religio est.

27 Sanctitas autem pura et
incontaminata haec est

aput Deum patrem, uisitare
orfanos et uiduas in angustia
ipsorum et inmaculatum

Se seruare a mundo

TI, 15 Tudicium enim sine
misericordia his qui non

fecit misericordiam ; quoniam
mnisericordia praefertur iudicio,
14 Quid prode est, fratres, si
fidem quis dicat in semet

ipso manere, opera autem
non habeat ? Numquid
potest fide (sic) sola

saluare eum ?

19 Si frater aut soror nudi
fuerint et defuerit eis
cottidianus cibus; 16 dicat
autem eis aliquis uestrum :
Ite in pace, et calefacimini,
et satiemini, et non det eis
necessaria corporis, quid
prode est haee dixisse eis ?

17 Sic et fides quae non habet
opera, mortua est circa se.

6 Sicut enim corpus sine
spiritu mortuum est, sic et
fides sine operibus mortua est,

III. 1 Nolite multiloqui esse,
fratres mei; quia maius iudicium
accipietis : ? multa enim omnes
delinquimus. Si quis in uerbo
non delinquid (sic) hie perfectus
uir est, potest fraenare totum
corpus et dirigere. %Quare ergo
equis frena in ora mittuntur,
nisi in eo ut suadeantur a

nobis, et totum corpus
circumducamus? +4 Ecce et
naues quietam (7, 6. quae tam)
inmensae sunt, sub uentis

duris feruntur, et cireum
ducuntur a paruissimo

VuLG@ATE (Cop, Am.).

19 Sit autem omnis homo
uelox ad audiendum,

tardus autem ad loquendum
et tardus ad iram.

20 Tra enim uiri iustitiam
Dei non operatur.

26 Si quis autem putat se reli-
giosum esse, non refrenans
linguam suam, sed seducens
cor suum, huius uana

est religio

27 Religio autem munda et
inmaculata apud deum et
patrem haec est, uisitare
pupillos et uiduas in tribu-
latione eorum, et inmaculatum
se custodire ab hoc saeculo,

13 Tudicium enim sine
misericordia illi qui non

fecerit misericordiam ; super-
exaltat autem misericordia iudicio.
14 Quid proderit, fratres mei, si
fidem quis dicat se habere,
opera autem

non habeat ? Numquid

poterit fides

saluare eum ?

15 Si autem frater aut soror
nudi sint et indigeant

uictu cotidiano, 16 dicat

autem aliquis de uobis illis :
Ite in pace, caleficamini

et saturamini, non dederitis
autem eis quae necessaria sunt
corporis quid proderit ?

17 Sie et fides si non habeat
opera mortua est in semetipsa.

“6 Sicut enim corpus sine
spiritu mortuum est, ita et
fides sine operibus mortua est.

1 Nolite plures magistri fieri

fratres mei, scientes quoniam
maius iudicium sumitis. 2? In multis
enim offendimus omnes, Si quis in
uerbo non offendit, hic perfectus
est uir* potest etiam circumducere
freno totum corpus. 5.51 autem
equis frenos in ora mittimus

ad consentiendum nobis, et

omne corpus illorum
circumferimus, 4 Ecce et

naues cum

magnae sint, et a uentis

ualidis minentur, cireum-

feruntur a modico

13

Corey MS. (ff).

19 Sit autem omnis homo

uelox ad audiendum,

tardus autem ad loquendum,
tardus autem ad iracundiam.
20 Tracundia enim uiri iustitiam
Dei non operatur,

26 Si quis autem putat se reli-
giosum esse non infrenans
linguam suam, sed fallens
cor suum, huius uana

est religio

27 Religio autem munda et
inmaculata apud Dominum
haec est, uisitare

orfanos et uiduas in tribu-
latione eorum ; seruare se
sine macula a seculo

13 Tuditium autem non
mniserebitur ei, qui non

fecit misericordiam, Super-
gloriatur autem misericordia iuditium.
14 Quit prodest, fratres mei, si
quis dicat se fidem habere
Opera autem

non habeat ἢ Numquit

potest fides eum sola

saluare ?

15 Siue frater siue soror

nudi sint et desit eis

uictus cottidianus,1!6 dicat
autem illis ex uestris aliquis :
Vadite in pace, calidi estote

et satulli: non dederit

autem illis alimentum corporis 5
quid et prodest ?

17 Sic et fides si non habeat
opera, mortua est sola.

26 Sicut autem corpus sine
spiritu mortuum est, sic
fides sine opera mortua est,

1 Nolite multi magistri esse

fratres mei, scientes quoniam
maius iuditium accipiemus, 2 Multa
autem erramus omnes. Si quis in
uerbo non errat ; hic erit consum-
matus uir. Potens est se infrenare
et totum corpus, 3Si autem
equorum frenos in ora mittimus

ut possint consentire, et

totum corpus ipsorum
conuertimus, +4 Ecce et

naues tam

magne sunt, et a uentis

tam ualidis feruntur, reguntur
autem paruulo

* Hieron, Contra Pel. 17, Si quis in uerbo non peccauit, hic perfectus est uir.

K 2

132

SPECULUM (m).
gubernaculo, ubi impetus
dirigentis uoluerit. 5 Sic et lingua
pars membri est, sed est magni-
loqua, Et sicut paruus ignis
magnam siluam incendit,

6 Ita et lingua ignis est :

et mundus iniquitatis per
linguam constat in membris
nostris, quae maculat

totum corpus, et inflammat
rotam (rotum m, 1) geniturae
et inflammatur a genitura,

7 Omnis enim natura bestiarum
et auium et serpentium et
beluarum maritimarum doma-
tur et subiecta est naturae
humanae : 8 linguam autem
hominum domare nemo potest,
nec retinere a malo, quia
plena est mortali ueneno.

13 Quis prudens et sciens uestrum ?
Monstret de bona conuersatione
opera sua in mansuetudine

et prudentia.

IV.1Unde bella? unde rixae
in uobis? nonne de uolunta-
tibus uestris quae militant

in membris uestris, et sunt
uobis suauissima ?

7 Humiliate uos Deo, et

resistite diabulo, et a

uobis [fugiet ?] *proximate

Deo et proximauit uobis.

10 Humiliamini ante

conspectum Domini

et exaltabit uos.

11 Fratres nolite uos [uobis Flor.)
detrahere.

Qui enim [autem Flor.) uituperat

fratrem suum et iudicat

legem uituperat et iudicat.

Si legem iudicas, iam non

factor legis sed iudex es,

12 Unus est enim legum dator

et iudex, qui

potest saluare et perdere,

Tu autem quis es

qui iudicas proximum ?

V. 1 Agite nunc diuites
plangite uos ululantes super
miserias uestras quae superueniunt,

* No Vulgate MS. as yet
has ceterum.

VuLeate (Cop, Am.),
gubernaculo ubi impetus
dirigentis uoluerit : ita et lingua
modicum quidem membrum est,
et magna exaltat. Ecce quantus
ignis quam magnam siluam
incendit © Et lingua ignis est :
uniuersitas iniquitatis
lingua constituitur in membris
nostris, quae maculat
totum corpus et inflammat
rotam natiuitatis nostrae
inflammata a gehenna.

7 Omnis enim natura bestiarum
et uolucrum et serpentium
ceterorumque * domantur

et domata sunt a natura
humana : §linguam autem
nullus hominum domare potest,
Inquietum malum, plena
ueneno mortifero f.

15 Quis sapiens et disciplinatus inter
uos ? Ostendatex bona conuersatione
operationem suam in mansuetudinem
sapientiae,

1 Unde bella et lites inter

uos ? Nonne ex concupiscentiis
uestris quae militant

in membris uestris § ?

7 Subditi igitur estote Deo,
resistite autem diabolo, et
fugiet a uobis, § Adpropinquate
Deo et adpropinquauit uobis.

10 Humiliamini in

conspectu Domini et

exaltauit uos,

ll Nolite detrahere alterutrum
fratres mei.

Qui detrahit fratri

aut qui iudicat fratrem suum

detrahit legi et indicat legem.

Si autem iudicas legem, non es

factor legis sed iudex,

19 Unus est legislator

et iudex, qui

potest perdere et liberare,

Tu autem quis es

qui iudicas proximum ?

1 Agite nune diuites
plorate ululantes in miseriis
quae aduenient uobis,

The Corbey Manuscript

Conpey ΜΕ, (ff.).
gubernaculo et ubicumque dirig-
untur uolumptate eorum qui eas
gubernant, 5Sic et lingua paruulum
membrum est, et magna gloriantur,
Ecce pusillum ignis, in quam magna
silua incendum facit. © Et lingua
ignis seculi iniquitatis.

Lingua posita est in membris
nostris, que maculat

totum corpus et inflammat
rotam natiuitatis

et incenditur a gehenna.

7 Omnis autem natura bestiarum
siue uolatilium, repentium et
natantium domatur

et domita est. Nature autem
humane® linguam nemo
hominum domare potest.
Inconstans malum, plena
ueneno mortifera.

15 Quis sapiens et disciplinosus in
uobis ? demonstrat de bona conuer-
satione opera sua in sapientie
clementiam,

1 Unde pugne et unde rixe

in uobis? Nonne hine? ex
uoluptatibus uestris que militant
in membris uestris ?

7 Subditi estote Deo

resistite autem zabolo, et

fugiet a uobis. ὃ Accedite ad
Dominum et ipse ad uos accedit.

10 Humiliate uos ante

Dominum et exaltabit

uos,

1) Nolite retractare de alterutro,
frater.

Qui retractat de fratre

et iudicat fratrem suum,

retractat de lege et iudicat legem.

Si autem iudicas legem, non es

factor legis sed iudex.

12 Unus est legum positor

et iudex, qui

potest saluare et perdere,

Tu autem quis es

qui iudicas proximum ?

1Tam nunc locupletes
plorate ululantes in
miseriis uestris aduenientibus,

collated reads cetorum, though one at Paris (Walker's x)

But St. Jerome probably wrote celorwm.

+ Hieron, Contra Pel. 17, Linguam autem hominum nullus potest domare ; inconstans
malum, plena ueneni mortiferi.
§ Hieron. Contra Pel. 17, Unde bella et unde rixae inter uos? Nonne ex uoluptatibus
quae militant in membris uestris ?

of the Epistle of St. fames. 33

SpecuttM (m), VuteGaTeE (Cop. Am.). Corspey MS. (ff.).
2 diuitiis uestris Putruerunt et 2 Diuitiae uestrae putrefactaesuntet 2 Diuitiae uestrae putrierunt,
tiniauerunt uestes uestrae. 23Aurum uestimenta uestra a tineis comesta 765 uestrae tiniauerunt, 9aurum
et argentum uestrum quod re- sunt. *Aurum et argentum uestrum uestrum et argentum eruginauit
posuistis in nouissimis diebus eruginauit, et erugo eorum et erugo ipsorum erit uobis in
aeruginauit et aerugo eorum in in testimonium uobis erit et testimonium et manducabit
testimonium uobis erit et comedit | manducabit carnes uestras carnes uestras tanquam ignis.
carnes uestras sicut ignis. sicut ignis.
5 Et uos deliciati estis super 5 Epulati estis super 5 Fruiti estis super
terram et luxoriati estis : terram et in Juxuriis terram et abusi estis.
creastis autem corda uestra enutristis corda uestra Cibastis corda uestra
in die occisionis, in diem occisionis. in die occisionis,

Coincidences between one or other of the three columns are
not rare, but very rarely indeed do all three agree even in
simple phrases or sentences. The amount and character of
the agreement are such as to suggest that both the Speculum
and the Corbey text were in the hands of St. Jerome or the
editor of the text used by Augustine.

The substantial distinctness of all the three is, however,
clearly proved by such triplicate renderings as: ii. 13, prae-
fertur, superexaltat, supergloriatur; 15, et defuerit eis, et
indigeant, et desit eis; 16, calificimini et satiemini, califica-
mini et saturamini, calidi estote et satulli; 17, mortua est
circa se, mM. 6. in semetipsa, m.e. sola. ii. I, multiloqui,
plures magistri, multi magistri; 2, delinquid, offendit, errat
(Jerome peccauit) ; 3, cireumducamus, circumferimus, conuert-
imus; and many others, in all about thirty-five.

That there may have been even more versions than three
in the Latin Church is not, I think, at all improbable ;
in fact I believe it to be almost certain, and that without
pressing ambiguous evidence, such as that of Optatus (De
Schism. Donat. 1. 5). Sabatier gives the words ‘nolite per
opinionem iudicare fratres uestros’ as a rendering of James iv.
11, but he does not notice that Optatus refers them to the
Epistle of St. Peter. Needless to say no such words occur
in either of St. Peter's Epistles, and they may be a bungling
reminiscence of the passage of St. James confused with other
passages such as Is. x1. 3 and Rom. xiv. 10; but they are not
near enough to the words μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων ἀδελφοί
to rank as a version of them, and must not therefore be
pressed into our service on this occasion.

134 The Corbey Manuscript

But apart from Optatus, St. Jerome’s own quotations of the
Epistle are, as I have already intimated, farther from the
Vulgate than St. Augustine’s, and I am inclined to think that
they represent his use of a distinct version at one period of
his life. Without going more deeply into this question at
present, I would indicate Sabatier’s collections as sufficient to
make this point easily verifiable. The reader may compare
1.14 with Adv. Jovin. ii. 3; 1.16, 20=10.1. 39; 1. 22, -ετὖ.
li. 33 ii, 10, iii. 2, 111. 8, iv. 1, ete.=Contra Pelag. 17". This
version we will call ‘ Hieronymian,’ to distinguish it from
the ‘Itala-Vulgate’ or ‘Itala.’ Our four versions will then
be the Corbey, the Itala-Vulgate, the Speculum, and the Hie-
ronymian, without counting that of Optatus, and possibly
Hilary.

It is important to establish this multiplicity of versions,
not only for the sake of showing the early diffusion of this
particular book in the West, but also as a contribution to the
question, which has been often mooted, whether the Old Latin
texts of the New Testament are all to be traced to one ori-
ginal. The more the subject has been investigated the more
clear does it become that the sources were many rather than
one; though absolutely unmixed and original versions have
very rarely come down tous. St. Jerome long ago asserted
this in general terms in the well-known passage of his preface
to the Gospels: ‘Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est ad-
hibenda respondeant quibus : tot enim sunt paene quot codices.’
We must look to Dr. Sanday to go more thoroughly into the
question of the number of what can be called separate trans-
lations.

' Some of these quotations have already been given as notes to the comparison
of the Speculum. Unfortunately the longest do not coincide with the extracts
of that compilation. Two others of some length may be given here :—i. 16
(Adv. Iov. i. 39),‘ Omne datum bonum et omnis perfecta donatio desursum est
descendens a patre luminum apud quem non est differentia aut auersionis
obumbraculum. Volens genuit nos uerbo ueritatis ut simus primitiae creatu-
rarum eius;’ and i. 22 (ib. ii. 3), ‘ Estote factores uerbi et non auditores tantum.
Si quis auditor est uerbi et non factor iste similis est uiro qui considerat uultum
natiuitatis suae in speculo. Considerauit illud et statim recedens oblitus est
qualis sit.’

of the Epistle of St. ames. 135

Of the four versions which we have traced of St. James
three of course have been already shown by implication to be
at least as old as the fourth century, the Hieronymian, the
Itala-Vulgate, and the Speculum.

The Corbey version comes to us in a late MS., but its anti-
quity might be inferred to be considerably earlier than the
Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), from the fact of its association
with uneanonical literature. This inference is fortunately
substantiated by two quotations in the works of Chromatius,
Bishop of Aquileia, the friend of Ruffinus and St. Jerome,
and the supporter of St. Chrysostom. The reader will judge
from the following parallel :—

Corbey St. James.

1. 12. Beatus uir qui susti-
nuerit temptationem quoniam
probatus factus accipiet coro-
nam uite quam promittet eis
qui eum diligunt.

1.15. Deinde concupiscen-
tia concipit et parit peccatum.
Peccatum autem consumma-
tum adquirit mortem.

Chromatius, 7ract. in Ev.

S. Matt.

xiv. 7. Beatus qui sustinu-
erit tentationem quoniam be-
atus (/ege probatus) factus
accipiet coronam uitae quam
promittit Deus us qui eum
diligunt.

ix. 1. Concupiscentia parit
peccatum. Peccati autem
concupiscentia adquirit mor-

tem.

The senseless repetition in i. 12 of ‘ beatus .. . beatus,’ and

in 1. 15 of ‘concupiscentia ...

concupiscentia’ shows either

that Chromatius is very badly edited or that he quoted from
a very bad MS., but the substantial agreement of his citations
with the Corbey version is apparent in the use of the unique
phrase ‘ adquirit mortem,’ the origin and meaning: of which is
extremely obscure. The Greek ἀποκυεῖ θάνατον throws little

light upon it.

The conclusion, then, of this part of the subject is that the
Corbey version is at least as old as the fourth century, and

136 The Corbey Manuscript

that it is, in its origin, distinct from three others which were
known in the Western Church at the same date?. Its em-
ployment as subsidiary to the Itala probably implies a greater
antiquity than that assignable to the rest.

II. We must now pass to the second part of our subject:
Relation of the Corbey version to the Greek text of the Epistle,
and its bearing on the question of the language in which St. James
originally wrote.

That the version is made from a Greek text of some kind
is clear; that it is from a text in many respects differing from
that received by any modern editor is also evident. The first
proposition is proved, amongst other things, by the use of
such quasi technical terms as conditio=xricpa in 1. 18 ; ἐγα-
ducti = ἐλεγχόμενοι, ii. 9 ; disciplinosus = ἐπιστήμων, 111. 13,
which we may say without offence belong to the ‘jargon’ of
Latin interpreters from the Greek *. Something of the same

1 T have not entered into a discussion as to the Latin style of the version.
There is a certain rude force and eloquence in it, not altogether marred by the
numerous anacolutha. The vocabulary is rich in remarkable words, as becomes
a translation from an Epistle which contains so many uncommon phrases (see
note below, p. 149). It seems worth while to give a rather full list of the rarer
words, including those which are found occasionally in other books. It may be
possible to trace the local affinities of some of them—especially if some progress
is made in the direction in which Sittl has recently attempted to move.

alapamini (κατακαυχᾶσθε) inreprehensibilis (ἀδιάκριτος)

animalis (ψυχική)
anxiat (κακοπαθεῖ)

bullit (βρύει)

legum positor (νομοθέτης)
liberalitas (ἐλευθερία)

natantium (ἐναλίων)

conditionum (κτισμάτων
rc ) potentantur (καταδυναστεύουσιν)

datio (δόσις)

demonetica (δαιμονιώδης)
disciplinosus (ἐπιστήμων) salmacidum (πικρόν and ἁλυκόν)
satulli (estote) (χορτάζεσθε)
scamello (ὑποπόδιον)

retractare (καταλαλεῖν)

eliditur ? (δελεαζόμενος.)
exploratores (κατασκόπους)

exponentes (ἀποθέμενοι) tiniauerunt (σητόβρωτα γέγονεν)
exterminata (ἀφανιζομένη) traducti (ἐλεγχόμενοι)

fornicaria (πόρνη) uisceraliter misericors (πολύσπλαγ-
fornicatores (μοιχοί ?) xvos καὶ οἰκτίρμων)

germinauit (ἐβλάστησεν) zabolo (διαβόλῳ.

2. Disciplinosus is a very rare word, but disciplina=émorhpn is common
enough, though not always understood by those who read translations from the

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 137

bare equivalence is noticeable in legum positor=vopobérns in
Iv. 12, and ‘faciemus ibi annum’ in iv. 12. Another proof
is afforded by the ingenious conjecture, which has occurred
independently to Mr. D. 5. Margoliouth and Dr. Sanday,
that ‘ momentum enim est per modica uisibilis’ in iv. 15 is due
to a confusion in the translator's mind, or in his Greek MS.,
between ἀτμός (ἀτμίς, editors), vapor, and ἄτομος, momentum.
Similarly the dative ‘naturae autem humanae’ in 111. 8 appears
to me a mere mis-translation of the Greek dative.

The difference of the original text from our existing Greek
MSS. must also be evident to every attentive reader, but a col-
lection of the most important variations will bring it home
to his imagination with greater distinctness.

In the following list I have not generally registered varia-_
tions of tense, which are too common phenomena in the un-
revised Latin versions to be of great importance for a rigorous
criticism !; nor have I set down a number of cases of the
interchange of number in nouns, which seem usually due to

mere carelessness. The Greek text is generally that of
Tischendorf.

i. 3. probatio uestra opera- τὸ δοκίμιον ὑμῶν τῆς πίστεως
tur sufferentiam κατεργάζεται ὑπομονήν.

The omission of the words τῆς πίστεως agrees with B* and Syr. philox., but
they are found apparently in all other authorities (since probably here 81=B),
The words may possibly be a gloss or expansion from 1 Pet.i, 7 rightly omitted
by ff.

1. 14. abducitur et eliditur ἐξελκόμενος καὶ δελεαζόμενος.

The reader may conjecture elicitur or eluditur, but neither seems quite satis-
factory. Possibly our Greek text had ἐκκρουόμενος or mapaxpovdpevos in the
sense of ‘deluded,’ ‘ cheated.’

Greek, or vice versa. A good Greco-Latin glossary with reverse index, em-
bracing Irenaeus and the early versions of the Apostolic Fathers, and the Greek
translations of Latin documents and laws in the Church Historians, as well as
the Scriptural matter, is still a desideratum.

1 In the first draft of this paper I was inclined to lay stress on these varia-
tions of tense as pointing to the influence of a Hebrew original; but a careful
examination of them, which Dr. Driver has kindly made for me, proves that
this method of explanation will not hold good as regards these tenses. Nor
had I then observed how common such variations are in other Old-Latin texts,
They seem to be due to defective knowledge of Greek grammar as much as to
any other cause.

138 The Corbey Manuscript

1.15. adquirit mortem ἀποκυεῖ θάνατον.

This is at present unexplained. Dr. Hort suggests a western gloss ἐργάζεται ;
cf. Oecumenius here, and Rom. vii. 13, 2 Cor. vii. 10. Dr. Driver compares Job
xv. 31 (LXX), where the similar Hebrew metaphor is obliterated.

i. 17. apud quem non est παρ᾽ 6 οὐκ ἔνι παραλλαγὴ ἢ
permutatio uel modicum obum- τροπῆς ἀποσκίασμα.
brationis

Here, as is well known, x* B have the apparent conflation τροπῆς ἀποσκιάσ-
ματος, and c of Scrivener adds a gloss, apparently based on a misconception of
Oecumenius, οὐδὲ μέχρι ὑπονοίας τινος ὑποβολὴ ἀποσκιάσματος, meaning ‘not even
the least suspicion of an idea of shadow.’ The Vulgate has vicissitudinis obum-
bratio, Jerome (lovin. i. 39), aversionis (or conversionis) obumbraculum, and
Augustine (passim) momenti obumbratio. It is clear to me that ff is a trans-
lation of ῥοπὴ ἀποσκιάσματος, ‘a moment of shadow,’ and Augustine’s of ῥοπῆς
ἀποσκίασμα, ‘shadow of a moment,’ which is in fact the same thing, i.e. shadow
lasting for a moment. This sense of ῥοπή is justified by the use in Wisdom
xviii, 12 and 6 Ἑβραῖος in Job xx. 5=Heb. ym. See Field ad loc. and I. p.
Ixxv. f. Iam myself inclined to believe that either ῥοπὴ ἀποσκιάσματος or ῥοπῆς
ἀποσκίασμα is right, notwithstanding the wealth of astronomical learning which
has been spent on illustrating παραλλαγή and τροπή.

i. 18. primitiae conditionum ἀπαρχήν τινα τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισ-
elus μάτων.

The word twa is omitted also by 81 (cf. i. 3) and 95* as well as by Jerome,
Adv. Tovin. i. 39, ‘primitiae creaturarum eius.’ I am inclined to think that the
reading of ff is right, and that τινα is a softening of the phrase, perhaps merely
for literary elegance, but more probably to avoid any idea of collision with the
use of ἀπαρχή of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 20 and 23). Cp. the glosses in ff and the
Sahidic in ii. 14.

i. 22. aliter consiliantes παραλογιζόμενοι ἑαυτούς.

This is an unique variation. But it is to be noticed that St. Jerome, Adv. Tovin.
ii. 3, omits the clause altogether, and possibly rightly. The sort of explanation
of our reading that occurs to me is that the archetype had in the text some-
thing like male suadentes vosmet ipsos, with a gloss in the margin aliter
( = otherwise read) consiliantes. Consiliantes was of course intended as a variant
only on swadentes, but the scribe stupidly copied the two words as if they were
a substitute for the whole clause. It is perhaps even more likely that the cor-
ruption arose in the Greek stage, since ἄλλως is used in Greek in such cases,
and uel, more often than aliter,in Latin. It is less likely, though not impossible,
that aliter consiliantes is a rough translation of παραλογιζόμενοι, set at first in
the margin as a variant for seducentes or fallentes.

ii. 4. Diiudicati estis inter Οὐ διεκρίθητε ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ;
uos

Here ff agrees with B* alone in omitting the od. Cp. v. 20 for another case.
Similarly, in verse 26, the only Greek MS. which omits yap is B with Syr. Arm.

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 139

Aeth. ; while ff and Origen represent δέ. Westcott and Hort not unnaturally
read ὥσπερ τὸ σῶμα x.7.A, without a particle.

ii. 7. nonne ipsi blasphe- οὐκ αὐτοὶ βλασφημοῦσι τὸ Ka-
mant 7% bono nomine, ete. Adv ὄνομα, κιτ.λ.

This will be discussed below. Cf. v. 10, 15.

“. . Ξ ὮΝ ͵ὕὔ ε fe fal

ll. 14. numquid potest fides μὴ δύναται ἣ πίστις σῶσαι
eum so/a saluare αὐτόν ;

The addition of sola is evidently a gloss from verse 17, in order to soften
what seemed a hard expression. It is found only in the Speculum besides, but
the Sahidic version adds in a similar spirit ‘save him without works.’

11. 25. exploratores ex XII τοὺς ἀγγέλους.
tribus filiorum Israhel

Exploratores is evidently a translation of τοὺς κατασκόπους, which is found in
some Greek MSS. including CK™eL Syrsb p™*"s (exploratores Iosue) and
Arm. Arab? Aeth, The exact form of the gloss seems to occur nowhere else.
See below.

iii. 4. The version is very free, but the sense is the same as
the Greek.
iii. 6. et lingua ignis secwli καὶ [om. Tisch. with δὴ Δ]
iniquitatis ἡ γλῶσσα πῦρ ὃ κόσμος τῆς
ἀδικίας.

This verse will be discussed below. There is no reason to change seculi to
seculum as Martianay suggests,

i. 14. guid alapamini....? μὴ κατακαυχᾶσθε.

Alapamini is merely a rare word. See the gloss in Ducange, alapator,
καυχητής. But quid seems really a variant and an unique one. See on ii. 4.

il. τό. zwconstans ibietomne ἐκεῖ ἀκαταστασία, k.T.A.
prauum negotium

See below.

lll. 17. sine diiudicatione in- ἀδιάκριτος.
reprehensibilis

This is merely a conflation either from the use of two Latin texts or the
introduction of a marginal gloss. See on i. 22.

iv. 4. Fornicatores nescitis, μοιχαλίδες κιτιλ. N* AB 13
ete. Tisch., and μοιχοὶ καὶ
μοιχαλίδες δὲ K L P and

most others.

Fornicatores appears to be an African word. The Vulgate has here adulteri :
both point to a reading μοιχοί, with possibly a variant πόρνοι, which is not, how-

140 The Corbey Manuscript

ever, found at present alone in any Greek MS, The common reading μοιχοὶ καὶ
μοιχαλίδες is, however, seemingly a conflation of the two words which were read
separately in older MSS. Μοιχαλίδες being at first sight the harder reading is
probably correct. I do not, however, think it refers to spiritual unfaithfulness,
as some do, or that it is a feminine for masculine, like the (supposed) ποταγω-
vides, instanced by Tischendorf ad loc. The Apostle seems rather to address
verse 2, referring to acts of violence, to men who do not pray at all, but are
zealots (assassins) and murderers : while women pray, but ask amiss, uniting
seeming devotion with incontinence and worldly ambition in a way not wholly
unknown to any age. It makes little difference whether we subjoin μοιχαλίδες
(with Tischendorf) to verse 3, or (as usual) prefix it to verse 4.

iv. 5. aut putatis quoniam ἢ δοκεῖτε ὅτι κενῶς ἡ γραφὴ
dicit Seriptura: Ad invidiam λέγει πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ
conualescit Spiritus qui hab- πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκισεν ἐν ἡμῖν ;
itat in uobis ?

The variants of ff are (1) omission of κενῶς, else unexampled ; but ef. the
varying order of the Armenian, teste Griesbach, ἢ κενῶς δοκεῖτε ; (2) conualescit,
which is almost inexplicable ; (3) habitat=the common Greek reading κατῴ-
κησεν, and so the Latin Vulgate and the versions; (4) in wobis, also in the
Vulgate -ὸ ὑμῖν, which is apparently not now found in Greek MSS, The varying
place of κενῶς in the Armenian makes it not impossible that the word is a gloss :
at any rate, it is evidence, taken with the reading of ff, that some Greek MSS.
omitted it. (On the Latin affinities of the Armenian, see Westcott and Hort, G.7’,
vol. 2, p. 158.) Conualescit would naturally be the translation of ἐνδυναμοῦται (as
in Acts ix. 22; Heb. xi. 34) or κραταιοῦται, not of ἐπιποθεῖ, The whole passage is
one of extreme difficulty, but the Corbey text, whether right or wrong, gives an
intelligible view of it, which is at any rate worth considering. It may be para-
phrased, ‘ Do not love the world and strive to get the better of your neighbours.
It cannot be of our Christian spirit, of the Spirit of God dwelling in us, that the
Scripture speaks as growing strong in envy of its neighbours. It is of the
wicked that we read (Proy. xxi. 10) “ The soul of the wicked desireth evil : his
neighbour findeth no favour in his eyes.” But the Christian spirit giveth its
possessors greater grace than this. Wherefore he saith, ‘‘God resisteth the
proud, but giveth grace unto the humble ’’( = Prov. iii. 34, Surely he scorneth
the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly). There is perhaps also a
tacit reference to Proy. xx. 27,‘ The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord,
searching all the inward parts of the belly.’

iv. 11. nolite retractare de μὴ καταλαλεῖτε ἀλλήλων ἀδελ-
alterutro frater pot.

This seems more than a simple case of interchange of number: cf. v. 9, ‘nolite
ingemescere fratres in alterutrum.’ See below.

iv. 14, momentum enim est ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστε.

The translator, as we have said, probably had ἀτμός in his copy, and confused
it with dropos, Dr. Hort suggests, however, flamentum corrupted to momentum,
Many MSS. have ἐστιν, and it is the reading of the Vulgate.

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 141

v. 2. resuestrae tiniauerunt τὰ ἱμάτια ὑμῶν σητόβρωτα γέγ-
OVEV.
See below. The Greek of ff may have been χρήματα or σκεύη instead of

ἱμάτια. Dr. Hort suggests a possible loss of wes- before ves westrae,

v. 4. qui arauerunt TOV ἀμησάντων.

The contrast between ploughmen and reapers makes the picture more com-
plete, and is one we should have expected in such an Epistle: but no extant
Greek MS. or other authority has ploughed. Cf. however I Sam. viii, 12 (LXX)
for the converse change.

e ’

v.10. accipite experimen- ὑπόδειγμα λάβετε, ἀδελφοὶ τῆς

tum, fratres, de malis passio- κακοπαθείας Kal τῆς μακροθυ-
nibus et de patientia prophetas μίας τοὺς προφήτας.
v. 15. oratio zu fide ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως.

These two cases stand together, and may be compared with ii. 7.

v. 16. oratio iusti freguens δέησις δικαίου ἐνεργουμένη.

The Vulgate assidua has much the same sense. The Greek may have been
ἐκτενής or ἐνδελεχής.

v. 20. Qui reuocauerit, etc. γινωσκέτω ὅτι ὁ ἐπιστρέψας,
K.T.A.

Greek MSS. vary between γινωσκέτω ὅτι and γινώσκετε ὅτι. The words are
omitted by the Sahidic as well as ff, and probably by Ambrosiaster and Cassio-
dorius.

de morte sva ἐκ θανάτου.

Here again B alone of the Greek MSS. agrees with ff in adding αὐτοῦ, as
does Aeth. Cp. on ii. 4.

Lastly, the subscription runs, Lxplicit Epistola Iacoli filii
Zaebeder. We shall return to this presently.

In the above collection of passages we have some which
clearly point to a Greek text differing from that current in any
known MS. It must have had for instance the following readings,
if our arguments are sound, ῥοπὴ ἀποσκιάσματος in 1. 17, καθ᾽
ἑαυτὴν σῶσαι αὐτόν ID 11. 14,7) γλῶσσα πῦρ τοῦ κόσμου τῆς ἀδικίας
in 111. 6, μοιχοί or πόρνοι 1ῃ iv. 4, τὰ χρήματα or σκεύη ὑμῶν σητό-
βρωτα γέγονεν in v. 2—and others of which the original form
is less certain, though the fact of its variation is indisputable.

Can any explanation be offered of these differences? I know

142 The Corbey Manuscript

of none which covers a// the facts; but I think that the
hypothesis of a Hebrew or Aramaic original (probably the
latter) from which were formed two independent or quasi.
independent Greek versions, does explain some of the phe
nomena, and is in itself extremely probable. Our curren
Greek text and the Greek archetype of ff will thus have stooc
to one another and to the Aramaic in much the same relative
position as two of the Latin versions do to each other and t
the original Greek. They will also have suffered just th
same chance of mixture and assimilation, so that we are no’
surprised to find ff sometimes standing quite alone, sometimes
agreeing with a single Greek copy or with a larger group o
authorities, but almost always having a reading which sets
us thinking as to wider probabilities.

The arguments in favour of this hypothesis may be con-
sidered under three heads: (A) passages which it helps tc
explain ; (B) probability from parallel cases; (C) probability
against St. James’ having written in Greek like that before us
in the Epistle.

(A) The passages which this hypothesis helps to explain are
(1) u. 7, where zz ono nomine for the accusative seems to be a
Hebraism ; cp. 2 Sam. xxii. 9, and 2 Chron. xxxii. 17, where
chdraph is followed by the preposition. The same construc-
tion is found in Syriac with Oty (Acts xxvi. 11: see Payne
Smith, Lexicon, I. col. 659).

Perhaps we may class v. 10 oratio zz jide and vy. 15 experi-
mentum de malis passionibus, etc., where the Greek has simple
genitives, in the same category. Both Hebrew and Syriac,
certainly the latter, would use prepositions here.

(2) 11. 25, eaploratores is, as we have seen, a point of contact
with the Syriac version. The gloss ex XII tribus filiorum
Israhel is a confusion between the two occasions when spies
were sent, since Rahab only received two men (Josh. ii. 1).
It may be connected with i. 1, ταῖς δώδεκα φυλαῖς.

(3) 11. 6. Lt lingua ignis seculi iniquitatis has a striking
point of contact with the Peshi/to Syriac which reads, ‘ The

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 143

tongue is a fire: the world of iniquity is as it were a wood.’
The latter is apparently a gloss or expansion of our reading.
Certainly the conception, ‘The tongue is a fire which lghts
the world of iniquity,’ i.e. the whole mass of iniquity, lying
dormant till some evil word sets it in a blaze—is much
clearer than that usually attributed to these words. It is said
that the ‘ world of iniquity’ is not a Hebrew idea, but that is
a difficulty in any case whichever way we interpret it. For
the Epistle comes from a man who thought in Hebrew
whether he wrote in it or not. It is true that in Prov. xvii.
6, ὅλος κόσμος τῶν χρημάτων in LXX has nothing to corre-
spond to it in the Hebrew. But ΟῚ» I presume came to be
used very broadly in the later language including not only
αἰών (as in Eccles. 11. 11), but κόσμος. Delitzsch, it may be
noticed, uses it here, paraphrasing, ‘the tongue is a fire, ὦ
world full of iniquity (aby son od yy).

We may notice also here that the reading fornicatores (in-
stead of adulterers or adulteresses) is a point of contact with the
Peshi¢to in iv. 4.

(4) ili. 16. inconstans (ἀκατάστατον), for ἀκαταστασία is
easily explicable if the original of the two types of text was
(unpointed) Hebrew or Aramaic. A confusion of 195 and
375 for instance, or of any one of several other pairs of words
in either language, might have been the occasion of the
blunder. With this we may plausibly connect frater = ἀδελφοί
in iv. 11, since ‘my brother’ and ‘my brethren’ are written
with exactly the same consonants both in Hebrew and Syriac.

(5) v. 2. ves uestrae tiniauerunt. The confusion of ‘ things’
and ‘garments,’ which is impossible in Greek, points most
probably to the double sense of the Syriac and Chaldee mdz.
It is the word used here and elsewhere for ἱμάτια in the
Peshi/to, and is also a common word for ‘ goods,’ or ‘ stuff’ of
any kind, e.g. it is used in translating τὰ σκεύη (τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ)
in the Gospels, Matt. xii. 29; Mark 111. 27, and τὰ σκεύη
αὐτοῦ, Luke xvii. 21, For other instances see Payne Smith,
Lexicon, I, col. 1991, which sufficiently establish the use of the

Pye oe ett | δ

144 The Corbey Manuscript

word in the sense of ornaments, household furniture, baggage,
as well as vessels. I had at one time thought of a somewhat
similar double sense of the Hebrew sb> ; but though a word
of broad signification it is not so broad as mdn.

(6) The subscription Explicit Epistola Iacobi fil Zachedet
has often been compared with the Syriac note prefixed to the
Catholic Epistles in the editio princeps of Widmanstadt
(Vienna, 1555), which may probably be translated, ‘we here
print? the three Epistles of James, Peter, and John, who were
witnesses to the revelation from our Lord when He was
transfigured.’

We cannot indeed see in this note the judgment of the
Syrian Church in general, for such a statement does not
appear in the oldest MSS. of the Peshi‘to known to us%,
which simply ascribe thé letter to ‘James the Apostle. It
represents, however, almost certainly the judgment of the
Syrian ecclesiastics who were associated with Widmanstadt in
his edition, and if so is a distinct link of connexion between
our MS. and the country of Syria. A similar tradition is
hinted at rather than expressed by St. Jerome in his catalogue
of ecclesiastical writers ὅς

The positive evidence, then, for our hypothesis—of the force
of which the reader will judge—is in favour of an Aramaic
rather than a Hebrew original for our Epistle.

(B) I will next add a few words as to the @ priori pro-
bability from parallel cases that the Epistle was written in
Aramaic —including the evidence which may possibly point to
the use of Rabbinical Hebrew.

(1) It seems certain that our Lord spoke in general the

1 This is now generally agreed to be the meaning of the Syriac ch’tham
(σημειοῦν, τελειοῦν, τυποῦν) in this place. See also Payne Smith’s Lexicon, I.
col. 1408, where one instance is given of the use of the word for printing.

2 This is frankly acknowledged by Mr. F. Τὶ Bassett in the Introduction to
his edition of the Epistle, p. viii, He is, as is well known, strongly in favour
of the authorship of the son of Zebedee.

> «Jacobus Zebedaei filius duodecim tribubus quae erant in dispersione
omnibus praedicauit Evangelium Domini nostri Jesu Christi.’

of the Epistle of St. ames. 145

vernacular language rather than Greek or Hebrew. Not only
have we certain well-known Aramaic words, reported as note-
worthy utterances of His when addressing common people,
but it would seem that upon the Cross, in speaking from the
depths of His soul, He used an Aramaic version of the Psalter
rather than the original. He preferred, that 15, to say

ρα md πον cobs
to the original WAAY στοῦ bys tye
This was indeed one of the most striking proofs of His conde-
scension, of His wish to be in all things like unto His
brethren, and to enforce the lesson of preaching the Gospel to
the poor 1.

(2) St. Paul, when addressing his countrymen on the stairs
of the Castle, ‘spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, and
so gained a readier hearing (Acts xxi. 40, xxil. 2). This may
mean Rabbinical Hebrew, but being a discourse to a mob who
had just before nearly torn him in pieces, it is more likely
to have been the vernacular dialect”. It is of course matter
of general knowledge that “EBpaiori covers both languages.
In John v. 2, and xix. 13 and 17, Bethesda (Bethzetha, Beth-
saida), Gabbatha, and Golgotha are obviously Aramaic forms,
while in the Prologue of Jesus son of Sirach, and Apoe. ix. 11
(Abaddon), Hebrew seems to be intended.

(3) St. Matthew, according to well-known tradition, wrote
in ‘ Hebrew,’ and as Papias® tells us, ‘each one [at first] in-
terpreted as he was able,’ i.e. before the single ecclesiastical
version at present known to us obtained supremacy. Papias’

1 On the language spoken by our Lord, see a paper by Delitzsch in the
Jewish Missionary Magazine, Saat auf Hoffnung, Deichert, Erlangen, 1874, and
ep. the discussion in Kautzsch’s recent Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, pp. 7-12.

2 See I. H. R. Biesenthal, Trostschreiben an die Hebriier, p. 46, Leipzig,
1878, in favour of the view that St. Paul spoke Rabbinical Hebrew on this
occasion. This is also the opinion of Delitzsch (The Hebrew New Testament of
the British and Foreign Bible Society, Leipzig, 1883) and apparently also of
Kautzsch, Gramm. der Bibl. Aram. pp. 19, 20, Leipzig, 1834.

8 Papias in Eusebius, H. E. iii. 39, Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἕβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ

λόγια συνεγράψατο (or συνετάξατο), ἡρμήνευσε δ᾽ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος.
Observe the aorist ἡρμήνευσε, and see Lightfoot in Contemporary Review, August,

1875, vol. 26, p. 397.
L

146 The Corbey Manuscript

pregnant words imply (as Bishop Lightfoot has seen) a time
of concurrent rivalry of several versions of St. Matthew, such
as we suppose was the case with our Greek versions of St.
James, and such as we know to have been the case with the
Latin versions before St. Jerome. We need not stop to dis-
cuss what is meant here by ‘ Hebrew,’ though for my own
part I incline to Aramaic.

(4) St. Peter, the Apostle of the circumcision, according to
ancient tradition, needed an ‘interpreter. St. Mark, as all
are aware, is named by Papias as ‘having decome (γενόμενος)
his interpreter, that is to say, we may suppose, as having
joined himself to St. Peter after having left the service of
St. Paul ; and Glaucias, who was claimed by the Gnosties as
the teacher of Basilides, is named as another ‘interpreter’ of
the same Apostle. By this we understand that when preach-
ing in a synagogue, where Hebraists and Hellenists were both
assembled, the Apostle himself used Aramaic, for the benefit
of one half of the congregation, while his interpreter trans-
lated his discourse into Greek for the benefit of the Hellenists
and proselytes. This practice, it may be remarked, obviously
accounts for St. Mark’s competence as an Evangelist, and for
certain peculiarities in his book. Such interpreters would
also be used in translating epistles intended for groups of
churches, such as the Epistles of St. Peter. Jerome, it will be
remembered, takes it for granted that they were not originally
written in Greek, and thinks that the difference between them
was due to the employment of different men as interpreters!.

Dr. E. G. King (now Vicar of Madingley) has written a paper
on the subject of the relation of the Second Epistle of St. Peter
to that of St. Jude which requires mention here*. His thesis

1 See Papias, l.c.; Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. 17, § 106, p. 898, for Glaucias ;
Hieron. Ad Hedibiam, ep. 120, ch. xii. (tom. i. p. 838, Vallarsi; iv. p. 183,
Martianay), ‘Denique et duae epistolae quae feruntur Petri stilo inter se et
charactere discrepant, structuraque uerborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro neces-
sitate rerum diuersis eum usum interpretibus,’ IfGlaucias had translated the
Second Epistle, this might perhaps have discredited it to some extent in

Catholic circles.
2 Did St. Peter write in Greek? Thoughts and criticisms tending to prove the

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 147

is that St. Peter wrote this Epistle ‘in Hebrew or Aramaic,’
and ‘that St. Jude read (it) in Hebrew, and wrote his
Epistle—probably in Chaldee—as a Targum, or explanatory
paraphrase thereon. This paper was published in 1871, and
Dr. King informs me that he still adheres to the theory, but
is ‘far from satisfied with the mode in which it is propounded,’
and thinks that he could now make out a far stronger case
for it. We may hope that he will have leisure to restate his posi-
tion. Whatever may be the value of his arguments in detail
(on which I am little qualified to pronounce an opinion) the
theory is an attractive one, as offering a plausible solution of
a most difficult question. Students of the New Testament
need hardly be reminded that the relation of St. James to the
first Epistle of St. Peter is in some degree parallel (as to the
presence of common and possibly borrowed matter) to the
relation between the pair of letters diseussed by Dr. King.

(5) The supposition of a Hebrew original for the Epistle to
the Hebrews is not unknown to antiquity, and has recently
been forcibly maintained by Biesenthal. On this question I
do not now wish to express any opinion.

(6) Josephus wrote his book on the Wars of the Jews first in
his ‘national language’ and sent it to the ‘ upper barbarians,’
by which he tells us that he means ‘the Parthians, Baby-
lonians, the most remote of the Arabians, the Jews beyond
the Euphrates, and the Adiabenians.’ Their national language
would clearly be Aramaic, not Hebrew, which last would not
be easily intelligible to the people of those countries. He tells
us further that he used the assistance of others in making
the translation into Greek, an assistance which he must have
employed with great effect, as the style of his book is fairly
classical—certainly not so Hebraistic as the Gospel according
to St. Matthew or the Epistle of St. James*. It will be

Aramaic origin of the Second Epistle of St. Peter and the Epistle of St. Jude, by
Edward George King, M. A., Tyrwhitt University Scholar, etc. Cambridge,
J. Hall and Son, etc., 1871.

1 See Josephus, B. J. Prooem. § 1; Contra Apion. i. 9.

L 2

148 The Corbey Manuscript

noticed that Josephus first addressed himself to the Eastern
dispersion, not to the Hellenistic Jews of Syria and Asia
Minor, ete.

These parallels, when taken together, and compared with
the evidence collected by Dr. Neubauer in another paper
contained in this volume, make it very probable, @ priori, that
St. James would have written to ‘the twelve tribes of the
dispersion ’ in the language familiar to the Jews of Palestine
and the East. In so doing he was following the example of
his Master, who thus secured that the Gospel should be
preached to the poor; he was acting with St. Matthew and
St. Peter, the two other Apostles who specially addressed the
‘circumcision ;’ he was doing what the Apostle of the Gentiles
would certainly have commended; he was doing what the
renegade Josephus actually did in propagating his views
about the great national struggle with Rome. We are apt
to forget the Jews of the Persian empire, but we may be sure
that the Apostles of Palestine did not. ‘To the Jew first ’—
and of Jews they were likely to put ‘ Parthians, and Medes, and
Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia’ in the first rank when
their thoughts were turned towards the dispersion (ep. Acts 1.
g). Next to them would probably come the Jews of Antioch and
its neighbourhood, who would, notwithstanding the surround-
ing Hellenism, be more accessible in Aramaic than in Greek.

(C) The negative probability that St. James would not have
written such Greek as that in which the Epistle has come
down to us is also, I think, very strong. The letter contains
some striking Hebraisms and its whole spirit and tone is
Jewish, but its vocabulary is distinctly Hellenic.

An analysis of the more striking words of the little book
shows that it contains 49 which are not found elsewhere in the
New Testament; of these 7 are very rare and scarcely found
anywhere else in the whole of Greek literature, except in
lexicons and late writers who may have borrowed from St.
James; 13 are classical and not found in the LXX; 27 are

of the Epistle of St. Fames. 149

classical and also found in the LXX ; while only 2 are confined
to LXX usage. That is to say the ascertained non-biblical ele-
ment is 20 out of 49, or about two-fifths of the whole number,
while as to the remaining three-fifths, which may be drawn
from the LXX, many of the words have strong classical asso-
ciations and few of them any distinct Biblical colouring.

Making then all allowances for the proximity of the LXX
as a literary source to a Christian author, we are forced to the
conclusion that even if it was largely used by the writer of
this Epistle, he was also familiar with Greek on his own
account, and was a scholar who had rather a wide range of
classical reading.

Besides these 48 words peculiar to St. James, there are at
least 27 others which occur only in one other New Testament
writer, and generally in one single place of his writings?.

1 The full lists of these words may be interesting. In making them (as I
hope) complete, I am much indebted to my friend, Mr. H. Deane, Fellow of
St. John’s College, Vicar of St. Giles’, Oxford.

The seven very rare words are avéXeos, (ἀνιλέως in Hippolytus, quoting from
this place), ἀνεμιζόμενος, ἀπείραστος (for ἀπείρατος), ἀποσκίασμα, δαιμονιώδης,
θρῆσκος. χρυσοδακτύλιος. The thirteen classical non-Septuagint words are ἁλυκός,
ἀμάω, ἀποκυέω (twice), βρύω, δίψυχος, ἐνάλιος, TA ἐπιτήδεια, εὐπειθής, ἐφήμερος,
κατήφεια, ῥυπαρία, χαλιναγωγέω, χρή. The twenty-seven Classical and Septua-
gint words are ἀδιάκριτος, ἀκατάστατος, ἁπλῶς, Boal, ἐξελκόμενος, ἐπιλησμονή,
ἐπιστήμων, εὐπρέπεια, θανατηφόρος, κακοπάθεια, κατίωται, μαρανθήσεται, μετάγω,
μεγαλαυχέω, νομοθέτης, ὀλολύζω, ὄψιμος, παραλλαγή, πρόϊμος, ῥιπιζόμενος,σέσηπε,
ταλαιπωρέω, τροπή, τρόχος, τρυφάω, φλογίζω, φρίσσω. The two which are con-
fined to ΤΙ ΧΧ are ἀφυστερημένος and σητόβρωτος.

The twenty-seven found only in one other New Testament writer are ἀλα-
ζόνεια (1 Johnii. 16), ἀκροατής (Rom. ii. 13), ἀποτελεσθεῖσα (Luke xiii. 32), ἀτμίς
(Acts ii. 19 from Joel), δαμάσαι (Mark v. 4), δελεαζόμενος (2 Peter ii. 14, 18),
δόσις (Philip. iv. 15), δώρημα (Rom. v. 16), εἰρηνικός (Heb. xii. 11), ἐμπορεύομαι
(2 Peter ii. 3), ἔσοπτρον (1 Cor, xiii. 12), ἰός (Rom. iii. 13 from the Psalms), κατα-
δυναστεύω (Acts x. 13), κατακαυχάομαι (Rom. ii. 18), κριτήριον (1 Cor. vi. 2, 4),
κύριος Σαβαώθ (Rom. ix. 29), μακαρίζω (Luke i. 48), ὀπή (Heb. xi. 38), ὁρμή
(Acts xiv. 5), ὄφελος (1 Cor. xv. 32), πηδάλιον (Acts xxvii. 40), πόρεια (Luke
xiii. 22 in rather different sense), πραὕτης (1 Peter iii. 15), ῥυπαρός (Apoc.
xxii. 11), σπαταλάω (1 Tim. v. 6), omAdw (Jude 23), χαλινός (Apoc. xiv. 20).
All of this group of words have some parallel (sometimes only a single one)
in the Greek Old Testament or Apocrypha, with the exception of δώρημα and
πηδάλιον, for which there is no LXX precedent. To this list we must add
χαίρειν in the classical epistolary sense, which would appear strange in St. James,
were it not for the formula of the Apostolic letter in Acts xv. 23. Cp. xxiii. 26.
Jt answers to 019W in Is, xlviii. 22, lvii.21 (LXX).

150 The Corbey St. Fames.

This rich vocabulary is not unlike that which may have
been possessed by a professional interpreter, but is very
remarkable if we attribute it to an unlearned Jew writing
perhaps the earliest book of the New Testament. I have
purposely not discussed the question whether James the Just
or James the son of Zebedee were the author, though I incline
to follow the ordinary opinion which assigns the Epistle to
the former. Those who, like Mr. Bassett, assign it to James
the son of Zebedee, must of course date it before a.D. 44, in
which case the difficulty becomes even greater. But if we
suppose the Epistle to have been written (as I incline to do)
soon after the καλὸν ὄνομα of ‘ Christians’ had been given to
the disciples at Antioch, and before St. Paul had definitely
stirred the question of faith and works, we get an early date
which hardly allows time for James the Just to have made
such an advance in the Greek language as the current text
implies.

To sum up in a few words. The hypothesis of an Aramaic
original (1) accounts generally for the divergence between
the present Greek and that which must have been the parent
of our Corbey version, and specially explains some of the more
curious phenomena of this divergence.

(2) It is probable from the striking parallel cases of the
use of this language by our Lord and His apostles and by
Josephus.

(3) It removes the difficulty as to the authenticity of the
Epistle, which otherwise might arise from the highly classical
and elaborate vocabulary which is employed in the Greek
text.

In any case I think it is clear that ff represents a separate
class of Greek MSS. (somewhat in the same way that the
Codex Bezae does), and is therefore entitled to more consider-
ation than it has hitherto received from editors.

151

ALE.

AN ACCOUNT OF
A SYRIAC BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPT

OF THE FIFTH CENTURY
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO ITS BEARING ON
THE TEXT OF THE SYRIAC VERSION
OF THE GOSPELS.

[G. H. Gwiri1am. |

Ir is well known to Syriac scholars that the Textus Receptus
of the Peshito depends upon very limited manuscript authority.
Such is the case with both the Old and the New Testaments
in that version: on the present occasion, however, our atten-
tion will be directed to the latter alone, and indeed confined
to certain points connected with the text of the four Holy
Gospels.

The Syriac Textus Receptus is read at the present day
either in the pages of the valuable edition of Schaaf, or in
some more convenient modern reprint; and these, while pre-
senting some few variations, both among themselves, and
from the original type, are substantially only reproductions
of the editio princeps of Widmanstadt, published at Vienna,
in 1555. Widmanstadt professes to have based his edition
on two manuscripts!. Subsequent editors have collected a few

1 Widmanstadt, in the course of a long preface, giving an account of the
circumstances connected with the publication of his work, says, ‘Anno MDXXIX
in Divi Caroli Caesaris invictissimi, Sacri diadematis causa Bononiam proficis-
centis, comitatu essem, et mihi contubernalibusque meis, Regii Lepidi, a
metatoribus hospitium juxta coenobium, ubi Theseus jam senex vitam agebat,
forte attributum fuisset . . . qui, ut me de coenobii bibliotheca sciscitari in-

tellexit, e vestigio in conclave introduxit, et arreptis e pluteo Sacroganctis
Eyangeliis Syriace scriptis, “ Hospes,”’ inquit, “ peregrinis his studiis deditus

152 A Syriac Biblical MS.

various readings, and have also corrected the text in certain
passages, while Schaaf has brought together all that had been
accomplished by his predecessors in these labours up to the
publication of his edition at Leyden in 1708. Yet his text
is practically that of Widmanstadt. Very little progress has
yet been made by any editor in the way of emendation!.

And in the judgment of some there is but little work for
the textual critic in this department of literature. It is
thought that the Textus Receptus of the Peshito, although
possessing but slender support from external authority, is
substantially correct; that the ancient witnesses, to which
we now have access, would only demand that we should make
a few changes in the text of Widmanstadt, and these chiefly
in points of grammar and orthography. This opinion, whether
true or false, is derived from conjecture rather than experi-
ment. Until recently no one has attempted to sift the
question, although materials for a decision were not wanting.
But now manuscripts lie ready to hand at the British Museum,
which, in conjunction with other sources of evidence, would
enable us to settle permanently what was the text current,
as their vernacular version, in the early Syrian Church 2.

sum annis circiter xv,”’ etc. And a little further on, ‘Quarto post anno in
Bibliotheca Lactantii Ptolemaei reperi quatuor Evangelistarum libros.’ On
these two MSS. his edition was based, so that he says, in the preface to St.
Matthew, ‘Sanctum hoe Jesu Christi Evangelium, Syriaco sermone, ad duo
vetustissima exemplaria exprimi.’

* Good work was done by Richard Jones, at the beginning of this century,
but he had not then the materials now available. The full title of his book
explains his scope and method, and is as follows:—‘ Textus Sacrorum Evange-
liorum Versionis Simplicis Syriacae juxta Editionem Schaafianam collatus cum
duobus ejusdem vetustis Codd. MSS. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana repositis, nec-
non cum Cod, MS. Commentario Gregorii Bar-Hebraei ibidem adservato, a
Richardo Jones, A. M., e Coll. Wadham., 1805.’ The MSS. of the Peshito
which he collated are the Codd. Dawk. iii. and xxvii. Jones was inclined to
ascribe to them too high an antiquity. Besides a very careful collation, he
proposes a number of emendations. Wichelhaus does not mention his work,
and Philip Pusey apparently did not know of it when he made his independent
collation of Dawk. iii.

* For an account of the critical materials which were available before the
Tattam Collection was made public, and the use which had been made of them,
see J. Wichelhaus, De Novi Testamenti versione Syriaca antiqua, quam Peshito
vocant, Halis, 1850.

of the Fifth Century. [53

When some forty years ago our National Library was en-
riched with the priceless additions of the Tattam Collection,
a few of the MSS. of the Peshito New Testament in that
Collection were examined by occasional readers; but it does
not appear that any collations were made; certainly no results
have been published; and for years the volumes remained
unnoticed upon the shelves, until the late Philip Pusey
proposed to himself the task of publishing a critical edition
of the Peshito New Testament’. It is believed that his
design was to maintain the value and authority of the Peshito
as it has come down to us ; to demonstrate that it has not been
tampered with in later times, but that it presents to us
the text of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, as
they were read in the Syriac-speaking Churches, in the early
days of Christianity. In pursuance of this object he collated
a number of copies of the Holy Gospels with the Textus
Receptus of Widmanstadt ; but other studies interfered with
this work, and he was suddenly called to his rest before he
had published any of the results of his labours. In 1879 the
present writer undertook for the Acts and Catholic Epistles
what Philip Pusey had commenced for the Holy Gospels, and
it was intended at a future time to combine and publish
together the results of their labours. After Philip Pusey’s
death, his Syriac note-books were entrusted to the writer,
and Dr. Pusey intimated that he might be willing to publish
the revised Syriac text, at his own expense, if completed in
his lifetime. Huis death was a fresh discouragement ; but still
the work of collating has been continued, though with many
interruptions ; and now the result has been obtained that,
after a little further investigation, it will be possible to
produce a text of the Peshito Gespels based, not as in Wid-
manstadt’s edition, on two MSS. of unknown age?, but on

1 He would seem to have begun his collations about fourteen years ago, for
in one of his note-books is an entry to this effect:—‘A (i.e. the Cod. Mus.
Britan. Add. 14454) finished June 29, 1872. Laus Deo,’

* The general character of the codices used by Widmanstadt, that they were
Jacobite, and not of great antiquity, is pretty plain from the text, and Church

154 A Syriac Biblical MS.

a number of copies of very great antiquity, and high critical
value. The text of the rest of the New Testament could not
be published for some time, little having yet been done for it
in comparison with the labour bestowed by the two collators
on the four Holy Gospels?.

In the present paper it is proposed to offer a specimen of
the kind of authority to which hereafter appeal will be made
in settling the text of the Peshito New Testament, by giving
an account of one very ancient MS., and indicating some
conclusions towards which the study of the text it preserves
would seem to tend.

Among the treasures of the Tattam Collection is an ancient
book, denominated in the Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the
British Museum, Codex Additionalis 14459, foll. 1-66, and
described in the first volume of that work, p. 64. It is not
indeed the oldest MS. of the Collection, but is apparently the
most ancient of those which contain any part of the Peshito

New Testament, and is possibly the oldest book of this kind”

in the world. Certainly it was written before the majority of
those uncial Greek MSS. so highly prized in the emendation
of the text of the Greek Testament. It is written on vellum,
as are all the more ancient codices of the Tattam Collection,
and contains the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, and is
bound up with another MS., the Codex Additionalis 14459,
foll. 67-169, which is of a later date, in a different hand, and
contains the other two Holy Gospels. The first few leaves
were lost before the book reached this country, so that the
Gospel of St. Matthew is now defective, wanting from i. 1 to
vi. 19 inclusive.

The other MS. of a later date, referred to above, has on

Lessons, of the printed edition ; but it would be interesting to know more of
them. They are probably still in existence, doubtless at Vienna. Jones (Preface)
and Wichelhaus (p. 217) refer to Adler as having seen a MS. at Vienna (Cod.
Lambecii 258), which was used in Widmanstadt’s edition; but as it is ‘ Mosis
Meredinaei ipsius manu exaratus,’ it is probably a copy prepared for the press,

1 It should be mentioned that the Rev. E. J. Perry, of Worcester College,
has most kindly devoted many hours, in the midst of parochial work in London,
to assisting the writer in the collation of MSS. of the Gospels.

of the Fifth Century. 155

the last page a note recording the date of transcription, and
the circumstances under which it was written. This note is
nearly illegible, but the first two lines have been decyphered
to the following effect!:—‘ This book was finished in the
month ...;’ the name of the month is illegible, and so is
the rest of the line; at the beginning of the next line are

3

the words ‘eight hundred and forty.’ There may be another
word expressing a unit figure; but it is clear that the date
is anterior to the year 850, i.e. of the Greek era”. Reducing
this to our own era, we get a date not later than Α. Ὁ. 540,
and which might be that of any year between Α. Ὁ. 540 and
530, according to the unit assumed after the eusito.

But the MS. which is to engage our special attention in
this paper is of still older date than that with which it has
been bound. Dr. Wright, in the description already quoted,
speaks of it as being written in a beautiful Edessene Hstran-
gela, apparently of the fifth century, with the exception of
one leaf, which is perhaps of the tenth century, inserted to
supply the lost, or defaced, original. Unfortunately there
is no note recording the date, at the end, or elsewhere; but
the writing, more elegant and flowing, in contrast with the
somewhat larger and stiffer characters of the sixth-century MS.
with which it is now associated; and the different forms of
some of the letters, especially the ὦ, the 9 and 5, and the ἃ,
points which cannot be fully discussed within the present
limits, indicate the work of such an age as Dr. Wright
supposes: Indeed, we may accept his expressed opinion with
much confidence. For it is to be observed that there are
peculiar facilities for determining the date of an undated

1 They stand thus in the MS. :—

PAREN A “5 bor [oko pSKa/
ersilo Jhsasro)
N.B.—The characters are Estrangela, as in all ancient Syriac MSS., but
throughout this paper the common type has been used for convenience.

2 Dates in Syriac MSS. would seem always to be given according to the Greek

era, called algo the Era of the Seleucidae, and which commenced with the year

B.0. 311. Sometimes this era is mentioned by name, as in Cod. Add, 14460;
see Catalogue already referred to, vol. i. pp. 52, 53.

156 A Syriac Biblical MS.

Syriac MS. The number of those actually dated is con-
siderable. In the British Museum alone there are eighty-five
bearing dates ranging between A.D. 1000 and Δ.Ὁ. 411, the
date of the famous Cod. Add. 12150, besides many bearing
later dates. These documents afford evidence of the style
of handwriting prevalent in particular centuries, and also
show that the older writing was very rarely, if ever, imitated
in later times. Old MSS. were frequently repaired, particu-
larly (as in the case of the one now under consideration) in
the tenth century, but the new leaves substituted were
transcribed in the current hand. Rubrics and marginal
annotations were frequently added later, but it would seem
always in the characters common at the period. So in the
case of the codex before us, we may compare its handwriting
with that of others known to have been written in the fifth
century, and contrast it with the different style which pre-
vailed later, and thus arrive at a date as nearly proved as the
conditions of the problem will admit. Hereafter, then, it
will be assumed that our MS. was written between ἃ. Ὁ. 450
and 500, being probably as old as the former date. The
question is of paramount importance, because the conclusions
to be indicated later on in this paper derive all their value
from the supposed early date of the MS. from which they
are drawn ; yet it is plainly impossible now to do more than
indicate the method by which the date may be determined.
Before examining the text of the Cod. Add. 14459, it may
be well to give a brief description of the book. It consists
of 66 vellum leaves, about 72 inches x 48. The writing is
in a single column, and is divided into paragraphs by the
mark [ὁ © ο7 in red, which is sometimes, for want of room,
put in the margin. Ina very few instances about a quarter
of the line is left blank at the conclusion of a paragraph.
These divisions are not numbered, nor are the sections and
canons indicated, as in some Syriac MSS. There are no
rubries in the text, but many have been noted in the margin
by rude and late hands. They are of the ordinary type, but

of the Fifth Century. 157

the word }ayaas often occurs in place of the more common
form |ssanas.

It has already been noticed that the first leaves of St.
Matthew are wanting. The MS. begins with the word
᾿πβαζοο, ‘treasures,’ Matt. vi. 20, and thence proceeds, without
omission or loss, to the end of St. Mark.

At the end of St. Matthew is the following note :—
luaSs oholo teats Loa ἘΚ» | Pare.) wr wo! pon

thiteasss Jolls Leas
‘Finished is the Holy Gospel of Matthew the Apostle, which
he preached and wrote in the Hebrew tongue, in the region
of Palestine.’

The Title of St. Mark is :—

+ wan? Shojo bas.o wie
‘The Holy Gospel, the Preaching of Mark.’
And at the end of the same Gospel we read :—
Sdxy [ogame wasirs Jhosors α..» ww wo/ poe
@ JK οοος» Kulsoas
‘Finished is the Holy Gospel, the Preaching of Mark the
Evangelist, which he spake in Roman, in the City of Rome.’

The usual doxology to the Blessed Trinity follows the note
at the conclusion of each of the two Gospels.

There is nothing to show whether or not the work originally
comprised the two remaining Gospels of SS. Luke and John;
or again, whether what is now known as the Cod. Add.
14459, foll. 67-169, was subsequently transcribed to complete
the work ; or, being an independent copy of the two latter
Gospels, was afterwards bound up with the two former. It
may be remarked, however, that among the MSS. of the
Tattam Collection are copies of single Gospels, also of pairs
of Gospels. For example, the Cod. Add. 17115 contains
SS. Matthew and John, with the Hebrews, Jude, and the
Acts.

I. In considering the text of Cod. Add. 14459’ in its

1 Tt is to be observed that throughout the remainder of this paper we are
treating only of the former part of this volume: what is, strictly speaking, the
Cod. Add. 14459, foll. 1-66.

158 A Syriac Biblical MS.

relation to the Textus Receptus of the Peshito, we may turn
first to the well-known remarkable addition in the last
chapter of St. Matthew, and then to the conclusion of St.
Mark. We find :—

(1) That in St. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19 the text stands thus :—

wr? wears μαοίο .Jrilso Laos εν No ud soul?

κιτιλ. sds ood. opadh Qwoo ad) .aad μὲ jpaso
‘There is given to me all power in heaven and in earth;
and as my Father sent me, I send you. Go therefore, make
disciples of all nations.’

Widmanstadt reads |b? 5,as0 bb} 9/, ‘I also send;’ but the
omission is confirmed by a number of ancient Syriac codices:
the words are no part of the original Syriac text. It will be
seen, therefore, that our MS. supports the printed Peshito in
this notable addition to the words used by our Blessed Lord
in commissioning his Apostles.

(2) The last verses of St. Mark are given in No. 14459, as
we read them in Widmanstadt, with a few unimportant variae
lectiones. We will give the passage commencing with the
middle of verse 8, and thus it will be seen that the scribe
copied the words without any mark expressing doubt of their
genuineness :—
eo? el Ἱ pee wile JRbilo Josoh φως COD Joo er
peas ΩΝ wiklo po hae o> ee? Jsner ooo ἕλος YOO

K.T.A, SN

The mark 0 © 0, in red in the MS., is the usual indication
of the conclusion of a paragraph, already mentioned. The
variation of eo! for τοῦ will be noticed: also the substi-
tution of Joel for the synonymous Jo), which seems to be a
reading unsupported by other MSS.

II, We may next examine certain consecutive passages,
which will serve as specimens of the general text of the Cod.
Add. 14459. It will be desirable, with a view to subsequent
considerations, to choose places where we may have the
advantage of comparison with the Curetonian ; otherwise we
can select at random. We will take St. Matt. vi. 20-34, vii,

of the Fifth Century. 159

viii. I-22, and xv, setting down the text of Widmanstadt first,
and the variations afterwards, and noting how far the readings
of our MS. are confirmed by other ancient Syriac codices }.
St. Matt. vi. 21, Widmanstadt ἘΤΕῸΝ slo | 14459 οὐ, and so
the other MSS., the Curetonian has also οὐ, but the sentence is
differently expressed. Ver. 25, Loo J | the MSS. have Jo JJ,
and so apparently 14459, but the edge of the page is worn.
Curetonian different. Ver. 27, obs | oP +2, with the MSS.
Curetonian omits. Ver. 29, asoaXNa | asada, with MSS.
and Curetonian. Ver. 32, be sy oo laser | omits bohsy
with MSS., except one. Cur. has fsoity. It will be observed
that the omission brings the text into conformity with the
Greek. vii. 3, Ls | MSS. have Jk, but 14459 is doubtful,
edge of page being worn. Cur. I, but the sentence is
inverted. Ver. 12, o>)? | ὌΝ e>,9, with the MSS.
and Cur. Ver. 13, kusoso | Jasos{o, with most MSS., but not’
the Curetonian. lsax9 J_s/ | omits Js? with MSS., except
two, and Cur. o> | o>, with the MSS. and Cur. This
reading would perhaps«represent εἰς αὐτὴν rather than δι᾽
αὐτης, but there is no var. lect. in the Greek. Ver. 15,
JaaaSs | here the Curetonian and several MSS. omit ribui,
but 14459 agrees with Widmanstadt. Ver. 21, ois, | our
MS. and four others have the form Mam, but not the Cure-
tonian. Ver. 23, posarcy | pohso qe, which appears to
be the usual form in the ancient MSS.; so the Curetonian.
Vers. 25, 27, waaso | aso, and so the Curetonian. In this
form of the verb all the ancient MSS. omit © paragogic and
ἘΠΕῚ Valls 95 “Ross ve? |e? hw, with the MSS. Cur. omits
ev? Ver. 4, lussas | ytssa9, with several MSS., perhaps
reading τὸ dwpov cov. Curetonian agrees with Widmanstadt.
Ver. 8, uSfoo | USSdoo, with the MSS. and Cur. Ver. 9,
τον} here 14459 agrees with Widmanstadt, while many
MSS. and the Curetonian have o./, singular. Ver. 10,
Νὰ.» | Sssfzcnshs, but Cur. has the form more common in

1 These are for the most part of the Tattam Collection, but include two at
Florence, and one in the Bodleian.

160 A Syriac Biblical MS.

the ancient MSS., ζω». Ver. 15, Jka? | oka/, one of
the var. lect. apparently peculiar to 14459, as though it read
ὁ πυρετὸς αὐτης. yoo | here our MS. agrees with Widman-
stadt and with the Curetonian; but the other MSS. give oS,
which must be accepted as the correct reading of the Peshito ;
i.e. the Peshito supports αὐτω, not adrois. Ver. 20, oa | os,
all ancient MSS. and
Cur. spell this word #3. Ver. 22, from end of this verse the
Curetonian is defective to x. 32. Xv. I, pdaio/ | αν, with

many others, but not Curetonian. Ver. 5, wtosas | esas,

with four others, but not Cur. opass

with two others, but not Cur. This reading is nearer to the
Greek, which has δωρον alone, the Peshito apparently reading
dwpov pov. Ver. 6, pasharsaSas [αν JharseSaso, with
the rest, but Cur. has \oav,5a9 yaxnoly. Ver. 7, [Ξ}
Juss | omits as, with the rest, but Cur. has it. It is ἃ gloss
in Widmanstadt, and thus the true text of the Peshito agrees
with the Greek. Ver. 14, for asana, wana; and for es
wx; apparently without support in other MSS., or the Cure-
tonian. The former variation suggests the reading ages, but
the latter not necessarily yap, for x. is occasionally used in
the Peshito for de, e.g. Luke 11. 44. Ver. 24, sim. | here
Nuim./, with several MSS., but Cur. \utio4/?, with two
others: ef. viii. 10. The spelling of this word varies in MSS.
Ver. 26, omits wae, with most MSS., thus bringing text
of Peshito into harmony with the Greek; οἵ, ver. 7 above.
The Curetonian is quite different. Ver. 27, Θὲ | slo, with
two others. The words Jso\9 eo Edy are written over
the line in 14459, being apparently omitted prima manu by
homeoteleuton. Ver. 31, sponse | Sof eoasle, with others ;
but Cur, has here \sgoasy, and does not mark a paragraph
here, as do the other MSS. Ver. 34, yas hu? | omit 17
with the other MSS., but Cur. has yaa κου Ver: 36;
qwod | here 14459 and three others agree with Widman-
stadt, but the best supported reading is ρος, Cur. omits
the word. Ver. 39, the Curetonian and two MSS. begin the
new section at this verse, but not 14459.

of the Lifth Century. Bare cs

The results obtained by the above collation with the text
of Widmanstadt may be summarized as follows. In 105
verses there are 30 variations from the received Syriac text,
exclusive of the case of chap. vil. 3, which may be omitted as
doubtful, though the probability is great that the codex
would agree with the mass of MSS. Of these variations,
only nine find any support in the Curetonian, and it cannot
be affirmed of even these few that all agree with Curetonian
readings. There are also four readings—viz. the haadNs, with
ribui, vil. 15; the o.2/, plural, viii. 9 ; the Looms, vill. 153; the
wos, xv. 36—where 14459 sides with Widmanstadt, while
the best supported text is different ; and in one of these cases
only, viz. vill. 15, is the reading in harmony with the Cure-
tonian text. It will be seen, however, that while the very
ancient text of our codex is seldom in agreement with
Cureton’s, it is commonly supported by the mass of ancient
codices of the Peshito. It will be also noticed that the
majority of the variations are of a trivial character, being
only differences of spelling, or of the order of words, so that
in the 34 readings collected above, there are only eight—viz.
those in Vi. 323 Vil. 13; Vill. 4, 153 xv. 5, 7, 14, 26—which
have any bearing on the Greek from which the Syriac was
translated. But yet the real value of the collation consists
in the barrenness of the results. The verses examined in
this paper afford a very fair specimen of conclusions fully
admitted by those few who have devoted some years to the
study of the text of the Peshito, and who are therefore alone
qualified to express an opinion about it. Without anticipating
what can only be fully set forth when (if ever) the revised
text of the Peshito New Testament shall be published, it may
be here affirmed, however, that the collation of ancient
Syriac MSS. tends to confirm, in all important respects, the
traditional text. A certain number of corrections will be
made, but these, for the most part, will be in comparatively
unimportant points of grammar and orthography.

111. The passages already considered will serve as specimens

M

162 A Syriac Biblical MS.

of the general text of the codex 14459 ; and as they occasionally
present some modification of the printed Syriac text, it will
be well next to examine the readings of the MS. at certain
selected places, where such modification, if found, might have
a value in the criticism of the Greek text. The following
twelve passages may be chosen, where variations of consider-
able importance occur in the authorities on which the Greek
text is based, and where, in consequence, the evidence of the
Peshito has been adduced on one side or the other.

(1) St. Matt. x. 3. The Greek Textus Receptus is Λεββαιος
ὁ ἐπικληθεις Oaddaros, but there are several variations in the
authorities, and in consequence some editors omit the first
three words, others the last three; but the Peshito has
wh ὠμοὶ» uadXo, and 14459 confirms the longer reading.

(2) xvii. 21. Tischendorf (8th edition), with 8* and B,
omits this verse, but the Peshito, confirmed by our MS.,
has it.

(3) xix. 17. The traditional reading of the Peshito, Jzo Jase
Joos? om af WW lag MA shag A KK), is confirmed by
14459.

(4) The remarkable addition after xx. 28 in D, the Cure-
tonian, and others, is entirely unknown to 14459, as to every
other MS. of the Peshito.

(5) xxiv. 36. Text. Rec. οὐδε of ἀγγελοι των οὐρανων εἰ μη
ὁ πατὴρ μου povos. Lachmann and Tischendorf add οὐδε ὁ υἷος
after οὐρανων, but the Peshito, confirmed by 14459, omits.
This is an instance of a rigid adherence in the Syriac MSS.
to what was deemed the true text, against the temptation to
borrow from parallel passages, as here from St. Mark xiii. 32,
where the addition occurs. While admitting that the Peshito
text is often fuller than that of δὲ and B, it has yet to be
proved that its scribes indulged in careless amplification.

(6) xxvil. 35. Text. Rec. ἵνα πληρωθῃ τὸ ῥηθεν ὑπο Tov
προφητου Διεμερισαντο Ta ἱματια μου ἕαυτοις, και ἐπι TOV
ἱματισμον μου ἐβαλον κλῆρον. ‘Tischendorf, who omits the
passage, quotes indeed in its favour ‘some editions of the

of the Fifth Century. 163

Peshito.’ He refers to the editions of Tremellius!, and of
others who follow him ; for the editio princeps of Widmanstadt
knows nothing of the words. With the help of Cod. Add.
14459, and other ancient MSS., we are now able to determine
that they form no part of the Peshito. This case may be
compared with the preceding; the text of St. Matthew is
preserved without addition from St. John xix. 24.

(7) St. Mark vi. 11. MSS. & and B omit the words ἀμὴν
eyo ὕμιν, ἀνεκτότερον ἐσται Σοδομοις ἡ Γομορροις ἐν ἥμερᾳ
κρισεως, ἦ TN πολει ἐκεινῃ, but they were in the Bible of the
ancient Syrian Church. The text of Widmanstadt is assured
by the testimony of No. 14459 and all the MSS.

(8) ix. 44,46. Our MS. shows that the Peshito read these
verses, although they are omitted by codices δὲ and B.

(9) xi. 3. The Text. Rec. has καὶ εὐθεως αὖτον ἀποστελει
ὧδε, but δῇ, B, and others read ἀποστελλει παλιν ὧδε. Our
MS. confirms the reading of Widmanstadt, JaXN oN j-a.0,
showing that the παλιν was unknown to the Peshito in the
earliest times: also that it read ἀποστελλει and not ἀποστέελει.

(10) xi. 8, the words καὶ ἐστρωννυον eis τὴν ὅδον : (11) ΧΙΠ.
14, the parenthetical clause τὸ ῥηθεν ὕπο Δανιηλ του προφητου:
(12) xv. 28, the whole verse ;—are omitted by &, B, and other
authorities; but Cod. Add. 14459, with other ancient Syriac
MSS., confirms the text of Widmanstadt. The several passages
were all included in the Peshito of earliest days.

It will be seen that in these twelve important passages the
traditional readings of the Peshito are confirmed by the
venerable codex now under examination. It shows that the
Syriac New Testament was not tampered with in the middle
ages, but was read substantially by the ancient Syrian Church
as Widmanstadt printed it. What, however, may be the
precise value of the testimony of the Syrian Church, when in
opposition to the old Greek MSS., is a question for further
consideration: but it must be admitted that the researches

1 Tremellius’ Edition was published at Heidelberg in 1568. According to
Wichelhaus he used a MS. which was subsequently removed to Rome.

M 2

164 A Syriac Biblical MS.

among the Tattam MSS. have established for certain the
nature of that testimony.

IV. It has already been noticed (II. above) that the text
of our MS., where it differs from that of Widmanstadt, is
usually supported by other ancient Syriac MSS. Yet the
Cod. Add. 14459 has also a number of independent readings.
Future collations may discover support for some of them, but
the majority must be idiosyncrasies: a few, however, are found
in the Curetonian. The following is a list of them :—

St. Matt. vin. 15, Widmanstadt Sey | oka). Ver. 29,
αν. | bioS, Curetonian defective. x. 2, Josna | (Ooo,
Cur. defective. xi. 7, aN)/ ee? so | ee? aj? 49, Cur. 3X5 eo
edo e? aSj{y. xii. 13, Jeag cod | co Jagd, and so the
Curetonian. xiii. 53, ota | oS uta, so Cur. Ver. 54, omits
yoo; Cur. has it. Xiv. 19, woo] ws wo. Ver. 23,
Kaew | Kucen, a mistake probably; but in Cod. Dawk. in, in
St. Matt. xv. 19, there is a similar reduplication of letters in
the form JNuaenso for JNaeaurso. XV. 14, acane | cana;
e? μβορ | mx amo. Ver. 27, the words Jiok® eo eo?
were omitted prima manu, perhaps by homeeoteleuton, and are
now written over the line. xvii. 12, omits Coase Io. xviii. 6,
wocasass | gasadss. Ver. 19, μὲ το sok | μὲ τοὺ we? ooh
Ver. 33, «κοΐ | οὐ, xx. 3, eEdxpoo | eSfoe. Ver. 8,
Jsogvo | bso.s, and so the Curetonian. xxi. 25, se Sx | es ;
Cur. JusaNo, but the sentence is different. Ver. 32, Jheas,
with ribui. xxii. 1, waa coh | ooh waa. Ver. 7, 930/,
and «οοὐ | o.50/, and e,60/, the latter with the support of
two other MSS. Ver. 14, eh ye | Ιμκῶὼ. Ver. 26, Laser |
Lasoo; also bsosso | hoes, and so Cur., but the resemblance
is accidental, as the context is differently expressed. Ver. 72,
οὐ] ele. xxiii. 25, from this place the Curetonian is de-
fective to St. Mark xvi. 17. xxvi. 38, omits uo. Ver. 42,
wd; | Ὁ). Ver. 43, woa/ | waste; also ως, ] ee?) XXVIL 41,
Θὲ] elo, but the o apparently added later. Ver. 42, omits
lao. Ver. 55, eh ee? odo | «οὶ alo ce? oso. Ver. 63, wes.

St. Mark i. 3, Jeo | Jeo. Ver. 10, aXooy | odo, but it 15 ἃ

of the fifth Century. 165

correction. ii. 3, akulo | aso. Ver. 12, pohsax Wy | pokso Wy.
Iii. 20, hais aasohl{o | lars wtohio. iv. 2, omits second
Joo. Ver. 6, hasan | bsoe, mistake. Ver. 25, cs | esd.
V. 9, ena | use. Ver. 14, of0| οὐ. Ver. 30, fats | μῦ,
with ribui. Ver. 34, μοῦ | Keone. Vi. 31, amwhhio |
amshlo, Ver. 34, Jiu | Jiuo. Ver. 41, ASS | GS. Vill. 3,
ehh? wh. ix. 1, Lhty | πλὴν now, by correction. x. 29,
omits [so οὐ. Ver. 46, amsie | οὐ", but in the second place
where the word occurs it is spelled as in the received text.
This is an instance of the fluctuations which occur in the
MSS., and even in the same codex, in the spelling of proper
names, and of some other words. Also oN | oy. Ver. 31,
le | - Ver. 32, ew | oS gob. xii. 18, obaS Moog) |
ρου obaS. xiv. 3, omits oo. Ver. 4, Jtsadb | coop sadh.
Ver. 29, ον | aol, a mistake, no doubt, as there is
no change of the word in ver. 27. Ver. 39, omits sok. xv. 1,
Js2c0 pro fetes ps | laraspro Jiao pr. Ver. 29, ao | 2/,
Ver. 36, Iloo | Jlso. Ver. 41, καθῷαθοο | vom gatas. Xvi.
8, Jao) | Jossoh.

Among the passages now examined where readings peculiar
to Codd. Add. 14459 occur, there are twenty-two in which
comparison may be made with the Curetonian, that version
being defective in the other piaces. Among these twenty-two
it will be observed that there are only ¢hree (St. Matt. xii. 13 ;
xiii. 53; xx. 8) where the readings of our very ancient text
approximate more nearly than does the common text of
Widmanstadt to the version considered by many to be the
earliest Syriac translation.

These peculiarities of our codex are not only of some
interest in themselves, but they are evidence of the individual
and independent character of the several MSS. of the Tattam
Collection. It has been already observed (p. 161) that where
the ancient text of Codd. Add. 14459 differs from the printed
text of Widmanstadt, such variations are usually supported
by the concurrent testimony of a number of other ancient
codices. But it is not to be supposed that these witnesses

166 A Syriac Biblical MS.

are mere echoes of the same evidence, servile copies of a
prototype, and only representing the tradition of some one
school or monastery. Their character may be well illustrated
by the case of the cursive manuscripts of the Greek Testament.
These have indeed all a resemblance, more or less marked,
to the type of text preserved in the Codex Alexandrinus.
But (to quote the words of a competent judge), ‘ No one who
has paid adequate attention to them can fail to be struck
with the éxdividual character impressed upon nearly 411}. And
these words apply with equal force to the MSS. of the
Peshito in the Tattam Collection. All, as well as the Cod.
Add. 14459, have their peculiar readings, and in reference
to that particular MS. it will be noticed that in three instances
(St. Matt. xxvii. 41; St. Marki. 10 and ix. 1) the peculiarities
are due to correction leading the text further from the type
preserved in the mass of MSS., and conforming it to some
ancient model, which has now perished. It is unfortunate
that the Curetonian is not extant in these places, to allow
of comparison. Further evidence of the independence of
these MSS. appears in the different arrangement of the
paragraphs of the sacred text in the different copies. In
some the paragraphs are numerous; in others few, and differ-
ently placed. For example, in St. Matt. x. the Cod. 14459
makes a break in our Lord’s discourse at the end of verse 10,
and seems to stand alone in so doing. In ὁ. xi. it makes
its division at the end of verse 1, thus not so distinctly con-
necting the message of the Baptist with the preaching of
Christ recorded in verse 1, as do other authorities. And
similarly in other MSS. divisions are constantly made, more
or less arbitrarily, according to the fashion of some scribe or
school. The MSS. also show their mutual independence in
their manner of dealing with the orthography of proper
names and some other words. Thus, amid a remarkable
agreement which greatly assists the critic in reconstructing

1 Scrivener, Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, First
Edition, 1861, p. 407.

of the Fifth Century. 167

the ancient text, there is yet such independence as gives
weight to the testimony of each individual codex.

Having now described the Cod. Add. 14459, and given a
sufficient account of its contents, it remains to point out some
conclusions which seem to follow from the facts thus brought
to light.

I. The text of our codex reproduces that of the version
read in the Syrian Church at a period anterior to the two
historical revisions of the Peshito. Had we only possessed
MSS. written subsequently to the labours of Philoxenus, and
of Thomas of Harkel, it might justly have been doubted if
what professed to be the original Peshito had not been to
some extent modified through the influence of the two later
revisions. The well-known date of Thomas of Harkel’s work
is A.D. 616; but his revision of the Syriac Vulgate would
seem to have been based on the translation made by the
Chorepiscopus Polycarp for, and perhaps with the aid of
Philoxenus, who was Bishop of Mabug from a.p. 488-518.
The date assigned to this work is a.p. 508: we have already
concluded, on evidence which almost amounts to a demon-
stration, that the Cod. Add. 14459 was written before the
year A.D. 500, and is probably as old as 450. At the latest
date assignable to it, it must have been written some years
before Philoxenus’ work, and may well be half a century older,
It therefore cannot have been affected by those two subse-
quent revisions ; and it is found that its text is substantially
the same which Widmanstadt printed as the text received
in the Syrian Churches. And the remarkable agreement
between MSS. of the Peshito from the sixth century downwards
is thus seen to have arisen, not from an enforced harmony
produced by a new translation or critical revision, but rather
because the text had so existed from earliest times, and was
jealously transmitted intact. Cod. Add. 14459 assures us
that we possess in the received Peshito text the same version,
in all important particulars, which was read in the Church of
Edessa in the middle of the fifth century.

168 A Syriac Biblical MS.

It may indeed be objected that it is assuming too much to
assert of the translation of the New Testament, as a whole,
that which is true prima facie of only two Gospels. But the
remarkable agreement found between the ancient MSS. of
the Peshito will convince an unprejudiced critic that from
other ancient codices, which are found to agree with this
codex, he could reproduce what is lacking therein. Hence
we may be assured that the scribe who in the middle, or the
latter half, of the fifth century copied out SS. Matthew and
Mark in the form preserved in No. 14459, would have pro-
duced a New Testament, if he had continued his work, of the
same type of text as these two Gospels. From the nature of
the case this cannot be demonstrated, but study of documentary
evidence produces conviction that so it must be. -

II. But every MS. preserves a text older, often far older,
than itself, except it be the very autograph of the author.
The text of Cod. Add. 14459 carries us back in our inquiries
concerning the origin of the Peshito to a period far anterior
to the middle of the fifth century ; for what reason is there
to doubt that the two Gospels which it preserves for us are
a part of that Syriac New Testament which St. Ephraem
quotes so frequently, and which Aphraates cites in almost
every sentence of his Homilies!? And if those Gospels, in
the form preserved in our codex, are a part of their New
Testament, we are assured by the considerations already sug-
gested that the complete Testament in use among the early
Syrian Fathers must have been substantially the same as that
known for centuries as the Peshito. This point can only be
satisfactorily settled by an exhaustive examination of the
quotations in the early Syriac writers. It is usually assumed
that the quotations in St. Ephraem are made from the Peshito,
but the question deserves full investigation, which should
extend to all the early Syriac literature. It might be found

* St. Ephraem flourished about a century before Cod. Add. 14459 was written,
his period being A.D. 299-378. ‘The period of Aphraates is not yet precisely

determined, but many of his Homilies are dated for different years between
A.D. 337 and 345.

of the Fifth Century. 169

that those writers employed, as their vernacular New Testa-
ment, some other version which has now perished, being
succeeded by the Peshito, in the early years of the fifth cen-
tury, but that has yet to be proved!.

III. The importance of these facts and inferences in their
bearing upon the criticism of the Greek Testament is obvious.
It has hitherto been an easy task to disparage the testimony
of the Peshito by the retort that we can only quote it ix
evidence as it has come down to us: we do not know what it
read in the third and fourth centuries. Recent investigations,
of which a specimen is given in this paper, enable us to
trace back the text of the Peshito to the very verge of St.
Ephraem’s days, and we think we ean follow the stream
much further yet. And as far as we follow it, we find it the
same : and we know what the great Church of Edessa received
as the text of the New Testament in the fifth century, if not
indeed in the fourth, and even earlier. That is to say (not
to overstate the case) at the period when the celebrated uncial
Greek MSS. of the New Testament were written, we find the
Syrian Church accepting a text which is not altogether in
accordance with them, but which rather inclines to that type
of text which most modern critics have rejected in favour of
one based on those uncial MSS., and in particular on two of
them, codices δὲ and B?. It is not within the scope of this
paper to weigh the evidence of those great codices against:
that of the venerable version accepted in the Churches of the
East. It may be (no opinion is now offered on the point)
that the early Syrian Church was so unfortunate as to possess
a very corrupt Vulgate. But it is to be observed that we
must commit ourselves to that view if we resolve to base our
text on the evidence of a few early Greek MSS. alone, and

* Tt would seem that G. L. Spohn had examined the quotations in St. Ephraem
in his Collatio Versionis Syriacae cum Κ΄. Ephraemi Commentario, Lipsiae, 1785,
but the book is very scarce, being neither in the Bodleian nor the British
Museum. See also Note, p. 173.

? Referring to the twelve passages examined in pp. 162-3 f., and omitting
(4) as being of a different character from the others, we find that except in
(6) the Peshito disagrees with x, B, and other uncials.

170 A Syriac Biblical MS.

always to reject the witness of the Peshito where it disagrees
with them.

IV. The comparison which has been made between some
of the readings of the Cod. Add. 14459 and Cureton’s Syriac
suggests in conclusion a further inquiry as to the relation of
the one to the other. It would seem that the two codices
were written about the same time. There is no indication of
a date in the Curetonian; but as we assign the Cod. Add.
14459, from the character of the handwriting, to the middle
or latter half of the fifth century, so did Dr. Cureton assign
his manuscript to about the same age, for the same reason.
Dr. Wright, in the British Museum Catalogue, vol. 1. p. 73,
assents to this opinion, and it appears to be held on very
good grounds.

It is well known that the illustrious discoverer of the Cure-
tonian Syriac, and after him others, have held that it represents
the oldest form of the Syriac New Testament, and that it
was succeeded by the more polished, if not more accurate,
Peshito ; being ultimately so completely supplanted by the
latter that it was no longer copied, and has survived to our
day, as far as we know, in only one MS. If this were the
true account of the relation to one another of the two versions,
we should expect to find, in the most ancient text of the
Peshito, many traces of the readings of the older version
which it had supplanted. These might not be very numerous
in the printed text of Widmanstadt, for it has been ascertained
that the later MSS. of the Peshito underwent some revision,
though this extended for the most part only to grammatical
forms and orthography; but the most ancient MSS., and notably
that now under particular examination, would surely contain at
least some of them. Whether this be so or not can only be
determined by an exhaustive comparison of the ancient text of
the Peshito with the Curetonian text, but even the passages
examined in this paper will afford grounds for an opinion.
Among the 34 variations noted in the careful collation of texts
made in pp. 159, 160, it was observed that only nine readings

of the fifth Century. 171

of Cod. Add. 14459 found any support in the Curetonian, and
the resemblance of some of even that small number was
doubtful. But a much more significant fact remains to be
noted. In eleven passages, where the text of our ancient
codex has a different reading from the text of Widmanstadt,
sometimes with, sometimes without, the support of other
Syriac codices, the Curetonian text, instead of agreeing with
the ancient Peshito, approximates to, or even agrees with, the
text of Widmanstadt. The passages shall be set down, that
the reader may judge for himself.

(1) St. Matt. vii. 21, Widmanstadt, wal? Had, sad? eo
Curetonian, ual OAD) eas? ὁ
14459 and others, uals bam, >? Eo
(2) villi. 4, Widmanstadt, jusias o 200
Curetonian, Jussas oi00
14459 and others, 1530 S400
(3) and (4) ,, 15, Widmanstadt, hesrasxo Kase JNa/ohoaao
oo hoo
Curetonian, JXa? oKone Πὰς 30]
Oo hoo fasasnanc kaso
14459 alone, basoasco βορο oha/ohaaac
os Loo
(5) Ξ » 20, Widmanstadt, fasts ee? os
Curetonian, fasts ec? ods
14459 and four others, fasts ee? o>
(6) 4 xv. 5, Widmanstadt and Curetonian, 5300
14459 with two others, E290
(7) 2 » 7, Widmanstadt and Curetonian, Juss bsa/
14459 and other ancient MSS. omit Jay.
(8) and (9) 5, 14, Widmanstadt, same 2... . yoo afana
220 af JusomS ew?
Curetonian, ς᾽ hsao..... woos asana
sero ον. 9
14459 alone, ma ββθρο. ον ον ood ware
ἐδ qf ων,
χοῦ .» 27, Widmanstadt, οὐδοῦ JAS δὲ

Curetonian, seedof my, ASO of

ye tie A Syriac Biblical MS.

14459 and two others, edo! JAN» glo
(11) St. Matt. xv. 34, Widmanstadt, ον Ka? saad Jano
Curetonian, oan hu/ pees haas
14459 and all MSS., aa exo hao

It may be remarked in the above examples that not only
does the Curetonian approximate to the historically later text
of Widmanstadt, but several of the readings are of a more
modern character. Thus (2) may be suspected of having been
conformed to the Greek; (3) is apparently an epexegesis ;
and (7) is evidently a gloss, while (1), (5), (10), and (11) look
like linguistic corrections. In fine, there is nothing in results
derived from our present investigations to warrant the belief
that the true text of the Peshito would more nearly resemble
the Curetonian type of text, than does the current Syriac
text with which scholars are familiar in the pages of Wid-
manstadt. The bearing of this position upon the question
of the age of the Curetonian is obvious, but it is not within
the scope of this paper to pursue the subject further than
to remark, that, if it should hereafter be proved that the
Curetonian, rather than the Peshito text, can be traced in
the writings of the earliest Syrian Fathers, it will by no
means follow that the Peshito was derived from the Cure-
tonian as we have it, although it is possible that both are
derived from still earlier versions made in the very first days
of Syrian Christianity. But no conjectures are offered. We
insist, however, on the evidence which has been adduced
of the great age of the text of the Peshito, and we affirm
that while it has thus the unimpeachable credentials of im-
mense antiquity, and the authority of universal acceptance in
the Syrian Church, the Curetonian presents itself as a solitary,
an unique, and an unsupported work.

It may be convenient to summarize the results arrived at
in this paper under four heads :—

1. That we possess, in the hitherto almost unexplored
treasures of the Tattam Collection in the British Museum,
manuscripts of the Peshito of such value and antiquity (one

- ee ν ΝΣ ΣΝ" ὅδ πεν

of the Fifth Century. ΤῊΣ

of the most important being described in these pages) that
by their aid, and in conjunction with other materials, we can
restore the text of the Peshito at least as it existed in the
fifth century of the Christian era.

2. That this restoration involves very little alteration of
the received text of Widmanstadt.

3. That these alterations are moreover of such a character
that they affect but very slightly the relation of the Syriac
Version to the original Greek Text.

4. That the ancient text thus restored does not, on the
whole, approximate to the Curetonian type of text, but shows
as great an independence of it as does the received text of
Widmanstadt.

Note referred to on page 169.

Tur Rev. F. H. Woods, of St. John’s College, Oxford, who has
lately collated all the New Testament quotations in the Opera
Omnia S. Ephraemi Syri, Romae, Mpcoxxxvu, with the Syriac
text of Widmanstadt, and also those made by the same Father
from the portions of the Gospels extant in the Curetonian Frag-
ments with the published edition of that version, has kindly supplied
me with the following results of his investigations :—

1. The text of the Syriac version employed by St. Ephraem was
one resembling very closely that published by Widmanstadt.

2. The differences, which are certainly very considerable in
number, are mainly such as naturally arise from a careless or free
quotation, it being the habit of the writer generally to interweave
passages of Scripture into his argument instead of quoting directly.

3. Some few of these differences are true variants, and correspond
to similar variations in the Greek text or other versions. Thus, in
quoting Acts v. 41 (vol. iv, p. 371) St. Ephraem has oa, corres-
ponding to του ὀνοματος αὐτου, the reading of some cursive manuscripts,
the Aethiopic version, and Origen, instead of ksam, του ὀνοματος, the
reading of SA BCD, ete.

4. In some cases his quotation agrees with the Greek text as
against the Peshito. Thus, again in Acts v. 41 he has JKmaso Pre,
πρόσωπου tov συνεδριου, while the Peshito has only (OOH B- In

174 A Syriac Biblical MS. of the Fifth Century.

quoting St. Luke i. 75 (vol. i. p. 438 6) he adds Jhaguy{so, καὶ
δικαιοσυνῃ, as in the Greek’.

5. In those quotations where comparison can be made with the
Curetonian version, St. Ephraem’s words agree rather with the
Peshito. There is only one exception (vol. iv. p. 18 £), where,
quoting St. John i. 3, St. Ephraem has Joo o> peo So, with the
Curetonian, whereas the Peshito has Joo omhs So. The passage
is too short to prove anything. On the other hand, there are at
least ten passages where the quotation either agrees entirely with
the Peshito, and differs from the Curetonian, or agrees more closely
with the former than with the latter. In many other passages the
quotation differs verbally from both, especially where they agree
with each other ; but this is to be accounted for by the obviously
loose manner in which St. Ephraem quotes. In vol. vi. p. 585 D,
St. Ephraem, quoting St. Matt. xv. 27, has Joao; for Jlolss, a
word which occurs neither in the Peshito nor the Curetonian, but
is found in the Harkleian version.

On the whole, Mr. Woods concludes that it is obvious that
St. Ephraem did not use the Curetonian version.

1 Though Widmanstadt did not print the Jlamsyfso, the evidence of
ancient MSS. requires its restoration to the text of the Peshito.—G. H. G.

175

IX.

THE DATE OF S. POLYCARP’S MARTYRDOM.

[T. ΒΆΝ ΕΠ,

A.=Aristides’ Sacred Discourses. These ἱεροὶ λόγοι are contained in Vol i. of
Dindorf’s Aristides, published at Leipzig in 1829; and to that volume the
pages given in the following notes refer.

M.=Joannis Massont Collectanea Historica ad Aristidis Vitam, as reprinted
in Vol. iii. of Dindorf’s Aristides (see above).

P.= Vol. ii. of Pearson’s Minor Theological Works, edited by Churton.

W.=W. H. Waddington’s Memoir on the Chronology of the Life of Aristides,
as printed in the first part of Tome xxvi. of the Mémoires de l'Institut
Impérial de France: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (Paris,
1867).

Wo.=Bp. Chr. Wordsworth’s Church History to the Council of Nicaea (3rd ed.
Rivingtons, 1883).

A Lonpon bookseller of the seventeenth century, Feather-
stone by name, speculated in a bold way by a transaction that
may fairly rank with the greatest exploits of Mr. Quaritch.
He bought what seems to have been the bulk of the manu-
script portion of the library of a Venetian gentleman, and
brought it to England for sale. The fact was of course made
known to the literary men of the time, as well as to the
wealthy patrons of literature; and fortunately the valuable
collection was not seriously broken up or scattered. There
was an English nobleman who saw what a rare opportunity
was offered him to testify his esteem for literature and to
benefit future generations of students. Moreover, he had
been well ‘ bred’—to use his own expression—by the Univer-
sity of Oxford, which had also lately honoured him by
electing him to the high dignity of Chancellor; and he would
fain show gratitude for both the past privilege and the recent
compliment. Accordingly, he entered into negotiations with
Mr. Featherstone before many volumes of the Venetian gen-

176 The Date of

tleman’s collection had been sold, and the result of the
negotiations was that he purchased and presented to this
University the 242 valuable manuscripts now known as the
Barocci Collection in the Bodleian Library. The name given
to the collection is that of the Venetian gentleman, Giacomo
Baroceci, to whom the manuscripts had formerly belonged.
The munificent donor of them to Oxford was William Her-
bert, Earl of Pembroke, whose name is over the inner
entrance of the passage that leads out of the old ‘Schools’
quadrangle, on the south side towards the Camera Radcliviana.
The price he paid for the manuscripts was £700, a sum
which (Mr. Thorold Rogers kindly informs me) may fairly
be considered as equivalent to at least £2000 at the present
day. The benefaction was made in the year 1629 1.

The Barocci MS. No. 238, assigned by the late Mr. Coxe
to the eleventh century, contains, among other things, the
original Greek text of the ‘ Martyrium Polyearpi ;’ and from
it Archbishop Ussher published the edttio princeps of that
work in 1647. Even now no other manuscript in England is
known to contain it, although there are three others in
continental libraries *.

A Latin version of the Martyrium was apparently made at
a very early date, and the extant manuscripts of this are more
numerous than those of the Greek original, at least seven
having been used by editors. The translation is, however, so
very free that it is of but little service for the criticism of the
Greek text.

More help is obtained from Eusebius, who has quoted ver-
batim a great part of the Martyrium in his ‘ Historia Eccle-
slastica, iv.15. Some portions are also transcribed verbatim
in the tenth-century manuscript of the ‘ Chronicon Paschale,’

1 Macray's Annals of the Bodleian Library, pp. 53,54. Atp.55 Mr. Macray
tells us that ‘a further portion of the collection (consisting of twenty-two Greek
MSS. and two Russian), which had been retained by the Earl, was subsequently
purchased by Oliver Cromwell, and given by him to the Library in 1654.’

* One at Paris (No. 1452), formerly at Florence; one at Vienna (Hist, Graec.
Eccles. No. 3); and one at Moscow (No. 159).

S. Polycarp's Martyrdom. 177

a work otherwise known as the ‘ Fasti Siculi’ and as the
‘ Alexandrian Chronicle.’

There are thus seven authorities practically available for the
establishment of the Greek text of the Martyrium, viz. the
four Greek manuscripts, Eusebius, the Latin version, and the
Paschal Chronicle.

The Martyrium is the only original account of the death of
S. Polyearp. So far as I am aware, the event is not else-
where mentioned with anything like a date until we find it in
the writings of Eusebius ; and, seeing that he used the Mar-
tyrium as apparently his only authority or source of informa-
tion on the subject, we may well suppose that all later writers
have depended solely on the same account.

From internal evidence it is fairly inferred that the Martyr-
ium was written within a year of the event which it describes,
and although some modern critics have suspected parts of it
to be interpolations, or the whole of it to be untrustworthy,
yet most scholars have accepted it as genuine and authentic.

When, at the suggestion of Professor Wordsworth, I under-
took to prepare a paper on the date of S. Polyearp’s Mar-
tyrdom, I naturally began by making a careful investigation
of this document. I have used the recent edition of the
‘Patres Apostolici’ by Funk. The Barocci MS.—the only
original material within my reach—I collated with Funk’s
text: although that may perhaps seem to have been a work
of supererogation, and has certainly furnished no additional
information as to the date.

The Martyrium appears at first sight to afford abundant
materials for fixing the date. Not only does it mention the
names of several persons, some of whom held important public
offices in Smyrna, but it states the hour, the day of the week,
the day of the month—and that according to two reckonings
—as well as the name of the proconsul who was holding office
when the martyrdom took place. And as the proconsulate
was an annual office, naming the proconsul may be considered

N

178 The Date of

equivalent to stating the year. Hence it would seem that no
chronological question could well be found easier to answer
than that which asks the date of S. Polycarp’s martyrdom.
Yet, as a matter of fact, hardly any question of the kind has
been answered in so many ways. This may be seen from the
foot-note ?, in which are shown some of the dates that have
been actually assigned to S. Polyearp’s death by various
scholars, all of whom have some claim on our attention.

These dates will be seen to range over nearly thirty years,
viz. from A.D. 147 to A.D. 175; and to belong to the reigns
of two Roman Emperors, viz. Antoninus Pius, who died
in March, 161, and his successor, Mareus Aurelius. Some
writers, who do not assign the martyrdom to any particular
year, place it in the reign of the latter emperor, and so far
favour one of the later dates.

Of all the clues to the date which are found in the Mar-
tyrium by far the most important is the name of the procon-
sul under whom S. Polycarp suffered ; and the investigation
of the time during which the person bearing that name held
office will occupy most of our attention. The genitive of the
name is given in the Barocci MS. as Στρατίου Kopdro[v], but
editors have all agreed to correct this (in conformity with the
᾿ Latin version) into Στατίου Kovadpdrov*. The name, therefore,
in its Latin form is Statius Quadratus.

1 The martyrdom of S. Polycarp has been assigned to the year—
147 by Pearson; Dodwell; Gallandi.
155 by Waddington; Zahn; Renan; Hilgenfeld ; Lightfoot; Letronne ;
Borghesi ; de Rossi.
156 by Lipsius.
158 by Pagi (with some hesitation).
161 by Baratier; Idatius.
163, by the Paschal Chronicle.
164 by Greswell.
166 by Clinton; Noris; Tillemont ; Masson; Wieseler; Uhlhorn.
167 by Valesius.
168 by Eusebius and 8. Jerome (as some think).
169 by Baronius; Mosheim ; Ussher.
175 by Petit.
2 Or Κοδράτου, according to the orthography fuund in the editions of

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 179

From the ‘ Fasti Romani’ we learn that a person of this
name was consud in the year A.D. 142: he would thus have
been eligible for the procousudate in any of the years assigned
to 8S. Polyearp’s martyrdom. Doubtless, therefore, the consul
of 142 and the proconsul who conducted 8. Polycarp’s trial are
one and the same person. ‘This Quadratus is frequently men-
tioned in the extant works of A‘lius Aristides, the rhetorician,
who was not only a contemporary of S. Polycarp, but lived
much in the same city. From the data furnished by Aristides
modern scholars have attempted to fix the year of the procon-
sulate of Quadratus, and I will now proceed to show the
method by which (as I believe) they have obtained a correct
result.

As a basis for caleulating the date of Quadratus from the
writings of Aristides, it may be best to investigate the date of
another proconsul of Asia, whose name was Julianus ; and we
shall be able to fix the date of Julianus with remarkable pre-
cision. ‘Two contemporary inscriptions enable us to do this.

The first is an inseription’ from the ruins of the Odeum of
Ephesus ; it was discovered in March, 1864, by Mr. J. T.
Wood, the English architect, and is now in the British
Museum. It is mutilated, but its purport and dates are clear
and certain. Itis the transcript of a letter from Antoninus
Pius to the magistrates of Ephesus, dated in his eighth posses-
sion of tribunician power, which is definitely known to have
been the year 145; and at the end it mentions ‘ Julianus, the
most excellent proconsul.’

The second is an inscription? on a medal, also from Ephesus,
now in the National Library at Paris. On one side it exhibits
Aristides (e.g. Dindorf’s ed. vol. i. p. 521, lines 3 and 15): this would only
imply the omission of one letter (5) in the Barocci MS.

1 Appendix A, Inscription No. 3. The other inscription (No. 4) given in
Appendix A suggests or confirms many of the conjectural readings in the lost
portions of No, 3, and the comparison of the two is very interesting.

2 W., p.211. Also Mionnet’s Description de Méduailles antiques, tome 111.

Tonie, No. 321 (p.103). The British Museum possesses a sulphur cast of this
medal, a full description of which has been kindly sent me by B. V. Head, Esq.

N 2

180 The Date of

the heads and names! of Verus Cesar and Faustina; on the
other side the lezend* informs us that the medal was struck
when Julianus was governing the people of Ephesus. Beyond
doubt, therefore, Julianus was proconsul at the time of the
marriage of Verus Cesar and Faustina, which this medal com-
memorates. And we know, from quite independent historical
testimony, that this marriage took place early in 146, the
Verus Cxsar being the person better known to us under his
subsequent imperial title of Mareus Aurelius, and his bride
being his cousin Annia Faustina, daughter of the reigning
emperor, Antoninus Pius.

The year of the proconsulate in the province of Asia was not
reckoned from January to January, but from May to May.
So that these two inscriptions, fixing the proconsulate of
Julianus to the years 145 and 146 respectively, are not dis-
cordant with each other. On the contrary, the two in com-
bination give us the date of Julianus’ proconsulate with
ereater precision than could be attained from either of them
separately ; and we may consider it absolutely certain that
Julianus was proconsul of Asia in 145-6, from May 145 to
May 146.

It also appears that he was proconsul during the second year
of the long malady of Aristides, of which that author gives so
many and such curious details in his ‘ Sacred Discourses.’

This, however, by no means appears on the surface, and I
have to endeavour to explain how it is arrived at.

Towards the end of the fourth Sacred Discourse, Aristides
recounts several transactions that had happened between him-
self and different proconsuls; ‘the first of all which transactions
was, he says®, ‘a service rendered him by Julianus:’ and we
learn that this happened :—

(1) Not long after the series of travels that had kept
Aristides many years from home ;
1 OTHPOC : KAICAP~ [ΦΊΑΥΟΤΕΙΓΝΊΑ * CE.

2 «ML: A+ IOTAIANOY: EPECIONN,
° A., p. 532 (esp. line 10, τὸ πρῶτον ἁπάντων τούτων).

S. Polycarp's Martyrdom. 181

(2) When Aristides was residing at Pergamos ; and

(3) While he was ill, and (in particular) suffering from
difficulty of breathing—elyov μὲν οὕτως τὸ σῶμα
ὥστε ἀναπνεῖν μόλις".

Now we know that his series of travels immediately pre-
ceded his long malady, or rather that the malady began
just before the travels ended. He also tells us that at the end
of a year and some months after the commencement of his
malady, having made a short stay at Smyrna, he went to
reside αὖ Pergamos—xal παρελθόντος ἐνιαυτοῦ καὶ μηνῶν ἐπὶ
τὴν ἐν Περγάμῳ καθέδραν ἤλθομεν.

Again, in the Second Discourse, he mentions that after his
return from Italy he had been troubled by some asthmatic
complaint, and he describes it in precisely the same words as
he uses in the Fourth Discourse about his suffering at Per-
gamos—Xaderoratov δ᾽ ἁπάντων ὅτι τοῦ πνεύματος ἀπεκεκλεί-
μην, καὶ μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς πραγματείας καὶ ἀπιστίας μόλις ἄν ποτε
ἀνέπνευσα βιαίως καὶ ἀγαπητῶς ὃ.

It seems quite certain, therefore, that about the middle of
the second year of his malady Aristides was residing at Per-
gamos, and suffering from great difficulty of breathing ; pre-
cisely as was the case when the transaction took place between
him and Julianus the proconsul. But after he had stayed
some little time at Pergamos, he was able to resume his pro-
fessional occupation, and once more to deliver his rhetorical
discourses in public. We may reasonably infer that the
resumption of public speaking did not take place until the
difficulty of breathing had passed off: and this justifies us in
fixing the proconsulate of Julianus to the second year of Aris-
tides’ malady.

As this synchronism is of the utmost importance, I should
like to say that I quite recognise the element of uncertainty
in it. It is, in my opinion, absolutely certain that Julianus
was proconsul in 145-6 ; also that Aristides was at Pergamos

1 A., p. 532, lines 23-4. 2 A., p. 483, lines 32-3.
5 A, p. 466, lines 17-20,

182 The Date of

at the same time; also that the date of his transaction with
Julianus was not earlier than the second year of his malady.
I do not think it is quite certain that it may not have been
later than the second year of the malady. Nevertheless, the
indications that I have mentioned as being furnished by his
condition of health, and the references to his recent travels,
point to the very earliest stage of his residence in Pergamos,
and render the hypothesis that Julianus was proconsul in any
later year of the malady highly improbable ; and the later the
year the more improbable the hypothesis. I therefore consider
the synchronism between Julianus’ proconsulate and the second

year of Aristides’ malady to be only slightly removed from.

positive certainty ; and the element of uncertainty is made
still less important by the discovery that other data fit in
conveniently when we adopt this synchronism as a working
hypothesis.

From this starting-point let us now advance a step. Not
yet, however, to the proconsulate of Quadratus, but to that of
a certain Severus. ‘This step gives us very little trouble.
For, in his ‘ Sacred Discourses,’ Aristides definitely states! that
Severus was proconsul in the tenth year of his malady. As
we have fixed the second year of this sickness at 145-6, we
must, of course, fix the tenth year by adding on eight, making
the date of the proconsulate of Severus to be 153-4°.

1 A., p. 502 ab init., and p. 505, lines 5 and 6. Cf. M., p. exx. bottom.

2 Here, however, I must point out the possibility of making a mistake of
a year.

Aristides’ malady began in the autumn, so that, if he reckoned the years of
the malady strictly, every one of those years would begin at autumn-time, say
October 1. But the proconsular years began (as I have already said) in the
early summer, about May 1. Hence any given year of Aristides’ malady would
be contemporaneous, roughly speaking, with the second half of one proconsulate
and the former half of the next.

It follows that unless we know at what part of the year of the malady (whether
early or late) any particular event happened, we may assign it to the wrong
proconsulate. In the present case our argument really proves only that Severus
was proconsul either in 153-4 or in 154-5: it cannot decide between the two.

But as we have supposed an event of the second year of the malady to have
happened in the proconsular year 145-6, we now suppose an event of the tenth

EE πηι

S. Polycarp’'s Martyrdom. 183

One step more will bring us to Quadratus. But to take it
requires what some may deem a venture of faith rather than
an exercise of reason. It can only be done by interpreting in
a definite manner a sentence of Aristides’ which some may
deem too indefinite to bear such an interpretation.

In a certain place’ Aristides says that he thinks Severus
was proconsul the year before his friend, without naming the
friend—‘O Σεβῆρος ὁ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἡγεμὼν ἦρξεν, οἶμαι, ἐνιαυτῷ
πρότερον τοῦ ἡμετέρου ἑταίρου. In order to take the final step
in fixing the date of proconsulate of Quadratus we have to
suppose— ;

(1) That Aristides’ οἶμαι is equivalent to an οἷδα : in
other words, that we may trust the accuracy of his
memory as regards such a matter.

(2) That Aristides’ unnamed friend was none other than
Quadratus.

As regards the force of οἶμαι, I will only say that I have
found it elsewhere in the writings of Aristides in passages
where it could scarcely have implied any serious doubt, and
that I therefore look upon it as practically of no more weight
to disparage a statement than our own oft-heard expression
‘if I remember rightly.’ It is also just to remark that if
Aristides had made a mistake on this point, in the rough draft
of his book, he would surely have afterwards discovered and
corrected a statement which could so easily have been tested.

As to the identification of Aristides’ unnamed friend with
Quadratus, I do not think doubt would be felt on the point by
anyone who had read the context in which the above-quoted
passage occurs. Quadratus was a rhetorician by profession, as
was Aristides; and when they met, Quadratus treated Aris-
tides with many marked expressions of courtesy and honour.
Aristides, who is fond of flattery if of anything, has

year to fall in 153-4. Such reasoning is fair; but it must be allowed to involve
the unexpressed condition that both the events happened in the same half (in
this case it would be the earlier half) of the year. Cf, Appendix G.

1 A., Ρ. 523, lines 3-5.

184 The Date of

been delighted to recount all this, and at the end of the
recital says :—‘ Severus, if I remember rightly, was proconsul
the year before my friend.’ Surely the friend was Quadratus.

I may add that, after reading carefully through the whole
of the Sacred Discourses, I have found in them no person
named or alluded to who is so likely to have been the
friend here referred to as Quadratus is. Further, if we
accept the common identification of the proconsul Quadratus
with the ‘ Quadration’ who is mentioned by Philostratus in his
Lives of the Sophists*, we have there additional evidence that
Aristides and Quadratus were men of similar tastes and
pursuits.

Assuming’, therefore, that Quadratus was the immediate
successor of Severus in the proconsulate of Asia, it follows that,
as we have fixed the date of Severus’ period of office at 153-4,
we must fix the year of office of Quadratus at 154-5, that is,
from May 154 to May 155. ‘Thus we have at length reached

our goal.

It further follows that since, on any interpretation of the
month and day of the event, 5. Polyearp’s martyrdom
happened in the spring of the year, before the month of
May, it must have taken place in the latter part of the pro-
consulate of Quadratus, that is, in the year 155.

Assuming that the Martyrium is correct in assigning the
death of the Saint to the early part of the year and to the pro-
consulate of Quadratus, and that the foregoing calculation of
the period of this proconsulate is correct, we therefore conclude
that δ. Polycarp was put to death in the spring of A.D. 1.55.

But when we come to compare our conclusion with the date
assigned to the same event by Eusebius, 8. Jerome, and the
largest number of historians, we find that our conclusion by no
means agrees with their date. True, it is not easy to say pre-
cisely what their date is. Eusebius and S. Jerome seem to
differ from one another, and their modern interpreters are not

Δ 116:

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 185

of one mind as to what date either Eusebius or S. Jerome
meant to give for S. Polycarp’s death. But decidedly it was
not 155, nor, indeed, in that decade at all. Decidedly it was
in the next decade, whether τόδ᾽, 167°, 168°, 169*, or some
earlier year. Decidedly, Eusebius’ date falls within the reign
of Marcus Aurelius : whereas our date is, quite as decidedly,
within the reign of Antoninus Pius. How then are we to
choose between the two ?

The learned Bishop of Lincoln, in his recent ‘Church History,’
states’ that he does ‘not feel justified in abandoning’ the later
date; and he opposes a series of objections to the earlier date,
which, out of respect to such a writer, I propose now to

~ eonsider.

OpsEcTION 1.—Quadratus was proconsul in the sith year of
the malady of Aristides*®, and not in the eleventh, as the
advocates of the earlier date wrongly maintain.

ANSWER.—That Quadratus was proconsul in the sixth year of
the malady was indeed the opinion of Masson, who, with great
industry, endeavoured to construct a chronological account of
the life of Aristides from the many scattered notices in his
writings. But, even on Masson’s own interpretations of some
of Aristides’ statements, it becomes impossible that Quadratus
could have been proconsul in the sixth year of the malady ; and
Masson could only defend his theory by attributing looseness
and inaccuracy of statement to Aristides.

As a matter of fact, Aristides distinguishes between different
stages of his malady, two of the chief of which stages he
describes as τὸ τοῦ ἤτρου and τὸ τοῦ φύματος, characterized
respectively by abdominal pains and by a troublesome tumour.
The proconsulate of Quadratus synchronised with the abdominal
pains. But this stage of the malady was preceded, many vears
Ῥεΐοιο---πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν πρότερον-- ὉΥ the appearance of the

? As Bp. Wordsworth. 2 As von Gutschmid.

3 As Waddington. * As Schoene.
5 Wo., p. 164, lines 32-35 of note. ® Wo., p. 162, lines 18-20 of note.

186 The Date of

tumour, which itself followed after the asthmatic complaint of the
second year of the malady. Clearly, therefore, Masson’s date
must be wrong, and thus this objection falls.

OpsEcTION 2.—The emperor was in Syria during the pro-
consulate of Quadratus, and therefore cannot have been
Antoninus Pius, who never left Rome!.

AnsweErR.— Merivale* certainly states that Antoninus Pius
resided constantly at Rome ; but he gives no authority for the
statement. This is rather remarkable, for when he has occa-
sion to repeat the assertion, he refers the reader for proof of it
to his own previous mention of it.

The extant original records of the age of the Antonines are
very meagre; and Merivale seems to have supposed that,
because he found in his authorities no mention of any journey
from Rome undertaken by Antoninus Pius, he was at liberty
to conclude that no such journey had ever been made. But such
an inference is quite unwarrantable. And students have since
had their attention drawn to a passage in a Byzantine his-
torian, which, if Merivale had known it, would pretty certainly
have prevented him from making the rash statement that has
apparently been accepted by the Bishop of Lincoln.

The passage is in Malalas, p. 280 of the Bonn edition, and
is to the following effeet—conclusively proving that Antoninus
Pius visited Syria. Malalas was himself a Syrian, a native of
Antioch, and therefore may claim some credit for his contribu-
tions to the history of his native land: he lived probably in
the sixth century, though some have assigned him to the
ninth.

He sketches the reign of Antoninus Pius*, and devotes quite
half the sketch to that emperor's doings in the East at
Heliopolis in Pheenicia, at Laodicea in Syria, at Alexandria
and elsewhere in Egypt, at Antioch in Syria, at Caesarea in

1 Wo., p. 162, lines 21 and 27 of note.

2 Vol. vii. pages 500 and 512, referred to by Bp. Wordsworth,
3. The sketch is given in full in Appendix B.

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 187

Palestine, at Nicomedia in Bithynia, and at Ephesus. The
emperor's presence in person at some, at least, of these places
is necessarily implied in the language, and at the end of this
list of Eastern places visited we have the words: καὶ ἀνελθὼν
ἐπὶ Ρώμην, he did so and so.

Ossection 3.—In the proconsulate of Quadratus, Aristides
refers to an interview between the elder emperor and Volo-
gesus, king of Parthia, to a Parthian war, and to the pros-
pect of peace between Rome and Parthia: all of which
tallies with the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and not with
that of Antoninus Pius?.

Answer.—This reference does not tally in one important
point with the reign of Marcus Aurelius, for it alludes to the
emperor who was in the East as the e/der emperor, whereas in
the reign of Marcus Aurelius it was not the elder emperor that
was engaged against the Parthians, but the younger, viz.
Verus. On the other hand, if we compare it with the reign
of Antoninus Pius, then (as we have just learnt from Malalas)
the e/der emperor was himself in Syria. Again: although
Capitolinus? may be literally correct in saying that there was
no Parthian war in the reign of Antoninus Pius, he may only
have meant that there were no actual passages of arms, no
battles, no great slaughters, as there were afterwards in the
days of Marcus Aurelius. For there certainly were military
preparations so far carried out as to be popularly spoken of as
a Parthian War, in the reign of Antoninus Pius.

Capitolinus probably had this in mind when he wrote® that
Antoninus Pius stopped the attacks of the Parthians by his
mere letters. The letters would certainly have carried more
weight if they were known to be seconded and supported by
military preparations.

But the fact is placed beyond doubt by an inscription ® still

1 Wo., p. 162, lines 22-37 of note.

2 In M. Aurel., c. 8 (referred to by Bp. Wordsworth).
3. In Anton, Pi., c.9. * Appendix C.

188 The Date of

to be seen over the public fountain at Sepino'. There we are
informed that, at least four years before the death of Antoninus
Pius, a certain Neratius was entrusted with some of the pre-
parations for the Parthian war: ‘ Missus ab imperatore
Augusto Pio ad deducendas vexillationes in Syriam οὐ bellum
Parthicum,

Moreover, Aristides makes no reference to any actual con-
flicts : so that the mere imminence of a war, and preparations
for it, would quite satisfy all the requirements of the case.

ΟΒΙΒΟΤΙΟΝ 4.—An ἀτέλεια, or immunity from official service,
was confirmed to Aristides in the proconsulate of Severus
(having been granted to him by Pollio, the previous pro-
consul); and yet we find that, in the proconsulate of
Quadratus, Aristides was elected to an onerous public office,
and did not plead his ἀτέλεια. Therefore it is unlikely
that Quadratus succeeded Severus’.

Answer.— We are not sure that Aristides did not plead his
ἀτέλεια. All he tells us on this point is that, at the public
meeting which had by acclamation elected him to this honour-
able dignity, he obtained permission to speak, and succeeded
in persuading his hearers to desist from their request: λόγον
δὲ αἰτήσας, οὕτως ἔπεισα ὥστε 6 δῆμος ταύτης μὲν ἀπέστη τῆς
ἀξιώσεως *,

I do not find that he tells us what arguments he used. Of
course it may have been the case that ‘he prayed the people
to excuse him, in order that he might be relieved from so
burdensome and expensive an office,’ as the Bishop of Lincoln
thinks ; but his fondness for popularity, his delight in re-
ceiving flattering distinctions, and his high estimate of his
own powers of persuasion by oratory, may well have combined
to make him refrain from pleading his ἀτέλεια. Such a plea

1 The ancient Sepinum, a Samnite town, half-way in a direct line between
the mouth of the Tiber and the seaport of Bari.

* Wo., p. 162, lines 37-42 of note; and p. 163, lines 14-28 of note.

3 A., p. 531, lines 17-18.

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 189

would in all likelihood have been far from popular with his
audience.

In connexion with this objection the Bishop of Lincoln
says! that Aristides ‘ goes back’ to Quadratus ‘in a retrograde
course as by a ladder upward to Pollio’ (Severus’ predecessor) :
but, after carefully reading the page of Aristides to which
reference is made in support of it, I am inclined to think that
there must be some misprint or mistake in this statement.

OxsEcTION 5.—In the proconsulate of Severus, Aristides re-
ceived letters ‘from the emperor, καὶ τοῦ παιδός, i.e. and
from his son. This accords better with Marcus Aurelius
and Commodus than it does with Antoninus Pius?.

AwnswrER.—Those who hold to the later or Masson’s chron-
ology fix Severus’ proconsulate in or about the year τόρ ;
whereas those who advocate the earlier (or Waddington’s)
chronology fix it in 153-4 or thereabouts. Let us consider
each date separately.

Even in 169 there are difficulties in the way of understand-
ing the expression ‘ the emperor and his son,’ of Mareus Aure-
lius and Commodus. For firstly, Verus did not die till the
end of the year ; and as he was during his lifetime co-emperor
with Marcus Aurelius, all imperial decrees being issued by the
‘Augusti fratres, it is surprising (even though he may have
been absent from Italy) that his name is not mentioned.
And as to Commodus, he was born in 161, and so could not
have been more than eight years old—hardly old enough to
send letters to anyone. And if it is argued on the one side
that he had been made Cesar in 166, it is also alleged on the
other side that he was not associated in the actual government
of the empire until 176.

But in 153-4 we can explain the expression much more
easily. True, that then the emperor Antoninus Pius had /wo
adopted sons; yet one, Verus, was too young to be likely

1 Wo., p. 163, lines 22-23.
? Wo., p. 162, line 41 of note; p. 163, line 8 of note.

190 The Date of

either to ratify an ἀτέλεια or to write a letter to Aristides,
whereas the other, afterwards Marcus Aurelius, had already
made Aristides’ acquaintance.

The use of the word παῖς instead of vids does not seem to
present any insuperable difficulty to the adoption of this view.
And there is a very strong argument in favour of it, to which
the Bishop of Lincoln has made no allusion.

The same messenger who delivered to Aristides the gratify-
ing communications sent by his imperial correspondents, who-
ever they were, brought him other letters also from another
correspondent of distinction, viz. Heliodorus, the prefect of
Egypt’. Aristides had made his acquaintance during his
travels in Egypt, before the commencement of his malady.
These Egyptian tours had occupied some time, for in the course
of them Aristides had (as he himself tells us*) gone the whole
leneth of the land, up to the cataracts, four times. He had
also acquired so much fame in that country that at least one
statue was erected with an inscription® to his honour*. And
Heliodorus had now not only written to him, but had written
also to the proconsul Severus, highly eulogising Aristides.

It so happens that we possess an item of very definite infor-
mation respecting the date of Heliodorus’ prefecture in Egypt.
Tn an inseription® over the door of a temple at Kasr-Zayan, in
the casis of Thebes, he is mentioned as prefect of the country :
and the inscription is dated the eighteenth of the month Me-
sori, in the third year of Antoninus Pius, i.e. August 12, 140.

Of course it is possit/e that a man who was prefect of Egypt
in 140 may still have been prefect of Egypt in 168 or there-
abouts, but it 1s not very prodable, especially as there are
reasons for supposing that he had been appointed to the office
some years prior to 140. The passage of Malalas previously
referred to increases the probability to a very high degree : for

1 A., p. 524, lines 8-Io.

2 Aristides, ed. Dindorf, ii. p. 437, line 7. 3. Appendix D.

* Letronne: Recherches pour servir ἃ U Histoire de U Egypte, p. 294.
5 Appendix E,

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. ΤΟΙ

it mentions another prefect of Egypt, whose name was Dein-
archus, as holding office in the reign of Antoninus Pius, and
as having been slain by Egyptian insurgents. Nay more, it
informs us that Antoninus Pius conducted a campaign in
Egypt for the purpose of quelling the insurrection, that he
was successful in this campaign, and at the end of it went to
Alexandria and beautified that city with new gates and a race-
course. Since Antoninus Pius was upwards of seventy when
he died, it is hardly likely that this journey of his was under-
taken towards the close of his reign : so that in all probability
Deinarchus had succeeded (whether immediately or not) to
Heliodorus some years before the death of Antoninus Pius.

This harmonises well with the earlier date, 153-4, assigned
to Severus’ proconsulate in Asia; but it is almost irrecon-
cilable with the later date of 168.

In fact, it was the difficulty of harmonising the Kasr-Zayan
inscription with the commonly-received date of Severus’ pro-
consulate that led Letronne! to re-examine the data furnished
by the writings of Aristides, and to point out other hindrances
in the way of accepting Masson’s chronology. To Letronne
is due the credit of having shown how much more in harmony
with other records the writings of Aristides would become if
an earlier chronology were applied to them, and of detecting
the two cardinal errors into which Masson had fallen. These
were the following :—

(1) Of two dates for Aristides’ birth, 117 and 129 A.D.,
which equally fulfilled the conditions required by
the astronomical data furnished in his writings,
Masson chose the later ?.

(2) Masson accepted without hesitation Eusebius’ date
for 8. Polycarp’s martyrdom, as he understood it,

1 Recherches pour servir ἃ U Histoire de V Egypte pendant la domination des
Grecs et des Romains, pp. 253-259 [published at Paris in 1823]. These pages are
reprinted almost verbatim, in the same author’s Recueil des Inscriptions grecques
et latines de V Egypte, tome i. pp. 131-135 [published at Paris in 1842].

2. Μ, , p. xxiii. paragraph 3.

192 The Date of

viz. 166 ; and made all the other dates of Aristides’
narrative square with that as nearly as he could’.

But Letronne’s hints, after having been taken up and
strengthened by Bartolomeo Borghesi, ‘the celebrated epi-
graphist of San Marino,’ were much more fully worked out in
1866 by Mons. W. H. Waddington, who is at present the
French Ambassador to our English Government ; and his
name has therefore become inseparably connected with the
theory of the earlier dates.

We may the more readily acquiesce in giving him the credit
for it when we remember that—Frenchman though he chooses
to consider himself—he has an English name, comes of an
English family, was brought up at the English public school
of Rugby, and was educated at the English University of
Cambridge.

But we must return to the Bishop of Lincoln’s objections.

Ossection 6.—Aristides says that Severus was proconsul soon
after the great plague, which was presumably the same
that raged in Italy in 1677.

Answer.—The advocates of the earlier date for Severus’
proconsulate quite recognise the mention of this great plague :
but they find that it raged in Asia Minor, not before the pro-
consulate of Severus, but several years after® that time. Aris-
tides was himself attacked by it ; so were all his servants: his
physician was obliged to do servant’s work for him in conse-
quence, he tells us*. But all this was after the termination
of his long malady, which was itself not cured until seven
years or so after the proconsulate of Severus. The epidemic
may therefore be easily identified with the great plague that
raged in Italy in 167, especially as it is well known that
that particular pestilence (like so many later ones) gradually
travelled westward from Asia across Europe.

1 M., p. Ixxxix. paragraph 7; W., p. 207.

2 Wo., p. 163, line 39 of note ; p. 164, line 3 of note.
* A., pp. 475 and 504. * AL, Ρ. 475:

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 193

OxsectTion 7.—The martyrdom of Polycarp does not seem to
be in harmony with the times of Antoninus Pius, but
agrees very well with those of Marcus Aurelius’.

Answer.—lI do not know what Archdeacon Farrar might
say on being told that a martyrdom such as that of δ. Polycarp
‘agrees’ ‘very well’ with the times of Marcus Aurelius. For
myself, I will only venture very respectfully to remark that,
considered as an act of intolerant cruelty, it ill accords with
the character of either of these excellent emperors ; but, con-
sidered as the result of mistaken state-policy, it may be recon-
ciled with the rule of the one as easily as with that of the
other?. It was (I would fain believe) not so much the perse-
eution of a Christian as the execution of one who was deemed
a disaffected subject. The Martyrium tells us that Polycarp
was the twelfth Christian who suffered death at that time in
the two cities of Philadelphia and Smyrna, and that his own
death ended the persecution. And although his death was
certainly preceded by all the forms of a regular judicial pro-
cess, yet his offence was not so much his being a Christian as
his refusing to obey imperial orders—his stubborn denial when
urged to acknowledge imperial authority in the usual way.

Melito’s statement that ‘Antoninus Pius wrote to certain
cities that they should not raise tumults or commit outrages
against the Christians, seems to imply the occurrence in his
reign of some such events as the martyrdom of 8. Polycarp,
to which the proconsul was incited by the clamours of the
populace: and the decrees put forth by Marcus Aurelius, of
which Melito complains, may have been new ones, without
implying the previous non-occurrence of such events as
attended 5. Polycarp’s death.

These are all the objections which the Bishop of Lincoln
makes against the earlier date, unless we add to the list two
others which he expresses in a less pronounced manner.

1 Wo., p. 164, lines 4-6 of note.
It may be noted that Valesius (according to Pearson, Minor Works, ed,
Churton, ii. 526) thought Justin was martyred in the reign of Antoninus Pius,

O

194 The Date of

Ossection 8.—Eusebius, 8. Jerome, and others, give the later
date ; and their testimony is important. Eusebius parti-
cularly is usually correct in events relating to the East’.

ANsweErR.—S. Jerome and the rest all follow Eusebius, and
therefore add nothing to his authority. And a plausible expla-
nation can be given of his mistake—supposing it to be a mistake
—about this date. Another Quadratus was consu/ in the year
167. If we may conjecture that Eusebius, who did so much
literary work that he must have done some of it hurriedly,
mistook the consud Quadratus of 167 for the pro-consul Quad-
ratus of the Martyrium, the difficulty is at once satisfactorily

solved.

OxsecTION g.—Irenaeus tells us that Polyearp visited Rome
during the bishopric of Anicetus, which has generally been
dated between 157 and τόδ.

Answer.—But, as Bishop Wordsworth acknowledges %,
reasons have recently been given for placing the pontificate
of Anicetus at an earlier date than that to which it has
hitherto usually been assigned. Lipsius, who has probably
studied the chronology of the early Roman bishops more
earefully than any one else of our own time, quite recognises
the possibility of harmonising the date of Anicetus with the
early date of S. Polycarp’s martyrdom ; although he prefers so
far to take advantage of the one uncertain link, which I
pointed out* in the chain of evidence for the earlier date, as
to assign the martyrdom to 156 instead of 155.

All the objections of the Bishop of Lincoln have now been
fairly stated, and should, of course, be allowed their due weight.
But I do not think any one of them or any combination of
them is unanswerable, or sufficient to justify the retention of
the later date.

Let me more briefly state a series of objections of another

1 Wo., p. 161, lines 1-8 of note. ? Wo., p. 161, lines 9-15 of note.
3. Wo., p. 161, line 25 of note—p. 162, line 3 of note. * See p. 182.

i μον.

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 195

kind, made by another learned English prelate, whose name
will similarly command profound respect for every word he
says. I refer to John Pearson, Bishop of Chester.

Pearson minutely studied the chronology of the early

bishops of Rome, and his researches for ascertaining the date

of Anicetus caused him to investigate that of the martyrdom
of 5. Polyearp. So far from feeling the interview which
Anicetus had with Polyearp to be in harmony with the later
date of the latter’s death, which was in his days universally
accepted, he felt so strongly the difficulty of reconciling that
date with several historical considerations, that he boldly
asserted—without any knowledge of the inscriptions I have
mentioned—without any Letronne or Borghesi or Waddington
to guide or support him—he boldly asserted that the later
date must be given up as hopelessly devoid of historical
probability. At great labour and pains he set himself to find
a truer date, more in harmony with known history than was
the date given by Eusebius ; and he persuaded himself that he
had found it in the year 147. I will presently explain’ how
he arrived at this conclusion, and it will easily be seen why
we cannot accept it. At this point I will only say that I
sincerely believe, if Bishop Pearson had possessed the data
which Waddington possessed, he would have arrived at
Waddington’s conclusion.
I have now to state his objections to the later date.

1. An anonymous manuscript Chronicle of ancient date,
lent to Pearson by Isaac Vossius, puts the martyrdom of
S. Polycarp in the reign of Antoninus Pius ?.

2. Irenaeus, contra Haer. 111. 3, in a passage which was
written certainly not later than 185, speaks of of μέχρι νῦν

διαδεγμένοι τὸν Πολύκαρπον

: therefore we may fairly sup-
pose that he knew of several men who had, one after the other,
succeeded to Polycarp’s office in the interval between that
saint's martyrdom and the writing of this passage. This

' See p. 197 N.B. ΟΡ 520:
3 A various reading for Πολύκαρπον is τοῦ Πολυκάρπου θρύνον.

02

τοῦ The Date of

suggests that the interval was greater than twenty years,
whereas the later date for Polycarp’s martyrdom would reduce
the interval to less than twenty years *.

3. Irenaeus, in the same chapter, also says that Polyearp
was a disciple of apostles, had conversed with many who had
seen the Christ, and had been appointed bishop for Asia in
Smyrna by apostles. Therefore he is scarcely likely to have
lived until 166 or later: for few who had seen Christ, and
certainly no apostle, survived the year 100; nor is it probable
that Polycarp was appointed bishop for Asia sixty-six years or
more before his martyrdom.

4. Irenaeus further says that he himself had seen Polycarp
and listened to him: but deems it necessary to remove the
inherent improbability of this assertion by stating two things
in explanation, viz.—

(1) That Polycarp had lived to old age before suffering
martyrdom ; and

(2) That at the time of seeing and hearing Polycarp, he
(Irenaeus) was himself very young.

Would he have felt any necessity for making these state-
ments, particularly the latter, if Polycarp had suffered
martyrdom less than twenty years before the time at which
he was writing ?

5. In the celebrated passage of Irenaeus’ Epistle to Florinus,
preserved in Eus., H. E., ν. 20, the writer describes his vivid
recollection of his juvenile visits to Polyearp, thanks God that
the details thereof were so well impressed upon his memory,
and observes—‘I remember those things better than others
which have happened recently.’ Such remarks are scarcely
harmonious with the theory that Polyearp had been dead less
than twenty years; in which case S. Irenaeus might have
listened to him year after year as an adult, and a vivid recol-
lection of his person and teaching would have been in no way
remarkable.

6. The Martyrium represents S. Polycarp as having said to

ΡΣ ΒΔ).

SS ἌὌρΡ ρον
“ bs ea ys" ‘
= ᾿ ‘ 7 ᾿ ᾿ j

-

S. Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 197

the proconsul :-—Oydorjxovra καὶ ἐξ ἔτη ἔχω δουλεύων τῷ
Χριστῷ: All the ancients, both Greeks and Latins, under-
stood this to mean that Polycarp was eighty-six years of age
at the time of his martyrdom. Halloix, in 1633, was the first
to suggest that the eighty-six years referred (not to Polycarp’s
age, but) to the period during which he had professed Chris-
tianity. Very soon Blondel went further, and asserted that
Polyearp had been in the Christian ministry eighty-six years!
Such theories, however, have no internal probability or external
support. Believing therefore that S. Polycarp was martyred
at the age of eighty-six, and that he had associated with
apostles (even if he were not made bishop by them), it is in-
credible that the date of his death was so late as 166 A.D. or
any time in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.

7. Nicetas, father of the Irenarch, mentioned in the Mar-
tyrium as a very old man, is perhaps to be identified with
Nicetas the Smyrnaean, mentioned by Philostratus? as flourish-
ing under Nerva (who died in 98). This identification would
be rendered absurdly improbable if the later date for the
martyrdom be taken.

8. The Quadratus of the Martyrium was consul in 142. It
is in the highest degree unlikely that there was an interval of
more than twenty years* between his consulate and his pro-
consulate.

N.B.—Pearson knew that the ordinary interval between a
consulate and a proconsulate was five years, and hence he
arrived at the conclusion that Quadratus was proconsul in 147,
five years after his consulship in 142.

g. There certainly were early errors, even in good authors,
about the date : for example, Socrates actually placed it in the
reign of Gordian (238-244 a.D.). Hence we need not feel

1 Vitae Sophistarum, i. το.

2 Wo., p. 162, lines 14-16 of note, remarks that ‘Marquardt quotes several
instances of a seventeen years’ interval, and one of nineteen, between the con-
sulship and proconsulate.’ But this does not justify us in assuming an interval
of twenty-four years, which the date 166 would involve.

198 The Date of

obliged to accept the date given by Eusebius, if it is shown to
be intrinsically improbable.

On a review of the whole question, therefore, I feel con-
strained to adopt the earlier date for S. Polycarp’s martyrdom.
I find that almost all continental writers have adopted it,
except—

(1) Keim?, who throws discredit on the whole of the
Martyrium in its present form ;

(2) Wieseler*, who refuses to accept the identification of
Aristides’ friend with Quadratus ; and

(3) J. Reville *, a young French savant, who concludes
an essay on the subject with the philosophic
sentence,—‘ nihil prodest affirmare ubi dubitare
tutius est.

The Bishop of Durham has also expressed his acceptance of
the earlier date +.

As to the day on which S. Polyearp suffered, similar
certainty cannot be felt. As I have already observed, the
Martyrium appears to fix it very precisely ; but, owing partly
to variations in the text and partly to our ignorance of the
meaning of some of the chronological terms, each of the items
of information given is shrouded in uncertainty.

Twice in the Martyrium we are told that the event
happened on a ‘great Sabbath.’ But we are not sure what a
‘great Sabbath’ was. It has been variously supposed that
it was—

(1) The Saturday before Easter,

(2) The 15th Nisan,

(3) The 16th Nisan, and

(4) An ordinary Saturday made great either by
(i) Some civil and local festivity, or by
(ii) The martyrdom of S. Polycarp itself.

* Aus dem Urchristenthum, Band i. pp. 90-170 (published at Ziirich in 1878).

2 Die Christenverfolgungen der Cisaren (1878), pp. 34 et seqq.

5 De Anno Dieque quibus Polycarpus Smyrnae Martyrium tulit (Geneva,
Schuchardt, 1880),

* Contemporary Review for May, 1875, vol. xxv, pp. 828 and 838.

S. Polycarp's Martyrdom. 199

In giving the day according to the Roman Kalendar, our
witnesses agree in the formula ‘VII. Kal.’ but differ in
the month, which is diversely designated as ‘ Feb.,’ ‘ Mart.,
‘Apr. and ‘ Mai.’

By the Eastern reckoning we are told that the day was the
second of Xanthicus; but the name Xanthicus was given to
almost every month in the year by some or other of the in-
habitants of the sea-board of the Levant '.

Although Pearson and others take the 26th of March as the
most likely day, I am inclined (without now going into the
tedious details of my reasons) to agree with the majority in
preferring to think that the day meant is the 23rd of
February.

A few moderns have given up what they term the ‘ Ap-
pendix,’ i.e. the paragraph of the Martyrium which contains
the date of the event, as spurious or at least incorrect.

But this so-called ‘Appendix, and indeed the whole
Martyrium, have been signally corroborated by the discovery
(on Dee. 30th, 1879) of the last inscription” I wish to lay before
you, my knowledge of which I owe to the kindness of Professor
Sanday. It will be seen that this also strongly favours the
earlier date for the martyrdom.

The inscription informs us that Philip the Trallian was
Asiarch in A.D. 149. It so happens that Philip the Trallian is
mentioned in one passage of the Martyrium and Philip the
_ Asiarch in another: now we are sure that the two are
identical, which previously we could only conjecture. And
since the passage where Philip is denominated ‘the Trallian’
forms part of the so-called ‘Appendix’ we see that the
author of that ‘Appendix’ is in undesigned harmony with
the author of the rest of the Martyrium (if not, as is most
probable, the same person), and may be trusted as giving
genuine items of information. Again, the Asiarch was presi-

1 Tdeler, Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, Band i,

PP: 393-476.
2 Appendix F.

200 The Date of

dent of the provincial council, and chief priest of the cultus of
the emperor connected therewith: the sittings of this council
were held in rotation at the great cities of the province: and
hence we have an explanation of the otherwise strange
circumstances that both proconsul and Asiarch were present in
Smyrna in connexion with the celebration of public games.
And with regard to the date, it is far more likely that a man
who was Asiarch in 149 was again (or still) Asiarch in 155
than that he was so in 166.

It will have long since become quite evident that I cannot,
in the face of so many contrary facts and real difficulties,
consider the later date of S. Polycarp’s martyrdom to be any
longer tenable: it rests solely on the authority of Eusebius,
and is opposed to all probability.

On the other hand, I think it almost absolutely certain that
155 15 the true date of the event. I do not believe it possible
that this date is more than two years in error: it is just
possible that it may vary one year from the truth. On the
strength of this bare possibility the high authority of Lipsius
favours the choice of 156: but while I admit that as a possi-
bility, I feel that it does not amount to a probability. I do not
therefore shrink from avowing my own conviction that S.
Polyearp was martyred in the year 155 A.D.

Every student of early Christian literature and antiquities
will recognise the importance of settling this point ; and most
of my hearers (I have reason to hope) will consider that its
bearing upon questions touching the Fourth Gospel is of itself
a sufficient justification for having detained them so long over
the discussion of ‘a mere date.’

S. Polycarps Martyrdom. 201

APPENDIX A.

INSCRIPTIONS FOUND AT EPHESUS IN THE
RUINS OF THE ODEUM
By Mr. J. T. Woop.

8, [Adroxpdrw |p Kai[oalp, θ[ εοῦ ᾿Αδριανο |i
vids, θεοῦ Τραϊ]ανο[ῦ ΠαρθἼικο[Ὁ viw|vds,
θεοῦ Νερούα ἔ]κγον ος Tiros] Αἴλιο ς ᾿Αδρι]ανὸς
᾿Αντωνεῖνος Σεβ]αστόΪς, ἀρχιερεὺς μέγιστος, δημαρ-]
5{-χικῆς ἐξουσίας τ]ὸ ἢ, al ὑτοκράτωρ τ]ὸ B, ὕπατος [τὸ ὃ]
π͵ατὴρ π[ατρίδος, ᾿Εφεσίγων τοῖ] ς ἄρχουσι κ[ αἱ τῇ βουλῇ καὶ [ro |
δήμῳ χἸαίρε[ιν.] Τὴν φιλοτιμίαν ἣ[»] φιλοτιμ] εἴται]
πρὸς ὑμ]ᾶς Ο[ ὐήδιος] ᾿Αντωνεῖνος ἔμαθον οὐχ οὕτω[ ς ἐΪκ
τῶν ὑμετέρω[ν γραμμάτων ws ἐκ τῶν [ἐκ]είνου" βουλόμε-
10-vos yap παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ τυχεῖν βοηθείας [eis τὸν κόσμον τῶν
ἔργων ὧν ὑμεῖν ἐπηνγείλατο ἐδήλωσεν ὅσα κα]ὶ ἡλίκα οἰ-
-κοδομήματα προστίθησιν τῇ πόλζει, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμ]εῖς of dx] ὀρ-
-θῶς ἀποδέχεσθε αὐτόν' κἀγὼ καὶ συ[νωμολόγησα] . ..

ἃ ἠτήσατ[ο] καὶ ἀπεδεξάμην ott... . .- - - [ἰσυ]νπο-
15 -λειτευομένων τρόπον οἵ TOV... + + sees ειν χά-
-ρ]ιν εἰς θέας καὶ διανομὰς καὶ τὰ τῶ[»ν] . .« - .«.«..ὦ
Ν Ψ ὩΣ Ν > Ὁ Ν Ν
τὴ |v φιλ[ τιμίαν, GAAG Ot ov TpOS TO... .+.. εμνο

. σειν τὴν πόλιν προήρζηται. *Td γράμματα ἔπεμψεν]
οὖν [[Ἰο]Τυλιανὸς ὁ κράτιστος ἀνθύπατος. Εὐτυχεῖτε.]

4. Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ, θεοῦ]

᾿Αδριανοῦ υἱός, θεοῦ Τ[ραϊανοῦ]

Παρθικοῦ υἱωνός, θεοῦ [Νερ-]

-ούα ἔκγονος, Τ[ίτος Αἴλιος ᾿ΑἸδριανὸς
5 ’Avtwveivos Σεβασ|τός, a|pxrepeds

μέγιστ᾽ os, δ]ημαρχικῆ! ς ἐξ]ουσίας τὸ

ty, αὐτοκράτω[ρ τὸ β, ὕπατο]ς τὸ ὃ,

πατὴρ πατρ[ίδος, ᾿Εφεσίων τοῖς]

ἄρχουσι καὶ τῇ β[ουλῇ καὶ] τῷ δήμῳ
10 χαίρειν.

Εἰδότι μοι δηλο[ῦτε τὴν φιλοτιμίαν

ἣν Οὐήδιος ᾿Αντ[ωνεῖνος] φιλοτιμεῖ-

τῶι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ο΄ τ τὺ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ
χάριτας εἰς τὸν [εὐεργέτην] τῆς πό-
15 τλεως.

[τὸ ψήφισμα ἔπεμψεν] .. . .
ἀνθύπατος. Εἰὐτυχεῖτε.
* τὸ ψήφισμα (2)

202 The Date of

APPENDIX B.

ACCOUNT OF ANTONINUS PIUS AND HIS
REIGN

AS GIVEN BY JOANNES MALALAS.
Pages 280-1 of the Bonn edition of 1831 in the ‘ Byzantine Historians.’

Ν, fal
Mera δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ᾿Αδριανοῦ ἐβασίλευσεν Ἴλιος ᾿Αντω-
a a » Ν / -”
vivos IItos εὐσεβὴς ἔτη κγ΄. ἦν δὲ εὐῆλιξ, εὔστολος, λευκός,
πολιὸ ὶ Ἂς Ν Ν / Μ r / , Ν.
ς καὶ τὴν κάραν καὶ τὸ γένειον, εὔρινος, πλάτοψις, οἰνοπαὴς
Ν > / n
Tous ὀφθαλμούς, πυῤῥακής, ὑπογελῶν ἀεί, μεγαλόψυχος πάνυ.
σ lal an
Οστις ἔκτισεν ἐν “Ηλιουπόλει τῆς Φοινίκης τοῦ Λιβάνου ναὸν
“A νὰ / lal
τῷ Διὶ μέγαν, Eva καὶ αὐτὸν ὄντα τῶν θεαμάτων. ἔκτισε δὲ Kal
5 fal
ev Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Συρίας τὸν φόρον, μέγα θέαμα, καὶ τὸ ᾿Αντωνι-
νιανὸν δημόσιον λουτρόν. ᾿Επεστράτευσε δὲ κατὰ Αἰγυπτίων
: |
τυραννησάντων Kal φονευσάντων Tov αὐγουστάλιον Δείναρχον"
Ν a
Kal μετὰ τὴν ἐκδίκησιν καὶ τὴν νίκην ἔκτισεν ἐν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ τῇ
/
μεγάλῃ κατελθὼν τὴν ἩἩλιακὴν πύλην καὶ τὴν Σεληνιακὴν καὶ
\ , 5) \ Ν Mie ιν 7 “ , "1 ,
τὸν δρόμον. ᾿Ελθὼν δὲ καὶ ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ τῇ μεγάλῃ ἐποίησε
Ν. / lad ’ὔ fal / > %, n ς Ν
τὴν πλάκωσιν τῆς πλατείας τῶν μεγάλων ἐμβόλων τῶν ὑπὸ
Τιβερίου κτισθέντων καὶ πάσης δὲ τῆς πόλεως, στρώσας τὴν διὰ
μυλίτου λίθου, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀγαθῶν λίθους ἀπὸ Θηβαΐδος καὶ τὰ
δὲ λοιπὰ ἀναλώματα ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων φιλοτιμησάμενος, καθὼς καὶ ἐν
/ Ν Ul Ψ ἣν , Μ φΨι. Ἂς 5 ey
λιθίνῃ πλακὶ γράψας ταύτην THY φιλοτιμίαν ἔστησεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ
, ro) J n AR Ss ee) Ν ¥ ef ,
πύλῃ TH λεγομένῃ TOV Χερουβίμ." ἐκεῖθεν yap ἤρξατο. ἥτις στήλη
2) \ e a a ΡῚ (a ae / Μ a / Ν
ἐστὶν ἕως τῆς νῦν ἐκεῖ, ὡς μεγάλης οὔσης τῆς φιλοτιμίας. "ἔκτισε
δὲ καὶ ἐν Καισαρείᾳ τῆς Παλαιστίνης λουτρόν, καὶ ἐν Νικομηδείᾳ
τῆς Βιθυνίας, καὶ ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ τῆς ᾿Ασίας" ἅπερ δημόσια λουτρὰ εἰς
τὸ ἴδιον ἐπεκάλεσεν ὄνομα.
\ 2 Ν 5 \ 4 , Ν 5 ” «ες , 5 Ν
Καὶ ἀνελθὼν ἐπὶ Ῥώμην ἔκτισεν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ ἀγωγὸν
μέγαν" καὶ ἔκαυσε τοὺς χάρτας τοῦ ταμιείου, ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἡ σύγκλητος
9 4 ε , > en a eS τὰ ᾽ 7 oh ᾽
ἐγγράφως ὡμολόγησεν ἐπὶ τοῦ Καίσαρος ᾿Ιουλίου Γαΐου, παρ
> “ / Ν. -) tal Ν᾿ / A »
αὐτοῦ κελευσθέντες, μὴ ἐξεῖναι συγκλητικὸν διαθήκην ποιεῖν εἰς
τοὺς ἰδίους, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἥμισυ μέρος τῆς αὐτοῦ περιουσίας διατίθεται
εἰς τὸν κατὰ καιρὸν βασιλέα, εἰρηκὼς ὁ αὐτὸς εὐσεβέστατος
3 “ Ν / ’ mn ’ὔ ea 5 ’ n ’ /
Avtavivos διὰ θείου αὐτοῦ τύπου ἕκαστον. ἀπολαύειν τῶν ἰδίων
καὶ βουλεύεσθαι ὡς θέλει.
« Ν pram, 3 lal c 5 \ , , / ε /
O δὲ αὐτὸς ᾿Αντωνῖνος, ὡς ἐστὶν ἐν Λωρίῳ, νοσήσας ἡμέρας
° / Ψ “Ὁ 9 fal /
ὀλίγας ἀπέθανεν, dv ἐνιαυτῶν οζ΄,

“δὲ Polycarp’s Martyrdom. 203

APPENDIX ©,

INSCRIPTION AT SEPINO, S. ITALY.

Borghesi: CEuvres, v. 373, &c.

Ly Neratio τ ἢ τ R.
Vol . Proculo .
X . Vir. Stlitibus . Iudican .
Trib . Militum . Legion .
5 VII . Gemin . Felice . et . Leg .
VIII . Aug . Quaest . Atdil .
Pleb . Cerial . Praet . Leg .
Leg . XVI . Flaviae . Fidel .
Item . Misso . Ab. Imp .
to Antonino . Aug . Pio . ad . Deducen
das . Vexillationes . in . Syriam . ob.
Bell . Parthicum . Praef . AMrari .
Militaris .
Cos .

15 Municipes . Saepinat.

204 The Date of

APPENDIX D.

INSCRIPTION IN HONOUR OF ARISTIDES

FOUND IN EGYPT AND NOW AT VERONA.

[See Museum Veronense, pp. xli-ii.]

Ἢ πόλις ἡ τῶν ᾿Αλεξαν-
-δρέων, καὶ ὙἙρμούπο-
-λις ἡ μεγάλη, καὶ ἡ βου-
-λὴ ἡ ᾿Αντινοέων νέ-
των Ἑλλήνων, καὶ οἱ
ἐν τῷ Δέλτα τῆς Al-
-γύπτου καὶ οἱ τὸν Θη-
-βαϊκὸν νομὸν οἰκοῦν-
-τες Ἕλληνες, ἐτίμη-
σαν Πόπλιον Αἴλιον
᾿Αριστείδην Θεόδωρον,
ἐπὶ ἀνδραγαθίᾳ καὶ

λόγοις.

NotE.—The above inscription was first edited in Giuseppe Bartoli’s Due
Dissertazioni, etc., published at Verona in 1745: the second of his disserta-
tions is entirely devoted to the elucidation of it.

S. Polycarp's Martyrdom. 205

APPENDIX E.

INSCRIPTION AT KASR-ZAYAN

IN THE OASIS OF THEBES.

Letronne, Recueil des Inscriptions de V Egypte, 1.125.

᾿Αμενήβι θεῷ μεγίστῳ Τχονεμύρεως καὶ τοῖς
li cal ε ἊΝ “ Ψ bial Led 3
συννάοις θεοῖς, ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰς αἰῶνα διαμονῆς ᾿Αντωνείνου
7 “ 7 \ a / > “ » ε ἈΝ a ¢ a Ν \
Καίσαρος τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τοῦ σύνπαντος αὐτοῦ οἴκου, ὁ σηκὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ Kal τὸ
πρόναον ἐκ καινῆς κατεσκευάσθη, ἐπὶ ᾿Αουιδίου “HALoddpov ἐπάρχου Αἰγόπτου,
7 a
Σεπτιμίου Μάκρωνος ἐπιστρατήγου, στρατηγοῦντος Iawlov Καιπίωνος"
ἔτους τρίτου αὐτοκράτορος Καίσαρος Τίτου Αἰλίου ᾿Αδριανοῦ ᾿Αντωνείνου,

Σεβαστοῦ, Εὐσεβοῦς, μεσορὴ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῃ.

206 Lhe Date of S. Polycarp's Martyrdom.

APPENDIX F.

INSCRIPTION DISCOVERED DEC. 30, 1879,
AT OLYMPIA.

Described by Dittenberger in Archdolog. Zeitung for 1880, pp. 61-2.

ἡ OAYMNI[KHA]
Βουλὴ fT. fOoYAIo[N]
DIAINNON TPAA-
-AIANON τὸν ACI-
-APXHN ἠθῶν ENE-

-KA OAYMNIAAI

CAB

"SNI[AINY shore] JO UOIssedoe ῬΠῸ sNHIg SNUTUOJUW Jo Π7906 --

207

σοι ‘Ez Arenaqay ‘davokjog *g Jo woprAqaep—

‘TIT snsoSojo, yy doved το} Surqvory “δια ῷ ur st coroduyy ἀ9010 oy ._—

ayy, 2% f(snig snumozuy) sotaduig 9111, “I ὑπο} 510449] SOATOVEI ΒΘΡΙΊΒΙΑΥ ---
‘ydA3q 10 ‘youad ‘snaoporeyy *€ ‘(jomny ‘orepy) wos s,corodurg |

‘WouvIsy 58 sorpery, Jo ἀπτη1 soureu uoydtosur ueidus[Q—

‘obi ut Aptvo “eurysney pur (‘jammy ‘oreyT) sn49A Jo oserteyy ἢ
‘SOUBSIOT 48 SOPYSIV 0} OOLAJes Ὁ patopuat απ] ἡ
“Sh [nsuooord 58 snuviypne suorueu uoydrosut outsoydy—

ΤΙΛΧ
jae || τὰκ
IAX AX
AX AIX
irom | eX
ΠΣ || Pi
iGO ΙΧ
oa Xx
xX XI
XI TIA
TITA IIA
ITA TA
TA in
A AI
AT UI
THIEL iat
IT I
ir

“S}UOART

“reak 91686 | “vad oTquaq

-oid ssoy | -oad o10qT

(ΑἸϑφοιατχοα 49)
451 Ἵ0Ο ϑιποπθιπῖποο
‘Soprysiry Jo
ApeleyT ey} Jo savo x

T9L

O9T
6ST
801
491
9ST
601
FaT

961

661
IST

OgT

6F1
SFL
ZT
9}1

GPT

imal
SPL

SALFUadVAO

Ssalvudavad SQUHATS

SNYHAUS OMIT Ods
OITTOd

SONVITOL

“481 ὋΠΈρ
ϑατοῦϑιπ
τῖποῦ “1
werystyO
jo save X

“oureul ome

οἹαθαομα a0] g[qeqoid 5597

*(Ajoyeurrxoadde )
qs AV], SUIOMSUIULOD BOUFO Jo 1v9 XK
‘VISV HO STOSNOOQOUd

‘SUCILSTYV AO ACVIVW HHL JO AQVOTONOUHO

Ὃ XIGNGddy ©

209

X.

ON SOME NEWLY-DISCOVERED TEMANITE.
AND NABATAEAN INSCRIPTIONS.

[Ap. NruBAvER. |

UNEXPECTED discoveries have been made during the past
year relating to Aramaic epigraphy and philology. Three
travellers of various nationalities have lately visited that part
of Arabia which borders on the Hedjaz, viz. Mr. Charles
Doughty, an Englishman; Dr. Euting, of Strasbourg ; and
M. Huber, an Alsatian, sent out by the French Academy.
Alas! a violent death has overtaken him, though fortunately
his materials have been recovered’. Dr. Euting happily
escaped the fate of his fellow-traveller, and has secured
a large number of inscriptions*, Nabataean, Himyaritic, and
four Aramaic from the land of Tema. Tema is mentioned
in the Bible as an Ishmaelitic land and tribe in the
neighbourhood of the land and tribe of Dedan?*, through
which a caravan-road passed in the time of Job*, just as it
passes now. The Tema of the Bible is undoubtedly identical
with the Arabic Taima ὅ, and the Θέμμη of Ptolemy ὁ. Teman’,
in the land of Edom, is identified by Gesenius with Tema ;
it is indeed mentioned, like Tema, in connexion with Dedan ὃ.
According to Eusebius, however, Taiman® was a Roman city

1 See Nouvelles Inscriptions nabatéennes de Medain Salih, par Philippe
Berger (Comptes rendus de 1 Académie des Inscr. et Belles Lettres, Paris, 1884,
Ρ- 377 seqq.). See below, p. 231.

? See David Heinrich Miiller in the Anzeiger der philos.-histor. Classe, 17 Dec.,

Wien, 1884, No. xxviii.
5 Isaiah xxi. 14, 15; Jeremiah xxv. 23. * Job vi. 19.

ὃ st Jacut’s Geographisches Worterbuch, ed. Wistenfeld, a. v.

ὁ Ptolemy, V. xix. 6.

7 Jer. xlix. 7, 20; Amos i. 12; Obadiah 9; Hab. iii. 3.

8 Hzekiel xxv. 13. * Onom. Θαιμάν.
le

210 On some newly-discovered Temanite

five miles (Jerome says fifteen) from Petra or the Hebrew
yoo. The inhabitants of Teman, together with the Edomites,
had a reputation in antiquity for wisdom. Jeremiah! writes,
‘Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Is wisdom no more in
Teman?’ And Obadiah *, ‘Shall I not in that day, saith the
Lord, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and under-
standing out of the mount of Esau? And thy mighty men,
O Teman, shall be dismayed.’ Here Edom and Teman are
mentioned together. The most eloquent speaker in the book
of Job is Eliphaz the Temanite*. We read in the apocryphal
book of Baruch: ‘It hath not been heard of in Canaan,
neither hath it been seen in Theman. The Agarenes that seek
wisdom upon earth, the merchants of Meran* and of Theman,
the authors of fables, and searchers out of understanding ®.’
Of the inscriptions brought, as I said, by Dr. Euting from
Tema, four have been published and explained, first by Prof.
Noldeke °, and afterwards by M. Joseph Halévy?. Prof. Ὁ. H.
Miller, of Vienna ὃ, and M. Clermont-Ganneau® have contri-
buted valuable notes elucidating particular passages. I shall
give first the text and the translation of the three short ones :—

(1) ἽΡ 3 Nam[y]
my a py 5
mse nox 4
mops ὑπ 3

‘A seat which Ma‘anan, son of Amran, offered to the god
Zelem '° for the life of his soul (07, for his own life).’

FOXX. 7c * Verses 8 and g. $ Job ii. 11; iv. 1.

* Medan (2), Gen. xxv. 2. > Baruch iii. 22, 23.

* Sitzungsberichte der... Akademie zw Berlin (July 10, 1884), xxxiv, xxxv,
p. 813 seqq.

τ Revue des Etudes juives, t. ix. p. 2 sqq.

* Oesterreichische Monatsschrift fiir den Orient, 1884, p. 208 seqq.

* Revue critique d Histoire et de Littérature, 1884, pp. 265 and 442 seqq.
See below, p. 230.

‘© According to M. Clermont-Ganneau, l.c., p. 442. See below, p. 231.
Others translate ‘to the statue of “ Allah.”’

and Nabataean Inscriptions. 211

We observe that the name NTTON is in use among’ heathen
as early as 3-4 century B.C., for upon palzographical grounds
the inscriptions of Tema cannot be later than the time of

‘Alexander the Great, and they may even be earlier.

(2) yaw nia” yy we)

‘Monument of ‘Alin, daughter of Shaban.’

An being merely a determinative syllable, it is plain that
JYAW MI? is analogous to the well-known name of Bath
Sheba, wife of Uriah the Hittite, of course a Semitic Hittite.

(3) ἘΞ [FNS Sy Sn

‘Seat of Rimmonnathan, son of...’

Here we have a name compounded with that of the Syrian
god Rimmon* or the Assyrian Raman (compare the names
Tabrimmon® and Hadad-rimmon 5) and the verb nathan, ‘to
give,’ exactly resembling Jehonathan and Nethan-el.

(4) An inscription of twenty-four lines, of which the first
ten lines and the last two are so badly injured as to be un-
decypherable. In addition to the inscription, there is also
a representation of Zelem-Shezeb™ the priest. In point of
style, the workmanship shows the influence of Assyro-
Babylonian art. The inscription runs as follows *:—

No. 4.
SOM Gri GAM es: «i. 10
soup πὰ nwabys ΟἹ [Alo won ou
S[ayp oan ob maa ΠΡ Ὶ 12

1 See p. 213. 2 M. Clermont-Ganneau, /.c., p. 444.

3. Revue, p. 7. Prof. Néldeke translates ‘seventy years old.’

*yy07 ma, 2 Kings v. 18.

6 y Kings xv. 18. Compare 5x1v (Tab-el), Isaiah vii. 6, and 7119 (Tobiah).

® Zechariah xii. 11.

7 Zelem saves. Compare wrx and yx. See below, p. 230. For
33, see Daniel vi. 28.

® The words and letters in brackets are according to M. Halévy’s suggestions,
Revue, pp. 2 and 3. See below, p. 232.

ΒΟ

212 On some newly-discovered Temanite
won πον [ΜΝ] [S]mo Sarpy 13
ΣΝ YO Mowf] Ay ND 14
᾿ Gam) NNPI SINT NON τῷ
sfoposn xbawi ὝΠΟ aby τό
(7.15 oan [] obxd worn obs τῇ
snow por Π12 poet bpm yo 18
pt Sy L111] ppt abn + 19
wisn pods mw. mw ΠΠ11111112 20
soup 32 arwabdz[> cp} wd 1
mown ny[ahds [sh anpja yo 22

fo λον, -τ Hagam. Therefore may the gods

11 of Tema protect (Ὁ) Zelem-Shezeb, son of Petosiri,

12 as well as his descendants in the house of Zelem of
Hagam. And [the man]

13 He who shall injure this monument (?), may the gods of
Tema

14 extirpate him, and his seed, and his name from the surface

15 of Tema. And this is the contribution which | gives |

16 Zelem of Mahar (?), and Shangala, and Ashi[m ]ἃ (?),

17 gods of Tema, to Zelem of Hagam [as follows] :

18 From the [public] land, twenty-three palm trees, and from
the possession

19 οὔ the king, six palm trees ; in all, twenty-nine palm trees

1 or men

20 ylear| by year. No princes
21 shall remove Zelem-Shezeb, son of Petosiri,

22 out of this house, or his descendants, or his name.’

In Petosiri we have an Egyptian name, for it is only
natural that the caravan route from Egypt to Mesopotamia
should be marked by traces of Egyptian civilization. The

1 .75x in the sense of divine persons, i.e. royal family. Compare N75x

DI772035Nx in a Palmyrene inscription (De Vogué, La Syrie Centrale, pp. 17-
18), corresponding to the expression Θεοῦ ᾿Αλεξάνδρου (Halévy, Revue, p. 4).

and Nabatacan Inscriptions. 51,3

expression ‘From the face of Tema’ reminds us of similar
biblical expressions?. Gods of Tema in the original is
Eldhé Tema, a plural like Hlohim. Of the four divinities
Mahar, Shangala, Ashi[m]4(?), and Hagam very little is
known. The in Ashima is doubtful; though if the reading
be correct, we should have here the Hamathite god mentioned
in the Old Testament ?”.

These inscriptions, and more especially the long one, are
written in archaic Aramaic characters; some letters are,
however, of a more modern type. When I first saw them, it
struck me that the ΓΙ in stbys was archaic, whilst in other
words it is of a later type. I therefore put the question in
the Academy whether this mode of writing might not be a
kind of scriptio sacra for the name of omy? But the nm
and the Ὁ, as I now see, have the same variations in writing,
so that the inscription must, I think, be assigned to the
period of Alexander or the Ptolemies, after which a more
cursive style of character was introduced in Aramaic writing °.
Dr. Euting assigns them at the latest to the sixth cen-
tury B.c. I wish I could agree with him, for in that case
we should have evident proofs of an advanced civilization in
Tema at least as early as the eighth century B.c. For, if I
am not mistaken, it may be assumed that a people does not
begin its history with inscriptions of twenty-four lines; and
when we find such a long document as either this or (to take
another example) the inscription of Mesha, the nation which
produced them must have been accustomed to literary work
for at least two centuries previously. Of course the influence
of Assyria may be reasonably inferred when we know from
the annals of Tiglath-pilesser II that this king received
tribute from Arabian towns called Tema, Saba, Hayapa,

1 1 Kings ix. 7 ‘Then will I cut off Israel from the face of (A. V. out of) the
land which I have given them.’ Cf, Deut. xxviii. 63 (with ™D)).

2 2 Kings xvii. 30.

3 Halévy, Revue, p. 5. Clermont-Ganneau, l.c., p. 266.

214 On some newly-discovered Temantte

Hatea, Badana, and the tribe of Idibilit. Tema is the
country where our inscription was found ; Saba is the biblical
Seba; Hayapai, as we shall see later on, is identified with
the biblical Epha’; the Hatea is at present unknown (not the
Hittites); Badana is perhaps a name like Bedan*; and the
Idibili are perhaps the descendants of Adbeel*, a son of Ishmael.

The language of these inscriptions, although on the whole
old Aramaic, is not Assyrian. Aramaic inscriptions were known
up to the present time only in Babylonia, Egypt, and Cilicia.
It is worth observing that the termination dz in the names
of the second inscription ‘‘Alan, daughter of Shabdn,’ has
a similarity to the Horite names*®, ‘And these are the
children of Dishon: Hemdain and Eshban, and Ithrin, and
Cherin°®.” The Horites, as all know, inhabited this district
before the Edomites. Proper names are very useful for
philology, for they undergo the least alterations possible.
How interesting it would therefore be if indeed we could find
out a Horite vocabulary! That, however, must be a work for
the future.

Let us now leave the Horites and pass to the Nabataeans,
who are the authors of the inscriptions found by Mr. Doughty
and M. Huber’ at Medain Salih. I shall give a few passages
quoted (verbatim) from this courageous traveller’s note-book,
printed in English at the head of the volume of Inscriptions,
published by the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres
in Paris, under M. Renan’s editorship ὃ :—

‘In the spring of the year 1875, I came upward with
Beduins from Sinai to aan upon the Haj road in Edom, and

1 Halévy, Revue, p. 6.

2 mp y, Gen. xxv. 4; Isaiah lx. 6.

$72 (for 717%), 1 Chron. vii. 17.

*5x27x, Gen. xxv. 13. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das alte Testa-
ment, 2nd ed., 1883, p. 148.

5 Gen. xxxvi. 26. ® Halévy, Revue, p. 7.

See above, p. 209, note 1, and below, p. 232.

® Documents épigraphiques recucillis dans le nord de l Arabie par M. Charles
Doughty, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1884.

and Nabataecan Inscriptions. 215

went on to visit the chambered rocks of Petra, where the
villagers of H/gy, in Wady Mousa, seeing one arrive, as it
were an fajjy from the southward, asked me if I had not
already visited Medain Salih upon the derb el-Haj, and where,
they said, lie seven cities hewn in as many mountains, and
the monuments there like these before our eyes, as they might
be the work of one craftsmaster. Such also said the secretary
of the small road garrison at Maan, who, a well-lettered man,
spoke to me further of inscriptions sculptured in some strange
characters, which, he said, to be commonly upon those Medain
Salih frontispieces, and the effigies of a bird with his wings
displayed. In former years he had very often passed the
place, riding with the guard in every pilgrimage to the
Harameyn. Such birds are not seen sculptured upon the
Petra frontispieces or most rarely; nor in all the Wady
Mousa monuments had I found more than one inscription,
and that is very large and several lines, of some well-
sculptured Semitic characters upon a simple frontispiece in
the western valley side with three pilasters, which, with their
parietes, are broken through below'.’

I shall pass over Mr. Doughty’s narrative describing the
caravans and the perils of his life, and give the passage
relating to Medain Salih :—

‘The twentieth morrow of our marches we descended by
the passage Miibrak e Naka, a place of cursing (so called by the
devout pilgrims after their doctors’ mythology as where the
miraculous she-camel fell down wounded to death, but by
the country Beduins, ignorant of these forged vanities, e/-
Mezham), to the valley plain of Medain Salih, a name which
is of the same Mohammedan mythology, but the site is only
named by the country Beduins £/-Hejr (Ll-Hir of the Koran,
“Eypa in Ptol., Hejra of Plin.)?.’

Medain Salih, it will be seen, is no ancient place: it is
merely a collection of caves belonging to some rich families

1 Ibidem, beginning of the preface. 2 Ibidem, p. 11.

216 On some newly-discovered Temanite

from a neighbouring town?. Its name Salih is derived from
a passage of the Qorin*, in which Mohammed says, ‘And
unto the tribe of Tamud we sent their brother Saleh. He
said, O my people! worship Allah; ye have no Allah besides
him. Now hath a manifest proof come unto you from your
lord. This she-camel of God is a sign unto you; therefore
dismiss her freely, that she may feed in God’s earth; and do
her no hurt, lest a painful punishment seize you. And call
to mind how he hath appointed you successors unto the tribe
of ‘Ad, and has given you a habitation on earth; ye build
yourself castles on the plains thereof, and cut out the moun-
tains into houses.’ In another chapter we read *, ‘And the
inhabitants of al Hejr.... hewed houses out of the mountains
to secure themselves.’ Finally, Mohammed says‘, ‘ The tribe
of Tamud also charged the messenger of God with falsehood.
When their brother Saleh said unto them, Will ye not
fear God? Verily I am a faithful messenger unto you:
wherefore fear God, and obey me. I demand no reward of
you for my preaching unto you; I expect my reward from no
other than the Lord of all creatures. Shall ye be left for ever
secure in the possession of the things which are here; among
gardens, and fountains, and corn, and palm-treés, whose
branches sheathe their flowers? And will you continue to cut
habitations for yourselves out of the mountains, showing art
and ingenuity in your work?’ Elsewhere the ancient
dwellings of the Tamud are considered by Mohammed as the
houses of giants, punished by God for their crimes®. The
Tamud had ceased to exist in the time of Mohammed ;
a part of them had been transported by Sargon with other
tribes to Samaria, as the following Assyrian inscriptions

1 Possibly the ancient caves of the Horites, who, as the word Ὑπὸ indicated,
were dwellers in caves or Troglodytes.

2 Qoran, Surah vii. 71 seqq. (according to Sale’s translation),

3 Surah xv. 81.

* Surah xxvi. 114 seqq.

5 See M, Renan’s preface to the Inscriptions, p. 4.

and Nabatacan Inscriptions. 217

show!: ‘The Tamudi, the Ibadidi, the Marsimani, the
Hayap’, of remote countries in Arabia, inhabitants of the
desert who know no master and no... . (2), who never paid
any tribute to my father, I have crushed them by the arms
of the god Assur, the remainder of them I have transported
and established in the town of Samaria.’ And in another
place Sargon is called? ‘the conqueror of the Tamudi, of the
Marsimani, of the Hayapa, the survivors of whom were trans-
ported and established by him in the land of Beth-Humria
(Beth Omri, land of Israel).’ Now the Tamudi and the
Marsimani are mentioned by the classical geographers. The
Hayapa have been identified by Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch *
with the Midjanitic tribe Ephah; the Ibididi, M. Halévy
proposes to explain as ‘the servants of Dad*.’ To this part of
the world belong probably the Arabian tribes Bazu and Hazu,
conquered by Esarhaddon, names which correspond to the
biblical Buz® and Hazo*, both sons of Nahor. The Naba-
taeans occupied subsequently the Arabian districts which have
been mentioned, as may be seen from the first book of the
Maccabees’, where Judah and Jonathan find them on the
other side of the Jordan, after having travelled for three days
in the desert; and in another place of the same book they are
alluded to as neighbours of the land of Gilead’. According
to Josephus ὃ and Ammianus !°, their dominion extended from
the Euphrates to the Red Sea. They were rich, and having
their home upon a road frequented by caravans, they were
naturally merchants, as Apuleius?! calls them ‘ Nabathaei mer-
catores.. They were governed by kings, one of whom, Aretas,

1 Schrader, op. cit. (see p. 214, note 5), p. 277; Halévy, Revue, p. ΤΙ.

? Halévy, ibidem, p. 12. 3 Halévy, ibidem.

* Halévy, ibidem.

5 Gen. xxii. 21; Jeremiah xxv. 23 (in connexion with Tema); Job xxxii.
2, 6 ‘Barachel the Buzite.’

® Gen. xxii. 22. Τα Mace. v. 24; ix. 30.

* Ibidem, 26 seqq. 9 Antiquities, I. xii. 4.

10 Ammianus Marc., xiv. 18.

11 Apul. flor. i.6. See Bibl. Realwérterbuch, etc., von G. B, Winer (1848),
ii, p. 129 (art. Nabatiier),

218 On some newly-discovered Temanite

is mentioned in the New Testament’. Most of the Doughty

inscriptions date from the reign of this king; and we learn

from the third and the fourteenth inscriptions that his reign
lasted forty-eight years (till 40. a.p.) He was followed,
according: to the first inscription, by king Malka, who reigned
eleven years, and was succeeded by Dabel, to whose fourth
year No. 19 belongs.

The inscriptions are sepulchral, and contain imprecations
against those who should bury in the tombs other than
members of the family to whom they were appropriated,
except by a written permission. Here are the text and
translation of the two which are best preserved * :—

No. 2.

oann Ξ nbson 7a oad Way TN ANT

Ὁ Nay A. oman onward ama nad 2

swe yon my om awa Jobo Πρ yon

fay 75 Aw IM Tay po nos mam

Dp IN AIM PHD ἫΝ YT WS AP yo ἽΝ AT Dd

ANI ὩΞῸΞ Wy 42 ἼΞΡ᾽ yo ἽΝ AoW ἽΝ MA TI

may ome ns ΒΟ st tay xd 7 ἸΟῚ oman)

pips: Say wbys pow aman aban ΜΕΥ ΤΟ

3 yo and Apa pay ot pa tyda stn nbs pydpa

NOVO JN spa Ama nabs ἽΝ 39 τὸ
say nvaytay 72 ‘bam

XO 100) eS GN. Gr τ 5

1 ‘This is the cave which Cameam, son of Haw-allath, son of
Taharam, made,

2 and Coleibat, his daughter, for themselves and their
posterity, in the month of Tebeth, the year

1 2 Corinthians xi. 32.
* See the Supplementary Notes, pp. 231 and 232.

and Nabataean 7η5εγηῤέτοτις, 219

ninth of Hartat (Aretas), king of Nabataea, lover of his
people. May Dusara

4 and Marhaba and Allat of... .(?) and Menutu and Kaisa

10

of

Ὁ

curse him who sells

this cave, or him who buys it, or who pledges it, or who
gives it as a present, or who removes

from it a corpse, or exchanges it (7) or who buries in it
others than Camcam, and his daughter

and their posterity. And whoso shall not do according to
what is here written, shall be answerable

to Dusara and Hobalu and Menutu, the guardians of ....
shall pay a fine

of 1000 new Se/ain, except he produce a written permission
from the hand

of Cameam, or his daughter Coleibat [saying], “So and so

993

may be admitted to this cave.

(Then follows the name of the sculptor): ‘ Wahbelahi, son
Abdobodat, has made this.’

No. 10.

Swed ΓΞ ΩΝ manrnd ὙἹ ΜΊΞΣ ΠΌΤ 1
nym > po apa part ahs ons ΓΤ ὦ
NOT NADIA PN NIPNA NANI NT 3

ΠΟ moots ΠΩ ΩΣ maa ΝΞ. 4
ἼΞ ΓΊΩΡΩΣ woinrad map ra ΓΘ) ΠΣ 5
SOND ON ΤΩΡ ΩΝ oN ΓΞ Ὁ on ΠΡΟ 6

NINDS ISDN AT ND [Ὁ ἸῺΝ ὙἹ ΓΟ 7

OTWYMY NPI MT SWI2 ΣΝ ΠΙΞΞΞ WpM NXT 8

[J] ose TIT wD JAP OT WT wu si ΜΟῚ 9
say yor ada ans5 ΓΙΣῚ snpoa Abs ἼΝ mm τὸ

Ton aT ors vt soy op yd 1

220 On some newly-discovered Temanite

sna an Abs pydp ADs amin swt τὸ
now ὙΝ mya wa. Too Sat ΒΟ ΔΟῚ 33
war qo Ssatb prin 14
‘This is the cave of Hoinat, daughter of “Abdobodat, for
herself
2 and her son and her posterity, and for whoever produces

from the hand of Hoinat
3 this written form [saying], “Such and such a one may

_

be buried in this cave.”
4 This cave belongs to ‘Abdobodat....
5 .... to Hoinat or ‘Abdobodat, son
6 of Malikat, or... . (2) or “Abdobodat, or Hoinat, or
7 all those who made (?) this cave .... this document :
8 “Let him be buried in this cave by the side (?) of ‘Abdobodat.”
g And no man shall have authority to sell this cave, or [to

pledge |
10 it,or....(%) on this cave anything. ... And whoso shall do
11 otherwise than it is above | prescribed] .... shall be lable for
a fine

12 to Dusara and Menutu of a thousand new Se/azn in silver?
13 As also to our lord Dabal, king of Nabataea. In the month
of Iyyar, year
14 the second of Dabal, king of Nabataea.’
Only No. 1 contains an inscription of a different kind.
This reads :—
NG.
Tay {Tao Π31 Ἢ
ΟΝ Ὁ goin 72 nw
md wan mos saa ὙΤ 3
ssbn Ὅθο aon mw jo 4
1 ‘This is the Mesgeda (a kind of shrine 1) which

i)

1 See De Vogué, La Syrie Centrale (Paris, 1868), pp. 106, 119, 120, where
it is used to denote a sacred stone or column.

and Nabatacan Inscriptions. 221

2 Seruhu, son of Tuca, has made for Aera (07, Aeda)
3 of Bosra, the great god. In the month
4 of Nisan, the first year of the reign of king Malku.’

Altogether these inscriptions date from between 3 B.c. to
79 4.D. Two(Nos. 3 and 14) naming the 48th year of Aretas.

To judge from the length of their inscriptions, the Naba-
taeans, like the Temanites, must have enjoyed an ancient
civilization. In fact, they are mentioned in the Assyrian
inscriptions of Assurbanipal+, by the side of the Kidrai, just
as in the Bible, Nebaioth and Kedar, sons of Ishmael, are
associated together”. It is indeed generally allowed that
Nebaioth represents the father of the Nabataeans ὅ, although
the spelling is slightly different*. Isaiah° says, ‘All the
flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams
of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee.’ Possibly Jeroboam,
son of Nebat, was of Nabataean descent; Jez, ‘son, having
the sense of the Arabic ijz®. Jeroboam was in the service
of Solomon, just as Uriah the Hittite served David. Naboth
also, put to death by Ahab’, may have been of Nabataean
origin. In the later books of the Old Testament, such as
Ezekiel and Chronicles, the Nabataeans are in all probability
comprehended under the common designation of Arabians.
Gashmu ® the Arabian, to judge by the Nabataean and Sinaitic
inscriptions, in which the termination } (ἃ) is so frequent’,
must have been a Nabataean. Perhaps at a certain period
the word 3193) acquired an ethnic sense like Arabian, since

1 Schrader, op. cit. (see p. 214, note 5), p. 147.

2 Gen. xxv. 13. * See Dillmann on Gen. xxv. 13 (1882).

42) and ny22. In Talmudic writings we find the following forms for
Nabataeans: 2113; 012102; "ΠΥ; ΠΝ ΠΥ; and "252. See Levy’s Hebr. und
Chald. Worterbuch, etc., a.v. 01).

> Isaiah 1x27, δ. Athenaeum, No. 2985 (Jan. το, 1885), p. 46.

7 y Kings xxi. I seqq.

8 Neh. vi. 6. Compare nwa, Neh. ii. 19; iv. 1, 2.

9 In addition to Malki and the other names mentioned already, we have
Matiu, Vaalu, Golhomu, Anamu, etc., and Nabtu itself (Nabataea); the same
termination also occurs constantly in the Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions,
edited by De Vogué (La Syrie Centrale).

ΣΟ On some newly-discovered Temanite

in the cuneiform inscriptions the Nabataeans in Arabia are
distinguished from others in Babylonia.

That the Edomites and the Nabataeans were, if not of the
same race, at all events closely related, cannot be doubted.
Esau married Mahalath, a sister of Nebaioth?, and the form
Wwy itself has the Nabataean termination -v. Among the
sons of Esau we find the name Reu-el *, and a grandson bears
the name of Zepho®. An Edomite town is called Paoo 3.
We shall claim the Midianite Jethro® or Reu-el as a kins-
man of the Nabataeans®. Allusion has been made above to
the tradition of the Wisdom of Teman and Edom’; the
Nabataeans have the same reputation amongst the Arabs.
The historians and geographers of this nation regularly re-
present the Nabataeans as a nation learned in astronomy,
agriculture, medicine, and, above all, in magic; sometimes
even they are described as the inventors of all sciences, and
the civilizers of the human race. There exists a book by
one Kuthami, translated into Arabie in go4 a.p. by Ibn Wah-
shiyah, and entitled the ‘ Nabataean Agriculture.’ This
remarkable work contains history of various kinds, chapters
on agriculture, on medicine, botany, physics, and astrology ;
together with special treatises on mysteries, and on symbolic
painting, likewise one on the history of the deity Tammuz,
and on many other subjects, attributed to different patriarchs
of the Old Testament, Adam, Noah, ete. Libraries are
mentioned in it; and, in a word, it implies a very considerable
development of all branches of religious and profane literature.

1 Gen. xxviii. 9. 2 Gen. xxxvi. 4

3. Gen. xxxvi. II, 15. * Gen. xxxvi. 39.

δ᾽ Compare the other forms of this name 1n); ΝΠ (like xtay; Renan, Des
noms Théophores, etc. in the Revue des Etudes juives, v. p. 166); »1n> (like
‘Jay, "pow, Renan, ibidem); 1) (a Horite name); and oy n> (where DY
represents an Ammonite divinity; see p. 224. He is the son of Eglah, certainly
a Moabite or an Ammonite woman).

5 We mention for curiosity’s sake the names of 5x1N2, 58112, 9x107, to
which many others could be added.

7 See ἢ. 210.

ee ee eee

ioe

and Nabatacan Inscriptions. 223

It is not our object here to discuss the age to which the com-
position of this great Nabataean encyclopedia may be assigned.
E. M. Quatremére refers it to the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and
Prof. Chwolson places it at an earlier period still. More
moderate critics, such as M. Renan and Prof. Gutschmid, assign
it to the beginning of the Christian era’. To be sure, this
work is believed by some critics to have originated among
the Nabataeans in Irak or Babylonia, since in Greek writings
Chaldean wisdom is always described as coming from that
country”. But the Sabaeans, who are also Arabian, were
famed for their wisdom; and the apocryphal tradition
may equally well allude to those Nabataeans who were the
neighbours, and ultimately the successors, of Edom and Tema,
both of whom in the Bible already appear with the same
character. In point of fact, the inscriptions discovered by
Mr. Doughty confirm this tradition. That the Nabataeans
had intercourse with the Hebrews we have already seen °.
The language of the inscriptions is Aramaic mixed with
Arabic words, but with forms such as we find them in the
Aramaic sections of Daniel and Ezra. Thus for the pronoun,
in lieu of {17 they use O77 ἡ. Instead of Lthpaal, we find
in them the form Hithpaal*®. Words and expressions used in
the Mishnah ὁ and the Talmud’ are also met with. Possibly
even Hebrew forms occur, such as WIN (No. 2) and ΓΙ
(Nos. 3, 4) for ΓΙ (eght). The word Mardnd (No.
10) throws light upon St. Paul’s Maranata*.

As to the mythology of these inscriptions, we find in the

1 Renan, Histoire générale des Langues sémitiques (1863), p. 246.

2 Renan, ibidem, p. 243. 3 See p. 221.

* pmwWb) and ὈΠῚΠΝ (in No. 2, see p. 218, line 2); O7°22 (No. 7); 0799
(No. 9). Halévy, Revue, p. 9. See also 0°? (No. 29, 1. 3) and Dan. vi. 9.

5 wiapnn. See above, p. 219, line 3.

δ yam (No. 2, p. 221, line 5), ‘to pledge. Ὁ} («fjvoos), The coin Ὁ
(p. 218, line 9).

7 »97 55 (No. 6), ‘double value.” 107 WIN NIT? Nd (No. Io, above, p. 219,
line 9) is the Talmudic *8W7 DIN PR. 712 082) (No. 2, line 9, and No, 29,
line 2, pp. 218 and 231) is the usual juridic expression in the Talmud.

® See above, p. 73.

224 On some newly-discovered Temanite

first instance, the gods Manutu, Kishah, Hablu, and Marhabah,
which (with slight variations) are mentioned as having been
worshipped by the pre-Islamite Arabs. The name Dusara
has been found before! in Nabataean texts, and is mentioned
in classical authors as that of a divinity (Δουσαρής) worshipped
throughout Arabia, especially at Petra, Adran, and Bosra, It
has been thought to mean Jord of Shera*,—Shera being a
mountain of Arabia (ef. mad by, ete.). Other names of
deities are compounded with the root IM = 71M, ‘to announce.’
Thus nbson, ‘announcement of Allath, and MWwIN, ‘an-
nouncement of Shuah,’ probably the god of Shuah, son of
Abraham and Keturah, father of the tribe of the same name 3,
the country from which Bildad the Shuhite came*. The
Shuhites are mentioned, as Prof. Sayce kindly informs me,
in the cuneiform inscriptions. In them the god Nergal is
also called Sergal, a name which may be identical with the
Sangala mentioned in the inscription of Tema®.

The root WW occurs also in the Pheenician qbann, ‘Malik
announces ©.’ We have seen in the Tema inscriptions Rim-
monnathan. Here we find the name {NDP (No. 7), which
M. Renan transliterates Xanten (scarcely probable), but
which is read by M. Halévy* Kosnathan, a compound of
Kos, the Idumean god Kos, or, as Josephus calls him,
Koze ὃ, and nathan, ‘to give,’ analogous to jy and by on.
This happy suggestion is confirmed by the name Koovdravos,
found in a Greek inscription of Memphis, and by Kosmalchos,

De Vogué, La Syrie Centrale, p. 120.

Sptdl 95, as it is written by Arabic authors.

Gen. xxv. 2.

Job ii. 11 and elsewhere.

It is, however, possible that Sangala (or Sengala) means the deity of the
moon, from Sen, the moon, and Gala. Perhaps ner in Nergal may be connected
with ner in Abner and in Neriah. The word gal may be contained in the
names Goliath and Abigail.

δ See, however, M. Renan, Revue, v. p.175, who takes ym from the root
m7 (71m), ‘to live” The inscription, which is an interesting one, will be
found at length in the Corp. Inscr. Sem, (Paris, 1881), No. 1.

7 Revue, p. 16. ὃ Ko¢é, Antiquities, XV. vii. 9.

ao ~ ω to

oe

and Nabataean Inscriptions. 225

‘Kos has reigned’ (in cuneiform, Kaushmalak); Kosgeros, ‘ Kos
is friend ;' Kosanedos, ‘ Kos binds;’ and in cuneiform, Ka-ush-
gab-ri, ‘ Kos has vanquished.’

Xov¢as’, the name of Herod’s? steward, who may fairly be
inferred to have been of Edomite extraction, may be another
derivative; this seems at least more probable than to suppose
it is connected with the Rabbinical δ ΤῚΣ, ‘a little pitcher,
which is Dr. Edersheim’s opinion*®. It may appear arash sug-
gestion to make that the name Kos is derived from the Arabic
un33, α Gow, in Syriac NWP, in Hebrew Nwp*. The fact is,
however, that Ishmael and Esau were both great hunters
with the bow. We know how the ideas of mythology pass
from one tribe to another. In these inscriptions we find the
Syrian god Rimmon®, four Arabic gods*®,a god from the tribe
of Shuah, an Edomite deity, and the doubtful Zelem7. The
same fact may be substantiated from biblical names. Ammi, to
judge from the name Amminadab in a cuneiform inscription,
seems to represent an Ammonite local deity®; this fact at once
explains the words® Ben Ammi in Genesis (A.V.), ‘Son of
my kindred*®.” The name of this deity occurs in the compounds
Ammiel, Ammihud (analogous to Kemoshnadab), Ammi-
shaddai. In my opinion the names of Rehoboam and Jeroboam
are compounded with Amm, the Ammonite god. As to the first,
we know that Rehoboam’s mother was an Ammonitess!!; as

1 Luke viii. 3.

? I may be allowed to add that the name of Herod seems to me to be
possibly identical with Irad in Genesis, the > being pronounced as a guttural
resembling 7. The use of the word 1 > in proper names is not rare in the
Bible. We find names of persons, Ira, Iru, and Iyi, all with τ. Iram is an
Edomite name, which may even be compared with the Pheenician Ἐπ. See
however, Renan, Revue des Etudes juives, Vv. p- 169.

* Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. i. p. 572.

* See Halévy, Revue, p. 16. 5 See above, p. 224.

® See above, p. 211. 7 Pages 211, 212, and 230.

® An Assyrian tablet states that among the Shuhites the name of Nergal
was 1D).

* Gen. xix. 38. W J. Derenbourg, Revue des Etudes juives, t. ii. p. 123.

11 We see from the examples of Tamar, Hannah and others, that mothers
had the privilege of naming their children.

Q

226 On some newly-discovered Temantte

to the second, it can only be analogous with Jerubbaal. We
find Rehabyah as well as Rehab-am, Yeqamyah and Yeqam-am.
Perhaps DY sb opposed to by wd in the song of Moses
may have some reference to the god Amm. In the Authorised
Version, ‘They have moved me to jealousy with that which is
not God... And I will move them to jealousy with those
which are not a people. Compare OY AN, p. 222. Balaam
(Bil‘am) also, I venture to think, is a compound of Bel (Baal)
and Am}+, analogous to the names Elijah, El-jahu; and Joel,
Jeho-el.

Analogous are two names compounded with that of the
Syrian god Dad? (777 and ΤΊΣ), viz. that of Bildad the
Shuhite, which means Bel-dad, and Eldad which is= El]-dad.
If the latter is rightly rendered in the dictionaries by ‘ God
loves (him),’ the former cannot be anything else but a com-
pound of Bel and Dad. It is possible that Dad was pronounced
in the Canaanitish dialects Dod, in which form we may be
allowed to recognise it in the name of the town Ashdod
(analogous to the personal names Ashbel and Ashbaal), and in
the personal names Dodo, Dodi, Dodai, possibly even in David.
Conjectural as this explanation of some of the names com-
pounded with divine titles may appear to be, it is certain that
the principle will prove ultimately of great importance to ethno-
logy and mythology, and probably also to philology as well.

Mention has been made of the termination ἀπ in Horite
names *, and ὁ in Nabateo-Midianic names; we may compare
Yeriho and perhaps Slomoh (Solomon), The termination dz
seems to be more general amongst the Canaanitish tribes.
Ephron, Hebron among the Hittites ; Ekron, Dagon amongst
the Philistines; Mahlon, Chilyon in Moab; and often in
Hebrew names. Specially Aramaic, perhaps, are the names
formed with a yod at the beginning, such as Yaflet, Yamlek,

1 Mr. W. Wright regards it as a Hittite name. Of course no derivation is
given, since the Hittite vocabulary, so far as appears, consists at present of
two words !

2. Schrader, op. cit. (on p. 214, note 5), p. 454. 3 See p. 214.

a2 at es δ»...

and Nabatacan Inscriptions. 257

Yichar, Yishaq, Jacob, Yiskah, Yishbak, ete. The ending αὖ
as in Sarai, Yishai, Radai or Dadai, Shaddai, as well as ὅ as in
Abi, Ahi, may also be Aramaic. Lastly, I may mention the
termination aff, not in feminine words, but in names like
Goliath, Genubath, Ahuzzath, special, perhaps, to the
Philistine dialect ?.

From these facts it is evident what a mixture of tribes
must have peopled the country known generally in the Old
Testament under the name of ‘‘drab’ (ayy), and in the
cuneiform inscription as Arabu or Arabia. The name Ay
itself may even be derived from the root AY, ‘to mix.’ If
we are right in supposing that the tribes of Tema and the
countries around spoke Aramaic dialects at the time of the
Assyrian conquest, we shall have to place Uz, Hul, Gether,
and Mash, sons of Aram, in the Arabian desert, in the neigh-
bourhood of Edom and the Hedjiz, and not in Mesopotamia,
as has commonly been done. In fact M. Halévy ? expressed
this opinion some years ago, and no reason has yet appeared
for abandoning it. It may be observed that towns of these
countries are mentioned on Egyptian monuments, dating from
a period before the immigration of the Israelites to Canaan,
with the Nabataean termination - ἃ, So again there is the
locality Ono* in Benjamin, which is probably derived from
the Egyptian On, sw, the native name of the city called in
Greek Heliopolis. This latter place is meant by the dven
of Ezekiel 5, which should rather be read On (Aven being meant
by the punctuators to have the sense of idolatry). In
Jeremiah © it is represented by its Hebrew equivalent Beth
Shemesh. Possibly the name Ben Oni", for Benjamin, contains
an allusion to the sun or the south; for it corresponds to
Jamin or Yemen. The use of Beth-Aven for Beth-El® may

1 Compare Prof. Driver’s Hebrew Tenses, ed. 2 (1881), p. 261.

2 Revue, p. 15.

3 See O. Blau in Merx’s Archiv, 1869, p. 352 f.

= vagy 11. 232- 5 Hzekiel xxx. 17. O digs: ΧΙ 112)
7 Gen. xxxv. 18. ® Hosea iv. 16.

Q 2

228 On some newly-discovered Temanite

have been facilitated by the recollection that Beth-el was
once called Beth-On. Perhaps the name of Onan’, the son of
Judah, is derived also from On, with the addition of the
syllable -du*. We may therefore, with M. Halévy *, group
the Semitic languages as follows:—Towards the east the
Assyrio-Babylonians; to the south the Yoqtanido-Cushites ;
to the west the Phceenicians; and to the north the Hittites.
In the central parts, Syria and the Arabian desert, the
Aramaic-speaking races. The Israelites, Moabites, and
perhaps also the Ammonites (all of whom inhabited Canaan-
itish countries) spoke the language of the Canaanites with
some slight Aramaisms, as may be seen from the inscription
of Mesha (the ‘ Moabite stone’), and from various passages in
the Old Testament. The question arises now, what language
did the Israelites, or the descendants of Abraham, originally
speak, Hebrew or Aramaic? There can be no doubt as
to the answer. Abraham came from Haran, which certainly
was an Aramaic-speaking district. Abram, if we may under-
stand SN, like the Arabic ddu, in the sense of ‘ancestor,
may be explained as a compound of Ab and Aram (O78 3),
i.e. the father of Aram or Aramean. Sarai is an Aramaic
form. In Canaan his name was changed to Abraham, which
may perhaps signify ‘the beloved father’ (OM As), as the
Arabs eall him Khalil Allah, ‘the beloved of God.’ Sarai is
changed to a Canaanitish form Sarah *, When Isaac is of an
age to be married, Abraham sends to his own family in Aram
Naharaim, Aram of the two rivers, to the town of Nahor.
Jacob also, when fleeing from Esau, takes refuge in the same
country, and seeks a wife in the house of his relative Laban

1 Gen, xxxviili. 4.

* Perhaps the word 718 (Aven) in Isaiah lxvi. 3 ought to be read On. In
fact this verse refers to some heathen ceremonies, perhaps in Cyprus, where
worship of dogs is mentioned in inscriptions. I translate consequently: killing
tle ox, beating a man, sacrificing a lamb, breaking the neck of a dog, offering
an oblation, lifting (07[] for 07) a swine, celebrating the moon (723? for
77225), blessing On or the Sun,

* Revue, p. 15.
Ἢ Compare, for instance, »252 and 7253 (Neh. x. 9 and xii. 5).

and Nabataean Inscriptions. 229

the Aramean. Jacob is ealled Aram: in Deuteronomy!, ‘A
wandering Aramean was my father;’ (A.V. ‘A Syrian ready
to perish was my father.’) The Canaanitish language may
even have been adopted by Abraham, since Jacob gives a
Canaanitish name, Ga/eed, to what Laban calls Yegar Saha-
dutha® in Aramaic; possibly, however, it was only adopted
by the tribes after they had taken possession of the land of
Canaan, since it is related that the Israelites in the desert said
with regard to the manna, man /u*, ‘what is it?’ man for
mah, ‘what?’ In fact, the language spoken in Palestine is
called by Isaiah the language of Canaan*: ‘In that day will
five cities in the land of Ezypt speak the language of Canaan.’
The expressions Yehudith® and [bri are only used in con-
versation with foreigners. The ‘God of the Ibrim’ is used
when Moses speaks to Pharaoh®; Jonah” says to heathen
sailors, ‘I am an Ibri;’ and Rabshakeh is asked to speak
Yehudith®, The Aramaic origin of the Israelites will perhaps
explain the Aramaic form of Jehovah or Jahveh, which in
Hebrew ought to be Jehoyah or Yihyeh, at least in accordance
with the derivation given in Exodus ὃ, ‘I am (e/yeh), hath sent
me unto you.’

I cannot leave out an ingenious conjecture made by
M. Halévy?°. He sees in the word for ‘ bastard,’ Mamzer™,
‘ And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod,’ an allusion to the Naba-
taeans. Not only do the Rabbinical legends speak of the
excessive promiscuity of the Idumaeans and the people of Seir,
but Stephanus of Byzantium also says: Ναβαταῖοι, ἔθνος τῶν
εὐδαιμόνων ᾿Αράβων. NaBarns δὲ ἐστὶν ἀραβιστὶ ὁ ἐκ μοιχείας
γενόμενος . . . Nabates Arabice significat eum, qui ex adulterio
natus est.

That the Nabataeans must have been early in Philistia is

1 Deut. xxvii. 5. 2 en ΧΧΣΙ. 47: 3 Exodus xvi. 15.
4 Tsaiah xix. 18. 5 See above, p. 42. 6 Exodus v. 3.
7 Jonah i. 9. 8 Isaiah xxxvi. 11.

® Exodus iii. 14. See the First Essay in this volume, and Halévy, Revue,
t. ix. p. 14 and seqq.
10 Revue, p. 10. 1 Zach. ix. 6.

230 On some newly-discovered Temanite

probable from the statement of Herodotus! that in his time the
Arabs, i.e. the Nabataeans, were masters of the whole coast
of Palestine. We know, moreover, that the Assyrians trans-
planted Aramaic-speaking races to Samaria and to Philistia.
If, indeed, the Nabataeans were settled at Ashdod, the
Ashdodith, the language of Ashdod, which the young gene-
ration of the returned exiles spoke, according to Nehemiah,
must have been the Nabataean language’. With all this, it
is easy to understand what a mixture of dialects must have
prevailed in Palestine in the time of Ezra: Hebrew, Naba-
taean, Aramaic from Kutha and Avva or Samaritan; to say
nothing of the Babylonian dialect, which many who returned
from exile must have brought with them. How far Ezra and
Nehemiah succeeded in re-establishing Hebrew amongst the
Jews, has been explained in a previous paper ®.

Ὁ Herod. iii. 5. 2 See above, p. 42. 3 See above, pp. 40-74.

Supplementary Notes.

Tue following are further particulars of the readings adopted
by MM. Berger and Clermont-Ganneau, whose articles arrived too
late to be alluded to (pp. 209, 210) in the preceding essay except
in the notes.

P. 210, Inscription 1, 1. 3, and p. 211, Inser..4, Il. 11, 12, 10: 21:
I have accepted M. Clermont-Ganneau’s ingenious interpretation of
nby as the name of a Deity (see the Athenaeum, Feb. 28, 1885
(No. 2992), p. 280, where I have suggested that the word bby
(Numbers xiv. 18), ‘their defence or shade,’ ought perhaps to be
read DY, and translate ‘Tselem is departed from them, and
Jehovah is with us’). Zalamu in Assyrian is the god of eclipse or
darkness (see Prof. Sayce’s Assyrian Grammar, p. 24). The word
nby, however, usually means in the Bible ‘image, and in this sense
we find it also in a Sabaean or Himyaritic inscription (see David

and Nabatacan Inscriptions. 231

Heinrich Miller in the Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen
Classe, Wien, 17 December, 1884, No. xxviii).

P. 211, Inscription 2. M. Clermont-Ganneau’s reading wa),
‘a sepulchral monument’ (see Levy, Neuhebr. Worterbuch, s.v.), has
been adopted.

Ῥ, 212, Inscription, 1. 13. I have translated δ ΠῚ, ‘monument,’
from the root ΠΟ, ‘aptare lapides.’ Compare pnw, nny (minw,
Isaiah xix. 10; Ps. xi. 3; and perhaps nw, Numbers xxiv. 17), and
mnw j2s, the foundation-stone in the Temple (J/ishnah, Yoma, v.
2). MND, ‘vétement,’ as translated by M. Halévy, does not give a
good sense.—Ibidem, ]. 15. I read δ Ν ΠῚ for M. Halévy’s xt δ: Π).---
Ibidem. I have supplied 37° for M. Halévy’s nva.—Ibidem, 1. 17.
I have supplied [}1]3 for M. Halévy’s [S79 ]2.

P. 218, Inscription 2, 1.1. For x7p2 we find in M. Huber’s
facsimiles of similar inscriptions N712p.—ll. 1 and 4. I have
accepted M. Halévy’s readings ndbsin and panw for M. Renan’s
nbsin and manw.—l. 7. ΝῸΝ sayy xd ΥἽ for ον ΠῚ2}».---]. 8.
Perhaps xy Ὁ ΟΦ; probably on p. 219, Inscr. ro, 1. 11,
xby δ 7y>. There are still several passages doubtful in the
Nabataean inscriptions of Mr. Doughty, which will no doubt be
elucidated by the comparison of the facsimiles taken by the late
M. Huber and Dr. Euting. So, for instance, I read ‘nn (p. 218,
Inser. 2, 1. 9, and p. 219, Inser. 10, 1. 12), ‘new coins’ (compare
above, p. 84, note 4), for M. Renan’s strange word ‘n1n; the read-
ing ‘nan is certain in M. Huber’s facsimiles (see M. Philippe
Berger’s article, p. 379, note 11).

Specimen of the Nabataean Inscriptions copied by M. Huber’.

aa bana 72 yey ay “TaD ΠῚ τ

ma pass [0] mans ΠΡ mead 22d 2

ma Ssapy yn pod) nd top wy Ἢ [5 ΡΠ and 3
35m nnand yen now 10) mwa AYN yy 4

1 No. 40 of M. Huber’s Catalogue, No. 29 in the article of M. Ph. Berger.

2 M. Berger thinks that the name may be Seleucus (?).

® Not from the Arabic 283, as M. Berger suggests, but the Aramaic
APN =pin; cf. in the Mishnah apin, ‘right of possession.’

* Daniel vi. 8 [7 Engl.], a kind of firman, as M. Berger rightly explains.

> In the facsimile rather 12)n15 (M. Berger).

to

2 On some newly-discovered Inscriptions.
NWP) INI NIWA yyy my Onn 122) 5
NW yn as [PFA] Ἰδὲ FAP ww IT NID. [1 Vy] ΥἽ 112 b3 6
ἾΝ ΠΣ nap) aw ΠῸΣ ana mby aban ow ΤΣ 7
2oan nb sy pansy eran ana by Ἵ Nnd [? 1 8
δον odys yoden 122) oon ΠΡΌΠῚ 9
‘This is the cave which made Aidu, son οἵ Coheilu, son
of ....(?), for himself, his children and his posterity, and for
whosoever shall produce
a written permission from the hand of Aidu, valid for him ; and
for any to whom Aidu shall grant the right of burial there
during his lifetime. In the month of Nisan, the ninth year of
Aretas king
of Nabataea, lover of his people. And may Dusara, Manutu,
and Kaisa curse
every one who may make alterations(?) in this cave, or who
may sell it, or [pledge it], or give it as a present, or
destroy, or... . (7) on it any writing, or bury in it, or
alter (?) anything which is written above. And the cave and
the writing (inscription ?) that is upon it is sacred
.... (Ὁ). sacred for the Nabataeans and the Shallemites, for

ever and ever.’

' 425 in the Targum, ‘to destroy,’ which will remove M. Berger’s difficulty.

2 The biblical word ὉΠ.

233

ΟῚ:

SOME FURTHER REMARKS ON ΤῊΝ
CORBEY ST. JAMES (ff).

[ W. Sanpay.]

I nave had the advantage of looking over the proofs of the
most interesting and valuable paper that was read to us on
this subject by Prof. Wordsworth. Everything has now been
done that can possibly be done for the description and history
of the MS. A number of isolated passages have received
skilful and delicate handling (see esp. pp. 137-141): and all
the necessary materials have been collected or indicated for
forming a judgment on the Latin text. It is on this last
point that I propose to offer a few additional remarks, sug-
gested by my own work at other parts of the Version.
The brief time at my disposal since Prof. Wordsworth’s Essay
came into my hands will prevent me from attempting to
travel over the whole ground of the Epistle. I shall there-
fore confine myself merely to what seems to me to be the key
to the position, the passages where m (the so-called Speculum
of Augustine) is also extant and available for the illustration
of ff (the Corbey MS.) on the one hand and of the Vulgate on
the other. The three texts, m, ff, and the Vulgate, as given by
Cod. Amiatinus, are printed conveniently in parallel columns
on pp. 131, 132.

As it will be necessary for me to draw upon materials
collected for another though nearly related purpose, it may be
well for me to explain at the outset what those materials are,
so that it may be seen how far the evidence to which I have
access extends and what are its limits. It is unfortunate that
I should have to make use of an inquiry which is not so much
as half completed; and yet even the small portion that is in

234 further Remarks on

any sense finished seems to point so distinctly to certain con-
clusions that it will not be altogether premature to apply them
to the question before us, and it seems best to do so while its
interest is still fresh and unexhausted.

It was at the beginning of the last Long Vacation that I
began to work systematically at the Old Latin. If I had
been alone, as may well be supposed, I should not have
advanced very far at present, but I have had the benefit of
much help from the first, and now Mr. H. J. White of Christ
Church has definitely joined me, and we have been for some
little time prosecuting our inquiry together, so that it is in a
more forward state than might otherwise have been expected.

My first step was to get indices made to all the earlier
Latin Fathers that had not been hitherto indexed, especially
Novatian, Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, Victorinus A fer, Optatus,
Zeno, the Arian fragments published by Mai, and the Specu-
lum of Augustine. These, with the indices already existing to
Treneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, gave a fairly wide
basis to start from.

By comparing them it was not difficult to see in what
passages MSS. and Fathers would throw the greatest light
upon each other. With the help of Mr. White and of the
Rev. Wilmore Hooper, Fellow of Durham, I got a number
of these selected passages written out in parallel columns. A
simple inspection of the parallels brought out much that was
instructive, and I hoped to be able to exhibit this to the eye
by the use of different types. At first, however, the number
of the different authorities was baffling and bewildering, and I
was obliged to give up the idea for the time. I think that we
now see our way to return to it by dividing the authorities
into groups, and following out the same system of marking in
each group. At present the boundaries of the different groups
are not yet all settled: some are clear, but others will require
further investigation: when that has been made, I hope that
this part of our material may be worked up with advantage.

My next step was to take certain passages and reduce the

Corbey St. Fames (ff ). 235

variations in reading and in rendering to such a form as they
would take in an ‘apparatus eriticus.’ It was then possible to
express the relations of the different MSS. to each other
numerically. This furnished some rough preliminary con-
clusions which might help to guide our future work. But
the process was really too mechanical, and involved an expen-
diture of labour hardly commensurate with the result.

We then tried the experiment of singling out only what
seemed to be more important readings over a wider area ; and
Mr. White has filled the greater part of a good-sized note-
book with the analysis of readings of this kind. But here
again the objection was that we were apt to be mistaken as to
what was really important and what was not. It is indeed in
this as in most other matters of science: nothing is really in-
significant, and it is impossible to tell beforehand, or without
considerable experience, what phenomena have the greater
significance and what the less.

It was at this point that Professor Wordsworth gave me the
opportunity of writing that part of his Introduction to the Bobbio
MS. (k) which deals with the Latin text. For us the chance was
a happy one, because experience has shown that the particular
MS. k is of the very first importance for the understanding of
the Version; it is indeed, I believe, little less than the key to
the whole, and in working at it I seemed to fall naturally into
what I conceive to be the right method, and a method which
seems likely to yield well founded and satisfactory results.
The MSS. must be dealt with singly; they must be collated
together point by point ; the peculiar element in each must be
isolated ; and its structure and composition must be thoroughly
studied.

It will be remembered that k contains, roughly speaking,
about the first half of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and about
the second half of the Gospel of St. Mark. This is really the
only portion of the Old Latin New Testament that we can
claim to have worked at in this thorough-going way. Neither
have we treated as completely the chapters in St. Matthew as

236 Further Remarks on

we have done those in St. Mark: for the method grew under
our hands, and it took some little time to bring it into shape.
There is the further limitation that we have as yet only paid
close attention to the older MSS.: the later texts must stand
over for further investigation.

But the analysis that we have been making, partial as it is,
does I think bring out certain facts of great importance.
They may be subject to modification, and I should only like to
affirm them for the limited area that we have examined. I
believe that they extend some way beyond this; and the
scattered evidence which we had collected previously points all
in the same direction ; but it is well not to anticipate, and I
should prefer to restrict what I say specially to the first two
Gospels.

Taking these, I believe that we are able to give a more
definite answer than has yet been given to the question as to
the origin of the Old Latin version. Was that version, it is
asked, originally one, or was it more than one? We reply
that there were originally two main versions, two parent
stocks from which all the texts that we now have were
derived with different degrees of modification. In saying this
1 naturally exclude cases where the particular writer has
translated for himself directly from the Greek, and speak
only of texts which circulated over some greater or less extent
of ground.

The parent stocks I believe to have been two, and as far as
I can see at present, not more. It is perfectly true that MSS.
like a in St. Mark, and I may add St. Luke, and d throughout,
have a peculiar element

a peculiar element so marked that it
must have a separate origin. But in neither case are they in-
dependent of the great family to which they belong: the
peculiarities are grafts upon the main stock ; they do not form
a new and distinct stock by themselves.

We cannot do better than keep to the names that have been
already given to these two main stocks—the African and the
iuropean. To the African belong, at a stage not quite the

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 23%

earliest k (Cod. Bobiensis), at a stage somewhat later e (Cod.
Palatinus), and at a later stage still m (Speculum Augustini).
To the European belong the great mass of other MSS. Large
modifications have taken place in both families, perhaps at least
one systematic recension in the European, and in the later
members especially there is much mixture and interchange
between the two families: but underlying all these vicissitudes
the two fundamental types remain distinct from each other ;
and the differences between these types are no longer, like the
later modifications, differences of degree merely but of kind.
The great proof of this is that whereas between different
members of the same family the diction varies, especially in
some more prominent words, but the general framework and
essential cast of the sentences is, with comparatively rare
exceptions, the same; on the other hand, between members of
the two opposing families, though here and there we may find
an agreement in words borrowed from one by the other, yet the
framework and essential cast of the sentences are different.
Mr. White and I have catalogued the peculiarities of k
which come out upon a collation with the oldest European
MSS. a b ἃ ἢ, and the result is such as I have described.
Many points that we were at first inclined to pass over as
trivial contribute to it. For instance, k repeatedly has ‘ fui’
where the European MSS. have ‘ eram:’ this occurs no less
than twenty-four times in the eight chapters of St. Mark,
and there is only a single exception where the contrary
relation holds good. There are two constructions of which
k is very fond: ‘cum’ with imperf. or pluperf. subj., espe-
cially common in St. Matthew, and the construction of two
coordinate verbs (‘ respondit et dixit’) especially common in
St. Mark. The first of these constructions is found in St.
Matthew twenty-three times where the European MSS. have
the present participle, and ten times where they have the
abl. abs. The second construction occurs in St. Mark no
less than forty times where the European MSS. express
themselves differently, not counting some twelve instances

eo γν

238 Further Remarks on

where the construction is shared by k with some one or two
European MSS. against the rest. To set against these fifty-
two instances there are only five exceptions. There is one
construction which is especially characteristic of k: ‘cum
serum factum esset’ (or ‘est’) occurs five times, while in
bf the regular phrase is ‘vespere facto:’ in one case bd
have ‘cum vespere (sic) factum esset,’ and in two cases a
has an approximation to k, but in each with ‘sero’ instead
of ‘serum.’ Another marked peculiarity of k is its fondness
for compounds of ‘eo’ where these are avoided in the Euro-
pean text (fourteen instances in St. Matthew, nine in St.
Mark, and only two exceptions). In like manner k repeat-
edly has the preposition ‘de’ where the others have ‘ex’
and once “ἃ: so five times in St. Matthew, six times in
St. Mark, with three exceptions.

But I must not stay to enlarge on these points. I will
therefore only give a list of some of the words that are
most characteristic of k, and will then pass on to ff of St.
James. These are ‘adoro, ‘adoratio’ (for ‘oro,’ ‘oratio’),
‘claritas, ‘ clarifico’ for ‘ gloria,’ ‘ magnifico,’ ‘ colligo ’ for ‘ con-
grego, ‘commotus’ for ‘ misertus,’ ‘continuo’ for ‘statim’
or ‘protinus,’ ‘corripio’ for ‘comminor’ (where ‘objurgo’
is specially characteristic of a), ‘crastinus’ without ‘dies,’
‘demoniacus’ for ‘daemonium habens,’ ‘ discentes’ for ‘ disci-
puli’ (eight times, but with three exceptions), ‘emundo’ for |
‘mundo,’ ‘excito’ for ‘suscito’ or ‘resuscito’ (a marked
usage), ‘excludo’ alternating with ‘expello’ in the phrase
‘excludere’ or ‘expellere daemonia’ where the Europeans
have ‘eicere’ (this also is very marked), the little word
‘illic’ for ‘ibi’ and ‘iste’ for ‘hic, ‘ita’ for ‘utique’ and
‘itaque’ for ‘ergo’ (but not without exception), ‘de longin-
quo,’ ‘lumen’ for ‘lux,’ ‘mortuus’ for ‘ defunctus,’ ‘natio’
for ‘gens’ and for ‘generatio’ (two striking usages), ‘ne-
quam’ for ‘malus,’ etc., ‘nimis’ for ‘valde,’ ‘obsecror’ or
‘obsecro’ for ‘rogo, ‘palla’ for ‘sindon,’ ‘ peregrinor’ for
‘peregre proficiscor, ‘ ploratio’ for ‘fletus,’ ‘ poto’ for ‘ potum

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 239

do,’ ‘ pressura’ for ‘ tribulatio’ (not common in k, but marked
in Cyprian and e), ‘ propterea’ for ‘ideo, ‘proximum tibi’
for ‘tuum,’ ‘quasi’ for ‘tamquam,’ ‘qui’ for ‘quicumque,’
‘quoadusque’ for ‘donec,’ quomodo’ for ‘sicut,’ ‘salvo’ for
‘salvum facio,’ ‘sermo’ for ‘verbum,’ ‘similitudo’ for ‘ para-
bola’ (very marked), ‘simulo’ (516), the preposition ‘super,’
‘tego’ for ‘operio,’ ‘totus’ several times for ‘omnis,’ ‘uni-
versus. These are all instances which occur often enough
to justify a real induction. In many cases the induction
would be largely strengthened by taking in Cyprian and
e; and there is of course much to be said about details.

These examples, selected from a large number where ‘the
evidence is less cogent, will be enough to show what a radical
divergence there is between the two texts, and what an inner
coherence and consistency there are in each. We now have
to ask, how far anything of the same kind holds good in
regard to the extant texts in St. James. And here I would
at once lay down that I do not think there is the slightest
a priori probability that it would be so. The evidence for
the acceptance of the Epistle in the West is so gradual and
comparatively late, that we should not at all expect that it
would be included in the original translation, even if that
translation extended to the Epistles, as at first sight it seems
to have done. We must therefore put aside all presumptions
before the fact and look strictly at the facts as we have them.
Taking the passages where we have three MSS. to compare
together, how many original versions do they imply ? I answer,
though as yet tentatively, two.

We must bear in mind two things: (1) that we are dealing
with an altogether later stratum of text than in the case of k:
k is an established text by the middle of the third century:
the earliest evidence for the text of ff is on the extreme
verge of the fourth century (Chromatius), and though the
reading so attested is important it does not follow that the
whole text is as old even as that: between the date of
Chromatius and the MS. there is plenty of time for other

240 Further Remarks on

readings and groups of readings to be introduced; so that
we should expect to find in ff a mixed and composite text
at a rather advanced stage of degeneracy: the text of m too,
whatever its relation to that of St. Augustine, in any case
dates from his period and is not on a level with older texts
like those of k and Cyprian. And (2) we must remember
that the phraseology of the Epistle of St. James is not like
the simple language of the Gospels: it contains a number of
unusual expressions which are just of the kind in which the
divergence even of nearly allied MSS. would be most ap-

parent. Some allowance should be made on both of these

grounds.

In order to show more exactly the relation of the three

texts to each other, the most satisfactory plan will be to
bring it into relief by the use of different types. In the

columns that follow

Ordinary type= points common to all three texts.

Thick type = points common to Vulg. and ff, or Vulg. and m.

Small capitals = points common to m and ff, not found in Vulg.

Italics = peculiarities of the text in which they occur,

᾿ : :
(ο) =order agreeing with Vulg.

(0) =order differing from Vulg.

(0) =order of m agreeing with ff against Vulg. (only one instance, IV. 12).

SpEcuLUM (m). VULGATE (Cop. Am.).
I. 15. Sit wero omnis homo ¥* Sit autem omnis homo
citatus audire, uelox ad audiendum,
et tardus loqua, tardus autem ad loquen-
puger tH IRACUNDIA: dum ¢ tardus ad tram

*°TRACUNDIA enim uiri ius- * /ra enim uiri iustiti-
titiam Dei non operatur am Dei non operatur

35 Si quis putatt+ supersti- Si quis autem putatt
tiosum se(o) esse, non se religiosum (0) 6556, non
refrenans linguam suam, __refrenans linguam suam,
sed FALLENS cor sum (576), sed seducens cor suum,
huius uana treligio est(o). huius uana test religio(o).
27 Sanctitas autem pura et * Religio autem munda et

Corry MS. (ff).

19 Sit autem omnis homo
uelox ad audiendum,
tardus autem ad loquen-
dum, tardus autem ad
IRACUNDIAM.

2° TRACUNDIA enim uiri ius-
titiam Dei non operatur.

2° Si quis autem putatt+ se —
religiosum (o) esse non |
tnfrenans linguam suam, 6
sed FALLENS cor suum,
huius uana est religio(o).

* Religio autem munda et

Corbey St. Fames (77).

SpEcUuLUM (m).
(0) incontaminata haec est
aput Deum patrem,
uisitare ORFANOS et uiduas
in angustia ipsorum* et
inmaculatum se SER-
UARE (0) A mundo.

ΤΙ. 15 Iudicium enim sine
misericordia his qui non
fecit misericordiam ;
quoniam misericordia
pracfertur τὰ τοῖο.

Quid prode xEst, fratres,
si + fidem quis dicat (o) in
semet ipso manere, opera
autem non habeat ? Num-
quid potest + fide (516) sola
saluare eum (o) ?

» Si frater aut soror nudi
fuerint et DEfuerit EIS

VuLeateE (Cop. Am.).

(o)inmaculata apud
deum δὲ patrem haec est,
uisitare pupillos et uiduas
in tribulatione eorum,
+et inmaculatum se cus-
todire(o) ab hoc saeculo.

IT. 15 Judicium enim sine
misericordia iii qui non
fecerit misericordiam ;
superexaltat autem mi-
sericordia iudicio.

4 Quid proderit, fratres
mei, si +fidem quis dicat
se(o) habere, opera autem
non habeat? Numquid
poterzt + fides

saluare eum(o) ?

Si autem. frater aut soror
nudi sint et indigeant

241
Corser MS. (ff).

inmaculata apud
Dominum (c) haec est,
uisitare ORFANOS et uiduas
in tribulatione eorum ;

+ SERUARE se sive macula(o)
A seculo.

11. 15 Tuditium autem non
miserebitur ei, qui non
fecit misericordiam.
Super gloriatur autem
misericordia 1udicium.
Quit prodsst, fratres
mei, si + quis dicat se
fidem(o) habere opera
autem non habeat ? Num-
quit potest +fides eum
sola saluare(o) ?

15 Sive frater siwe soror
nudi sint et DEszt EIs t uic-

+ cottidianvs cibus(o);!dicat + uictu cotidiano(o), *dicat tus cottidianus,(o) 15 dicat

autem +t eis aliquis
UESTRum(o): Ite in pace,

ecalefacimini, et .
satzemini, ef non det eis
necessaria corporis, quid
prode EST haec dixisse eis?
Sic et fides guae non
habet opera, mortua est
ured Se.

* Sicut enim corpus sine
spiritu mortuum est, SIC
st fides sine operibus
nortua est.

If. * Nolite muLtiloqui
ESSE, fratres mel; quia
MNaius indicium ACCIPIEfis:
‘multaA enim + omnes

autem + aliquis de wobis
11115 (0) : Ite in pace,
caleficamini et
satwramini, non dederitis
autem eis guae necessaria
sunt corporis quid proderzt?
17 Sic et fides si non
habeat opera mortua est
in semetipsa.

*° Sicut enim corpus sine
spiritu mortuum est, t/a
et fides sine operibus
mortua est.

1 Nolite plures magistri

Jfiert fratres mei, scientes
quoniam maius iudicium

2 Tn wultis enim
R

sumttis.

autem? illis ea UESTR¢s
aliquis(o): Uadite in pace,
calidi estote et satulli :
non dederit autem i/lis
alimentum corporis ; quid
et prodzst ?

™ Sic et fides si non
habeat opera, mortua est
sola.

*6 Sicut autem corpus sine
spiritu mortuum est, 510
fides sine opera

mortua est.

1 Nolite MULTI magistri
ESSE fratres mei, scientes
quoniam maius iuditium
ACCIPIEMus. 2 Multa autem

242

SPECULUM (πη).
delinquimus(o). Si quis
in uerbo non delinquid (sic)
hic +perfectus uir est (0),
potest FRAENARE totum

Further Remarks on

VuuGate (Cop. Am.).

toffendimus omnes(o). Si
quis in uerbo non offendit,
hic +perfectus est uir(o):
potest etiam circumducere

a Ξ : ;
corpus et dirigere. * Quare freno totum corpus. * Si

ergo equis frena in ora
mittuntur, nisi in eo UT
suadeantur a nobis, et
TOTUM corpus circum-

* Ecce et
naues guieTAM (7. 6. quae
tam) érmensae sunt, sub
uentis duvis FERUNTUR, et
cireumducuntur a PAR-
vissimo gubernaculo, ubi
impetus dirigentis

° Sic et lingua
pars membri est, sed est
Et sicut
paruus ignis magnam
siluam ineendit. ° Jta et
lingua ignis est: et mun-
dus iniquitatis per linguam
constat in membris
nostris, quae maculat
totum corpus, et inflammat
rotam (otum m. 2) geni-
turae ET inflammetur a

7 Omnis enim
natura bestiarum et
auium et serpentium ET
beluarum maritimarum
domatur et tsubiecta EST
naturAE humanae#;: ° lin-
guam(o) autem +hominum
domare NEMO(0) potest,
nec retinere a malo, quia
plena est +mortali

ueneno (0),

ducamus ?

uoluerit.

magnilogua.

genitura.

ferimus.

autem equis frenos in ora
mittimus ad consenti-
endum nobis, et omne
corpus dlorum circum-

* Ecce et

naues cwm

magnae sint, et a uentis
ualidis minentur, cir-
eum/feruntur a modico
gubernaculo ubi impetus

Corsry MS. (ff).

terramus omnes(o). Si
quis in uerbo non errat: hie
+ erit consummatus uir (0).
Potens est se inFRENARE
et totum corpus. ὅ Si
autem equorwm frenos in
ora mittimus UT possint
consentire, et TOTUM
corpus tpsorum conuer-
timus. * Ecce et

naues TAM

magne sunt, et a uentis
tam ualidis FERUNTUR,
reguntur autem PARUUlO
gubernaculo οὐ ubicumque

dirigentis uoluerit: °tta et diriguntur uoluntate eorum

lingua modicum quidem
membrum est, et magna
exaltat. Ecce quantus

qui eas gubernant. ° Sie et
lingua paruulum membrum
est, et magna gloriantur.

ignis quam magnam siluam Ecce pusi/lum ignis, in

incendit. ° Et lingua
ignis est: uniuersitas
iniquitatis lingua
constituitur in membris
nostris, quae maculat
totum corpus et inflammat
rotam natiuitatis nostrae
inflammata a gehenna.
7 Omnis enim natura
bestiarum et uolwerwm
et serpentium cetero-
rumque domantur et
+domata sunt a natura
humana : * linguam (o)
autem +nullus hominum
domare (o) potest.
Inquietum malum, plena
+ueneno mortifero (0).

quam magna silua incen-
dum facit. ° Et lingua
ignis seculi iniquitatis.
Lingua posita est in mem-
bris nostris, que maculat
totum corpus et inflammat
rotam natiuitatis ET
zncenditur a gehenna.

7 Omnis enim natura
bestiarum siwe uola-
tilium, repentium ET
natanttum domatur
+domita Est. NaturE
autem humane *linguam (0)
NEMO hominum

domare (0) potest.
Inconstans malum, plena
+ ueneno mortifero (0).

ae

Corbey St. Fames (ff ).

SPECULUM (m).
18 Quis prudens et sciens
uestrum MonstRet DE
bona conuersatione operA
suA in +mansuetudine
et prudentia(o).

TV. : Unde bella? UNDE
RIXAE IN UOBIS ? nonne
de UOLUNTATIBUS uestris
quae militant in membris
uestris, οὐ sunt uobis sua-
urssima ?

7 Humiliate uos Deo, et
resistite diabulo, et a
uobis » proximate
Deo et + proximauit
uobis(o). 7° Humiliamini
ANTE conspectum Domini
et exaltabit uos.

11 Ὁ Fratres nolite uos
[uobis F/or.] detrahere (0).
Qui enim [autem Flor. |
uttuperat +fratrem suum
ET iudicat(o) tlegem witu-
perat et iudicat (0).

Si tlegem iudicas(o), iam
+non factor legis sed
iudex es(o). 12 Unus est
enim legum dator et iudex,
qui potest +SALUARE et
perdere(o). Tu autem
quis es qui iudicas prox-
imum ἢ

V. } Agite nunc diuites
plangite uos ululantes
super miserias UESTRaS
quae swperuenirunt,

? diuitizs uestris.
PutrweRUNT et t+ tini-

VuLGATE (Cop. Am.).

243
Corsey MS. (ff).

18 Quis sapiens et discipli- ‘Quis sapiens et discipli-

natus inter uos? Ostendat
ex bona conuersatione

nosus in uohis 7 demons-
TRat DE bona conuersatione

operationem suam in tman- operA suA in sapientie
suetudinem sapientiae(o). clementiam(0).

1Unde bella et lites inter
wos ? Nonne ex concu-
piscentiis uestris quae
militant in membris

uestris ἢ

7Subditi igitur estote Deo,

1 Unde pugne et UNDE
RIXE IN voBIsS? Nonne
hinc ? ex UOLUpTATIBUS
uestris que militant in
membris uestris ?

7 Subditi estote Deo

resistite autem diabolo, et resistite autem zabolo, et

fugiet a uobis(o), °Adpro-

fugiet a uobis(o). * Accedite

pinquate Deo et tadpropin- ad Dominum et ipse tad
quauit uobis(o). 19 Humi- wos accedit(o). *° Humiliate

liamini 77 conspectu
Domini et exaltauit uos.
11+ Nolite detrahere

alterutrum fratres met (0).

Qui detrahit fratrt aut qua
tiudica fratrem suum (o)
+ detrahit legi et iudicat
legem(o). Si autem

uos ANTE Dominum

et exaltabit uos.

11+ Nolite retractare de
alterutro, frater(o). Qui
retractat de fratre ET

+ iudicat fratrem suum (0),
+retractat de lege et iudicat
legem(o). Si autem

+iudicas legem (0), + non es tiudicas legem(o), tnon

factor legis sed iudex (0).
12 Unus est legislator et
iudex, qui potest Τ perdere
et liberare(o). Tu autem
quis es qui iudicas prox-
imum ἵ

1 Agite nunc diuites,

plorate ululantes in

miserlis quae ad

uenlent wobis.

? Diuitiae uestrae

putraefactae sunt et
R 2

es factor legis sed
iudex(o). ἢ Unus est
legum positor et iudex qui
potest +SALUARE et
perdere (0). Tu autem
quis es qui iudicas prox-
imum.

1 Tam nunc locupletes
plorate ululantes in
miserlis UESTR¢s

ad uenientibus.

2 Diuitiae uestrae putrz-
ERUNT t res ueStre

244 Further Remarks on

SPECULUM (m). VuueGate (Cop. Am.). Corpry MS. (ff).
AUERUNT uestes + uestimenta uestra a tinlAUERUNT (0).
uestrae (0). tinets comesta sunt (0). *+Aurum uestrum et
*+Aurum et argentum * Aurum et argentum argentum (0)
uestrum (0) quod reposu- —_ uestrum (0).
istis in nouissimis diebus eruginauit et erugo 7psorum
aeruginauit et aerugo eruginauit, et erugo eorum + erit uobis in testi-
eorum tin testimonium + in testimonium uobis monium (0) et manducabit
uobis erit(o) et comedit erit (o) et manducabit carnes uestras tanquam
carnes uestras sicut ignis. carnes uestras sicut ignis. ignis.
5 Et uos deliciati estis ° Epulati estis ° Frutti estis
super terram et luxoriati super terram et 7n luxwriis super terram et abust
ESTIS : creastis autem enutristis corda uestra Estis. Cibastis corda uestra
corda uestra in die occisi- in diem occisionis. in die occisionis.
onis.

With this comparison before us, let us take each of the
documents in turn and ask ourselves (1) whence it got the
common matter which it shares with either or both the other
documents, and (2) whence it got the matter which is peculiar
to itself.

First as tom. 1 ought not to speak too positively, as I have
not yet made a special study of m even in the Gospels, much
less in the Epistles: but I believe that I shall not be far
wrong in saying that m is a late African text, which has
earried a step further the process that we find begun in e (Cod.
Palatinus). In e an African base, identical probably with k,
has been corrupted partly by internal development and partly
by the admission of European readings. It is not likely that
m has been corrupted directly from the Vulgate. The mixture
probably took place higher up on the line of descent, through
some ancestor of m crossing an ancestor of the Vulgate or
some ancestor of the Vulgate crossing an ancestor of m. The
two hypotheses do not exclude each other: both causes
may have been at work at different times. The same kind of
relation holds good between m and ff: there is an amount of
scattered resemblance between the two MSS. which cannot
be altogether the result of chance coincidence, and points to

Corbey St. Fames (77). 245

a definite mixture of the two texts at some stage or other of their
previous history.

Let us examine the structure of m a little more in detail,
taking the common elements first. The coincidences with the
Vulgate are not very numerous, but some of them are impor-
tant. These are all that I can at present stay to notice.

I, 27. ‘Deum patrem:’ there can be little doubt that this is
the original Latin reading and that ‘Dominum’ in ff is a
corruption.

— ‘Immaculatum : ’—also a well established reading in 1 Pet.i.
19; 2 Pet. ii. 143 and to be traced as far back as to Ter-
tullian in 1 Tim. vi. 14; where, however, d Vulgate have
‘sine macula,’ the reading of ff here. The presence of
a reading in Tertullian does not, I believe, necessarily prove
that it is African; for I strongly suspect that besides his
own direct translations from the Greek, he also became
acquainted with the European text during his stay at Rome,
and made use of it together with the African. But I wish
to speak on all points relating to Tertullian as yet with
great reserve. Cyprian is our true starting point in the
history of the African Version.

II. 13. ‘Judicium enim sine misericordia:’ the reading of St.
Augustine, as well as of Vulgate. The rendering is so
natural for ἡ yap κρίσις ἀνέλεος that it may conceivably have
been original in both the African and European texts and
not necessarily imply mixture. At the same time it may
be an instance of European interpolation: the inverse rela-
tion is hardly so probable, but I doubt if anything can be
affirmed with certainty.

II. 16. ‘Ite in pace, et calefacimini et satiemini:’ the reading of
Vulgate*is very near this, for the form ‘caleficamini’ of
Am. (so Tischendorf, ‘ caleficiamini’ appears to be found in
some texts) is doubtful: ‘calefaciens’ is, I believe, the uni-
versal rendering of θερμαινόμενος in the four places where it
occurs, except that in Mark xiv. 54, k has ‘calfactans’ (but
‘calfacientem’ in y. 67): 6 is not extant in any of the
four passages : ‘saturabuntur’ is also the universal rendering
of χορτασθήσεσθε in Matt. v. 6, including Καὶ Cypr.; 6 k both
have ‘saturare’ in Matt. xv. 33, but e has ‘ satiati’ in Matt.

246

Further Remarks on

xv. 37 (‘saturati’ m; k not extant). The same MS. e has
‘satiabuntur’ in Luke vi. 21, so that we can see how the
word crept into the African version, to the later stage of
which it seems to belong. [It is however also found occa-
sionally in single European texts, possibly from mixture,
e.g. Luke ix. 17 a, xvi. 21 a, John vi. 26 b.]

II. 16. ‘ Necessaria corporis :’ this is the only place where ἐπιτή-

III.

ΤΠ.

{Π|-

ΤΙ1:

ΤΥ.

ΠΥ:

Da

. Io. ‘Humiliamini:

devos occurs in the New Testament : ‘ necessarius’ is a word
common to both the African and European Texts (e.g.
Mark xi. 3).

4. ‘Impetus dirigentis voluerit :’ the marked divergence of ff
at this point goes to prove that there must be some real
connexion between m and Vulgate: ‘impetus’ is another
word that is common to both texts (cf. Matt. viii, 32 k,
Mark ν. 13 e); the use of the participle is also not un-African
(cf. Matt. xiii. 3, where d e k have ‘seminans’ b ff q ‘semi-
nator,’ ac f Am. ‘ qui seminat’).

5. ‘incendit:’ III. 6. ‘inflammetur.’ Both these words
occur only in these passages: ἀνάπτειν is elsewhere rendered
by ‘ accendo,’ but it occurs only in two other places (Luke
xv. 49, Acts xxyiil). φλογιζομένη is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον.

7. ‘serpentium :’ this is the reading of ἃ Vulgate Augustine
in Acts x. 12, and of d e Vulgate in Romans i. 23.

13. ‘mansuetudine :’ this is the Vulgate rendering of πραύτης
in nine out of the twelve places where it occurs; Cyprian
also has it in Gal. v. 23 (not Ephes. iv. 2).

1. ‘Unde bella ?’ ‘unde rixae?’ With the insertion of ‘et,’
this is the reading of Jerome himself, though Vulgate has
only ‘ bella’ and ff only ‘ unde rixae.’

> ‘humiliari’ and ‘humiliare se’ occur
equally often in Vulgate (each six times) and were both
found in Cyprian.

‘Ante conspectum:’ also a frequent rendering in Vulgate.
11. ‘detrahere :’ this too is a Vulgate word occurring besides
frequently in Old Testament and in 1 Tim. iii. 11, 1 Pet. iii. 16.
Cyprian renders καταλαλεῖν by ‘ retractare’ (v. 1. ‘ detractare’).
. ‘Agite:’ the only other places where ἄγε is thus used ad-
verbially is iv. 13 of this Epistle: the Vulgate there has
‘ecce,’ while ff has ‘jam’ as here.

— ‘divites:’ the usual Vulgate rendering.
V. 3. ‘sicut:’ very common in the European and Vulgate texts.

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 247

In all the above readings ‘ satiemini’ alone is in any way
specially characteristic of a text such as that of m ; and that is
merely an adaptation of a reading that otherwise belongs to
the Vulgate stock: all the rest have more or less abundant
analogies in the Vulgate. It is therefore on the whole more
probable that the coincidences between m and Vulgate are caused
by a pre-Vulgate element in m, and not by an m element in

the Vulgate.
Let us now examine some of the more marked coincidences

between m and ff.

I. 19, 20. ‘iracundia:’ though ‘iracundia’ occurs four times in
the Vulgate New Testament, it is nowhere as a rendering
of ὀργή : the only place in the Gospels where I have found it
is in Mark iii. 5, where it is peculiar to a: it has very much
the character of other peculiar renderings in that MS. It
is also, I think, we may say certainly, the reading of Cyprian
in Ephes. vi. 9 (‘laxantes iracundiam’ codd. w 1, MB, ‘ remit-
tentes minas’ cod. A, Hartel).

I. 26. ‘fallens:’ this word occurs only once in the Vulgate New
Testament, and that in this Epistle as a rendering of
παραλογιζόμενοι (I. 27) ; it is, however, a fairly well-established
Africanism: Cyprian has it in four separate and widely re-
moved quotations of Matt. xxiv. 4, 5 (two of these are given
by Hartel as from Mark xiii. 6, and one is referred to both
places, but they seem to be all really taken from St.
Matthew). In the parallel passage, Mark xii. τό, k has
‘decipiat’ and ‘in errore promittent.’ I have not, however,
found ‘fallo’ elsewhere in Cyprian: ‘decipio’ seems to be
the more usua! African word.

I. 27. ‘orfanos :’ the universal Old-Latin (African and European)
and Vulgate rendering in John xiv. 18, the only other place
where the Greek word occurs in the New Testament.

I. 27. ‘servare:’ so τηρεῖν is rendered in Matt. xix. 17, a Ὁ 6,
etc., and repeatedly elsewhere; e has ‘observavi’ in Matt.
xix. 20, where the rest have ‘ custodivi.’

II. 15. ‘ Defuerit τ᾿ ‘indigeo’ is sometimes avoided by the African
text (e.g. Luke xii. 30 6, cf. b), but not always (8. δ. Matt.
vi. 32 k Cyprian rel.); ‘deest’ is, however, the common
rendering in Matt. xix. 20, and elsewhere.

248 Further Remarks on

III. 1. ‘accipie[tis]:’ the common word in this connexion in
both texts.

III. 2. ‘fraenare:’ the African text not seldom uses the simple
verb, where other texts have the compound, but this rela-
tion is quite as often, or rather more often, inverted.

III. 3. ‘totum:’ ‘totus’ for ‘omnis’ or ‘universus’ is rather
characteristic of the African text: k has it three times in
St. Matthew, four times in St. Mark, but in three of these
last instances along with a.

IV. 1. ‘rixae:’ the word μάχαι only occurs three times besides
in the New Testament; in one of these places Cyprian has
‘lites:’ as Jerome himself has ‘rixae’ no stress can be laid
on the deviation from the Vulgate here.

— ‘yoluntatibus’ (for ‘voluptatibus,’ ff Jerome): similarly in
Matt. xiii. 22, a has ‘voluntates divitiarum,’ e ‘ divitiarum
voluntas,’ while conversely in John iy. 34 d has ‘ volup-
tatem.’

IV. 12. ‘salvare:’ this word is frequently found in the African
text, where the European MSS. have ‘salvum facere,’ but
all our three documents have it above in ii. 14, so that no
inference can be drawn from it.

V. 2. ‘putruerunt et tiniaverunt :’ of these two words ‘ tiniave-
runt’ is the more characteristic; it occurs in the Vulgate
only in Baruch vi. 71, which belongs to the unreyised Old
Latin.

Looking back over these expressions and taking also into
account the minor points which have not been more particu-
larly noticed, I think that they amount to proof that there
is something more than an accidental connexion between the
two texts m and ff, wide apart from each other as they may
seem ; but I am not so sure that we can affirm from which side
the common element proceeds. It has on the whole a slight
African tinge, and so far points to an African importation into
the text of Π but the total balance is not decided enough to
allow us to speak confidently.

When we come to the peculiar points in m, their African
character is clearer: and they are African, just of the kind

that we should expect, not such as are found in the earliest

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 240

stages of the version, but such as belong rather to its later

stage.

I must not stay to examine all these peculiar points,

but will confine myself to indicating those the African origin

of which is most apparent.

I, 26. ‘superstitiosum :’ the only trace that I can find of this is in

Col. ii. 18, Auctor Quaest. ex Nov. Test., and Ambrosiaster,
as given by Sabatier.

I. 27. ‘pura:’ it is a rather remarkable coincidence that the only

instance that I am aware of in which the word ‘purus’
occurs in the Gospels is in a single MS. (a) of Cyprian’s
Testimonia, where he is quoting Matt. v. 8; every other
extant MS. and authority there, and so far as I know else-
where in the Gospels, has ‘mundus. And this MS. of
Cyprian, Cod. Sessorianus, is the very same that contains
the text that Mai has edited of the Speculum: its text in
Cyprian is I believe very similar to its text in the Speculum,
degenerate African.

‘angustia:’ so e alone in Matt. xiii. 21, where k has the
older African reading ‘pressura:’ ‘angustiis’ is also a
singular reading of d in Matt. xxiv. 9.

II. 14, 16. ‘prode est:’ this form appears to be also character-

istic of Cod. Sessorianus, from which Roénsch has collected
four examples of it (/é. ει. Vulg. p. 468 f.); it is, however,
found in other non-African MSS.

I. 14. ‘manere:’ this is a word of which the African text at

one of its stages appears to be rather fond: e introduces it
against all other MSS. (including k) into Matt. xiii. 32,
and k alone has it in Mark xiv. 34.

II. 15. ‘cibus:’ a clear case cannot be made out for ‘cibus’

though k has it against the European MSS. in Matt. 11.
4; and Cyprian against most other authorities in 1 Cor.
iil. 2; a Ὁ have it in Matt. xxiv. 45, where e has ‘ cibaria’
and in John iy. 8, b has ‘ cibus,’ e ‘ esca.’

Til. τ. ‘multiloqui:’ it is perhaps something more than a chance

11:

coincidence that k has ‘ multiloqui esse’ in Matt. vi. 7, where
the other texts have ‘multum loqui.’
5. ‘delinquimus:’ ‘delinquere,’ ‘delictum,’ are predomi-
nantly African words ; so the best MSS. of Cyprian in Eph,
iv. 26, t John ii. 1, 2, and k in Matt. vi. 14,15. In all
these places the European texts have ‘ peccare,’ ‘ peccatum,’

250 further Remarks on

IIT. 6. ‘geniturae,’ ‘genitura:’ this word is distinctly African,
and African of a very old type; it has disappeared from k,
but Tertullian has it in Matt. i. 1: it does not occur in
the Vulgate.

Ill. 7. ‘avium:’ so 6 d in Matt. xiii. 32, where all the others
have ‘ volucres’ or ‘ volatilia,’ as here.

IV. 8. ‘ proximate,’ ‘ proximayit:’ so k in Mark xiii. 28; the word

only occurs in the Vulgate New Testament in Heb. vii. 19.

V. 1. ‘plangite:’ African in Matt. v. 5, ‘plangentes’ k Cypr.,
‘qui lugent’ or ‘lugunt’ a b ἃ f, comp. John xvi. 20
‘plangetis’ de Cypr., ‘lugebitis’ a b.

— ‘super,’ {superveniunt:’ ‘super’ and its compounds are also
frequent in the African text.

V. 3. ‘quod reposuistis in novissimis diebus :’ this seems to be a
transposition from the end of the verse (‘thesaurizastis
iram in novissimis diebus’ Vulgate).

— ‘comedit:’ African in Mark xii. 40 (aek, ‘devorant’ rel.).

V. 5. ‘deliciati estis :’ this appears to be African ; ‘ delicata est’
is the true reading in Cyprian’s quotation of 1 Tim. v. 6,
where all the other texts have ‘in deliciis est, agit, vivit ;’
the Greek is σπαταλῶσα, which is the word used here in St.
James, and it occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.

It is possible that an enlargement of the data would modify
some of the details in this evidence, but I do not think it
likely that the general result would be altered. The text of m
is no doubt neither early nor pure ; it has suffered considerably
both from degeneration and from mixture, but its original base
is African, and as such it is separated from the two other texts by
a wider chasm than that which separates them from each other.

The Vulgate and m are offshoots of two fundamentally
different stocks. I cannot think that this is the case between
the Vulgate and ff. Before passing to this question, however,
it may be well to ascertain first a little more closely what is
the character of the Vulgate text. This will turn mainly upon
the character of the peculiar readings; for on those that are
shared with m something has already been said, and on those
that are shared with ff something will be said presently.

Of those in Ch. 1, ‘ira,’ ‘seducens,’ ‘ pupillos,’ ‘ custodire,’

Corhey St. Fames (ff). 25ῖ

are all wide-spread European renderings: for ‘ pupillos’ see
Mark xii. 40, where the word is interpolated in a b di (not in
ek). In ii. 13 Augustine is quoted by Sabatier as twice
reading ‘ superexultat’ (and Dombart’s critical edition of the
De Civitate gives the same reading) and twice ‘ superexaltat ;’
so that, whichever was the original form of the word, it was cer-
tainly in existence in this passage before the time of Jerome.
‘ Indigeat,’ as we have seen, is common to all the texts: ‘satu-
ramini’ is a regular European form: ‘in semetipsa’ has in it
nothing unusual. In iii. 1 ‘plures’ seems to be peculiar, but
it is probably not due to Jerome himself: in Mark xii. 5,
precisely the same change has taken place, a k reading
‘multos, bd (i? ew st/entio) Vulg. ‘plures.’ In the same verse
‘fierl’ is found in Augustine (Sab.), who also has ‘sumitis’
(for λαμβάνετε), which is said to be the reading of the
Memphitie version. Augustine again has ‘in multis offen-
dimus;’ so has Leo; and an anonymous writer of about the
same date has ‘cireumducere freno.’ Lucifer as well as the
Vulgate has a parallel for ‘cireumferimus’ in Jude 12; the
curious ‘minentur’ (= French ‘mener’) is not an uncommon Vul-
gate word (see Ronsch, 76. τ. Vulg. p. 236): ‘modicus’ is the
reading not only of ab f, but of k, in Matt. vi. 30, though it is
European and not African in Matt. vili. 26; the word is
common enough. μεγάλα αὐχεῖ or μεγαλαυχεῖ is a ἅπαξ λεγό-
μενον in the Greek and is rendered by ‘ magna exaltat,’ which
is also peculiar in this sense ; though the word occurs frequently
both in the Vulgate and Old Latin (European and African
at least of the e type) as the rendering of ὑψοῦν. I am
not aware of any parallel for ‘ universitas, which occurs only
here in the Vulgate New Testament. ‘Constituo’ is a common
Vulgate and European word ; it occurs also in e: ‘ volucrum’
is the more usual European word: ‘ceterorum’ (for ‘cetorum’)
is as peculiar as the word ἐναλίων of which it is a translation.
‘ Inquietum,’ the rendering of another peculiar word, ἀκατάστα-
Tov, occurs in Vulgate and Ambrosiaster as a rendering of
ἄτακτος in 1 Thess. ν. 14, and in Vulgate and Augustine as a

252 Further Remarks on

rendering of ἀτακτεῖν in 2 Thess. iii. 7: ‘ostendo’ is the
common European word for which in one place (Matt. vi. 4)
k has ‘demonstro, but not elsewhere (Matt. iv. 7, Mark xiv.
15); there does not seem to be a hard and fast local division
between the two words. ‘Operatio’ is a Vulgate word found
also in Cyprian (2 Thess. ii. 10): ‘lites’ is found in all the
authorities including Cyprian in 2 Tim. ii. 23: ‘concupis-
centia’ is well established both in European and African texts
of the Epistles: ‘adpropinquo’ is a common European word :
‘detrahere’ occurs in Vulgate and d of 1 Tim. 111. 11, and in
Vulgate of 1 Pet. 11. 16, νομοθέτης and ‘legislator’ are both
ἅπαξ λεγόμενα in the New Testament, though ‘legislator’ is
found three times in the Vulgate Old Testament. The use of
‘libero’ for ‘salvo’ or ‘salvum facio’ is one about which I
should like to know a little more: it occurs at least once as a
singular reading in the best MSS. of Cyprian (Matt. xxiv. 22),
and it occurs again in the Vulgate in 2 Tim. i. 9, where the
European reading seems to be ‘salvos fecit.’ As to ‘ putre-
factae sunt’ there is no very decisive evidence: ‘comeditur a
tinea’ occurs in Vulgate of Job xiii. 28, and ‘tinea comedet’
in Isa. 1. 9. ‘Epulor’ is a regular European word: it occurs
four times in the parable of the Prodigal Son where e has
‘jucundor.’ ‘Enutrio’ occurs in d Ambrosiaster, as well as in
the Vulgate of 1 Tim. iv. 6; ‘luxuria’ is rather common in the
Vulgate, and is a widespread reading in Gal. v. 19, where it
goes back to the Latin version of Ireneus, in Eph. v. 18 where
it goes back to Tertullian, and in Tit. i. 64 where it is found in
Lucifer.

What inferences are we to draw from all this as to the
character of the Vulgate text in the Epistle? (1) Extremely
little is due to Jerome himself. There is hardly a word that
cannot be proved to have been in use before his time: in
many cases where the evidence is slenderest as to the use of
the word elsewhere the quotations in St. Augustine and
Ambrosiaster prove that it was already found in this
Epistle. The only expressions that may have been intro-

δ

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 253

duced by Jerome would seem to be ‘minentur,’ ‘ univer-
sitas, ‘cetorum,’ and possibly ‘inquietum,’ ‘a tineis com-
esta sunt.’ (2) The main body of the Vulgate text has
the same European, or perhaps Italic, base that it has
in other parts of the New Testament. Perhaps it is with
this that we are to connect the few possible Africanisms,
such as ‘salvare,’ ‘liberare,’ just as occasional African read-
ings are found in f (Cod. Brixianus), which appears to have
been at the foundation of the Vulgate text in the Gospels.
But (3) there may also be a small element, not necessarily
African, which is peculiar and intrusive. The only word
that appears to point distinctly to such an element is ‘ super-
exalto, (for κατακαυχῶμαι, which is elsewhere rendered by
‘elorior’ in a way not very different from ff,) unless we are
also to assign to this element some of the words just men-
tioned for which there is no direct pre-Vulgate evidence.
To it too we may perhaps also attribute some of the
peculiarities noted by Professor Wordsworth (p. 130) and
Dr. Westcott.

And now, lastly, we come to the Corbey MS. (ff) itself.
We will reserve a little longer the consideration of its funda-
mental relation to the Vulgate and ask ourselves first, what
account is to be given of those features in it to which there
is no parallel in either of the other documents.

I. 26. ‘infrenans:’ the repetition of this compound in 11]. 2,
shows that it is really characteristic: as χαλιναγωγεῖν occurs
only in these two places and neither passage appears to be
quoted by any ancient writer, no light can be thrown upon
it.

I. 27. ‘Dominum:’ this is simply an error of transcription for
‘Deum,’ arising from a misunderstood abbreviation: in k
‘Deum’ is five times represented by ‘dom.’ (Matt. v. 8, vi,
24, Xv. 31, Mark xii. 14,32.) ‘Deum’ having been changed
into ‘Dominum,’ ‘patrem’ would naturally be dropped,
as the combination ‘ Dominum patrem’ is, I believe, nowhere
found.

— ‘sine macula:’ it has been already observed (p. 245 above) that

254

ΤΙ.

ΤΙ.

III.

ΠΠ1-

TY:

further Remarks on

this is the reading of d Vulgate in 1 Tim.vi. 14; it is therefore

not far removed from the main line of Vulgate transmission.
13. ‘Juditium non miserebitur ei:’ we are reminded of the

way in which ἐλεηθήσονται is paraphrased in Matt. v. 7; a b
ο g ἢ, representing in fact the main stock of the European
version, all have ‘ipsis miserebitur Deus:’ and in Rom. xi.
32, the Latin Ireneus has ‘ut universis misereatur’ (sc.
Deus) ; Ambrose also has the dative ‘ omnibus,’ otherwise the
more usual reading is the genitive ‘ omnium.’
‘super-gloriatur :᾿ ‘ gloriari,’ as we have seen, is a very wide-
spread rendering of καυχᾶσθαι ; especially European, but
found even in Cyprian (e.g. Rom. v. 2, 3), though he never,
I believe, uses ‘ gloria,’ but always ‘ claritas.’

16. ‘ Vadite:’ common in all texts and sometimes (as in Luke

xiii. 33 c, cf. 1 mr), a variant for ‘ite.’

‘calidi estote et satulli:’ there is a partial but important
parallel to this in Luke vi. 21, where a has ‘saturi eritis,’
the other European MSS. ‘saturabuntur,’ ‘saturabimini,’ and
e ‘satiabuntur.’

‘alimentum:’ it is remarkable that, not apparently any
other text, but Vulgate Jerome (twice) have ‘alimenta’ in
1 Tim. vi. 8: the word ἐπιτήδεια, of which ‘alimentum’ is a
rendering, does not occur elsewhere.

2. ‘erramus:’ ‘errare’ is common to all the texts including
k (Mark xii, 24, 27, in the latter verse with the construc-
tion ‘multum erratis’); it occurs in the Vulgate rendering
of i. 16, v. 19, as well as in ff.

‘consummatus:’ this also is a common word both in the
Vulgate and in the European Latin generally: it occurs as
an alternative for ‘ perficio’ in the African text in Matt. xi.
1, Mark xiii. 4.

‘potens est :’ frequent in Vulgate as a rendering of δυνατός.

3. ‘convertimus:’ very common in Vulgate, especially in
the passive: in Matt. xxvi. 52, ‘Converte gladium tuum
in locum suum,’ it appears to be almost, if not quite, the
universal rendering, but no African authorities are extant
other than Augustine.

4, 5. *Parvulo,’ ‘parvualum:’ this word is found in all the
texts, but appears to be markedly characteristic of the re-
vised European text and the Vulgate, cf. Matt, xiv. 21, xv.
38, XVill. 2, 3, 4.5.8; ΣΙΝ; 13, 14, Mark x: ΤΣῊ 14. 45, 1a

Corbey St. Fames (27). 255

of which places it is found in f Vulgate, and not in any other
leading MS.

IV. 4. ‘voluntate eorum qui eas gubernant:’ the form of phrase
‘ille qui, ‘is qui,’ for participle or substantive, appears
to be characteristic of the African text: comp. in the
chapters covered by k Matt. iv. 2, ‘ille qui temptat’ (rel.
‘temptator’), v. 42, ‘ab eo qui voluerit mutuari’ (rel.
‘volenti’), Matt. xiii. 18, ‘ejus qui seminat’ (rel. ‘ seminan-
tis’), and no less than eight times in St. Mark (with one
exception).

IV. 5. ‘gloriantur:’ as we have seen, common to all the texts,
but characteristically European,

IV. 5. ‘pusillum:’ common to all the texts.

IV. 6. ‘seculi:’ rather more frequent in the African text.

— ‘posita est:’ the usual rendering of καθίστημι is ‘ constituo,’
and the only instance that I have been able to find of
‘pono’ in this connexion is Matt. xxiv. 45, where Hilary has
‘praeponit. Comparing this instance with the peculiar use
of ‘exponentes’ in i. 21, and ‘legum positor’ in iv. 12, it
would seem that the Corbey text had a certain leaning to
the use of ‘ pono.’ It is not an uncommon phenomenon to find
in a MS. a tendency to the use of certain words, often simple
ones, in different combinations and as a rendering of different
Greek.

— ‘incenditur:’ it is not easy to see why ‘inflammat,’ two
lines above, should be changed to ‘incenditur,’ the Greek
being the same, φλογίζεσθαι and φλογιζομένη ; Vulgate and τὰ
both keep ‘inflammo,’ but as they also have ‘incendit’ in
the verse before, the rendering in ff is not very far to seek ;
it may have been caused by the mental influence of the pre-
ceding word at a time when the Latin version was no longer
accompanied by the Greek original.

III. 7. ‘volatilium:’ this word is found in both the African and
the European texts, but is rather more common in the
African (e.g. Matt. xiii. 4, 32).

— ‘natantium:’ occurs in Wisd. xix. 18, as a rendering of
ynxta: it will be remembered that the book of Wisdom was
not revised by Jerome, so that its text belongs to the Old
Latin,

—‘inconstans :’ this is the rendering of ἀκατάστατος, not only
in ff, but also in the Vulgate, in the only other place where

?

256

111.

ΠΥ:

LY:

Further Remarks on

it occurs, ch. i. 8: the change would therefore appear to be
in Vulgate and not in ff.

13. ‘disciplinosus:’ as compared with the Vulgate ‘ discip-
linatus’ the only peculiarity here is the termination ‘-osus,’
which is sufficiently common in ecclesiastical Latin (see
Goelzer, Latinité de St. Jérome, p. 149): d has the curious
form ‘daemoniosus’ in Luke xi. 14.

‘demonstrat : ‘demonstro’ is, as we have seen, a frequent
alternative for ‘ ostendo.’

‘clementiam :’ this word occurs before in the Corbey text in
ch.i. 21, it is only found once in the Vulgate New Testament
(Acts xxiv. 4), as a rendering of ἐπιείκεια, neither have I suc-
ceeded in finding any trace of it in the other texts.

I. ‘pugne:’ compare ‘pugnatis,’ which is also peculiar, in
γ. 2 below: in Matt. xxiv. 6,‘ pugnas’ is peculiar to r (cod.
Usserianus, at Dublin, lately published by Professor Τὶ K.
Abbot), and h (cod. Claromontanus), the main body of the
European text having ‘ praelia’ and the African ‘ bella :’ the
word only occurs three times in the Vulgate New Testa-
ment.

7. ‘zabolo’ (for ‘ diabolo’): this form is not at all uncommon,
see Rénsch Jt. uw. V. p. 457: it occurs not only on African
ground in MSS. of Cyprian and Lactantius, and in Commo-
dian of Gaza (some additions may be made to the list in
Rénsch, and k has ‘ziabolus’ in Matt. xiii. 39), but also in
Hilary and Ambrose: nor is the form confined to this word,
‘zacones’ is also found for ‘ diacones, ‘zametrus’ for ‘ dia-
metrus,’ ‘ zebus’ for ‘ diebus,’ and in the inscriptions collected
by Schiirer from the Jewish cemeteries at Rome ζὰ βίου occurs
for διὰ βίου (Schiirer, Die Gemeinde-verfassung der Juden in
Rom. p. 23).

IV. 8. ‘accedite, ‘accedit :’ common in all the texts, but rather

HV
AN

as a rendering of προσέρχεσθαι than of ἐγγίζειν, for which ff
has in v. 8 the more usual ‘ adpropio,’

‘Dominum:’ see above on i. 27, a transcriptional substitu-
tion for ‘ Deum.’

το. ‘Humiliate vos:’ comp. v. 7.

11. ‘retractare de,’ ‘retractat de:’ the phrase occurs in a
somewhat similar sense and with the same construction in
Iren, Adv. Haer. vy. 11. 1, and also apparently in Tertullian ;
Cyprian has it as a rendering of καταλαλῶσιν in 1 Pet. 11. 12.

Ee σὰ,

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 257

IV, 12. ‘legum positor:’ see above on iii. 6.

V. 1. Jam (@ye): ff is consistent with itself as it renders ἄγε by
‘jam’ in iv. 13, where Vulgate has ‘Ecce:’ these are the
only two places where this use of ἄγε occurs in the New
Testament.

— ‘locupletes:’ this is another instance in which ff is consis-
tent with itself, as it has ‘locuples’ in i. 10, 11, ii. 5 (not ii.
6): the word is rare; it is however also found in Mark
XV. 43, in n (Fragm. Sangall.), the peculiar element in the
text of which is closely allied to that in a.

— ‘tanquam:’ peculiar to a in Mark ix, 3, 26, x. 15, xii. 25,
and to a d in xii. 31; the common European word is
‘sicut.’

Y. 5. ‘fruiti estis:’ the nearest parallel appears to be ‘ fruitus
fuero’ in Rom. xv. 24 (Old Latin and Vulgate).

— ‘abusi estis:’ this rendering of ἐσπαταλήσατε appears to
“be quite peculiar.

— ‘cibastis:’ this occurs in an Arian fragment published by
Mai (Vat. Coll. iii. p. 227) in a quotation of Matt. xxv.
35, where all the other texts, I believe without exception,
have ‘dedistis mihi manducare ;’ it appears however to be
the universal reading in Rom. xii. 20, ‘si esurierit inimicus
tuus, ciba illum.’

This examination will, I think, have given us a sufficiently
clear idea of the vocabulary of the Corbey MS. A large
part of it is very similar in its character to that of the
Vulgate. In many cases the word or phrase in ff might be
substituted for that in the Vulgate without any real disturb-
ance: in two at least (‘inconstans,’ and ‘voluptatibus’) the
parallels quoted by Professor Wordsworth show that the text
of ff is nearer than the Vulgate to that used by Jerome.
And yet by the side of this Vulgate element two other dis-
tinct elements are also traceable: one African, which may be
classed with the resemblances already noted between ff and
m, and the other peculiar to ff. To this element I should
be inclined to refer more especially ‘infrenans’ and ‘infre-
nare, ‘ calidi estote et satulli,’ ‘ posita est’ and ‘leeum positor,’
the termination of ‘ disciplinosus,’ ‘clementiam,’ ‘ pugne,’ ‘jam’

s

258 further Remarks on

(for aye), ‘ locupletes, ‘abusi estis’ and ‘cibastis.’ There is so
much coherence about these readings and about others that
occur in the Corbey text that I should be quite disposed to
believe them due to a definite local recension, bearing very
much the same sort of relation to the main text that the
peculiar element of a in St. Mark and St. Luke bears to the
main body of the European version: nor should I be surprised
if it should be found ultimately—for at present we ean only
form guesses on the subject—to have had its origin in a not
very distant region. The clearest indication that we possess,
‘acquirit mortem, in the quotation of Chromatius of Aquileia,
and I suspect also, though of course in an inferior degree,
‘cibastis’ of the Arian fragment and ‘locupletes’ point in
that direction.

I speak of a ‘recension’ of a version already existing and
not of a new and distinet version, because there is much that
prevents us from thinking that the hypothesis of such a
distinct version is necessary. In the first place the amount
of divergence between the Corbey MS. and the Vulgate does
not seem enough to require it. The verses printed above
from the text of ff in ch. 1. contain in all sixty-three words :
in these there are only six points that are peculiar, and only
eleven in which ff differs from the Vulgate. Now, for the
sake of comparison, we will take a MS. older in date than ff,
of the eighth or ninth century instead of the tenth, and
therefore with less time allowed for corruption and mixture,
a MS. too of the Gospels where the language is simpler
and less open to variation than an Epistle like this’ of St.
James, but a MS. in other respects sufficiently resembling
ff, the St. Gall fragment of an Irish lectionary designated p,
and containing a considerable portion of St. John xi. If we
take the first continuous section of this MS. we find in it
sixty-nine words with thirteen variations from the Vulgate,
which would represent a very similar ratio. Taking the
passages given from chap. 11. I make in all ninety words with

twenty-seven variations in fl: but there are seventy-four

Corbey St. Fames (ff). 259

words (‘At illa...veni et vide’) with twenty-eight varia-
tions in p. Yet there can be no doubt that p has the same
common European base with the Vulgate. When we re-
member that the common ancestor of ff and the Vulgate was
probably a long way removed from those texts as we have them,
that in each case there has certainly been mixture and revi-
sion, and that the Vuleate certainly deviates from the original
type in one direction if ff differs from it in another, when
we remember this and all the other circumstances of the case,
that the language of the Epistle is such as to invite change,
and that MSS. descended from the same stock frequently do
present marked variations; when all this is borne in mind
the amount of difference between the two texts will not seem
so very remarkable: it is certainly much greater in m, which
I believe to have really had a separate origin. In chap. i. m
has sixty words against sixty-three and twenty variations
against eleven, or nearly double.

A second argument, which weighs in the same scale, is that
the structure of the sentences and order of the words in ff and
the Vulgate presents on the whole a decided preponderance
of resemblance over differences. I have noted in all twenty-six
variations of order. In.one of these m agrees with ff against
the Vulgate: in two more all three differ: of the remaining
twenty-three, ff agrees with the Vulgate in fourteen, whereas
m agrees with it only in eight, the ratio again being nearly
double. This is a significant fact, and points, I think, to the
fundamental identity of the two versions. This part of the
subject, however, will need further investigation.

I shall be asked, perhaps, if the two versions are funda-
mentally the same, how it comes about that they also present
such marked differences? What has been said above about
the various strains of mixture and revision to which they
have been subject, will, I hope, go far to account for this:
but I should like, before I conclude, to quote a few words
from an Essay by Lagarde, which seem to me to go to the
root of the matter. They occur in the course of an important

S 2

260 Further Remarks on

review of Hartel’s Cyprian, with which I have only made
acquaintance since this paper was begun (Symmicta, i. p. 68 f.).
‘Herr Hartel,’ he says, ‘speaking of the scribe of the Verona
MS. says on p. 17: this strange person has indulged in con-
jectures to such a degree that one might suppose oneself to
have come upon a grammarian in the act of teaching boys
by what devices to vary their expressions: for no probable
cause can be imagined why he should have preferred pacificis to
pacatis, nefaria to nefanda, non factum to infectum, inquinatis
to cumundis, misissem to darem, fecistis to misistis, instruentes
to iusinuantes, tempus est to licet, violari to corrumpi, expug-
nandum to impugnandum, exerrare to oberrare, repellat to
avertat, obrepserit to fefellerit, prohibitum to pulsum, ostende
to demonstra, involutam to vinctam, and any number of the
like.” ‘The probable cause,’ Lagarde replies to this, ‘lay
simply in this, that in the learned or popular speech of the
district for which the MS. was intended the one word was
not in use, and therefore had to be replaced by another.’ The
idea thus expressed has been floating before me for some time.
I believe that the differences in the various forms of the Old
Latin are largely differences of local usage. Something, no
doubt, is due to simple caprice, and something has probably
been also due at one stage, even before the time of Jerome,
to learned revision. But the original versions, African and °
European, were not made, and the subsequent changes in
them were not for the most part introduced, by practised
scholars. They were essentially vernacular; and the scribes
by whom they were copied were men of the people, who did
not scruple to substitute forms and usages with which they
were familiar for others that were strange to them. But
when we think to what an extent dialects have survived in
our own country, compact as it is, and easy as is the com-
munication from one part to another, what must have been
the diversities of usage in different parts of the Roman
Empire? It is, I suspect, through these diversities, to an
extent that we are as yet unable to define, that the Latin

Corbey St. Fames ( 727}. 261

versions have assumed those varied forms in which they have
come down to us.

But if this is so, surely a dazzling prospect lies open to
the theologian. Besides his own proper subject, the study of
the versions as versions, it is for him more than for anyone else
to track out and delimitate these varieties of provincial speech.
He possesses advantages which the classical philologist cannot
hope for?. He has at his command a number of MSS. dating
back to very early times; and, what is of especial importance,
he has a large store of patristic quotations by comparison with
which he can assign, more or less satisfactorily, the texts
before him to certain fixed localities. And besides the ver-
sions of the Old and New Testaments he has a wealth of MSS.
of writers such as Cyprian, which present the same kind of
phenomena, and which will enable him to test and verify his
conclusions.

No doubt, whoever undertakes this work, great circumspec-
tion will be needed. Every peculiar reading is not necessarily
a characteristic reading of the text in which it is found. Nor
would it at once follow that every reading that was character-
istic of a MS. or writer was also characteristic of a particular
locality. At every step a process of winnowing must take place,
and the proportion of chaff to wheat will often be large.

An Essay like the present is of course the merest possible
beginning to the working out of these problems. The induc-
tions on which a great part of it rests are, I am well aware,
much too narrow”. I should be sorry to seem to attach too
great importance to them. But it is just because I am sensible
how narrow and tentative this inquiry has been, and just
because I feel that it is capable of almost indefinite expansion,
that I am hopeful as to the method by which it has been
conducted. It is a ‘farcry’ yet to the conclusions that I seem

1 The work of Sittl, Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache
(Erlangen, 1882), though useful, shows how soon classical philology comes to
the end of its resources.

2 What was said about k in the Gospels stands on a different footing from
the views expressed respecting ff and the Vulgate in St. James. In the
Gospels we are on far surer ground.

262 Further Remarks on

to see in the dim distance awaiting us. If the attempt is
made to reach them by short cuts they will be apt to elude us
altogether. We need to approach them by gradual, well con-
sidered, and systematic advances. The first step must be the
comparing and collating of a number of different texts and
the cataloguing of their peculiarities: each text must be
isolated, and its individual character ascertained. Then, as
fast as one is ascertained, it will supply us with the means of
determining others, till we are able, as I hope we may ulti-
mately be, to map out the whole ground and assign each text
to its place with more or less accuracy.

Perhaps I am drawing teo much on the imagination.
Indeed I do not lke to set down all the possibilities that
present themselves to me. It is well to remember the caution,
‘Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he
that taketh it off’ And yet there is enough, I cannot but
think, to encourage the worker in such a field, and to give
him confidence that—whatever his own success or failure—
there is at least a harvest to be secured, and that one genera-

tion, if not another, will secure it.

POSTSO RIS:

Morse recent experience enables us to define rather more exactly
one or two points in the above.

P. 238, l. 21. ‘continuo’ is shared by e with several European
MSS. in St. Mark and St. Luke : ‘ protinus’ is specially character-
istic of a in those Gospels, while ‘confestim’ occurs four times,
and ‘statim’ twice in European texts.

1. 22. ‘comminor’ alternates with ‘ increpo’ in the European
texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. The use of ‘objurgo’ in a is very
marked.

1. 35. ‘obsecro,’ ‘rogo:’ there are interesting varieties here
which it would take too much space to discuss, but which seem to
have something of principle running through them.

Corbey St. Fames (77). 263

P. 239, 1. 5. ‘similitudo’ ceases to be peculiar to the African
text in (St. Mark and) St. Luke. In St. Mark it occurs in iv. 2b,
vil. 17 an, xiii. 28 ak; in St. Luke the usage is divided, bf Am.
(with e) have almost consistently ‘similitudo,’ while ad have
‘ parabola.’

P. 246, 1. 6 [satior]: add Mark vi. 42 a, vil. 27 a: the word is
clearly characteristic of a, and belongs to that element which a has
in common with e.

P. 250, 1. 8. ‘proximate,’ ‘proximavit:’ add Luke xv. 25 d:
the use of the other two words is again divided ; ‘adpropinquo’ is
read by a consistently (twelve places), by f almost consistently
(eleven places), by e in six places (all but one of those in which it
is extant), and by b and d in two each; ‘adpropio’ is read by d
in nine places, by b in five (in several places b is not extant), by f
in two, and by e in one.

1. 17. ‘comedit:’ add Luke xv. 30 ade, Luke xx. 47 ade.

THE END.

Clarendon Press, Orford.

Smee or Elot OF

STANDARD WORKS,

--- ------

STANDARD LATIN WORKS , -
STANDARD GREEK WORKS ,
MISCELLANEOUS STANDARD WORKS
STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS

NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY

co

1 STANDARD

Avianus. The Fables. Edited,
with Prolegomena, Critical Appa-
ratus,Commentary, &c., by Robinson
Ellis, M.A., LL.D. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

Catulli Veronensis Liber.
Iterum recognovit, Apparatum Cri-
ticum Prolegomena Appendices ad-
didit, R. Ellis, AM. ὅνο. 16s.

Catullus, a Commentary on.
By Robinson Ellis, M.A. Second
Edition. ὅνο. 18s.

Cicero. De Ovratore Libri
Tres. With Introduction and Notes.
By A.S. Wilkins, Litt.D. 8vo. 18s.

Also, separately,
Book I. 7s. 6d. Book II. 558.
Book III. 6s.

— Philippic Orations.
With Notes. By J. R. King, M.A.
Second Edition. ὅνο. Ios. 6d.

Oxford; Clarendon Press, London

LATIN WORKS.

Cicero. Select Letters. With
English Introductions, Notes, and
Appendices. By Albert Watson,
M.A. Fourth Edition. 8vo. 18s.

Horace. With a Commentary.
By E.C. Wickham, M.A. Two Vols,
δυο.

Vol. I. The Odes, Carmen Secu-
lare, and Epodes. Second Edition.
12s.

Vol. II. The Satires, Epistles,
and De Arte Poetica. 125.

Livy, Book I. With Intro-
duction, Historical Examination,
and Notes. By J. R. Seeley, M.A.
Second Edition. ὅγο. 6s.

Manilius. Noctes Manilianae,
sive Dissertationes in Astronomica Ma-
nilii. Accedunt Coniecturae in Ger-
γιατροὶ Aratea. Seripsit R. Ellis.
Crown 8yo. 6s.

: Henry Frowpe, Amen Corner, ΕΟ,

19

Ovid. P. Ovidii Nasonis This.
Ex Novis Codicibus edidit, Scholia
Vetera Commentarium cum Pro-
legomenis Appendice Indice addidit,
R. Ellis, A.M. 8vo. tos. 6d.

— P. Ovidi Nasonis Tris-
tium LiniV. Recensuit 8. G. Owen,
A.M. 8vo. 16s.

Persius. The Satives. With
a Translation and Commentary.
By John Conington, M.A. Edited
by Henry Nettleship, M.A. Second
Edition. ὅνο. 7s. 6d.

Plautus. Rudens. Edited,
with Critical and Explanatory
Notes, by E. A. Sonnenschein,
M.A. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

STANDARD LATIN WORKS.

Quintilian. 17]. Fubi Quin-
tiiani Institutionis Oratoriae Liber
Decimus. A Revised Text, with In-

troductory Essays, Critical Notes,
&e. By W. Peterson, M.A., LL.D.
8vo. 128. 6d.

Scriptores Latini γοἱ Metricae.
Ed. T. Gaisford, $.T.P. 8vo. 58.

Tacitus. The Annals. Edited,
with Introduction and Notes, by
H. Furneaux, M.A. 2 Vols. ὅνο.

Vol. I, Books I-VI. 18s.
Vol. II, Books XI-XVI. 20s.

King and Cookson. The Prin-
ciples of Sound and Inflexion, as illus-
trated in the Greek and Latin Languages.
By J. E. King, M.A. ,and Christopher
Cookson, M.A. 8vo. 18s.

An Introduction to the

Comparative Grammar of Greek and
Latin. Crown 8vo. 55. 6d,

Lewis and Short. A Latin
Dictionary, founded on Andrews’
edition of Freund’s Latin Dic-
tionary, revised, enlarged, and in
yreat part rewritten by Charlton T.
Lewis, Ph.D., and Charles Short,
LL.D. 4to.

Lewis. A Latin Dictionary
for Schools. By Charlton T. Lewis,
Ph.D. Small gto. 18s,

Nettleship. Lectures and
Essays on Subjects connected with Latin
Scholarship and Literature. By Henry
Nettleship, M.A. Crown ὅνο. 7s. 6d.

The Roman

8vo, sewed, Is.

Il. 5s.

Satura.

Nettleship. Ancient Lives of
Vergil. ὅνο, sewed, 2s.
Contributions to Latin
Lexicography. 8vo. 218.
Papillon. Manual of Com-
parative Philology. By 'T. L. Papillon,
M.A. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Pinder. Selections from the
less known Latin Poets. By North
Pinder, M.A. 8vo. 188.
Sellar. Ronan Poets of the
Augustan Age. By W. Y. Sellar,
M.A. ; viz.
I. Viner.
Svo. 08.
II. Horace and the Etrerac
Ports. With a Memoir of the
Author by ANDREW Lane, M.A.,
and a Portrait. S8vo. 148.

Roman Poets of the Re-
public, Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 108.

Wordsworth. Fragments and
Specimens of Early Latin. With Intro-
ductions and Notes. By J. Words-
worth, D.D. 8vo. 188.

New Edition. Crown

Oxford: Clarendon Press,

STANDARD GREEK WORKS, 3

2. STANDARD GREEK WORKS.

Notes on Abbrevia-
By T. W.

Allen.
tions in Greek Manuscripts.
Alien. Royal 8vo. 5s.

Chandler. A Practical Intro-
duction to Greek Accentuation, by H. W.
Chandler, M.A. Second Edition.
105. 6d.

Haigh. The Attic Theatre.
A Description of the Stage and
Theatre of the Athenians, and of
the Dramatic Performances at
Athens. By A. E. Haigh, M.A.
8vo. 128. 6d.

Head. Historia Numorum:
A Manual of Greek Numismatics.
By Barclay V. Head. Royal 8vo.
half-bound, 2]. 2s.

Hicks. A Manual of Greek

Historical Inscriptions. By E. UL.
Hicks, M.A. 8vo. Ios. 6d.

King and Cookson. The Prin-
ciples of Sound and Inflexion, as illus-
trated in the Greek and Latin Languages.
By J. E. King, M.A.,and Christopher
Cookson, M.A. 8vo. 18s.

Liddell and Scott. A Greek-
English Lexicon, by H. G. Liddell,
D.D., and Robert Scott, D.D. Seventh
Edition, Revised and Augmented through-
out, 4to. Il. 16s.

An Intermediate Greek-
English Lexicon, founded upon the
Seventh Edition of Liddell and
Scott’s Greek Lexicon. Small 4to.
12s. 6d.

Papillon. Manual of Com-
parative Philology. By T. L. Papillon,
M.A. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Veitch. Greek Verbs, Irregular
and Defective. By W. Veitch, LL.D.
Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 105. 6d.

Aeschinem et Isocratem, Scho-
lia Graeca in. Edidit G. Dindorfius.
Svo. 4s.

Aeschines. See under Ora-
tores Attici, and Demosthenes.

Aeschyli quae supersunt im
Codice Laurentiano quoad effici potuit et
ad cognitionem necesse est visum typis
descripta edidit R. Merkel. Small
folio, Il. Is.

Aeschylus: Tvragoediae et
Fragmenta, ex recensione Guil. Din-
dorfii. Second Edition. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

Annotationes Guil. Din-
dorfii. Partes II. 8vo. Ios.

Anecdota Graeca Oxoniensia.
Edidit J. A. Cramer, 8.T.P. Tomi
Ἐν υϑνο τἢ 25:

Anecdota Graeca 6 Codd. niss.
Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis. Edidit
J. A. Cramer, S.T.P. Tomi LY. 8vo.
Tl 28.

Apsinis et Longini Rhetorica.
E Codicibus mss. recensuit Joh.
Bakius. 8vo. 38.

Archimedis quae superswnt
omnia cum Eutocii commentariis ex re-
censione J. Torelli, cum nova ver-
sione Latina. Fol. τί. 5s.

Aristophanes. A Complete
Concordance to the Comedies and Frag-
By H. Dunbar, M.D. 4to.

ments.
Il, Is.

J. Caravellae Index in
8vo. 35.

Aristophanem.

London; Henry Frowpr, Amen Corner, E.C.

4 STANDARD GREEK WORKS.

Aristophanes. Comoediae et
Fragmenta, ex recensione Guil. Din-
dorfii, ΤΌΤΩΙ 11. 8vo. is.

Annotationes Guil, Din-

dorfii. PartesII. ὅγο. 118.

Scholia Graeca ex Co-
dicibus aucta et emendata a Guil.
Dindorfio. PartesIII. 8vo. 1].

Aristotle. Ex recensione
Im. Bekkeri. Accedunt Indices
Sylburgiani. Tomi XI. ὅνο. 2]. 105.

The volumes (except Vol. [X) may
be had separately, price 5s. 6d.
each.

Ethica Nicomachea. Re-
cognovit brevique Adnotatione
critica instruxit I. Bywater. 8vo.
6s.

— The Politics, with Intro-
ductions, Notes, ἄς, by W. L.
Newman, M.A. Vols. I and II.
Medium 8yo. 28s.

The Politics, translated
into English, with Introduction,
Marginal Analysis, Notes, and In-
dices, by B. Jowett, M.A. Medium
8vo. 2vols. 218.

Aristotelian Studies. 1.
On the Structure of the Seventh
Book of the Nicomachean Ethies.
By J. C. Wilson, M.A. 8vo. Stiff
covers, 58.

The English Manuscripts
of the Nicomachean Ethics, described in
relation to Bekker’s Manuscripts and
other Sources. By J. A. Stewart,
M.A. (Anecdota Oxon.) Small 4to.

38. 6d.

On the History of the
process by which the Aristotelian Writ-
ings arrived at their present form. By

R. Shute, M.A. 8yvo. 7s. 6d.

Aristotle. Physics. Book VII.
Collation of various mss. ; with In-
troduction by R. Shute, M.A. (Anec-
dota Oxon.) Small 4to. 2s.

Choerobosei Dictata in Theo-
dosti Canones, necnon Epimerismi in
Psalmos. EQ Codicibus mss. edidit
Thomas Gaisford, 8.T.P. Το] 111.
8vo. 188.

Demosthenes. Ex recensione
G. Dindorfii. Tomi IX. 8vo. 2]. 6s.

Separately :—
Text, 11. 1s. Annotations, 15s.
Scholia, 108.

Demosthenes and Aeschines.
The Orations of Demosthenes and
Aeschines on the Crown. With
Introductory Essays and Notes. By
G. A. Simcox, M.A., and W. H.
Simcox, M.A. 8vo. 128.

Euripides. Tvragoediae οἴ
Fragmenta, ex recensione Guil. Din-
dorfii. Tomill. 8vo. 1058.

Annotationes Guil. Din-
dorfii. Partes II. 8vo. 105.

Scholia Graeca, ex Codi-
cibus aucta et emendata a Guil.
Dindorfio. TomilV. ὅνο. 11. 16s.

— Alvestis, ex recensione
G. Dindorfii. S8vo. 2s. 6d,

Harpocrationis Lexicon. Ex
recensione G. Dindorfii. Tomi 11.
8vo. Ios. 6d.

Hephaestionis Lnchiridion,
Terentianus Maurus, Proclus, &c. Edidit
T. Gaisford, 8.T.P. TomiII. tos.

Heracliti Hphesii Reliquiae.
Recensuit I. Bywater, M.A. Appen-
dicis loco additae sunt Diogenis

Oxford: Clarendon Press,

STANDARD GREEK WORKS. 5

Laertii Vita Heracliti, Particulae
Hippocratei De Diaeta Lib. I., Epi-
stolae Heracliteae. 8vo. 6s.

Homer. A Complete Con-
cordance to the Odyssey and Hymns of
Homer ; to which is added a Con-
cordance to the Parallel Passages in
the Iliad, Odyssey, and Hymns.
By Henry Dunbar, M.D. 4to.
11. Is.

Sebert Index in Home-

rum. S8vo. 6s. 6d.

A Grammar of the Home-
ric Dialect. By D. B. Monro, M.A.
8vo. Second Edition. 145.

— Ilias, cum brevi Anno-
tatione C. G. Heynii. Accedunt
Scholia minora. Tomi II. ὅγο.
155.

— Ilias, ex ree. Guil. Din-
dorfii. 8vo. 55. 6d.

Scholia Graeca in Ilia-
dem. Edited by W. Dindorf, after
a new collation of the Venetian mss.
by D. B. Monro, M.A. 4 vols.
8vo. 21. Ios.

Scholia Graeca in Ilia-
dem Townleyana. Recensuit Ernestus
Maass. 2 vols. 8vo. 11. 16s.

Odyssea, ex rec. G. Din-
dorfii. 8vo. 5s. 6d.

Scholia Graeca in Odys-
seam. Edidit Guil. Dindorfius.
TomillI. 8yo. 15s. 6d.

— Odyssey. Books I-XII.
Edited with English Notes, Appen-
dices, &. By W. W. Merry, D.D.,
and James Riddell, M.A. Second
Edition. 8vo. 16s.

Oratores Attici, ex recensione
Bekkeri:
I. Antiphon, Andocides,et Lysias.
8vo. 75.
II. Isocrates. 8vo. 7s.
III. Isaeus, Aeschines, Lycurgus,
Dinarchus, ὅθ. 8yo. 7s.

Paroemiographi Graeci, quo-
rum pars nunc primum ex Codd. mss.
vulgatur. LEdidit T. Gaisford, 5.1 Ρ.
1836. 8vo. 58. 6d.

Plato. Apology, with a re-
vised Text and English Notes, and

a Digest of Platonic Idioms, by
James Riddell, M.A. 8vo. 8s. 6d.

Philebus, with a revised
Text and English Notes, by Edward
Poste, M.A. ὅνο. 7s. 6d.

Sophistes and Politicus,
with a revised Text and English
Notes, by L. Campbell, M.A. 8vo.
18s.

Theaetetus, with a revised
Text and English Notes, by L.
Campbell, M.A. Second Edition. 8vo.
108. 6d.

The Dialogues, translated
into English, with Analyses and
Introductions, by B. Jowett, M.A.
5 vols. medium 8vo. Third Edition.
Cloth, 41. 4s. ; half-morocco, δ].

The Republic, translated
into English, with Analysis and
Introduction, by B. Jowett, M.A.
Medium 8vo. 12s. 6d.; half-roan,

143.
Index to Plato. Com-

piled for Prof. Jowett’s Translation
of the Dialogues. By Evelyn Abbott,
M.A. S8vo. Paper covers, 2s. 6d.

London: HENRY FRowpE, Amen Corner, H.C.

6 STANDARD GREEK WORKS.

Plotinus. Edidit F. Creuzer. | Stobaei Florilegiwm. Ad

Tomilll. 4to. 11. 8s. Mss. fidem emendavit et supplevit
T. Gaisford, S.T.P. TomilYV. ὅνο.
Il.

Polybius. Selections. Edited
by J. L. Strachan-Davidson, M.A. | ;
With Maps. Medium 8vo. buckram, Eclogarum Physicarum
218. et Ethicarum libri duo. <Accedit

Hieroclis Commentarius in aurea

Sophocles. The Plays and | ¢armina Pythagoreorum. Ad mss.
Fragments. With English Notes and Codd. recensuit T. Gaisford, S.T.P.
Introductions, by Lewis Campbell, Tomi TI. 8vo. 118.

M.A. 2 vols.

Vol. I. OedipusTyrannus. Oedi-
pus Coloneus. Antigone. 8vo.

Theodoreti Graccarum Affec-
tionum Curatio. Ad Codices mss. re-

16s. | censuit T. Gaisford, S.T.P. 8vo.
7s. Od.
Vol. 11. Ajax. Electra. Trachi-

niae. Philoctetes. Fragments. ξ Ξ
ἘΣ ΡΣ Thucydides. Translated into
: English, with Introduction, Mar-
—= Tragoediae et Frag- | ginal Analysis, Notes, and Indices.
menta, ex recensione et cum com- By B. Jowett, M.A., Regius Pro-
mentariis Guil. Dindorfii. Third | fessor of Greek. 2 vols. Medium

Edition. 2 vols. Feap. 8vo. 1]. 15. 8vo. Il. 128.

Each Play separately, limp, 2s. 6d.
Xenophon. Ex recensione et

The Text alone, with | cum annotationibus L. Dindorfii.
large margin, small 4to. 8s.

Historia Graeca. Second Edition.

8vo. . 6d.
—— The Text alone, square vo. 108.6

16mo. 3s. 6d. Expeditio Cyri. Second Edition.
Each Play separately, limp, 6d. 8vo. 108. 6d.

Institutio Cyri. 8vo. 10s. 6d.

Tragoediae et Fragmenta
cum Annotationibus Guil.Dindorfii. Memorabilia Socratis. 8vo.7s. 6d.
Tomill. 8vo. 105.

Opuscula Politica Equestria et
The Text, Vol. I. 5s. 64. Venatica cum Arriani Libello
The Notes, Vol. 11. 4s. 6d. de Venatione. 8vo. 108. 6d.

Oxford: Clarendon Presa,

MISCELLANEOUS STANDARD WORKS. 7

3. MISCELLANEOUS

Bentham. An Introduction
to the Principles of Morals and Legisla-
tion. By Jeremy Bentham. Crown
Svo. 6s. 6d.

A Fragment on Govern-
ment. By Jeremy Bentham. Edited,
with an Introduction, by F. C.
Montague, M.A. Syo. 7s. 6d.

Casaubon (Isaac), 1559-1614.
By Mark Pattison, late Rector of

Lineoln College. Second Edition.
8vo. 16s.

Clinton’s Fusti Hellenici.
The Civil and Literary Chronology
of Greece, from the LVIth to the
CXXIitvd Olympiad. Third Edition.
4to. τὶ. 14s. 6d.

Fasti Hellenici. The
Civil and Literary Chronology of
Greece, from the CXXIVth Olym-
piad to the Death of Augustus.
Second Edition. 4to. Il. 125.

Fasti Romani. The
Civil and Literary Chronology of
Rome and Constantinople, from the
Death of Augustus to the Death of
Heraclius. 2 vols. 4to. 21. 2s.

Finlay. A History of Greece

from its Conquest by the Romans to the
present time, B.c. 146 to a.D. 1864.
By George Finlay, LL.D. A new
Edition, revised throughout, and in
part re-written, with considerable
additions, by the Author, and edited

by H. F. Tozer,M.A. vols. 8vo.
21, 108.
Gaii Institutionum Juris

Civilis Commentarii Quattuor ; or, Ele-
ments of Roman Law by Gaius.
With a Translation and Commen-
tary by Edward Poste, M.A. Third
Edition. 8vo. 18s,

STANDARD WORKS.
Gardthausen. CatalogusCodi-

cum Graecorum Sinaiticorum. Seripsit
Y. Gardthausen Lipsiensis. With
six pages of Facsimiles. 8vo. 25s.

Herculanensium Voluminum
Partes II. 1824. 8vo.

Fragmenta Herculanensia. A
Descriptive Catalogue of the Oxford
copies of the Herculanean Rolls,
together with the texts of several
papyri, accompanied by facsimiles.
Edited by Walter Scott, M.A. , Fellow
of Merton College, Oxford. Royal
8vo. 2Is.

Hodgkin. Italy and her In-
vaders. With Platesand Maps. By
Thomas Hodgkin, D.C.L. Vols.
I-IV, a.p. 376-553. 8vo. 3). 8s.

Justinian. Imperatoris Ius-
tiniant Institutionum Libri Quattuor ;
with Introductions, Commentary,
Excursus and Translation. By J.B.
Moyle, D.C.L. Second Edition. 2 vols.
8vo. 228.

Machiavelli. J/ Principe.
Edited by L. Arthur Burd. With
an Introduction by Lord Acton,
8vo. 143.

Pattison. Hssays by the late
Mark Pattison, sometime Rector of
Lincoln College. Collected and
Arranged by Henry Nettleship,
M.A. 2 vols. 8vo. 245.

Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
A new Edition, with Notes, by
J. E. Thorold Rogers, M.A. 2 vols.
ὅγο. 218,

Stokes. The Anglo-Indian
Codes. By Whitley Stokes, LL.D.

Vol. I. Substantive Law. 8vo. 30s.
Vol. 11. Adjective Law. 8vo. 35s.

105,

London; Henry Frowpr, Amen Corner, E.C.

ὃ STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS.

4. STANDARD THEOLOGICAL WORKS.

Bigg. The Christian Platonists
of Alexandria; being the Bampton
Lectures for 1886. By Charles Bigg,
D.D. ὅὃνο. Ios. 6d.

Bright. Chapters of Early
English Church History. By W. Bright,
D.D. 8vo. 12s.

Clementis Alexandrini Opera,
ex recensione Guil. Dindorfii. Tomi
IV. 8vo. 3.

Eusebii Pamphili Hvangelicae
Praeparationis Libri XV. Ad Codd.
mss. recensuit T. Gaisford, S.T.P.
TomilV. 8vo. Il. 108.

Evangelicae Demonstra-

tionis Libri X. Recensuit Τὶ Gaisford,

S.T.P. TomillI. $Svo. 16s.

contra Hieroclem et Mar-
cellum Libri. Recensuit T. Gaisford,
SDP. © Svo.- (75:

Hatch. Lssays in Biblical
Greek. By Edwin Hatch, M.A., D.D.
8vo. 108, 6d.

A Concordance to the
Greek Versions and Apocryphal Books of
the Old Testament. By the late Edwin
Hatch, M.A., and H. A. Redpath,
M.A. Part I. Α- Βωρίθ, 218.

Nouum Testamentum Domine
Nostri Iesu Christi Latine, se-
cundum Editionem 8. Hieronymi.
Ad Codicum Manuscriptorum fidem
recensuit Iohannes Wordsworth,
S.T.P., Episcopus Sarisburiensis.
In operis societatem adsumto Hen-
rico Iuliano White, A.M.

Fase. I. Euangelium secundum Mat-

theum. 4to. 128. 6d.
Fase. II. Euangelium secundum
Marcum. 7s. 6d.

5. A NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY on Historical Prin-

ciples, founded mainly on the materials collected by the Philological
Society. Vol. l(A and B). Imperial 4to, half-morocco, 2]. 12s. 6d.

Part IV, Section 2, C—CASS, beginning Vol. II, price 58.

Part V, CAST—CLIVY, price 12s. 6d.

Part VI, CLO—CONSIGNER, price 12s. 6d.

Part VII. Jn the Press.

Edited by James A. H. Murray, LL.D.

Vol. III, Part I (E—EVERY), edited by Henry Bradley, M.A.,

price 12s. 6d.
Vol. III, Part II. In the Press.

Orfore
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

LONDON: HENRY

FROWDE

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, AMEN CORNER, E.C.