The Project Gutenberg EBook of A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II. by Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license

Title: A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II.

Author: Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

Release Date: June 28, 2011 [Ebook #36549]

Language: English

Character set encoding: UTF-8


***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A PLAIN INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, VOL. II.***

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament

For the Use of Biblical Students

By The Late

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.

Prebendary of Exeter, Vicar of Hendon

Fourth Edition, Edited by

The Rev. Edward Miller, M.A.

Formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford

Vol. II.

George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden

London, New York, and Cambridge

1894


[pg vii]

Addenda Et Corrigenda.

Page 167, l. 16. I am convinced that it is only just measure to a book, which from a strong prejudice is not known nearly as much amongst Textualists as its great merit deserves, to draw more attention to “The Revision Revised” by the late Dean Burgon. Those who have really studied it, to whichever school they belong, know how it teems with suggestion all through its striking pages. The present book owes a vast debt to him.

P. 248, ll. 8, 9 from bottom, for Sir Edmund Beckett read Lord Grimthorpe.

Some remains upon sacred Greek MSS. by Dr. Scrivener have been just published under the name of “Adversaria Critica Sacra,” Cambridge: University Press. Reference has been made in this edition to some of the proof-sheets which were sent to the Editor. Vol. I. Appendix A.

[pg 001]

Chapter I. Ancient Versions.

[Transcriber's Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines. It also contains much text in Syriac, which is written right-to-left; for the sake of different transcription methods, it is transcribed here in both right-to-left and left-to-rights, so that regardless of the medium of this E-book, one or the other should be readable.]

1. The facts stated in the preceding volume have led us to believe that no extant manuscript of the Greek Testament yet discovered is older than the fourth century, and that those written as early as the sixth century are both few in number, and (with one notable exception) contain but incomplete portions, for the most part very small portions, of the sacred volume. When to these considerations we add the well-known circumstance that the most ancient codices vary widely and perpetually from the commonly received text and from each other, it becomes desirable for us to obtain, if possible, some evidence as to the character of those copies of the New Testament which were used by the primitive Christians in times anterior to the date of the most venerable now preserved.

Such sources of information, though of a more indirect and precarious kind than manuscripts of the original can supply, are open to us in the Versions of Holy Scripture, made at the remotest period in the history of the Church, for the use of [pg 002] believers whose native tongue was not Greek. After the composition of the writings of the New Testament, it is evident that the Church was in possession of Sacred Books which were of the utmost value, both to those who were already members, and in the conversion of such as had not yet come to the real knowledge of the Faith. The nearness of Syria to Judea, and the growth of the Church at Antioch and Damascus in the earliest days, must have produced a demand for a rendering into the Syriac languages; and the bilingual condition of most of the Roman Empire must have entailed a constant desire amongst vast multitudes to read in their own tongue a verification of the truths taught them. Accordingly translations, certainly of the New and probably also of the Old Testament, were executed not later than the second century in the Syriac and Latin languages, and, so far as their present state enables us to judge of the documents from which they were rendered, they represent to us a modification of the inspired text which existed within a century of the death of the Apostles. Later on, the influence of Alexandria opened the districts to the south and gave birth to the Coptic versions. And about the time of the acceptance of the Christian Religion by the Empire a further impetus was given, and the Vulgate and the Gothic and Ethiopic versions were soon made, followed by others according as the demand arose.

Indeed, the fact that versions as a class go much further back than MSS., constitutes one of the chiefest points of their importance in Textual Criticism; since the range of the ancient versions may be roughly estimated as reaching from the second to the tenth century, whereas the period of extant MSS. did not commence till the fourth century was well advanced, and were continued into the sixteenth. Their respective ages, too, are actually known, and do not rest upon probabilities, as in the first kind of evidence. They are also generally authorized translations, made either by a body of men, or by one eminent authority whose work was adopted amongst the people for whose use the Holy Scriptures had been translated. And they probably represented, either many MSS., or a small body of accepted MSS.

On the other hand, versions as evidence are not without their special drawbacks. It may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of a version, as of the Greek original itself; [pg 003] whether from variations in the different copies, or from suspicions of subsequent correction. Besides this, some are secondary versions, being derived not from the Greek, but from some version of the Greek. Again, some are “sense-translations1,” rather than word-renderings, and it is in many cases difficult to infer their real verdict. Of course, none but an expert, such as Dr. S. C. Malan, or the several revisers of the succeeding chapters of this edition, can pronounce upon the character of the verdict of a version in question.

It will be seen then that versions by themselves cannot be taken to establish any reading, because manuscripts are necessarily first authorities, and there is no lack of abundance in such testimony. Yet they confirm, or help to decide, the conclusions or the leanings of manuscriptal evidence: and taken in connexion with other witnesses, they have much independent force, varying of course according to the character of the version or versions, and the nature and extent of their agreement. In this respect they possess great importance.

The experience of recent years has shown that it is misleading to construct classes of versions in regard to their relative importance. Fuller knowledge casts aside, and often with contumely, such adventitious helps. Readers are therefore referred for information upon each version to the chapter or section which is devoted to it, and are recommended to gather their apprehensions of the several values of those versions from the facts recorded therein, and from use of them in the various passages of Holy Scripture where they are cited. But the following is a list of the chief versions of the New Testament which were made before the introduction of printing, and a few handposts are inserted here and there for elementary guidance in the study of them:—

I. Peshitto Syriac (cent. ii), called “the Queen of Versions” (Hort, cent. iii).

II. Latin version or versions2 (ii, or ii-iv). Remarkable for age.

[pg 004]

III. Bohairic (or Memphitic) (iii? Stern, iv or v), best of the Egyptian versions.

IV. Sahidic (or Thebaic) (iii?), second Egyptian version.

V. Middle-Egyptian (iii?).

VI. Fayoumic (ii or iii?).

VII. Curetonian (iv), corrupt,—(Hort, ii).

VIII. Vulgate (iv), made by Jerome from the various Latin texts in vogue at the time.

IX. Gothic (iv).

X. Armenian (iv).

XI. Jerusalem (v?).

XII. Ethiopic (v-vi). A large number of MSS. exist.

XIII. Georgian (v, vi?).

XIV. Philoxenian (a.d. 508), corrected by Thomas of Harkel, Harkleian (a.d. 616); very literal.

XV. Arabic versions (ix-xvii), made from Greek, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.

XVI. Anglo-Saxon (x) of the Gospels, made from the Vulgate.

XVII. Frankish (ix).

XVIII. Two Persic, from the Peshitto (xiii), and from the Greek (xiv).

The last four, being secondary, are worth but little as critical helps.

[pg 005]

It may be added, that from the literary activity of the last ten years in the closer examination of ancient records, and through discoveries in Egypt and elsewhere, a great deal has been added to the knowledge previously existing upon this part of the subject of this book. Therefore in the succeeding chapters much alteration has been found necessary both in the way of correction, because some theories have been exploded under the increased light of wider information, and by the insertion of additions from the results of investigation and of study. The editor has been readily and generously assisted by several accomplished scholars who are experts in their respective departments; and the names of the various writers who have contributed to the four succeeding chapters will form a sufficient guarantee for the soundness and completeness of the information therein supplied.

[pg 006]

Chapter II. Syriac Versions.

In the following account of the earlier Syriac versions, the Editor has received the most valuable help from the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, who is editing the Peshitto Gospels for the University of Oxford. And upon the Harkleian version, he is indebted for important assistance to the Rev. H. Deane, late Fellow of St. John's College, whose labours have been unfortunately stopped by failure in eyesight.

1. The Peshitto.

The Aramaean or Syriac (preserved to this day as their sacred tongue by several Eastern Churches) is an important branch of the great Semitic family of languages, and as early as Jacob's age existed distinct from the Hebrew (Gen. xxxi. 47). As we now find it in books, it was spoken in the north of Syria and in Upper Mesopotamia about Edessa, and survives to this day in the vernacular of the plateau to the north of Mardin and Nisibis3. It is a more copious, flexible, and elegant language than the old Hebrew (which ceased to be vernacular at the Babylonish captivity) had ever the means of becoming, and is so intimately akin to the Chaldee as spoken at Babylon, and throughout Syria, that the latter was popularly known by its name (2 Kings xviii. 26; Isa. xxxvi. 11; Dan. ii. 4)4. As the Gospel took firm root at Antioch within a few years after the Lord's Ascension (Acts xi. 19-27; xiii. 1, &c.), we might deem it probable that its tidings soon spread from the Greek capital into the native interior, even though we utterly rejected the venerable [pg 007] tradition of Thaddaeus' mission to Abgarus, toparch of Edessa, as well as the fable of that monarch's intercourse with Christ while yet on earth (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., i. 13; ii. 1). At all events we are sure that Christianity flourished in these regions at a very early period; it is even possible that the Syriac Scriptures were seen by Hegesippus in the second century (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 22); they were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by the eminent Ephraem of Edessa in the fourth. Thus the universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation, both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards: as early as a.d. 170 ὁ Σύρος is cited by Melito on Gen. xxii. 13 (Mill, Proleg. § 1239)5. And the sad history of that distracted Church can leave no room to doubt what that version was. In the middle of the fifth century, the third and fourth general Councils at Ephesus and Chalcedon proved the immediate occasions of dividing the Syrian Christians into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions. These grievous divisions have now subsisted for fourteen hundred years, and though the bitterness of controversy has abated, the estrangement of the rival Churches is as complete and hopeless as ever6. Yet the same translation of Holy Scripture is read alike in the public assemblies of the Nestorians among the fastnesses of Koordistan, of the Monophysites who are scattered over the plains of Syria, of the Christians of St. Thomas along the coast of Malabar, and of the [pg 008] Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon. Even though these last acknowledged the supremacy of Rome in the twelfth century, and certain Nestorians of Chaldaea in the eighteenth, both societies claimed at the time, and enjoy to this day, the free use of their Syriac translation of Holy Scripture. Manuscripts too, obtained from each of these rival communions, have flowed from time to time into the libraries of the West, yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same; all are without the Apocalypse and four of the Catholic Epistles, which latter we know to have been wanting in the Syriac in the sixth century (Cosmas Indicopleustes apud Montfaucon, “Collectio Nova Patrum et Script. Graec.,” Tom. ii. p. 292), a defect, we may observe in passing, which alone is no slight proof of the high antiquity of the version that omits them; all correspond with whatever we know from other sources of that translation which, in contrast with one more recent, was termed “old” (ܩܕܡܑ or ܑܡܕܩ) by Thomas of Harkel a.d. 616, and “Peshitto” (ܦܫܝܬܬܐ or ܐܬܬܝܫܦ) the “Simple,” by the great Monophysite doctor, Gregory Bar-Hebraeus [1226-86]. Literary history can hardly afford a more powerful case than has been established for the identity of the version of the Syriac now called the Peshitto with that used by the Eastern Church, long before the great schism had its beginning in the native land of the blessed Gospel.

The first printed edition of this most venerable monument of the Christian faith was published in quarto at Vienna in the year 1555 (some copies are re-dated 1562), at the expense of the Emperor Ferdinand I, on the recommendation and with the active aid of his Chancellor, Albert Widmanstadt, an accomplished person, whose travelling name in Italy was John Lucretius. It was undertaken at the instance of Moses of Mardin, legate from the Monophysite Patriarch Ignatius to Pope Julius III (1550-55), who seems to have brought with him a manuscript, the text whereof was of the Jacobite family, although written at Mosul, for publication in the West. Widmanstadt contributed a second manuscript of his own, though it does not appear whether either or both contained the whole New Testament. This beautiful book, the different portions of which have separate dedications, was edited by Widmanstadt, by Moses, and by W. Postell jointly, in an elegant type of the modern Syriac character, the vowel and diacritic points, especially the linea occultans, being [pg 009] frequently dropped, with subscriptions and titles indicating the Jacobite Church Lessons in the older, or Estrangelo, letter. It omits, as was natural and right, those books which the Peshitto does not contain: viz. the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, that of Jude and the Apocalypse, together with the disputed passage John vii. 53-viii. 11, and the doubtful, or more than doubtful, clauses in Matt. xxvii. 35; Acts viii. 37; xv. 34; xxviii. 29; 1 John v. 7, 8. It omits Luke xxii. 17, 18, see Chap. XII on the passage. This editio princeps of the Peshitto New Testament, though now become very scarce (one half of its thousand copies having been sent into Syria), is held in high and deserved repute, as its text is apparently based on manuscript authority alone.

Immanuel Tremellius [1510-80], a converted Jew (the proselyte, first of Cardinal Pole, then of Peter Martyr), and Professor of Divinity at Heidelberg, published the second edition in folio in 1569, containing the New Testament in Hebrew type, with a literal Latin version, accompanied by the Greek text and Beza's translation of it, having a Chaldee and Syriac grammar annexed. Tremellius used several manuscripts, especially one at Heidelberg, and made from them and his own conjecture many changes, that were not always improvements, in the text; besides admitting some grammatical forms which are Chaldee rather than Syriac. His Latin version has been used as their basis by later editors, down to the time of Schaaf. Tremellius' and Beza's Latin versions were reprinted together in London, without their respective originals, in 1592. Subsequent editions of the Peshitto New Testament were those of the folio Antwerp or Royal Spanish Polyglott of Plantin (1571-73), in Hebrew and Syriac type, revised from a copy written about a.d. 1200, which Postell had brought from the East: two other editions of Plantin in Hebrew type without points (1574, 8vo; 1575, 18mo), the second containing various readings extracted by Francis Rapheleng from a Cologne manuscript for his own reprints of 1575 and subsequently of 1583: the smaller Paris edition, also in unpointed Hebrew letters, 1584, 4to, by Guy Le Fevre de la Boderie, who prepared the Syriac portion of the Antwerp Polyglott in 1571: that of Elias Hutter, in two folio volumes (Nuremberg, 1599-1600), in Hebrew characters; this editor venturing to supply in Syriac of his own making the single passages wanting [pg 010] in the editio princeps of Widmanstadt, and the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans. Martin Trost's edition (Anhalt-Cöthen, 1621, 4to), in Syriac characters, with vowel-points, a list of various readings, and a Latin translation, is superior to Hutter's.

The magnificent Paris Polyglott (fol. 1645) is the first which gives us the Old Testament portion of the Peshitto, though in an incomplete state. The Maronite Gabriel Sionita, who superintended this part of the Polyglott, made several changes in the system of vowel punctuation, possibly from analogy rather than from manuscript authority, but certainly for the better. He inserted as integral portions of the Peshitto the version of the four missing Catholic Epistles, which had been published in 1630 by our illustrious oriental scholar, Edward Pococke, from a manuscript in the Bodleian (Orient. 119)7: and another of the Apocalypse, edited at Leyden in 1627 by Louis De Dieu, from a manuscript, since examined by Tregelles, in the University Library there (Scaliger MS. 18), and from one sent him by Archbishop Ussher, which is now in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (B. 5. 16). Of the two, the version of the Catholic Epistles seems decidedly the older, and both bear much resemblance to the later Syriac or Harkleian translation, but neither have claim to be regarded as portions of the original Peshitto, to which, however, they have been appended ever since.

Bp. Walton's, or the London Polyglott (fol. 1654-7), affords us little more than a reprint of Sionita's Syriac text, with Trost's various readings appended, but interpolates the text yet further by inserting John vii. 53-viii. 11. This passage, which is the “Pericope de adultera,” is found in Archbishop Ussher's copy, dated a.d. 1627, and made from a Maronite MS. of much esteem at Kenobin under Mt. Lebanon; also in Brit. Mus. 14,470, in Cod. Barsalibaei at New College, Oxford, and in the Paris Nat. Library xxii, of which the two last copies are Harkleian, and the one in the British Museum is Peshitto8. We are left to conjecture as to the real date and origin of these translations, except that as far [pg 011] as the Harkleian is concerned, Dr. Gwynn has shown that according to the Paris and Brit. Mus. MSS. they are claimed for Paul, a contemporary of Thomas of Harkel.

Giles Gutbier published at Hamburg (8vo, 1664) an edition containing all the interpolated matter, and 1 John v. 7, 8 in addition, from Tremellius' own version, which he inserted in his margin. Gutbier used two manuscripts, by one of which, belonging to Constantine L'Empereur, he corrected Sionita's system of punctuation. A glossary, notes, and various readings are annexed. The Sulzbach edition 12mo, 1684, seems a mere reprint of Plantin's; nor does that published in Rome in 1713 for the use of the Maronites, though grounded upon manuscript authority, appear to have much critical value.

A collation of the various readings in all the preceding editions, excepting those of 1684 and 1713, is affixed to the Syriac N. T. of J. Leusden and Ch. Schaaf (4to, Leyden, 1708-9: with a new title-page 1717). It extends over one hundred pages, and, though most of the changes noted are very insignificant, is tolerably accurate and of considerable value. This edition contains the Latin version of Tremellius not too thoroughly revised, and is usually accompanied with an admirable “Lexicon Syriacum Concordantiale” of the Peshitto New Testament. Its worth, however, is considerably lessened by a fancy of Leusden for pointing the vowels according to the rules of Chaldee rather than of Syriac grammar: after his death, indeed, and from Luke xviii. 27 onwards, this grave mistake was corrected by Schaaf9. Of modern editions the most convenient, or certainly the most accessible to English students, are the N. T. which Professor Lee prepared in 1816 for the British and Foreign Bible Society with the Eastern Church Lessons noted in Syriac, and that of Wm. Greenfield [d. 1831], both in Bagster's Polyglott of 1828, and in a small and separate form; the latter editor aims at representing Widmanstadt's text distinct from the subsequent additions derived from other sources. Lee's edition was grounded on a collation of three fresh manuscripts, besides the application of other matter previously available for the [pg 012] revision of the text; but the materials on which he founded his conclusions have never been printed, although their learned collector once intended to do so, and many years afterwards consented to lend them to Scrivener for that purpose; a promise which his death in 1848 ultimately hindered him from redeeming. An edition of the Gospels printed in 1829 by the British and Foreign Bible Society for the Nestorian Christians was based on a single manuscript brought from Mosul by Dr. Wolff. Besides these, two editions have been published by the American Bible Society, at Oroomia, Persia, in 1846, and at New York (a reprint of the former) in 187810.

From the foregoing statement it will plainly appear that no edition of the Peshitto Syriac has yet been published with that critical care on the part of editors which its antiquity and importance so urgently demand. It is therefore a matter of deep satisfaction that the work commenced by the late Philip Pusey has been brought near conclusion by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, for the University of Oxford. Mr. Gwilliam has informed the editor that the Peshitto “Tetraevangelium” will be the first part published, and will exhibit in its apparatus criticus readings taken from forty manuscripts, some of which have been collated throughout, others in parts. From the account given in the third volume of “Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica,” we learn that the authorities on which he bases his text in this elaborate edition are as follows:—

1. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,479 [a.d. 534], the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews being always included by the Syrians.

2. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [a.d. 530, last letter illegible], SS. Luke and John. Possibly older than the last.

3. Rome, Vatican [a.d. 548]. A Tetraevangelium, written at Edessa.

4. Florence, Laurentian Library [a.d. 586].

5. Brit. Mus. 14,460 [a.d. 600]. A Nestorian Estrangelo, written in the district of Naarda, near Bagdad.

6. Brit. Mus. 14,471 [a.d. 615]. Another Nestorian MS. of the Gospels, written at Nisibis.

7. Cod. Guelpherbytanus [a.d. 634]. Written in the convent of Beth Chela, near Damascus.

8. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,448 [a.d. 699-700]. A Nestorian MS. Whole of New Testament as received in the Syrian Church.

9. Brit. Mus. Add. 7157 [a.d. 768]. Written at Beth Kuka.

[pg 013]

10. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,459 [about a.d. 450], SS. Matthew and Mark.

11. Brit. Mus. Add. 17,117 [about a.d. 450].

12. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,470 [v-vi]. Whole of Peshitto New Testament. The Pericope de Adultera has been added as stated above, p. 10.

13. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,453 [v-vi]. A Tetraevangelium.

14. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,476 [v-vi]. Paul.

15. Brit. Mus. Add. 14,480 [v-vi]. Paul.

16. Cod. Crawfordianus I [vi]. A very handsome Tetraevangelium, and in excellent preservation.

17. Codd. Dawkinsiani III, XXVII, in the Bodleian Library.

18. Partial collations of many other MSS. in the British Museum.

19. The editions published by the American Bible Society, which were, at least to some extent, revised on the authority of ancient Nestorian copies.

20. The evidence of the Syriac Massorah of both the Nestorian and the Jacobite (Karkaphensian) recensions.

It is necessary to mention briefly this remarkable wealth of evidence, probably to be largely increased by future investigations, in which the Peshitto presents no inconsiderable parallel to the vast amount of authorities on which the Greek Text of the New Testament depends, because people are apt to underrate the grand position of the Peshitto version, when comparing it with the Curetonian Syriac, of which the sole evidence consists only of two codices, if the newly-discovered one turns out to be what was anticipated.

It is not easy to determine why the name of Peshitto, “Simple,” “Common,” should have been given to the oldest Syriac version of Scripture, to distinguish it from others that were subsequently made11. In comparison with the Harkleian it is the very reverse of a close rendering of the original. Perhaps the title refers to its common and popular use12. We shall presently submit to the reader a few extracts from it, contrasted with the same passages in other Syriac versions; for the present we can but assent to the ripe judgement of Michaelis, who, after thirty [pg 014] years' study of its contents, declared that he could consult no translation with so much confidence in cases of difficulty and doubt13.

2. The Curetonian Syriac.

The volume which contained the greater part of the Curetonian portions of the Gospels was brought by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 from the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Nitrian Desert (p. 140). Eighty leaves and a half were picked out by Dr. Cureton, then one of the officers in the Manuscript department of the British Museum, from a mass of other matter which had been bound up with them by unlearned possessors, and comprise the Additional MS. 14,451 of the Library they adorn, and two more reached England in 1847. They are in quarto, with two columns on a page, in a bold hand and the Estrangelo or old Syriac character, on vellum originally very white, the single points for stops, some titles, &c. being in red ink; there are no marks of Church Lessons by the first hand, which Cureton (a most competent judge) assigned to the middle of the fifth century. The fragments contain Matt. i. 1-viii. 22; x. 32-xxiii. 25; Mark xvi. 17-20; John i. 1-42; iii. 5-vii. 37; (but many words in iii. 6-iv. 6 are illegible); xiv. 10-12; 15-19; 21-23; 26-29; Luke ii. 48-iii. 16; vii. 33-xv. 21; xvii. 23-xxiv. 44, or 1786 verses, so arranged that St. Mark's Gospel is here immediately followed by St. John's. Three more leaves of this version (part, perhaps, of the same MS.) were found among the Syriac MSS. procured by Dr. Sachau, and now at Berlin (Royal Libr. Orient. quart. 528). They contain Luke xv. 22-xvi. 12; xvii. 1-23; John vii. 37-52; viii. 12-19. They were published by Roediger (Monatsbericht, Berlin Royal Academy of Sciences, July, 1872), and were privately printed by the late Professor Wright to range with Cureton's volume. Within the last year the discovery has been announced of another Curetonian MS., which was found in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai by Mrs. Lewis. An edition of it is now in progress, but will not be published soon enough for notice in this work. The Syriac text of the London MS. was printed in fine Estrangelo type in 1848, and freely imparted to such scholars [pg 015] as might need its help; but it was not till 1858 that the work was published14, with a very literal translation into rather bald English, a beautiful and exact facsimile (Luke xv. 11-13; 16-19) by Mrs. Cureton, and a Preface (pp. xcv), full of interesting and indeed startling matter. Dr. Cureton went so far as to persuade himself that he had discovered in these Syriac fragments a text of St. Matthew's Gospel that “to a great extent, has retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed; and that we have here, in our Lord's discourses, to a great extent the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion Himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect ...” (p. xciii): that here in fact we have to a great extent the original of that Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew of which the canonical Greek Gospel is but a translation. It is beside our present purpose to examine in detail the arguments of Dr. Cureton on this head15, and it would be the less necessary in any case, since they seem to have convinced no one save himself: but the place his version occupies with reference to the Peshitto is a question upon which there has been and still prevails a controversy which largely concerns the issue between contending schools of textual critics16.

[pg 016]

Any one who shall compare the verses we have cited from them in parallel columns (pp. 38-40) will readily admit that the translations have a common origin, whatever that may be; many other passages, though not perhaps of equal length, might be named where the resemblance is closer still; where for twenty words together the Peshitto and the Curetonian shall be positively identical, although the Syriac idiom would admit other words and another order just as naturally as that actually employed. Nor will this conclusion be shaken by the not less manifest fact that throughout many passages the diversity is so great that no one, with those places alone before him, would be led to suspect any connexion between the two versions; for resemblances in such a case furnish a positive proof, not to be weakened by the mere negative presumption supplied by divergencies. Add to this the consideration that the Greek manuscripts from which either version was made or corrected (as the case may prove) were materially different in their character; the Peshitto for the most part favouring Cod. A17, the Curetonian taking part with Cod. D, or with the Old Latin, or often standing quite alone, unsupported by any critical authority whatever; and the reader is then in possession of the whole case, from whose perplexities we have to unravel our decision, which of these two recensions [pg 017] best exhibits the text of the Holy Gospels as received from the second century downwards by the Syrian Church.

We must not dissemble the fact that Cureton's view of the superior antiquity of the Curetonian to the Peshitto has been adopted by many eminent scholars. So for example Dr. Hort, who was obliged to account for the relation of the two by a baseless supposition of an imaginary recension at Edessa or Nisibis when the Peshitto was drawn up as a Syrian “Vulgate” (The New Testament in Greek, pp. 135-7). So with more strength of argument Dr. Nestle in “Real Encyclopedie für protestanche Theologie en Kirche18.”

1. Now it is obvious to remark, in the first place, that the Peshitto has the advantage of possession, and that too of fourteen centuries standing. The mere fact that the Syriac manuscripts of the rival sects, whether modern or as old as the seventh century, agree with each other in the most important points, and at least to a large extent with the citations from Ephraem and Aphraates, as will be shown, seems to bring the Peshitto text, substantially in the same state as we have it at present, up to the fourth century of our era. Of this version, again, there are many codices, of different ages and widely diffused; of the Curetonian there is indeed one, of the fifth century, so far as the verdict of a most accomplished judge can determine so delicate a question: yet surely this is not to be much preferred, in respect to antiquity, to those ancient copies of the Peshitto which we have enumerated on pp. 10, 11, and which include a MS. of the fifth century, several others nearly as ancient, and two which are dated in the sixth century, the Florentine of a.d. 586, and the Vatican of a.d. 548. Another “Curetonian” MS., lately discovered, is still under examination, and we have, as yet, no adequate account of it. From the Peshitto, as the authorized version of the Oriental Church, there are many quotations in Syriac books from the fourth century downwards; Dr. Cureton, perhaps the profoundest Syriac scholar of his day in England, failed to allege any second citation from the Gospels by a native writer which [pg 018] might serve to keep in countenance the statement of Dionysius Barsalibi, late in the twelfth century, that “there is found occasionally a Syriac copy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts the three kings in the genealogy” (Matt. i. 8)19. With every wish to give to this respectable old writer, and to others who bear testimony to the same reading, the consideration that is fairly their due, we can hardly fail to see that the weight of evidence enormously preponderates in the opposite scale.

2. It will probably be admitted that in external proof Cureton's theory is not strong, while yet the internal character of the version may be deemed by many powerfully to favour his view. Negligent or licentious renderings (and the Curetonian Syriac is pretty full of them) cannot but lessen a version's usefulness as an instrument of criticism, by increasing our difficulty of reproducing the precise words of the original which the translator had before him; but in another point of view these very faults may still form the main strength of Dr. Cureton's case. It is, no doubt, a grave suggestion, that the more polished, accurate, faithful, and grammatical of the two versions—and the Peshitto richly deserves all this praise—is more likely to have been produced by a careful and gradual revision of one much its inferior in these respects, than the worse to have originated in the mere corruption of the better (Cureton, Pref. p. lxxxi). A priori, we readily confess that probability inclines this way; but it is a probability which needs the confirmation of facts, and by adverse facts may be utterly set aside. Cureton's remark that “upon the comparison of several of the oldest copies now in the British Museum of that very text of the Gospels which has been generally received as the Peshitto, the more ancient the manuscripts be, the more nearly do they correspond with the text of these Syriac fragments” (Pref. p. lxxiii), is confirmed by other, and subsequent, labourers in the same field. The received text of the Peshitto was printed from MSS. of a late type. It was the opinion of P. E. Pusey (whose name has already been mentioned in these pages) that a revision of the Peshitto text was made in the eighth century. The oldest Syriac Massoretic MS. which we possess is dated a. gr. 1210 = a.d. 89920, but a copy of the Gospels (Add. 14,448), the date of which appears to [pg 019] be a. h. 80 = a.d. 699-700, contains a text which approximates to the type of the printed Peshitto, but exhibits marginal notes in a later hand, referring, however, chiefly to pronunciation and accentuation. There is no evidence that any formal revision took place; but it would appear certain that as questions of orthography, of grammar, and of pronunciation were fixed by the decisions of the Massoretes and grammarians, the faults (as they were deemed) of the older readings were emended by scribes. Hence it is, that if we open a codex of the Peshitto Gospels of about the date of the Codex Curetonianus, we find many resemblances of the kind indicated by Cureton, between the fifth century Peshitto text and the Curetonian text, because both belong to an early, and perhaps less accurate era of transcription21. But the resemblances only extend to matters of grammar and spelling. In more important readings, the fifth century form of the Peshitto does not approximate to the Curetonian text. This was clearly seen by Pusey, as a result of the collation of a large number of Peshitto MSS. He found that the text of the oldest of them was substantially the same as that which is printed in the Polyglotts. The grammar may have been improved, but the translation was not revised. This argument has been elaborated in two volumes of the Oxford “Studia Biblica,” in part by the use of Philip Pusey's materials, in part by independent researches. In vol. i, paper viii, “A Syriac Biblical MS. of the fifth century,” the readings which appear to be peculiar to that MS. (about seventy in number, for it only contains SS. Matthew and Mark) are set out22. Of these twenty-two can be compared with the Curetonian; and it is found that only three approximate more nearly than the printed Peshitto to the text which, it is contended, is older than the Peshitto. Further on23 a stronger argument is adduced; for it is shown that in eleven passages, where the fifth century codex has a different reading from the printed Peshitto, the Curetonian, instead of agreeing with the ancient text (as ex hypothesi it ought) approximates to the printed Peshitto, and sometimes agrees with it. In vol. ii, paper iii, “The materials for the criticism of the Peshitto New Testament,” other evidence is adduced in support of the same conclusions. St. Matt. v. 31-48 [pg 020] is given, with varr. lectt. derived from twenty distinct authorities, so as to place before the reader the Peshitto in its best and most ancient form. The same passage is set out in the Curetonian form. The various readings in the Peshitto in the eighteen verses amount to at least thirty-one; but the majority are the merest minutiae of spelling and pronunciation. Only one deserves serious attention; and even that, more for accuracy than in relation to the sense of the context; so little has the Syriac New Testament been altered, or corrupted, in the course of ages of transcription. Again, when comparison is made with the Curetonian, while twenty-eight variations from the best form of the Peshitto occur in the above passage, only four find any support in an old Peshitto MS., and but one of the four is of any interest. In addition to these there is one place where the Curetonian agrees with the oldest Peshitto MSS., against the printed Peshitto text. It is plain then that, as far as the enquiry has yet been pursued, the peculiar readings of the Curetonian cannot be traced backwards through the form of text in the oldest Peshitto MSS. If such a revision of the Peshitto, as Dr. Hort's theory postulates, ever took place, it must have been made at a very remote period in the history of Syriac Christian literature; and the new text must have been substituted for the old by measures so drastic that the old (as far as we know) survives only in one Nitrian and (as we are told) in one Sinaitic MS. But this is not only improbable in itself, but is contrary to the analogy supplied by the Latin versions.

Those who contend for the superior antiquity of the Curetonian rely in great part on the character of the quotations in the two great Syriac writers, Aphraates and Mar-Ephraem, who flourished in the century preceding the era in which our oldest Peshitto MSS. were transcribed24. Both writers abound in quotations from the New Testament, but many of them are very free, or mere adaptations. A large number in St. Ephraem are certainly from the Peshitto. Wright, in his edition of Aphraates, was inclined to attribute that writer's quotations to the same source. This has been traversed by others, who contend that the quotations in Aphraates more nearly resemble the Curetonian, or the text of Tatian's Diatessaron, as far as we know it. [pg 021] The question of the source of St. Ephraem's quotations has been fully discussed in “Studia Biblica,” iii, paper iv, by Rev. F. H. Woods, who has also taken some notice of those in Aphraates. Mr. Woods holds, as do others (though, as we think, on insufficient evidence) that the text of the Peshitto was not fully settled in the days of Aphraates and Ephraem. His conclusion is that it is quite clear, that Ephraem, in the main, used the Peshitto text (op. cit., p. 107), but as regards Aphraates, he holds that the quotations approximate more closely to the Curetonian. Yet Dr. Zahn, and many others, think that Aphraates used the Diatessaron. The statement of these differences of opinion is enough in itself to show that the source of quotations in these ancient Syriac books is not always easy to determine. Hence it follows that arguments based on the writings of Aphraates and Ephraem are precarious. Moreover, a variation from the Peshitto does not necessarily indicate the employment of another version. The variation might be derived from a Greek text; for there was constant intercourse between Greek and Syrian Christians, and many of the latter were well acquainted with Greek.

While we seek in vain amongst the readings of MSS., and the writings of Syriac authors, for any satisfactory explanation of the origin of the Curetonian, the work itself may perhaps reveal something of its nature, if not of its history. We have already seen25 that in the opinion of certain textual critics the history of the Latin Vulgate must have its counterpart in the history of the Bible of Edessa. The origin of Jerome's translation is well known. It is supposed that the Peshitto grew in like manner out of an earlier translation. It is contended that the Ur-Peshitto is represented to us by the text of the Curetonian; and the two texts have been compared in order to establish this relation. In so doing, no sufficient account has been taken of the phenomena presented by the differences between the Peshitto and the Curetonian. When it is argued that in some of those differences the Peshitto text bears marks of emendation, of the improving touch of a later hand, we answer26, that in others there are as evident marks in the Curetonian of alteration and [pg 022] corruption. Indeed, to so large an extent do these prevail, that there are good grounds for the suspicion which has been entertained that the Curetonian (at least as exhibited by the editor from his MS.) is itself the later version. In order to give effect to this argument, it would be necessary to show the entire extant Curetonian text, side by side with the corresponding portions of the Peshitto; otherwise it is scarcely possible to realize (i) how manifestly the Curetonian is an attempt to improve upon the Peshitto text; and (ii) how frequently (as a later composition) it demands an acquaintance with the Gospels on the part of the reader; and (iii) how it is pervaded by views of Gospel history, which belong to the Church rather than to the sacred text. But even the short passages, which we have printed as specimens, afford illustrations of the argument.

1. In St. Matthew xii. 1-4, where the Peshitto exhibits the Textus Receptus, saying that the disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears of corn and to eat, the Curetonian improves upon the Peshitto thus:—“and the disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of corn, and break them in their hands, and eat”—introducing words borrowed from St. Luke27.

2. (α) But in the next verse of the passage, where the words “on the sabbath” are absolutely required in order to make the Pharisees' question intelligible to the first readers of St. Matthew, the Curetonian must needs draw on the common knowledge of educated readers by exhibiting the question thus:—“Why are thy disciples doing what is not lawful to do?” Of course the Peshitto is here an “improvement” on the Curetonian, in reading the words “on the Sabbath”; but that does not affect our argument. Would a primitive version, intended for first converts, have left the reader ignorant what the action objected to might be? whether to pluck ears in another man's field, or to rub out grain on the Sabbath? But a later editor, who revised the text for some purpose (it matters not, at present, for what purpose), might consider the explanatory words superfluous.

(β) In like manner in ver. 4, “the bread of the table of the Lord,” a simple phrase, which every one could understand, has become in the Curetonian “face-bread,” an expression which [pg 023] demands knowledge of the earlier Scriptures on the part of the reader, and displays the erudition of the editor, as do his emendations in the list of names in the first chapter of St. Matthew28.

3. The other passage which we print (St. Mark xvi. 17-29) will illustrate our third criticism. The Curetonian is, “Our Lord Jesus then, after He had commanded His disciples, was exalted to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The simpler Peshitto phrase runs thus, “Jesus our Lord then, after He had spoken with them, ascended to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.” The two slight touches of improvement in the Curetonian are evident, and belong to that aspect of the record which finds expression in the Creeds, and in the obedience of the Church. A similar touch appears in the Curetonian addition to ver. 17—them that believe on me.

Again in Matt. v. 32 we read (with all authorities), “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,” &c.; so the Peshitto; but the Curetonian substitutes adultery, and thereby sanctions, not the precept delivered by our Lord, but the interpretation almost universally placed upon it. Now either the Curetonian has alone preserved the true text, or the Curetonian is an emended version. The first supposition is unreasonable; the latter is alone suitable to this and to many other passages.

Not less curious is the addition in ver. 41, “Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two others.” The Curetonian (with D and some Latin copies) make our Lord say, “Go three miles.” If we cannot admit that this is the true text, then it is an emendation; for it is no accidental change.

But there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly illustrates our contention, that the Curetonian form of Syriac text is pervaded by views of Gospel history which belong rather to the Church than to the sacred records. While fully accepting the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of a pious opinion, which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which is not explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with grave suspicion a class of emendations which are obviously [pg 024] framed to confute the heresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is found in St. Matt. i. In ver. 16, Pesh., “Joseph the husband of Mary;” Cur., “Joseph to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin.” Ver. 19, Pesh., “Joseph her husband, being a just man;” Cur., “Joseph, because he was a righteous man.” Ver. 20, Pesh., “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife;” Cur., “Mary thy espoused.” Ver. 24, Pesh., “Joseph ... took unto him his wife;” Cur., “took Mary.” The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands unsupported—of the word husband in two places, of the word wife in two others. These are emendations of a deliberate and peculiar kind. We cannot account for all these vagaries by remarking that the Curetonian has often the support of the so-called Western family of text29. We must face the question whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above that version, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac Church, and which appears to be the basis of the Curetonian itself. To determine the place of a document in our Apparatus Criticus, we must know something of its history. Of the history of the Curetonian version we know nothing. Its internal character inspires grave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note its peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to yield much deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears witness to that form of text, which was received in very ancient times in the Syriac Church. The Curetonian, like the Palestinian, is interesting as showing what readings were accepted locally, or by individual editors30.

[pg 025]

3. The Harkleian or Philoxenian Syriac.

Of the history of the Harkleian Syriac version, which embraces the whole New Testament except the Apocalypse, we possess more exact information, though some points of difficulty may still remain unsolved. Moses of Aghel in Mesopotamia, who translated into Syriac certain works of the Alexandrian Cyril about a.d. 550, describes a version of the “New Testament and Psalter made in Syriac by Polycarp, Rural-Bishop31 (rest his soul!), for Xenaias of Mabug,” &c. This Xenaias or Philoxenus, from whom the original translation takes its name, was Monophysite Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria (488-518), and doubtless wished to provide for his countrymen a more literal translation from the Greek than the Peshitto aims at being. His scheme may perhaps have been injudicious, but it is a poor token of the presence of that quality which “thinketh no evil,” to assert, without the slightest grounds for the suspicion, “More probable it is that his object was of a less commendable character; and that he meant the version in some way to subserve the advancement of his party32.” Dr. Davidson will have learnt by this time, that one may lie under the imputation of heresy, without being of necessity a bigot or a dunce.

[pg 026]

Our next account of the work is even more definite. At the end of the manuscripts of the Gospels from which the printed text is derived, we read a subscription by the first hand, importing that “this book of the four holy Gospels was translated out of the Greek into Syriac with great diligence and labour ... first in the city of Mabug, in the year of Alexander of Macedon 819 (a.d. 508), in the days of the pious Mar Philoxenus, confessor, Bishop of that city. Afterwards it was collated with much diligence by me, the poor Thomas, by the help of two [or three] approved and accurate Greek Manuscripts in Antonia, of the great city of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Antonians. It was again written out and collated in the aforesaid place in the year of the same Alexander 927 (a.d. 616), Indiction iv. How much toil I spent upon it and its companions the Lord alone knoweth ... &c.” It is plain that by “its companions” the other parts of the N. T. are meant, for a similar subscription (specifying but one manuscript) is annexed to the Catholic Epistles.

That the labour of Thomas (surnamed from Harkel, his native place, and like Philoxenus, subsequently Monophysite Bishop of Mabug) was confined to the collation of the manuscripts he names, and whose various readings, usually in Greek characters, with occasional exegetical notes, stand in the margin of all copies but one at Florence, is not a probable opinion. It is likely that he added the asterisks and obeli which abound in the version33 and G. H. Bernstein (De Charklensi N. T. transl. Syriac. Commentatio, Breslau, 1837) believes that he so modified the text itself, that it remains in the state in which Polycarp left it only in one codex now at Rome, which he collated for a few chapters of St. John.

We have been reminded by Tregelles, who was always ready to give every one his due, that our own Pococke in 1630, in the Preface to his edition of the Catholic Epistles not included in the Peshitto, both quotes an extract from Dionysius Barsalibi, Bishop of Amida (Diarbekr), who flourished in the twelfth [pg 027] century, which mentions this version, and even shows some acquaintance with its peculiar character. Although again brought to notice in the comprehensive “Bibliotheca Orientalis” (1719-28) of the elder J. S. Assemani [1687-1768], the Harkleian attracted no attention until 1730, in which year Samuel Palmer sent from Diarbekr to Dr. Gloucester Ridley four Syriac manuscripts, two of which proved to belong to this translation, both containing the Gospels, one of them being the only extant copy of the Acts and all the Epistles. Fortunately Ridley [1702-1774] was a man of some learning and acuteness, or these precious codices might have lain disregarded as other copies of the same version had long done in Italy; so that though he did not choose to incur the risk of publishing them in full, he communicated his discovery to Wetstein, who came to England once more, in 1746, for the purpose of collating them for his edition of the N. T., then soon to appear: he could spare, however, but fourteen days for the task, which was far too short a time, the rather as the Estrangelo character, in which the manuscripts were written, was new to him. In 1761 Ridley produced his very careful and valuable tract, De Syriacarum N. F. Versionum Indole atque Usu Dissertatio, and on his death his manuscripts went to New College, of which society he had been a Fellow. The care of publishing them was then undertaken by the Delegates of the Oxford Press, who selected for their editor Joseph White [1746-1814], then Fellow of Wadham College and Professor of Arabic, afterwards Canon of Christ Church; who, though now, I fear, chiefly remembered for the most foolish action of his life, was an industrious, able, and genuine scholar. Under his care the Gospels appeared in two vols. 4to, 177834 with [pg 028] a Latin version and satisfactory Prolegomena; the Acts and Catholic Epp. in 1799, the Pauline in 1803. Meanwhile Storr (Observat. super N. T. vers. Syr., 1772) and Adler (N. T. Version. Syr., 1789) had examined and described seven or eight continental codices of the Gospels in this version, some of which are thought superior to White's35.

The characteristic feature of the Harkleian is its excessive closeness to the original: it is probably the most servile version of Scripture ever made. Specimens of it will appear on pp. 38-40, by the side of those from other translations, which will abundantly justify this statement. The Peshitto is beyond doubt taken as its basis, and is violently changed in order to force it into rigorous conformity with the very letter of the Greek. In the twenty verses of Matt. xxviii we note seventy-six such alterations: three of them seem to concern various readings (vers. 2-18; and 5 marg.); six are inversions in the order; about five are substitutions of words for others that may have grown obsolete: the rest are of the most frivolous description, the definite state of nouns being placed for the absolute, or vice versa; the Greek article represented by the Syriac pronoun; the inseparable pronominal affixes (that delicate peculiarity of the Aramaean dialects) retrenched or discarded; the most unmeaning changes made in the tenses of verbs, and the lesser particles. Its very defects, however, as being servilely accurate, give it weight as a textual authority: there can be no hesitation about the readings of the copies from which such a book was made. While those employed for the version itself in the sixth century resembled more nearly our modern printed editions, the three or more codices used by Thomas at Alexandria must have been nearly akin to Cod. D (especially in the Acts), and, next to D, support BL, 1, 33, 69. “Taken altogether,” is Dr. Hort's comment, “this is one of the most confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered more intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if they should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of Harkel from that of his predecessor Polycarpus” (Introd., p. 156).

The number of MSS. of this Harkleian version is far greater [pg 029] than it was supposed to have been. The important discovery of the Mohl MS., now in the possession of the Cambridge University Library, brings down the Epistle to the Hebrews to the conclusion, so that we now possess the Pauline Epistles complete in this revision.

The following account of the MSS. of the Harkleian, consists in his own words of what Mr. Deane has seen himself, many of which he has collated. The letters are those by which he intended to have designated these MSS. had his sight enabled him to complete his revision.

A. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 14,469. Saec. x (Wright's Catalogue cxx). Very important.

B. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7163. Saec. ix. x (Forshall's Catalogue xix). Very important.

C. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Cod. Or. 130. Saec. xii.

D. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 333. Perhaps not so important as R.

F. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Dawk. 50.

G. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7164. Saec. xii (Forshall's Catalogue xx).

H. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7165. Saec. xiii (Forshall's Catalogue xxi). In this MS. the two first lines of each page are for the most part obliterated by damp.

K. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7166. Saec. xv. xvi (Forshall's Catalogue xxii).

L. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi.

Q. Cod. Mus. Brit. Add. 17,124. Saec. xiii (No. 65 Wright's Catalogue).

R. Cod. Bibl. Coll. Nov. Oxon. 334.

S. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Orient. 361. Saec. xiv.

T. Cod. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. Poc. 316.

U. Cod. Mus. Brit. Rich 7167. Saec. xv. xvi. Fragments on St. Matthew only.

V. Cod. Mohl. Cambridge University Library. Saec. xii.

The last of these would probably be the text from which any new edition would be printed. It is a most remarkable MS., executed with great care, and by a good Syrian scholar. Students should observe especially the curious diacritic point by which he designates the Nom. pendens. “I have not seen,” Mr. Deane adds, “that elsewhere, though doubtless it exists36.”

[pg 030]

4. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Syriac.

There are extant several scattered fragments of the Old and New Testaments, in a form of Syriac entirely distinct from the versions already described. These fragments are all in one dialect, and are apparently parts of a single version. The most considerable portion is an Evangelistarium which was discovered virtually by Adler, who collated, described, and copied a portion of it (Matt. xxvii. 3-32) for that great work in a small compass, his “N. T. Versiones Syriacae” (1789): S. E. Assemani the nephew had merely inserted it in his Vatican Catalogue (1756). It is a partial Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 19), on 196 quarto thick vellum leaves, written in two columns in a rude hand, the rubric notes of Church Lessons in Carshunic, i.e. Arabic in Syriac letters, with many mistakes. From a subscription, we learn that the scribe was Elias, a presbyter of Abydos, who wrote it in the Monastery of the Abbat Moses at Antioch, in the year of Alexander 1341, or a.d. 1030. Adler gives a poor facsimile (Matt. xxvii. 12-22): the character is peculiar, and all diacritic points (even that distinguishing dolath from rish), as well as many other changes, are thought to be by a later hand. Tregelles confirms Assemani's statement, which Adler had disputed, that the first six leaves, showing traces of Greek writing buried beneath the Syriac, proceeded from another scribe. The remarkable point, however, about this version (which seems to be made from the Greek, and is quite independent of the Peshitto) is the peculiar dialect it exhibits, and which has suggested its name. Its grammatical forms are far less Syriac than Chaldee, which latter it resembles even in that characteristic particular, the prefixing of yud, not nun, to the third person masculine of the future of verbs37; and many of the words it employs can be illustrated only from the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, or from the Jerusalem, or Palestinian, Targum and Talmud38. Adler's [pg 031] account of the translation and its copyist is not very flattering, “satis constat dialectum esse incultam et inconcinnam ... orthographiam autem vagam, inconstantem, arbitrariam, et ab imperito librario rescribendo et corrigendo denuo impeditam” (Vers. Syr., p. 149). As it is mentioned by no Syriac writer, it was probably used but in a few remote churches of Lebanon or Galilee: but though (to employ the words of Porter) “in elegance far surpassed by the Peshitto; in closeness of adherence to the original by the Philoxenian” (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, p. 356); it has its value, and that not inconsiderable, as a witness to the state of the text at the time it was turned into Syriac; whether, with Adler, we regard it as derived from a complete version of the Gospels made not later than the sixth century, or with Tischendorf refer it to the fifth39. Tregelles (who examined the codex at Rome) wrongly judged it a mere translation of some Greek Evangelistarium of a more recent date. Of all the Syriac books, this copy and Barsalibi's recension of the Harkleian alone contain John vii. 53-viii. 11; the Lectionary giving it as the Proper Lesson for Oct. 8, St. Pelagia's day. In general its readings much resemble those of Codd. BD, siding with B eighty-five times, with D seventy-nine, in the portions published by Adler; but with D alone eleven times, with B alone but three.

The information afforded by Adler respecting this remarkable document gave rise to a natural wish that the whole manuscript should be carefully edited by some respectable scholar. This has now been done by Count Francis Miniscalchi Erizzo, who in 1861-4 published at Verona in two quarto volumes “Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum ex Codice Vaticano Palaestino deprompsit, edidit, Latinè vertit, Prolegomenis ac Glossario adornavit Comes F. M. E.” This elaborate work, for such it is, although its execution fails on the whole to satisfy critics of the calibre of Land and the Abbé Martin, ends with a list of those chapters and verses of the Gospels (according to the notation of the Latin Vulgate), which the manuscript contains [pg 032] in full. Tischendorf, in the eighth edition of his Greek Testament, enriched his notes with the various readings these Church Lessons exhibit; their critical character being much the same as Adler's slight specimen had given us reason to expect40. The Lectionary closely resembles that of the Greek Church, the slight differences in the beginnings and endings of the Lessons scarcely exceeding those subsisting between different Greek copies, as noticed in our Synaxarion. It contains the Sunday and week-day Gospels for the first eight weeks beginning at Easter (with a few verses lost in two places of Week viii); the Saturday and Sunday Gospels only for the rest of the year; the Lessons for the Holy Week, complete as detailed in Vol. I. 85, with two or three slight exceptions; and the eleven Gospels of the Resurrection. In the Menology or Calendar of Immoveable Feasts, there is a greater amount of variation in regard to the Saints' Days kept, as indeed we might have looked for beforehand. We subjoin a list of those whose Gospels are given at length in the manuscript, together with the portions of Scripture appointed for each day, in order that this curious Syriac service-book may be compared with that of the Greeks.

September 1. Simaan Alepinus Stylites. 3. Commemoratio patris nostri Anthioma, John x. 7-16. 4. Babul et puerorum et sanctorum qui cum eo, Luke x. 1-12. 5. Zacharias, father of the Baptist, Matt, xxiii. 29-39. 6. Eudoxio, Mark xii. 28-37. 8. Birthday of the Virgin, Matins, Luke i. 39-56. Ad Missam, as p. 87. Sunday before Elevation of the Cross, as p. 87. 14. Elevation of the Cross, John xi. 53; xix. 6-35. 15. Nikita, Matt. x. 16-22. 16. Eufemia, p. 87, note 2. 20. Eustathios et sociorum ejus, Luke xxi. 12-19. 21. Jonah the Prophet, Luke xi. 29-33. 30. Gregory the Armenian41, Matt. xxiv. 42-51.

October 3. Dionosios the Bishop, Matt. xiii. 45-54. Blagia (p. 87, note 3), John viii. 1-11. 18. Luke, as p. 87. 21. Patris nostri Ilarion, Luke vi. 17-23. 25. SS. Scriptorum Marciano et Martorio, Luke xii. 2-12. 26. Demetrius et commemoratio terrae motus, Matt. viii. 23-27.

November 1. SS. Thaumaturgorum Kezma et Damian, Matt. x. 1-8.

December 4. Barbara, Mark v. 24-34. 20. Ignathios, as p. 88. 22. Anastasia, Mark xii. 28-44. Dominica ante Nativitatem, et patrum (compare p. 88). In nocte Nativitatis, as p. 88. 25. Christmas Day, sanctorum, Matt. i. 1-17. 24. Ad mat. Nativitatis, Matt. i. 18-25 [pg 033] as p. 88. 26. Commemoratio dominae Mart. Mariam, as p. 88. 28. Jacob, frater Domini42, Mark vi. 1-5 (p. 88).

January 1. Circumcision, as p. 88. 3. Matt. iii. 1, 5-11. Saturday and Sunday ante missam aquae, as p. 88. 5. Nocte missae aquae, p. 88. 6. Missa aquae (both Lessons), as p. 88. 7. Commemoration of John the Baptist, as p. 88. Saturday and Sunday post missam aquae, as p. 88. 8. Luke iii. 19-22. 10. John x. 39-42. 11. Luke xx. 1-8. Theodosis, Luke vi. 17-23. 15. Juhanna Tentorii, Matt. iv. 25; v. 1-12. 28. Patris nostri Efrem, Matt. v. 14-19.

February 2. Ingressus Domini Jesu Christi in templum, as p. 88. 24. Finding of the Head of John the Baptist, ad Mat. as p. 88: ad Missam, Matt. xi. 2-15.

March 9. Martyrii xl martyrum Sebastis, Matt. xx. 1-16. 25. Annuntiationis Deiparae, ad Missam, as p. 88.

April 1. Mariam Aegyptiacae, Luke vii. 36-50 (compare p. 88, note 2).

May 8. Evan. Juhanna fil. Zebdiai43, as p. 88.

June 14. Proph. Elisha, Luke iv. 22-3044. 24. Birth of John the Baptist, as p. 88. 29. Peter, as p. 88. 30. The Twelve Apostles, Matt. ix. 36-x. 8.

July 22. Mariam Magdalanis, Luke viii. 1-3.

August 1. Amkabian Ascemonith, et filiorum suorum, Matt. x. 16-22. 6. Apparitio Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Monte Thabur, Luke ix. 28-36; Matt. xvii. 1-9; 10-22. 29. Beheading of John the Baptist, as p. 88.

Appendix. Sanctae Christianae, Matt. xxv. 1-13 (see Sept. 24, p. 88). Justorum, Matt. xi. 27-30. Dominica xi, Matt. xv. 21-28.

This last (of the Canaanites, p. 88) had been omitted in its usual place, and two lessons inserted about the same place, which are not in the Greek, viz. Jejunio sancto Banscira fer. 4, vesp. Mark xi. 22-25, and fer. 6, vesp. John xv. 1-12.

A new edition of Adler's Evangelistarium was projected by the late Dr. P. A. de Lagarde, who made a fresh collation of the MS. shortly before his death. The results have been published in a posthumous work entitled “Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae,” 1892. The latter part contains the Evangelistarium, with the text set out in the order of the Gospels, instead of that of the Church Lessons, and notes are added on the readings of the MS. and its correctors, and on the edition of Miniscalchi Erizzo.

Another edition has been announced by Mrs. Lewis45, the text to be taken from two Lectionaries, which she has recently discovered in the Library of the Convent on Mount Sinai, with a collation of the readings of the Vatican MS.

Some fragments of other MSS. of the same Evangelistarium are preserved in the British Museum (Add. 14,450, fol. 14, and 14,664, foll. 17, [pg 034] 20, 21), and in the Imperial Library, St. Petersburg. They have been published by Professor Land in Anecdota Syriaca, tom, iv, 1875, with a fragment of Acts (xiv. 6-13), in the St. Petersburg Library.

Mr. J. Rendel Harris has published in “Biblical Fragments from Mount Sinai” a leaf containing Gal. ii. 3-5, 12-14; iii. 17, 18, 24-28.

The same library is said to contain other remains of Palestinian literature, patristic translations as well as biblical fragments.

In the Bodleian Library are four fragments, Col. iv. 12-18; 1 Thess. i. 1-3; iv. 3-15; 2 Tim. i. 10-ii. 7; Titus i. 11-ii. 5, an edition of which has been accomplished by the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam46.

5. The Karkaphensian or Syriac Massorah.

Assemani (Biblioth. Orient., tom. ii. p. 283), on the authority of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus, mentions what has been supposed to have been a Syriac “version” of the N. T., other than the Peshitto and Harkleian, which was named “Karkaphensian” (ܩܪܩܦܢܬܐ or ܐܬܢܦܩܪܩ), whether, as he thought, because it was used by Syrians of the mountains, or from Carcuf, a city of Mesopotamia. Adler (Vers. Syr., p. 33) was inclined to believe that Bar-Hebraeus meant rather a revised manuscript than a separate translation. Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of those youthful studies which gave such seemly, precocious, deceitful promise (Horae Syriacae, Rom. 1828), discovered in the Vatican (MS. Syr. 152) a Syriac manuscript of readings from both Testaments, with the several portions of the New standing in the following order; Acts, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, the fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, and then the Gospels, these being the only books contained in the true Peshitto. In the margin also are placed by the first hand many readings indicated by the abbreviation ܛܘ (or ܘܛ) [with a line over the last letter], the title of some scribe or teacher47. The codex is on thick yellow vellum, in large folio, with the two columns so usual in Syriac writing; the ink, especially the points in vermilion, has often grown pale, and it has been carefully retouched by a later hand; the original document being all the work of one scribe: some of the marginal notes refer to various readings. There are several long and tedious subscriptions in [pg 035] the volume, whereof one states that the copy was written “in the year of the Greeks 1291 (a.d. 980) in the [Monophysite] monastery of Aaron on [mount] Sigara, in the jurisdiction of Calisura, in the days of the Patriarchs John and Menna, by David a deacon of Urin in the jurisdiction of Gera” [Γέρρα, near Beroea or Aleppo]. It may be remarked that Assemani has inserted a letter in the “Bibliotheca Orientalis” from John the Monophysite Patriarch [of Antioch] to his brother Patriarch, Menna of Alexandria. This manuscript, of which Wiseman gives a rather rude facsimile, is deemed by him of great importance in tracing the history of the Syriac vowel-points. Other Karkaphensian manuscripts have been examined since Wiseman's time; and all, whether containing more, or less, of the actual text, agree in the parts which are common, with, however, some independent readings. We subjoin Matt. i. 19 in four texts, wherein the close connexion of the Karkaphensian and the Nestorian recension with the Peshitto is very manifest.

Curetonian.

ܝܩܣܦܝ ܕܝܢ ܡܬܠ ܕܔܪܐ ܚܘܐ
ܛܛ ܐ ܨܛ ܗܘܐ ܕܢܦܪܣܚܘ ܥܡܪܝܡ
ܘܐܬܪܠܗ ܗܘܐ ܕܟܝܘܫܐܐܝܬ ܢܪܠܠܚܘ܀

Nestorian Massorah. Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,138.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܟܠܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ
ܘܐܐ ܨܒܐ ܕ ܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܕܠܝܘ (sic)
ܗܘܐ ܕ ܡܠܛܫܝܪܬ ܢܫܪܝܗ ܀

Harkleian—from White.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܗܘ ܓܟܪܐ ܕ ܚܠܗ ܕ ܒܐܢܐ
ܐܬܘܗܝܗܘܐ܃ ܘܐܐ ܨܒܐܗܘܐ ܕ ܢܦܪ ܣܞܡ܃
ܐܬܝܫܒ ܕ ܟܛܘܫܝܐ ܢܫܪܝܗ ܀

* Marg. παραδειγματίσαι.

Jacobite Massorah (Karkaphensian). Cod. Add. Brit. Mus. 12,178.

ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܝܢ ܟܙܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ
ܘܐܐ ܨܟܐ ܕ ܢܦܪܣܝܗ ܘܐܬܪܠܝ ܗܘܐ
ܕ ܡܠܛܫܝܪܬ ܢܫܪܗ ܀

Peshitto Text—from the MSS.

ܝܘܣܦ ܝܢ ܟܙܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܝܘܣܦ ܕ ܫܢ ܒܠܠܗ ܒܐܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܘܠ ܀

The reader must not be misled by this specimen to infer that the Karkaphensian always coincides with the Peshitto. It is not a continuous text, but only those verses or passages are quoted where some word or words occur concerning which some annotation is required in reference to orthography or pronunciation. Whole verses or parts of verses are often omitted48.

Very recently, since the last illness of Dr. Scrivener had commenced, [pg 036] the results of a wider examination of Syriac MSS. in different Libraries have been made more generally known by Mr. Gwilliam's Essay in the third volume of “Studia Biblica49.” According to the investigations of the leading Syriac scholars, it appears that the Karkaphensian is not a distinct version, but a kind of Massorah—the attempt to preserve the best traditions of the orthography and pronunciation of the more important or difficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible. This Massoretic teaching differs from the Hebrew Massorah, in that whilst the latter supplies us with all that we know of the form of the Jewish Scriptures50, the Syriac Massorah is younger than our oldest copies of the Syriac Bible. The following are Syriac Massoretic MSS.:—

1. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,138, a Nestorian work, written a.d. 899 at Harran.

2. Cod. Vaticanus 152, a.d. 980 (Wiseman, as above).

3. Cod. Add. B. M. 12,178, a Jacobite work of the ninth or tenth century.

4. Cod. Barberinus, described by Bianchini in Evangeliarium Quadruplex, 1748, and afterwards by Wiseman, a.d. 1089 or 1093.

5. Cod. Add. B. M. 7183, also a Jacobite Massoretic work of the early part of the twelfth century.

6. In the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris, a Massoretic MS.

7. M. l'Abbé Martin mentions another, a.d. 1015, in the Cathedral of Mosul.

Thus the Massorah is extant in two forms, corresponding to the two branches of the Syrian Church. But only one MS. is Nestorian (Cod. Add. 12,138), whilst all except that one are Jacobite.

The name Karkaphensian is connected with the Jacobite Massorah, and signifies the kind of text which was favoured in the Scriptorium of the Skull Convent51. Allusions to the Skull Convent are found; the adjective itself occurs in St. Matt. xxvii. 33, and the parallel passages, as a translation of κρανίου. It is known that grammatical and philological studies were pursued by Jacob of Edessa (d. a.d. 710), probably by Joseph Huzita, rector of the school at Nisibis (vi); and a tract attached to Add. 12,178 suggests a connexion between these criticisms and the labours of one “Thomas the Deacon52.”

[pg 037]

We have now traced the history of the several Syriac versions, so far at least as to afford the reader some general idea of their relative importance as materials for the correction of the sacred text. We will next give parallel renderings of Matt. xii. 1-4; Mark xvi. 17-20 from the Peshitto, the Curetonian, and the Harkleian, the only versions known in full; for Matt. xxvii. 3-8, in the room of the Curetonian, which is here lost, we have substituted the Jerusalem Syriac, and have retained throughout Thomas' marginal notes to the Harkleian, its asterisks and obeli. We have been compelled to employ the common Syriac type, though every manuscript of respectable antiquity is written in the Estrangelo character. Even from these slight specimens the servile strictness of the Harkleian, and some leading characteristics of the other versions, will readily be apprehended by an attentive student (e.g. of the Curetonian in Matt. xii. 1; 4; Mark xvi. 18; 20).


We hoped to include in this account some description of the MS. lately discovered by Mrs. Lewis in the Monastery of St. Catherine, at Mount Sinai, and brought in copy last spring to Cambridge. It is now undergoing the careful and skilful examination which the character of the accomplished assistants of Mrs. Lewis ensures, and it is impossible at present to anticipate the verdict upon it which those scholars may recommend, and which may be finally adopted by the learned world at large. The photographic illustration of a page, which has been made public53, does not suggest that the MS. possesses any very remarkable antiquity. But it is due to our argument upon the mutual relations of the Peshitto and the Curetonian to remark, that the Curetonian will even then rest upon only two MSS., one of them being a palimpsest, in face of the numerous supports of the Peshitto, and that even if the Curetonian be proved, as seems improbable, to date from somewhat further back than we have supposed, the claim of the Peshitto to production in the early part of the second century, and to a superior antiquity, will not thereby be removed.

[pg 038]

Syriac Versions. Matthew XII. 1-4.

peshitto

(1) ܟܗܘ ܙܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܙ
ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܬ ܙܪܥܐ ܘܬܠܡܕܪܘܗܝ
ܩܦܢܘ : ܘܫܪܝܘ ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ
(2) ܦܪܝܫܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܫ ܝܥܘ ܐܢܘܢ ܐܡܪܝܢ
ܠܗ . ܗܐ ܬܠܡܝܫܟ ܥܟܫܝܢ ܡܝܡ
ܕܠ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܡܥܟܝ ܟܫܟܬܐ . (3) ܗܘ
ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ . ܠ ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ
ܥܟܕ ܕܘܝܕ ܩܕ ܩܦܢ ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ :
(4) ܐܝܩܢܐ ܥܠ ܠܒܬܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ :
: ܘܠܚܡܐ ܕܦܬܘܪܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ ܐܩܠ
ܗܘ ܕܐ ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܡܐܩܠ .
ܘܠ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . ܐܠܐ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ
ܟܠܚܘܕ ⁘

curetonian.

(1) ܘܟܗܘ ܙ ܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ ܝܫܘܥ
ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܝܬ ܙܪܥܐ . ܘܬܠܡܝܪܘܗܝ
ܩܦܢܘ . ܘܫܪܝܘ ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܦܪܩܢ
ܟܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ . (2) ܩܕ ܝܥܘ
ܐܢܘܢ ܦܪܝܫܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ ܠܗ . ܡܢܐ
ܥܟܝܢ ܬܠܡܝܪܝܟ ܡܪܡ ܕܠܐ ܫܠܝܛ
ܠܡܥܟܕ . (3) ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢܠ
ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܥܟܕ ܕܘܝܪ ܩܪܩܦܢ
ܘܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . (4) ܐܝܩܢܐ ܥܠ
ܠܒܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ . ܘܐܟܠ ܡܢ ܠܚܡ
ܐܦܐ . ܕܠ ܠܗ ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܡܐܩܠ
ܐܦܠ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ . ܐܠ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ
⁘ ܟܠܚܘܕ

harkleian.

(1) ܟܗܘ ܙܟܢܐ : ܡܗܠܟ ܗܘܐ
ܝܫܘܥ ܟܫܟܬܐ ܒܕ ܕܬ ܙܪܥܐ.
ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܝܢ ܩܦܢܘ : ܘܫܪܝܘ
ܡܠܓܢ ܫܟܠ ܘܐܩܠܝܢ . (2) ܦܪܝܫܐ
ܕܝܢ ܩܕ ܝܥܐ ܐܡܪܘ ܠܗ . ܗܐ
ܐܠܡܝܕܝܟ ܥܟܕܝܢ ܗܘ ܡܐ ܕܠ ܫܠܝܛ
ܠܡܥܟܕ ܟܫܟܬܐ . (3) ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ
ܠܗܘܢ . ܠ ܩܪܝܬܘܢ ܡܢܐ ܥܟܪ ܕܘܝܕ .
ܩܕ ܩܦܢ ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܥܡܗ : (4) ܐܝܩܢܐ
ܥܠ ܠܒܬܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ : ܘܠܚܡܐ
ܗܘܘ ܩܕܡ ܐܠܗܐ . ܗܢܘ ܕܝܢ ܕܣܝܡܝܢ
ܕܣܝܡܘܬ ܩܕܡܐ ܐܩܠ : ܗܠܝܢ ܕܠ
ܫܠܝܛ ܗܘܐ ܠܗ ܠܡܐܩܠ ܘܠ
ܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܠܡܗ : ܐܠ ܐܢ ܠܩܗܢܐ
ܟܠܚܘܕܝܗܘܢ ⁘
[pg 039]

Parallel Renderings. Matthew XXVII. 3-8

peshitto.

(3) ܗܝܕܝܢ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܡܫܠܡܢܐ : ܩܕ
ܚܐ ܕܐܬܚܝܒ ܝܫܘܥ ܐܬܬܘܝ . ܘܐܙܠ
ܐܗܦܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܟܝ
ܟܗܨܐ ܘܠܘܫܫܐ . (4) ܘܐܡܪ . ܚܛܬ
ܕܐܫܠܡܬ ܕܡܐ ܙܩܝܐ . ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪܘ
ܠܗ . ܠܢ ܡܐ ܠܢ . ܐܢܬ ܝܪܥ ܐܢܬ
(5) ܘܫܪܝܗܝ ܟܣܦܐ ܟܗܝܩܠ ܘܫܢܝ .
ܘܐܙܠ ܚܢܩ ܢܦܫܗ . (6) ܪܒܝ ܩܡܢܐ
ܕܝܢܫܘܠܘܗܝ ܠܩܣܦܐ ܘܐܡܪܘ . ܠ
ܫܠܝܛ ܕܢܪܡܝܘܗܝ ܒܬ ܩܘܪܟܢܐ .
ܡܛܠ ܕܛܡܝ ܕܡܐܗܘ . (7) ܘܢܣܟܘ
ܡܠܩܐ : ܘܙܟܢܘ ܒܗ ܐܓܘܪܣܗ ܕܦܚܪܐ
ܠܒܬ ܩܟܘܪܐ ܕܐܟܣܢܝܐ . (8) ܡܛܠ
ܗܢܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܗܘ : ܩܝܪܝܬܐ
ܕܕܡܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ⁘

jerusalem syriac.

ܘܒܬܗ ܩܝܪܘܣܐ ܟܩܢ ܩܕ ܝܡܐ
ܝܗܘܕܣ ܕܡܣܪ ܝܬܗ ܕܐܬܚܝܒ ܬܗܐ ⁘
ܘܐܬܪܒ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܕܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܝܫܐ ܟܗܢܝܐ
(ܕܟܡܢܝܐ s.m.) ܘܩܫܝܫܐ . (4) ܘܐܡܪ
ܐܣܩܠܬ ܕܡ ܣܪܬ ܐܕܡ ? ܕܝܩ ⁘ ܐܕܡ
(? ܕܝܩ s.m.) ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝ ܐܡܪܘ ܡܐ
ܥܠܝܢܗ ܐܬ ܬܝܡܐ (5) ܘܫܕܐ ܩܣܦܐ
ܟܢܘܣܐ ܘܐܙܠ ܝܢܩܓܪܡܗ ⁘ (6) ܪܝܫܐ
ܩܗܢܝܐ ܕܝ ܢܣܟܘ ܩܣܦܐ ܘܐܡܪܘܠ
ܫܠܝܛ ܕܢܪܡܐ ܝܬܗ ܟܩܘܪܟܢܐ ⁘
ܠܓܠ ܕܗܘ ܕܡܝܢ ܕܐܕܡ (7) ܢܣܟܘ
ܕܝ ܡܝܠܟ (ܡܝܠܟܐ sic s.m.) ܘܙܟܢܘ
ܒܗܘܢ ܛܘܪܗ ܕܦܚܪܐ ܠܡܘܟܘܪܐ
ܠܩܣܢܚ ⁘ (8) ܠܩܝ ܢ ܐܬܘܪܝ ܛܘܪܐ ܗܐܘ
ܝܘܠ ܐܕܡܐ ܥ ܪ ܡܛܐ ܠܝܘܡܕܝܢ ⁘

harkleian.

(3) ܗܝܪܝܢ ܩܪ ܚܢܐ ܝܗܘܕܐ ܗܘ
ܕܐܫܠܡܗ ܕܐܬܪܝܒ : ܩܪ ܐܬܬܘܝ :
ܐܗܦܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܬܢ ܩܣܦܐ ܠܪܝܫܝ
ܩܗܢܐ ܘܠܘܫܝܫܐ (4) ܩܕ ܐܗܪ :
ܝܛܬ ܕܐܫܠܡܬ ܕܡܐ ܙܒܝܐ . ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܢ ܐܡܪܘ . ܡܢܐ ܠܘܬܢ . ܐܢܬ ܬܚܢܐ .
(5) ܘܩܕ ܫܕܝ ܐܢܘܢ ܠܩܣܦܐ ܟܗܝܩܠ :
ܫܢܝ ܘܐܙܠ ܚܢܩ ܗܘܠܗ .
ܪܝܫܝ ܩܗܢܐ ܕܝܢ ܩܕ ܫܘܠܘ ܐܢܘܢ
ܠܩܣܦܐ ܐܡܪܘ : ܠ ܫܠܝܛ ܠܡܪܡܝܘ
ܒܬ ܩܘܪܟ ܐܢܐܢ : ܡܛܠ ܕܛܝܡܐ ܕܕܡܐ
ܐܢܬܝܗܘܢ . (7) ܩܕ ܕܝܢ ܡܠܩܐ ܢܣܟܘ :
ܙܟܥܘ ܡܥܗܘܢ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ (5) ܕܦܚܪܝܐ
ܠܒܬ ܩܟܘܪܐ ܝܕܐܩܣܢܝܐ . (8) ܡܛܠ
ܗܕܐ ܐܬܩܪܝ ܗܘ ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܗܘ :
ܐܓܘܪܣܐ ܕܕܡܐ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܝܘܡܢܐ ⁘
[pg 040]

Syriac Versions. Mark XVI. 17-20

peshitto.

(17) ܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܠܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ
ܗܠܝܢ ܢܘܦܢ . ܟܫܡܝ ܫܐܕܐ
ܢܦܩܘܢ ܘܟܠܫܢܐ ܚܪܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ .
(18) ܘܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ . ܘܐܢ ܣܡܐ
ܕܡܘܬܐ ܢܫܬܘܢ ܠ ܢܗܪ ܐܢܘܢ . ܘܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ
ܢܣܝܡܘ ܢܥܠ ܩܪܝܗܐ ܘܢܬܚܠܡܘܢ .
(19) ܝܫܘܥ ܕܝܢ ܡܪܢ : ܡܢ ܟܬܪ
ܕܡܠܠ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܣܠܩ
ܘܝܬܒ ܡܢ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ . (20) ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܝܢ ܢܦܩܘ ܘܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܠ ܕܘܩܐ . ܘܡܪܢ
ܡܥܕܪ ܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ : ܘܡܫܪ ܡܠܝܗܘܢ
ܒܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܟܕܝܢ ܗܘܘ⁘

curetonian.

(17) ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܟܝ . ܗܠܝ ܢ
ܒܫܡܝ ܕܝܘܐ ܢܦܘܘܢ . ܟܠܫܢܐ ܚܕܬܐ
ܢܡܠܠܘܢ . (18) ܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ
ܒܐܪܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܐܢ ܡܪܡ ܣܡܐ ܕܡܘܬܐ
ܢܫܬܘܢ ܠ ܢܩܐ ܐܢܘܢ . ܐܠ ܩܪܗܐ
ܢܣܝܡܘܢ ܐܝܕܝܗܘܢ ܘܢܬܚܠܡܘܢ
(19) ܡܪܢ ܕܝܢ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܢ ܟܬܪ ܕܦܘܝ
ܠܬܠܡܝܪܘܗܝ ܐܬܥܠܝ ܠܫܡܝܠ .
ܘܝܬܒ ܡܢ ܝܡܝܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ . (20) ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܝܢ ܢܦܘܘ ܘܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܘܠ ܕܘܒܐ . ܟܕ
ܡܪܝܐ ܥܡܗܘܢ ܟܩܠ . ܘܡܠܬܗܘܢ
ܡܫܪ ܗܘܐ ܒܐܬܘܬܐ ܕܥܟܪܝܢ ܗܘܘ ⁘

harkleian.

(17) ܐܬܘ ܬܐܕܝܢ ܠܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ
ܗܠܝܢ ܢܘܦܢ . ܟܫܡܐ ܕܝܠܝ ܕܝܘܐ
ܢܦܩܘܢ . ܒܠܫܢܐ ܚܪܬܐ ܢܡܠܠܘܢ .
(18) ܘܒܐܝܪܝܐ ܚܘܘܬܐ ܢܫܘܠܘܢ .
ܘܐܢ ܣܡܐ ܡܡܝܬܢܐ ܡܪܡ ܢܫܬܘܢ
ܠ ܢܩܐ ܐܢܘܢ . ܥܠ ܩܪܝܗܐ ܐܝܕܝܐ
ܢܣܝܡܘܢ : ܘܛܒܐܝܬ ܢܗܘܘܢ ⁘ (19) ܗܘ
ܡܢ ܗܩܝܠ ܡܪܝܐ ܝܫܘܥ : ܟܬܪ
ܕܡܠܠ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܣܬܠܩ ܠܫܡܝܐ ܘܝܬܒ
ܡܢ ܝܡܝܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܐ ⁘ (20) ܗܢܘܢ
ܕܝܢ ܩܪ ܢܦܘܘ ܐܩܪܙܘ ܟܩܠ ܕܘܩܬܐ
ܩܪ ܡܪܝܐ ܡܥܪܕ ܗܘܐ ܘܠܡܠܬܐ ܡܫܕܪ
ܗܘܐ : ܟܝܕ ܐܬܘܬܐ ܗܢܝܢ ܕܢܦܘܢ ܗܘܝ ⁘
[pg 041]

Chapter III. The Latin Versions.

Since the publication of the third edition of this book, exhaustive work on the Old Latin Versions and the Vulgate, commenced before for the University of Oxford, as is well known amongst biblical scholars, by the Right Rev. John Wordsworth, D.D., Bishop of Salisbury, with the assistance of the Rev. H. J. White, has been prosecuted further, resulting in the publication of three volumes of Old Latin Biblical Texts, and of the edition of the Vulgate New Testament as far as the end of St. Luke's Gospel. It was therefore with the liveliest gratitude that the Editor received from the Bishop, in reply to consultation upon a special point, an offer to superintend the entire revision of this chapter, if Mr. White would give him his important help, notwithstanding other laborious occupations. Mr. White has carried out the work under the Bishop's direction, rewriting most of the chapter entirely, but incorporating, where possible, Dr. Scrivener's language.

(1) The Old Latin, previous to Jerome's Revision.

There are passages in the works of the two great Western Fathers of the fourth century, Jerome [345?-420] and Augustine [354-430], whose obvious and literal meaning might lead us to conclude that there existed in their time many Latin translations, quite independent in their origin, and used almost indifferently by the faithful. When Jerome, in that Preface to the Gospels which he addressed to Pope Damasus (in 384), anticipates but too surely the unpopularity of his revision of them among the people of his own generation, he consoles himself by the reflection that the variations of previous versions prove the unfaithfulness of them all: “verum non esse quod variat etiam maledicorum testimonio comprobatur.” Then follows his celebrated assertion: “Si enim Latinis exemplaribus fides est adhibenda, respondeant [pg 042] quibus: tot enim sunt exemplaria pene quot codices54.” The testimony of Augustine seems even more explicit, and at first sight conclusive. In his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana (lib. ii. cc. 11-15), when speaking of “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” and “interpretum numerositas,” as not without their benefit to an attentive reader, he uses these strong expressions: “Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea lingua in Graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex Graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari” (c. 11); and he soon after specifies a particular version as preferable to the rest: “In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala55 ceteris praeferatur. Nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiae” (cc. 14-15).

When, however, the surviving codices of the version or versions previous to Jerome's revision came to be studied and published by Sabatier56 and Bianchini57, it was obvious that though there were many points of difference, there were still traces of a source common to many, if not to all of them; and on a question of this kind, occasional divergency, however extensive, cannot weaken the impression produced by resemblance, if it be too close and constant to be attributable to chance, as we have just seen. The result of a careful and thorough examination and comparison of the existing Old Latin texts, is a conviction that they are all but off-shoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks. Now when, this fact fairly established, we look back at the language employed by Jerome and Augustine, we can easily see [pg 043] that, with some allowance for his habit of rhetorical exaggeration, the former may mean no more by the term “exemplaria” than that the scattered copies of the Latin translation in his own day varied widely from each other; and though the assertions of Augustine are too positive to be thus disposed of, yet he is here speaking, not from his own personal knowledge so much as from vague conjecture; and of what had been done, not in his own time, but “in the first ages of the faith.”

On one point, however, Augustine must be received as a competent and most sufficient witness. We cannot hesitate to believe that one of the several recensions current towards the end of the fourth century was distinguished from the rest by the name of Itala58, and in his judgement deserved praise for its clearness and fidelity. It was long regarded as certain that here we should find the Old Latin version in its purest form, and that in Italy it had been thus used from the very beginning of the Church, “cum Ecclesia Latina sine versione Latina esse non potuerit” (Walton, Proleg. x. 1). Mill indeed reminds us that the early Church at Rome was composed to so great an extent of Jewish and other foreigners, whose vernacular tongue was Greek, that the need of a Latin translation of Scripture would not at first be felt; yet even he would not place its date later than Pius I (142-157), the first Bishop of Rome after Clement who bears a Latin name (Mill, Proleg. § 377). It was not until attention had been specially drawn to the style of the Old Latin version, that scholars began to suggest Africa as the place, and the second half of the second century as the time, of its origin. This opinion, which had obtained favour with Eichhorn and some others before him, may be considered as demonstrated by Cardinal Wiseman, in his “Two letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 759.” So far as his argument rests on the Greek character of the Roman Church, it may not bring conviction to the reflecting reader. Even though the early Bishops of Rome were of foreign origin, though Clement towards the end of the first, Gaius the presbyter late in the second century, who are proved by their names to be Latins, yet chose to write in Greek; [pg 044] it does not follow that the Church would not contain many humbler members, both Romans and Italians, ignorant of any language except Latin, and for whose instruction a Latin version would be required. On the ground of internal evidence, however, Wiseman made out a case which all who have followed him, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, accept as irresistible; indeed it is not easy to draw any other conclusion from his elaborate comparison of the words, the phrases, and grammatical constructions of the Latin version of Holy Scripture, with the parallel instances by which they can be illustrated from African writers, and from them only (Essays, vol. i. pp. 46-66)60. It is impossible to exhibit any adequate abridgement of an investigation which owes all its cogency to the number and variety of minute particulars, each one weak enough by itself, the whole comprising a mass of evidence which cannot be gainsaid. In the works of Apuleius and of the African Fathers, Tertullian [150?-220?], Cyprian [† 258], and in the following century, Arnobius, Lactantius, Augustine, we obtain a glimpse into the genius and character of the dialect in which the earliest form of the Old Latin version is composed. We see a multitude of words which occur in no Italian author so late as Cicero; constructions (e.g. dominantur eorum, Luke xxii. 25; faciam vos fieri, Matt. iv. 19) or forms of verbs (sive consolamur ... sive exhortamur, 2 Cor. i. 6) abound61, which at Rome had long been obsolete; while the lack of classic polish is not ill-atoned for by a certain vigour which characterizes this whole class of writers, but never degenerates into barbarism.

The European and Italian forms of the Old Latin version will be discussed afterwards.

The following manuscripts of the version are extant. They [pg 045] are usually cited by the small italic letters of the alphabet, according to the custom set by Lachmann (1842-1850), which has been considerably extended, and partially altered, since his time. His a b c d of the Gospels, d e of the Acts, and g of St. Paul, remain the same, but his f and ff of St. Paul = our d and e, and his h = Primasius.

Old Latin Manuscripts of the Gospels.

a. Codex Vercellensis [iv?], at Vercelli; according to a tradition found in a document of the eighth century, this MS. was written by Eusebius, Bishop of Vercellae († 370); M. Samuel Berger, however, and other scholars would place it later. It is written in silver on purple vellum. Bianchini, when Canon of Verona, collated this treasure in 1727; see E. Mangenot, Joseph Bianchini et les anciennes versions latines (Amiens, 1892), who gives an interesting and sympathetic account of his work. Mut. in many letters and words throughout, and entirely wanting in Matt. xxiv. 49-xxv. 16; Mark i. 22-34; iv. 17-25; xv. 15-xvi. 7 (xvi. 7-20 is in a later hand, taken from Jerome's Vulgate); Luke i. 1-12; xi. 12-26; xii. 38-59. Published by J. A. Irici (Sacrosanctus Evangeliorum Codex S. Eusebii Magni), Milan, 1748, and by Bianchini on the left-hand page of his great Evangeliarium Quadruplex, Rome, 1749; the latter edition has been reprinted in Migne, Patr. Lat. tom. xii. Facsimile given in Zangemeister and Wattenbach, Exempla codicum Latinorum, pl. 20 (Heidelberg, 1876); compare Bethmann in Pertz, Archiv, xii. p. 606, and E. Ranke, Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 8. Bianchini's work seems to have been extremely accurate, though he does not keep to the actual division of the lines in the original manuscripts either here or in his edition of b. The Gospels are in the usual Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark; so also a2 b d e f ff2 i n q r.

b. Cod. Veronensis [iv or v], also in Bianchini's Evangeliarum Quadruplex on the right-hand page. Mut. Matt. i. 1-11, xv. 12-23, xxiii. 18-27; Mark xiii. 8-19; 24-xvi. 20; Luke xix. 26-xxi. 29; also John vii. 44-viii. 12 is erased.

c. Cod. Colbertinus [xii], at Paris (Lat. 254); New Testament, very important, though so late; edited in full by Sabatier (see p. 42, n. 3), and in a smaller and cheaper form by J. Belsheim, Christiania, 1888; Belsheim's work however is, as usual, inaccurate. For the date of the MS. see E. Ranke, Fragmenta Curiensia, p. 9. Beyond the Gospels, the version is Jerome's, and in a later hand. See below under Vulgate MSS., no. 53.

d. Cod. Bezae [vi], its Latin version; see Vol. I. pp. 124-130, and for its defects p. 124, n. 2; also Prof. J. Rendel Harris, A Study of Codex Bezae, Cambridge, 1891; and F. H. Chase, The Syriac element in Codex Bezae, London, 1893.

e. Cod. Palatinus [iv or v], now at Vienna (Pal. 1185), where it was acquired from Trent between 1800 and 1829; on purple vellum, [pg 046] 14 x 9-3/4, written with gold and silver letters, as are Codd. a b f i j, edited by Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1847. Only the following portions are extant: Matt. xii. 49-xiii. 13; 24-xiv. 11 (with breaks, twelve lines being lost); 22-xxiv. 49; xxviii. 2-John xviii. 12; 25-Luke viii. 30; 48-xi. 4; 24-xxiv. 53; Mark i. 20-iv. 8; 19-vi. 9; xii. 37-40; xiii. 2, 3; 24-27; 33-36; i.e. 2627 verses, including all St. John but 13 verses, all St. Luke but 38. Another leaf, bought for Trinity College, Dublin, by Dr. Todd before 1847, containing Matt. xiii. 13-23, was published by Dr. T.K. Abbott in his edition of Cod. Z. It was recognized in 1880 to be a fragment of e by Mr. French, the sub-librarian; see also H. Linke, Neue Bruchst. des Evang. Pal. (S. B. of the Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

f. Cod. Brixianus [vi], at Brescia, edited by Bianchini beneath Cod. b. Mut. Matt. viii. 16-26; Mark xii. 5-xiii. 32; xiv. 53-62; 70-xvi. 20. There are some bad slips in Migne's reprint of this MS.

ff1. Cod. Corbeiensis I [viii or ix], containing the Gospel of St. Matthew, now at St. Petersburg (Ov. 3, D. 326). It formerly belonged to the great monastic Library of Corbey, or Corbie, on the Somme, near Amiens; and with the most important part of that Library was transferred to St. Germain des Prés at Paris, in or about the year 1638, and was there numbered 21. The St. Germain Library, however, suffered severely from theft and pillage during the French Revolution, and Peter Dubrowsky, Secretary to the Russian Embassy at Paris, seems to have used his opportunities during that troublous time to acquire MSS. stolen from public libraries; ff1 with other MSS. fell into his hands and was transferred to the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg about 1800-1805. In 1695 Dom Jean Martianay, well known as the principal editor of the Benedictine St. Jerome, published ff1 with a marginal collation of the St. Germain Bible (g1), and the Corbey St. James (see p. 52) in a small volume entitled Vulgata antiqua Latina et Itala versio secundum Matthaeum e vetustissimis eruta monumentis illustrata Prolegomenis ac notis nuncque primum edita studio et labore D.J.M. etc. Parisiis, apud Antonium Lambin. Bianchini reprinted it underneath Cod. a, giving in its place a collation of ff2 in SS. Mark, Luke, and John; Sabatier, however, cites ff1 in Mark i. 1-v. 11, but it is difficult to know to what MS. he refers. Finally it has been re-edited by Belsheim (Christiania, 1882). For the history of this MS., see Wordsworth, Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. xxii, and Studia Biblica, i. p. 124; and for the history of the Library at Corbey, Delisle, Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes, 1860, p. 438; R. S. Bensly, The missing fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra, p. 7 (Cambridge, 1875).

ff2. Cod. Corbeiensis II [vi], now at Paris (Lat. 17,225), formerly at Corbey, where it was numbered 195; it contains 190 leaves and is written in a beautiful round uncial hand. Quoted by Sabatier, and a collation given by Bianchini in Mark, Luke, and John; published in full by Belsheim (Christiania, 1887). Belsheim's work, however, has been since revised by M. Berger and his revision communicated to the present writer (H. J. White). Mut. Matt. i. 1-xi. 6; John xvii. 15-xviii. 9; xx. 22-xxi. 8; Luke ix. 48-x. 21; xi. 45-xii. 6; and a few verses [pg 047] missing in Matt. xi, Mark ix and xvi; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. i. pl. 87.

g1. Cod. Sangermanensis I [ix], now at Paris (Lat. 11,553); formerly in the Library of St. Germain des Prés, where it was first numbered 15 and afterwards 86; it is the second volume of a complete Bible, the first volume of which has been lost. This MS. was known to R. Stephens, who in his Latin Bible, published 1538-40 and again 1546, quotes it as Germ. Lat., in consequence of its breadth; it was also examined by R. Simon, who, writing in 1680, speaks of it at some length; Martianay published a collation of its readings in his edition of the Corbey St. Matthew (see under ff1); and Martianay's collation, which indeed was faulty enough, was reprinted by Bianchini. John Walker, Bentley's coadjutor in his great but unfinished work for the New Testament, collated it carefully in 1720; and finally Bp. Wordsworth published St. Matthew's Gospel with full Introductions in 1883 (Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. 1, Oxford), and has collated the other Gospels for his edition of the Vulgate. J. Walker cited the MS. as μ; Bp. Wordsworth cites it as g1 in St. Matthew, G in the other books of the New Testament. The text can only be called strictly Old Latin in St. Matthew, where it seems to be partly of the European, partly of the Italian type; in the other Gospels it is Vulgate, though largely mixed with Old Latin readings. See below under Vulgate, MSS., no. 21.

g2. Cod. Sangermanensis II [x], 116 leaves, Irish hand, with a mixed Old Latin and Vulgate text. Now at Paris (Lat. 13,169), but was originally at Angers, and then apparently at Mans in the province of Tours; possibly brought there by Ulgrinus, Bishop of Mans 1057-65. See Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers Siècles du M.A., p. 48.

h. Cod. Claromontanus [iv or v], now in the Vatican Library (Lat. 7223), for which it was bought by Pius VI (1775-99), contains, like g1, St. Matthew only in the Old Latin, the other Gospels being Vulgate. Mut. Matt. i. 1-iii. 15; xiv. 33-xviii. 12. Sabatier gave extracts, and Mai published St. Matthew in full in his Script. Vet. nova collectio Vaticana, iii. p. 257 (Rom. 1828); it has been republished by Belsheim (Evangelium secundum Matthaeum ... e codice olim Claromontano nunc Vaticano), Christiania, 1892.

i. Cod. Vindobonensis [vii], at Vienna (Lat. 1235), formerly belonging to an Augustinian Monastery at Naples, whence it was brought with ninety-four other MSS. to Vienna in 1717; consists of 142 leaves, and contains Luke x. 6-xxiii. 10; Mark ii. 17-iii. 29; iv. 4-x. 1; 33-xiv. 36; xv. 33-40. The MS. was described and edited by F. C. Alter, the Mark fragments in G. E. H. Paulus' N. Repert. d. bibl. u. morgenl. Literatur, iii. pp. 115-170 (1791), the Luke fragments in Paulus, Memorabilia, vii. pp. 58-95 (1795). Bianchini had, however, previously obtained a collation for his Evangeliarium Quadruplex from the Count of Thun and Hohenstein (afterwards Bishop of Gurk in Carinthia), who had spent some time at the Court of Vienna; and N. Forlosia, the principal Librarian at Vienna, had given him a careful [pg 048] description of the MS.; see Epistola Blanchinii ad Episcopum Gurcensem in Bianchini's prolegomena. Finally Belsheim edited the MS. completely in 1885 (Leipzig, Weigel), and Dr. Rudolf Beer revised his edition for Bishop Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate in 1888.

j. Cod. Sarzannensis or Saretianus [v] was discovered in 1872 in the Church of Sarezzano near Tortona. It consists of eight quires written on purple vellum in silver letters, and contains (much mutilated) 292 verses of St. John, viz. i. 38-iii. 23; iii. 33-v. 20; vi. 29-49; 49-67; 68-vii. 32; viii. 6-ix. 21, written two columns on a page. The text is peculiar, and much with a b d e. Guerrino Amelli, sub-librarian of the Ambrosian Library (and now at the Benedictine Monastery of Monte Cassino), published at Milan the same year a Dissertazione critico-storica, 18 pp. (2nd edition, 1885), with a lithographed facsimile, whose characters much resemble the round and flowing shape of those in a b f. The MS. is now at Rome undergoing careful restoration, but no part of it has yet been published.

k. Cod. Bobiensis [v or vi], now in the National Library at Turin (G. vii. 15), whither it was brought with a vast number of other books from Bobbio; traditionally asserted to have belonged to St. Columban, who died in the monastery he had founded there, in 615. This MS. is perhaps the most important, in regard to text, of all the Old Latin copies, being undoubtedly the oldest existing representative of the African type. It contains Mark viii. 8-11; 14-16; 19-xvi. 9; Matthew i. 1-iii. 10; iv. 2-xiv. 17; xv. 20-36; the order then was probably John, Luke, Mark, Matthew. It was edited by F. F. Fleck in 1837, and by Tischendorf in 1847-49; but so inaccurately by the former and so inconveniently by the latter as to be little known and used by students. It was finally edited by Bishop Wordsworth (1886) as No. 2 of the Old-Latin Bible Texts, with full introduction, and with a dissertation on the text by Professor Sanday.

l. Cod. Rhedigeranus [vii], in the Rhedigeran Library at Breslau; from a note at the end of St. Luke's Gospel, it appears to have been bought by Thomas von Rhediger at Verona in the year 1569. J. E. Scheibel in 1763 published SS. Matthew and Mark, far from correctly. D. Schulz wrote a dissertation on it in 1814, and inserted his collation of it in his edition of Griesbach's N. T., vol. i. 1827. It was edited in full by H. F. Haase, Breslau (in the Index, lect. univ. Vratisl.), 1865-66. Mut. Matt. i. 1-ii. 15; John i. 1-16; vi. 32-61; xi. 56-xii. 10; xiii. 34-xiv. 23; xv. 3-15; xvi. 13 ad fin.

m. This letter indicates the readings extracted by Mai from the Liber de divinis scripturis sive speculum, ascribed to St. Augustine, and containing extracts from the whole N. T. except Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 John; it also has a citation from the Epistle to the Laodiceans. It resembles the Testimonia of Cyprian (and indeed one MS. has the subscription explicit testimoniorum) in that it consists of extracts from both Testaments, arranged in chapters under various heads. This treatise was published by Mai, first in the Spicilegium Romanum, 1843, vol. ix. part ii. 1-88, and again in the Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, [pg 049] Rome, 1852, vol. i. part ii. 1-117; and Wiseman had drawn attention to it in his celebrated Two Letters (see p. 43), because it contains 1 John v. 7 in two different places. Mai had published it from the Sessorian MS. (no. 58) of the eighth or ninth century, so called from the library of Sta. Croce in Gerusalemme (Bibliotheca Sessoriana) at Rome, in which it is preserved (see Reifferscheid, Bibl. Patr. Italica, ii. p. 129); he furnished a facsimile. Recently the treatise has been excellently edited by Dr. F. Weihrich in the Vienna Corpus script. eccl. lat., vol. xii (Vienna, 1887), from six MSS.; one of these is the Codex Floriacensis (Libri MS. 16, now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris, Nouv. acq. lat. 1596), the readings of which are occasionally cited by Sabatier under the name of floriac. (see Weihrich, p. xl, and L. Delisle, Cat. des MSS. des fonds Libri et Barrois, 1888, p. 25 and pl. iv. 1; also Palaeographical Soc., series ii. pl. 34).

n. Fragmenta Sangallensia [v or vi], in the Stiftsbibliothek at St. Gall, to which Library they have probably belonged from its foundation. The fragments are bound up in a large book numbered 1394, and entitled Veterum fragmentorum manuscriptis codicibus detractorum Collectio; they contain Matt. xvii. 1-xviii. 20; xix. 20-xxi. 3; xxvi. 56-60; 69-74; xxvii. 62-xxviii. 3; 8-20; Mark vii. 13-31; viii. 32-ix. 10; xiii: 2-20; xv. 22-xvi. 13; to this must be added a whole leaf containing John xix. 28-42, and a slip containing portions of John xix. 13-27, which are in the Stadtbibliothek of the same city, bound up in a MS. numbered 70 and entitled Casus monasterii Sancti Galli; and the conjecture of the Abbé Batiffol and Dr. P. Corssen is undoubtedly right that the fragment from St. Luke known as a2 (see below) is also a part of this MS.

Tischendorf transcribed these fragments, intending to edit them himself, but died before he had done so; the transcripts were purchased from his widow by the Clarendon Press in 1883, and published in the second volume of Old Lat. Bibl. Texts (Oxford, 1886) by the Rev. H. J. White, who revised them on the spot from the originals; meanwhile they had been published in France by the Abbé Batiffol (Note sur un Evangéliare de Saint-Gall, Paris, Champion, 1884, and Fragmenta Sangallensia in the Revue archéologique, pp. 305-321, for 1885). A facsimile was appended to the Oxford edition, and is also given by the Palaeographical Soc., series ii. plate 50.

o. [vii], another fragment at St. Gall, bound up in the same volume with n, contains Mark xvi. 14-20; it may very possibly have been written to complete the above-named MS. when it had lost its last leaf, as it has the same number of lines to a page and begins exactly at the point where n leaves off. Edited by Batiffol with n, and also in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

p. [vii or viii], also at St. Gall, bound up in the second volume of the Veterum fragmentorum Collectio (pp. 430-433). This fragment consists of two leaves written in an Irish hand, and apparently belonging to a Missa pro defunctis, of which it was the Gospel; it contains John xi. 16-44, introduced with the lines from Ps. lxv, te decet dñe, &c. The opening verses of the Gospel are adapted as an introduction of the [pg 050] lection; the rest of the text is of the European type, but (with r) contains many peculiar Irish characteristics. p has been published three times: by Forbes, in the Preface to the Arbuthnott Missal, p. xlviii (Burntisland, 1864); by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, vol. i. Appendix G, p. 197 (Oxford, 1869); and in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii.

q. Cod. Monacensis [vii], now in the Royal Library at Munich (Lat. 6224); it was transferred hither in 1802 with other MSS. from the Chapter Library of Freising, in which it was numbered 24; written by a scribe named Valerianus. Contains the four Gospels, but mut. Matt. iii. 15-iv. 23; v. 25-vi. 4; 28-vii. 8; John x. 11-xii. 38; xxi. 8-20; Luke xxiii. 23-35; xxiv. 11-39; Mark i. 7-21; xv. 5-36. Published in full by the Rev. H. J. White in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. iii (Oxford, 1888); facsimiles given in the Oxford edition and also by Silvestre (Paléog. univ.; quatrième partie, no. 158).

r or r1. Codex Usserianus I [vii], in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (A. iv. 15); it is kept among the books which once belonged to Archbishop Ussher, but nothing is known of its early history. The MS. consists of 180 leaves or fragments, written in an Irish hand, but much injured by damp; it contains the four Gospels in the usual Old Latin order, but mut. Matt. i. 1-xv. 16; 31-xvi. 13; xxi. 4-21; xxviii. 16-20; John i. 1-15; Mark xiv. 58-xv. 8; 29-xvi. 20. Published in full by Professor T. K. Abbott, Evangeliorum versio antehieronymiana (Dublin, 1884); facsimiles are given in his edition, in the Palaeographical Society, series ii. plate 33, and in the Facsimiles of National MSS. of Ireland, part i (1874), pl. ii. It contains the pericope de adultera in St. John, but in the Vulgate, not the Old Latin, text.

r2. Codex Usserianus II [ix or x], also in the Library of Trinity College, Dublin (A. iv. 6). Contains the four Gospels, St. Matt. in the Old Latin and in a text allied to r1; St. Mark, the early part of St. Luke, and the small portion (only five leaves) extant of St. John, present a text very near the Vulgate. Dr. Abbott inserted a collation of this MS. in the second volume of his book, and also a facsimile. Mut. Matt. i. 1-18, ii. 6-iv. 24; v. 29-xiii. 7; xiv. 1-xvi. 13; xviii. 31-xix. 26; xxvii. 58-xxviii. 20; Mark iii. 23-iv. 19; v. 31-vi. 13; Luke i. 1-13; ii. 15-iii. 8; vi. 39-vii. 11; xi. 53-xii. 45; xiv. 18-xv. 25; xvi. 15-xvii. 7; xxii. 35-59; xxiii. 14-xxiv. 53; John i. 1-v. 12; vi. 24-viii. 7; x. 3-xxi. 25.

s. Fragmenta Ambrosiana [vi], now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, where they are bound up in a volume (C. 73 inf.) containing various treatises; they belonged originally to the Monastery of St. Columban at Bobbio. Four leaves only remain, containing Luke xvii. 3-29; xviii. 39-xix. 47; xx. 46-xxi. 22. They have been edited by Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana, tom. i. fasc. i (Milan, 1861), and again in Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, vol. ii; a facsimile is given by the Palaeographical Society, series i. plate 54.

t. Fragmenta Bernensia [v], palimpsest fragments, now at Berne, where they are bound up in a volume numbered 611; exceedingly [pg 051] difficult to decipher, as the later writing is parallel to the original text. Contain Mark i. 2-23; ii. 22-27; iii. 11-18. They were first published by Professor H. Hagen under the title Ein Italafragment aus einem Berner Palimpsest des VI. Jahrhunderts in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, vol. xxvii. p. 470 ff. (Leipzig, 1884); reprinted in Old Latin Bibl. Texts, vol. ii, with rather important alterations in the conjectural restitution of the missing half-columns.

v. Fragmentum Vindobonense [vii], at Vienna, where it is bound up at the beginning of a volume numbered Lat. 502 and entitled Pactus legis Ripuariae; it contains John xix. 27-xx. 11, but the writing is much faded. Transcribed by the Bishop of Salisbury and the Rev. H. J. White in 1887, and published in Old Latin Bibl. Texts, vol. iii.

aur. Codex Aureus or Holmiensis, in the Royal Library at Stockholm; Gospels [vii or viii], 195 leaves, complete with the exception of one leaf, which contained Luke xxi. 8-30. According to an inscription in Old English on the title-page, the book was purchased by Alfred the Alderman from the pagans [Danes?] when Alfred was king and Ethelred archbishop (a.d. 871-89), for the use of Christ Church, Canterbury. It afterwards found its way to Madrid, where Sparvenfeldt bought it in 1690 from the Library of the Marquis de Liche. Edited, with facsimiles, by Belsheim (Christiania, 1878), who classes it as Old Latin; but it is really a Vulgate text, though with a certain admixture of Old Latin readings. Hort's holm. (Introd., Notes, p. 5).

a2. Fragmenta Curiensia [v or vi], formerly preserved amongst the Episcopal archives at Chur or Coire, now placed in the Reatisches Museum of the same city. M. Batiffol was the first to suggest that these fragments belonged to the same MS. as n; and though this view was combated at first by Mr. White, it was reasserted strongly by Dr. Corssen (Göttingsche gel. Anzeigen, 1889, p. 316), and further examination has shown that it is correct. The fragments contain Luke xi. 11-29; xiii. 16-34; they were first discovered by Professor Hidber, of Berne, then described by Professor E. Ranke in the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1872, pp. 505-520, and afterwards edited by him in full, Curiensia Ev. Lucani Fragmenta Latiua (Vienna, 1874).

δ. Codex Sangallensis, the interlinear Latin of Cod. Δ, stands remarkable especially for its alternative renderings of the Greek, such as 'uxorem uel coniugem' for τὴν γυναῖκα Matt. i. 20, and in almost every verse. How far the Latin text of these MSS. is independent, and how far it is a mere reproduction of the Greek, or whether the Greek has in turn been influenced by the Latin, is one of those elaborate and obscure problems which are still very far from solution. The reader is referred to Prof. J. Rendel Harris' work, The Codex Sangallensis (Cambridge, 1891), for an interesting discussion of these alternative readings.

In the Acts we have Codd. d m as in the Gospels; e the Latin version of Cod. E (Laudianus) of the Acts, and also:—

g. Cod. Gigas Holmiensis [xiii], a Bohemian MS. of the whole N. T., now at Stockholm, so called from its great size. Contains the Acts and [pg 052] Apocalypse in the Old Latin version, the rest of the N. T. in the Vulgate. Mr. Belsheim published the Acts and Apocalypse in full and a collation of the other books (Christiania, 1878). His edition was carefully revised for the Bishop of Salisbury by Dr. H. Karlsson in 1891.

g2. Fragmentum Mediolanense [x or xi], from a lectionary; discovered by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and published by him in Monumenta Sacra et Profana, tom. i. fasc. ii. p. 127 (see also preface, pp. vi and vii). Contains Acts vi. 8-vii. 2; 51-viii. 4; i.e. lection for St. Stephen's day.

h. Palimpsestus Floriacensis [vi or vii], now in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris, where it forms foll. 113 to 130 of a volume containing various treatises and numbered Lat. 6400 G; it was formerly numbered 5367, and was as such quoted by Sabatier, tom. iii. p. 507 ff., who had collated the first three pages. An inscription on fol. 130 shows it to have belonged in the eleventh century to the famous Benedictine Abbey of Fleury on the Loire. Mr. A. Vansittart deciphered and published some more in the Journal of Philology (vol. ii, 1869, p. 240, and vol. iv, 1872, p. 219), and M. H. Omont published four pages of the Apocalypse in the Bibl. de l'École des chartes (vol. xliv. 1883, p. 445). Belsheim published an edition of the fragments in 1887 (Appendix Epist. Paulin. ex cod. Sangerm., Christiania); and finally M. Berger published a most careful and complete edition in 1889 (Le Palimpseste de Fleury, Paris, Fischbacher). The MS. contains fragments of the Apocalypse, the Acts, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1 John; in the order above mentioned. Of the Acts in M. Berger's edition we obtain the following:—iii. 2-iv. 18; v. 23-vii. 2; 42-viii. 2; ix. 4-23; xiv. 5-23; xvii. 34-xviii. 19; xxiii. 8-24; xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13. Facsimile given by Berger.

s. Cod. Bobiensis [v or vi], at Vienna, consisting of a number of palimpsest leaves preserved loose and numbered Lat. 16 (see Tabulae Codd. MSS. praeter graecos et orientales in bibl. Palatina Vindob. asservatorum, 1863-1875). They were brought with other MSS. to Vienna from Naples in 1717, and formerly belonged to the famous Monastery at Bobbio. Described by Denis (Codd. MSS. theolog. bibl. Palat. Vindob., tom. ii. p. 1, col. 628) and later by von Eichenfeld (Wiener Jahrb. der Literatur, 1824, Bd. xxvi. p. 20); then by Tischendorf in the same periodical (1847, Bd. cxx. p. 36). Finally published in full by Belsheim (Fragmenta Vindobonensia, Christiania, 1886), who printed all the fragments of this very hard palimpsest which Tischendorf had been able to decipher, and the leaves which he himself had been able to make out in addition. We thus obtain Acts xxiii. 18-23; xxv. 23-27; xxvi. 22-xxvii. 7; 10-24; 28-31; xxviii. 16-28. The same MS. also contains fragments of St. James and 1 Peter; see below.

In the Catholic Epistles we have:—

ff. Codex Corbeiensis [x], of the Epistle of St. James, now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, where it was numbered Qv. i. 39. Formerly belonging to the Corbey Library, where it was numbered 635, it was about 1638 transferred to St. Germain des Prés and was numbered 717 in Dom Poirier's catalogue (made about 1791); and finally was [pg 053] taken to St. Petersburg by Peter Dubrowsky about 1805 (see above on ff1, p. 46). The Epistle was published in 1695 by Martianay in the same volume which included ff1; later by Mr. Belsheim (Der Brief des Jacobus, Christiania, 1883); and again, after revision by Professor V. Jernstedt, by Bishop Wordsworth in Studia Biblica, vol. i.

There are also h, containing 1 Pet. iv. 17-2 Pet. ii. 6; 1 John i. 8-iii. 20; m as in Gospels; s as in Acts, containing James i. 1-25; ii. 14-iii. 5; 13-iv. 2; v. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 1-12; ii. 4-10.

q. One of the sets of fragments at Munich [vii], published by Ziegler (see below): they consist of two leaves, giving us 1 John iii. 8-v. 21, and containing the three Heavenly Witnesses (1 John v. 7), placed, however, after v. 8, as in the Vulgate Codex Cavensis (see Ziegler, p. 5 f.); these leaves are in the collection of fragments marked Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236). Later in the same year Ziegler published more fragments from the same MS., which had been used in covering some other books; these give us 1 Pet. i. 8-19; ii. 20-iii. 7; iv. 10-v. 14; 2 Pet. i. 1-4. See Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, 1876, Heft v. pp. 607-660.

In the Pauline Epistles we have m as in the Gospels. Codd. d e f g are the Latin versions of Codd. DEFG of St. Paul, described above, Cod. D (Clarom.); Cod. E (Sangerm.); Cod. F (Aug.); Cod. G (Boern.). To these must be added

gue. Cod. Guelferbytanus [vi], fragments of Rom. xi. 33-xii. 5; 17-xiii. 5; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13, found in the great Gothic palimpsest at Wolfenbüttel (Evann. PQ), published with the other matter by Knittel in 1762, and more fully by Tischendorf, Anecdota sacra et profana, pp. 155-158. In the eighth edition of his N. T. he adds readings from Rom. xiii. 3, 4, 6; 1 Tim. iv. 15.

r. Cod. Frisingensis [v or vi], consisting of twenty-one leaves at Munich, numbered Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236), and containing Rom. xiv. 10-xv. 13; 1 Cor. i. 1-iii. 5; vi. 1-vii. 7; xv. 14-43; xvi. 12-2 Cor. ii. 10; iii. 17-v. 1; vii. 10-viii. 12; ix. 10-xi. 21; xii. 14-xiii. 10; Gal. ii. 5-iii. 5; Eph. i. 16-ii. 16; Phil. i. 1-20; 1 Tim. i. 12-ii. 15; v. 18-vi. 13; Hebr. vi. 6-vii. 5; 8-viii. 1; ix. 27-xi. 7. Eight of these leaves were examined by Tischendorf in 1856, who drew attention to their importance in the Deutsche Zeitschr. f. christliche Wissenschaft u. chr. Leben, 1856, n. 8; he incorporated many of their variant readings into his N. T., and intended to publish the fragments. They were published by L. Ziegler with q and r2 (Italafragm. d. paulinischen Briefe, Marburg, 1876); see E. Wölfflin, Freisinger Itala (S. B. of Munich Acad. 1893, Heft ii).

r2. A single leaf from Munich [vii], containing Phil. iv. 11-23; 1 Thess. i. 1-10; published by Ziegler, see above; also numbered Clm. 6436 (Fris. 236).

r3. Cod. Gottvicensis [vi or vii], fragments of Romans and Galatians, from the Benedictine Abbey of Göttweig on the Danube, and consisting of two leaves taken from the cover of another book. They are numbered 1. (9) foll. 23, 24 in the Library Catalogue, and contain Rom. v. 16-vi. [pg 054] 4; 6-19; Gal. iv. 6-19; 22-v. 2. Published by H. Roensch in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, vol. xxii (1879), pp. 224-238.

In the Apocalypse we have m of the Gospels and g of the Acts; also h of the Acts (see above), containing i. 1-ii. 1; viii. 7-ix. 11; xi. 16-xii. 14; xiv. 15-xvi. 5 (Lachmann cites Primasius' version as h).

To these thirty-eight codices must be added extracts from the Latin Fathers, of which the Latin interpreter of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Priscillian, and Primasius are the most important for the history of the version. For Tertullian, considerable labour will be saved to the student by the work of H. Roensch (Das neue Testament Tertullians, Leipzig, 1871), who has arranged in order his quotations, direct and indirect; for Cyprian, Hartel's excellent edition (vol. iii in the Vienna Corpus) is marred by his having edited the Testimonia, which consist of direct quotations from the Bible, arranged under various heads, from a late and inferior MS. (see O. L. Bibl. Texts, ii. p. xliii). The works of Priscillian, who suffered death as a heretic in 385, have been quite lately discovered and edited by Dr. G. Schepss (vol. xviii in the Vienna Corpus); the quotations in them bear a strong resemblance to those of the so-called “Speculum” of St. Augustine (m), and are mainly from the Epistles. Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum (d. 558?), was the author inter alia of a commentary on the Apocalypse; in this he incorporated nearly the entire text of that book, and as this text agrees almost word for word with the citations found in Cyprian's Testimonia, we thus obtain a complete African text of a book in which so many MSS. are defective. In addition to this he quoted largely from another Latin translation of the Apocalypse—that of the Donatist Ticonius—whose version seems to be a good specimen of a later text approximating more closely to the Vulgate; these have also been published quite recently by Professor Haussleiter (Zahn's Forschungen, iv. Teil, Leipzig, 1891).

When we come to arrange these authorities for the Latin version before Jerome, we find a complicated and difficult task before us; for few of our MSS. present a consistent type of text. We will confine ourselves therefore to grouping them in the three great families described by Dr. Hort (Introd. p. 78), whose division has been accepted by most textual critics, and to pointing out how here and there even that division must be accepted with some modification.

[pg 055]

The African family is comparatively easy to fix, from the rich store of biblical quotations found in the African Fathers. Tertullian indeed does not give us so much help as we should have expected, as he seems to have largely used a Greek Bible and translated it into Latin himself. Cyprian's quotations, however, are valuable, as he apparently confined himself strictly to the Latin Bible current in his time; he may be taken as the standard of the early African version; to him we must add, for the Gospels, the Bobbio MS. (k) and the Codex Palatinus (e), which, however, represents a stage somewhat later than k; for the Acts, the Fleury palimpsest (h); for the Apocalypse, Primasius and h; and a later and revised stage in the so-called “Speculum” (m), and in the quotations from Ticonius preserved in Primasius.

Existing simultaneously with the African family we find another type of text current in Western Europe, though whether it is a revision of the African text or is of independent origin, it is hard to say. This type Dr. Hort calls the European. It is represented in the Gospels by b, which may be taken as the typical European MS.; by a in St. Matthew, i (Luke and Mark), n and a2 (giving us fragments of all the Gospels from the same MS.); t in St. Mark; in a slightly revised form by h of St. Matthew; in a form marked by special local characteristics, in the Irish MSS. r1 and p (St. John); to a certain extent also by q (i.e. in its renderings, and turns of expression, as distinct from the type of Greek text underlying it); of the early Fathers, the Latin version of Irenaeus may probably be referred to this family.

For the European text in the Acts, Dr. Hort cites the Gigas Holmiensis (g), and the Milan Lectionary g2, and the Bobbio fragments at Vienna (s); for the Epistles, the Corbey MS. of St. James (ff), though this has possibly a tinge of Africanism in it (see Bp. Wordsworth and Dr. Sanday in “Studia Biblica,” i. pp. 113, 233); and g again for the Apocalypse.

The Italian family presents us with a type of text mainly European, but doubly revised; first in its renderings, “to give the Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect,” and secondly in its underlying text, which has been largely corrected from the Greek; in both these points the Italian MSS. are a sort of stepping-stone between the European MSS. and Jerome's Vulgate; and as many of the Biblical quotations in Augustine's works agree closely with them, it is distinctly probable that it was this [pg 056] revision which he praised as the Itala. To this group we would assign f in the Gospels, and less notably q; in the Epistles the Freisingen fragments q of St. John and St. Peter, and r r2 of St. Paul's Epistles, and the Göttweig fragments r3 of Romans and Galatians.

But it will be seen that this arrangement leaves a large number of MSS. unaccounted for; many of the Old Latin MSS. present texts which it is impossible to class either as African, European, or Italian. Some of them possess all three characteristics; some have been half corrected from the Vulgate; and local variation, independent translation from the Greek, and in the case of the Graeco-Latin MSS., assimilation to the Greek, have still further complicated matters. Among these mixed texts must be placed a in SS. Mark, Luke, and John (with occasional Africanisms, and a large element quite peculiar to itself); c, which gives us a text very near the Vulgate in St. John; d, that apparently insoluble problem; ff1 and f2g1sδ; l, a text which to a large extent is almost pure Vulgate, but which at the same time preserves a number of readings, mostly interpolations, that are quite peculiar.

We must bear in mind too that even the MSS. which seem to represent most consistently one type of text, show here and there strange vacillations; e, African throughout as it seems at first sight, must have been copied from an ordinary European MS. in the last few chapters of St. Luke; the parent MS. of r obviously did not contain the pericope de adultera, for that passage has been supplied in a Vulgate text; and other instances might be added.

(2) Jerome's revised Latin Version, commonly called the Vulgate.

The extensive variations then existing between different copies of the Old Latin version, and the obvious corruptions which had crept into some of them, prompted Damasus, Bishop of Rome, in a.d. 382, to commit the important task of a formal revision of the New, and probably of the Old Testament, to Jerome, a presbyter born at Stridon on the confines of Dalmatia and Pannonia, probably a little earlier than a.d. 345. He had just returned to Rome, where he had been educated, from his hermitage in Bethlehem, and in the early ripeness of his scholarship [pg 057] undertook a work for which he was specially qualified, and whose delicate nature he well understood62. Whatever prudence and moderation could do in this case to remove objections or relieve the scruples of the simple, were not neglected by Jerome, who not only made as few changes as possible in the Old Latin when correcting its text by the help of “ancient” Greek manuscripts63, but left untouched many words and forms of expression, and not a few grammatical irregularities, which in a new translation (as his own subsequent version of the Hebrew Scriptures makes clear) he would most certainly have avoided. The four Gospels, as they stand in the traditional Greek order without Western variation, revised but not re-translated on this wise principle, appeared in a.d. 384, accompanied with his celebrated Preface to Damasus (“summus sacerdos”), who died that same year. Notwithstanding his other literary engagements, it is probable enough that his recension of the whole New Testament for public use was completed a.d. 385, though the proof alleged by Mill (N. T., Proleg., § 862), and by others after his example, hardly meets the case. In the next year (a.d. 386), in his Commentary on Galat., Ephes., Titus, and Philem., he indulges in more freedom of alteration as a translator than he had previously deemed advisable; while his new version of the Old Testament from the Hebrew (completed about a.d. 405) is not founded at all on the Old Latin, which was made from the Greek Septuagint; the Psalter excepted, which he executed at Rome at the same date, and in the same spirit, as the Gospels. The boldness of his attempt in regard to the Old Testament is that portion of his labours which alone Augustine disapproved64 (August, ad [pg 058] Hieron. Ep. x. tom. ii. p. 18, Lugd. 1586, a.d. 403), and indeed it was never received entire by the Western Church, which long preferred his slight revision of the Old Latin, made at some earlier period of his life. Gradually, however, Jerome's recension of the whole Bible gained ground, as well through the growing influence of the Church of Rome as from its own intrinsic merits: so that when in course of time it came to take the place of the older version, it also took its name of the Vulgate, or common translation65. Cassiodorus indeed, in the middle of the sixth century, is said to have compared the new and old Latin (of the New, perhaps of both Testaments) in parallel columns, which thus became partially mixed in not a few codices: but Gregory the Great (590-604), while confessing that his Church used both “quia sedes Apostolica, cui auctore Deo praesideo, utrâque utitur,” (Epist. Dedic. ad Leandrum, c. 5), awarded so decided a preference to Jerome's translation from the Hebrew, that this form of his Old Testament version, not without some mixture with his translation from the Septuagint (Walton, Polyglott, Prol. x. pp. 242-244, Wrangham), and his Psalter and New Testament as revised from the Old Latin, came at length to comprise the Vulgate Bible, the only shape in which Holy Scripture was accessible in Western Europe (except to a few scattered scholars) during the long night of the Middle Ages.

But it was not a pure Vulgate text that was thus used; the old versions went on side by side with it for centuries, and even when they were thus nominally superseded, fragments of them found their way into probably all existing MSS. We have already remarked (in c g &c.) how the same MS. will present us with an Old Latin text in some books of the New Testament, and with a Vulgate text in others; we shall note the same phenomenon in other MSS., especially the British and Irish (see the MSS. numbered 51, 67, 78, 85, 87 below), which preserve on the whole a pure Hieronymian text, but are coloured here and there from the earlier versions. Variation was still further increased by the apparently numerous local or provincial recensions which were made, sometimes anonymously, sometimes [pg 059] under the editorship of famous men. Many of the Irish MSS., for instance, seem to have been corrected immediately from the Greek; but the two most notable recensions of the text came, not, as we might have expected, directly from Rome, but from Gaul; they are those of Alcuin and Theodulf in the ninth century. That of Alcuin was undertaken at the desire of Charles the Great66, who bade him (a.d. 797) review and correct certain copies by the best Latin MSS. without reference to the original Greek. Charles' motive was not so much critical as a wish to obtain a standard Bible for church use, and consequently of simple and intelligible Latin. Alcuin obtained bibles for this purpose from his native Northumbria, the scene at the beginning of the eighth century of an earlier recension of the text; for it was to their monasteries at Wearmouth and Jarrow (see below, p. 71) that Benedict Biscop and Ceolfrid had brought the bibles and other books collected in Rome and elsewhere during their journeys; and it was in Northumbria that the magnificent Anglian texts (such as those numbered 29, 64, 82, 91, &c.) were written, perpetuating the pure Vulgate text contained at that time in the Roman MSS.67

At Christmas in 801, Alcuin presented Charles with a copy of the revised Bible68; specimens of this revision are to be found in the MSS. numbered below, 5, 9, 25, 37, 117, and others.

About the same time, Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans (787-821), undertook a similar revision, and not of a less scientific character, but followed a different method. Theodulf, himself a Visigoth and born near Narbonne, seems to have done little more than introduce into France the Spanish type of MSS., which was mixed, confused, full of interpolations, and of very slight critical value69; this however he corrected carefully and enriched with a large number of marginal readings. This revision is preserved for us in the Theodulfian Bible at Paris (no. 18 below), [pg 060] less correctly in its sister volume at Puy (no. 24), the Paris MS. (no. 22 below), and partly also in the correction of the Bible of St. Hubert (no. 6).

Two centuries later the text had again degenerated, and our Primate Lanfranc (1069-89) attempted a similar task, perhaps rather with a view to theology than textual criticism (“secundum orthodoxam fidem studuit corrigere”)70. In 1109 Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux, made a further revision, partly from good Latin MSS., partly from the Greek, partly, in the Old Testament, from the Hebrew, as he obtained help from some learned Jewish scholars71. In 1150 his example was followed by Cardinal Nicolaus Maniacoria72. As these individual efforts seemed to have but slight success, the task was taken up in the thirteenth century more fully and systematically by bodies of scholars, in the so-called “Correctoria Bibliorum;” here the variant readings with their authorities, Greek, Latin, ancient, modern, and citations from the Fathers, were carefully registered. The most noticeable examples of these correctoria are (1) the “Correctorium Parisiense” prepared by the Paris theologians. Roger Bacon had a poor opinion of the work done by these students; for some time the MSS. of the Bible that were copied and bought and sold in Paris, he says, were corrupt; they were bad to begin with, and copied carelessly by the booksellers and their scribes, while the theologians were not learned enough to discover and amend the mistakes73. This correctorium is also frequently, but according to Denifle (p. 284) wrongly, called Senonense, as if it was undertaken at the instance of the Bishop of Sens; there is, however, no correctorium Senonense, only the correctiones Senonenses, i.e. corrections made in the Paris Correctorium by the Dominicans residing at Sens; (2) the “Correctorium” of the Dominicans, prepared under the auspices of Hugo de S. Caro, about 1240, the final corrected [pg 061] form of which is now preserved at Paris, B.N. Lat. 16719-16722 (see below, p. 70, no. 23)74; this, however, was again an attempt, not so much to get at Jerome's actual text as, to bring the Latin text into accordance with the Greek or Hebrew75; (3) a better and more critical revision, the “Correctorium Vaticanum,” a good MS. of which is in the Vatican Library (Lat. 3466); the author of this has done his best to restore Jerome's reading throughout, although well learned in Greek and Hebrew; and he has with some probability been identified by Vercellone with a scholar much praised by Roger Bacon as a “sapientissimus homo,” who had spent nearly forty years in the correction of the text76 (Denifle suggests Wilh. de Mara).

These remedies, partial and temporary as they were, seemed all that was possible before the invention of printing; and, indeed, by an unfortunate chance, the worst of the three correctoria, the “Parisiense,” was made use of by Robert Stephen.

Among the earliest productions of the press, Latin Bibles took a prominent position; and during the first half-century of printing at least 124 editions were published77. Of these perhaps the finest is the earliest, the famous “forty-two line” Bible, issued at Mentz between 1452 and 1456, in two volumes, and usually ascribed to Gutenberg78. This is usually called the “Mazarin Bible,” from the copy which first attracted the notice of bibliographers having been discovered in the Library of Cardinal Mazarin; in the New Testament, the order of books is Evv., Paul., Act., Cath., Apoc. Mr. Copinger enumerates twenty-five copies on vellum and paper as still known to exist; there are two in the British Museum. The first Bible published at Rome is dated 1471, and was printed by Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz, two vols., folio; the first octavo edition, or “poor man's [pg 062] Bible,” was printed at Basle in 1491 by Froben. The early editions, however, reproduced the current mediaeval type of text, or copied from each other, the only exceptions being those printed by Froben, whose copies, says Mr. Copinger, were sought after, for their accuracy, by the best scholars in Europe, and whose edition of 1502 with the “glossa ordinaria” sometimes stands quite alone in possessing the true reading. The first, edition with a collection of various readings appears to be one published at Paris in 150479, followed by others at Venice and Lyons in 1511, 1513; and a definite revision of the text was attempted by Cardinal Ximenes, in the famous Complutensian Polyglott (1514, &c.; see Chap. V)80, in which he made use of the Bible of Alcalá (see below, no. 42); but though an advance was made on previous editions, the text was still far from pure. Erasmus, in his famous edition of the Greek Testament, appended a Latin translation; this he made himself directly from the Greek, but in his notes he discusses the current Vulgate text and gives readings from MSS. which he had examined; of these he mentions those at the Royal Library at Mechlin, St. Paul's Cathedral, London, Corsendonk Austin Priory, Constance Cathedral, St. Donatian (Abbaye des Dunes) of Bruges; of these the first and third only can be now identified, see below, pp. 84, 81, nos.81 134, 109. The first edition of a really critical nature was that of Robert Stephen, in 1528; for this he used three good MSS., the Exemplar S. Germani parvum (Par. lat. 11937), the Corbey Bible (Par. lat. 11532-3), and the Bible of St. Denis (Par. lat. 2); see below, nos. 22, 20, 10; and he published a more important edition in 1538-40 (reprinted 1546), in which he made use of seventeen MSS., of which the following82, numbered 19, 21, 22, 100 below, have been identified. This edition is practically the foundation of the Modern Vulgate, and is cited by Wordsworth as ϛ. Later, John Hentenius, in his folio edition of the Bible, (Louvain, 1547, and often reprinted); cited by Wordsworth as [Gothic: H] seems to have used about thirty-one MSS. and two printed copies; but as no various readings are cited from individual [pg 063] MSS., they cannot well be identified; see his preface. Lucas Brugensis (see his catalogue at the end of the Hentenian Bible of 1583, p. 6) also gives a long list of MSS., which seem impossible to be identified83, and we must also bear in mind the corrected editions published by Th. Vivian (Paris), and Junta (Venice), 1534 (both are small copies of the New Testament, corrected occasionally from the Greek), Isidore Clarius (Venice, 1542), J. Benedictus (Paris, 1558), Paul Eber (1565), and Luke Osiander (1578).

When the Council of Trent met, the duty of providing for the members of the Church of Rome the most correct recension of the Latin Bible that skill and diligence could produce was obviously incumbent on it; and in one of its earliest sittings (April 8, 1546) the famous decree was passed, ordaining that of the many published editions of the Holy Scripture “haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est” should be chosen, and “in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus, et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur” (Sess. iv. Decr. 2); and directing that “posthac sacra Scriptura, potissimum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emendatissime imprimatur.” No immediate action, however, was taken in the matter, and for forty years the editions were still printed and published by private scholars; the Hentenian, for the time being, becoming almost the standard text of the Roman Catholic Church.

Pope Pius IV had indeed begun the task of correcting the Vulgate Bible, but without immediate result, and under his successors the matter still rested, till the accession of Sixtus V (1585-90)84, a Pope as energetic in his labours on the Holy [pg 064] Scripture as in other spheres of activity. He appointed a commission on the subject, under the presidency of Cardinal Carafa; and after they had presented the Pope with the result of their work, in the beginning of 1589, he devoted himself personally to the study, reading through the whole Bible more than once, and using his best endeavours to bring it to the highest pitch of accuracy. The result of this appeared in a folio edition of the Bible in three volumes, in 159085, accompanied by a Bull, in which, after relating the extreme care that had been taken in preparing the volume, Sixtus V declared that it was to be considered as the authentic edition recommended by the Council of Trent, that it should be taken as the standard of all future reprints, and that all copies should be corrected by it. The edition itself (cited by Wordsworth as [Gothic: S]) was not without faults, and indeed received a good number of corrections by hand after the proofs were printed off; it presents a text more nearly resembling that of Robt. Stephen than that of John Hentenius. In a few months, however, Sixtus was dead; a number of short-lived Popes succeeded him, and in Jan. 1592, Clement VIII ascended the throne. Almost immediately he gave orders for the copies of the Sixtine Vulgate to be called in; it has been hitherto supposed simply on account of its inaccuracy, but Professor Nestle (pp. 17 ff.) argues reasonably enough that this ground is insufficient, and suggests that the revocation was really due to the influence of the Jesuits, whom Sixtus had offended by placing one of Bellarmine's books on the Index Librorum prohibitorum. Be that as it may, in the same year the Clementine edition of the Vulgate (Wordsworth's [Gothic: C]) was published, differing from the Sixtine in many places, and presenting a type of text more nearly allied to Hentenius' Bible. To avoid the appearance of a conflict between the two Popes, the Clementine Bible was boldly published under the name of Sixtus, with a preface by Bellarmine asserting that Sixtus had intended to bring out a new edition in consequence of errors that had occurred in the printing of the first, but had been prevented by death; now, in accordance with his desire, the work was completed by his successor. The opportunity, however, was too good a one for Protestants to miss, and Thomas James in his “Bellum Papale sive Concordia discors” [pg 065] (London, 1600), upbraids the two Popes on their high pretensions and the palpable failure of at least one, possibly both of them86.

From this time forward the Clementine Vulgate (sometimes under the name of Clement, sometimes under that of Sixtus, sometimes under both names)87 has been the standard edition for the Roman Church; by the Bull of 1592, every edition must be assimilated to this one, no word of the text may be altered, nor even variant readings printed in the margin88.

Thus the modern attempts at a scientific and critical revision of this version have come from students mainly outside the communion of the Roman Church.

The design of Bentley for a critical Greek Testament is described below (Chap. V); it was obvious that for its prosecution the MSS. of the Vulgate would have to be collated as carefully as those of the Greek text itself; and accordingly the variant readings of a good number were collected by Bentley himself, nos. 3, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 155, 160; other MSS. were collated by his friend and colleague John Walker, who worked much at Paris in 1719 and the following years; to him we owe collations of nos. 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 52, 96, 97, 102, 151, 164, while he obtained collations of the Tours MSS. (nos. 106, 107, 108, 166) from L. Chevalier, through their common friend Sabatier; and of the Oxford MSS. (nos. 86, 87, 89, 90, 148, 161), from David Casley. Walker died, however, in November, 1741, six months before the great Bentley, and the projected edition came to naught89. Their collations have not been published, but are contained in the following volumes, in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge: B. 17. 5 containing collations by Walker, Chevalier, Casley, and Bentley; and B. 17. 15 containing collations [pg 066] by Bentley; and they have been made use of by Bishop Wordsworth in his edition of the Vulgate90.

Two attempts are being made now to restore the text of St. Jerome: that of Dr. Peter Corssen, of Berlin, and the Oxford edition under the hands of the Bishop of Salisbury. Dr. Corssen's published results at present consist only of the Epistle to the Galatians (“Epistula ad Galatas,” Berlin, Weidmann, 1885), but he has been spending several years in the accumulation of material, and other books of the New Testament will probably be published before very long. The Bishop of Salisbury after nearly eleven years' preparation, in conjunction with the Rev. H. J. White and other friends, published the first volume of his edition, containing St. Matthew's Gospel, in 1889; St. Mark following in 1891, and St. Luke in 1892; and it is hoped that the rest of the New Testament may be published in due course. More than thirty MSS., those numbered 5, 6, 18, 21, 28, 29, 37, 41, 51, 56, 64, 67, 68, 72, 77, 78, 82, 85, 86, 87, 91, 97, 98, 106, 115, 128, 129, 130, 132, 147, 148, 153, 154, 159, 175 below, have been carefully collated throughout for this edition, and a large number of others are cited in all the important passages, besides correctoria, and the more noticeable of the earlier printed Bibles.

To enumerate all the known MSS. of the Old Latin version was an easy task; to enumerate those of the Vulgate is almost impossible. It is computed that there are at least 8,000 scattered throughout the various Libraries of Europe, and M. Samuel Berger, the greatest living authority on the subject, has examined more than 800 in Paris alone. Nor would an exhaustive enumeration be of much critical value, as a large number of comparatively late MSS. probably contain the same corrupt type of text.

In the following list it is hoped that most of the really important MSS. are included; the writer has had the unwearied and invaluable aid of M. Samuel Berger91, besides that of many other kind friends, in its compilation. It has been thought best to arrange the MSS. on a double system; first according to their contents:—A. Bibles, whole or incomplete; B. New Testament; [pg 067] C. Gospels; D. Acts and onwards; E. Epistles and Apocalypse; and secondly under each of these heads, A-E, according to countries (alphabetically):—Austria, British Isles, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United States.

For other lists the student is referred to Le Long, Bibliotheca Sacra, ed. 1723, vol. i. p. 235; Vercellone, Variae Lectiones, Romae, 1860, vol. i. p. lxxxiii f., ii. p. xvii f.; Berger, p. 374 f.; and for a fuller treatment of the history and text of the Vulgate, to Bishop Westcott's article “Vulgate” in Smith's Bible Dictionary; Kaulen, Geschichte d. Vulgata, Mainz, 1865; Fritzsche, “Lateinische Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog, Realencyclopädie, second ed., vol. viii; P. Corssen in Die Trierer Adahandschr., Leipzig, 1889; and the important work of S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge, Paris, 1893; to economize space, this will be quoted below simply as “Berger.”

After the list of MSS. are added indices of the various notations by which respectively Bentley, Tischendorf, Wordsworth, &c., have cited them.

A. Bibles.

a. Austria: Vienna.

1. Imperial Library, Lat. 1190. Bible [early ix], probably copied in the Abbey of St. Vedast at Arras, during the time of the Abbot Rado (795-815); Alcuinian poems. See M. Denis' Catalogue, i. p. 167, and Berger, p. 108 f.

b. British Isles: British Museum.

2. Reg. I. B. xii. Bible [xiii], written in 1254 by William of Hales for Thomas de la Wile, Magister Scolarum Sarum. Cited by Bishop Wordsworth as W, and incorporated by him into his apparatus criticus as furnishing a fair specimen of the current mediaeval text.

3. Reg. I. E. vii, viii. Bible [x], in two large folio volumes, the first few pages of each volume, and the last pages of the second, being supplied in a twelfth-century hand; contains stichometry to several of the books, both in the Old and in the New Testaments; order of New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod. after Hebr.), Apoc.; Bentley's R.

4. Harl. 4772, 4773. Bible [xiii], in 2 vols., formerly belonging to the Capucin Monastery of Montpellier; the second volume appears to be somewhat later than the first. The MS. both in handwriting and text seems to come from the south of France. See Berger, p. 76.

5 5. Addit. 10,546. The noble Alcuinian Bible [ix], known usually as Charlemagne's' Bible, or the Bible of Grandval (near Basle); became the property of the British Museum in 1836. Probably written about the time of Charles the Bald; a good specimen of the Alcuinian revision; see [pg 068] the Museum Catalogue, i pl. 42, 43, and Westwood, Pal. Sacra Pict., p. 25. Wordsworth's K; collated by the Revs. G. M. Youngman and H. J. White.

6. Addit. 24,142. Bible [ix], formerly belonging to the Monastery of St. Hubert in the Ardennes; written in small minuscule hand, strongly resembling that of the Theodulfian Bible (see below, no. 18), three columns to a page; contains Old Test., and in New Test. Ev., Paul., Cath., as far as 1 Pet. iv. 3. Facsimile in Catalogue of Anc. MSS. in the B. M. p. 5, pl. 45. Wordsworth's H.

7. Addit. 28,107. The second volume of a Bible in large folio [dated 1097], 240 leaves, from St. Remacle's at Stavelot, near Liège; with peculiar capitula, and a stichometry. See Lightfoot, Journal of Philology, vol. iii. no. 6, p. 197 f.; Facsimile in Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pl. 92, 93.

c. France: Dijon.

8. Public Library, 9 bis. Bible, 4 vols, [xii], corrected throughout by Stephen Harding, third abbot of Citeaux; see above, p. 60.

Paris.

9. B. N. Lat. 1, formerly 35,612. Bible [middle ix], 423 leaves, fol., 50 x 38 cent., minuscule. This splendid MS., with pictures and initials, was presented to Charles the Bald by Vivian, abbot of St. Martin of Tours, and was for a long time in the Cathedral treasury at Metz; it was given by the Chapter of Metz to Colbert in 1675. See Delisle, Cab. des MSS., iii. p. 234 ff.; Berger, p. 215 f.; Le Long, i. p. 237. Alcuinian text.

10. B. N. Lat. 2, formerly 3561 (not, as Le Long and Walker say, 3562). The Bible of St. Denis or of Charles the Bald [ix], 444 leaves, fol., minuscule, with fine initial letters, contains verses in praise of Charles the Bald; in the N. T. the Apoc. is wanting. See O.L. Bibl. T., i. p. 55; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., i. p. 200, and pl. xxviii. 1, 4, 5; Les Bibles de Théodulfe, p. 7; De Bastard, c-civ; Jorand, Grammatogr. du ixe siècle, Paris, 1837; Silvestre, Pal. Univ., clxxi; Berger, p. 287 f. Walker's ε; used previously by R. Stephen in his Bible of 1528.

11. Lat. 3, formerly Reg. 3562. Bible [middle ix], fol., thick minuscule; parts of the Apoc. have been supplied by a later hand. Belonged first to the Monastery of Glanfeuil, then to the Abbey of St. Maur des Fossés near Charenton, the library of which was acquired by the St. Germain Abbey in 1716; a good specimen of the Alcuinian revision. See Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xxv. 1, 2, xxix. 4; Berger, p. 213 f. Walker's η.

12. Lat. 4, formerly Colbert 157, 158, then Reg. 357112.13; 2 vols., fol., 53.5 x 33 cent, [ix or x]; 42 contains 193 leaves, with Psalms, Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul. This MS. was given to Colbert by the Canons of Puy, and called Codex Aniciensis. The first hand presents an Alcuinian text, but a second hand has added a large number of remarkable variant readings, especially in the Acts and Cath. Epp. It appears to belong to Languedoc. See Berger, p. 73.

13. Lat. 6. Bible in 4 vols. [x], fol., 48 x 33.5 cent., from the Abbey of Rosas in Catalonia. The fourth volume (64) contains the New Test. [pg 069] (113 f.) in following order, Ev., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod. between Col. and Thess.), Apoc. Valuable text, the first hand contains a large number of interesting and Old Latin readings; and in the Acts, the second hand has added a number of Old Latin variants in the margin. From the Noailles Library; see Berger, p. 24.

14. Lat. 7, formerly Reg. 3567, one of Card. Mazarin's MSS. Bible, fol., 51 x 34.5 cent. [xi probably], with fine illuminations; order of books in New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc. Interesting text in the Acts, and strongly resembling the second hand of Lat. 42, this MS. was also probably written in Languedoc. Facsimile in De Bastard. See Berger, p. 73.

15. Lat. 45 and 93, formerly Reg. 3563-4. Bible [late ix], fol., thick minuscule; no. 93 has 261 leaves, the New Test. (Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.), commencing on fol. 156. This MS. belonged originally to the Monastery of St. Riquier on the Somme; interesting text, especially in the Acts and Cath. Epp. Walker's θ. Berger, p. 96 f.

16. Lat. 47, formerly Reg. 3564a (Faurianus 32, i.e. in the library of Antoine Faure). Part of a Bible [xi], fol., 176 leaves minuscule; closely resembling no. 11 (Lat. 3) in text and perhaps even more valuable; much mut. in N. T. Walker's κ.

17. Lat. 140. Bible [xv], written in Germany, and bearing the name and arms of a Tyrolese, Joachim Schiller ab Herdern. Order of books in the New Test., Ev., Paul., Apoc., Cath., Act. Interesting text, especially in the Acts, where it is more or less mixed; examined by S. Berger.

18. Lat. 9380. Bible [ix], in beautiful and minute minuscule. The famous Theodulfian Bible, formerly belonging to the Cathedral of Orleans, and bearing such a strong resemblance to the other Theodulfian Codex at Puy (see below, no. 24), that M. Delisle declares many pages look almost like proofs struck from the same type. It bears a strong resemblance also to the St. Hubert Bible (Brit. Mus. Add. 24,142, see no. 6), though it is written in a smaller hand; the Hubert text has been throughout assimilated to this. See Berger, p. 149 f.; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xxi. 3, and Les Bibles de Théodulfe, Paris, 1879. Wordsworth's Θ; collated by Revs. C. Wordsworth and H. J. White.

19. Lat. 11,504-5, formerly St. Germain 3, 4, afterwards 16, 17. Bible [ix], fol., 199 and 215 leaves, minuscule; dated 822. New Test. contains Ev., Act., Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 Tim.; then a lacuna; Apoc., Cath. See O.L.B.T., i. p. 57; Del., Cab. des MSS., pl. xxiv; Berger, p. 93. Walker's ο2; he collated Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc.

20. Lat. 11,532, 11,533, formerly at Corbey, afterwards St. Germain 1, 2, then 14, 15; 2 vols. Bible [ix], fol., minuscules; probably written after 855 a.d., the year of the accession of Lothair II, who is mentioned in an inscription at the end of the book. Order of books in the New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc. Walker's ν; he collated Act., Cath., Paul., Apoc., not Ev.; see Wordsworth, O.L.B.T., i. p. 57; Berger, p. 104 f.

21. Lat. 11,553, described above (p. 47) as g1. Old Latin text in [pg 070] St. Matthew; in the rest of the New Test, a Vulgate text, but with strong admixture of Old Latin elements. Order of books in New Test., Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc, Paul. Wordsworth's G, Walker's μ; see also Berger, p. 65 ff.

22. Lat. 11,937, formerly St. Germain 9, then 645. First volume of Bible [ix], 4to, 179 leaves, containing the Old Test., but incomplete. This MS. was the Germ, parv. of R. Stephen, who cites it also in Matt, v-viii; the volume, however, containing the New Testament has since disappeared. See Delisle, Les Bibles de Théodulfe, p. 28.

23. Lat. 16,719-16,722. Bible [xiii], in 4 vols., corrected throughout by the Dominicans under the auspices of Hugo de St. Caro, see above, p. 60, often called the Bible of St. Hugo de St. Caro.

Puy.

24. Cathedral Library. The famous Bible [viii or ix], written under the direction of Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, and closely resembling the Paris Codex B. N. Lat. 9380, though not of equal critical value (see above, p. 69, no. 18). Described by Delisle, Les Bibles de Théodulfe; see also Le Long, i. p. 235; Berger, p. 171 f.

d. Germany: Bamberg.

25. Royal Library, A. I. 5. Bible [ix], large folio, 423 leaves. One of the finest examples of the Alcuinian recension, and a typical specimen of the second period of Caroline writing and ornamentation. Written in the monastery of St. Martin at Tours. Apocalypse wanting. See Leitschuh, Führer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu Bamberg, 1889, p. 82. Wordsworth's B2 in Acts &c.; collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

Metz.

26. Public Library, no. 7. Second half of Bible [early ix], minuscule. Mixed text, with Languedocian and Irish characteristics. See Berger, p. 100.

Würzburg92.

27. Mp. th. fol. max. 1. Bible [xi], 403 leaves, large folio, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library. Contains the whole Bible except Pauline Epp. and Book of Baruch, which, together with the Epistle to the Laodiceans, have been abstracted.

e. Italy: La Cava.

28. Corpo di Cava (near Salerno); Benedictine Abbey. The well-known Codex Cavensis of the whole Bible [prob. ix], written in Spain, probably in Castile or Leon, in small, round Visigothic minuscules, by a scribe Danila; a copy was made by the Abbate de Rossi early in this century, and is now in the Vatican (Lat. 8484). A good representative of the Spanish type of text, and closely resembling the Codex Toletanus (no. 41). See Dom Bernardo Gaetani de Aragona, Cod. diplomat. [pg 071] Cavensis, vol. i, Naples, 1873; Silvestre, Pal. univ., iii; L. Ziegler, Sitzungsber. der k. bayr. Akad. der Wissenschaften phil. phil. Klasse, Munich, 1876, p. 655 f.; Pertz, Archiv, v. p. 542. Collated by Bishop Wordsworth. Tischendorf's cav., Wordsworth's C.

Florence.

29. Laurentian Library. The far-famed Codex Amiatinus of the whole Bible [end of vii or beginning of viii], 1029 leaves, large folio. Till lately it was supposed to have been written by a sixth century scribe in Italy; but now, principally through the acuteness of G. B. de Rossi and the late Professor Hort, it has been proved that it was written by the order of the abbot Ceolfrid either at Wearmouth or Jarrow, and sent by him as a present to the Pope at Rome in 715 a.d. Afterwards placed in the Monastic Library at Monte Amiata, whence it was again sent to Rome for collation at the time of the Sixtine revision (see p. 64). The New Testament was badly edited by F. F. Fleck, 1840; carefully, though not without a few slips, by Tischendorf in 1850 (second ed. with some emendations 1854); and by Tregelles in his Greek New Test. 1857. Facsimiles in Zangemeister and Wattenb., Exempla codd. lat., pl. 35, and Palaeogr. Soc. ii. pl. 65, 66. Of the recent literature on this MS., and especially on the first quaternion, with its lists of the books of the Bible closely resembling those of Cassiodorus, see G. B. de Rossi, La Biblia offerta da Ceolfr. Abb. al Sepolcro di S. Pietro, Rome, 1887; H. J. White, The Codex Amiatinus and its Birthplace, in Studia Biblica, ii. p. 273 (Oxford, 1890); P. Corssen, Die Bibeln des Cassiodorus und der Cod. Amiatinus, in the Jahrb. f. prot. Theologie, 1883 and 1891; Th. Zahn, Gesch. d. ntl. Kanons, ii. p. 267 f. Tischendorf's am., Wordsworth's A.

Milan.

30. Ambrosian Library, E. 26 inf. Part of a Bible [ix or x], commencing with Chron. and finishing with Pauline Epp. Probably written at Bobbio. Mixed text, especially interesting in St. Paul's Epp.; does not contain the last three verses of Romans; see Berger, p. 138.

31. E. 53 inf. Bible [ix or x], much mutilated; 169 leaves, containing the sacred books in the following order: Octateuch, Jerem., Acts, Cath., Apoc., Kings, Solomon, Job, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Esdras, Maccabees, Ezek., Dan., minor prophets, Isa., Pauline Epp.; i.e. the order in which they are read in ecclesiastical lessons during the year. Formerly at Biasca, a village in the valley of Tessin on the St. Gothard. Vulgate text, but mixed with Old Latin elements; interesting as containing not only the Ep. to the Laodiceans but also the apocryphal correspondence between St. Paul and the Corinthians (cp. the Laon MS., no. 161). See Carrière and Berger, La correspondance apocr. de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891.

Monte Cassino.

32. Monastery of Monte Cassino: codd. 552 and 557 are mentioned by Corssen (Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin, 1885, p. 15) as worthy of note: 552 Bible [xi], 557 Bible [xii-xiii], but both containing an ancient [pg 072] text. Order of books in both is Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul. (Ev. lacking in 552). See also Bibliotheca Casinensis, ii. pp. 313-352.

Monza.

33. Collegiate Archives, G. 1. Bible [ix], written at Tours by the scribe Amalricus, who was Archbishop of Tours: specimen of the Alcuinian recension and resembling in text and in outward appearance and writing the Parisian Bible, B. N. Lat. 3 (no. 11 above). See Corssen, Epist. ad Galatas, p. 10; Berger, p. 221.

Rome.

34. Vat. Lat. 5729, Codex Farfensis. Bible [xi], in one enormous volume; in good preservation, written in three columns. See Vercellone, Var. Lect., ii. p. xvii, and Le Long, i. p. 235; the latter wrongly cites it as 6729.

35. Bible of S. Maria ad Martyres (La Rotonda, Pantheon). Bible [x], large folio. The books in the New Test. are in the following order: Ev., Act., Cath., Apoc., Paul.; used by Vercellone.

36. The splendid Bible [ix] preserved in the Library of S. Paul without the walls; belonged to Charles the Bald, and preserves an Alcuinian text, strongly resembling V. See Vercellone, Var. Lect., i. p. lxxxv; Le Long, i. p. 237; Berger, p. 292.

37. Vallicellian Library, B. vi. Bible [ix], 347 leaves, large 4to, Caroline minuscules. The Church of Sta. Maria in Vallicella belongs to the Oratorian Fathers, and Bianchini himself was an Oratorian; he refers to this MS. in the Evang. Quadr., ii. pl. viii. p. 600, and it is probably the best extant specimen of the Alcuinian revision. Bp. Wordsworth collated it, and cites it as V; see also Berger, p. 197.

f. Spain: Leon.

38. Cathedral Library, 15. Fragments of Bible [vii], palimpsest; 40 leaves, semi-uncial, under some writing in a Visigothic hand of the tenth century. Contains in New Test. portions of Acts, 2 Cor., Col., and 1 John. Vulgate base but with Old Latin elements, especially in 1 John. Discovered by Dr. Rudolf Beer, who is proposing to publish the fragments. See Berger, p. 8.

39. Cathedral Library, 6. Second volume of a Bible [x], formerly belonging to the Convent of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the Valle de Torio, and thought to date from the time of Ordogno II (913-923); written by two scribes, Vimara, a presbyter, and John, a deacon; minuscule, like Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New Test. is Ev. (followed by a commentary), Act., Paul. (including Laod.), Cath., Apoc.; examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. See Berger, p. 17.

40. Church of San Isidro; Codex Gothicus Legionensis. Bible [x], folio, dated 998 of the Spanish era, i.e. 960 a.d.; minuscule of the same type as Cavensis, only larger. Order of books in the New Test.: Ev., Paul., Cath., Act., Apoc. Written a notario Sanctioni presbitero, and was collated on behalf of the Sixtine revision of the Vulgate for Card. [pg 073] Carafa, and by him called the Codex Gothicus; this collation is preserved in the Vatican, Lat. 4859. Examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882. See Berger, p. 18.

Madrid.

41. National Library. Bible [x? Berger would date it viii], in three columns, the famous Codex Toletanus. According to a notice in the MS. itself, its auctor possessorque (auctor = legal owner?), Servandus of Seville, gave it to his friend John, Bishop of Cordova, who in turn offered it in the year 988 to the see of Seville; thence it passed in time to Toledo and ultimately to Madrid. It is written in Visigothic characters, and presents the Spanish type of text, strongly resembling the Cod. Cavensis (no. 28). Collated for the Sixtine revision by Chr. Palomares, whose work, written in a Hentenian Bible of 1569, is now preserved in the Vatican (Lat. 9508); it was not, however, used in that revision, as it reached Cardinal Carafa too late. Bianchini published the collation in his Vindiciae Can. Script., Rome, 1740, pp. xlvii-ccxvi (= Migne, Patr. Lat., tom. xxix). Bp. Wordsworth collated the New Testament in 1882. See Berger, p. 12; Merino, Escuela Paleogr., pl. v. pp. 53-9, Madrid, 1780; Muñoz y Rivero, Paleografia Visigoda, pl. viii, ix, Madrid, 1881; Ewald and Loewe, Exempla Scr. Visig., pp. 7, 8, pl. ix. Tischendorf's tol.; Wordsworth's T.

42. University Library, no. 31: Codex Complutensis, i.e. of Alcalá (= Complutum). Bible [ix or x]; in the New Test. Laod. follow Hebrews. Plainly a Spanish text, but with peculiar readings in the Epistles, and especially in the Acts. Purchased at Toledo by Cardinal Ximenes; described by Berger, p. 22, and Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1705.

43. University Library, no. 32. Second volume of a Bible [ix-x], folio, containing from the Proverbs to the Apocalypse, in a Visigothic hand; the ornaments somewhat resembling those of the Codex Cavensis. It formerly belonged to Cardinal Ximenes: see Berger, p. 15.

44. Royal Academy of History (Calle del Leon 21), No. F. 186. The second volume of a Bible [x], small folio, written by the monk Quisius. It formerly belonged to the Abbey of St. Emilianus (S. Millan de la Cogolla), between Burgos and Logroño. Order of books in New Test.: Ev., Act., Paul., Cath., Apoc. (fragmentary). The handwriting resembles Cavensis, though it is slightly larger, and the text also belongs to the Spanish group. Examined by Bp. Wordsworth in 1882; see Berger, p. 16.

g. Switzerland: Berne.

45. University Library, A. 9. Bible [xi], originally belonging to Vienne in Dauphiné. Contains an interesting text in Cath. Epp. and Acts, where it seems to be much under Theodulfian influence or that of the texts belonging to the South of France; the corrections too are interesting. See Berger, p. 62 f.

Einsiedeln.

46. Einsiedeln Library, no. 1. Bible [early x], possibly copied at [pg 074] Einsiedeln; corrected in accordance with a text like that of St. Gall 75. See Berger, p. 132.

47. Einsiedeln Library, nos. 5-7. Bible [x], also corrected and bearing strong resemblance to the one above; same order of books as in 31.

St. Gall.

48. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 11 [viii]. A collection of extracts composed for the use of the monks; written by the monk Winithar. Vulgate text but with a mixture of Old Latin readings. See Berger, p. 121 f.

49. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 75. [ix], large folio; contains complete Bible; corrected by the abbot Hartmotus. See Berger, p. 129.

Present position unknown.

50. Bible [xiii, but copied from an early exemplar], edited by Matthaei (N. T.) in the Act., Epp., Apoc.; see his preface to Cath. Epp., p. xxx f.; belonged to Paul Demidov. Formerly at Lyons; Tischendorf's demid.

B. New Testaments.

a. British Isles: Dublin.

51. Trin. Coll. The Book of Armagh. New Test. [ix], written by Ferdomnach in a beautiful and small Irish hand. Order of books: Evv., Paul. (Laod. after Col.), Cath., Apoc., Acts. The New Test. was transcribed for Bp. Wordsworth by the Rev. G. M. Youngman; the late Dr. Reeves, Bp. of Down, intended to edit it, and his work is now (1893) being prepared for the press by Professors Gwynn and Bernard, of Dublin. See also National MSS. of Ireland, i. pp. xiv-xvii, plates xxv-xxix; Berger, p. 31 f. Wordsworth's D.

b. France: Paris.

52. B. N. Lat. 250, formerly Reg. 3572; from Saint-Denis. New Test. [ix], folio, minuscule: Evv., Act., Cath., Paul. (Laod. after Col., which in turn is after Thess.), Apoc. Walker's λ; he collated Cath. and Apoc. Alcuinian text, see Berger, p. 243.

53. Lat. 254. New Test. [xii]; has been described above as c (p. 45). Text is Old Latin in the Gospels, Vulgate in the rest of the New Test. See Berger, p. 74.

54. Lat. 321, formerly belonging to Baluze. New Testament [early xiii], written in the South of France, probably between Carcassonne and Narbonne. Very interesting text; in the Epistles and Acts there are a large number of Old Latin readings; the text of the Acts is especially mixed; orthography incorrect. Berger, p. 77.

55. Lat. 342, formerly Colbert 6155. New Testament [early xiii], written in the South of France; contains large mixture of Old Latin readings throughout; examined by Berger.

[pg 075]

c. Germany: Fulda.

56. Abbey of Fulda in Prussia. The well-known Codex Fuldensis [vi] of the New Testament, written for Bishop Victor of Capua, and corrected by him a.d. 541-546. The Gospels are arranged in one narrative, based on the order of Tatian's Diatessaron, but with a Vulgate text; the Ep. to the Laodiceans follows that to the Colossians. Described by Schannat in 1723 (Vindemiae Literariae Collectio, pp. 218-21), collated by Lachmann and Ph. Buttmann in 1839, and edited in full by E. Ranke (Marburg, 1868); see also Th. Zahn, Tatian's Diatessaron, Erlangen, 1881, pp. 298-313; S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian, Dublin, 1888, pp. x, xi, xxiv-v. Facsimiles in Ranke, and Zangem. and Wattenb., Exempla, p. 34. Tischendorf's fuld.; Wordsworth's F.

d. Sweden: Stockholm.

57. Royal Library: Codex Gigas Holmiensis [xiii]; Old Latin text in Acts and Apoc., Vulgate in the New Testament; described above, p. 51.

C. Gospels.

a. Austria: Vienna.

58. theo or theotisc refers to the Latin version of the Fragmenta Theotisca versionis ant. Evang. S. Matthaei ... ediderunt Steph. Endlicher et Hoffmann Fallerslebensis; Vindobonae, 1834 (2nd edit. cura T. F. Massmann; Viennae, 1841); 15 leaves [viii], containing St. Matt. viii. 33 to the end of the Gospel, but much mutilated; the recto side of each leaf contains the Theotisc or Old German version, mixed with Gothic, the verso contains the Latin; quoted by Tischendorf in Matt. xx. 28, where it has the common Latin addition. See also J. A. Schmeller, Ammonii Alexandrini Harmonia Evangeliorum, Vienna, 1841.

b. British Isles: British Museum.

59. Reg. I. A. xviii. Gospels [x], 199 leaves, written in Caroline minuscules, originally belonging to King Athelstan, who gave it to St. Augustine's monastery at Canterbury; mut. after John xviii. 21; see British Museum Catalogue, p. 37. Bentley's O.

60. Reg. I. B. vii. Gospels [viii], 155 leaves, written in England. The Rev. G. M. Youngman, who has examined this MS. carefully, says the text is very interesting, though rather mixed; has been corrected throughout. Bentley's H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 14. See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 19, pl. 16, and Morin, Liber Comicus, p. 426, 1893.

61. Reg. I. D. ix. Gospels [x], a handsome 4to volume of 150 leaves, the capitals throughout written in gold, and the initial page to each Gospel finely illuminated; contains prefatory matter and Capitulare, but is mut. after John xxi. 18. Formerly belonged to King Canute, as an Anglo-Saxon inscription on fol. 43 b testifies. See Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 141; Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 23. Bentley's A.

62. Reg. I. E. vi. Gospels [end of viii], imperfect; 77 leaves, half uncial [pg 076] characters, written in England; formerly belonging to St. Augustine's, Canterbury, and in all probability the second volume of the famous Biblia Gregoriana mentioned by Elmham. See Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pl. 14, 15; British Museum Catalogue, p. 20, pl. 17, 18; Palaeogr. Soc, i. pl. 7; Berger, p. 35. Bentley's P.

63. Cotton Tib. A. ii [early x], written in Germany; Gospels, 216 leaves, written in Caroline minuscules, once the property of King Athelstan; see British Museum Catalogue, p. 35. Bentley's E.

64. Cotton Nero D. iv. The magnificent Lindisfarne Gospels [vii or viii], rivalling even the Book of Kells (no. 78) in the beauty of their writing and the richness of their ornamentation. Written by Eadfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne, 698-721 a.d., and other scribes; preserve a very pure text, agreeing closely with the Codex Amiatinus (no. 29), sometimes against all other known Vulgate MSS. The Latin is accompanied by an interlinear version in the Northumbrian dialect. Edited, rather carelessly, for the Surtees Soc., by Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and W. W. Skeat, The Gospel of St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Cambr., 1887; see also Westwood, Anglo-Saxon and Ir. MSS., pp. 33-9, pl. 12, 13; Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., p. 45; Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 3-6, 22; Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 15, pl. 8-11; Berger, p. 39; Morin, Liber Comicus, p. 426. The Surtees text revised by the Rev. G. M. Youngman. Wordsworth's and Bentley's Y.

65. Cotton Otho B. ix. Gospels [x?], nearly destroyed by fire; there are twelve small fragments containing portions of prefatory matter, and of SS. Matt., Mark, and John, in small Caroline minuscules, but with a large capital at the beginning of St. Mark and interlaced ornamentation. Bentley's D.

66. Cotton Otho C. v. St. Matt. and St. Mark [probably viii], written in Saxon hand, and possibly part of the same MS. as Bentley's C (see no. 76). This Manuscript is now simply a collection of the shrivelled fragments of sixty-four leaves which survived the fire of 1731; the last leaf contains Mark xvi. 6-20. See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 20; the editors, however, doubt whether it is part of the same MS. as no. 76. Bentley cites these fragments as φ.

67. Egerton 609. Gospels [viii or ix], formerly belonging to the Monastery of Marmoutier (Majus Monasterium) near Tours, where it was numbered 102. It is written, however, in an Irish hand and presents an Irish type of text; it is much mut., especially in St. Mark. See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 30. Cited by Calmet, Tischendorf, &c., as mm; collated again by the Rev. G. M. Youngman, and cited by Wordsworth as E.

68. Harl. 1775. Gospels [vi or vii], in small but very beautiful uncial hand, and with an extremely valuable text. Formerly numbered 4582 in the Bibliothèque Royale at Paris; stolen from thence by Jean Aymon, it passed into the possession of Harley, Earl of Oxford, and then to the British Museum. Collated in part by Griesbach, Symbolae Criticae, i. pp. 305-26, Halae, 1785; by Bentley or Walker; later by the Rev. G. Williams; and for Bp. Wordsworth's Vulgate by the [pg 077] Rev. H. J. White; for facsimiles see Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 14, pl. 3; Palaeogr. Soc., i. p. 16. Wordsworth's and Bentley's Z; Tischendorf's harl.

69. Harl. 1802. Gospels [xii], 156 leaves, a small Irish MS., with copious marginal notes, written by the scribe Maelbrigte; stolen from Paris by Jean Aymon. Bentley's W.

70. Harl. 2788. Gospels [end of viii or beginning of ix], 208 leaves folio, an extremely fine MS., written throughout in golden uncials, except the prefatory matter, which is in minuscules; the vellum and also the colours used in the illumination are all wonderfully bright and fresh. See Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 22, pl. 39-41; Corssen, Ada-H. S. p. 86; Bentley's M in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 5.

71. Harl. 2826. Gospels [ix or x], 150 leaves, Caroline minuscules; formerly belonging to the monastery of Eller, near Cochem, on the Mosel; see Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 32. Bentley's H in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 5.

72. Addit. 5463. Gospels [viii or ix], from the nunnery of St. Peter at Beneventum, formerly belonging to Dr. Richard Mead; written in a fine revived uncial hand. The MS. has usually been supposed to have been written at Beneventum, but Berger doubts this (p. 92). Cited by Bentley as F, by Wordsworth as [Symbol: BF ligature]. Facsimiles in Brit. Mus. Catalogue, p. 18, pl. 7, and Palaeogr. Soc., i. p. 236.

Cambridge.

73. University Library, I. i. 6. 32. The Book of Deer; Gospels [viii or ix], small but rather wide 8vo, 86 leaves, but mut.; contains Matt. i. 1-vii. 23; Mark i. 1-v. 36; Luke i. 1-iv. 12; John, complete. Belonged originally to the Columbian monastery of Deer in Aberdeenshire: in 1697 belonged to Bp. J. Moore (of Norwich and Ely), and with the rest of his library was bought for the University of Cambridge in 1715. Contains many old and peculiar readings (Westcott, p. 1694). Described by Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., pp. 89-90; edited in full with facsimiles by J. Stuart (for the Spalding Club), Edinburgh, 1869.

74. Univ. Libr. Kk. 1. 24. St. Luke and St. John [prob. viii], written in Irish hand; collated by Bentley, who cites it as X, and noticed by Westcott, Vulgate, pp. 1695 and 1712; it contains a valuable text.

75. Trin. Coll. B. 10. 4. Gospels [ix], large 4to, written apparently by the same scribe as Brit. Mus. Reg. I. D. ix (no. 61). This is Bentley's T; according to Westcott (p. 1713) it is good Vulgate, with some old readings.

76. Corpus Chr. Coll. cxcvii. Fragments of St. Luke [viii], possibly from the same MS. as Bentley's φ; see above, no. 66, and also Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 49; this MS. has been described, and the fragments of St. John published, by J. Goodwin, Publications of the Cambr. Antiq. Soc., no. xiii, 1847. Bentley's C.

77. Corpus Chr. Coll. CCLXXXVI Evan. Gospels [vii], formerly belonging [pg 078] to the monastery of St. Augustine at Canterbury, and alleged to have been sent by Pope Gregory to Augustine. They contain an interesting text, the first hand being corrected throughout in accordance with a MS. of the type of the Codex Amiatinus. See Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS., pp. 49, 50; Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 11. 1-4; Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 33, 34, 44. Collated by the Rev. A. W. Streane. Bentley's B; Wordsworth's X.

Dublin.

78. Trinity College A. 1. 6. Gospels [vii or viii], commonly known as the Book of Kells; given to Trinity College, Dublin, by Archbishop Ussher. This MS. is principally known as being perhaps the most perfect specimen of Irish writing and illumination in existence, but it also contains a valuable text, though marked with the characteristics of the Irish family. A collation is given by Dr. Abbott in his edition of the Codex Usserianus, or r1 (see p. 50). Facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 55-8, 88, 89; Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS. pp. 25-33, pl. 8-11, and Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 16, 17; also National MSS. of Ireland, i. pp. x-xii, pl. vii-xvii. Wordsworth's Q.

79. Trinity Coll. A. 4. 5. The Book of Durrow. Gospels [end of vi], 8vo, semi-uncial, the text is allied to Amiatinus; cited by Bp. Wordsworth as durmach. According to an inscription on what was the last page, the MS. was written by St. Columba himself in the space of twelve days; the inscription however, like the rest of the book, is probably copied from an earlier exemplar. A collation of this MS. is given by Professor Abbott in his edition of r1 (see p. 50); see also his article On the colophon of the Book of Durrow (Dublin Hermathena, 1891, p. 199).

80. Trin. Coll. The Book of Moling. Gospels [viii or ix], small 4to, much the same size, writing, and ornamentation as the Gospels of Macdurnan (see 84); but so defaced by damp as to be quite illegible in parts.

81. Royal Irish Academy. The Stowe St. John, formerly in the Ashburnham Library; originally belonging to a Church in Munster. Irish handwriting and text. See Berger, p. 42.

Durham.

82. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 16. Gospels [vii or viii], 134 leaves; said to have been written by Bede, and may very possibly have come from the monastery at Jarrow; mut. in parts; text allied to the Cod. Amiatinus. Cited by Bentley as K, by Wordsworth (who makes use of it only in St. John) as Δ.

83. Cathedral Library, A. ii. 17. St. John, St. Mark, and St. Luke [prob. viii], with another fragment of St. Luke xxi. 33-xxiii. 34. See Westwood, A.-S. and Ir. MSS., p. 47; Bentley's [xi], but to be distinguished from his [xi] in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17. 5, which is St. Chad's book at Lichfield (see no. 85).

Lambeth.

84. Lambeth Palace Library. The Gospels of Macdurnan [x], 216 leaves, Irish writing and ornamentation; an inscription (fol. 3 b), in square Saxon capitals, states that it was written by a scribe named Maeielbrith Mac-Durnain. See Westwood, Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 13, 14, 15.

[pg 079]

Lichfield.

85. Chapter Library. Gospels [vii or viii], traditionally ascribed to St. Chad, who was Bishop of Lichfield; formerly the MS. was at Llandaff on the altar of St. Telian; 110 leaves, Irish, half-uncial; the writing and ornamentation are very beautiful and resemble the Books of Kells, Lindisfarne, &c.; the text belongs to the Irish group of MSS. Contains Matt., Mark, and Luke i. 1-iii. 9. A careful collation, with full introduction, and three facsimiles, was published by Dr. Scrivener (Cambridge, 1887); see also Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 20, 21, 35; Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS., pp. 56-58, pl. 23, and Pal. Sacra Pict., pl. 12. Bentley's [xi] in Trin. Coll. B. 17. 5; Wordsworth's L.

Oxford.

86. Bodl. 857, and Auct. D. 2. 14. Gospels [vii], formerly belonging to St. Augustine's Library at Canterbury, and generally known as St. Augustine's Gospels; British text. See Westwood, Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., pl. 11, no. 5. Casley's ψ; Tischendorf's bodl.; Wordsworth's O, collated for him by F. Madan and Rev. G. M. Youngman.

87. Bodl. Auct. D. 2. 19. Gospels [ix], commonly called the Rushworth Gospels or Gospels of Mac Regol, written by an Irish scribe, who died a.d. 820; has an interlinear Anglo-Saxon version; the Latin text belongs to the Irish type. Mut. Luke iv. 29-viii. 38; x. 19-39; xv. 16-xvi. 26. Collation given in the edition of the Surtees Soc., The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels, by Stevenson and Waring, 1854-65; and by W. W. Skeat, The Gospel of St. Matthew; Anglo-Saxon and Northumbrian Versions, Cambridge, 1887. Casley's χ; Wordsworth's R.

88. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 102. Gospels [x], 210 leaves, fol., Saxon minuscule; formerly at Würzburg, where it was bought at the instance of Archbishop Laud. Mixed text, but with traces of Irish influence. See Berger, p. 54.

89. Corp. Christi Coll. 122. Gospels [prob. xi], an Irish MS.; mut. John i. 1-33; vii. 33-xviii. 20. Bentley's C in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 5; collated for him by Casley; British type of text.

90. St. John's Coll. 194. Gospels [xi], in very small hand: collated by Casley and cited by Bentley as γ.

Stonyhurst.

91. Stonyhurst, Jesuit College. The Gospel of St. John [vii]; originally the property, according to a legend which goes back to the thirteenth century, of St. Cuthbert, in whose coffin it was found; it was preserved in Durham Cathedral till the time of Henry VIII. A minute but exquisitely written uncial MS., with a text closely resembling A; facsimiles in Palaeogr. Soc., i. pl. 17; Westwood, Palaeogr. Sacra Pict., pl. 11, no. 6. Wordsworth's S.

c. France: Angers.

92. Angers Public Library, no. 20. Gospels [ix-x], written in a French hand, but showing signs of Irish influence both in its ornamentation and text. See Berger, p. 48.

[pg 080]

Autun.

93. Autun, Grand Séminaire, no. 3. Gospels [dated 755], written for Vosavius by Gundohínus; uncial hand. Vulgate text but with a good many variations. See Berger, p. 90.

Avignon.

94. Gospels in the monastery of St. Andrew near Avignon: extracts in Martianay (Vulgata ant. Latina), 1695, and Calmet (Commentaire litt., vii), 1726: cited by Tischendorf as and. The MS. has disappeared. See Berger, p. 80.

Paris.

95. B. N. Lat. 256. Gospels [vii], in uncial hand; Vulgate text but with a good many Old Latin readings. See Berger, p. 91.

96. Lat. 262, formerly Reg. 3706, from Puy. Gospels [ix], with prefatory matter, fol., 247 leaves, thick minuscule; mut. in parts. Walker's ο1.

97. Lat. 281 and 298. Gospels [viii], known as Codex Bigotianus, in fine uncial hand, formerly at Fécamp; probably written in France, but both the text and the calligraphy show traces of Irish influence. It is mut. in parts; collated by Walker, who cites it as π, and again by Wordsworth, who cites it as B. See Delisle, Cab. des MSS., atlas, pl. x. 1, 2; Berger, p. 50.

98. Lat. 9389. Gospels [viii?], 223 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to the Benedictine Abbey of St. Willibrord at Echternach; written in an Irish hand, with the interesting subscription on the last page, Proemendaui ut potui secundum codicem de bibliotheca eugipi praespiteri quem ferunt fuisse sci hieronimi indictione vi p(ost) con(sulatum) bassilii ū c. anno septimo deximo = a.d. 558. This, however, must have been in the exemplar from which it was copied, as the MS. itself is at least two centuries later. It presents the Irish type of text, but has been carefully corrected throughout, and the marginal readings represent another type. See Delisle, Cab. des MSS., pl. xix. 8; Pal. universelle, pl. ccxxvi; Westwood, Anglo-Sax. and Ir. MSS., p. 58, pl. xxi; Berger, p. 52 f. Cited by Wordsworth as [Symbol: EP ligature] collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

99. Lat. 10,439. St. John's Gospel [viii], formerly belonging to the Cathedral of Chartres, where it was found in the reliquary containing the sacred vest. A small manuscript, in uncial writing; mixed text, the earlier chapters Old Latin, the rest Vulgate. See Berger, p. 89.

100. Lat. 11,955, formerly St. Germain 777, then 663 or 664. 2. St. Matt. and St. Mark [viii?], 54 leaves, 4to, golden uncials on purple vellum; mut. Matt. i. 1-vi. 2; xxvi. 42-xxvii. 49; Mark i. 1-ix. 47; xi. 13-xii. 23. Walker's α; Tischendorf's reg.; see O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 55; Delisle, Cab. des MSS., atlas, pl. i. 2.

101. Lat. 11,959. Gospels [ix], from St. Maur des Fossés. Found by Sabatier in the St. Germain Library and collated by him; cited by Tischendorf as foss.

[pg 081]

102. Lat. 13,171, formerly St. Germain numbered successively 18, 666, and 223. Gospels [ix], 4to, 223 leaves, small round minuscule. Walker's φ.

103. Lat. 17,226. Gospels [vii], in uncials. Vulgate text, but with a certain number of old readings in it. See Berger, p. 90.

104. Nouvelles acquisitions lat. 1587 (Libri 14). Gospels [vii-ix], from St. Gatien's, Tours, then in the Ashburnham Library, now at Paris. Quoted by Calmet (Nouv. Dissertations, pp. 448-488), 1720, and by Bianchini, Ev. Quadr.; contains a number of Old Latin readings, and on the whole rather resembles Br. Mus. Egerton 609 (no. 67) in text. Usually cited as gat. See Berger, p. 46.

105. Nouv. acq. lat. 2196. Evangeliarium [xi], from Luxeuil, written about 105 a.d. by Gerard, abbot of the Benedictine monastery there: sold at Didot's sale in 1879 to the National Library at Paris; cited by Mabillon, Sabatier, and Tischendorf as lux. See Delisle, Mélanges de Paléographie, p. 154 (1880).

Tours.

106. Public Library 22; formerly at Saint Martin. Gospels [viii or ix], in gold letters, interesting text. Quoted by Sabatier in Mark, Luke, and John. Walker's ρ, Tischendorf's mt., Wordsworth's [Symbol: MT ligature]; collated for his edition of the Vulgate by the Rev. G. M. Youngman. See also Berger, p. 47.

107. Public Libr. 23, formerly St. Martin 174. Gospels [ix], 192 leaves, minuscule. Collated by L. Chevalier, and cited by Walker as σ. See Dorange, Cat. des MSS. de Tours, 1875, p. 9.

108. Public Libr. 25, formerly Marmoutier 231 according to Delisle. Gospels [xii], but mut. in many parts and wanting after John vii. 5; Collated by Chevalier. Walker's τ.

d. Germany: Berlin.

109. Royal Library, MS. Theol. lat. 4to, no. 4. Gospels [ix or x], with prefatory matter; 164 leaves, 25 x 20 cent., minuscule. This MS. formerly belonged to the Augustinian College of Corsendonk near Turnhout in Brabant, and is the Corsendonkense Exemplar of Erasmus, used by him in his second edition, with notes in his own hand. See O. L. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 53.

Erlangen.

110. Gospels at Erlangen, used by Sanftl, Dissertatio etc., Ratisbon, 1789, p. 76, and cited by Tischendorf as erl.

Karlsruhe.

111. Grand Ducal Library, Cod. Augiensis 211. Gospels [ix], formerly at Reichenau; text strongly marked by Irish readings. See Berger, p. 56.

Mayhingen.

112. Library of Prince Œttingen-Wallerstein. Gospels [viii], from [pg 082] the Abbey of St. Arnoul at Metz; has a note at the end Laurentius vivat senio; the Laurentius referred to being probably the scribe of the celebrated Echternach martyrology. See Berger, p. 52.

Munich.

113. Royal Libr. Lat. 13,601 = Cim. 54. Gospels [xi], 119 leaves, folio, from Niedermünster; magnificent pictures and illuminations; see Kugler, Museum, 1834, p. 164; Woltmann, Gesch. d. Malerei, i. 258; Berth. Richl, Zur Bayr. Kunstgesch., i. 16.

114. Lat. 14,000, Cim. 55. Gospels [ix, dated 870], folio, from St. Emmeram's, Ratisbon. This magnificent book is written in golden uncials on fine white vellum, a good deal of purple being employed in the earlier pages; there are splendid illuminations before each Gospel. Collated by C. Sanftl, Dissertatio etc., Ratisbon, 1789. Tischendorf's em.

115. Royal Library. Gospels [vii], from Ingolstadt; mut. in many places, especially in St. Matthew, where it only preserves xxii. 39-xxiv. 19; xxv. 14 ad fin. Collated by Tischendorf, who cited it as ing. His collation is in the possession of Bp. Wordsworth, who cites the MS. as I.

Nuremberg.

116. Dr. Dombart in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr., 1881, p. 455 f., has drawn attention to some fragments [probably vi cent.] of St. Luke and St. John now in the Germanisches Museum at Nuremberg; they consist of twenty-eight leaves detached from the covers of books and contain, though mut., Luke v. 19-xxiv. 31, John i. 19-33, written in a most beautiful uncial hand, perhaps not surpassed by any other MS. The text seems to be allied to Amiatinus, but with a considerable mixture of Old Latin readings. More fragments from the same MS. are to be found in the Libri collection; see Catalogue de la partie réservée de la collection Libri (1862), p. 45, no. 226, pl. lviii.

Trier.

117. Stadtbibliothek, no. xxii. Gospels [end of viii], 172 leaves, folio, written partly in uncials but mostly in Caroline minuscules; this is the famous Codex Aureus, or Adahandschrift, and is a truly magnificent copy. A full description, both of the palaeography and of the critical value of the text, is given in the fine monograph published at Leipzig in 1889, and entitled Die Trierer Adahandschrift; by several authors. The dissertation on the text is by Dr. P. Corssen.

Wolfenbüttel.

118. A Wolfenbüttel palimpsest [v], quoted occasionally in the Gospels by Tischendorf as gue. lect. See Anecdota sacra et profana, p. 164 f.

Würzburg.

119. University Library, Mp. Th. q. 1 a. Gospels [early vii], 152 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury; fine uncial writing, and [pg 083] beautiful ivory carving on the covers. According to tradition this MS. belonged to St. Kilian and was found in his tomb; see however Berger, p. 54. Mut. Matt. i. 1-vi. 8; John xx. 23-xxi. 25. Facsimile in Zangemeister and Wattenb., Supplem. ad Exempla codd. lat., pl. lviii-lviii a.93

120. Mp. th. q. 1. Gospels [x], 194 leaves, 4to, formerly belonging to the Benedictine monastery of St. Stephen. A splendid MS.

121. Mp. th. q. 4. Gospels [xi], 168 leaves, 4to, probably once the property of the monastery at Neumünster. A fine MS. and strongly resembling Mp. th. f. 66 (no. 124).

122. Mp. th. f. 61. St. Matthew [viii], 34 leaves, folio, Anglo-Saxon writing with interlinear glosses; the text is largely intermixed with Old Latin readings. See the monograph of K. Köberlin, Eine Würzb. Evang. Hdschr.; Progr. d. Studienanstalt bei S. Anna in Augsburg, 1891.

123. Mp. th. f. 65. Gospels [viii or ix], 182 leaves, folio, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule.

124. Mp. th. f. 66. Gospels [viii or ix], 207 leaves, folio, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury. Fine minuscule; was a special treasure of Bishop Heinrich.

125. Mp. th. f. 67. Gospels [vii or viii], 192 leaves, folio, probably from the Cathedral Treasury; semi-uncial, and ivory carving on the cover; there are occasional corrections in an early hand, and the first hand has a large intermixture of Old Latin readings; mut. after John xviii. 35, and does not contain John v. 4.

126. Mp. th. f. 68. Gospels [vi or vii], 170 leaves, folio, formerly belonging to the Cathedral Treasury; fine and large uncial, and ivory carving on the cover; corrected frequently in a later minuscule hand, but the reading of the first hand is always visible, and agrees largely with Amiatinus, though in St. John's Gospel there is a good proportion of Old Latin readings.

127. Mp. th. f. 88. Gospels [xii or xiii], 194 leaves, folio; according to an inscription on fol. 194 the MS. was brought from Rome by a Cardinal to the Council of Basle, and used by him there; and then was bought for the Cathedral at Würzburg and handsomely bound.

e. Holland: Utrecht.

128. Utrecht. At the end of the famous Utrecht Psalter are bound up some fragments [vii or viii] of St. Matthew (i. 1-iii. 4) and St. John (i. 1-21), written in an Anglian hand, strongly resembling that of the Codex Amiatinus. Facsimiles are given in the well-known edition of the Psalter, which was photographed by the autotype process and published in London in 1873. Wordsworth's U.

[pg 084]

f. Italy: Cividale.

129. Cividale, Friuli. Gospels [vi or vii]. St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John are at Cividale in Friuli, from which the MS. is named Codex Forojuliensis; St. Mark partly at Venice in a wretched and illegible plight, partly at Prague. This last portion (xii. 21-xvi. 20) was edited by J. Dobrowsky (Prague, 1778), and is cited by Tischendorf as prag.; the other Gospels are edited by Bianchini in the Evang. Quadruplex, ii. app., p. 473 f., and are cited by Tischendorf as for.; the MS. is cited throughout by Wordsworth as J. St. John is mut. xix. 29-40; xx. 19-xxi. 25. Facsimile in Zangem. and Wattenb., pl. 36.

Milan.

130. Ambrosian Library, C. 39 inf. Gospels [vi], 288 leaves, uncial; with the numbers of the Sections and Canons in small Greek uncials, and some early and interesting lectionary notes in the margins; the text is also very interesting and valuable. Mut. Matt. i. 1-6; 25-iii. 12; xxiii. 25-xxv. 41; Mark vi. 10-viii. 12. In a later hand [ix] are Mark xiv. 35-48; John xix. 12-23; also a repeated Passion lesson, John xiii-xviii. Wordsworth's M; transcribed for his edition of the Vulgate by Padre Fortunato Villa, one of the Scrittori of the Library.

131. Ambrosian Library, I. 61 sup. Gospels [viii], Irish hand; interesting text; it has been corrected throughout, and the corrections are as interesting as the original text, giving us good specimens of Western readings; see Berger, p. 58.

Perugia.

132. Chapter Library; part of St. Luke's Gospel [vi], in a purple MS.; contains Luke i. 1-xii. 7, but much mut. Edited by Bianchini, Evang. Quadr., ii. app., p. 562; Tischendorf's pe.; Wordsworth's P.

Turin.

133. Gospels [vii?], at Turin, used by Tischendorf and cited by him as taur.; see Anecdota Sacra et Profana, p. 160.

g. Spain: Escurial.

134. Gospels [xi], 170 leaves, double columns, written apparently at Spires on the Rhine, in gold letters; now in the Escurial, not numbered, but exhibited under glass; the Aureum exemplar of Erasmus; see Old Lat. Bibl. Texts, i. p. 51.

h. Switzerland: Berne.

135. University Library, no. 671. Gospels [ix or x], written in a small and graceful Irish hand; mixed text. See Berger, p. 56.

Geneva.

136. No. 6. Gospels [viii or ix], Anglo-Saxon text. Berger, p. 57.

St. Gall.

137. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 17 [ix-x], part of a 4to volume of 342 [pg 085] pages, two MSS. bound up together; pp. 3-117 contain the Gospel of St. Matthew; pp. 118-132, St. Mark i. 1-iii. 27 with preface.

138. No. 49 [ix], 4to, 314 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter.

139. No. 50 [ix-x], 4to, 534 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter and capitulare.

140. No. 51 [viii], folio, 268 pages, Irish semi-uncial. Gospels; illuminated title-pages and initials, strongly resembling the style of the Books of Kells and Lindisfarne (nos. 78, 64). Vulgate text, but with Old Latin readings, especially in the earlier chapters of St. Matthew. See Berger, p. 56.

141. No. 52 [ix], folio, 286 pages. Gospels, with prefatory matter.

142. No. 53 [ix-x], folio, 305 pages. Gospels, with title-pages and initials finely illuminated; written by Sintram, a Deacon at St. Gall, and known as the Evangelium longum; remarkable also for its handsome binding with ivory carvings.

143. No. 60 [viii], folio, 70 pages, Irish writing. St. John's Gospel, with illuminated title-page and picture of St. John; this is one of the thirty libri scottice scripti, mentioned in the ninth century catalogue of the Library; Tischendorf transcribed part of this MS.

144. No. 1394; the book of fragments that contains the Old Latin fragments, n o p (see p. 49). Pages 101-104 are two leaves small folio [ix] in Irish minuscules, and contain St. Luke i-iii; transcribed by Tischendorf.

145. No. 1395 [vi], being pp. 7-327 of a 4to MS., containing 90 leaves and a number of fragments of a MS. of the Gospels in Roman minuscules; only Matt. vi. 21-John xvii. 18 remain. The scribe says that he had two Latin MSS. before him, and a Greek MS. to which he occasionally referred. See below, no. 180. Tischendorf's san.

i. United States: Oswego N. Y.

146. Library of Th. Irwin, Esq. Gospels [viii], gold letters on purple vellum, formerly in the Hamilton Collection (No. 151); falsely ascribed to Abp. Wilfrid of York († 709); see Berger, p. 259.

D. Acts, Epistles, Apocalypse.

a. British Isles: British Museum.

147. Add. 11,852. Pauline Epp. (including Laod.), Act., Cath., Apoc. [ix], 215 leaves, small 4to, Caroline minuscule. Written for Hartmotus, Abbot of St. Gall (872-884): it afterwards belonged to the Library of Raymund Kraft at Ulm, and was described by J. G. Schelhorn in 1725 and Häberlin in 1739; bought at Frankfort by Bp. Butler: see Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd., p. 44; and the careful examination by E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, pp. 58-60, Tübingen, 1892. Wordsworth's U2; collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

[pg 086]

Oxford.

148. Bodl. 3418. The Selden Acts, Seld. 30 [vii or viii], mut. xiv. 26-xv. 32. A most valuable uncial MS., collated by Casley, who cited it as χ, and by Bp. Wordsworth, who cites it as O2. See Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1696.

b. France: Paris.

149. B. N. Lat. 305; Acts, Cath., Paul. (Laod. between Col. and Thess.), Apoc. [xi], texts resembling B. N. 93 (see above, no. 15); probably written at Saint Denis. Berger, p. 100.

150. Lat. 309; Acts, Epp., Apoc. [xi], in following order: Pauline Epp. (with Laod. after Thess.), Acts, Cath., Apoc. The text, especially in the Acts, resembles that of B. N. 93 (see above, no. 15). Berger, p. 99.

151. Lat. 13,174. Formerly St. Germain 23, then 669; Acts, Cath., Apoc. [ix], 139 leaves, 4to, thick minuscule. Valuable text, and contains an interesting note on the passage 1 John v. 7; Berger, p. 103. Walker's γ.

152. Lat. 17,250. Acts and Apocalypse [early xii]; 126 leaves, 32 x 23 cent.; a corrector, apparently of the thirteenth century, has added in the Acts a number of interesting additions from an extremely old version. Formerly at Navarre, and bought in 1445 by Nic. de la Mare from Jean de Mouson. Examined by S. Berger.

c. Germany: Munich.

153. Royal Lib. Lat. 6230. Formerly Freisingen 30. Acts, Cath., and Apoc. [early ix?], 126 leaves, large rough Caroline minuscules. Described in the Munich Catalogue as tenth century, but it seems nearer the beginning of the ninth; has a good text, but rather mixed, especially in the Acts, where there are strange conjunctions of good and bad readings. Wordsworth's M2. Collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

d. Switzerland: St. Gall.

154. Stiftsbibliothek. No. 2 [viii], part of a thick 4to volume of 586 pages (not leaves), containing various matter; pp. 301-489 contain Acts and Apoc. in a large minuscule hand, written by the monk and priest Winithar; text interesting, but mixed. Wordsworth's S2 in Acts and Apoc. Collated by the Rev. H. J. White.

155. No. 63 [ix], 4to, 320 pages. Acts, Epistles, and Apoc. divided as follows: foll. 2-163 Pauline Epp.; 163-244 Acts; 245-283 Catholic Epp. (but not 2 and 3 John), the three heavenly witnesses in 1 John v. 7 being added by a contemporary corrector; 283-320 Apocalypse.

156. No. 72 [ix], folio, 336 pages, containing St. Paul's Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc.

157. No. 83 [ix], large folio, 418 pages; a fine MS., written by the order of Grimaldus and presented by him to the Library. Contains St. Paul's Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., and Apoc., with prefatory matter.

158. No. 1398a [xi], folio. A collection of fragments, of which ff. 230-255 contain fragments of Acts i. 1-v. 36.

[pg 087]

E. Epistles (Cath., Paul.) and Apoc.

a. British Isles: British Museum.

159. Harl. 1772. Epistles and Apoc. [viii], Col. after Thess., and lacking Jude and Laod.; the Apoc. is mut. xiv. 16-fin. Formerly at Paris, from whence it was stolen by Jean Aymon. Written in a French hand, but showing traces of Irish influence in its initials and ornamentation; the text is much mixed with Old Latin readings; it has been corrected throughout, and the first hand so carefully erased in places as to be quite illegible. Collated in part by Griesbach, Symb. Crit., i. pp. 326-82, and by the Rev. H. J. White; see also Berger, p. 50. Bentley's M in Trin. Coll. Cam. B. 17. 14; Wordsworth's Z2.

Cambridge.

160. Trin. Coll. B. x. 5 [ix], the Neville MS., 4to, Saxon hand: St. Paul's Epp., beginning 1 Cor. vii. 32. Bentley's S.

Oxford.

161. Bodl. Laud. Lat. 108 [ix], 4to, 117 leaves, Irish hand. Contains St. Paul's Epp. with prefatory matter (ending at Heb. xi. 34), in following order: Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 1, 2 Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb. A valuable text, corrected apparently by three hands; the original text Old Latin, but has been much erased; in many cases agrees with d (Claromontanus) against most, or all, other MSS. See Westcott, Vulgate, p. 1696. Casley's χ; Wordsworth's O3.

b. France: Laon

162. Public Library, no. 45. Epistles and Apoc. [xiii], from the monastery of St. Vincent near Laon. 141 leaves, 4 to, containing latter part of the Old Testament, and the Epp. Apoc. in following order: Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1, 2 Thess., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Apoc., James, 1, 2 Pet., 1, 2, 3 John, Jude; and then the apocryphal Petitio Corinthiorum a Paulo apostolo, and 3rd Ep. to the Corinthians. See Bratke in Theol. Lt. Zeitung, 1892, p. 585 ff.

Orleans.

163. Public Library, no. 16. Consists of a number of fragments of five Biblical MSS.; the two last contain portions of 1 Cor., 1 Thess., Eph., and Phil. [viii?]. Berger, p. 84.

Paris.

164. B. N. 107. The Latin version of Cod. Claromontanus. Walker collated Rom. and 1 Cor. as far as x. 4; he cites it as δ.

165. Lat. 335. Pauline Epp. [viii], in Lombard characters. A valuable MS. Wordsworth's L2.

166. Lat. 2328. Codex Lemovicensis. Catholic Epp. [ix], mixed text; contains 1 John v. 7, with the Three Heavenly Witnesses, but in a mutilated form. Wordsworth's L3.

167. Lat. 9553. Formerly Tours 116. St. Paul's Epp., with other matter [xi], 114 leaves, long minuscule; see Delisle, Notice sur les MSS. disparus [pg 088] de la Bibl. de Tours, no. iv. p. 17 (1883). Collated by Chevalier; Walker's υ.

c. Germany: Bamberg.

168. Royal Library, A. ii. 42. Apocalypse and Evangelistarium [x], written in the monastery of Reichenau; a gift from the Empress Kunigunde to the Collegiate foundation of St. Stephan. Noticeable especially for the large number of pictures (fifty-seven) with which the MS. is ornamented; it is perhaps one of the most interesting specimens we have of the pictorial art of this period. See Leitschuh, Führer durch d. kgl. Bibl. zu Bamberg, 1889, p. 89 ff.

Munich.

169. Royal Library, Lat. 4577. St. Paul's Epp. [viii?], with prefatory matter; Col. after Thess., and followed by Laod.; Heb. at end.

170. Lat. 6229, formerly Freisingen 29. St. Paul's Epp. [viii or ix], with prefatory matter. Order as above. The text of this MS. appears to be like 169, and is excellent in the Romans, mixed in the other Epp.; there is an interesting stichometry; examined by Berger.

171. Lat. 14179. St. Paul's Epp. [ix or x]; interesting text.

Würzburg.

172. University Library, Mp. Th. f. 12. Epistles of St. Paul [ix], with Irish glosses. A well-known MS. The glosses have been published by Professor Zimmer (Glossae Hibernicae, Berlin, 1881), and by Mr. Whitley Stokes, with a translation (The Old Irish Glosses of Würzburg and Carlsruhe, Austin, Hertford, 1887); selections published and translated by the Rev. T. Olden (The Holy Scriptures in Ireland a thousand years ago, Dublin, 1888).

173. Mp. Th. f. 69. Pauline Epp. [viii], with Irish initials; Col. after Thess.

d. Italy: Monza.

174. Collegiate Archives, no. 1-2/9. Fragments of a Bible [x], Lombard writing; all that is left in the New Test. is part of the Epistles of St. Paul. Probably copied from an ancient MS.; Col. follows Eph.; text strongly resembles that of Milan E. 26 inf. (no. 30 above). Berger, p. 139.

Rome.

175. Vat. Reg. Lat. 9. Pauline Epp. [vii], 114 leaves, 30.3 x 20.3 cent., uncial. Collated for Bp. Wordsworth's Vulgate by Dr. Meyncke, and cited as R2; see also Bianchini, Vindiciae, p. cclxxxiii. Colossians are placed after Thessalonians; see Berger, p. 85.

Verona.

176. Chapter Library, no. 74. St. Paul's Epistles [x], a text strongly agreeing with the first corrector of Cod. Fuldensis (see above, p. 75, no. 56); Corssen, Ep. ad Galatas, Berlin, 1885, p. 19.

[pg 089]

e. Switzerland: St. Gall.

177. Stiftsbibliothek, no. 64. [ix], a 4to MS. of 414 pages, of which ff. 1-267 contain St. Paul's Epp.

178. No. 70. [viii], folio, 258 pages, written by the monk Winithar, of which ff. 1-250 contain St. Paul's Epp. (Hebrews being placed after 2 Timothy). See Berger, p. 117.

179. No. 907. [viii], 4to, 320 pages, large hand, written by the monk Winithar; pp. 237-297 and 303-318 contain the Epistles of James, Peter, and John, and Apoc. i. 1-vii. 2.

180. No. 908. 219 pages 4to [vi], of which pp. 77-219 form a very valuable palimpsest MS.; the original writing, a Martyrology in Roman semi-uncial hand; over this, St. Paul's Epp. in uncials, beginning Eph. vi. 2 and finishing 1 Tim. ii. 5. Transcribed by Tischendorf and quoted by him as san.

181. No. 1395 See above, no. 145. Pages 440-441 in the same collection contain fragments of Col. iii. 5-24 in a large Irish hand.

We now subjoin the various notations of these MSS., Bentley's, Walker's, Casley's, Tischendorf's, Wordsworth's:—

Bentley's notation.

A = 61.
B = 77.
C = 76.
C in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 89.
D = 65.
E = 63.
F = 72.
H = 60.
H in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 71.
K = 82.
M = 159.
M in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 70.
O = 59.
P = 62.
R = 3.
S = 160.
T = 75.
W = 69.
X = 74.
Y = 64.
Z = 68.
φ = 66.
ξ = 83.
ξ in Trin. Coll. Camb. B. 17.5 = 85.

Walker's and Casley's notation.

α = 100.
γ (Walker) = 151.
γ (Casley) = 90.
δ = 164.
ε = 10.
η = 11.
θ = 15.
κ = 16.
λ = 52.
μ = 21.
ν = 20.
ο1 = 96.
ο2 = 19.
π = 97.
ρ = 106.
σ = 107.
τ = 108.
υ = 167.
φ = 102.
χ (Evv.) = 87.
χ (Act.) = 148.
χ (Epp.) = 161.
ψ = 86.

Tischendorf's notation.

am. = 29.
and. = 94.
[pg 090]
bodl. = 86.
cav. = 28.
demid. = 50.
em. = 114.
erl. = 110.
for. = 129.
foss. = 101.
fuld. = 56.
gat. = 104.
gue. lect. = 118.
harl. = 68.
ing. = 115.
lux. = 105.
mm. = 67.
mt. = 106.
pe. = 132.
prag. ( = for.) = 129.
reg. = 100.
san. (Ev.) = 145.
san. (Ep.) = 180.
taur. = 133.
theotisc. = 58.
tol. = 41.

Wordsworth's notation.

A = 29.
B = 97.
B2 = 25.
[Symbol: BF ligature] = 72.
C = 28.
D = 51.
Δ = 82.
E = 67.
[Symbol: EP ligature] = 98.
F = 56.
G = 21.
H = 6.
Θ = 18.
I = 115.
J = 129.
K = 5.
L = 85.
L2 = 165.
L3 = 166.
M = 130.
M2 = 153
[Symbol: MT ligature] = 106
O = 86.
O2 = 148.
O3 = 161.
P = 132.
Q = 78.
R = 87.
R2 = 175.
S = 91.
S2 = 154.
T = 41.
U = 128.
U2 = 147.
V = 37.
W = 2.
X = 77.
Y = 64.
Z = 68.
Z2 = 159.
[pg 091]

Chapter IV. Egyptian Or Coptic Versions.

The critical worth of the Egyptian versions has only recently been appreciated as it deserves, and the reader is indebted for the following account of them to the liberal kindness of one of the few English scholars acquainted with the languages in which they are written, the Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., then Canon of St. Paul's, and Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge; who, in the midst of varied and pressing occupations, found time to comply with my urgent, though somewhat unreasonable, request for his invaluable aid in this particular for the benefit of the second edition of the present work. His yet more arduous labours, as Bishop of Durham (cui quando ullum inveniemus parem?) did not hinder him from revising his contribution for the enriching of the third edition of this work. In this, the fourth edition, the Editor has the pleasure of acknowledging the most valuable help of the Rev. G. Horner, who has in particular revised the description of the MSS. of the Bohairic version, and of the Rev. A. C. Headlam, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, who has added the result of more recent research. Mr. Headlam's additions, are, wherever it is possible, distinguished by being enclosed in square brackets.

(1) The Egyptian or Coptic Versions.

Most ancient authors, from Herodotus downwards, referring to the heathen period of Egyptian history, mention two distinct modes of writing; the sacred and the common. In place of the former, however, Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 4, p. 657), who has left the most precise account of Egyptian writing, substitutes two modes, which he designates hieroglyphic and hieratic (or [pg 092] priestly) respectively; but since the hieratic is only a cursive adaptation of the hieroglyphic, the two are treated as one by other writers under the common designation of “sacred” (ἱερά). Both these forms of the sacred writing are abundantly represented in extant monuments, the one chiefly in sculptured stone, the other on papyrus rolls, as we might have anticipated.

The common writing is designated by various names. It is sometimes the “demotic” or “vulgar” (δημοτικά Herod. ii. 36, δημώδη Diod. iii. 3); sometimes the “native” or “enchorial” (ἐγχωρία in the trilingual inscriptions of Rosetta and Philae); sometimes “epistolographic” or letter-writer's character (Clem. Alex. l. c.); and in a bilingual inscription recently (1866) discovered at Tanis (Reinisch u. Roesler, Die zweisprachige Inschrift von Tanis, Wien, 1866, p. 55), it is called “Egyptian” simply (ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Ἑλληνικοῖς). This last designation, as Lepsius remarks (Zeitschr. f. Aegyptische Sprache, iv. p. 30, 1866), shows how completely the common writing had outstripped the two forms of sacred character at the time of this inscription, the ninth year of Ptolemy Euergetes I. This demotic character also is represented in a large number of extant papyri of various ages.

These two modes of writing, however—the sacred and the vulgar—besides the difference in external character exhibit also two different languages, or rather (to speak more correctly) two different forms of the same language. Of ancient writers indeed the Egyptian Manetho alone mentions the existence of two such forms (Joseph. c. Ap. i. 14), saying that in the word Hyksos the first syllable is taken from “the sacred tongue” (τὴν ἱερὰν γλῶσσαν), the second from the “common dialect” (τὴν κοινὴν διάλεκτον): but this solitary and incidental notice is fully borne out by the extant monuments. The sacred character, whether hieroglyphic or hieratic, presents a much more archaic type of the Egyptian language than the demotic, differing from it very considerably, though the two are used concurrently. The connexion of the two may be illustrated by the relation of the Latin and the Italian, as the ecclesiastical and vulgar tongues respectively of mediaeval Italy. The sacred language had originally been the ordinary speech of Egypt; but having become antiquated in common conversation it survived for sacred uses alone. Unlike the Latin however, it retained its archaic written character [pg 093] along with its archaic grammatical forms. (See Brugsch, De Natura et Indole Linguae Popularis Aegyptiorum, Berlin, 1850, p. 1 sq.)

The earliest example of this demotic or enchorial or vulgar writing belongs to the age of Psammetichus (the latter part of the seventh century b.c.); while the latest example of which I have found a notice must be referred to some time between the years a.d. 165-169, as the titles (Armeniacus, Parthicus, &c.) given to the joint sovereigns M. Aurelius and L. Verus show94. During the whole of this period, comprising more than eight centuries, the sacred dialect and character are used concurrently with the demotic.

The term Coptic is applied to the Egyptian language as spoken and written by Christian people and in Christian times. It is derived from the earliest Arabic conquerors of Egypt, who speak of their native Christian subjects as Copts. No instance of this appellation is found in native Coptic writers, with one very late and doubtful exception (Zoega, Catal., p. 648). Whence they obtained this designation, has been a subject of much discussion. Several theories which have been broached to explain the word will be found in J. S. Assemani, Della Nazione dei Copti, &c., p. 172 (printed in Mai, Script. Vet. Coll., V. P. 2), and in Quatremère, Recherches Critiques et Historiques sur la Langue et la Littérature de l'Égypte, Paris, 1808, p. 30 sq. A very obvious and commonly adopted derivation is that which connects it with the town Coptos in Upper Egypt; but as this place was not at that time prominent or representative, and did not lie directly across the path of the Arab invaders, no sufficient reason appears why it should have been singled out as a designation of the whole country. In earlier ages, however, it seems [pg 094] to have been a much more important place, both strategically and commercially (see Brugsch, Die Geographie des alten Ägyptens, i. p. 200; Egypt under the Pharaohs, i. p. 212 sq., Eng. trans.). Even as late as the Roman epoch Strabo (xvii. p. 815) describes it as “a city with a mixed population of Egyptians and Arabians” (πόλιν κοινὲν Αἰγυπτίων τε καὶ Ἀράβων), and elsewhere (xvi. p. 781) he mentions it as a station of Egyptian traffic with Arabia and India. Possibly therefore this Arabic name for the Egyptians is a survival of those early times. On the whole, however, it seems more probable that the Arabic word is a modification of the Greek Αἰγύπτιος (Schwartze, Das alte Aegypten, i. p. 956). [And this derivation seems now to be generally accepted, the Greek word αἰγύπτιος being represented in Coptic by ⲄⲨⲠⲦⲒⲞⲤ, or ⲔⲨⲠⲦⲀⲒⲞⲤ, whence came Qibt (the common form) and our Coptic. (Stern, Koptische Grammatik, p. 1.)]

From this account it will appear that the Coptic, as a language, cannot differ materially from the demotic. As a matter of fact the two are found on examination to represent two successive stages of the same language—a result which history would lead us to anticipate. But while the language is essentially the same, the character of the writing is wholly different. The demotic character was derived ultimately from the hieroglyphic. Hence it represents the same medley of signs. Only a small number are truly alphabetic, i.e. denote each a single sound. Others represent syllables. Others again, and these a very large number, are not phonetic at all, but pictorial. Of these pictorial or ideographic signs again there are several kinds; some represent the thing itself directly; others recall it by a symbol; others again are determinative, i.e. exhibit the class or type, to which the object or action belongs. It is strange that this very confused, cumbrous, and uncertain mode of writing should have held its ground for so many centuries, while all the nations around employed strictly phonetic alphabets; but Egypt was proverbially a land of the past, and some sudden shock was necessary to break up a time-honoured usage like this and to effect a literary revolution. This moral earthquake came at length in Christianity. Coincidently with the evangelization of Egypt and the introduction of a Christian literature, we meet with a new and strictly phonetic alphabet. This new Egyptian or Coptic alphabet comprises thirty letters, [pg 095] of which twenty-four are adopted from the Greek alphabet, while the remaining six, of which five represent sounds peculiar to the Egyptian language and the sixth is an aspirate, are signs borrowed from the existing Egyptian writing. If there is no direct historical evidence that this alphabet was directly due to Christianity, yet the coincidence of time and historic probability generally point to this. The Christians indeed had a very powerful reason for changing the character, besides literary convenience. The demotic writing was interspersed with figures of the Egyptian deities, used as symbolic or alphabetical signs. It must have been a suggestion of propriety, if not a dictate of conscience, in translating and transcribing the Scriptures to exclude these profane and incongruous elements from the sacred text.

The date at which this important change was introduced into Egyptian writing has been a matter of much dispute. If it is correctly attributed to Christian influences, the new alphabet must have been coeval with the birth of a native Christian literature in Egypt. The earliest extant remains of such a literature, to which we can fix a date with any certainty, are the Epistles of St. Antony (who was born about the middle of the third century) to Athanasius and Theodore; but, as we shall see presently, one or both of the two principal Egyptian versions must have been already in common use at this time. Indeed, if the date assigned to a recently discovered writing be correct, the introduction of the new character was much earlier than this. On the back of a papyrus in the British Museum, containing the Funeral Oration of Hyperides, is a horoscope in Greek and Egyptian, the latter written in Greek characters, with the additional six letters almost, though not quite, identical with the forms in the ordinary Coptic alphabet. Mr. C. W. Goodwin, who describes this important document in Chabas, “Mélanges Égyptologiques,” 2me série, p. 294 sq., and in the “Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache,” vi. p. 18 sq., February, 1868, calculates (though he does not speak confidently) that it is the horoscope of a person born a.d. 15495.

[pg 096]

Any account of the Coptic dialects must start from the well-known passage in the Copto-Arabic grammar of Athanasius, bishop of Kos in the Thebaid, who flourished in the eleventh century. “The Coptic language,” he writes, “is divided into three dialects; that is to say, the Coptic dialect of Misr, which is the same as the Sahidic; the Bohairic96, which gets its name from the province of Bohairah; and the Bashmuric in use in the region of Bashmur. At the present time only the Bohairic and Sahidic continue to be used. These different dialects are derived from one and the same language” (quoted in Quatremère, Sur la Langue &c., p. 20 sq.). For the present I will dismiss the Bashmuric, as it will require further investigation hereafter. The remaining two, the Bohairic and Sahidic, were the principal dialects of the language, being spoken in Lower and Upper Egypt respectively; and are largely represented in extant remains of biblical and ecclesiastical literature97.

The Sahidic and Bohairic dialects are well defined and separate from each other. Among other distinctive features the Sahidic delights in the multiplication of vowels as compared with the Bohairic; thus it has ⲉⲗⲉⲟⲟⲗⲉ for ⲁⲗⲟⲗⲓ, ⲙⲏⲏⲱⲉ for ⲙⲏⲱ, ϩⲁⲗⲁⲁⲧⲉ for ϩⲁⲗⲁⲧⲓ, ϣⲉⲗⲉⲉⲧ for ϣⲉⲗⲉⲧ, &c. Again the Sahidic has smooth-breathings where the Bohairic has aspirates, e.g. ⲡⲏⲩⲉ for ⲫⲏⲩⲓ “heavens,” ⲧⲏⲩ for ⲑⲏⲟⲩ “wind”; and it substitutes the simple aspirate for the stronger guttural, e.g. ⲱⲛϩ for ⲱⲛⲭ “life,” ⲡⲁϩ for ⲫⲁϧ “rend.” Besides these more general distinctions, the two dialects have special peculiarities, not only in their grammatical forms, but even in their ordinary vocabulary; thus Sah. ⲃⲱⲕ for Boh. ⲓ “to go,” Sah. ϩⲉ for Boh. ⲣⲏϯ [pg 097] “manner,” Sah. ϩⲁϩ for Boh. ⲙⲏϣ “a multitude,” “many,” and so forth. Indeed the relations of the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects to each other may be fairly illustrated, as will have appeared from these facts, by the relation of the Ionic and Attic, though the differences in the Egyptian dialects are greater than in the Greek. Like the Attic, the Bohairic is the more literary and cultivated dialect of the two.

The demotic writing does not give the slightest indication that there were different dialects of the spoken language (see Brugsch, Grammaire Démotique, p. 10). In the Coptic, i.e. Christian, literature we learn this fact for the first time; and yet in the earliest age of this literature the dialects are found to be fully developed. Brugsch, however, has shown (De Natura &c., p. 10) that transcriptions of several Egyptian words into Greek in the age of the Ptolemies occur in two different forms, which correspond fairly to the two dialects; and indeed it would seem probable that the separation of the Bohairic and Sahidic should be ascribed to the more remote time, when these regions formed separate kingdoms. The older Egyptian writing, whether sacred or demotic, would obscure the distinction of dialects, partly from a conservative fondness for time-honoured modes of representation, but chiefly owing to the nature of the character itself. Thus this character makes no provision for the nicer distinction of the vowel-sounds, while the dialectic differences depend very largely on the divergent vocalization. Thus again it sometimes represents allied consonants, such as l and r, by the same sign; while one of the most striking peculiarities of dialect is the common substitution of l in the dialect of the Fayoum for r in the Sahidic and Bohairic, as e.g. ⲏⲗⲡ for ⲏⲣⲡ “wine,” ⲗⲁⲙⲡⲓ for ⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ “year,” ⲗⲓⲙⲓ for ⲣⲓⲙⲓ “weeping,” and the like.

Of the time when the Scriptures were translated into the two principal dialects of Egypt no direct record is preserved. Judging, however, from the analogy of the Latin and Syriac and other early versions, and indeed from the exigencies of the case, we may safely infer that as soon as the Gospel began to spread among the native Egyptians who were unacquainted with Greek, the New Testament, or at all events some parts of it, would be translated without delay. Thus we should probably not be exaggerating, if we placed one or both of the principal [pg 098] Egyptian versions, the Bohairic and the Sahidic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second century98. There are, so far as I am aware, no phenomena whether of text or of interpretation in either, which are inconsistent with this early date. Somewhat later than this we meet with notices which certainly presuppose the common use of a native version or versions of the Scriptures. Quatremère (Sur la Langue &c., p. 9 sq.) and Schwartze (Das alte Aegypten, p. 956 sq.) have collected a number of such notices, from which we may gather that it was the exception and not the rule, when a native Egyptian bishop or monk in the early centuries could speak the Greek language besides his own. Thus for instance St. Antony, who was born about the year 250, could only speak his native tongue, and in conversing with Greeks was obliged to use an interpreter (Athan., Vit. Ant. 74; Hieron., Vit. Hilar. 30; Pallad., Hist. Laus. 26). His own letters, of which fragments are extant, were written in Egyptian. Yet he was a son of Christian parents, and as a boy listened constantly to the reading of the Scriptures (Athan., l. c., § 1). When only eighteen or twenty years old, we are told, he was powerfully influenced by hearing the Gospel read in church (§§ 2, 3); and throughout his life he was a diligent reader and expositor of the Scriptures. Indeed it is quite plain from repeated notices, that the Scriptures in the Egyptian tongue were widely circulated and easily accessible at this time (see esp. § 16 ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς [i.e. τοῖς μοναχοῖς] τῇ Αἰγυπτιακῇ φωνῇ ταῦτα; τὰς μὲν γραφὰς ἱκανὰς εἶναι πρὸς διδασκαλίαν κ.τ.λ.). Again his contemporary Theodore, a famous abbot to whom one of his letters is addressed, was equally ignorant of any language but his own, and had to use an interpreter in speaking with strangers and Alexandrians (Sahid. MS. clxxvii in Zoega, Catal., p. 371). The notices of Theodore's master Pachomius, the founder of Egyptian monasteries, point in the same direction. This famous person, who was converted as a young man in the early years of the fourth century, was till late in life unacquainted with any language but his own. Receiving a visit from an [pg 099] Alexandrian, another Theodore, he assigned to him as his companion and interpreter a monk who could speak Greek. After some time he himself applied himself to the study of this language that he might be able to converse with his new friend (Zoega, p. 77 sq., and references in Quatremère, Sur la Langue &c, p. 12). Pachomius drew up rules for the guidance of his monastery in the Egyptian language. These rules, which are extant in Greek and Latin translations (Migne, Patrol. Graec., xl. p. 947; Hieron., Op., ii. p. 53 sq.), demand a very diligent study of the Scriptures from the brethren, even from novices before admission into the order. Again and again directions are given relating to the use of manuscripts. These notices indeed refer chiefly to the Thebaid, which was the great seat of the Egyptian monasteries; but the first part of St. Antony's life was spent in the monasteries of Alexandria, and it was only later that he retired to the Thebaid (Athan., Vit. Ant. 49). Though probably more common in Lower than in Upper Egypt, the knowledge of Greek was even there an accomplishment denied to a large number of native Christians. Thus for instance, when Palladius visited John of Lycopolis, an abbot of the Nitrian desert, he found his knowledge of Greek so slight that he could only converse through an interpreter (Hist. Laus. 43). These, it will be remembered, are the most prominent names among the Egyptian Christians; and from such examples it must be plain that the ordinary monk would be wholly dependent on a native version for his knowledge of the Scriptures. Yet the monks swarmed both in Upper and Lower Egypt at this time. Palladius reckons as many as 7,000 brethren under Pachomius in the Tabennitic monastery (Hist. Laus. 38; comp. Hieron., Praef. in Reg. Pach. 2, ii. p. 54), while Jerome states that close upon 50,000 would assemble together at the chief monastery of the order to celebrate the anniversary of the Lord's Passion (ib. § 7). After all allowance made for exaggeration, the numbers must have been very great. Even at a much later date the heads of the Egyptian Church were often wholly dependent on their native tongue. At the Robber Synod of Ephesus (a.d. 449) Calosirius, bishop of Arsinoe, spoke and signed through his deacon, who acted as interpreter (Labb., Conc. iv. p. 1119, 1179, 1188, ed. Colet.). And again two years later, when Dioscorus of Alexandria started for the Council of Chalcedon, he was [pg 100] accompanied by one Macarius, bishop of Tkou, a man of some note in his day, who could not be made to understand a word of Greek (Memph. MS. liv, in Zoega, Catal., p. 99).

[The above was the most complete account of the dialects of the Coptic language and of the early history of the Coptic versions at the time when it was written; but in the last ten years immense additions have been made to our knowledge—additions which have rather complicated than solved the problem. These have been mainly due to the process of new discovery and to the labour of many scholars. A large number of previously unedited Coptic MSS. have been published; many new MSS. have been discovered, and the grammar of the language has been studied with great minuteness. The credit of the discovery and editing of new MSS. must be largely given to the energy and industry of the French school at Cairo, and especially to a former member of it, M. Amélineau, who has published a very large number of texts; the advances in our knowledge of the grammar are due to the labours of the German school of Egyptologists, notably Stern, Erman, and Steindorff. More important in some ways has been the discovery of an immense number of documents of a completely new class, written on papyrus, partly in and near the Fayoum, but also throughout the whole of Upper Egypt. These documents present us with the language in an earlier stage than we had previously known, and in a class of writings such as letters, contracts, and other legal documents, which conform to the spoken language of different parts of Egypt99.

It is on the subject of the Egyptian dialects that our views have been most modified. We have seen that three dialects in all are mentioned by Athanasius of Cos: the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and a third, the Bashmuric. When therefore fragments of a third version of the Scriptures were discovered, the name Bashmuric was at once assigned to them. The early history of the discussions on this dialect were admirably summed up by Bishop Lightfoot. (3rd edition, pp. 401-403.)]

[pg 101]

The first fragment, 1 Cor. ix. 9-16, was published at Rome in 1789 by Giorgi, from a MS. in the Borgian Museum, in the work which has been already mentioned. He designated it Bashmuric, and, as the dialect presents affinities to both the Bohairic and Sahidic, he assigned to it a corresponding locality. Herodotus (ii. 42) mentions the inhabitants of the Ammonian Oasis as speaking a language intermediate between the Egyptian and Ethiopian; and on the strength of this passage, combined with the phenomena just mentioned, Giorgi placed Bashmur in this region, deriving the word from the Coptic ⲥⲡⲁⲙⲏⲣ “the region beyond,” i.e. west of the Nile, and gave the dialect a second name Ammonian (p. lxviii sq.). In the same year Münter in his work on the Sahidic dialect (see above, p. 393), published this same fragment independently at Copenhagen. He had not seen Giorgi's work, but adopted provisionally his name Ammonian, of which he had heard, while at the same time he stated his own opinion that the variations of form are too slight to constitute a separate dialect (p. 76). In 1808 appeared Quatremère's work, to which I have more than once alluded. In it he included another fragment of this dialect (Baruch iv. 22-v. 22, and Epist. Jerem.), from a MS. in the Imperial Library of Paris. At the same time he pointed out that the passage in Herodotus will not bear the interpretation put upon it by Giorgi, and that, as a matter of fact, the Ammonians speak not a Coptic, but a Berber dialect. He also refuted Giorgi's opinion about the position of Bashmur, and showed conclusively (p. 147 sq.) from several notices in Arabic writers that this region must be placed in the Delta. In a later work (Mémoires Géographiques et Historiques sur l'Égypte, i. p. 233, 1811) he identified it more definitely with Elearchia, the country of the Bucoli, that fierce and turbulent race of herdsmen, who, living in the marshy pasture land and protected by the branches of the Nile, gave so much trouble to their Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers successively (see Engelbreth, p. x). The defiant attitude, which in earlier times these Bucoli assumed towards their successive masters, was maintained to the end by the Bashmurites towards their Arab conquerors. While the other Copts succumbed and made terms, they alone stubbornly resisted. At length the Arab invaders were victorious, and the Bashmuric race was extirpated. It would seem, [pg 102] therefore, that Bashmur is the Arabic modification of the Coptic ⲡⲥⲁⲙⲟⲩⲣ, “regio cincta,” the country girdled by the Nile.

But this being so, Quatremère, looking at the linguistic character of these fragments, denies that they belong to the Bashmuric dialect at all; and suggests for them a locality which will explain their affinities to both the Bohairic and Sahidic, assigning them to the Great and Little Oasis, and accordingly designating them Oasitic. In 1810 Zoega's “Catalogus,” a posthumous work, appeared, in which he published all the fragments of this third Egyptian dialect found in the Borgian collection, comprising (besides a portion of Isaiah) John iv. 28-53; 1 Cor. vi. 19-ix. 16; xiv. 33-xv. 35; Eph. vi. 18-24; Phil. i. 1-ii. 2; 1 Thess. i. 1-iii. 6; Heb. v. 5-9; v. 13-vi. 8-11; 15-vii. 5, 8-13; 16-x. 22, nearly all of these passages being more or less mutilated. And in the following years these same passages were edited by Engelbreth (Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti, Havniae, 1811), who had not seen Zoega's edition. Both Zoega and Engelbreth, though agreeing with Quatremère in the position of Bashmur (the former without having seen Quatremère's book), yet claimed these fragments as Bashmuric.

In this opinion there is good reason for acquiescing. It seems highly improbable that Athanasius of Kos, a Christian bishop, can have been ignorant of a dialect so important that the Christian Scriptures were translated into it (for the various fragments oblige us to suppose a complete version of the Old and New Testaments), a dialect moreover which, on Quatremère's hypothesis, was spoken not so very far from his own neighbourhood. And on the other hand it is not very probable that all traces of a dialect which was known to him should have perished, as would be the case if these fragments are not Bashmuric100. To counterbalance this twofold difficulty involved in Quatremère's hypothesis, the linguistic objections ought to be serious indeed. But until we are better acquainted with the early history of Egypt than we are ever likely to be, it will be impossible to say why the Bashmuric dialect should not be separated geographically from the Sahidic by a dialect like the Bohairic [pg 103] with which it has fewer, though still some special affinities. The interposition of an Ionic between two Dorian races in Greece will show the insecurity of this mode of argument.

[We must now continue the history. Although Bishop Lightfoot summed up in favour of the theory which would assign these fragments to the Bashmuric, his acuteness had noticed the difficulties which would be involved in the separation of that dialect from the Sahidic, with which it had close affinities by what was then called the Memphitic. The greater knowledge of Egyptian history, which he desired but did not hope for, has become possible. And the objection is supported.

In 1878 Stern examined the history and character of the third Egyptian dialect (Z. A. S. 16, 1878, p. 23), and showed that it was almost impossible on either linguistic or historical grounds to assign it to the district of Bashmur. He pointed out that all the fragments we possessed of it had come from Upper Egypt, that we had positive evidence that there was no version of the Scriptures in the Bashmuric dialect, and that in dialectic affinities it was clearly akin to Sahidic. He also found evidence in Tuki of the existence of another dialect there called Memphiticus Alter, and that this was supported by papyrus documents which came from the site of Memphis (see below), which have some, although not a complete, resemblance to the Bashmuric fragments. Hence he concluded that the third dialect was Middle Egyptian, and, guided by two or three words on a fragment of papyrus brought from the Fayoum, he decided that that district must have presented the characters of isolation and independence, which would make the development of a third dialect possible. The proof of his theory was not long to seek. Already in the year 1877 attention had been called to the fragments now known as the Fayoum papyri, and very soon they began to appear in European libraries; it was not long before Berlin and Vienna acquired very large collections. An examination of the Coptic papyri in these collections has proved conclusively the truth of Stern's conclusions. The vast majority of these present the same dialectic affinities as the third Bible translation, and show also (as these had hinted) that the orthography of the dialect was not fixed, in fact that hardly two documents present exactly the same linguistic character, although all are definitely distinguished from the other two dialects. [pg 104] It may therefore be confidently asserted that all the literature hitherto published as Bashmuric is in the dialect of the Fayoum.

But the discoveries do not stop here. As early as 1876 M. E. Revillont had published (Papyrus Coptes, 1876, p. 103) a collection of documents in the Louvre which came from the Monastery of Abba Jeremias, close to the Serapeum, near the site of the ancient Memphis. These were examined by Stern (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 145 sq.), who shows that here we have again a different dialectic form. It has affinities to the Sahidic, affinities to the Bohairic, and affinities to the Fayoum dialect. It represents in fact the language of ancient Memphis, and an attempt has been made to call it Memphitic, but this would create endless confusion. Stern suggests Lower Sahidic (Unter Sahidisch), but the name Middle Egyptian is the one which has been generally adopted. It is this discovery that shows the necessity of avoiding the term Memphitic for the principal Egyptian version, and substituting the Arabic name 'Bohairic.' That was the language of the province on the sea-coast in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. And it was not until the eleventh century, and the removal of the Patriarchate to Cairo, that it became the language of the district of Memphis, that is, long after the decline of Memphis had begun.

But our knowledge of the dialects of Egypt was still further to be extended. About ten years ago excavations were undertaken by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities in the Coptic Cemetery of Akhmîm, the ancient Chemnis or Panopolis in Upper Egypt. Amongst the results of this discovery were the Apocryphal fragments, which have created a considerable sensation lately. These seem to have been considered by their discoverers to possess so little interest, that they were only accidentally given to the world seven years afterwards. The Coptic fragments were more fortunate, and in 1884 M. Bouriant, head of the French School at Cairo, published considerable fragments of the Old Testament, including a hitherto unknown Apocryphal work, the Testament of Sophonias (Zephaniah), in a fifth dialect, to which, for some reason, he at the time gave the name of Bashmuric (Mémoires, i. 1884, p. 243). This dialect was examined by Stern (Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 129), who showed that, while its affinities were with the Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic, it represented a more primitive stage in the [pg 105] language, and that these documents are our oldest literary remains of the Coptic language.

In the place then of the two or three dialects known until recent years, we have now at least five: the Bohairic, Sahidic, Fayoumic, Middle Egyptian, and Akhmimic, not to speak of the Bashmuric, in which no literary remains exist. The exact relations of these dialects to one another have not yet been satisfactorily worked out, and the problem is complicated by the fact that most of them had no fixed or standard form, and that papyri (especially those containing documents in the popular speech) vary in every locality and every age. To write the history then of these dialects and of the New Testament in them is not at present possible; but the following may suggest some more or less tentative conclusions.

In the earlier stages of the Egyptian language as we have it now in a written form, there are apparently no certain signs of dialectic variations, although there is certainly evidence that such did exist in the spoken language; and the changes introduced by Christianity are of great interest. The old language was fixed and definite in its orthography, and it represented the traditions of a caste of scribes, and not of the popular speech. Christianity on the other hand was in Egypt a great popular movement; a new and simple alphabet became necessary; the Scriptures were translated, not into the literary language, but into that of the people; and the copies of these translations in each locality reflected the local peculiarities of speech which had existed for centuries, but which up to that time had left behind no literary memorial. Gradually, however, the Christian Church created for itself literary traditions, and a tendency towards unification set in round three centres, the monasteries of the Natron Lakes, the great home of monastic life in Lower Egypt, the monasteries of the Fayoum, and the great White Monastery Deir Amba Shenoudah near Sohag in Upper Egypt. Hence came the three dialects which have a more or less literary character. Then began the decay of the Coptic language. First the dialect of the Fayoum died out, then the Sahidic, until finally Bohairic became, as it is now, the church language of the whole country.

The relation of these changes to the history of the versions has not yet been satisfactorily worked out. It has been sufficiently [pg 106] proved that translations into Coptic existed in the third century, very probably in the second; but in what dialect they were made, and what relation they bore to the existing translations, has not yet been discovered, and the problem remains unsolved.]

(2) The Bohairic Version101.

The Bohairic version was not included in the Polyglotts, though others much later in date and inferior in quality found a place there. The first use of it is found in Bp. Fell's Oxford N. T. (1675), to which many readings were contributed by the Oxford Oriental scholar, T. Marshall, Rector of Lincoln College, who died in 1675, before the Coptic New Testament was published. It was afterwards employed by Mill, who recognized its importance, and gave various readings from it in the notes and appendix to his edition of the Greek Testament (1707). These readings he obtained partly from the papers of Marshall, who had contemplated an edition of the Coptic Gospels, but was prevented by death from accomplishing his design, and partly from the communications of a foreign scholar, Lud. Piques. The MSS. which supplied the former belonged at one time to Marshall himself, and are now in the Bodleian; the latter were taken from MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris (see Mill's “Prol.,” pp. clii, clx, clxvii).

The editio princeps of the Bohairic version appeared a few years later with the title “Novum Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum ex MSS. Bodleianis descripsit, cum Vaticanis et Parisiensibus contulit, et in Latinum sermonem convertit David Wilkins Ecclesiae Anglicanae Presbyter, Oxon. 1716.” The editor Wilkins was a Prussian by birth, but an Oxonian by adoption. In his preface he gives an account of the MSS. which he used, and which will be described below. The materials at his disposal were ample, if he had only known how to use them; but unfortunately his knowledge of the language was not thoroughly accurate, nor had he the critical capacity required for such a task. His work was very severely criticized at the time by two eminent Egyptian scholars, Jablonsky and La Croze, whose verdict has been echoed by most subsequent writers; and [pg 107] no doubt it is disfigured by many inaccuracies. But he may fairly claim the indulgence granted to pioneers in untrodden fields of learning, and he has laid Biblical scholars under a debt of gratitude which even greater errors of detail could not efface. With some meagre exceptions this was the first work which had appeared in the Egyptian tongue; and under these circumstances much may be forgiven in an editor. The defects which render caution necessary in using it for critical purposes are twofold. First. The text itself is not constructed on any consistent or trustworthy principles. It is taken capriciously from one or other of the sources at his disposal; no information is given respecting the authority for the printed text in any particular passage; and, as a rule, no various readings are added. In the prolegomena indeed (p. xi sq.) notices of two or three variations are given, but even here we have no specification of the MSS. from which they are taken. Secondly. The translation cannot be trusted. The extent of this inaccuracy may be seen from the examples in Woide, Append. Cod. Alex., p. 16 sq., and Schwartze, Evang. Memph. Praef., p. xxii. One instance will suffice. In 1 Cor. xiii. 3 Wilkins gives the rendering “ut comburar,” corresponding to the common reading ἵνα καυθήσωμαι; though the Memphitic has ⲏⲧⲁ ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ ⲙⲙⲟⲓ = ἵνα καυχήσωμαι. Yet Wilkins' error has been so contagious that Tattam in his Lexicon gives καίειν “incendere” as a sense of ϣⲟⲩϣⲟⲩ, referring to this passage as an example, though its universal meaning is “to praise,” “to glorify.”

In 1829 the British and Foreign Bible Society published an edition of the Four Gospels in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic. It is a handsomely printed 4to, intended for the use of the native Christians of Egypt. In the Coptic portion, which was edited by Tattam, the text of Wilkins was followed for the most part, but it was corrected here and there from a recent MS. which will be described below, Evang. 14. This edition has no critical value.

Between the edition of Wilkins and those of Schwartze and Boetticher more than a century and a quarter elapsed; but no important step was taken during this period towards a more critical use of the Bohairic version. Wetstein appears to have been satisfied with the information obtainable from Mill and Wilkins. Bengel was furnished with a few various readings [pg 108] from the Berlin MSS. by La Croze; and Woide again in his preface, p. 13, gave a collation of Mark i. from the Berlin MS. of this Gospel. Griesbach seems not to have gone beyond published sources of information; and this has been the case with later editors of the Greek Testament.

The title of Schwartze's edition is “Quatuor Evangelia in dialecto linguae Copticae Memphitica perscripta ad Codd. MS. Copticorum in Regia Bibliotheca Berolinensi adservatorum nec non libri a Wilkinsio emissi fidem edidit, emendavit, adnotationibus criticis et grammaticis, variantibus lectionibus expositis atque textu Coptico cum Graeco comparato instruxit M. G. Schwartze.” St. Matthew and St. Mark appeared in 1846, St. Luke and St. John in the following year. The title of the work fully explains its aim. The editor was an exact Egyptian scholar, and so far it is thoroughly trustworthy. The defects of this edition, however, for purposes of textual criticism are not inconsiderable. (1) Schwartze's materials were wholly inadequate. Though the libraries of England, Paris, and Rome contain a large number of MSS. of different ages and qualities, not one of these was consulted; but the editor confined himself to one good MS. and one indifferent transcript, both in the Berlin library. These will be described below. The text of the Bohairic Gospels therefore still remains in a very unsatisfactory state. (2) His collation with the Greek text is at once superfluous and defective. This arises from his capricious choice of standards of comparison, the Codex Ephraem and the printed texts of Lachmann and Tischendorf (1843). If he had given an accurate Latin translation of the whole, and had supplemented this with a distinct statement of the reading of the Bohairic version, where variations are known to exist in other authorities, and where at the same time a Latin version could not be made sufficiently explicit, the result would have been at once more simple, more complete, and more available. As it is, he has contented himself with translating particular sentences (more especially those which are mistranslated in Wilkins), while his method of comparison necessarily overlooks many variations. With all its defects, however, this edition has a far higher value than its predecessor for critical purposes. Not the least useful part of Schwartze's notes is the collation of the published portions of the Sahidic Version, where also he has [pg 109] corrected errors in the edition of Woide and Ford (see below, p. 129 sq.).

Schwartze only lived to complete the four Gospels. He had, however, made some collations for the Acts and Epistles during his last visit to England; and after his death they were placed in the hands of P. Boetticher, who continued the work. The titles of Boetticher's editions are “Acta Apostolorum Coptice,” and “Epistulae Novi Testamenti Coptice,” both dated Halae, 1852. His plan, however, differs wholly from Schwartze's. He substitutes an 8vo size for the 4to of his predecessor; and he gives no translation or collation with the Greek, but contents himself with noting the variations of his MSS. in Coptic at the foot of the page. Thus his book is absolutely useless to any one who is unacquainted with the language. Moreover his materials, though less scanty than Schwartze's, are far from adequate. For the Acts and for the Catholic Epistles he employed Schwartze's collations of two English MSS., which he calls tattamianus and curetonianus, and himself collated or obtained collations of two others in the Paris Library (p), (m); while for the Pauline Epistles he again used Schwartze's collations of the same two English MSS., together with another Paris MS. (p), and the Berlin MSS., which will be described below. The account, which he gives in his preface, of the MSS. employed by him is so meagre, that in some cases they are with difficulty identified. Nor again are the collations used for this edition nearly complete. I have pointed out below the defects in Schwartze's collation of one of the English MSS., which I have partially examined; and Brugsch in an article in the “Zeitschr. der Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch.,” vii. p. 115 sq. (1853), has given a full collation of the Berlin MS. of the Epistle to the Romans, showing how many variations in this MS. are not recorded in Boetticher's edition. The Apocalypse has never appeared.

About the same time a magnificent edition of the whole of the New Testament in Coptic (Bohairic) and Arabic was published under the auspices of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The first part, which is entitled ⲡⲓ ⲭⲱⲙ ⲛⲛⲓ ⲇ ⲛⲛⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲃ, “The Book of the Four Holy Gospels,” bears the date 1847, Tattam's Coptic Lexicon having appeared in 1836102; the second, comprising the remaining books, [pg 110] including the Apocalypse, is called ⲡⲓ ⲭⲱⲙ ⲙⲁⲋⲃ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯⲇⲓⲁⲑⲏⲕⲏ ⲙⲃⲉⲣⲓ, “The Second Book of the New Testament,” and appeared in 1852. We are informed in a Coptic colophon at the end, that the Book was edited by “Henry Tattam the presbyter of the Anglican Church for the Holy Patriarch and the Church of Christ in Egypt.” The type is large and bold, and the volumes are very handsome in all respects, being designed especially for Church use. The editor's eminent services to Coptic literature are well known, but the titles and colophon do not suggest any high expectations of the value of this edition to the scholar. The basis of the text in this edition was a copy belonging to the Coptic Patriarch; but the editor collated it with MSS. in his own possession and with others belonging to the Hon. R. Curzon, adopting from these such variations as seemed to him to agree with the best readings of the Greek MSS. As no various readings are recorded, this edition is quite useless for critical purposes: nor indeed was the aim which the editor set before him consistent with the reproduction of the Bohairic New Testament in its authentic form. The interpolated passages for instance are printed without any indication that their authority is at all doubtful.

The following account of the Bohairic MSS. existing in European libraries, though probably very imperfect, will yet be found much fuller than any which has hitherto been given. Indeed the list in Le Long (Bibl. Sacr., i. p. 140 sq.) is the only one which aims at completeness; and the date of this work (1723) would alone disqualify it, as a guide on such a subject at the present time. Those manuscripts which I describe from personal inspection are marked with an asterisk. In other cases my authorities are given.

A. The Gospels.

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:

*1. Hunt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., a very fine and highly important MS. Among other illuminations are seated figures of the four Evangelists prefixed to the several Gospels. The date is given at the close of St. John as the year 890 (of the martyrs), i.e. a.d. 1174103. Wilkins [pg 111] (p. vi), though giving the Coptic numerals correctly ⲱⲙ, interprets them 790, i.e. a.d. 1074. This will serve as an example of his inaccuracy; and in future I shall not consider it necessary to point out his errors, which are very numerous, unless there is some special reason for doing so. The scribe's name, John a monk, appears in a colophon at the end of St. Mark.

The importance of this MS. consists in a great measure in its marginal additions, which are very frequent. The text seems to give the original Bohairic version in a very pure form; while the margin supplies all or nearly all the passages which in fewer or greater numbers have crept into the text of other Bohairic MSS., and which (so far as regards the Bohairic version itself) must be regarded as interpolations104, whatever sanction they may have in Greek MSS. or other ancient authorities. Among these marginal additions I have noted Matt. vi. 13 (the doxology); Mark vi. 11 ἀμὴν λέγω κ.τ.λ., vii. 16 εἴ τις ἔχει ὦτα κ.τ.λ., xiii. 14 τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, xv. 28 καὶ ἐπληρώθη κ.τ.λ.; Luke i. 28 εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν (in this case, however, not in the margin, but in the text in a smaller hand); xxii. 43, 44 (the agony); xxiii. 17 ἀνάγκην δὲ εἶχεν κ.τ.λ.; xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11. On the other hand the descent of the angel, John v. 3, 4, which is wanting in many Bohairic MSS. and can hardly have been part of the original Bohairic version, stands in the text here. At the end of St. Mark the margin gives in an ancient hand (whether coeval with the MS. or not, I am unable to say) the alternative ending of this Gospel substantially as it is found in L and other authorities. This marginal note runs as follows: ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲛⲏ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ ⲉⲧⲁϥϩⲟⲛϩⲉⲛ ⲙⲙⲟϥ [ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ?] ⲛⲛⲏⲉⲧ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲟⲛ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲛϩ ⲉⲣⲱⲟⲩ ⲛϫⲉ ⲓⲥ ⲓⲥϫⲉⲛ ⲛⲓⲙⲁⲛϣⲁⲓ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲫⲣⲏ ϣⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲙⲁⲛϩⲱⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁϥⲟⲩⲱⲣⲡⲟⲩ ⲉ ϩⲓ ϣⲉⲛⲛⲟⲩϥ ⲉⲑⲟⲩⲁⲃ ⲛⲁⲧⲙⲟⲩⲛⲕ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲱⲛϧ ⲛⲉⲛⲉⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲛ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲟⲛ ⲛⲑⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲏⲡⲓ ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲉⲛⲉⲛⲥⲁ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲉϥⲉⲧⲁϩⲱⲟⲩ [ⲉⲩⲧⲁϩⲱⲟⲩ?] ⲛ[ⲛϫⲉ?] ϩⲁⲛϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲣ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲙⲡⲟⲩϫⲉ ϩⲗⲓ ⲛϩⲗⲓ ⲛⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲁⲩⲉⲣⲟϯ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉ. And all those things he commanded to those that went after Peter, and they told them openly, and after these things again also (δέ) Jesus appeared to them from the rising of the sun unto the setting thereof, and sent them to preach the holy and imperishable gospel of eternal life. Amen. These again are reckoned (added) to them; And after these things troubles and afflictions possess them, and they said not a word to any man, for they were afraid. I have translated the emendations suggested in brackets, for without them it is hardly possible to make sense. But, even when thus corrected, the passage [pg 112] is not free from confusion. The alternative ending, as here given, most closely resembles the form in the Aethiopic MSS.

*2. Hunt. 20, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., are illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked, besides Greek and Coptic chapters. This MS. omits the additions in Matt. xviii. 11, Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11, but contains those of Matt. xxiii. 13 (after ver. 14); Luke xxiii. 17, 34. The catalogue ascribes this MS., which is undated, to the thirteenth century; but this is probably too early.

*3. Marshall 5, fol., paper. The titles, initials, &c., illuminated. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This MS. is very like the last in general appearance. In the catalogue the date of a donation is given as A. Mart. 1214 = 1498 a.d. It contains the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits Matt. xviii. 11. Petraeus, who transcribed this MS. in the seventeenth century, calls it very ancient and in ruinous condition.

*4. Marshall 6, fol., paper. The last few pages are supplied by a later hand. A colophon gives the year of the original MS. as A. Mart. 1036 = a.d. 1320, and that of the restoration = 1641 a.d., as A. Mart. 1357. This MS. omits the additions of Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.

*5. Marshall 99, small 8vo, paper, containing the Gospel of St. John only. A comparatively recent but interesting MS. It has no date recorded. It omits John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.

In the British Museum:

*6. Oriental 425, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab: Ff. 2 a-6b contain the Eusebian tables, after which originally followed the four Gospels in the common order, ending fol. 116b. The whole of St. Luke however, and the whole of St. John except xix. 6-xx. 13 and xxi. 13-25, are wanting, owing to the mutilation of the MS. The original paging shows that they once formed part of the volume. The subsequent matter is not Biblical. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given throughout. A colophon at the end of St. John gives the name of the scribe John, who must have copied it from the codex in the possession of the Catholic Institute of Paris in the year 1024 of the Martyrs, i.e. a.d. 1308. This MS. was purchased at Archdeacon Tattam's sale. The addition in Matt. xviii. 11 is wanting.

*7. Oriental 426, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St. John, of which the beginning as far as i. 13 is wanting. After this Gospel follow some extracts from the New Testament, Eph. iv. 1-13; Matt. xvi. 13-19; Luke xix. 1-10, with other matter. Like the last MS., this was bought at Tattam's sale. It has not the additions John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11.

*8. Oriental 1001, large 8vo, paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab., bought of N. Nassif, 21 May, 1869. The four Gospels complete. Each [pg 113] Gospel is preceded by introductory matter, table of contents, &c. The first few leaves of the book are supplied by a later hand. A note (fol. 77b), written by Athanasius, Bishop of Apotheke or Abutij, a.m. 1508 = 1792 a.d., states that the original date of the MS. was A. Mart. 908 (= a.d. 1192). This date is also repeated fol. 264b. It may possibly be correct, though the MS. does not appear so old. On fol. 125b this same Athanasius records that he presented the book to the convent of St. Antony, A. Mart. 1508 (= a.d. 1792). It contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the pericope John vii. 53-viii. 11; but omits the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; John v. 3, 4.

*9. Additional 5995, fol., paper, Copt. Arab, brought from Egypt by Major-General Turner, August, 1801. The four Gospels complete. The few first leaves of St. Matthew and the last leaf of St. John, besides some others in the middle of the volume, are added in a later hand. In an Arabic colophon (fol. 233b) it is stated that the book was repaired A. Mart. 1492 (i.e. a.d. 1776) by one Ibrahim, son of Simeon, but that its original date was more than four hundred years earlier. This is perhaps an exaggeration. The same colophon says that it was written for the convent of Baramus in the desert of Scete. Coptic chapters are written in uncials while the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are in cursive letters. It has not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor the pericope John vii. 53-viii. 11; but contains Luke xxiii. 34, and the interpolation in John v. 3, 4.

*10. Additional 14,740 A. A folio volume in which various Bohairic and a few Armenian fragments are bound up together, of various sizes and ages, some on vellum, some on paper. The following fragments of the Bohairic New Testament on vellum are important on account of their antiquity.

(i) Luke viii. 2-7, 8-10, 13-18.
(ii) 2 Cor. iv. 2-v. 4.
(iii) Eph. ii. 10-19; ii. 21-iii. 11.
(iv) 1 Thess. iii. 3-6; iii. 11-iv. 1.

The fragment from the Ephesians, the most ancient of them all, appears from the handwriting to rival in antiquity the oldest Sahidic fragments. They are all more or less mutilated. This volume also contains several paper fragments of the Bohairic New Testament, belonging chiefly (it would appear) to lectionaries, but these are not worth enumerating.

*11. Oriental 1315. The four Gospels, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The letter to Carpianus, Eusebian tables, &c., are prefixed. This MS., dated a.m. 924 = 1208 a.d., and bearing a statement of donations in a.m. 973 = 1257 a.d., is very similar in writing to Cod. Vat. ix, and the name of the scribe George occurs in both, but the readings do not agree. This and the two following MSS. are from Sir C. A. Murray's collection.

*12. Oriental 1316. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., illuminated, and dated a.d. 1663.

[pg 114]

*13. Oriental 1317. The four Gospels, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., elaborately illuminated, and dated 1814.

In the British and Foreign Bible Society's Library:

*14. The four Gospels, sm. 8vo size (five leaves in a quire), paper, Copt. Arab. The volume begins with the letter to Carpianus and the tables. Introductions are prefixed to the Gospels. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. This volume is a copy made from one in the possession of the Patriarch of Cairo for the Bible Society, and bears the date a.d. 1817 (in a colophon at the end of St. Luke). It was partially used for the Society's edition of the Coptic Gospels (see above, p. 107). It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11, and seems to represent the common Coptic text of the present day.

In private Libraries in England105:

15. The Library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres. Fol., paper. The four Gospels. It was written (see colophon at the end of St. Luke) by a scribe, Simon of Tampet, but the date a.m. 1230 = a.d. 1508 is of the donation to a monastery. Several leaves in different parts of the volume were added much later, A. Mart. 1540 (i.e. a.d. 1824), by one George, a monk. It has a rough picture and the Ammonian Sections and Canons throughout. There is a tendency to Sahidic forms. For these particulars my thanks are due to Mr. Rodwell who kindly allowed me to see his catalogue of Lord Crawford's collection. Through inadvertence I omitted to inspect the MS. itself.

*16. Parham 121, 122, 123 (nos. 9, 10, 11 in the printed Catalogue, p. 29), in Lord Zouche's Library at Parham in Sussex. Fol., paper, Copt. Arab. There is a date of donation a.m. 1211 = 1495 a.d. in 123. These three MSS., which contain respectively the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Luke, and St. John, must originally have formed part of the same volume, which St. Mark is wanted to complete. The last leaf of St. Luke is numbered ⲧⲕ, the first of St. John ⲧⲕⲃ. Several pages at the beginning and end of St. Matthew are supplied by a later hand. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are marked. These volumes are written in a large hand, and have illuminations. They contain the additions Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11; but not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4.

*17. Parham 126 (no. 14, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), 12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels in a small neat hand, smaller than I remember to have seen in any Coptic MS. There are two dates, a.m. 1392 = a.d. 1676, and a.m. 1446 = 1730 a.d., and it is probable that the book was nearly finished at the earlier time. Introductions and tables [pg 115] of contents are prefixed to each Gospel. This MS. has the additions Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11; but not Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; nor John v. 3, 4; just as was the case with the MS. last described, no. 16106.

[pg 116]

In the Paris National Library:

*18. Cod. Copt. 13, fol., vellum. The four Gospels. A very fine manuscript, elaborately illuminated, with pictures of the principal scenes in the Gospel history. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons in the margin, with the tables at the end of the Gospels. The writer, Michael, bishop of Damietta, gives his name in a colophon at the end of St. Mark. The date at the end of St. Matthew is 894 (or a.d. 1178); of the other Gospels 896 (or a.d. 1180). This MS. is erroneously dated 1173 in the Catalogue, and 1164 in Le Long. The additions Luke xxiii. 17, 34; and John vii. 53-viii. 11, are part of the original text. Also Luke xxii. 43, 44, is written prima manu and in the text, but in smaller characters so as to make a distinction. On the other hand the interpolation John v. 3, 4, is wanting.

*19. Cod. Copt. 14, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides. It contains Luke xxiii. 34, but has not the additions Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11. It is referred in the Catalogue to the thirteenth century, which is probably about its date.

*20. Cod. Copt. 15 (Colbert 2913, Reg. 330. 3), 4to. The scribe Victor gives his name in a colophon at the end. It belongs to the more ancient Coptic MSS., though no date is given. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given. The passages Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; Joh. v. 3, 4, are added in the margin, but form no part of the original text. On the other hand John vii. 53-viii. 11 now forms part of the text, but the leaf containing it and several which follow have been supplied by a much later hand. This is the case also with the beginning of St. Matthew and the end of St. John.

*21. Cod. Copt. 16 (De La Mare 579, Reg. 330. 2), 4to, Copt. Arab., paper. Owing to the Calendar at the end beginning 1204 a.d. = a.m. 920, it is assigned to the thirteenth century. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons and (like Cod. Copt. 14) the Greek and Coptic chapters. It contains Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; but not John v. 3, 4; nor John vii. 53-viii. 11.

*22. Cod. Copt. 59 (St. German. 25), Ex Bibl. Coisl. olim Seguer. Fol., paper. The four Gospels. It has the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons, and two other capitulations besides. The date at the end is given as 946 a.m. i.e. 1230 a.d. It does not contain the additions, Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34. The earlier part of St. John containing the test passages is wanting.

*23. Cod. Copt. 60, fol., paper, a late MS. The four Gospels. On a fly-leaf is written, Quatuor evangelia Coptice Venetiis emta per me Fr. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, die 11 Augusti. It has the Ammonian Sections and Canons. The additions, Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17; John v. 3, 4, are wanting; but Luke xxiii. 34; John vii. 53-viii. 11 stand as part of the text.

*24. Cod. Copt. 61, 8vo, paper. St. John's Gospel. A late MS. [pg 117] The leaves are bound up in the wrong order, and some are wanting. It contains John vii. 53-viii. 11.

*25. Cod. Copt. 62, 4to, paper. St. John's Gospel. Arabic words are written interlinearly in the earlier part, but not throughout. It has not v. 3, 4 nor vii. 53-viii. 11. It appears to be of fair antiquity.

In the Berlin Royal Library:

26. MS. Orient. Diez. A. Fol. 40, described by Schwartze (Praef. p. xiii sq.), who collated it for his edition. He says (p. xx), decimum saeculum non superat, dummodo aequet. The great body of this MS. is written by two different scribes, both of whom perhaps wrote in the thirteenth century; the two first and two last leaves are supplied by a third and more recent hand. Of the two earlier scribes the second was not contemporary with the first, as the similarity of the paper and ink might suggest, but the MS. was already mutilated when it came into his hands, and he supplied the missing leaves. The date of a.m. 1125 = 1409 a.d. occurs in an Arabic statement but with no mention of writing. There is a tendency to Sahidic forms, more especially in the parts supplied by the second scribe. This MS. is generally free from the interpolated additions, e.g. Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 17, 34; John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; and seems to be of high value.

27. MS. Orient. Quart. 165, 166, 167, 168, four transcripts by Petraeus, also collated by Schwartze (see Praef., p. ix). The first (165) has the lessons for Sundays and Festivals from the four Gospels; the other three (166, 167, 168) contain the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke respectively, with the exception of the parts included in the ecclesiastical lessons. These transcripts were made in the year 1662, from a MS. which Petraeus describes as vetustum and vetustissimum, and which is now in the Bodleian Library (Maresc. 5).

In the Göttingen University Library:

28. Orientalis 125, described incorrectly by Lagarde, Orientalia, Heft i. p. 4. The four Gospels, written A. Mart. 1073 (a.d. 1357). Some portions are written in another hand and on different paper from the rest when the book was restored in a.d. 1774, but the greater part is of 1357.

In the Vatican Library at Rome:

29. Copt. 8, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels. Some leaves at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end have been supplied more recently. The scribe of these later leaves was one Arcadius, son of John, who gives the date 1303 (i.e. a.d. 1587). The body of the MS. is ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth century. For further particulars see Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 120 sq. From the collection of I. B. Raymund (no. i), left by will to the Vatican Library.

30. Copt. 9 (Raymund iv), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., with fine illuminations. The four Gospels, preceded by the letter of Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian tables. It was given to the Monastery of St. Antony [pg 118] in the Arabian desert, A. Mart. 986 (= a.d. 1270), by one Michael Abu-Khalîḳah, as recorded in a colophon written by Gabriel, who was patriarch of Alexandria at the time. Assemani states that this Michael was also the writer of the MS., but more probably the writer was named George and wrote the book in a.d. 1205 = a.m. 921. After the plunder of the monastery by the Arabs, the MS. came into the possession of two other patriarchs of the Copts, John (a.d. 1506) and Gabriel (a.d. 1526), and was afterwards placed (a.d. 1537) in the Church of SS. Sergius and Bacchus at Alexandria. These facts are stated in other colophons. See Mai, l. c., p. 122 sq.

31. Copt. 10 (Raymund vi), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab. The four Gospels; ascribed to the fourteenth century by Assemani. See Mai, l. c., p. 125. There are dates of births and marriages, the earliest being a.d. 1488 = a.m. 1204.

32. Copt. 11 (Petri de Valle vi), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Gospel of St. John. It bears the date 1062 (i.e. a.d. 1346). See Mai, l. c., p. 125.

33. British Museum; Orient. 3381, fol., paper. The four Gospels. Is not dated, though the writer gives his name as Victor. It is probably of the thirteenth century, and somewhat resembles the writing of Paris 59. The book was restored in a.d. 1793 under the patronage of Athanasius, Bishop of Abu Tij. There is also record of a collation by a priest in a.d. 1801, while a note in English says that the MS. came from Esneh and was bought of the Bishop of Luxor by Mr. Lieder, who sold it in 1864 to Mr. Geden, from whom it passed to the Museum.

34. Paris; Copt. 14 A, Copt. Arab., fol., paper. The four Gospels. Is dated a.m. 1309 = a.d. 1593. This date is mentioned in Paris 14 as being the time of a work which was performed on that book, and there can be little doubt that this work was the copying of 14 A from 14.

35. Paris; Copt. 60, fol., paper. The four Gospels. This MS. is not dated, but is not ancient, and appears to be a copy of MS. Diez in its present double form as far as the end of St. Luke. St. John is by another hand, and may be of earlier date. The former copier was a deacon, Abu al Monnâ.

36. Paris, L'Institut Catholique de, Copt. Arab., 4to, paper. The four Gospels. It is dated a.m. 966 = a.d. 1250. The writer Gabriel calls himself monk and priest, and afterwards became Patriarch. A donation of the book to Church of St. Mercurius is recorded in 1750 a.d. The book was brought from Egypt by M. Amélineau and sold to the Institute a few years ago. There are very interesting miniatures, which have been partly published in the Album of M. l'Abbé Hyvernat.

B. The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts.

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford are:

1. Hunt. 43, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts, and Apocalypse. The paging ceases at the end of the Acts, and [pg 119] between the Acts and Apocalypse are some blank pages. I did not, however, notice any difference in the handwriting of the two parts. The date given at the end of the Acts is 1398 (i.e. a.d. 1682).

*2. Hunt. 203, 4to, paper. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning, Rom. i. 1-ii. 26, and the end, 2 Tim. iv. 4-Tit. ii. 6, are in a later hand. This later transcriber ends abruptly in the middle of a page with ⲉⲑⲣⲟⲩ, Tit. ii. 6. Thus the end of Titus and the whole of Philemon are wanting. There are several lacunae in the body of the work owing to lost leaves. The description in Wilkins is most inaccurate.

*3. Hunt. 122, 4to, paper, illuminated. The Pauline Epistles. The beginning and end are wanting. The MS. begins with Rom. viii. 29, and ends with 2 Tim. i. 2. The date is given at the end of 2 Corinthians as 1002 of the Diocletian era, i.e. a.d. 1286. The scribe gives his name as ⲡⲟⲗϥⲁϫ the son of the bishop.

In the British Museum:

*4. Orient. 424, 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. At the end of the Pauline Epistles, and at the end of the Acts, are two important Arabic colophons, in which the pedigree of the MS. is given. From these we learn that both portions of this MS. were written A. Mart. 1024 (= a.d. 1308) by one Abu Said. They were copied, however, from a previous MS. in the handwriting of the patriarch Abba Gabriel and bearing the date A. Mart. 966 (= a.d. 1250). This Abba Gabriel stated that he took great pains to copy it accurately and correct it, both as to the Coptic and Arabic texts, to the best of human ability. This MS. of Abba Gabriel again was copied from two earlier MSS., that of the Pauline Epistles in the handwriting of Abba Yuhanna, bishop of Sammanud, that of the Catholic Epistles and Acts in the handwriting of Jurja ibn Saksik(?) the famous scribe. This MS. belonged to Archdeacon Tattam, and was purchased for the British Museum at the sale of his books. It is the MS. designated 'tattamianus' in the edition of Boetticher, who made use of a collation obtained by Schwartze. The corrections in this MS. (designated t* in Boetticher) are written in red ink.

5. Oriental 1318, ff. 294, fol., 4to, Copt. Arab., dated A. Mart. 1132 = a.d. 1416.

In private collections in England:

*6. Parham 124 (no. 12, p. 29, in the printed Catalogue), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. Paul. Ep., Cath. Ep., Acts. There are several blank leaves at the end of the Pauline Epistles, and the numbering of the leaves begins afresh with the Catholic Epistles, so that this MS. is two volumes bound together. They are, however, companion volumes and in the same handwriting. This is doubtless the MS. of which Schwartze's collation was used by Boetticher (see above, p. 109), and which he calls curetonianus. I am informed that it is designated simply cur. by Schwartze himself. It certainly never belonged to Cureton, but was brought with the other Parham MSS. by the Hon. [pg 120] R. Curzon (afterwards Lord Zouche) from the East, and ever afterwards belonged to his library. Boetticher's designation therefore is probably to be explained by a confusion of names. I gather moreover from private correspondence which I have seen, that some of Mr. Curzon's Coptic MSS. were in the keeping of Cureton at the British Museum about the time when Schwartze's collation was made, and this may have been one. If so, the mistake is doubly explained. I infer the identity of this MS. with the curetonianus of Boetticher for the following reasons: (1) Having made all enquiries, I cannot find that Dr. Cureton ever possessed a Coptic MS. of the whole or part of the New Testament; (2) The MS. in question must have been in England, and no other English MS. satisfies the conditions. My first impression was that the MS. next described, Parham 121, would prove to be the curetonianus, for I found between the leaves an envelope addressed to Mr. Cureton at the British Museum, and bearing the post mark, January, 1849; this fact indicating that it had been in Mr. Cureton's hands about the time when Schwartze's collation was made. But a comparison of the readings soon showed that this identification must be abandoned. (3) The cipher which Boetticher gives for the date is also found in this MS. in two places, after the Pauline Epistles and again after the Acts. This coincidence is the more remarkable as the cipher is not very intelligible. (4) The readings of our MS., Parham 124, where I compared them, agree with those of Boetticher's curetonianus, with an occasional exception which may be accounted for by the inaccuracy of the collation. This is the case with crucial readings, as for instance the marginal alternative in Acts vii. 39. At the same time Schwartze's collation, if Boetticher has given its readings fully, must have been very imperfect. In a short passage which I collated I found more variations omitted than there were verses.

*7. Parham 125 (no. 13, p. 29, printed Catalogue), small 4to, paper, in a very neat hand, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. It contains the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts.

In the National Library at Paris:

*8. Copt. 17, fol., paper, Copt. Arab., described in the Catalogue as antiquus et elegantissime scriptus. It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles. Is this the MS. collated by Boetticher for these Epistles and designated p by him?

*9. Copt. 63, small fol., paper. Emta per me Bernardum de Montfaucon Venetiis anno 1698, 11 Augusti. It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles, and is dated at the end ⲁⲧⲟⲥ, i.e. 1376 = a.d. 1660.

*10. Copt. 64, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. Manuscrit de la Bibliothèque de Saumaise acquis par l'abbé Sallier pour le B. R. en 1752. It contains the fourteen Pauline Epistles.

*11. Copt. 66, 4to, paper, with occasional Arabic notes in the margin. It belonged to the Coislin library, and previously to the Seguerian. It contains the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The date of its completion [pg 121] is given at the end as 1325, i.e. a.d. 1609. A collation of this MS. was used by Boetticher for his edition, and is designated p by him.

*12. Copt. 65, fol., paper. Emta Venetiis per me Fr. I. Bernardum de Montfaucon anno 1698, 2 Augusti. This volume contains the Apocalypse, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It consists of two parts, ff. 1-32 containing the Apocalypse, and ff. 33-102 containing the Catholic Epistles and Acts. The two parts are written on different paper, and apparently in different hands. At the end of the Apocalypse the date is given 1376 = a.d. 1660. At the end of the Acts also the same date 1376 is given, and the scribe there mentions his name ⲓⲱⲁⲡⲓⲡⲣⲉⲥⲃⲩⲧⲉⲣⲟⲥ. Boetticher collated this MS. for his edition and designates it m.

In the Royal Library at Berlin:

13. Orient. 615, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the Colossians, Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, Timothy, Titus.

14. Orient. 116, fol., Copt. Arab., containing the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians.

15. Orient. 169, 4to. A transcript of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Philippians in Coptic, made by Petraeus at Leyden in 1660.

These three were collated by Boetticher, from whom I have extracted this meagre account, which is all that he gives. He designates them b.

In the Vatican:

16. Copt. 12 (I. B. Raymund ii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts; ascribed by Assemani to the fourteenth century. In this MS. the Epistle to the Hebrews stands after the Epistle to Philemon, thus departing from the usual Bohairic order, as above, no. 6. See Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 125 sq.

17. Copt. 13 (I. B. Raymund iii), fol., paper, Copt. Arab., ascribed by Assemani to the thirteenth century. The fourteen Pauline Epistles. See Mai, l. c., p. 127 sq.

18. Copt. 14 (I. B. Raymund v), 4to, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Acts. It was written by Michael the monk of the city of Bembge in the year 1074 (i.e. a.d. 1358), except the last leaf, which was supplied in 1220 (i.e. a.d. 1504). See Mai, l. c., p. 128 sq.

C. The Apocalypse.

In England:

*1. Bodleian, Hunt. 43, already described under Epistles 1.

*2. Library of Lord Crawford and Balcarres. A very small folio, paper, with illuminations, Copt. Arab. ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲓⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ [pg 122] ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ. The Apocalypse itself is followed by The Benediction which is read before the Holy Apocalypse. The date 1091 (i.e. a.d. 1375) is given at the end of the Apocalypse, where also the scribe mentions his name Peter. On a later page he describes himself as a monk and presbyter. There are corrections in the margin of the Apocalypse, some in red, others in black ink. Some of these contain various readings, e.g. x. 11 ⲡⲉϫⲱⲟⲩ λέγουσι for ⲡⲉϫⲁϥ λέγει. This MS. once belonged to Tattam.

*3. Parham 123 (no. 15, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). Small fol., paper, rudely written in a recent hand. Copt. Arab. It contains the Apocalypse, followed by the Book of the Holy Benediction, &c. The scribe, who has evidently a very indifferent knowledge of Coptic, gives his name as Matthew the son of Abraham, and states that the work was finished ϧⲉⲛϯⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓⲛϣⲟⲣⲉⲛⲛⲓⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥⲉⲑⲩ. This ought to be the year 1105 of the Martyrs (= a.d. 1389); but the MS. must be later than this date. The colophon itself is perhaps copied from an earlier MS.

*4. Parham 124 (no. 16, p. 29 in the printed Catalogue). A large 12mo, paper, Copt. Arab. It contains about fifteen lines in a page, and about eleven letters in a line. Two or three pages towards the beginning are in a later hand. The date is given at the end, A. Mart. 1037 = a.d. 1321. This Apocalypse is not Sahidic, as described in the printed Catalogue, but Bohairic.

At Paris:

*5. Copt. 65, already described under Epistles 11.

*6. Copt. 91, 8vo, paper, Copt. Arab., containing the Apocalypse alone, ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲙⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ. It is dated at the end 1117 (? = a.d. 1401).

In the printed Catalogue *Copt. 34 (Delamare 581, Reg. 342. 3) is also stated to contain 'Apocalypsis e Graeca lingua in Copticam conversa,' but there seems to be some mistake about this.

At Rome:

*7. Anglican Library, C. i. 9. The Apocalypse in Copt. Arab. ϯⲁⲡⲟⲕⲁⲗⲩⲯⲓⲥ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲓⲱⲁ ⲡⲓⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ, &c., said to belong to the fifteenth century.

8. Library of the Propaganda, large 8vo, paper, in a modern hand. Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse somewhat mutilated. It contains i. 12-ii. 26, and iii. 9-xxii. 12. It is briefly described among the Borgian MSS. by Zoega, p. 3.

9. Vatican, Copt. 15, fol., paper, Copt. Arab. The Apocalypse followed by Ordo dominicae palmarum (fol. 59). Referred by Assemani to the fourteenth century. See Mai, Coll. Vet. Script., v. 2, p. 130.

10. Vatican, Copt. 16 (I. B. Raymund, no. xi), 4to, paper, Copt. [pg 123] Arab. The Apocalypse, followed by a Benedictio. It was written by one John son of Abul-Menna in 1061 (i.e. a.d. 1345). The scribe prays omnes amicos suos sinceros ... ut castigent atque corrigant errata illius pro sua prudentia, quoniam ausus sum fungi munere mihi ignoto. See Mai, l. c., p. 130 sq.107

Besides these MSS. of different parts of the New Testament there is also a considerable number of Bohairic Lectionaries in the different libraries of Europe.

From this account of the MSS. it appears that, with the single exception of the Apocalypse, the Bohairic New Testament, as far back as we can trace its history, contained all the books of our present Canon. Nor have I noticed any phenomena in the language of the several books, which point to any want of uniformity or separation of date; though it is possible that a more thorough investigation and a more complete mastery of the language might reveal such. It seems clear, however, that the Apocalypse had not a place among the Canonical books. In the majority of cases it is contained in a separate MS. In the exceptions which I have investigated, where it is bound up with other books (the MSS. numbered 1, 12, of the Epistles and Acts), it is distinguished from them in some marked way; and probably this will be found to be the case with any which have not yet been examined. In short, there is not a single authenticated case of a MS. in which it is treated as of equal authority with the other Canonical books. Moreover in Copto-Arabic vocabularies it is omitted from its proper place at the end of the New Testament, all the other books being taken in order. This depreciation of the Apocalypse may perhaps be taken as indicating the date of the completion or codification of the Bohairic version. The earlier Alexandrian writers, Clement and Origen, in the first decades of the third century, quote the Apocalypse without hesitation as the work of St. John. The later Alexandrian Church also from the close of the third century onward seems to have had no doubt about its Apostolic authority (see Westcott, Canon, p. 321). But about the middle of the third century doubts were entertained respecting its authorship, to which expression was given by Dionysius of Alexandria (flor. a.d. 233-265), though even [pg 124] Dionysius did not deny its canonicity. The difficulty, however, may have been powerful enough to cause its exclusion from the Egyptian Canon.

The order of the several parts of the New Testament in the MSS. is (1) Gospels, (2) Pauline Epistles, (3) Catholic Epistles, (4) Acts. The Gospels occur in their common order. It is remarkable, however, that in the vocabularies St. John frequently stands first, so that we get the order, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, which (with the doubtful exception of the Sahidic) is unique. Of this, however, there is no trace in the MSS.; and, as some of these must carry the tradition further back than the vocabularies, the arrangement is perhaps to be explained in some other way. The Pauline Epistles include the Hebrews, which is placed after 1, 2 Thessalonians and before 1, 2 Timothy108, as in the Greek MSS. אABC, &c. (see p. 71). This accords with the general opinion of the Alexandrian school, which regarded this Epistle as the work of St. Paul (see Westcott, Canon, p. 323 sq.). In other respects the familiar order is observed in the Pauline Epistles, as is also the case with the Catholic Epistles109.

The Bohairic version is for the most part a faithful rendering of the original, and the Egyptian language which by this time had borrowed largely from the Greek vocabulary is fairly adequate for the purpose. This version therefore may generally be consulted even for minute variations in the text. The connecting particles are commonly observed; and as the language has both definite and indefinite articles, it may be employed, though with some caution, by the textual critic where other versions fail him. In one point, however, it is quite useless. When the question lies between a participle and a finite verb in the construction of a sentence, the looseness of the Egyptian syntax will seldom afford any clue to the reading which the translator had before him. Perhaps the weakest point in the language is the absence of a passive voice, for which the third person plural active, used impersonally, acts as a substitute. This produces strange awkwardnesses of expression. Thus John i. 6 ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ is rendered “whom they sent from God,” ⲉ ⲁⲩⲟⲩⲟⲣⲡϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲫϯ, and i. 17 [pg 125] ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδόθη “The law they gave it by Moses,” ⲡⲓ ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲧⲏⲓϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ⲙⲱⲩⲥⲏⲥ. Another grave defect is the want of a word corresponding to the simple meaning of ἔχειν, which has to be rendered by various expedients according to the context.

To the adoption of Greek words there seems to be hardly any limit but the caprice of the translator. Already in the demotic writing we find a few of these foreign intruders naturalized; but in the Coptic, as used for ecclesiastical purposes, they occur in the greatest profusion. Very frequently their adoption cannot be explained by any exigencies of translation. Thus for instance the translator will sometimes render one Greek word by another, e.g. John xiii. 5, νιπτήρ by λακάνη or λεκάνη; Acts xix. 40, ἐγκαλεῖν by κατηγορεῖν; xxviii. 17, ἔθος by συνήθεια. Thus again he will diversify the rendering in the same passage, using indifferently the Greek and the Egyptian word for the same original, e.g. ϥⲱⲛⲧ and ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲍⲓⲛ (πειράζειν), Matt. iv. 1, 3; ϫⲣⲟϫ and ⲥⲡⲉⲣⲙⲁ, John viii. 33, 37; ⲡⲟⲩⲣⲟ and ⲕⲉⲥⲁⲣ (Καῖσαρ), John xix. 12, 15; ⲓϧ and ⲇⲉⲙⲱⲛ (δαιμόνιον), Matt. viii. 16, 28, 33. And again and again Greek words are used, where common Egyptian equivalents were ready to hand. The conjunctions ἀλλά, δέ, γάρ, οὖν, were doubtless needed to supply a want in the Egyptian language, which, like the Hebrew and Aramaic, was singularly deficient in connecting-particles; but we should hardly have looked for such combinations as ὅμως μέντοι, πόσῳ μᾶλλον, μήτι, οὐ γάρ, οὐχ ὅτι, ὅτι μὲν γάρ, καί γε, καίτοι, οὐ μόνον δέ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, πῶς οὖν, ἵνα κἄν, ἵνα μήπως, μενοῦνγε, and the like. Nor should we expect to find Greek terms introduced with such reckless prodigality as in the following sentences: John xviii. 3, ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲫⲁⲛⲟⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϧⲁⲛ ⲗⲁⲙⲡⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲱⲛ ϩⲟⲡⲗⲟⲛ; Acts xxiii. 8, ⲙⲙⲟⲛ ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲟⲩⲇⲉ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ; Acts xxvii. 12, ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲛⲧⲁⲛ ⲉ ⲫⲟⲓⲛⲓⲝ ⲉ ⲉⲣ ⲡⲁⲣⲁⲭⲓⲙⲁⲍⲓⲛ ϧⲉⲛ ⲟⲩ ⲗⲩⲙⲏⲛ; Rom. vi. 13, ⲛⲉⲧⲉⲛ ⲙⲉⲗⲟⲥ ⲛ ϩⲟⲗⲡⲟⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ ϯ ⲁⲇⲓⲕⲓⲁ.

[No definite discussion on the history or critical value of the Bohairic version is possible until the edition which is being prepared by the Rev. G. Horner is published; based as it is on a collation of all known MSS.

An opinion which at present seems to prevail largely among [pg 126] scholars is that of Stern (Z. A. S. 20, 1882, p. 202), who dates it to the fourth or fifth century, and ascribes it to the literary activity of the monks of the Natron Lakes. He has further suggested that it and the Sahidic may both be derived from, or at any rate connected with, the Akhmîm version (Z. A. S. 24, 1886, p. 134).

The last statement may be definitely dismissed; it is based upon a single sentence quoted from an apocryphal book of the Old Testament, and is definitely disproved in the case of the New Testament by a comparison of the two versions. They are not only different translations, but are based on a different Greek text. The first statement is apparently based upon language, and has undoubtedly an element of truth in it. The language of the version as we have it was probably revised and corrected, and reduced to a fixed orthography and a more definite form, but even here it is not possible to speak quite positively, and we know that there are considerable variations in orthography preserved in some of the MSS. which may represent the tradition of different monasteries. But, granting this, it does not by any means follow that there was not a Bohairic dialect and a Bohairic version at an earlier date, which is closely represented by this, as the Akhmim version was represented by the Sahidic, as regards the Greek text implied. In favour of an early version in the dialect of Lower Egypt is first the a priori argument of the probability of Christianity spreading earliest in the Delta. We know that by the middle of the third century it had spread among the native population of Alexandria (Dion. Al. ap. Eus. “H. E.” vi. 41), and probably had done so in the second century. If Greek had spread so little in the Delta in the fourth or fifth century as to make a Bohairic version necessary, it is not likely to have been more widely prevalent in the third. On these grounds then we should naturally expect Christianity to spread earliest among the native populations of the districts round Alexandria, and also that the New Testament or a portion of it would be translated very early into their language. Nor again does there seem any evidence for deriving the Bohairic dialect from the Akhmimish. It is true that the latter represents the language of Egypt in an earlier form, but it is not an earlier form of Bohairic.

To these a priori and negative considerations must be added the positive argument of Krall (Mitt. i. p. 111). He appears to have discovered earlier forms of the Bohairic dialect, and in [pg 127] addition points out that some of the commonest abbreviations in Coptic MSS. could only have been derived from the Bohairic, which seems to show that it was for Bohairic that the alphabet was first used. And this in the New Testament at any rate is supported by the text of the version. A study of this has shown that in the form in which we possess it in most printed editions and late MSS., although as a whole its agreement with the oldest Greek MSS. is undoubted, it contains a considerable number of later additions which agree with the traditional text. But, as Bishop Lightfoot showed, these clearly formed no part of the original Bohairic version, and subsequent investigation has made it clear that the evidence in favour of this statement is even stronger than he represented it (see Sanday, Appendices ad Novum Testamentum, App. III. p. 182 sq.). The original Bohairic text then represents a very pure tradition, untouched by the so-called Western additions which are found in the Sahidic version, and it is difficult to believe that a version so singularly free from these should be later than the Sahidic. Christianity spread in the Thebaid certainly as early as the beginning of the third century (Eus. “H. E.” vi. 1), and that century is the period to which internal evidence would assign the origin of the Sahidic version. An even earlier date is probably demanded both for the extension of Christianity in the Delta and for the text of the Bohairic version.]

(3) The Sahidic (or Thebaic) Version.

The Sahidic version did not attract attention till a comparatively late date. When Wilkins published what was then called the Coptic New Testament, he mentioned having found among the Oxford MSS. two which he described as “lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis, quae unquam vidi, diversa” (Praef. p. vii). These are written in the Thebaic or Sahidic dialect, of which as we may infer from his language, he did not even know the existence. After no long time, however, we find La Croze and Jablonski, with other Egyptian scholars, turning their attention to the dialect of Upper Egypt: and at length in 1778, C. G. Woide issued a prospectus in which he announced his intention of publishing from Oxford MSS. the fragments of the New Testament “juxta interpretationem dialecti Superioris Aegypti, quae Thebaidica [pg 128] seu Sahidica appellatur.” In the same year he gave to the world some various readings of this version in J. A. Cramer's “Beyträge zur Beförderung theologischer und andrer wichtigen Kenntnisse,” Pt. iii, Kiel u. Hamburg, 1778. But before Woide's work appeared he was partially anticipated by other labourers in the same field.

In the same year 1778 appeared a grammar of the two Egyptian dialects by Raphael Tuki, Roman Bishop of Arsinoe, with the title “Rudimenta Linguae Coptae sive Aegyptiacae ad usum Collegii Urbani de Propaganda Fide, Romae.” It contains profuse quotations from the Sahidic version of the Old and New Testaments. This work, which preserves a large number of passages not to be found elsewhere, has been strangely neglected by textual critics110. Caution, however, must be observed in the use of it, as the passages are apparently obtained, at least in many instances, not directly from MSS. of the version itself, but through the medium of Arabo-Egyptian grammars and vocabularies; nor is Tuki's work generally at all accurate or critical111.

In 1785, J. A. Mingarelli published two fasciculi of an account of the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library under the title “Aegyptiorum codicum reliquiae Venetiis in Bibliotheca Naniana asservatae, Bononiae.” In these he printed at length two portions of the Sahidic New Testament, Matt. xviii. 27-xxi. 15, and John ix. 17-xiii. 1.

In 1789, A. A. Giorgi (Georgius), an Augustinian eremite, brought out a work entitled “Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis Graeco-Copto-Thebaicum Saeculi iv. &c., Romae.” This volume contains John vi. 21-58, and vi. 68-viii. 23, introduced by an elaborate preface and followed by other matter. The MS. from which they are taken belonged to the Borgian collection at Velletri, and has been described already among the Greek MSS., p. 141 sq. It is ascribed to the fourth or fifth century. [pg 129] In the same year, 1789, additional fragments of this version from other Borgian MSS. were published by F. C. C. H. Münter in a volume bearing the title, “Commentatio de Indole Versionis Novi Testamenti Sahidicae. Accedunt Fragmenta Epistolarum Pauli ad Timotheum ex membranis Sahidicis Musei Borgiani Velitris. Hafniae.” The fragments referred to are 1 Tim. i. 14-iii. 16; vi. 4-21; 2 Tim. i. 1-16. Münter gives also some various readings of this version in different parts of the four Gospels, taken likewise from the Borgian MSS.

Lastly; in 1790 Mingarelli published a third fasciculus of his work on the Egyptian MSS. in the Nanian Library, and in it he printed another important fragment of this version, Mark xi. 29-xv. 32. This third part is very rarely met with, and I have not seen a copy.

Meanwhile Woide was busily engaged on his edition, and had already advanced far when his labours were interrupted by death in May, 1790. His papers were placed in the hands of H. Ford, Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who after several years completed the work. It was published with the title, “Appendix ad Editionem Novi Testamenti Graeci e Codice MS. Alexandrino a C. G. Woide descripti, in qua continentur Fragmenta Novi Testamenti juxta interpretationem Dialecti Superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vel Sahidica appellator, &c. Oxoniae, 1799.” Woide's materials were:

1. Several MSS. of the Huntington collection in the Bodleian. These consist of (a) Two folio lectionaries on paper (Hunt. 3, Hunt. 5); (b) A folio likewise on paper, containing fragments of St. John's Gospel (Hunt. 4); (c) An 8vo, containing fragments of the Acts and Catholic Epistles (Hunt. 394). Woide gives as the date A. Mart. 1041, and a.d. 1315, “si recte conjicio,” but the two are not reconcileable; (d) A 4to on paper (Hunt. 393), written A. Mart. 1109 (i.e. a.d. 1393) and containing “De Mysterio literarum Graecarum Discursus Gnostici,” the work of one Seba an anchorite (see Ford's “Praef.,” p. vi. sq., and p. 21, note a).

2. A very ancient papyrus belonging to the famous traveller Bruce, who had brought it from Upper Egypt. It contains two Gnostic works, in which are quoted passages from the Old and New Testaments. It is now in the Bodleian112.

[pg 130]

3. An ancient vellum MS. containing the Gnostic treatise “Pistis Sophia,” then belonging to Askew and now in the British Museum. It quotes some passages of the Old and New Testaments. The “Pistis Sophia” has been since transcribed by Schwartze, and published from his papers by Petermann after his death (1853).

4. Several fragments belonging to Woide himself, having been transmitted to him from Upper Egypt while he was employed on the work. Some are Sahidic; others Graeco-Sahidic. These formed a highly important accession to his materials. They now belong to the Clarendon Press at Oxford, and are deposited in the Bodleian.

One of these, a Graeco-Sahidic MS., said to belong to the fourth or fifth century, has been already described (Evan. T). But I am unable to assent to the opinion which is maintained by Tregelles and Tischendorf, and in which Dr. Scrivener there acquiesces, that these Woidian fragments (Ts or Twoi) were originally part of the same MS. with the Borgian Graeco-Sahidic fragments (T) published by Giorgi. And this for two reasons. (1) The paging of the two sets of fragments is quite inconsistent. The Woidian fragments, Luke xii. 5 (Sahid. Gr. 15)-xiii. 23 (Sahid. Gr. 32) and John viii. 22-32, are paged ⲩⲛⲑ-ⲩⲡⲇ (459-484) and ⲭⲛⲍ, ⲭⲛⲏ (657, 658) respectively (see Ford's “Praef.,” p. 24). On the other hand the pages of the Borgian fragments, Luke xxii. 12-xxiii. 11; John vi. 21-58; vi. 68-viii. 23, are numbered ⲥⲗⲑ-ⲥⲛⲇ (239-254), ⲧⲗⲇ-ⲧⲙⲅ, ⲧⲙⲝ-ⲧⲝⲁ (334-343, 346-361) respectively (see Zoega, p. 184; Georgius, p. 11 sq.). (2) Though the last Woidian fragment begins somewhere about where the last Borgian fragment ends, it does not begin at exactly the same place. The Borgian fragment ends ⲁⲛⲅ ⲁⲛⲟⲕ ⲟⲩ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲛ ⲧⲡⲉ ⲛⲧⲱⲧⲛ ⲛⲧⲉ (ἐγὼ ἐκ τῶν ἄνω εἰμί; ὑμεῖς), viii. 23; the Woidian fragment begins ⲉ ϯⲛⲁⲃⲱⲕ ⲉⲣⲟϥ (ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω), viii. 22. Thus the two have several lines in common. For these reasons the later judgement of Tregelles, who pronounces them to be “certainly parts of the same MS.” (Introductory notice to his G. T.), must be abandoned; and we must revert to his earlier and more cautious opinion in which he describes the Woidian fragment as “a portion of a MS. almost a counterpart of T” (Horne's “Introduction,” p. 180).

[pg 131]

5. A Sahidic vocabulary in the Royal Library at Paris (Copt. 44), containing several passages from the Sahidic Bible.

6. A few fragments communicated by Adler from the collection of Card. Borgia at Velletri. Besides these Woide incorporated the fragments published by Mingarelli in his first two fasciculi. The works of Giorgi and Münter, however, and the third fasciculus of Mingarelli, were overlooked by him or by his successor Ford.

Besides elaborate prefaces by Ford and Woide this work gives a Latin translation in parallel columns with the Sahidic. It would not be difficult to point out numerous errors in the execution of this volume; but all allowance must be made for a posthumous work completed by a second editor who had to educate himself for the task, and the heavy obligation under which Woide and Ford have laid Biblical scholars may well silence ill-natured criticism113.

Some years later appeared a highly important contribution to Sahidic literature in G. Zoega's “Catalogus Codicum Copticorum manuscriptorum qui in Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur, Romae, 1810,” a posthumous work. The compiler of this catalogue prints at length Eph. v. 21-33; Apoc. xix. 7-18; xx. 7-xxi. 3, and gives besides (p. 200) a full list of the fragments of the Sahidic version, which are found in this rich collection of Egyptian MSS. These would go far towards filling up the gaps in Woide's edition. Thus, for instance, they contain about three-quarters of St. Mark's Gospel, the whole of the Epistle to the Ephesians, and the whole of the Epistle to the Philippians with the exception of five or six verses at the beginning.

In the following year (1811) appeared Engelbreth's work on the Bashmuric version, which has been mentioned above (p. 102). In it he printed, for the sake of comparison with the Bashmuric, the following passages of the Sahidic version: 1 Cor. i. 1-16; xv. 5-33; Phil. i. 7-23; 1 Thess. i. 4-iii. 5; Heb. vii. 11-13; 16-21; ix. 2-10; 24-28; x. 5-10. These were derived wholly [pg 132] from the Borgian MSS., with the exception of a few verses taken from Woide's book. Beyond this meagre contribution of Engelbreth's, nothing has been done during more than sixty years which have elapsed since the appearance of Zoega's work towards the publication of these valuable remains, important alike for the knowledge of the Egyptian language and for purposes of Biblical criticism. A complete collection of all the fragments of the Sahidic New Testament is now the most pressing want in the province of textual criticism.

The materials for such an edition are the following:

1. The MSS. used by Woide and Ford, which however will require collating afresh.

2. The Nanian fragments published by Mingarelli. The MSS. which he used are said to have disappeared.

3. The MSS. of the Borgian collection, as indicated in the catalogue of Zoega. After the dispersion of the museum at Velletri the Biblical MSS. found their way to the Library of the Propaganda at Rome, where they now are.

4. The quotations in Tuki, though for reasons already stated these must be used with caution. They should be traced, if possible, to their sources.

To these known materials the following, which (so far as I am aware), have never been publicly noticed, must be added:

1. *British Museum, Papyrus xiii, four leaves or eight pages numbered ⲋⲙⲁ-ⲋⲙⲏ, containing John xx. 1-29 mutilated. It does not differ in any important respects from the text printed by Woide, but I noticed the following variations: ver. 3, Σίμων Πέτρος; ver. 8, add οὖν after τότε; ver. 10, om. οἰ μαθηταί; ver. 12, ins. καὶ before θεωρεῖ; ver. 17, om. δὲ after πορεύου; ver. 18, om. δέ after ἔρχεται; ver. 21, εἶπεν οὖν for εἶπεν δέ; ib. add [ὁ] Ἰησοῦς after αὐτοῖς; ver. 28, add αὐτῷ after ἀπεκρίθη.

2. *Paris, Copt. 102. Thebaic fragments of various ages, some very old. Those from the New Testament are (a) Luke iii. 21-iv. 9; (b) John xvii. 17-26, Theb. Arab., paper; (c) Acts vii. 51-viii. 3, vellum; (d) Apoc. i. 13-ii. 2, vellum. The pages of this last fragment are marked ⲉ-ⲏ.

3. Crawford and Balcarres collection. Several very important Sahidic fragments which formerly belonged to Archdeacon Tattam. These are:

*i. Mark ix. 18-xiv. 26, vellum, six leaves, the pages numbered ⲓⲑ-ⲗ, two columns in a page, and thirty-nine or forty lines in a column. I observed the following readings: ix. 24, om. μετὰ δακρύων; 44, 46, om. ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ κ.τ.λ.; 50, om. καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται; xi. 26, omitted; xiii. 14, om. τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου; xiv. 22, om. φάγετε; 24 has καινῆς.

[pg 133]

*ii. Luke iii. 8-vi. 37, vellum, two columns in a page, thirty-five lines in a column. A very beautiful MS. The Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons are given, and also the τίτλοι. There is occasionally a rough concordance in the margin; e.g. on Luke v. 18, ⲓⲅ ⲉⲧⲃⲉⲡⲉⲧⲥⲏⲋ. ⲓⲱ ⲍ. ⲙⲑ ⲓⲅ. ⲙⲣ. ⲉ, where St. John stands first. I noted down the following readings: iii. 19, om. Φιλίππου; 27, Ἰωανάν; 30, Ἰωανάμ; 32, Ἰωβήδ; 32, ⲥⲁⲗⲁ for Σαλμών, just as in ver. 35; iv. 26, Σιδωνίας; 41, om. ὁ Χριστός; ver. 38, om. καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται. In vi. 16 Ἰούδαν Ἰακώβου is translated “Judas the son of James.”

*iii. Luke xvii. 18-xix. 30, vellum, two columns in a page, twenty-seven lines in a column, five leaves, paged ⲣⲁ to ⲣⲓ (sic). No sections are marked. It has these readings: xvii. 24, om. ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ αὐτοῦ; xviii. 28, τὰ ἴδια; xix. 5, om. εἶδεν αὐτὸν καί.

*iv. Gal. i. 14-vi. 16, fol., vellum, eight leaves, two columns in a page, twenty-nine lines in a column, the pages marked ρπθ onward. It has these readings: i. 15, ὁ θεός; ii. 5, οἷς οὐδέ; ii. 20, τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ; iii. 1, om. τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; iii. 17, om. εἰς χριστόν; iv. 7, κληρονόμος διὰ [τοῦ] χριστοῦ; iv. 14, τὸν πειρασμόν μου τὸν ἐν κ.τ.λ.; 15, ποῦ; v. 1, στήκετε οὖν.

Of these four fragments ii and iv are the most ancient; while i and iii are much later, but still old. Beyond this I do not venture to hazard an opinion as to their date, remembering that Zoega with all his knowledge and experience declines to pronounce on the age of undated Egyptian MSS.114

4*. A fragment (a single leaf) of a Graeco-Sahidic lectionary in double columns, belonging to the Rev. G. Horner, who brought it from Upper Egypt in 1873 [ix], 12-1/4 × 11. The Greek and Sahidic are not in opposite columns, but the Greek is followed by the Sahidic. The Greek is Matt. iv. 2-11 τεσσεράκοντα καὶ τεσσεράκοντα νύκτας ... διηκόνουν αὐτῷ; the Sahidic is iv. 1-6 Τότε ... ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε. The Coptic character resembles classes v and vi in Zoega. The Greek text has been already numbered as Evst. 299. This has now been presented to the Bodleian by Mr. Horner, MS. Gr. Lit. c. 1.

[Since the above was written, very considerable additions have been made to our knowledge of the Sahidic version.

1. The Biblical MSS. of the Borgian collection preserved in the Library of the Propaganda have been published by M. Amélineau. The Old Testament in the Recueil des Travaux, the New Testament in the “Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache,” 24 (1886), pp. 41, 103; 25 (1887), pp. 47, 100, 125; 26 (1888), p. 96. This publication was made under [pg 134] considerable disadvantages. M. Amélineau had not the opportunity of seeing the MSS. himself, and merely published a transcript supplied him by the Coptic Archbishop Bschai, then resident in Rome. Moreover he gives no critical notes on various readings in cases where there is more than one copy extant of any passage. Nor again does he edit the fragments completely, but only such portions of the New Testament as were not previously known. His edition therefore is not without inaccuracies, which have been noticed by Ciasca, vol. ii. pp. lix-lxxvii. These defects are, however, being remedied by an edition of all these fragments by Father Ciasca (known as the editor of the Arabic Diatessaron), which is very complete. The first two volumes, containing the Old Testament with many facsimiles, have appeared: the New Testament portion is to follow. (Sacrorum Bibliorum Fragmenta Copto-Sahidica Musei Borgiani iussu et sumptibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide Studio P. Augustini Ciasca. Romae. Typis eiusdem S. Congregationis. Vol. i. 1885; Vol. ii. 1889.)

2. The Crawford and Balcarres fragments mentioned above have also been edited by M. Amélineau in the Recueil des Travaux, v. (1883), p. 105.

3. To O. von Lemm we owe a considerable number of fragments. Bruchstücke der Sahidischen Bibelübersetzung nach Handschriften der kaiserlichen öffentlichen Bibliothek zu St. Petersburg. Leipzig, 1885. And Sieben Sahidische Bibel-Fragmente. Z. A. S. 23 (1885), p. 19.

4. Fragments, mostly smaller in extent, have been edited by the following:

Bouriant Mémoires, i. 259.
Recueil, iv. 1.
Maspero Recueil, vi. 35; vii. 47.
Études Égyptologiques, i. 3. Paris, 1883.

Ceugney Recueil, ii. 94.

Krall Mittheilungen, ii. 68.

5. But most important of all are the newly acquired fragments of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris. In 1883 that Library had the good fortune to obtain (largely through the influence of M. Amélineau) from the famous White Monastery or Deir Amba Shenoudah of Upper Egypt a large collection of Sahidic fragments. The publication of these has been begun. Considerable sections of the Old Testament have been published by Maspero (Mémoires, vol. vi), and of documents relating to Early Church History by Bouriant (ib. vol. viii). The New Testament fragments have not yet been published, but M. Amélineau, who is entrusted with them, has kindly put at my disposal the following list of contents. I have omitted smaller Fragments:

Matthew (167 leaves): i. 1-20; i. 17-ii. 4; i. 1-22; ii. 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15; iii. 1-11; 1-15; iii. 10-iv. 13; iii. 22-iv. 11; iv. 3-19; 21-v. 15; iv. 15-v. 17; v. 17-32; 9-28; v. 25-vi. 3; vii. 6-viii. 4; vii. 8-27; x. 9-28; viii. 1-17; 2-20; ix. 13-33; ix. 25-x. 15; [pg 135] ix. 33-x. 15; ix. 33-x. 19; ix. 26-x. 19; x. 39-xxviii. 54 (36 leaves); x. 20-xii. 3; xi. 3-10; xi. 15-xii. 16; xi. 16-xii. 4; xii. 6-xiv. 31; xii. 19-40; xiii. 19-xiv. 6; xiii. 22-25; xiii. 35-50; xiii. 41-xiv. 2; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 8-xv. 4; xiv. 17-35; xiv. 18-xv. 19; xiv. 20-35; xiv. 21-xv. 19; xiv. 24-xv. 11; xiv. 27-xv. 1; xiv. 31-54; xiv. 31-xv. 20; xv. 17-xvi. 19; xviii. 11-35; 15-21; xviii. 26-xix. 1; xix. 7-22; xix. 13-xx. 16; xix. 24-xx. 16; xx. 9-32; xxi. 8-12; 19-21; 12-37; 9-25; 22-33; xxi. 31-xxii. 5; xxi. 32-41; xxi. 38-xxii. 12; xxii. 22-xxiii. 12; xxiv. 7-xxvi. 64; xxiv. 2-42; xxiv. 35-xxv. 36; xxiv. 47-xxvi. 47; xxvi. 41-60; xxvi. 69-xxvii. 5; xxvi. 75-xxviii. 23; xxvii. 26-56; xxvii. 49-xxviii. 4; xxvii. 54-xxviii. 8. Also a fragment containing the last few verses and the beginning of St. Mark.

Mark (43 leaves): i. 1-17; 4-5; i. 30-ii. 1; iv. 1-8; iv. 32-v. 11; v. 30-vii. 36; v. 13-38; vi. 4-viii. 12; vii. 36-viii. 1; viii. 12-31; 23-38; x. 42-xi. 15; xi. 3-27; xi. 11-xiii. 14; xii. 12-35; xii. 31-xiii. 19; xiv. 6-xv. 2; xiv. 12-xv. 21; xiv. 20-40.

Luke (163 leaves): i. 1-26; 1-5; 26-61; 19-35; ii. 10-33; iii. 4-v. 8; iii. 29-iv. 20; iii. 36-iv. 47; iv. 22-viii. 14; iv. 43-v. 29; v. 10-viii. 7; vi. 35-ix. 16; vii. 1-ix. 5; vii. 7-15; vii. 37, 38; 41-45; viii. 2-12; 6-15; 4-37; 7-26; viii. 14-ix. 8; viii. 32-44; ix. 3-22; 9-21; ix. 51-x. 18; x. 39-xii. 37; xi. 23-34; 24-56, xii. 1-8, 36-48; xi. 28-44; xii. 3-12; 37-51; xii. 48-xiii. 10; xii. 53-xiii. 9; xiii. 1-16; xiii. 11-31; xiii. 15-xiv. 15; xiv. 2-20; xiv. 3-xv. 2; xiv. 21-32; xv. 17-xvii. 19; xvi. 18-xvii. 16; xvii. 10-24; xviii. 4-xix. 42; xviii. 21-xix. 22; xix. 3-28; xix. 28-xxi. 22; xix. 49-xx. 6; xxi. 22-xxii. 1; xxii. 11-27; xxii. 8-xxiv. 10; xxiii. 1-39; xxiv. 27-53.

Also the following bilingual (Greek and Sahidic) texts:

iii. 15, 16; x. 11-21; xi. 16-32; xvii. 29-xviii. 1; xviii. 32-42; xxi. 25-31; xxii. 66-xxiii. 17; and two leaves in Greek.

John (207 leaves). One MS. of 48 leaves, Luke iv. 38-v. 1; viii. 10-29; ix. 9-62; John i. 23-vii. 40; ix. 6-27; xix. 13-33; xx. 31-xxi. 17. i. 25-45; 25-36, ii. 7-18; i. 42-iii. 4; i. 43-ii. 11; i. 45-iv. 19; i. 67-ii. 24; ii. 11-iii. 25; ii. 24-iv. 22; iii. 4-10; 13-16; iii. 24-iv. 8; iv. 27-51; iv. 50-vii. 20; v. 24-vi. 5; vi. 12-35; 26-45; 30-41; vi. 62-vii. 17; vi. 65-vii. 10; vii. 20-39; vii. 31-x. 12; vii. 41-viii. 23; vii. 44-viii. 20; viii. 25-44; viii. 22-ix. 28; viii. 36-49; ix. 7-xi. 22; ix. 20-40; 27-39; xii. 4-18; x. 13-19; xi. 27-47; 34-48; 34-45; xi. 44-xii. 2; xii. 25-34; xiii. 7-27; 18-31; xiii. 19-xiv. 1; xiv. 21-xviii. 15; xv. 3-xvi. 15; xv. 6-26; xv. 22-xvi. 16; xvi. 1-23; xvi. 6-26; xvi. 22-xxii. 8; xvii. 14-23; xviii. 3-26; xviii. 5-xix. 40; xviii. 23-xix. 2; xviii. 33-xix. 19; xix. 18-26; xx. 8-18; 19-27; xxi. 2-14.

Also the following bilingual:

i. 19-23; ii. 2-9; iv. 5-13; 15-52; v. 12-21; xii. 36-46.

Acts: ii. 2-17; 18-40; ii. 34-iv. 6; viii. 32-ix. 15; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix. 27-40; x. 3-4; xii. 7-xiii. 5; xii. 23-xiii. 8; xiii. [pg 136] 10-xvi. 4; xiv. 4-22; xviii. 21-xix. 6; xxvii. 38-xxviii. 4; xxviii. 9-23.

Romans: i. 26-ii. 25; ii. 28-iii. 13; iii. 20-iv. 4; viii. 35-ix. 22; ix. 12-xi. 11; ix. 15-x. 1; ix. 24-xi. 30; xi. 30-xii. 15; xiv. 4-21; xv. 10-30.

1 Cor.: i. 19-ii. 10; ii. 9-iv. 1; ii. 21-vi. 4; vii. 36-ix. 5; ix. 2-x. 7; ix. 12-25; x. 13-xi. 15; xvii. 41-45; xvii. 16-21.

2 Cor.: xi. 1-20; xii. 21-xiii. 13 (with Heb. i. 14); xi. 33-xii. 14.

Heb.: ii. 14-20; iv. 7-14; v. 12-vi. 10; ix. 2-14; 20-23; x. 9-10; xii. 16-xiii. 9; xiii. 7-21; xiii. 10-25.

Gal.: i. 1-vi. 18 (with Eph. i. 1-10; vi. 12-24; and Phil. i. 1-7); i. 10-24; iii. 2-16; ii. 9-iii. 10.

Eph.: iv. 17-v. 13 (with Phil. iii. 1-iv. 6).

Phil.: i. 23-ii. 6; i. 28-ii. 20.

Col.: i. 1-29; 9-11, 15 (with 1 Thess. ii. 15-iv. 4); i. 29-iii. 1.

1 Tim.: iii. 2-v. 2.

1 Pet.: i. 18-vi. 14 (with 2 Pet. i. 1-iii. 1); ii. 23-iii. 13; iii. 12-iv. 9; iii. 15-iv. 10.

6. The British Museum has recently acquired a considerable number of fragments on vellum, containing—

Matt.: xv. 11-xvi. 12; xxi. 6-22.

John: ix. 7-26; x. 30-42; xi. 1-10; 37-57.

Acts: xxii. 12-30; xxiii. 1-15.

And also a large number of papyrus fragments in the Graf collection.

7. Mr. Petrie also has in his possession a valuable papyrus MS. containing considerable portions of St. John. This will probably shortly be published by Mr. Crum.

From the above account it becomes clear that we have now already published, or preserved in European libraries, enough material to produce a complete or almost a complete edition of the Sahidic New Testament. But not only this. We have also a considerable number of fragments written on papyrus, which are much older than any of the MSS. previously known, and will enable us to write a history of the version from an early date. May we express a hope that M. Amélineau, who has made large collections for the purpose, would first of all give us an edition of the Paris fragments as accurate as that of Ciasca, and then of the Sahidic New Testament as a whole? Much more than when Bishop Lightfoot wrote is the publication of it the pressing need of Biblical criticism.]

[pg 137]

The order of the books in the Sahidic New Testament, so far as regards the great groups, appears to have been the same as in the Bohairic, i.e. (1) The Four Gospels, (2) The Pauline Epistles, (3) The Catholic Epistles and Acts (see above, p. 124). This may be inferred from the order of quotations in the Sahidic vocabulary described by Woide, Praef., p. 18; for the Sahidic MSS. are so fragmentary that no inference on this point can be drawn from them. Like the Bohairic, the original Sahidic Canon seems to have excluded the Apocalypse. In the vocabulary just mentioned it does not appear as part of the New Testament, but liturgical and other matter interposes before it is taken. Moreover in most cases it is evident from the paging of the fragments which remain that the MSS. containing this book formed separate volumes. In the Paris fragment described above this is plainly the case, and it is equally obvious in the Borgian MSS. lxxxviii, lxxxix (Zoega, p. 187). Thus in lxxxviii, pp. 39-44 contain Apoc. xii. 14-xiv. 13; and in lxxxix. pp. 59, 60, 63, 64 contain Apoc. xix. 7-18, xx. 7-xxi. 3. On the other hand in lxxxvii. where Apoc. iii. 20 begins on p. 279, this fragment must have formed part of a much larger volume, which contained (as we may suppose) a considerable portion of the New Testament.

The order of the four Gospels presents a difficulty. In the Sahidic vocabulary already referred to, the sequence is John, Matthew, Mark, Luke; and this order is also observed in the marginal concordance to the Crawford and Balcarres MS. described above. Thus there is reason for supposing that at one time St. John stood first. But the paging of the oldest MSS. does not favour this conclusion. In the Woidian and Borgian fragments of the Graeco-Sahidic Gospels, which belong to the fourth or fifth century, the numbering of the pages (see p. 130) shows that St. Luke stood before St. John. It is possible indeed that in the MSS. the transcriber was guided by the usual Greek arrangement. But in other MSS. also the synoptic evangelists precede St. John, e.g. Borg. xlvi, l, lxiv; while in other fragments again (Borg. lxx, lxxiv) the high numbers of the pages of St. John show that the Evangelist cannot have stood first in the volume, and this seems further supported by the Paris fragments, in which we find St. John following St. Luke in the same MS.

In this version, as in the Bohairic, the Epistle to the [pg 138] Hebrews was treated as the work of St. Paul; but instead of being placed, as there, after 2 Thessalonians and before 1 Timothy, it stood between 2 Corinthians and Galatians115. It clearly occupies this position in the Borgian MS. lxxx (Zoega, p. 186): and by calculating the pages I have ascertained that this must also have been its place in all the other MSS. of the Pauline Epistles of which fragments after 2 Corinthians are preserved. These are the Borgian fragments lxxxii, lxxxv, lxxxvi, (Zoega, p. 186 sq.), and the Crawford and Balcarres fragment (iv) described above (p. 132); all of which happily are paged.

The Oxford MS. Hunt. 394 is a proof that the Acts followed the Catholic Epistles in the Sahidic New Testament, as is the case also in the Memphitic. Woide indeed (Praef., p. 22), when describing this MS., says, exorditur ab Actis Apostolicis”; but, even if this be so, his own account of the paging shows that the leaves have been displaced in binding, and that the Catholic Epistles originally stood first. The vocabulary also places them before the Acts.

The Sahidic version appears to be in one respect less faithful to the original than the Bohairic. So far as I am able to judge, it pays more respect to the Egyptian idiom, frequently omitting the conjunction and leaving the sentences disconnected. As regards the vocabulary, it adopts Greek words with as great facility as the Bohairic, or even greater. This we should hardly anticipate in Upper Egypt, which must have been comparatively free from Greek influence. Altogether it is a rougher and less polished version than the Bohairic.

The real textual value of the Sahidic cannot under present circumstances be assigned with any certainty. What would be received by one school of critics would not be admitted by another. But the Editor readily records the verdict of Bishop Lightfoot that the text of it, though very ancient, is inferior to the Bohairic, and less pure; that it exhibits a certain infusion of readings which were widely spread in the second century, and may very probably have had, to a considerable extent, a Western origin; that it differs very largely from the Traditional text; and that both in text and in interpretation it is entirely independent of the Bohairic. The coincidences are not greater than must have been exhibited by two separate translations in allied dialects from independent [pg 139] texts of the same original. Of any mutual influence of the versions of Upper and Lower Egypt on each other no traces are discernible.

The following passage from Acts xvii. 12-16 will serve to illustrate the independence of these two versions.

Bohairic.Sahidic.
12 ⲟⲩⲙⲏϣ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ12 ϩⲁϩ ⲑⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲉⲛϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ
ⲛϧⲏⲧⲟⲩ ⲁⲩⲛⲁϩϯ ⲛⲉⲙⲁⲩⲡⲓⲥⲧⲉⲩⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛⲥϩⲓⲙⲉ
ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ ⲛϩⲓⲟⲙⲓϩⲉⲗⲗⲏⲛ ⲙⲁⲟ
ⲛⲉⲩⲥⲭⲏⲙⲱⲛ ⲛⲉⲙ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲉⲣⲱⲓ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲛⲁϣⲱⲟⲩ⁘
ⲏ ϩⲁⲛⲕⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲁⲛ⁘13 ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩⲉⲓⲙⲉ
13 ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲉⲙⲓ ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲛⲓⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓⲑⲉ ⲑⲓ ⲓⲟⲩⲇⲁⲓ ⲛⲏ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩ
ⲛⲧⲉ ⲑⲉⲥⲥⲁⲗⲟⲡⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉⲑⲉⲥⲁⲗⲗⲟⲛⲓⲕⲏ ϫⲉ
ⲁ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲓϣ ϧⲉⲛⲁⲩⲧⲁϣⲉⲟⲉⲓϣ ϩ ⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ
ⲧⲕⲉⲃⲉⲣⲟⲓⲁ ⲙⲡⲓⲥⲁϫⲓ ⲛⲧⲉⲡϣⲁϫⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧ
ⲫⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉ ⲡⲓⲕⲉⲙⲁⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ
ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉⲟⲛ ⲉⲙⲁⲩ ⲉⲩϣⲧⲟⲣⲧ
ⲛⲓⲙⲏϣ ⲉⲩϣⲑⲟⲣⲧⲉⲙⲙⲱⲟⲩ⁘ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲕⲓⲙ ⲉ ⲡⲙⲏⲏϣⲉ⁘
14 ⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲥⲁⲧⲟⲧⲟⲩ14 ⲧⲉⲩⲛⲟⲩ ⲇⲉ ⲁ ⲛⲉⲥⲛⲏⲩ
ⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲛϫⲉϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲉ ⲧⲣⲉϥⲃⲱⲕ
ⲛⲓⲥⲛⲏⲟⲩ ⲉ ⲑⲣⲉϥϣⲉ ⲉϫⲉⲛϩⲣⲁⲓ ⲉϫ ⲑⲁⲗⲁⲥⲥⲁ
ⲫⲓⲟⲙ ⲁⲩⲥⲱϫⲡ ⲇⲉ ⲙⲙⲁⲩⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲋⲱ ⲙⲟⲟⲩ
ⲛϫⲉ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ⁘
15 ⲛⲏ ⲇⲉ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲧⲫⲉ15 ⲛⲉⲧⲕⲁⲑⲓⲥⲧⲁ
ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲁⲩⲉⲛϥ ⲉϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲉⲇⲉ ⲙⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ
ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲧⲁⲩⲋⲓⲁⲩϥ ϣⲁ ⲁⲑⲉⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ
ⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ ⲉ ⲋⲓ ⲡϣⲓⲛⲓ ⲛⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲣⲟⲩϫⲓ ⲟⲩⲉⲛⲧⲟⲗⲏ
ⲛⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥⲧⲟⲟⲧϥ ϣⲁ ⲥⲓⲗⲁⲥ
ϩⲓⲛⲁ ⲛⲥⲉⲓ ϩⲁⲣⲟϥ ⲛⲭⲱⲗⲉⲙ ⲧⲓⲙⲟⲑⲉⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲉⲩⲉⲉⲓ
ⲁⲩⲓ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲁⲩϣⲉⲛⲱⲟⲩ⁘ϣⲁⲣⲟϥ ϩ ⲟⲩⲋⲉⲡⲏ ⲁⲩⲉⲓ
16 ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ ⲛⲁϥⲉⲃⲟⲗ⁘
ϩⲉⲛ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲁⲥ ⲉϥⲥⲟⲙⲥ16 ⲉⲣⲉ ⲡⲁⲩⲗⲟⲥ ⲇⲉ
ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲁϫⲱⲟⲩ ⲁϥϫⲱⲛⲧⲋⲱϣⲧ ϩⲏⲧⲟⲩ ϩ ⲁⲑⲏⲛⲛⲁⲓⲁⲥ
ⲇⲉ ⲛϫⲉ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁ ⲡⲉϥⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ
ⲛϩⲣⲏⲓ ⲛϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ ⲉϩⲟϫϩⲉϫ ϩⲏⲧϥ ⲉϥⲛⲁⲩ
ϯⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲥⲟϣ ⲙⲙⲉⲧϣⲁⲙϣⲉⲉⲧⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ⲉⲙⲙⲉϩ ⲙⲁⲉⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘
ⲓⲇⲱⲗⲟⲛ⁘
[pg 140]

[(4) The Fayoum Version.]

[The history of the discovery of the third Egyptian version, and the reasons that have caused it to be assigned to the district of the Fayoum, have been given above.

The Fayoum (ⲫⲓⲟⲙ: ⲡⲓⲟⲙ: ⲡⲓⲁⲙ) is a district of Egypt situated to the west of the Nile valley, from which it is separated by a narrow strip of desert, and lying about eighty miles to the south of the apex of the Delta. It is a large depression in the desert, which has been reclaimed and fertilized by an offshoot of the Nile, now called the Bahr-il-Yousouf, and is distinguished at the present day for its extreme fertility. It appears to have been particularly prosperous and thickly populated in Ptolemaic and Roman times; and in the desert surrounding the cultivated land are the remains of several Greek cities, and of large Coptic monasteries; and it is from here that the chief part of the collection of papyrus fragments now in Berlin and Vienna have been obtained.

The dialect of this district, both in the fragments of the Scriptures preserved in it, and in the other documents more recently discovered (Z. A. S. 23, 1885, p. 26), presents very marked peculiarities. As regards vowels it shows the following amongst other variations as compared with Sahidic. It substitutes ⲁ for ⲉ: ⲛⲉⲕ for ⲛⲁⲕ; ⲗⲉⲛ for ⲣⲁⲛ; ⲕⲉⲉⲃ for ⲭⲁϥ : ⲕⲁⲁϥ; ⲏ for ⲉ: ⲥⲏⲛⲧⲓ for ⲥⲉⲛϯ : ⲥⲛⲧⲉ; ⲏⲙⲓ for ⲉⲙⲓ : ⲉⲓⲙⲉ; ⲁ for ⲟ: ⲃⲁⲗ for ⲉⲃⲟⲗ; ⲗⲁⲃ for ⲉⲣⲟϥ; ⲟ for ⲱ: ϩⲟⲃ for ϩⲱⲃ; ⲗⲟⲙⲓ for ⲗⲱⲙⲓ (= ⲡⲱⲙⲓ : ⲣⲱⲙⲉ). In consonants it has two very marked features, the substitution of ⲗ for ⲣ, as ⲉⲗ, ⲉⲗⲉ, ⲗⲉⲡ; ϣⲏⲗⲓ for ⲉⲣ, ⲉⲣⲉ, &c., and of ⲃ for final ϥ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲃ for ⲛⲧⲟϥ.

A considerable amount of this version still probably remains unpublished, but specimens may be discovered in the following:

1. Giorgi. Fragmentum Evangelii S. Joannis &c. (see p. 128) contains 1 Cor. ix. 9-16.

2. Zoega. Catalogus &c. (See p. 102.)

[pg 141]

3. Engelbreth. Fragmenta Basmurico-Coptica Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Havniae, 1811.

4. Maspero. Recueil, 11 (1889), p. 116.

5. Mittheilungen, i. p. 69. Matt. xi. 27.

6. Mittelaegyptische Bibelfragmente, in Études Archéologiques Linguistiques et Historiques dédiées à M. le Dr. C. Leemans. Leide, 1885. (But perhaps this and 4 may be more correctly classed as Middle Egyptian or Lower Sahidic.)

On this version Bishop Lightfoot wrote: “As the Bashmuric is a secondary version, it has no independent value, and is only useful in passages where the Sahidic is wanting.” This opinion would hardly represent the present position. That the Sahidic and Fayoum versions are not independent is quite true, but the relation of them to one another is much more that they are different forms of the same version, of which on the whole perhaps the Fayoum represents the older and more primitive text.]

[(5) The Middle Egyptian116 or Lower Sahidic Version.]

[It has already been explained that documents found on the site of Memphis exhibit a dialect different in some respects from any of those that we have yet considered. In this also fragments have been found of a translation of the New Testament.

The dialect shows a combination of Sahidic and Bohairic forms. It has ⲓⲱⲧ for Sah. ⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲙⲉⲧⲓⲱⲧ for ⲙⲛⲧⲉⲓⲱⲧ; ⲓⲱⲁⲛⲏⲥ for ⲓⲱϩⲁⲛⲛⲏⲥ; ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲟⲧⲕ; ϣⲧⲱⲣⲓ for ϣⲧⲱⲣⲉ. It agrees again with the Fayoum dialect (which is generally considered a variety of it) in its affection for ⲁ, as ⲛⲧⲁⲕ for ⲛⲧⲟⲕ, and apparently in using ⲗ for ⲣ, but only occasionally.

The following specimen from Rom. xi. 31-36 will exhibit the character of the dialect and the version: the Sahidic is taken from the Borgian fragment published by Amélineau, Z. A. S. 25, 1887, p. 49; the Middle Egyptian from “Mittheilungen,” ii. p. 69.

[pg 142]
Middle Egyptian. Sahidic.
xi. 31. ⲧⲉⲓ ⲧⲉⲧⲁⲓ ⲧⲉ
ⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲉⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩⲑⲏ ⲛⲛⲁⲓ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲧⲉⲛⲟⲩ · ⲉⲁⲩ
ⲉⲗⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲁ ·ⲣ ⲁⲧ ⲛⲁϩ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲡⲉⲧⲛⲛⲁ ·
ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲉⲉⲓ ⲛⲏⲩϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ ϩⲱⲟⲩ ⲉⲩⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ
32. ⲙⲛⲛⲥⲟⲥ · ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ ⲅⲁⲣⲙⲛⲛⲥⲱⲥ ⲁ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ
ⲁⲡⲧ ⲟⲩⲁⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲩⲉⲧⲡ ⲟⲩⲟⲛ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲉϩⲟⲩⲛ ⲉⲟⲩ
ⲙⲉⲧⲁⲧⲛⲉϩϯ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲁⲥⲙⲛⲧⲁⲧⲛⲁϩⲧⲉ · ϫⲉⲕⲁⲥ
ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ :ⲉϥⲉⲛⲁ ⲛⲁⲩ ⲧⲏⲣⲟⲩ :
33. ⲱ ⲡϣⲱⲕ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲱ ⲡϣⲓⲕⲉ ⲛⲧⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙ
ⲙⲁⲟ · ⲙⲛ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ · ⲙⲛⲙⲁⲟ ⲙⲛ ⲧⲥⲟⲫⲓⲁ ⲁⲩⲱ
ⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲫϯ · ⲛⲑⲏⲡⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲛⲑⲏ
ⲉⲧⲉⲙⲉⲩϣⲙⲁϣⲧ ⲛⲉϩⲉⲡⲉⲧⲉⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲙⲉϣⲧ ⲛⲉϥϩⲁⲡ
ⲙⲡⲛⲟⲩϯ · ⲁⲩⲱ ϩⲉⲛⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲉϣⲉⲛ
ⲁⲧⲧⲉⲛⲗⲉⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲉ ⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲁⲩⲓ ·ⲣⲁⲧⲟⲩ ⲛⲛⲉϥϩⲓⲟⲟⲩⲉ
34. ⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲙⲓ ⲉⲡⲛⲓⲙ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲙⲉ ⲉⲡ
ϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡⲟⲥ · ⲡⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁϩⲏⲧ ⲙⲡϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ · ⲡⲁⲓ ⲉⲧⲛⲁ
35. ⲥⲉ ⲃⲓⲏⲧϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉⲥⲉⲃⲉ ⲉⲓⲁⲧϥ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ
ⲧⲉ ⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛⲗⲉϥⲛⲧⲁϥϣⲱⲡⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛⲣⲉϥ
ϫⲓϣⲁϫⲛⲓ · ⲓⲉ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉϫⲓ ϣⲟϫⲛⲉ · ⲏ ⲛⲓⲙ ⲡⲉ
ⲧⲉ ⲁϥⲓⲗⲓ ⲛⲏϥ ⲛϣⲁⲣⲉⲡ ·ⲛⲧⲁϥⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲛⲁϥ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ
36. ⲛⲧⲁⲗⲉϥⲧⲟⲩⲓⲁ ⲛⲏϥ · ϫⲉⲧⲁⲣⲉϥ ⲧⲟⲩⲉⲓⲟ ⲛʁϥ · ϫⲉ
ⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲁϥⲡⲩⲏⲣϥ ϩⲉⲛ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ⲙⲙⲟϥ
ⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲁⲛⲉ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲃⲟⲗϩⲓⲧⲟ
ⲧϥ · ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲁⲧⲟⲩⲁⲧϥ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲉⲩⲛⲁⲕⲟⲧⲟⲩ
ⲉⲗⲁϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩⲉⲣⲟϥ · ⲡⲱϥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲟⲩ
ⲛϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ.ϣⲁ ⲛⲓⲉⲛⲉϩ ϩⲁⲙⲏⲛ.

Specimens of this version may be found in—

1. Mémoires de l'Institut égyptien, II. ii, edited by Bouriant.

2. Mittheilungen, ii. p. 69.

3. Coptic MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie, Esq., D.C.L., edited by W. E. Crum, p. 1.

4. It is also said to be contained in some Graeco-Coptic fragments recently acquired by the British Museum.

The lines between this dialect and version and that of the [pg 143] Fayoum are not, however, clearly defined, and further research may make it necessary to rearrange the different specimens mentioned in this and the preceding sections.

Textually the version is of equal value with that of the Fayoum, that is, it represents another tradition of the version of Upper Egypt, of which Sahidic was the most important representative.]

[(6) The Akhmîm Dialect.]

[It would have probably been more scientific to have begun our discussion of the versions of Upper Egypt with a description of the Akhmîm dialect. It certainly represents the language in an older form than any other dialect we have examined; unfortunately such a very small fragment of the New Testament version exists that its importance at present can hardly be estimated.

The Akhmîm dialect is known to us by a series of Apocryphal and Biblical fragments published by M. Bouriant (Mémoires, i. p. 243), and has the following characteristics. In its vowels its affinities are nearest to the Middle Egyptian; it has ⲁ for ⲟ, ⲁⲩ for ⲟⲟⲩ, and ⲉ for ⲁ. It does not use ⲗ for ⲣ. Like the Sahidic it has double vowel-endings, and the weak final ⲉ, but not ⲫ, ⲑ, ⲭ for ⲡϩ, ⲧϩ, ⲕϩ. It also has some Bohairic forms, such as ⲛⲟⲩ, ⲁⲣⲉ, ⲁϥ. In the vowels it has the following peculiarities: ⲁ for ⲉ (Sah.), ⲁϩⲟⲩⲛ, ⲁϩⲣⲏⲓ, ⲁⲣⲁⲕ, ⲁⲃⲁⲗ; ⲓ or ⲉⲓ for ⲏ, ⲡⲓ (sun), ⲥⲙⲉⲓ, ⲧϩⲉⲓ; ⲟⲩ for ⲱ, ⲕⲟⲩ, ϫⲟⲩ, ⲥⲃⲟⲩ; ⲟ for ⲁⲩ, ⲛⲟ, ⲥⲛⲟ.

But its most distinguishing feature is an entirely new letter, [Symbol: Coptic “hori” glyph with additional stroke to lower left]: this may represent ϣ of other dialects; [Symbol: the new glyph] for ⲉϣ (to know), ⲉϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲁϣ; or ϫ as ⲧϩⲡⲟ [with the new glyph] for ϫⲡⲟ; or ϧ : ϩ, as ⲱⲛϩ [with the new glyph] for ⲱⲛϧ; ⲥϩⲉⲓ [with the new glyph] for ⲥϧⲁⲓ.

The textual affinities can hardly be worked out with the small amount of material we possess, but there seems to be little doubt that it represents in a very early form the same version that we are acquainted with in Sahidic. Further discoveries in this dialect may do much to make us acquainted with the early history of the version of Upper Egypt.

Only two short fragments of this version are known, which have been edited by Mr. W. E. Crum in his edition of the Coptic [pg 144] MSS. brought from the Fayoum by W. M. Flinders Petrie (p. 2). They are contained in a parchment MS. of very great antiquity (Mr. Crum suggests the fourth century, but this is certainly too early), and contain St. James iv. 12-13, St. Jude 17-20. The following comparison of it with the Sahidic will show both the similarity of the versions and the differences of the dialect.

Akhmimic.Sahidic.
Jude 17. ⲛⲛϣⲉϫⲉ ⲙⲡϫⲁⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ 17. ⲛⲛϣⲁϫⲉ ⲙⲡⲉϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ ⲓⲥ
ⲭⲥ ⲛⲉⲓ ⲉⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ ⲡⲉⲭⲥ ⲛⲁⲓ ⲧⲁ ⲛⲉϥⲁⲡⲟⲥⲧⲟⲗⲟⲥ
ϫⲟⲟⲩ ⲉϫⲛ ϩⲁⲣⲡ' ⲁⲃⲁⲗ · ϫⲟⲟⲩ ϫⲓⲛ ⲛϣⲟⲣⲡ · ⲉⲃⲟⲗ
18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧϩⲁⲉⲓ 18. ϫⲉ ⲁⲩⲇⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ϩⲛ ⲑⲁⲏ
ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲁⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ ⲛⲛⲉⲟⲩⲟⲉⲓϣ ⲟⲩⲛ ϩⲉⲛⲣⲉϥϫⲣϫⲣⲉ
ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲁⲁϩⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ ⲛⲏⲩ ⲉⲩⲙⲟⲟϣⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲛⲉⲡⲓ
ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲟⲩⲙⲡⲧ' ϩⲉϥⲧ · ⲑⲩⲙⲓⲁ ⲛⲛⲉⲩⲙⲡⲧϣⲁϥⲧⲉ ·
19. ⲛⲉⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲁⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ 19. ⲛⲁⲓ ⲛⲉⲧⲡⲱⲣϫ ⲁⲃⲟⲗ ⲉϩⲉⲛ
ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲥ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲙⲛⲧⲉⲩ ⲡⲡⲛ ⲯⲩⲭⲓⲕⲟⲛ ⲛⲉ ⲉⲙⲛⲧⲟⲩ ⲡ
· 20. ⲧⲱⲧⲛⲉⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲣⲣⲉ · ⲙⲁⲩ · 20. ⲧⲱⲧⲛⲇⲉⲛⲁⲙⲉⲣⲁ ·
ⲧⲉ ϩⲱⲡⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ ⲕⲱⲧ ⲙⲱⲧ ⲧⲉ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛ ⲕⲱⲧ ⲡⲱⲧⲉⲛ ...
ⲛⲉ ϩⲛ ⲧⲉⲧⲛⲡⲓⲥⲧⲓⲥ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ
ⲡϣ ⲉⲧⲉⲧⲛϣⲗⲏⲗ ϩⲙ
ⲡⲛⲁ ⲉⲧⲟⲩⲁⲁⲃⲉ

It has only been possible in the above account to give a rough outline of more recent discovery. Further investigation is necessary, and the lines which divide the different dialects, especially those between Fayoumic and Middle Egyptian, require to be more accurately defined. Much may be hoped also from the results of future discovery. The rubbish heaps of the monasteries, the concealed libraries, the graves, have yielded up some of their treasures, but all has not yet been brought to light. Enough has been written to suggest that discoveries of great interest for the life and character of early Egyptian Christianity have been made, and that much still remains to be found, which may indirectly throw a flood of light on the early history of Christianity as a whole117.]

[pg 145]

Chapter V. The Other Versions Of The New Testament.

The remaining Versions are of less importance in the ascertainment of the sacred text. But some of them have recently received more attention in the general widening of research, and in becoming better known have strengthened their claims to recognition and value. Three of them, at all events, date from the period of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament now known to be in existence. And the presence amongst us of eminent scholars acquainted with them renders reference to them more easy than it was a few years ago.

Nevertheless, some are of slight service to the critic, being secondary versions, and as such becoming handmaids, not of the Greek, but of some other version translated from the Greek.

In the account of these versions, the Editor of this edition is indebted for most valuable assistance to Mr. F. C. Conybeare, late Fellow of University College, Oxford, who has re-written the sections on the Armenian and Georgian versions; to Professor Margoliouth, who has also re-written those on the Ethiopic and Arabic; to the Rev. Llewellyn J. M. Bebb, Fellow of Brasenose College, who has re-written the account of the Slavonic; and to Dr. James W. Bright, Assistant-Professor of English Philology in the John Hopkins University, who has contributed what is known on the Anglo-Saxon Version.

(1) The Gothic Version (Goth.).

The history of the Goths, who from the wilds of Scandinavia overran the fairest regions of Europe, has been traced by the master-hand of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Chapters x, xxvi, xxxi, &c.), and needs not here be repeated. While the nation was yet seated in Moesia, Ulphilas or Wulfilas [318-388], [pg 146] a Cappadocian, who succeeded their first Bishop Theophilus in a.d. 348, though himself an Arian and a teacher of that subtil heresy to his adopted countrymen, became their benefactor, by translating both the Old118 and New Testament into the Gothic, a dialect of the great Teutonic stock of languages, having previously invented or adapted an alphabet expressly for their use. There can be no question, from internal evidence, that the Old Testament was rendered from the Septuagint, the New from the Greek original119: but the existing manuscripts testify to some corruption from Latin sources, very naturally arising during the occupation of Italy by the Goths in the fifth century. These venerable documents are principally three, or rather may be treated under two MSS. and one group.

1. Codex Argenteus, the most precious treasure of the University of Upsal, in the mother-country of the Gothic tribes. It appears to be the same copy as Ant. Morillon saw at Werden in Westphalia towards the end of the sixteenth century, and was taken by the Swedes at the siege of Prague in 1648. Queen Christina gave it to her librarian, Isaac Vossius, and from him it was very rightly purchased about 1662 by the Swedish nation and deposited at Upsal. This superb codex contains fragments of the Gospels (in the Western order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) on 187 leaves, 4to (out of 330), of purple vellum; the bold, uncial, Gothic letters being in silver, sometimes in gold, of course much faded, and so regular that some have imagined, though erroneously, that they were impressed with a stamp. The date assigned to it is the fifth or early in the sixth century, although the several words are divided, and some various readings stand in the margin primâ manu.

2. Codex Carolinus, described above for Codd. PQ, and for the Old Latin gue, contains in Gothic about forty verses of the Epistle to the Romans, first published by Knittel, 1762.

3. Codices Ambrosiani, or palimpsest fragments of five manuscripts, apparently like Cod. Carolinus, from Bobbio, and of about the same date, discovered by Mai in 1817 in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and published by him and Count C. O. Castiglione (Ulphilæ Partium Ineditarum ... Specimen, in five parts, Milan, 1819, 1820, 1834, 1835, 1839). The last-named manuscripts are minutely described and illustrated by a rude facsimile in Horne's Introduction, and after him in Tregelles' Horne, vol. iv. [pg 147] pp. 304-7. They consist of (1) a portion of St. Paul's Epistles, under Homilies of Gregory the Great (viii); (2) portions of St. Paul, under Jerome on Isaiah (viii or ix); (3) parts of the Old Testament, under Plautus and part of Seneca; (4) under four pages of St. John in Latin part of St. Matt. xxvi, xxvii. The fifth fragment consists of Acts of the Council of Chalcedon with no extracts from the Bible. Mai refers some of the Gothic writing to the sixth century and some as far back as the fourth or beginning of the fifth. Unlike the Codex Argenteus (at least if we trust Dr. E. D. Clarke's facsimile of the latter), the words in Mai's palimpsests are continuous: they contain parts of Esther, Nehemiah (apparently no portion of the books of Kings), a few passages of the Gospels, and much of St. Paul120. H. F. Massmann (Ulfilas, Stuttgart, 1855-57) also added from an exposition a few verses of St. John, and there are fragments at Vienna and Rome121.

These fragments (for such they still must be called)122, in spite of the influence of the Latin, approach nearer to the received text, in respect of their readings, than the Egyptian or one or two other versions of about the same age; and from their similarity in language to the Teutonic have been much studied in Germany. The fullest and best edition of the whole collected, with a grammar and lexicon, is by H. C. von der Gabelentz and J. Loebe (Ulfilas Vet. et N. Testamenti versionis Gothicae fragmenta quae supersunt, Leipsic, 1836-46, viz. vol. i. Text, 1836; Pars ii. Glossarium, 1843; Pars ii. Grammatik, 1846), and of the Codex Argenteus singly that of And. Uppstrom (with a good facsimile), Upsal, 1854. This scholar published separately in 1857 ten leaves of the manuscript which had been stolen between 1821 and 1834, and were restored through him by the penitent thief on his death-bed. The Gothic Gospels, however, had been cited as early as 1675 in Fell's N. T., and more fully in Mill's, through Francis Junius' edition (with Marshall's critical notes), which was printed at Dort in 1665, from Derrer's accurate [pg 148] transcript of the Upsal manuscript, made in or about 1655, when it was in Isaac Vossius' possession. Other editions of the Codex Argenteus were published by G. Stiernhielm in 1671 for the College of Antiquaries at Stockholm; by E. Lye at the Clarendon Press in 1750 from the revision of Eric Benzel, Archbishop of Upsal; and (with the addition of the fragments in the Codex Carolinus) by Jo. Ihre in 1763, and by J. C. Zahn in 1805. And also the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 1865, and Ulfila, oder die Gotische Bibel (N. T.), E. Bernhardt, Halle, 1875, and St. Mark with a grammatical commentary, R. Müller and H. Hoeppe, 1881, and Skeat, Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic, Clarendon Press, 1882.

(2) The Armenian Version.

The existing Armenian version is a recension made shortly after the Council of Ephesus of a still earlier version, which was based in part upon a Syriac, in part upon a Greek original. This latest recension was made according to “accurate and reliable copies” of the Greek Bible, which, along with the Canons of the Council of Ephesus, were brought from Constantinople about the year 433. One would naturally wish for more details than the above brief statement contains; yet it is all that one can definitely infer from the history of the version as related by three nearly contemporary writers, whose accounts we now subjoin, namely, Koriun, Lazar of Pharpi, and Moses Khorenatzi.

Koriun123 in his life of St. Mesrop (written between 441 and 452 a.d.) relates as follows:—

In the fifth year of the reign of Vramshapho [i.e. about 397 a.d.], St. Mesrop was first in Edessa, then in Amid, lastly in Samosata, busy all the time about his discovery of the Armenian characters124. In Samosata, where he was received with great respect by the clergy and bishop, Mesrop met with a Greek scribe, Hrofanos (? Rufinus), in conjunction with whom, and [pg 149] with the help of two pupils named John and Joseph, he undertook a translation of the Bible. They began—and this is noteworthy—with the book of the Proverbs of Solomon; Hrofanos or Rufinus writing down the translation with his own hand. Mesrop next visited the Bishop of the Syrians, who congratulated him on his work. He then returned to Nor Chalach, or new city, as Valarshapat was called by the Romans, in the sixth year of Vramshapho's reign, a.d. 398. At a later time, Koriun, the writer, was himself sent with Eznik to Constantinople, apparently in quest of books to translate; for they returned with a sure copy of the Scriptures, with works of the Fathers, and with the canons of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus. “Now St. Sahak had long before translated the collection of Church books from Greek into Armenian, as well as much true wisdom of the holy Patriarchs. But he now resumed, and taking with the help of Eznik the former translations made hurriedly and offhand, he confirmed them by the help of the true copies now brought, and they translated much commentary on the books.” The above is the gist of what Koriun has to tell us, though he mentions that scholars were sent to Edessa to translate and bring back the works of the Fathers. Why Mesrop began with the Book of Proverbs, whether he translated more than that, and from which language, we do not learn from Koriun. Lazar of Pharpi125, who wrote in the last half of the sixth century, is our next authority. He states that up to the last decade of the fourth century, the offices of religion were still read in Greater Armenia in Syriac, a language which the people did not understand. The edicts of the kings of Armenia were also written out in Syriac or Greek characters. But as soon as the Armenian alphabet was discovered, St. Sahak—who was patriarch 390-428 a.d. and an expert in Greek—set himself, in response to the patriotic exhortations of St. Mesrop, of Vramshapho the king, and of the clergy and nobles, to translate the Holy Scriptures. He states that St. Sahak's version comprised the whole of the Old and New Testaments, and was made from Greek.

Moses of Chorene, bk. iii. ch. 36 ff., copies, confuses, and adds to Koriun's account. A little before 370 a.d. the Persians [pg 150] overran Armenia, and Meroujah, their leader, burned all the books he could find in the country, proscribed the study of the Greek language, and enacted penalties against any who should speak it or translate from it. At that time, adds Moses, the offices of the church were performed in Greek, because the Armenian alphabet did not yet exist. On the death of Theodosius (Jan. 395 a.d.) there was a partition of Armenia between his successor Arcadius and the king of Persia, by which the latter took undisputed possession of the eastern provinces, including the basin of Ararat, in which lay the new religious centre Valarshapat or Edschmiadzin, the νέα πόλις of the Romans. The new Mesropic alphabet was at first used only in Persian Armenia; for, says Moses, in the parts dependent on the Greeks, all writing had to be in Greek characters, Syriac being forbidden. As soon as Mesrop had elaborated his alphabet with the aid of Hrophanos, he betook himself to the work of translation; and with the aid of his pupils John and Joseph, translated the entire twenty-two authentic books along with the New Testament, taking care to begin with the Book of Proverbs. About the year 406 he returned to Armenia, and found St. Sahak engaged in translating the Syriac Bible. He hints that Sahak would have preferred a Greek original, if Meroujah had not burned all the Greek books nearly thirty years before. This perhaps implies that the version, on which Mesrop had been engaged in Samosata, was made from Greek. Nor is that unlikely; for Rufinus, who helped him, was a Greek, and we learn from Koriun that there were Armenians in Edessa studying both Greek and Syriac. We read in bk. iii. ch. 60 of the History of Moses, about missions sent to Edessa and Byzantium in order to the translation of the works of the Fathers, but we hear nothing more expressly touching the Version of the Bible, save this, that after the Council of Ephesus, Sahak and Mesrop, then in Ashtishat in Taron, received from Byzantium, as aforesaid, the canons of the council recently held, along with accurate copies of the Greek Bible. On receipt of these, Sahak and Mesrop translated afresh what had already been translated, and were zealous in recasting the text. But they were not, it seems, after all, satisfied with their work, and sent Moses to Alexandria to learn the “beautiful tongue” (i.e. Greek), with a view to a more accurate articulation and division (of the Armenian scriptures).

[pg 151]

The above summary exhausts the evidence of Moses of Khorene126. It would appear therefrom that the Bible was translated twice into Armenian before the end of the fourth century; by Mesrop from Greek, and by Sahak from Syriac. The circumstance that Mesrop in Samosata began with the Proverbs of Solomon raises a suspicion that the earlier books had already been rendered, when and by whom is unknown. Certainly the reasons given by Koriun and by Moses for Mesrop beginning with Proverbs are insufficient. Moses again in stating that Sahak rendered the entire Bible from Syriac contradicts both Koriun and Lazar. Are we to infer that Sahak and Mesrop after 430 a.d. retranslated according to the Constantinople Bibles what they had already translated from Syriac, and also it would seem from a presumably less perfect Greek text? Anyhow it is unlikely that they would wholly sacrifice their own work, and we should therefore expect to find in the Armenian version a mixture of texts, namely of some old Syriac text, which must have been in vogue as late as 380, of some older Greek text supplied in Edessa or Samosata, and of the Constantinopolitan texts; which last may well have been among the fifty splendid copies which had been prepared under the order of Constantine by Eusebius a century before. If, and how far, these different elements enter into the Version can only be determined by a careful analysis of its readings. It may be that in some MSS. there lurks more of the unrevised text than in others127. The entire history is an apt illustration of that political see-saw between the Roman and the Persian powers which went on in Armenia during the fourth and fifth centuries, and out of which the patriotic vigour and devotion of St. Mesrop and St. Sahak carved at last a truly national Armenian Church, with an independent life and literature of its own.

The Armenian Version was collated for Robert Holmes' edition of the Septuagint, though not with desirable accuracy nor from the oldest MSS. For example, the Codex Arm. 3 of the Pentateuch, which Holmes declares, teste Adlero, to be of the year 1063, [pg 152] is but an eighteenth century codex. The collation of the New Testament in the eighth edition of Tischendorf's N. T. is accurate so far as it goes, but is far from being exhaustive or based on a consensus of the oldest MSS. Old codices of the Armenian Gospels are very common, and the present writer knows of as many as eight, none of them later than the year a.d. 1000; of four of these he has complete collations. The rest of the N. T. is only found in codices of the whole Bible, which are rare and always written in minuscules, never in uncials as are the Gospels. He knows of no copies of the whole Bible older than the twelfth century.

Two further questions call for brief answer:—1. Have we the Armenian version as it left the hands of the fifth century translators 2. Did the fifth century version comprise the whole of the Old and New Testament?

In regard to the first question, it must be admitted as probable that changes were subsequently made, at least in the New Testament, in the way both of omission and addition; e.g. in St. Luke xxii. 44, out of four very early uncial codices collated by the writer, the words: ἐγένετο δὲ ὁ ἱδρῶς αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι αἵματος καταβαίνοντες ἐπι τὴν γῆν, are found only in one, and that one the earliest, being dated 902 a.d. The words which precede ὤφθη δ—ὲπροσηύχετο are omitted in all four of them. We may infer that ver. 44 was in the original version, and was omitted from the three codices for doctrinal reasons. The additions made to the text after the fifth century are easier to detect; because they only come in some MSS. and not in others, and also because there is so much discrepancy of readings between those codices which add them, that they are at once seen to be lacunas supplied by different hands. This is the case, for example, with the end of St. Mark's Gospel, which only comes in one of the four codices mentioned, namely in the oldest Edschmiadzin Codex, under the heading “of the Elder Ariston,” which may refer to Aristion, teacher of Papias, or to Ariston of Pella. The case is the same with the episode of the woman taken in adultery. For the settlement of such points there is wanted a careful collation of the oldest codices.

In answer to the other question we may state, without entering into the proof of it, that the fifth century version included all the books of the Old and New Testament save the third book [pg 153] of Ezra, Esther, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, and perhaps the Maccabees. For as we read in Elisaeus that Vartan Mamikonean in the middle of the fifth century inspired his troops to deeds of valour against the Persians by reading to them the Book of Maccabees, we may fairly infer that that also was already then rendered. It may be added that the Psalms were rendered for church use prior to the rest of the Bible, and were translated afresh by Mesrop and his disciples; also that the Book of Revelations was translated twice. The double translation of both these books is a fact which can be traced in various MSS.

One other point must be noticed. From the history of Moses of Chorene, it is not clear what were the imperfections of the Armenian version, to remedy which Moses was sent to Alexandria. We cannot suppose that Mesrop and Sahak and Eznik, and the other doctors who had already translated the Greek codices brought from Byzantium, were incompetent Greek scholars. The object therefore of Moses' voyage to Alexandria was probably that he might add to the Armenian text the Sections of Ammonius, and also the asterisks and obeli of Origen's Hexaplaric copy128. The Ammonian Sections are found in all Armenian New Testaments, and in some copies of the Bible the Origenian marks as well; for instance, in Codex 3270 of the Bibliotheca Vindobonensis. There is no evidence that the Armenians ever used a version of Tatian's Diatessaron.

The following is a list—not exhaustive—of the oldest known codices of the Armenian Gospels, or “Avetaran”:—

1. In the Library of the Lazareffski Institute in Moscow, written in large uncials on parchment, dated in the year 336 of the Armenian era = a.d. 887. Size, 37.75 × 28 cent.; 229 folios.

2. In the Library of the Mechitarists in the island of San Lazaro, in Venice, an uncial codex, on parchment, written in the year 351 of the Armenian era = a.d. 902.

3. In the same Library, on parchment, in large uncials, dated 1006.

4. In the same Library, in large uncials, on parchment, undated, but evidently older than No. 2.

5. In the Patriarchal Library of Edschmiadzin in Russian Armenia, No. 222 of the printed catalogue of Jacob Kareneantz (Tiflis, 1863). [pg 154] This book is bound in ivory covers, carved, as it would seem, in the Ravennese style in the fifth or sixth century. In large uncials, on parchment, written a.d. 989.

6. In the same Library is No. 223, an uncially written parchment codex. The earliest of the colophons dates from a.d. 1260 and is in majuscule, but the codex itself seems to be at least two centuries and a half earlier.

7. In the same Library, No. 229, written in miniscule, on parchment, a.d. 1035.

8, 9. In the same Library, Nos. 224, 225, in large uncials, on parchment, presumably as old as the eleventh century, but undated.

10. In Tiflis, in an Armenian church. In large uncials, on parchment. Undated, but certainly prior to a.d. 1000.

11. In the Library of the British Museum, in large uncials, on parchment, undated. Probably of the ninth century, but not after the tenth, according to Dr. Baronean, author of the British Museum Catalogue.

12. In Karin or Erzeroum, in large uncials, on parchment. Dated a.d. 986.

13. In the Library of the Fathers of St. Anthony, in Constantinople. Dated a.d. 960.

14. In the island monastery of Sevan, on the lake of that name in Russian Armenia. In large uncials, on parchment. Written during primacy of Vahan, circa a.d. 966.

15. In uncials, on parchment; written in Macedonia, under the Emperor Basil, a.d. 1011. (Carékin, Catalogue des Traductions, omits to specify in what library.)

16. Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. Codex Armenus VII contains the Four Gospels. Codex Bombyc, litteris uncialibus scriptus.

17. In the same Library, Cod. Arm. VIII. Membranaceus, litteris uncialibus scriptus.

(3) The Ethiopic Version (Eth.).

The Ethiopic translation of the Bible is assigned by Guidi to the end of the fifth, or beginning of the sixth century, the time at which Christianity became the dominant religion in Abyssinia. That religion after a period of decadence began to flourish again in the twelfth century, but in dependence on the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The two principal classes of Ethiopic Biblical MSS. are connected with these periods respectively; the first class being derived from the Greek text before, and the latter after the Alexandrian recension. The corrections, however, vary in different copies, and appear to be the result of desultory rather [pg 155] than of systematic alteration. The MSS. of the Ethiopic N. T. are rarely complete; ordinarily the Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Catholic Epistles with the Acts and the Apocalypse constitute separate volumes. The oldest copy of the Gospels would seem to be no. 32 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, written in the reign of Yekūnō Amlāk; whereas MS. 33 of the same collection represents the later text. Examples of the different recensions are given by Guidi, Atti della R. Academia dei Lincei: Classe di scienze morali &c., iv. 1888, from whom most of the above statements are taken.

Copies of the N. T., especially of the Gospels, are to be found in most collections of Ethiopic MSS.; see especially Wright, Ethiopic MSS. of the British Museum, pp. 23-39, and Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS. Éthiopiens de la Bibliothèque Nationale (nos. 32-48; in the preface to this latter work a list of other collections are given); also Dillmann, Abessinische Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (no. 20, the four Gospels; 21, the Gospel of St. John); D'Abbadie, Catalogue Raisonné de MSS. Éthiopiens (Paris, 1859; nos. 2, 47, 82, 95, 112, 173, the four Gospels; no. 119, St. Paul's Epistles; no. 164, Catholic Epp., Apoc., and Acts); Dillmann, Catalogus MSS. Aethiop. in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, nos. 10-15; Fr. Müller, Aethiop. Handschriften der K. K. Hofbibliothek in Wien (Z. D. M. G., xvi. p. 554, no. v, the Gospels; no. vi, St. John's Gospel); “Bulletin Scientifique de S. Pétersbourg,” ii. 302 (account of a MS. of the Gospels in the Asiatic Institute at St. Petersburg), iii. 148 (account of a MS. of the four Gospels, bearing the date 78 = 1426 a.d., in the Public Library at St. Petersburg, and another of St. John's Gospel).

The Ethiopic N. T. was first printed in Rome, 1548, cum epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos tantum, cum concordantiis Evangelistarum Eusebii et numeratione omnium verborum eorundem. Quae omnia curavit Fr. Petrus Ethyops auxilio priorum sedente Paulo iii. Pont. Max. et Claudio illius regni imperatore (edition of Tasfā Sion). The remaining thirteen Epistles of St. Paul were printed in 1549. This edition was reproduced in the London Polyglott. Another was issued by T. P. Platt (for the Bible Society) in 1830, reprinted 1844 and 1874. These editions are based on MSS. containing mixed recensions, and are therefore of no critical value.

[pg 156]

(4) The Georgian Version (Georg.).

The Church of the Iberians was founded during the reign of Constantine according to tradition; though, if we consider how intimate and frequent had been from a much earlier period their intercourse with the Greeks, we may safely infer that the seeds of Christianity had been long before sown among them. There is no certain evidence of the date at which they translated the Scriptures; but it is probable that their version of the New Testament was made in the fifth and sixth centuries; and that it was made from a Greek text the most perfunctory examination suffices to prove. According to Armenian historians of the fifth century, St. Mesrop, at the same time that he invented the Armenian characters and made the Armenian version for his own countrymen, fulfilled the same service for the Georgians also. In this tradition, however, the Georgians do not concur; and, no doubt, rightly, seeing that their ancient alphabet and their version are alike independent of the Armenian. It is said by some native Georgian scholars that before the tenth century a revision was made of their version, in order to make it more complete.

The present writer knows of no manuscript of the entire Bible in Europe except at Mount Athos, where there is one reputed to be of the tenth century. Others are preserved in the Convents of the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, and of Mount Sinai. In the Vatican Library there is a codex of the New Testament, neatly written on parchment in majuscule, parts of which the present writer has collated with the printed text. This codex is at least as old as the thirteenth century, and in the collations below is referred to as a. Beside this codex the writer has examined in the Georgian Library at Tiflis three very ancient codices of the Gospels, written in uncials on parchment. These books were smaller in size than are, as a rule, the copies of the Gospels used in Eastern Churches.

Of the accompanying collations, nos. i-iv are made from them, and the passages collated were photographed by the present writer. These photographs, which represent the originals on a reduced scale, have been deposited by him in the Bodleian Library for the inspection of the curious. The text referred to as b is probably of the tenth century or earlier; the one referred [pg 157] to as c cannot be much later than the eleventh, while that indicated by d must belong to the twelfth, and is the most beautifully written of them.

The Bible was not printed in Georgian until the year 1743 at Moscow in large folio. It is a rare volume, and has never been reprinted. The character is that called ecclesiastical or priestly majuscule, which differs wholly from the civil characters and can, as a rule, be read by the priests only. The New Testament and Psalms have been reprinted at various times from this original edition, both in priestly and civil characters, and of the latter kind very good and cheap copies can be obtained at the British and Foreign Bible Society, printed, however, at Tiflis. It is said that the edition of 1743 was conformed to the Slavonic version of the Bible; and if this were true, it would, of course, impair its value for critical purposes. Of this statement, however, the writer's collations, so far as they go, afford no proof. Such variations as there are between the printed edition and the manuscript texts are notified in these collations. The point, however, could easily be settled by a thorough comparison of the printed text with the Slavonic.

The MSS. of Tiflis include the last verses of Mark, and the Vatican MS. contains the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, but places it after ver. 44, instead of after ver. 52 of the seventh chapter of John. The printed edition places it after ver. 52, and this uncertainty as to where to insert the narrative, in itself indicates that it is a later interpolation. The printed text also contains the text about the three witnesses; but it is pieced into the context in an awkward and ungrammatical way; and whether it is in any MS. the writer cannot say. The following all too brief collations prove that the printed text fairly represents the MSS.; from which, indeed, it differs very little except in its more modern orthography. It is certain, however, that the most ancient MSS. of this version must be collated and a critical text of it prepared, before it can be quite reliably used as an early witness to the Greek text in regard to any particular points. Where the earliest Greek authorities waver as to the particles by which the parts of the narrative shall be connected—some, e.g. giving καί, others δέ, others οὖν—the Georgian constantly passes abruptly to the new matter without any connecting particle at all—and this, although as a language [pg 158] Georgian is richer in such connecting particles than is Greek. This peculiarity of the version, which is also shared by the old Armenian version, seems to prove that it was made from a primitive text, in which editors had not yet begun to smooth away the sudden transitions.

(5) The Slavonic Version (Slav.129).

This version of the Bible is ascribed to Cyril and Methodius, who lived at the end of the ninth century. It is uncertain, however, how much of the New Testament was translated at that date, and how much was the work of a later time. The manuscripts of the version exist in two characters called Glagolitic and Cyrillic: of these it is now generally agreed that the former is the earlier. In considering the version from the point of view of the textual criticism of the New Testament, we need not deal with its later history except in so far as that throws light on its original form. The chief points to which reference will be made will be (i) the different Manuscripts in which the version exists, with their distinctive characteristics, and the evidence they afford as to the earliest form—the Urtext—of the version, and (ii) the Greek text presupposed by the version in the form in which we have it.

It will be convenient to divide the New Testament into three component parts, (i) the Gospels, (ii) the Acts and Epistles, or the Apostol as it is called in Slavonic, (iii) the Apocalypse. There can be little doubt that the Gospels were the earliest part to be translated or that this translation was made for liturgical purposes. This last point explains the great preponderance of [pg 159] MSS. of the version in which the Gospels are arranged in the form of a lectionary130.

Amongst the earliest manuscripts of the Gospels are the Codex Zographensis, Codex Marianus, and the Codex Assemanicus. The two first Jagić ascribes to the tenth or eleventh century. All these are written for the most part in the Glagolitic character. Besides these, mention must be made of the Ostromir Codex, written in Cyrillic characters, by Gregory, a deacon at Novgorod, and dating from the year 1056-7. In considering the distinctive characteristics of these manuscripts of the version, the first point to notice is that they each preserve certain dialectical forms and expressions by which their place of origin and to some extent their date can be determined. Thus Miklosich regards the Codex Zographensis and Codex Assemanicus as preserving Bulgarico-Slovenish forms, the Ostromir Codex as representative of Russo-Slovenish, and so on. It is mainly in these particulars that the manuscripts differ, though there are also other differences by means of which it has been determined that some Codices, especially those in the Glagolitic character, preserve the version in a more original form than others, as for example the Ostromir Codex. These differences consist131, (i) in orthography, (ii) in the fact that the later forms of the version translate Greek words left untranslated in the older forms, (iii) in the substitution of later and easier words for archaisms. It may also be noted that alterations are more numerous, as might be expected, in copies of the Gospels made for liturgical purposes than in other copies.

The same remarks would be true of the second part of the Bible, the Apostol. This is pointed out by Voskresenski in the book to which reference has been made, but which is known to the writer of these lines only from a review. A very careful examination of the text of the “Apostol,” based on the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, is made by Gorski and Nevostruiev in the work referred to above, pp. 292 ff.

Oblak has examined the Slavonic version of the Apocalypse, of which the manuscripts are fewer and later. The earliest [pg 160] manuscript is ascribed to the thirteenth century, but the textual corruption which it exhibits in comparison with other manuscripts requires that the version which it embodies should be referred at least to the twelfth century. We do indeed find a quotation of the Apocalypse (ix. 14) as early as the Isbornik of Sviatoslav of the year 1073, but in a form so different from the MSS. of the version now extant, that we must regard it as a quotation from memory. The MSS. have many small variations, sometimes merely dialectical, sometimes based on a different Greek text. They also show marks in places of having been corrected with the help of the Latin. But in spite of all their variations Oblak believes that all the manuscripts are to be referred to one common translation made from a Greek text of the Constantinopolitan type, which has been here and there corrupted by Western influence.

It may be noted in conclusion that the earliest dated complete manuscript of the Gospels is dated 1144, the earliest manuscript of the whole Bible, a.d. 1499, and that the earliest printed edition is the famous Ostrog Bible of 1581.

It remains to say something of the Greek text underlying the Slavonic version, for this is the special point of view from which the versions are being here considered. The instances will all be taken from the Gospels, though others might have been added from those collected by Gorski. In the first place it is necessary to draw attention to the fact that for critical purposes a modern edition of the version will be found insufficient. The following are cases132 where the edition published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, probably based on the Textus Receptus, is misleading as to the real original reading of the version. In St. Matt. xi. 2 Codd. Assem., Zograph., Ostrom., all imply the reading διά, the modern edition δύο: in St. John i. 28 the MSS. have Bethany, the edition Bethabara; in St. John vii. 39 the MSS. insert, the edition omits, δεδομένον; in St. Matt. xxv. 2 the MSS. put μωραί before φρόνιμοι, the edition inverts the order. The Ostromir Codex presents a later form of the version, and so we find instances where the other two MSS., just referred to, preserve what is probably a better reading. Thus in St. Luke ii. 3 they have οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ, the Ostromir Ἰωσὴφ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ; in [pg 161] St. John ix. 8 they have προσαίτης, it has τυφλός; in St. John xix. 14 they have τρίτη, it reads ἕκτη; in St. John xxi. 15 they have ἀρνία, it has πρόβατα. Again there are cases where one MS. of the version stands alone. Thus Codex Zogr. stands alone, as against Assem. and Ostrom., in omitting St. Luke xiv. 24, and inserting δευτεροπρώτῳ in St. Luke vi. 1. Again in the choice of Slavonic words for the same Greek original, Cod. Zogr. will agree with Codex Assem. against Codex Ostrom., though where the Codex Assemanicus is freer in its rendering, the Ostromir Codex and Codex Zographensis agree. Sometimes again the Codex Zographensis is alone in curious readings which seem to be conflations of the texts found in the other two manuscripts, or based on a conflate Greek text.

This version and the various manuscripts which contain it have received most attention from Slavonic philologists engaged in examining the earliest monuments of their language; but the readings which have been given will be enough to show that it does not deserve to be dismissed, as summarily as has been sometimes the case, from the number of those versions which have a value for purposes of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.

(6) The Arabic Version (Arab.).

Arabic versions (Arab.) are many, though of the slightest possible critical importance; their literary history, therefore, need not be traced with much minuteness. A notice is quoted from Bar-hebraeus (Assemani, Bibl. Or., ii. 335) to the effect that John, Patriarch of the Monophysites from 631-640, translated the “Gospel” from Syriac into Arabic; and some scholars have believed in the existence of a pre-Mohammedan version of parts at least of the New Testament on other grounds; from such a version (written in the “Hebrew” character) in the opinion of Sprenger (Das Leben und die Lehre Muhammads, i. 131) come the verses of St. John's Gospel (xv. 23-27, xvi. 1), cited by Ibn Ishaq (ob. 768) in his “Life of Mohammed” (ed. Wüstenfeld, i. 150)133. These verses are evidently translated from the (Jerusalem?) Syriac; but the translation of the Gospel, from the Syriac [pg 162] into Arabic, existing in a Leipzig MS. brought by Tischendorf from the East and described at length by Gildemeister (De evangeliis in Arabicum e simplici Syriaco translatis, Bonn, 1865) is shown by internal evidence to be posterior to Islam (pp. 30 sq.). The Arabic versions of the Gospel existing in MS. are divided by Guidi (Atti della R. Academia dei Lincei, classe di scienze morali &c., 1888, 1-30) into five sorts: (1) those made directly from the Greek; (2) made directly or corrected from the Peshitto; (3) made directly or corrected from the Coptic; (4) MSS. of two distinct eclectic recensions made in the Alexandrian Patriarchate in the thirteenth century; (5) MSS. (chiefly derived from the Syriac) which are distinguished by their style; being in rhymed prose or elegant Arabic. MSS. of the first sort can all, he says, be traced to the convent of St. Saba near Jerusalem, and are preceded by the lives of its founders, St. Eutimius and St. Saba; the version they contain is to be ascribed to the time of the Caliph Mamun (ninth century). Of the MSS. of class 4, one set represents a recension made by Ibn El-Assāl, circ. 1250; while another represents a less elaborate recension made shortly afterwards, in which the passages omitted in the other were restored, while marginal notes recorded their omission in other versions. Versions of the fifth class were made in the tenth, fourteenth, and seventeenth centuries. A list of MSS. containing the different recensions of all these classes is given by Guidi, l. c., pp. 30-33.

The printed texts all represent varieties of the second eclectic recension of class 4, of which five editions are enumerated by Gildemeister(l. c., pp. 42, 3, and iv). 1. Roman edition of the Gospels from the Medicean Press, 1591 (ar.r), edited by J. Baptista Raymundi, some copies having a Latin translation by Antonius Sionita. The MS. on which this edition was based is unknown. 2. Edition of Thomas Erpenius (1584-1624), Leyden, 1616, containing the whole New Testament (ar.e). This edition was based on the Leyden MS., Scaliger 217, written in Egypt in the year of the Martyrs 1059 (a.d. 1342-3); two other manuscripts also employed by Erpenius for the Gospels are now in the Cambridge University Library (G. 5. 33, and G. 5. 27, written a.d. 1285). A third MS. employed for this edition was in the Carshunic character. The Acts and Pauline Epistles, the Epistles of St. James, St. Peter 1 and St. John 1 in this edition are translated [pg 163] from the Peshitto; the remaining Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse are from some other source; the latter shows some remarkable agreement with the Memphitic (Hug, Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 433-5). 3. Edition of the whole N. T. in the Paris Polyglott (ar.p), 1645, reprinted with little alteration in the London Polyglott (1657). Gildemeister, l. c., proves against Lagarde (l. c., xi) that this recension in the Gospels is not an interpolated reprint of the Roman edition, but is based on a MS. similar to Paris Anc. f. 27 (of a.d. 1619) and Coisl. 239 (new Suppl. Ar. 27) described by Scholz, “Bibl. Krit. Reise,” pp. 56, 58. The Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse follow the Greek, but are by another translator. 4. Edition of the whole N. T. in the Carshunic character (Rome, 1703), edited by Faustus Naironus, for the use of the Maronites, from a MS. brought from Cyprus, reprinted Paris, 1827; the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse represent the same version as that of Erpenius, but in a different recension. 5. Edition of the four Gospels from a Vienna MS. (previously described by S. C. Storr, Dissertatio inauguralis critica de evangeliis Arabicis, Tübingen, 1875, p. 17 sq.), by P. de Lagarde (Die vier Evangelien Arabisch, Leipzig, 1864). The MS. contains various readings from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin (according to Lagarde, Gildemeister more naturally renders rūmī by Greek). The editor has prefixed a table of variants between his text and that of Erpenius, but regards the relation of the former to the original as involving questions too complicated for immediate discussion (p. xxxi).

Extracts from MSS. of Arabic versions in French and Italian libraries are given by J. M. A. Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise, Leipzig and Sorau, 1823; a description of several others, some of great antiquity, is to be found in Tischendorf's “Anecdota Sacra et Profana,” pp. 70-73 (2nd ed.); and Professor Rendel Harris, in “Biblical Fragments from Sinai” (Cambridge, 1890) has published a facsimile of a fragment of an Arabic version from a bilingual MS. of the ninth century; the version whence it is derived agrees with none of those that have been published, and was probably older than any of them.

The repeated revision and correction which these translations have undergone (Gildemeister, l. c., 1-3), while they give evidence of the industry and zeal of the Arabic-speaking Christians, have made scholars despair of employing them for critical purposes; [pg 164] “they rather serve,” says Gildemeister, “to illustrate the history of biblical and Christian studies.”

(7) The Anglo-Saxon Version (Sax.).

There is but one known version of the four Gospels (the only portion of the N. T. that was translated into A.-S.); this version was made, probably in the South-West of England at or near Bath, in the last quarter of the tenth century. It is preserved in four MSS.: (Corp.) Corpus Christi Coll. Camb. MS. 140; (B) Bodleian Lib. MS. 441; (C) Cotton MS. Otho C. I (seriously injured by fire), and (A) Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Ii. 2. 11. Of these the first three may be dated, in round number, about the year 1000; the fourth (A) belongs to the following half-century. The Bodl. Lib. has also recently acquired a fragment of four leaves of St. John's Gospel, which agrees closely with A. [Published by Napier in “Archiv f. n. Sprachen,” vol. lxxxvii. p. 255 f.]

It may also be mentioned that there are in the Brit. Mus. two additional copies of this version (Bibl. Reg. MS. I. A. xiv, and Hatton MS. 38). These belong to a period after the Conquest and have no critical value, for the first is copied from B, and the second is copied from the first.

This version is based upon a type of the Vulgate MSS. that has not yet been definitely determined. Old Latin readings make it certain that the original MS. was of the mixed type.

Next in importance to this version are the two following Latin MSS. of the four Gospels, with an interlinear Anglo-Saxon gloss. (1) MS. Nero D. 4 (the Lindisfarne MS., also known as the Durham Book). The Latin was written by Eadfrith, bishop of Lindisfarne 698-721; the interlinear gloss being about two and a half centuries later, made near Durham about the year 950. (2) The Rushworth MS. (Bodl. Lib. Auct. D. ii. 19). The Latin was written by the scribe Macregol, probably in the eighth century. The gloss, by the scribes Farman and Owun, is referred to the latter half of the tenth century. These two Latin texts differ but slightly; they are also of the Vulgate types.

All the MSS. that have now been mentioned are published in one volume (of four parts) by Professor W. W. Skeat: “The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian [pg 165] Versions, synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the readings of all the MSS.; together with the Early Latin Version as contained in the Lindisfarne MS.; collated with the Latin Version in the Rushworth MS. Cambridge: University Press, 1871-1887.” Dr. James W. Bright has published an edition of St. Luke's Gospel of the A.-S. Version, Oxford, 1892, and has in preparation a critical edition of the entire Version [which has been published recently]. The earlier editions of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels are by Archbishop Parker, 1571; Dr. Marshall (rector of Lincoln College), 1665; Benjamin Thorpe, 1842; Dr. Joseph Bosworth, 1865.

(8) The Frankish Version (Fr.).

A Frankish version of St. Matthew, from a manuscript of the ninth century at St. Gall, in the Frankish dialect of the Teutonic, was published by J. A. Schmeller in 1827. Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg., p. 225) thinks it worthy of examination, but does not state whether it was translated from the Greek or Latin: the latter supposition is the more probable.

(9) Persic Versions (Pers.).

Persic versions of the Gospels only, in print, are two: (1) one in Walton's Polyglott (pers.p) with a Latin version by Samuel Clarke (which C. A. Bode thought it worth his while to reconstruct, Helmstedt, 1750-51, with a learned Preface), obviously made from the Peshitto Syriac, which the Persians had long used (“yet often so paraphrastic as to claim a character of its own,” Malan, ubi supra, p. xi), “interprete Symone F. Joseph Taurinensi,” and taken from a single manuscript belonging to E. Pocock134, probably dated a.d. 1341. This version may prove of some use in restoring the text of the Peshitto. (2) The second, though apparently modern [xiv?] was made from the Greek (pers.w). Its publication was commenced in 1652 by Abraham Wheelocke, Professor of Arabic and Anglo-Saxon and University Librarian at Cambridge, at the expense of Sir Th. Adams, the generous and loyal alderman [pg 166] of London. The basis (as appears from the volume itself) was an Oxford codex (probably Laud. A. 96 of the old notation), which Wheelocke, in his elaborate notes at the end of each chapter, compared with Pocock's and with a third manuscript at Cambridge (Gg. v. 26), dated 1014 of the Hegira (a.d. 1607). On Wheelocke's death in 1653 only 108 pages (to Matt, xviii. 6) were printed, but his whole text and Latin version being found ready for the press, the book was published with a second title-page, dated London, 1657, and a short Preface by an anonymous editor (said to be one Pierson), who in lieu of Wheelocke's notes, which break off after Matt. xvii., appended a simple collation of the Pocock manuscript from that place. The Persians have older versions, parts of both Testaments, still unpublished. There is another copy of the Persian Gospels at Cambridge, which once belonged to Archbishop Bancroft, and was brought from Lambeth in 1646, but was not restored in 1662 with the other books belonging to the Lambeth Library.

[pg 167]

Chapter VI. On The Citations From The Greek New Testament Or Its Versions Made By Early Ecclesiastical Writers, Especially By The Christian Fathers.

1. We might at first sight be inclined to suppose that the numerous quotations from the New Testament contained in the remains of the Fathers of the Church and other Christian writers from the first century of our era downwards, would be more useful even than the early versions, for enabling us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current in those primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have come down to us135. Unquestionably the testimony afforded by these venerable writings will be free from some of the objections that so much diminish the value of translations for critical purposes which have been stated at the commencement of this volume: and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in his remarkable volume entitled the “Revision Revised136,” has shown scholars how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate attention. But not to insist on the fact that many important passages of the New Testament have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now extant, this species of evidence labours under difficulties peculiarly its own. Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it often fails us where we should most wish for information: but the Fathers were better theologians than critics; they [pg 168] sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of a passage than their immediate purpose required; and what they actually wrote has been found liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors. But when all is considered, the Fathers must be at least held under due limitations to be witnesses to the readings found in the codices which they used. If theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many cases virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire text. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early testimony. And the strength of this kind of evidence is found at the highest, when the issue is of a somewhat broader character than usual, and when a large number of quotations are found to corroborate testimony from MSS. and the testimony of Versions. In fact the strength of their evidence is to be seen especially in three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous codices, though at second hand, at a very early date; secondly, there is no doubt whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later than when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of no question; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to remarkable readings137. In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character from the Father who uses it138. On the other hand, the same author perpetually cites the selfsame text under two or more various forms; in the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three earlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, where Scriptural quotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported, they may safely be disregarded altogether. An express citation, however, by a really careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for example), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the best versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the reading which it favours139. In fact, like Versions, Patristic citations [pg 169] cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they are often invaluable in supplying support to manuscriptal authority, whether by proving a primitive antiquity, or in demonstrating by an overwhelming body of testimony that the passage or reading was accepted in all ages and in many provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of unquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking manner, or in smaller number.

2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture from the reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reasonable, that all who have written critical annotations on the sacred text have resorted to it, from Erasmus downwards: the Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in four out of the five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N. T. When Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the Greek Testament attended with any considerable apparatus for improving the text, he expressly rejected “S. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro recepto more laudata,” from which the toil of such a task did not so much deter him, “quam cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem insistere.” (N. T. 1675, Praef.). “Venerandi enim illi scriptores,” he adds, “de verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memoriâ quae ad institutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de priscâ lectione ex illorum scriptis nil ferè certi potuerit hauriri.” It is certainly to the credit of Mill's sagacity that he did not follow his patron's example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and compendious a manner140. Nevertheless, no one can study Mill's “Prolegomena” without being conscious of the fact, that the portion of them relating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical writers, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers which stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts, the result of some years' labour (N. T. Proleg. § 1513): yet these [pg 170] are just the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least satisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one man. A whole library of authors has to be thoroughly searched; each cited passage must be patiently examined; the help of indices should be employed critically and warily; the best editions must be used, and even then the text of the very writers is to be corrected, so far as may be, by the collation of other manuscripts141.

3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the earliest editor of the Greek Testament who saw, or at least who acted upon the principle, that it is far more profitable as well as more scholarlike to do one thing well, than to attempt more than can be performed completely and with accuracy. He was led by certain textual theories he had adopted, and which we shall best describe hereafter, to a close examination of the works of Origen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of antiquity. The result, published in the second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, is a lasting monument both of his industry and acuteness; and, if not quite faultless in point of correctness, deserves to be taken as a model by his successors. Tregelles, of whose Greek Testament we shall presently speak, has evidently bestowed much pains on his Patristic citations; to Eusebius of Caesarea, especially to those portions of his works which have been recently edited or brought to light, he has paid great attention: but besides many others, Chrysostom has been grievously neglected, although the subjects of a large portion of his writings, the early date of some of his codices142, the extensive collations of Matthaei, and the excellent modern editions of most of his Homilies, might have sufficed to commend him to our particular regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and adopted by Tregelles (though not uniformly by Tischendorf), of recording the exact edition, volume, and page of the writer [pg 171] quoted, and in important cases of copying his very words, cannot be too much praised: we would suggest, however, the expediency of further indicating, by an asterisk or some such mark, those passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to the reading adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from others which are of infinitely less weight and importance.

4. But the greatest step of all towards an extended use of Patristic testimony has been taken by Dean Burgon, and since his much lamented death the results of his labours have been made public. In the early stages of his studies in Sacred Textual Criticism, Burgon saw the extreme value—afterwards recognized by Dr. Scrivener—of an exhaustive use of citations from the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authors; and after a conversation with the Earl of Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, he set himself upon the vast task of collecting indices of New Testament quotations occurring in the books of those writers. “This involved his looking through all the Greek and Latin folios of the Fathers, and marking the texts in the margin. Then the folios passed into the hands of his assistants, who arranged the references in the order of the Books of the New Testament, and copied them out; so that it might be only the work of a minute to ascertain how Cyril, or Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa quoted such a text143,” and how many times it was quoted by the Father in question. They were revised and enlarged some years after their first collection. The striking use to which Burgon put his own indices has been already noticed. After his death the sixteen stout volumes containing them were acquired by the authorities of the British Museum, where they have been found to be of much use in cataloguing. Steps have been already taken for the publication of the part relating to the Gospels with Dean Burgon's other works on this great subject.

5. It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list of the ecclesiastical writers, both in Greek and Latin and in other languages (with the usual abridgements for their names), which are the most often cited in critical editions of the New Testament. The Latin authors are printed in italics, and unless they happen to appeal unequivocally to the evidence of Greek codices, are available only for the correction of their vernacular translation. [pg 172] The dates annexed generally indicate the death of the persons they refer to, except when “fl.” ( = floruit) is prefixed.

Alcimus (Avitus), fl. 360.

Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, a.d. 397 (Ambr.).

Ambrosiaster, the false Ambrose, perhaps Hilary the Deacon, of the fourth century (Ambrst.).

Ammonius of Alexandria, circa 438 (Ammon.) in Catenis.

Amphilochius, fl. 380.

Anastasius, Abbot, fl. 650.

Anastasius Sinaita, fl. 570.

Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, sixth century? (And.)

Andreas of Crete, seventh century.

Antiochus, monk, fl. 614.

Antipater, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 450.

Aphraates, the Syrian, fourth century.

Archelaus and Manes, fl. 278.

Arethas, Bp. of Caesarea Capp., tenth century? (Areth.)

Aristides, fl. 139.

Arius, fl. 325.

Arnobius of Africa, 306 (Arnob.).

Asterius, fourth century.

Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.).

Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.).

Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.).

Barnabas, first or second century? (Barn.)

Basil, Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.).

Basil of Cilicia, fl. 497.

Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.).

Bede, the Venerable, 735 (Bede).

Caesarius of Arles, fl. 520.

Caesarius (Pseudo-) of Constantinople, 340 (Caes.).

Candidus Isaurus, fl. 500.

Capreolus, fl. 430.

Carpathius, John, fl. 490.

Cassianus, fl. 415.

Cassiodorus, 468-560 (?) (Cassiod.)

Chromatius, Bp. of Aquileia, fl. 390 (Chrom.).

Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.).

Chrysostom (Pseudo-), fl. eighth century.

Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.).

Clement, Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.).

Clementines, the, second century.

Corderius,

Cosmas, Bp. of Maiuma, fl. 743.

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.).

Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.).

Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.).

Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.).

Dalmatius, fl. 450.

Damascenus, John, 730 (Dam.)144.

Damasus, Pope, fl. 366.

Didache, 80-120.

Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.).

Diodorus of Tarsus, fl. 380.

Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.).

Dionysius of Alexandria (Pseudo-), third century.

Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, fifth century (Dion. Areop.).

Dionysius Maximus, fl. 259 (?).

Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.).

Ephraem the Syrian (Pseudo-), fourth century.

Ephraim, Bp. of Cherson.

Epiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.).

Epiphanius, Deacon of Catana, fl. 787.

Erechthius, fl. 440.

Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, fl. 430.

Eulogius, sixth century.

Eusebius of Alexandria,

Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.).

Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, fl. 350.

Eustathius, monk,

Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 (Euthal.).

Eutherius, fl. 431.

Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.).

[pg 173]

Eutychius, fl. 553.

Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.).

Evagrius Scholasticus, the historian, fl. 492.

Facundus, fl. 547.

Faustus, fl. 400.

Ferrandus, fl. 356.

Fulgentius of Ruspe, fl. 508 (Fulg.).

Gaudentius, fl. 405 (Gaud.).

Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 476.

Gennadius, fl. 459.

Germanus of Constantinople, fl. 715.

Gregentius, fl. 540.

Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bp. of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.).

Gregory Naz. (Pseudo-).

Gregory, Bp. of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.).

Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.).

Gregory the Great, Bp. of Rome, 605 (Greg.).

Haymo, Bp. of Halberstadt, ninth century (Haym.).

Hegesippus, fl. 180.

Hermas, second century.

Hieronymus (Jerome), 420 (Hier.) or (Jer.).

Hilary, Bp. of Arles, 429.

Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.).

Hilary, the deacon, fourth century.

Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus (?), fl. 220 (Hip.).

Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, 107 (Ign.).

Ignatius (Pseudo-), fourth century.

Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, fl. 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version (Iren.).

Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.).

Jacobus Nisibenus, fl. 335.

Jobius, sixth century.

Julian, heretic, fl. 425.

Julius Africanus, fl. 220.

Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.).

Justin Martyr (Pseudo-), fourth century.

Justinian, Emperor, fl. 527-565.

Juvencus, fl. 320 (Juv.).

Lactantius, 306 (Lact.).

Leo the Great, fl. 440.

Leontius of Byzantium, fl. 348.

Liberatus of Carthage, fl. 533.

Lucifer, Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.).

Macarius Magnes, third or fourth century.

Macarius Magnus, fourth century.

Manes, fl. 278. See Archelaus.

Marcion the heretic, 139 (Mcion.), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and by Tertullian (Mcion-t).

Maxentius, sixth century.

Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf).

Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.).

Mercator, Marius, fl. 218.

Methodius, 311 (Meth.).

Modestus, patriarch of Jerus. seventh century.

Nestorius of C. P., fifth century.

Nicephorus, fl. 787.

Nicetas of Aquileia, fifth century.

Nicetas of Byzantium, 1120.

Nilus, monk, fl. 430.

Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.).

Novatianus, fl. 251 (Novat.).

Oecumenius, Bp. of Tricca, tenth century? (Oecu.)

Optatus, fl. 371.

Origen, b. 186, d. 253 (Or.).

Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, fl. 370.

Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.).

Papias, fl. 160.

Paschasius, the deacon?

Paulus, Bp. of Emesa, fl. 431.

Paulus, patriarch of Constantinople, fl. 648.

Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.).

Petrus Chrysologus, Archbp. of Ravenna, fl. 440.

Petrus, Deacon, fl. sixth century.

Petrus Siculus, fl. 790.

Philo of Carpasus, fourth century.

Phoebadius, Bp. of Agen, fl. 358.

Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.).

Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc).

Porphyrius, fl. 290.

Primasius, Bp. of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.).

Prosper of Aquitania, fl. 431.

Prudentius, 406 (Prud.).

Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.).

Severianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.).

Severus of Antioch, fl. 510.

Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.).

Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.).

Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.).

[pg 174]

Symeon, fl. 1000.

Symmachus, fourth century.

Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.).

Tatian (Pseudo-), third century.

Tertullian of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)145.

Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.).

Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus or of Cyrrhus in Commagene, 458 (Thdrt.).

Theodorus of Heracleia, fl. 336.

Theodorus, Lector, fl. 525.

Theodorus Studita, fl. 794.

Theodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431.

Theophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388.

Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.).

Theophylact, Archbp. of Bulgaria, fl. 1077 (Theophyl.).

Tichonius the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.).

Timotheus of Antioch, fifth century.

Timotheus of Jerusalem, sixth century.

Titus, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.).

Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)146.

Victor, Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.).

Victorinus, Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.).

Victorinus of Rome, fl. 361.

Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.).

Vincentius Lirinensis, fl. 434.

Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, fl. 614.

Zacharias, Scholasticus, fl. 536.

Zeno, Bp. of Verona, fl. 463.

Besides the writers, the following anonymous works contain quotations from the New Testament:—

Auctor libri de xlii. mansionibus (auct. mans.), fourth century.

Auctor libri de Promissionibus dimid. temporis (Prom.), third century.

Auctor libri de Rebaptismate (Rebapt.), fourth century.

Auctor libri de singularitate clericorum (auct. sing. cler.), fourth century.

Auctor libri de Vocatione gentium (Vocat.), fourth century.

Acta Apostolica (Syriac), fourth century.

Acta Philippi, fourth century.

Acta Pilati, third or fourth century.

Anaphora Pilati, fifth century.

Apocalypse of Peter, 170 (?)

Apocryphal Gospels, second century, &c.

Apostolic Canons, third to fifth century.

Apostolic Constitutions, third and fourth centuries.

Chronicon Paschale, 628.

Concilia, Labbè or Mansi.

Cramer's Catena.

Dialogus, fourth or fifth century.

Eastern bishops at Ephesus, 431.

Gospel of Peter, about 165.

Opus Imperfectum, fifth century.

Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento, fourth century147.

[pg 175]

Chapter VII. Printed Editions and Critical Editions.

It would be quite foreign to our present design, to attempt to notice all the editions of the New Testament in Greek which have appeared in the course of the last three centuries and a half, nor would a large volume suffice for such a labour. We will limit our attention, therefore, to those early editions which have contributed to form our commonly received text, and to such others of more recent date as not only exhibit a revised text, but contain an accession of fresh critical materials for its more complete emendation148.

Since the Latin or “Mazarin” Bible, printed between 1452 and 1456, was the first production of the new-born printing-press (see above, p. 61), and the Jews had published the Hebrew Bible in 1488, we must impute it to the general ignorance of Greek among divines in Western Europe, that although the two songs, Magnificat and Benedictus (Luke i), were annexed to a Greek Psalter which appeared first at Milan in 1481, without a printer's [pg 176] name; next at Venice in 1486, being edited by a Greek; again at Venice from the press of Aldus in 1496 or 1497: and although the first six chapters of St. John's Gospel were published at Venice by Aldus Manutius in 1504, and John vi. 1-14 at Tübingen in 1514, yet the first printed edition of the whole in N. T. the original is that contained in—

1. The Complutensian Polyglott149 (6 vols., folio), the munificent design of Francis Ximenes de Cisneros [1437-1517], Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, and Regent of Castile (1506-1517). This truly eminent person, six years of whose humble youth were spent in a dungeon through the caprice of one of his predecessors in the Primacy of Spain, experienced what we have seen so conspicuously illustrated in other instances, that long imprisonment ripens the intellect which it fails to extinguish. Entering the Franciscan order in 1482, he carried the ascetic habit of his profession to the throne of Toledo and the palace of his sovereign. Becoming in 1492 Confessor to Queen Isabella the Catholic, and Primate three years later, he devoted to pure charity or to public purposes the enormous revenues of his see; founding the University at Alcalá de Henares in New Castile, where he had gone to school, and defraying the cost of an expedition which as Regent he led to Oran against the Moors. In 1502 he conceived the plan of the first Polyglott Bible, to celebrate the birth of him who afterwards became the Emperor Charles V, and gathered in his University of Alcalá (Complutum) as many manuscripts as he could procure, with men he deemed equal to the task, of whom James Lopez de Stunica (subsequently known for his controversy with Erasmus) was the principal: others being Æ. Antonio of Lebrixa, Demetrius Ducas of Crete, and Ferdinand of Valladolid (Pintianus). The whole outlay of Cardinal Ximenes on the Polyglott is stated to have exceeded 50,000 ducats or about £23,000, a vast sum in those days:—but his yearly income as Primate was four times as great. The first volume printed, Tom. v, contains the New Testament in two parallel columns, Greek and Latin, the latter being that modification of the Vulgate then current: the colophon on the last page of the Apocalypse states [pg 177] that it was completed January 10, 1514, the printer being Arnald William de Brocario. Tom. vi, comprising a Lexicon, indices, &c., bears date March 17, 1515; Tom. i-iv of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, 1517 (Tom. iv dated July 10), on November 8 of which year the Cardinal died, full of honours and good deeds. This event must have retarded the publication of the whole, since Pope Leo's licence was not granted until March 22, 1520, and Erasmus did not see the book before 1522. As not more than six hundred copies were printed, this Polyglott must from the first have been scarce and dear, and is not always met with in Public Libraries.

The Apocryphal books, like the N. T., are of course given only in two languages; in the Old Testament the Latin Vulgate holds the chief place in the middle, between the Hebrew and the Septuagint Greek150. The Greek type in the other volumes is of the common character, with the usual breathings and accents; in the fifth, or New Testament volume, it is quite different, being modelled after the fashion of manuscripts of about the thirteenth century, very bold and elegant (see Plate x, No. 26), without breathings, and accentuated according to a system defended and explained in a bilingual preface πρὸς τοὺς ἐντευξομένους, but never heard of before or since: monosyllables have no accent, while in other words the tone syllable receives the acute, the grave and circumflex being discarded. The Latin is in a noble church-character, references are made from the one text to the other by means of small letters, and where in either column there is a void space, in consequence of words omitted or otherwise, it is filled up by such curves as are seen in the bottom line of our specimen. The foreign matter in this volume consists of the short Preface in Latin and Greek, Eusebius Carpiano (but without the canons), Jerome's letter to Damasus, with the ordinary Latin Prologues [pg 178] and Arguments before each book. St. Paul's Epistles precede the Acts, as in Codd. א, 61, 69, 90, &c. and before them stand the ἀποδημία παύλου, Euthalii περὶ χρόνων, the ordinary ὑποθέσεις to all the twenty-one Epistles (grouped together), with Theodoret's prologues subjoined to thirteen of the ὑποθέσεις. By the side of the Latin text are numerous parallel passages, and there are also five marginal notes (on Matt. vi. 13; 1 Cor. xiii. 3; xv. 31; 51; 1 John v. 7, 8). The only divisions are the common Latin chapters, subdivided by the letters A, B, C, D, &c. Copies of laudatory verses151, an interpretation of Proper Names, and a Greek Lexicon of the N. T., close the volume.

It has long been debated among critics, what manuscripts were used by the Complutensian editors, especially in the N. T. Ximenes is reported to have spent 4,000 ducats in the purchase of such manuscripts; in the Preface to the N. T. we are assured that “non quevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse: sed antiquissima emendatissimaque: ac tante preterea vetustatis, ut fidem eis abrogare nefas videatur: Que sanctissimus in Christo pater et dominus noster Leo decimus pontifex maximus, huic instituto favere cupiens ex apostolica bibliotheca educta misit....” Yet these last expressions can hardly refer to the N. T., inasmuch as Leo X was not elected Pope till March 11, 1513, and the N. T. was completed Jan. 10 of the very next year152. Add to this that Vercellone, whose services to sacred literature have been spoken of above, brought to light the fact that only two manuscripts are recorded as having been sent to the Cardinal from the Vatican in the first year of Leo, and neither of them (Vat. 330, 346) contained any part of [pg 179] the N. T.153 The only one of the Complutensian codices specified by Stunica, the Cod. Rhodiensis (Act. 52), has entirely disappeared, and from a Catalogue of the thirty volumes of Biblical manuscripts once in the library at Alcalà, but now at Madrid, communicated in 1846 by Don José Gutierrez, the Librarian, we find that they consist exclusively of Latin and Hebrew books, with the exception of two which contain portions of the Septuagint in Greek154. Thus we seem cut off from all hope of obtaining direct information as to the age, character, and present locality of the materials employed for the Greek text of this edition.

It is obvious, however, that in the course of twelve years (1502-14), Ximenes may have obtained transcripts of codices he did not himself possess, and since some of the more remarkable readings of the Complutensian are found in but one or two manuscripts (e.g. Luke i. 64 in Codd. 140, 251; ii. 22 in Cod. 76), such copies should of course be narrowly watched. We have pointed out above the resemblance that Siedel's codex (Act. 42, Paul. 48, Apoc. 13) bears to this edition: so too Cod. 4 of the Gospels. Mill first noticed its affinity to Laud. 2 or Evan. 51, Act. 32, Paul. 38 (Evan. 51), and though this is somewhat remote in the Gospels, throughout the Acts and Epistles it is close and indubitable155. We see, therefore, [pg 180] no cause for believing that either Cod. B, or any manuscript much resembling it in character, or any other document of high antiquity or first-rate importance, was employed by the editors of this Polyglott. The text it exhibits does not widely differ from that of most codices written from the tenth century downwards.

That it was corrupted from the parallel Latin version was contended by Wetstein and others on very insufficient grounds. Even the Latinism βεελζεβούβ Matt. x. 25, seems a mere inadvertence, and is corrected immediately afterwards (xii. 24, 27), as well as in the four other places wherein the word is used. We need not deny that 1 John v. 7, 8 was interpolated, and probably translated from the Vulgate; and a few other cases have a suspicious look (Rom. xvi. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10; vi. 15; and especially Gal. iii. 19); the articles too are employed as if they were unfamiliar to the editor (e.g. Acts xxi. 4; 8): yet we must emphatically deny that on the whole the Latin Vulgate had an appreciable effect upon the Greek. This last point had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Michaelis and of Marsh by Goeze156, in whose short tract many readings of Cod. Laud. 2 are also examined. In the more exact collation of the N. T., which we have made with the common text (Elzevir 1624), and which appeared in the first edition of the present work, out of 2,780 places in all, wherein the Complutensian edition differs from that of Elzevir (viz. 1,046 in the Gospels, 578 in the Pauline Epistles, 542 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 614 in the Apocalypse), in no less than 849 the Latin is at variance with the Greek; in the majority of the rest the difference cannot be expressed in another language. Since the Complutensian N. T. could only have been published from manuscripts, it deserves more minute examination than it has received from Mill or Wetstein; and it were much to [pg 181] be desired that minute collations could be made of several other early editions, especially the whole five of Erasmus.

Since this Polyglott has been said to be very inaccurately printed, it is necessary to state that we have noted just fifty pure errors of the press; in one place, moreover (Heb. vii. 3), part of the ninth Euthalian κεφάλαιον (εν ω ότι και του αβραάμ προετιμήθη) has crept into the text. All the usual peculiarities observable in later manuscripts are here, e.g. 224 itacisms (chiefly ω for ο, η for ει, ει for ι, υ for η, οι for ει, and vice versâ); thirty-two instances of ν ἐφελκυστικόν, or the superabundant ν, before a consonant; fifteen cases of the hiatus for the lack of ν before a vowel; ουτως is sometimes found before a consonant, but ουτω sixty-eight times; ουκ and ουχ are interchanged twelve times. The following peculiarities, found in many manuscripts, and here retained, may show that the grammatical forms of the Greek were not yet settled among scholars; παρήνγελεν Mark vi. 8; διάγγελε Luke ix. 60; καταγγέλειν Acts iv. 2; διαγγέλων Acts xxi. 26; καταγγέλων 1 Cor. ii. 1; παραγγέλω 1 Cor. vii. 10; αναγγέλλων 2 Cor. vii. 7; παραγγέλομεν 2 Thess. iii. 4; παράγγελε 1 Tim. iv. 11; v. 7; vi. 17. The augment is omitted nine times (Matt. xi. 17; Acts vii. 42; xxvi. 32; Rom. i. 2; Gal. ii. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 10; 2 Tim. i. 16; Apoc. iv. 8; xii. 17); the reduplication twice (John xi. 52; 1 Cor. xi. 5); μέλλω and μέλει are confounded, Mark iv. 38; Acts xviii. 17; Apoc. iii. 2; xii. 4. Other anomalous forms (some of them would be called Alexandrian) are παμπόλου Mark viii. 1; νηρέαν Rom. xvi. 15; εξαιρείτε 1 Cor. v. 13; αποκτένει 2 Cor. iii. 6, passim; στιχούμεν Gal. v. 25; είπα Heb. iii. 10; ευράμενος ibid. ix. 12; απεσχέσθαι 1 Pet. ii. 11; καταλειπόντες 2 Pet. ii. 15; περιβαλλείται Apoc. iii. 5; δειγνύντος ibid. xxii. 8. The stops are placed carelessly in the Greek, being (.), (,), rarely (·), never (;). In the Latin the stops are pretty regular, but the abbreviations very numerous, even such purely arbitrary forms as xps for Christus. In the Greek σ often stands at the end of a word for ς, ï and often ü or υ are set at the beginning of syllables: there are no instances of ι ascript or subscript, and no capital letters except at the beginning of a chapter, when they are often flourished. The following forms are also derived from the general practice of manuscripts, and occur perpetually: απάρτι, απάρχης, δαν (for δ᾽ ἂν), ειμή, εξαυτής, επιτοαυτό, εφόσον, εωσότου, καίτοιγε, καθημέραν, κατιδίαν, κατόναρ, μεθήμων, μέντοι, ουμή, τουτέστι; and for the most part διαπαντός, διατί, διατούτο, είτις, ουκέτι. Sometimes the preposition and its case make but a single word, as παραφύσιν, and once we find ευποιήσαι, Vulg. benefacere (Mark xiv. 7).

The Complutensian text has been followed in the main by only a few later editions, chiefly by Chr. Plantin's Antwerp Polyglott (1569-72)157.

[pg 182]

2. Erasmus' New Testament was by six years the earlier published, though it was printed two years later than the Complutensian. Its editor, both in character and fortunes, presents a striking contrast with Ximenes; yet what he lacked of the Castilian's firmness he more than atoned for by his true love of learning, and the cheerfulness of spirit that struggled patiently, if not boldly, with adversity. Desiderius Erasmus (ἐράσμιος, i.e. Gerald) was born at Rotterdam in 1465, or, perhaps, a year or two later, the illegitimate son of reputable and (but for that sin) of virtuous parents. Soon left an orphan, he was forced to take reluctantly the minor orders, and entered the priesthood in 1492. Thenceforward his was the hard life of a solitary and wandering man of letters, earning a precarious subsistence from booksellers or pupils158, now learning Greek at Oxford (but αὐτοδίδακτος)159, now teaching it at Cambridge (1510); losing by his reckless wit the friends his vast erudition had won; restless and unfrugal, perhaps, yet always labouring faithfully and with diligence. He was in England when John Froben, a celebrated publisher at Basle, moved by the report of the forthcoming Spanish Bible and eager to forestall it, made application to Erasmus, through a common friend, to undertake immediately an edition of the N. T.: “se daturum pollicetur, quantum alius quisquam,” is the argument employed. This proposal was sent on April 17, 1515, years before which time Erasmus had prepared numerous annotations to illustrate a revised Latin version he had long projected. On September 11 it was yet unsettled whether this, improved version should stand by the Greek in a parallel column (the plan actually adopted), or be printed separately: [pg 183] yet the colophon at the end of Erasmus' first edition, a large folio of 1,027 pages in all, is dated February, 1516; the end of the Annotations, March 1, 1516; Erasmus' dedication to Leo X, Feb. 1, 1516; and Froben's Preface, full of joyful hope and honest pride in the friendship of the first of living authors, Feb. 24, 1516. Well might Erasmus, who had besides other literary engagements to occupy his time, declare subsequently that the volume “praecipitatum fuit verius quam editum;” yet both on the title-page, and in his dedication to the Pope, he allows himself to employ widely different language160. When we read the assurance he addressed to Leo, “Novum ut vocant testamentum universum ad Graecae originis fidem recognovimus, idque non temere neque levi opera, sed adhibitis in consilium compluribus utriusque linguae codicibus, nec iis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis,” it is almost painful to be obliged to remember that a portion of ten months at the utmost could have been devoted to his task by Erasmus; while the only manuscripts he can be imagined to have constantly used are Codd. Evan. 2, Act. Paul. 2 and Paul. 7, with occasional reference to Evan. Act. Paul. 1 and Act. Paul. 4 (all still at Basle) for the remainder of the New Testament, to which add Apoc. 1, now happily recovered, alone for the Apocalypse. All these, excepting Evan. Act. Paul. 1, were neither ancient nor particularly valuable, and of Cod. 1 he professed to make but small account161. As Apoc. 1 was mutilated in the last six [pg 184] verses, Erasmus turned these into Greek from the Latin; and some portions of his self-made version, which are found (however some editors may speak vaguely) in no one known Greek manuscript whatever, still cleave to our received text162. Besides this scanty roll, however, he not rarely refers in his Annotations to other manuscripts he had seen in the course of his travels (e.g. on Heb. i. 3; Apoc. i. 4; viii. 13), yet too indistinctly for his allusions to be of much use to critics. Some such readings, as alleged by him, have not been found elsewhere (e.g. Acts xxiv. 23; Rom. xii. 20), and may have been cited loosely from distant recollection (comp. Col. iii. 3; Heb. iv. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 1; Apoc. ii. 18).

When Ximenes, in the last year of his life, was shown Erasmus' edition which had thus got the start of his own, and his editor, Stunica, sought to depreciate it, the noble old man replied, “would God that all the Lord's people were prophets! produce better, if thou canst; condemn not the industry of another163.” His generous confidence in his own work was not misplaced. He had many advantages over the poor scholar and the enterprising printer of Basle, and had not let them pass unimproved. The [pg 185] typographical errors of the Complutensian Greek have been stated; Erasmus' first edition is in that respect the most faulty book I know. Oecolampadius, or John Hausschein of Basle [1482-1531], afterwards of some note as a disputer with Luther on the Sacramentarian controversy, had undertaken this department for him; and was glad enough to serve under such a chief; but Froben's hot haste gave him little leisure to do his part. No less than 501 itacisms are imported from the manuscripts into his printed text, and the ν ἐφελκυστικόν is perpetually used with verbs, before a consonant beginning the next word. We must, however, impute it to design that ι subscript, which is elsewhere placed pretty correctly, is here set under η in the plural of the subjunctive mood active, but not in the singular (e.g. James ii. ἐπιβλέψῃτε, εἴπῃτε bis, but ver. 2 εἰσέλθη bis). With regard to the text, the difference between the two editions is very wide in the Apocalypse, the text of the Complutensian being decidedly preferable; elsewhere they resemble each other more closely, and while we fully admit the error of Stunica and his colleagues in translating from the Latin version into Greek, 1 John v. 7, 8, it would appear that Erasmus has elsewhere acted in the same manner, not merely in cases which for the moment admitted no choice, but in places where no such necessity existed: thus in Acts ix. 5, 6, the words from σκληρόν to πρὸς αὐτόν are interpolated from the Vulgate, partly by the help of Acts xxvi164.

Erasmus died at Basle in 1536, having lived to publish four editions besides that of 1516. The second has enlarged annotations, and very truly bears on its title the statement “multo quam antehac diligentius ab Er. Rot. recognitum;” for a large portion of the misprints, and not a few readings of the first edition, are herein corrected, the latter chiefly on the authority of a fresh codex, Evan. Act. Paul. 3; The colophon to the Apocalypse is dated 1518, Froben's Epistle to the reader, Feb. 5, 1519. In this edition ι subscript is for the most part set right; Carp., Eus. t., κεφ. t., τίτλοι, Am., Eus. are added [pg 186] in the Gospels; Dorotheus' “Lives of the Four Evangelists” (see Act. 89) stood before St. Matthew in 1516; but now the longer “Lives” by Sophronius, with Theophylact's “Prologues,” are set before each Gospel. Κεφάλαια (not the Euthalian) are given in both editions in Rom. 1, 2 Corinth. only, but the Latin chapters are represented in the margin throughout, with the subdivisions A, B, C, D. Of these two editions put together 3,300 copies were printed. The third edition (1522) is chiefly remarkable for its insertion of 1 John v. 7, 8 in the Greek text165, under the circumstances described above, Vol. I. p. 200, in consequence of Erasmus' controversy with Stunica and H. Standish, Bp. of St. Asaph (d. 1534), and with a much weaker antagonist, Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, who objected to his omission of a passage which no Greek codex was then known to contain. This edition again was said to be “tertio jam ac diligentius ... recognitum,” and contains also “Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos,” which he subsequently found reason to enlarge. The fourth edition (dated March, 1527) contains the text in three parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and Erasmus' recension of it. He had seen the Complutensian Polyglott in 1522, shortly after the publication of his third edition, and had now the good sense to avail himself of its aid in the improvement of the text, especially in the Apocalypse, wherein he amended from it at least ninety readings. His last edition of 1535 once more discarded the Latin Vulgate, and differs very little from the fourth as regards the text166.

A minute collation of all Erasmus' editions is a desideratum we may one day come to see supplied. The present writer hopes [pg 187] soon to publish a full comparison of his first and second editions with the Complutensian text167, as also with that of Stephen 1550, of Beza 1565, and of Elzevir 1624. All who have followed Mill over any portion of the vast field he endeavoured to occupy, will feel certain that his statements respecting their divergences are much below the truth: such as they are, we repeat them for want of more accurate information. He estimates that Erasmus' second edition contains 330 changes from the first for the better, seventy for the worse (N. T., Proleg. § 1134); that the third differs from the second in 118 places (ibid. § 1138)168; the fourth from the third in 106 or 113 places, ninety being those from the Apocalypse just spoken of (ibid. § 1141)169. The fifth he alleges to differ from the fourth only four times, so far as he noticed (ibid. § 1150): but we meet with as many variations in St. James' Epistle alone170.

3. In 1518 appeared the Graeca Biblia at Venice, from the celebrated press of Aldus: the work professes to be grounded on a collation of many most ancient copies171. However true this must be with regard to the Old Testament, which was now published in Greek for the first time, Aldus follows the first edition of Erasmus so closely in the New as to reproduce his very errors of the press (Mill, N. T., Proleg. § 1122), even those which Oecolampadius had corrected in the list of errata; though Aldus is stated to differ from Erasmus in about 200 places, for the better or worse172. If this edition was really [pg 188] revised by means of manuscripts (Cod. 131) rather than by mere conjecture, we know not what they were, or how far intelligently employed.

Another edition out of the many which now began to swarm, wherein the testimony of manuscripts is believed to have been followed, is that of Simon Colinaeus, Paris, 1534, in which the text is an eclectic mixture of the Complutensian and Erasmian173. Mill states (Proleg. § 1144) that in about 150 places Colinaeus deserts them both, and that his variations are usually supported by the evidence of known codices (Evan. 119, 120 at Paris, and Steph. ια᾽, i.e. Act. 8, Paul. 10, have been suggested), though a few still remain which may perhaps be deemed conjectural. Wetstein (N. T., Proleg. vol. i. p. 142) thinks that for Bogard's Paris edition of 1543 with various readings Evan. 120 or Steph. ιδ᾽ might have been used, but his own references hardly favour that notion.

4. The editions of Robert Stephen (Estienne), mainly by reason of their exquisite beauty, have exercised a far wider influence than these, and Stephen's third or folio edition of 1550 is by many regarded as the received or standard text. This eminent and resolute man [1503-59], “whose Biblical work taken altogether had perhaps more influence than that of any other single man in the sixteenth century174,” early commenced his useful career as a printer at Paris, and, having incurred the enmity of the Doctors of the Sorbonne for his editions of the Latin Vulgate, was yet protected and patronised by Francis I [d. 1547] and his son Henry II. It was from the Royal Press that his three principal editions of the Greek N. T. were issued, the [pg 189] fourth and last being published in 1551 at Geneva, to which town he finally withdrew the next year, and made public profession of the Protestant opinions which had long been gathering strength in his mind. The editions of 1546, 1549 are small 12mo in size, most elegantly printed with type cast at the expense of Francis: the opening words of the Preface common to both, O mirificam Regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi principis liberalitatem...” have given them the name by which they are known among connoisseurs. Erasmus and his services to sacred learning Stephen does not so much as name, nor indeed did he as yet adopt him for a model: he speaks of “codices ipsa vetustatis specie pene adorandos” which he had met with in the King's Library, by which, he boldly adds, “ita hunc nostrum recensuimus, ut nullam omnino literam secus esse pateremur quam plures, iique meliores libri, tanquam testes, comprobarent.” The Complutensian, as he admits, assisted him greatly, and he notes its close connexion with the readings of his manuscripts175. Mill assures us (Proleg. § 1220) that Stephen's first and second editions differ but in sixty-seven places. My own collation of the two books gives 139 cases of divergence in the text, twenty-eight in punctuation. They differ jointly from the third edition 334 times in the text, twenty-seven in punctuation. In the Apocalypse the first and second editions are close to the text of Erasmus, differing from each other but in eleven places, while the third edition follows the Complutensian or other authorities against the first in sixty-one places. In the folio or third edition of 1550 the various readings of the codices, obscurely referred to in the Preface to that of 1546, are entered in the margin. This fine volume (bearing on its title-page, in honour of Henry II, the inscription Βασιλεῖ τ᾽ ἀγαθῷ, κρατερῷ τ᾽ αἰχμητῇ) derives much importance from its being the earliest ever published with critical apparatus. In the Preface or Epistle to the Reader, written after the example of the Complutensian editors both in Greek and Latin, his authorities are declared to be sixteen; viz. α', the Spanish Polyglott; β', which we have already discussed (above, [pg 190] p. 124, note 3), γ᾽, δ᾽, ε᾽ ϛ᾽, ζ᾽, η᾽, ι᾽, ιε᾽ taken from King Henry II's Library; the rest (i.e. θ᾽, ια᾽, ιβ᾽, ιγ᾽, ιδ᾽, ιϛ᾽) are those ἂ αὐτοὶ πανταχόθεν συνηθροίσαμεν, or, as the Latin runs, “quae undique corrogare licuit:” these, of course, were not necessarily his own, one at least (ιγ᾽, Act. 9, Paul. 11) we are sure was not. Although Robert Stephen professed to have collated the whole sixteen for his two previous editions, and that too ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν ἐπιμελέστατα, this part of his work is now known to be due to his son Henry [1528-98], who in 1546 was only eighteen years old (Wetstein, N. T., Proleg., vol. i. pp. 143-4). The degree of accuracy attained in this collation may be estimated from the single instance of the Complutensian, a book printed in very clear type, widely circulated, and highly valued by Stephen himself. Deducting mere errata, itacisms, and such like, it differs from his third edition in more than 2,300 places, of which (including cases where π. or πάντες stands for all his copies) it is cited correctly 554 times (viz. 164 in the Gospels, ninety-four in St. Paul, seventy-six in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, 220 in the Apocalypse), and falsely no less than fifty-six times, again including errors from a too general use of πάντες176. I would not say with some that these authorities stand in the margin more for parade than use, yet the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and in 119 places with them all177. If we trust ourselves once more to the guidance of Mill (Proleg. § 1228), the folio of 1550 departs from its smaller predecessors of 1546, 1549, in 284 readings178, chiefly to adopt the text of Erasmus' fifth [pg 191] edition, though even now the Complutensian is occasionally preferred (e.g. εὐλογήσας Matt. xxvi. 26), most often in the Apocalypse, and that with very good reason. Of his other fifteen authorities, ια᾽ (= Act. 8) and ιϛ᾽ (= Apoc. 3) have never been identified, but were among the six in private hands: β᾽ certainly is Cod. D or Bezae; the learned have tried, and on the whole successfully, to recognize the remainder, especially those in the Royal (or Imperial, or National) Library at Paris. In that great collection Le Long has satisfied us that γ᾽ is probably Evan. 4; δ᾽ is certainly Evan. 5; ε᾽ Evan. 6; ϛ᾽ Evan. 7; η᾽ Evan. L; ζ᾽ he rightly believed to be Evan. 8 (above, p. 191, note); ι᾽ appears to be Act. 7. Of those in the possession of individuals in Stephen's time, Bp. Marsh (who in his “Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis,” 1795, was led to examine this subject very carefully) has proved that ιγ᾽ is Act. 9; Wetstein thought θ᾽ was Evan. 38 (which however see); Scholz seems to approve of Wetstein's conjecture which Griesbach doubted (N. T., Proleg., Sect. 1. p. xxxviii), that ιβ᾽ is Evan. 9: Griesbach rightly considers ιδ᾽ to be Evan. 120; ιε᾽ was seen by Le Long to be Act. 10: these last four are now in the Royal Library. It has proved the more difficult to settle them, as Robert Stephen did not even print all the materials that Henry had gathered; many of whose various readings were published subsequently by Beza179 from the collator's own manuscript, which itself must have been very defective. With all its faults, however, the edition of 1550 was a foundation on which others might hereafter build, and was unquestionably of great use in directing the attention of students to the authorities on which alone the true text of Scripture is based. This standard edition contains the following supplementary matter besides the Epistle to the reader: Chrysostom's Hom. I in S. Matthaeum (then first [pg 192] published): Carp., Eus. t.: Πίναξ μαρτυριῶν of O. T. passages cited in the N. T. being (1) literal, (2) virtual: seventy-two Hexameter lines, headed Ερρικος ο Ρωβερτου Στεφανου, φιλοθεω παντι: prol. by Theophylact following “Lives” by Sophronius and Dorotheus of Tyre, with κεφ. t. before each Gospel: τίτλ., κεφ., Am., Eus. Before the Acts stand Ἀποδημία Παύλου and Euthalius περὶ τῶν χρόνων, κεφ. t. Before the Epistles is a new title-page. Chrysostom's prol. on the Pauline Epistles begins the new volume. Each separate Epistle has prefixed prol. (chiefly by Theodoret) and κεφ. t. The Acts and Epistles have κεφ., but the Apocalypse no prol. or κεφ., except the ordinary Latin chapters, which are given throughout the N. T., subdivided by letters.

R. Stephen's smaller edition (16mo), published in 1551 at Geneva, though that name is not on the title-page, is said to contain the Greek Text of 1550 almost unchanged180, set between the Vulgate and Erasmus' Latin versions. In this volume we first find our present division of the N. T. into verses: “triste lumen,” as Reuss calls it (p. 58), “nec posthac extinguendum.”

5. Theodore de Bèze [1519-1605], a native of Vezelai in the Nivernois, after a licentious youth, resigned his ecclesiastical preferments at the age of twenty-nine to retire with the wife of his early choice to Geneva, that little city to which the genius of one man has given so prominent a place in the history of the sixteenth century. His noble birth and knowledge of the world, aided by the impression produced at the Conference at Poissy (1561) by his eloquence and learning, easily gained for Beza the chief place among the French Reformed on the death of their teacher Calvin in 1564. Of his services in connexion with the two Codd. D we have already spoken: he himself put forth at intervals, besides his own elegant Latin version published in 1556, ten editions of the N. T. (viz. four in folio in the years 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598, and six in octavo in 1565, 1567, 1580, 1591, 1604, and 1611), the Latin Vulgate, and Annotations181. A better [pg 193] commentator perhaps than a critic, but most conspicuous as the earnest leader of a religious party, Beza neither sought very anxiously after fresh materials for correcting the text, nor made any great use of what were ready at hand, namely, his own two great codices, the papers of Henry Stephen, and Tremellius' Latin version of the Peshitto. All his editions vary somewhat from Stephen and from each other, yet there is no material difference between any of them182. He exhibits a tendency, not the less blameworthy because his extreme theological views would tempt him thereto, towards choosing that reading out of several which might best suit his own preconceived opinions. Thus in Luke ii. 22 he adopts (and our Authorized English version condescends to follow his judgement) τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῆς from the Complutensian, for which he could have known of no manuscript authority whatever: ejus of the Vulgate would most naturally be rendered by αὐτοῦ (see Campbell in loc.). Wetstein calculates that Beza's text differs from Stephen's in some fifty places (an estimate we shall find below the mark), and that either in his translation or his Annotations he departs from Stephen's Greek text in 150 passages (Wetst. N. T., Proleg., Tom. ii. p. 7).

6. The brothers Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir set up a printing-press at Leyden, which maintained its reputation for [pg 194] elegance and correctness throughout the greater part of the seventeenth century. One of their minute editions, so much prized by bibliomanists, was a Greek Testament, 24mo, 1624, alleging on the title-page (there is no Preface whatever) to be ex Regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cum curâ expressum: by Regiis, we presume, Stephen's editions are meant, and especially that of 1550. The supposed accuracy (for which its good name is not quite deserved) and the great neatness of this little book procured for it much popularity. When the edition was exhausted, a second appeared in 1633, having the verses broken up into separate sentences, instead of their numbers being indicated in the margin, as in 1624. In the Preface it seems to allude to Beza's N. T., without directly naming him: “Ex regiis ac ceteris editionibus, quae maxime ac prae ceteris nunc omnibus probantur.” To this edition is prefixed, as in 1624, a table of quotations (πίναξ μαρτυριῶν) from the Old Testament, to which are now added tables of the κεφάλαια of the Gospels, ἔκθεσις κεφαλαίων of the Acts and all the Epistles. Of the person entrusted with its superintendence we know nothing; nearly all his readings are found either in Stephen's or Beza's N. T. (he leans to the latter in preference183); but he speaks of the edition of 1624 as that “omnibus acceptam;” and boldly states, with a confidence which no doubt helped on its own accomplishment, “textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus.” His other profession, that of superior correctness, is also a little premature: “ut si quae vel minutissimae in nostro, aut in iis, quos secuti sumus libris, superessent mendae, cum judicio ac cura tollerentur.” Although some of the worst misprints of the edition of 1624 are amended in that of 1633 (Matt. vi. 34; Acts xxvii. 13; 1 Cor. x. 10; Col. ii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 17; Heb. viii. 9; 2 Pet. i. 7), others just as gross are retained (Acts ix. 3; Rom. vii. 2; xiii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 23; xiii. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 4; v. 19; viii. 8; Heb. xii. 9; Apoc. iii. 12; vii. 7; xviii. 16), to which much be added a few peculiar to itself (e.g. Mark iii. 10; Rom. xv. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. i. 11; vi. 16; Col. i. 7; iv. 7; Apoc. xxii. 3): ἐθύθη in 1 Cor. v. 7 should not be reckoned as an [pg 195] erratum, since it was adopted designedly by Beza, and after him by both the Elzevir editions. Of real various readings between the two Elzevirs we mark but seven or eight instances (in six of which that of 1633 follows the Complutensian); viz. Mark iv. 18; viii. 24; Luke xi. 33; xii. 20; John iii. 6 bis; 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 51184; Apoc. xvi. 5: and in 2 Pet. i. 1 (as also in ed. 1641) ἡμῶν is omitted after σωτῆρος185.

Since Stephen's edition of 1550 and that of the Elzevirs have been taken as the standard or Received text186, the former chiefly in England, the latter on the Continent, and inasmuch as nearly all collated manuscripts have been compared with one or the other of these, it becomes absolutely necessary to know the precise points in which they differ from each other, even to the minutest errors of the press. Mill (N. T., Proleg., 1307) observed but twelve such variations; Tischendorf gives a catalogue of 150 (N. T., Proleg., p. lxxxv, seventh edition). For the first edition of the present work a list of 287 was drawn up, which, it is hoped, will soon be reprinted, in a more convenient shape, in a volume now in preparation187.

[pg 196]

The Science of Sacred Textual Criticism was built up in successive Critical Editions of the Greek Testament, and to a brief description of those this chapter will be devoted. It will not include therefore any notice of editions like that of Valpy, or of Bloomfield, or Alford, or Wordsworth, in which the textual treatment did not assume prominence or involve advancement in this province. Still less is there space for such a list of general editions of the New Testament as the very valuable one compiled by Dr. Isaac H. Hall, and found in Schaffs “Companion to the New Testament,” to which notice has been already directed. The progress of Textual Science has involved two chief stages; the first, in which all evidence was accepted and registered, and the second, when a selection was made and the rest either partially or totally disregarded. Lachmann was the leader in the second stage, of which to some extent Griesbach was the pioneer. It is evident that in the future a return must be made, as has been already advocated by many, to the principles of the first stage188.

1. R. Stephen was the first to bring together any considerable body of manuscript evidence, however negligently or capriciously he may have applied it to the emendation of the sacred text. A succession of English scholars was now ready to follow him in the same path, the only direct and sure one in criticism; and for about eighty years our countrymen maintained the foremost place in this important branch of Biblical learning. Their van [pg 197] was led by Brian Walton [1600-61], afterwards Bishop of Chester, who published in 1657 the London Polyglott, which he had planned twelve years before, as at once the solace and meet employment of himself and a worthy band of colleagues during that sad season when Christ's Church in England was for a while trodden in the dust, and its ministers languished in silence and deep poverty. The fifth of his huge folios was devoted to the New Testament in six languages, viz. Stephen's Greek text of 1550189, the Peshitto-Syriac, the Latin Vulgate, the Ethiopic, Arabic, and (in the Gospels only) the Persic. The exclusively critical apparatus, with which alone we are concerned, consists of the readings of Cod. A set at the foot of the Greek text, and, in the sixth or supplementary volume, of Lucas Brugensis' notes on various readings of the Gospels in Greek and Latin; of those given by the Louvain divines in their edition of the Vulgate (Walton, Polygl., Tom. vi. No. xvii); and especially of a collation of sixteen authorities, whereof all but three, viz. Nos. 1, 15, 16190, had never been used before (Walton, Tom. vi. No. xvi). These various readings had been gathered by the care and diligence of Archbishop Ussher [1580-1656], then living in studious and devout retirement near London191. They are as follows:—(1) Steph. the sixteen copies extracted from Stephen's margin: (2) Cant. or Evan. D: (3) Clar. or Paul. D: (4) Gon. or Evan. 59: (5) Em. or Evan. 64, and also Act. 53: (6) Goog. or Evan. 62: (7) Mont. or Evan. 61: (8) Lin. or Evan. 56, and also Act. 33: (9) Magd. 1 or Evan. 57: (10) Magd. 2 or Paul. 42: (11) Nov. 1 or Evan. 58: (12) Nov. 2 or Act. 36: (13) Bodl. 1 or Evan. 47: (14) Trit. or Bodl. 2, Evan. 96: (15) March. Veles., the Velesian readings, described above, Vol. i. p. 209: (16) Bib. Wech., the Wechelian readings, which deserve no more regard than the Velesian. They were derived [pg 198] from the margin of a Bible printed at Frankfort, 1597, by the heirs of And. Wechel. It is indifferent whether they be referred to Francis Junius or F. Sylburg as editors, since all the readings in the New Testament are found in Stephen's margin, or in the early editions.

Walton was thus enabled to publish very extensive additions to the existing stock of materials. That he did not try by their means to form thus early a corrected text, is not at all to be regretted; the time for that attempt was not yet arrived. He cannot, however, be absolved from the charge to which R. Stephen had been before amenable, of suppressing a large portion of the collations which had been sent him. The Rev. C. B. Scott, Head Master of Westminster School, found in the Library of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the readings of Codd. D. 59, 61, 62, prepared for Walton (Dobbin, Cod. Montfort., Introd. p. 21), which Mill had access to, and in his N. T. made good use of, as well as of Ussher's other papers (Mill, Proleg. § 1505).

2. Steph. Curcellaeus or Courcelles published his N. T. at Amsterdam in 1658, before he had seen Walton's Polyglott. The peculiar merit of his book arises from his marginal collection of parallel texts, which are more copious than those of his predecessors, yet not too many for convenient use: later editors have been thankful to take them as a basis for their own192. There are many various readings193 (some from two or three fresh manuscripts) at the foot of each page, or thrown into an appendix, mingled with certain rash conjectures which betray a Socinian bias: but since the authorities are not cited for each separate reading, these critical labours were as good as wasted194.

[pg 199]

3. A more important step in advance was taken in the Greek Testament in 8vo, issued from the Oxford University Press in 1675. This elegant volume (whose Greek text is mainly that of Elzevir 1633195) was superintended by John Fell [1625-86], Dean of Christ Church, soon afterwards Bishop of Oxford, the biographer of saint-like Hammond, himself one of the most learned and munificent, if not quite the most popular Prelate, of that golden age of the English Church, in whose behalf Anthony à Wood designates him “the most zealous man of his time.” His brief yet interesting Preface not only discusses the causes of various readings196, and describes the materials used for his edition, but touches on that weak and ignorant prejudice which had been already raised against the collection of such variations in the text of Scripture; and that too sometimes by persons like John Owen197 the Puritan, intrusive Dean of Christ Church under Cromwell, who, but that we are loth to doubt his integrity, would hardly be deemed a victim of the panic he sought to spread. In reply to all objectors the Bishop pleads the comparative insignificance of the change produced by various readings in the general sense of Holy Writ, and especially urges that God hath dealt so bountifully with His people “ut necessaria quaeque et ad salutis summam facientia in S. literis saepius repeterentur; ita ut si forte quidpiam minus commode alicubi expressum, id damnum aliunde reparari possit” (Praef. p. 1). [pg 200] On this assurance we may well rest in peace. This edition is more valuable for the impulse it gave to subsequent investigators than for the richness of its own stores of fresh materials, although it is stated on the title-page to be derived ex plus 100 MSS. Codicibus.” Patristic testimony, as we have seen, Bishop Fell rather undervalued: the use of versions he clearly perceived, yet of those at that time available, he only attends to the Gothic and Coptic as revised by Marshall: his list of manuscripts hitherto untouched is very scanty. To those used by Walton we can add only R, the Barberini readings, then just published (see p. 210); B, twelve Bodleian codices “quorum plerique intacti prius,” in no-wise described, and cited only by the number of them which may countenance each variation; U, the two Ussher manuscripts Evan. 63, 64 as collated by H. Dodwell; P, three copies from the Library of Petavius (Act. 38, 39, 40); Ge., another from St. Germains (Paul. E): the readings of the last four were furnished by Joh. Gachon. Yet this slight volume (for so we must needs regard it) was the legitimate parent of one of the noblest works in the whole range of Biblical literature, of which we shall speak next.

4. Novum Testamentum Graecum of Dr. John Mill, Oxford, 1707, in folio. This able and laborious critic, born in 1645, quitted his native village in Westmoreland at sixteen for Queen's College, Oxford, of which society he became a Fellow, and was conspicuous there both as a scholar and as a ready extemporary preacher. In 1685 his College appointed him Principal of its affiliated Hall, St. Edmund, so honourably distinguished for the Biblical studies of its members; but Mill had by that time made good progress in his Greek Testament, on which he gladly spent the last thirty years of his life, dying suddenly in 1707, a fortnight after its publication. His attention was first called to the subject by his friend, Dr. Edward Bernard, the Savilian Professor at Oxford, whom he vividly represents as setting before him an outline of the work, and encouraging him to attempt its accomplishment. “Vides, Amice mi, opus ... omnium, mihi crede, longè dignissimum, cui in hoc aetatis tuae flore, robur animi tui, vigilias ac studia, liberaliter impendas” (Proleg. § 1417). Ignorant as yet both of the magnitude and difficulty of his task, [pg 201] Mill boldly undertook it about 1677, and his efforts soon obtained the countenance of Bishop Fell, who promised to defray the expense of printing, and, mindful of the frailty of life, urged him to go to press before his papers were quite ready to meet the public eye. When about twenty-four chapters of St. Matthew had been completed, Bishop Fell died prematurely in 1686, and the book seems to have languished for many following years from lack of means, though the editor was busy all the while in gathering and arranging his materials, especially for the Prolegomena, which well deserve to be called “marmore perenniora.” As late as 1704 John Sharp [1644-1714], Archbishop of York, whose remonstrances to Queen Anne some years subsequently hindered the ribald wit that wrote “A Tale of a Tub” from polluting the episcopal throne of an English see, obtained from her for Mill a stall at Canterbury, and the royal command to prosecute his New Testament forthwith. The preferment came just in time. Three years afterwards the volume was given to the Christian world, and its author's course was already finished: his life's work well ended, he had entered upon his rest. He was spared the pain of reading the unfair attack alike on his book and its subject by our eminent Commentator, Daniel Whitby (“Examen Variantium Lectionum,” 1710), and of witnessing the unscrupulous use of Whitby's arguments made by the sceptic Anthony Collins in his “Discourse of Free Thinking,” 1713.

Dr. Mill's services to Biblical criticism surpass in extent and value those rendered by any other, except perhaps one or two men of our own time. A large proportion of his care and pains, as we have seen already, was bestowed on the Fathers and ancient writers of every description who have used or cited Scripture. The versions are usually considered his weakest point, although he first accorded to the Vulgate and to its prototype the Old Latin the importance they deserve. His knowledge of Syriac was rather slight, and for the other Eastern tongues, if he was not more ignorant than his successors, he had not discovered how little Latin translations of the Ethiopic, &c., can be trusted. As a collator of manuscripts the list subjoined will bear full testimony to his industry: without seeking to repeat details we have entered into before under the Cursive MSS., it is right to state that he either himself re-examined, or otherwise [pg 202] represented more fully and exactly, the codices that had been previously used for the London Polyglott and the Oxford N. T. of 1675. Still it would be wrong to dissemble the fact that Mill's style of collation is not such as the strictness of modern scholarship demands. He seldom notices at all such various readings as arise from the transposition of words, the insertion or omission of the Greek article, from homoeoteleuta, or itacisms, or from manifest errors of the pen; while in respect to general accuracy he is as much inferior to those who have trod in his steps, as he rises above Stephen and Ussher, or the persons employed by Walton and Fell. It has been my fortune to collate not a few manuscripts after this great critic, and I have elsewhere been obliged to notice these plain facts, I would fain trust in no disparaging temper. During the many years that Mill's N. T. has been my daily companion, my reverence for that diligent and earnest man has been constantly growing: the principles of internal evidence which guided his choice between conflicting authorities were simple (as indeed they ought to be), but applied with rare judgement, sagacity, and moderation: his zeal was unflagging, his treatment of his sacred subject deeply reverential. Of the criticism of the New Testament in the hands of Dr. John Mill it may be said, that he found the edifice of wood, and left it marble.

The following Catalogue of the manuscripts known to Mill exhibits the abridged form in which he cites them, together with the more usual notation, whereby they are described in this work, and will tend, it is believed, to facilitate the use of Mill's N. T.

Alex. Cod. A

Barb. Evan. 112 (Wetstein)

Baroc. Act. 23

B. 1 Evan. E

B. 2 Act. 2

B. 3 Act. 4

Bodl. 1 Evan. 45

Bodl. 2 Evan. 46

Bodl. 3 Evst. 5

Bodl. 4 Evst. 18

Bodl. 5 Evst. 19

Bodl. 6 Evan. 47

Bodl. 7 Evan. 48

Bu. Evan. 70

Cant. Evan. Act. D

Cant. 2 Act. 24

Cant. 3 Act. 53

Clar. Paul. D

Colb. 1 Evan. 27

Colb. 2 Evan. 28

Colb. 3 Evan. 29

Colb. 4 Evan. 30, 31

Colb. 5 Evan. 32

Colb. 6 Act. 13

Colb. 7 Paul. 17

Colb. 8 Evan. 33

Colb. 9 = Colb. 1

Colb. 10 = Colb. 2

Colb. 11 = Colb. 1

Cov. 1 Evan. 65

Cov. 2 Act. 25

Cov. 3 Act. 26

Cov. 4 Act. 27

Cov. 5 Sin. Act. 28

Cypr. Evan. K

Em. see Evan. 64

Eph. Evan. 71

Gal. Evan. 66

Ger. Paul. E

Genev. Act. 29

Go. Evan. 62

Gon. Evan. 59

Hunt. 1 Act. 30

Hunt. 2 Evan. 67

L. Evan. 69

Laud. 1 Evan. 50

Laud. 2 Evan. 51

[pg 203]

Laud. 3 Act. E

Laud. 4 Evst. 20

Laud. 5 Evan. 52

Lin. Evan. 56

Lin. 2 Act. 33

Lu. Act. 21

M. 1 Evan. 60

M. 2 Evst. 4

Magd. 1 Evan. 57

Magd. 2 Paul. 42

Med. Evan. 42

Mont. Evan. 61

N. 1 Evan. 58

N. 1 Act. 36

N. 2 Act. 37

Per. Evan. 91

Pet. 1 Act. 38

Pet. 2 Act. 39

Pet. 3 Act. 40

Roe. 1 Evan. 49

Roe. 2 Paul. 47

Seld. 1 Evan. 53

Seld. 2 Evan. 54

Seld. 3 Evan. 55

Seld. 4 Evst. 21

Seld. 5 Evst. 22

Steph. codices xvi. videas pp. 190-191

Trin. Apost. 3

Trit. Evan. 96

Vat. Cod. B

Vel. Evan. 111 (Wetstein)

Vien. Evan. 76

Usser. 1 Evan. 63

Usser. 2 Evan. 64

Wheel. 1 Evan. 68

Wheel. 2 Evan. 95

Wheel. 3 Evst. 3

Wech. videas p. 191

Mill merely drew from other sources Barb., Steph., Vel., Wech.; the copies deposited abroad (B 1-3, Clar., Colb. 1-11, Cypr., Genev., Med., Per., Pet. 1-3, Vat. Vien.), and Trin. or Apost. 3 he only knew from readings sent to him; all the rest, not being included in Walton's list, and several of them also, he collated for himself.

The Prolegomena of Mill, divided into three parts—(1) on the Canon of the New Testament; (2) on the History of the Text, including the quotations of the Fathers and the early editions; and (3) on the plan and contents of his own work,—though by this time too far behind the present state of knowledge to bear reprinting, comprise a monument of learning such as the world has seldom seen, and contain much information the student will not even now easily find elsewhere. Although Mill perpetually pronounces his judgement on the character of disputed readings198, especially in his Prolegomena, which were printed long after some portions of the body of the work, yet he only aims at reproducing Stephen's text of 1550, though in a few places he departs from it, whether by accident or design199.

In 1710 Ludolph Kuster, a Westphalian, republished Mill's [pg 204] Greek Testament, in folio, at Amsterdam and Rotterdam (or with a new title page, Leipsic, 1723, Amsterdam, 1746), arranging in its proper place the matter cast by Mill into his Appendix, as having reached him too late to stand in his critical notes, and adding to those notes the readings of twelve fresh manuscripts, one collated by Kuster himself, which he describes in a Preface well worth reading. Nine of these codices collated by, or under, the Abbé de Louvois are in the Royal Library at Paris (viz. Paris. 1, which is Evan. 285; Paris. 2 = Evan. M; Paris. 3 = Evan. 9; Paris. 4 = Evan. 11; Paris. 5 = Evan. 119; Paris. 6 = Evan. 13; Paris. 7 = Evan. 14; Paris. 8 = Evan. 15; Paris. 9 = the great Cod. C): but Lips. = Evan. 78 was collated by Boerner; Seidel. = Act. 42 by Westermann; Boerner. = Paul. G by Kuster himself. He keeps his own notes separate from Mill's by prefixing and affixing the marks [symbol], [symbol], and his collations both of his own codices and of early editions will be found more complete than his predecessor's.

5. In the next year after Kuster's Mill (1711), appeared at Amsterdam, from the press of the Wetsteins, a small N. T., 8vo, containing all the critical matter of the Oxford edition of 1675, a collation of one Vienna manuscript (Caes. = Evan. 76), 43 canons “secundum quos variantes lectiones N. T. examinandae,” and discussions upon them, with other matter, especially parallel texts, forming a convenient manual, the whole by G. D. T. M. D., which being interpreted means Gerhard de Trajecto Mosae Doctor, this Gerhard von Mästricht being a Syndic of Bremen. The text is Fell's, except in Apoc. iii. 12, where the portentous erratum λαῷ for ναῷ of Stephen is corrected. A second and somewhat improved edition was published in 1735, but ere that date the book must have become quite superseded.

6. We have to return to England once more, where the criticism of the New Testament had engrossed the attention of Richard Bentley [1662-1742], whose elevation to the enviable post of Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1699, was a just recognition of his supremacy in the English world of letters. As early as 1691 he had felt a keen interest in sacred criticism, and in his “Epistola ad Johannem Millium” had urged that editor, in language fraught with eloquence and native vigour, to [pg 205] hasten on the work (whose accomplishment was eventually left to others) of publishing side by side on the opened leaf Codd. A, D (Bezae), D (Clarom.), E (Laud.). For many years afterwards Bentley's laurels were won on other fields, and it was not till his friend was dead, and his admirable labours were exposed to the obloquy of opponents (some honest though unwise, others hating Mill because they hated the Scriptures which he sought to illustrate), that our Aristarchus exerted his giant strength to crush the infidel and to put the ignorant to silence. In his “Remarks upon a late Discourse of Free Thinking in a letter to F[rancis] H[are] D.D. by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis,” 1713, Bentley displayed that intimate familiarity with the whole subject of various readings, their causes, extent, and consequences, which has rendered this occasional treatise more truly valued (as it was far more important) than the world-renowned “Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris” itself. As his years were now hastening on and the evening of life was beginning to draw nigh, it was seemly that the first scholar of his age should seek for his rare abilities an employment more entirely suited to his sacred office than even the most successful cultivation of classical learning; and so, about this time, he came to project what he henceforth regarded as his greatest effort, an edition of the Greek New Testament. In 1716 we find him in conference with J. J. Wetstein, then very young, and seeking his aid in procuring collations. In the same year he addressed his memorable “Letter” to Wm. Wake [1657-1737], Archbishop of Canterbury, whose own mind was full of the subject, wherein he explains, with characteristic energy and precision, the principles on which he proposed to execute his great scheme. As these principles must be reviewed afterwards, we will but touch upon them now. His theory was built upon the notion that the oldest manuscripts of the Greek original and of Jerome's Latin version resemble each other so marvellously, even in the very order of the words, that by this agreement he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth century, “so that there shall not be twenty words, or even particles, difference.” “By taking two thousand errors out of the Pope's [i.e. the Clementine] Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen's [1550], I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under nine hundred [pg 206] years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures, can agree better200.” In 1720, some progress having been made in the task of collation, chiefly at Paris, by John Walker, Fellow of Trinity, who was designated by Bentley “overseer and corrector of the press,” but proved in fact a great deal more; Bentley published his Proposals for Printing201, a work which “he consecrates, as a κειμήλιων, a κτῆμα ἐσαεί, a charter, a magna charta, to the whole Christian Church; to last when all the ancient MSS. here quoted may be lost and extinguished.” Alas for the emptiness of human anticipations! Of this noble design, projected by one of the most diligent, by one of the most highly gifted men our dear mother Cambridge ever nourished, nothing now remains but a few scattered notices in treatises on Textual Criticism, and large undigested stores of various readings and random observations, accumulated in his College Library; papers which no real student ever glanced through, but with a heart saddened—almost sickened—at the sight of so much labour lost202. The specimen chapter (Apocalypse xxii) which accompanied his Proposals shows clearly how little had yet been done towards arranging the materials that had been collected; codices are cited there, and in many of his loose notes, not separately and by name, as in Mill's volume, but mostly as “Anglicus unus, tres codd. veterrimi, Gall. quatuor, Germ. unus,” &c., in the rough fashion of the Oxford N. T. of 1675203.

[pg 207]

It has been often alleged that Bentley seems to have worked but little on the Greek Testament after 1729: that his attention was diverted by his editions of Paradise Lost (1732) and of Manilius (1739), by his Homeric studies and College litigation, until he was overtaken by a paralytic stroke in 1739, and died in his eighty-first year in 1742. Walker's collations of cursive manuscripts at Christ Church (Evan. 506), however, obviously made for Bentley's use, bear the date of 1732204, and a closer examination of his papers, bequeathed in 1786 by his nephew Richard Bentley to Trinity College, shows that much more progress had been made by him than has been usually supposed. Besides full collations of the uncial Codd. AD (Gospels and Acts), of Cod. F (his θ) and G of St. Paul, of Arundel 547 (Evst. 257) executed by Bentley himself, of Codd. B and C by others at his cost, three volumes are found there full of critical materials, which have been described by Mr. Ellis, and digested by Dr. Westcott. One of these (B. xvii. 5) I was allowed by the Master and Seniors to study at leisure at home. It is a folio edition of the N. T., Greek and Latin (Paris, ap. Claud. Sonnium, 1628, the Greek text being that of Elzevir 1624), whose margin and spaces between the lines are filled with various readings in Bentley's hand, but not all of them necessarily the results of his own labour, collected out of ten Greek and thirty Latin manuscripts. The Greek are all cursives save Evst. 5, and his connexion with them has been referred to above under the Cursive MSS. They are

Evan. 51 (γ),
Evan. 54 (κ),
Evan. 60 (ε),
Evan. 113 (θ?),
Evan. 440 (ο),
Evan. 507 (τ),
Evan. 508 (δ),
Act. 23 (χ),
Apoc. 28 (κ),
Evst. 5 (α).

The Latin copies, which alone are described by Bentley in the fly-leaves of the volume, may not be as easily identified, but [pg 208] some of them are of great value, and are described above in Chap. III. These are

chad. (ξ),
dunelm. (Κ),
harl.3 (Μ),
lind. (η),
mac-regol (χ),
oxon. (Σ),
oxon. (Paul. χ),
seld. (Act. χ),
vall.,
Westcott adds harl.4 (Η).

A second mass of materials, all Latin, about twenty in number, and deposited in England, is contained in the first volume of the Benedictine edition of St. Jerome's works (Paris, 1693). In this book (B. xvii. 14) Dr. Westcott has pasted a valuable note, wherein he identifies the manuscripts used by Bentley by the means of his own actual collation. Those described above in Chap. III are the following:

B. M. Harl. 1802 (W),
B. M. harl.2 (M. of Epistles, &c.),
B. M. Addit. 5463 (F),
B. M. King's Lib. I. A. 18 (O),
B. M. King's Lib. I. B. VII. (H),
B. M. King's Lib. I. E. VI. (P),
B. M. C. C. C. Camb. 286 (B),
B. M. Trin. Coll. Camb. B. X. 5 (S),
B. M. Trin. Coll. Camb. B. X. 4 (T, ibid.),
B. M. lind. (Y: as in B. XVII. 5),
B. M. Camb. Univ. Lib. Kk. I. 24 (χ).

Westcott further appropriates B. M. Cotton, Otho B. ix, as Bentley's D; Cotton Tib. A. ii (“the Coronation book”) as his ε; Cotton Otho C. v as his φ; C. C. C. Camb. 197 as his C; King's Library 1 D. ix as his A. His ξ in B. xvii. 14 seems unrecognized.

These, of course, are no more than the rough materials of criticism. Another copy of the N. T. has been carefully and curiously made available for my use by the goodness of my friend Edwin Palmer, D.D., Archdeacon of Oxford. It is numbered B. xvii. 6, and is a duplicate copy (without its title-page) of the same printed book as B. xvii. 5. It is interleaved throughout, and was prepared very early in the course of this undertaking, inasmuch as Bentley describes it in an undated letter to Wetstein, which the latter answered Nov. 3, 1716. In the printed [pg 209] text itself, both Greek and Latin, as they stand in parallel columns, Bentley makes the corrections which he at that period was willing to adopt. There is no critical apparatus to justify his changes in the Latin version, but on the blank leaves of the book he sets down his Greek authorities, always cited by name, as Alex., Cant., Rom. (Cod. B.), Ox. in the Acts (Cod. E), θ in St. Paul for Cod. Augiensis (F), though this last did not reach him before 1718. Cod. C is sometimes called Eph., sometimes it is mixed up with Wetstein's other copies (1 Wetstein, 2 Wetstein, &c.). This most interesting volume, therefore, contains the first draft of Bentley's great design, and must have been nearly in its present state when the 'Proposals' were published in 1720, since the specimen chapter (Apoc. xxii) which accompanied them is taken verbatim from B. xvii. 6, save that authorities are added to vindicate the alterations of the Latin text, which is destitute of them in the printed book. Mr. Ellis too has printed the Epistle to the Galatians from the same source, and this specimen also produces much the same impression of meagreness and imperfection. It was doubtless in some degree to remedy an apparent crudeness that cursive copies were afterwards called in, as in B. xvii. 5 and in Walker's Oxford collections. The fact is that Bentley's main principle, as set forth by him from 1716 to 1720, that of substantial identity between the oldest Greek and Latin copies, is more favoured by Cod. A, which he knew soonest and best, than by any other really ancient documents, least of all by Cod. B, with which he obtained fuller acquaintance in or about 1720. Our Aristarchus then betook himself at intervals to cursive codices in the vain hope of getting aid from them, and so lost his way at last in that wide and pathless wilderness. We cannot but believe that nothing less than the manifest impossibility of maintaining the principles which his “Letter” of 1716 enunciated, and his 'Proposals' of 1720 scarcely modified, in the face of the evidence which his growing mass of collations bore against them205, could have had power enough to break off in the midst [pg 210] that labour of love from which he had looked for undying fame206.

7. The anonymous text and version of William Mace, said to have been a Presbyterian minister (“The New Testament in Greek and English,” 2 vols. 8vo, 1729), are alike unworthy of serious notice, and have long since been forgotten207. And now original research in the science of Biblical criticism, so far as the New Testament is concerned, seems to have left the shores of England, to return no more for upwards of a century208; and we must look to Germany if we wish to trace the further progress of investigations which our countrymen had so auspiciously begun. The first considerable effort made on the Continent was:—

8. The New Testament of John Albert Bengel, 4to, Tübingen, 1734209: his “Prodromus N. T. Gr. rectè cautèque adornandi” had appeared as early as 1725. This devout and truly able man [1687-1752], who held the office (whatever might be its functions) [pg 211] of Abbot of Alpirspach in the Lutheran communion of Württemberg, though more generally known as an interpreter of Scripture from his invaluable “Gnomon Novi Testamenti,” yet left the stamp of his mind deeply imprinted on the criticism of the sacred volume. As a collator his merits were not high; nearly all his sixteen codices have required and obtained fresh examination from those who came after him210. His text, which he arranged in convenient paragraphs, as has been said, is the earliest important specimen of intentional departure from the received type; hence he imposes on himself the strange restriction of admitting into it no reading (excepting in the Apocalypse) which had not appeared in one or more of the editions that preceded his own. He pronounces his opinion on other select variations by placing them in his lower margin with Greek numerals attached to them, according as he judged them decidedly better (α), or somewhat more likely (β), than those which stand in his text: or equal to them (γ); or a little (δ), or considerably (ε), inferior. This notation has advantages which might well have commended it to the attention of succeeding editors. In his “Apparatus Criticus” also, at the end of his volume, he set the example, now generally followed, of recording definitely the testimony in favour of a received reading, as well as that against it.

But the peculiar importance of Bengel's N. T. is due to the critical principles developed therein. Not only was his native acuteness of great service to him, when weighing the conflicting probabilities of internal evidence, but in his fertile mind sprang up the germ of that theory of families or recensions, which was afterwards expanded by J. S. Semler [1725-91], and grew to such formidable dimensions in the skilful hands of Griesbach. An attentive student of the discrepant readings of the N. T., even in the limited extent they had hitherto been collected, could hardly fail to discern that certain manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers have a manifest [pg 212] affinity with each other; so that one of them shall seldom be cited in support of a variation (not being a manifest and gross error of the copyist), unless accompanied by several of its kindred. The inference is direct and clear, that documents which thus withdraw themselves from the general mass of authorities, must have sprung from some common source, distinct from those which in characteristic readings they but slightly resemble. It occurred, therefore, to Bengel as a hopeful mode of making good progress in the criticism of the N. T., to reduce all extant testimony into “companies, families, tribes, and nations,” and thus to simplify the process of settling the sacred text by setting class over against class, and trying to estimate the genius of each, and the relative importance they may severally lay claim to. He wished to divide all extant documents into two nations: the Asiatic, chiefly written in Constantinople and its neighbourhood, which he was inclined to disparage; and the African, comprising the few of a better type (“Apparatus Criticus,” p. 669, 2nd edition, 1763). Various circumstances hindered Bengel from working out his principle, among which he condescends to set his dread of exposing his task to senseless ridicule211; yet no one can doubt that it comprehends the elements of what is both reasonable and true; however difficult it has subsequently proved to adjust the details of any consistent scheme. For the rest, Bengel's critical verdicts, always considered in relation to his age and opportunities, deserve strong commendation. He saw the paramount worth of Cod. A, the only great uncial then much known (N. T., Apparat. Crit., pp. 390-401). The high character of the Latin version, and the [pg 213] necessity for revising its text by means of manuscripts (ibid., p. 391), he readily conceded, after Bentley's example. His mean estimate of the Greek-Latin codices (Evan. Act. D; Act. E; Paul. DFG) may not find equal favour in the eyes of all his admirers; he pronounces them “re verâ bilingues;” which, for their perpetual and wilful interpolations, “non pro codicibus sed pro rhapsodiis, haberi debeant” (ibid., p. 386)212.

9. The next step in advance was made by John James Wetstein [1693-1754], a native of Basle, whose edition of the Greek New Testament (“cum lectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, necnon Commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus, Hebraeis, Graecis, et Latinis, historiam et vim verborum illustrante”) appeared in two volumes, folio, Amsterdam, 1751-2. The genius, the character, and (it must in justice be added) the worldly fortunes of Wetstein were widely different from those of the good Abbot of Alpirspach. His taste for Biblical studies showed itself early. When ordained pastor at the age of twenty he delivered a disputation, “De variis N. T. lectionibus,” and zeal for this fascinating pursuit became at length with him a passion—the master-passion which consoled and dignified a roving, troubled, unprosperous life. In 1714 his eager search for manuscripts led him to Paris, in 1715-16 and again in 1720 he visited England, and was employed by Bentley in collecting materials for his projected edition, but he seems to have imbibed few of that great man's principles: the interval between them, both in age and station, almost forbade much sympathy. On his return home he gradually became suspected of Socinian tendencies, and it must be feared with too much justice; so that in the end he was deposed from the pastorate (1730), driven into exile, and after having been compelled to serve in a position the least favourable to the cultivation of learning, that of a military chaplain, he obtained at length (1733) a Professorship among the Remonstrants at Amsterdam (in succession to the celebrated Leclerc), and there continued till his death in 1754, having made his third visit to England in 1746. His “Prolegomena,” [pg 214] first published in 1730, and afterwards, in an altered form, prefixed to his N. T.213, present a painful image both of the man and of his circumstances. His restless energy, his undaunted industry, his violent temper, his love of paradox, his assertion for himself of perfect freedom of thought, his silly prejudice against Jesuits and bigots, his enmities, his wrongs, his ill-requited labours, at once excite our respect and our pity: while they all help to make his writings a sort of unconscious autobiography, rather interesting than agreeable. Non sic itur ad astra, whether morally or intellectually; yet Wetstein's services to sacred literature were of no common order. His philological annotations, wherein the matter and phraseology of the inspired writers are illustrated by copious—too copious—quotations from all kinds of authors, classical, Patristic, and Rabbinical, have proved an inexhaustible storehouse from which later writers have drawn liberally and sometimes without due acknowledgement; but many of the passages are of such a tenor as (to use Tregelles' very gentle language respecting them) “only to excite surprise at their being found on the same page as the text of the New Testament” (Account of Printed Text, p. 76). The critical portion of his work, however, is far more valuable, and in this department Wetstein must be placed in the very first rank, inferior (if to any) to but one or two of the highest names. He first cited the manuscripts under the notation by which they are commonly known, his list already embracing A-O, 1-112 of the Gospels; A-G, 1-58 of the Acts; A-H, 1-60 of St. Paul; A-C, 1-28 of the Apocalypse; 1-24 Evangelistaria; 1-4 of the Apostolos. Of these Wetstein himself collated about one hundred and two214; if not as fully or accurately as is now expected, yet with far greater care than had hitherto been usual: about eleven were examined for him by other hands. On the versions and early editions he has likewise bestowed great pains; and he improved upon quotations from the Fathers. His text is that of Elzevir (1633), not very exactly printed215, and immediately below it he [pg 215] placed such readings of his manuscripts as he judged preferable to those received. The readings thus approved by Wetstein (which do not amount to five hundred, and those chiefly in the Apocalypse) were inserted in the text of a Greek Testament published in London, 1763, 2 vols., by W. Bowyer, the learned printer, with a collection of critical conjectures annexed, which were afterwards published separately.

Wetstein's Prolegomena have also been reproduced by J. S. Semler (Halle, 1764), with good notes and facsimiles of certain manuscripts, and more recently, in a compressed and modernized form, by J. A. Lotze (Rotterdam, 1831), a book which neither for design nor execution can be much praised. The truth is that both the style and the subject-matter of much that Wetstein wrote are things of the past. In his earlier edition of his Prolegomena (1730) he had spoken of the oldest Greek uncial copies as they deserve; he was even disposed to take Cod. A as the basis of his text. By the time his N. T. was ready, twenty years later, he had come to include it, with all the older codices of the original, under a general charge of being conformed to the Latin version. That such a tendency may be detected in some of the codices accompanied by a Latin translation, is both possible in itself, and not inconsistent with their general spirit; but he has scattered abroad his imputations capriciously and almost at random, so as greatly to diminish the weight of his own decisions. Cod. A, in particular, has been fully cleared of the charge of Latinizing by Woide, in his excellent Prolegomena (§ 6). His thorough contempt for that critic prevented Wetstein from giving adequate attention to Bengel's theory of [pg 216] families; indeed he can hardly be said to have rejected a scheme which he scorned to investigate with patience. On the other hand no portion of his labours is more valuable than the “Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum N. T. necessariae” (N. T., Tom. ii. pp. 851-74). In this tract his natural good sense and extensive knowledge of authorities of every class have gone far to correct that impetuous temperament which was ever too ready to substitute plausible conjecture in the room of ascertained facts.

During the twenty years immediately ensuing on the publication of Wetstein's volumes, little was attempted in the way of enlarging or improving the domain he had secured for Biblical science. In England the attention of students was directed, and on the whole successfully, to the criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures; in Germany, the younger (J. D.) Michaelis [1717-91] reigned supreme, and he seems to have deemed it the highest effort of scholarship to sit in judgement on the labours of others. In process of time, however, the researches of John James Griesbach [1745-1812], a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a pupil of Semler, and J. A. Ernesti [1707-81] (whose manual, “Institutio Interpretis N. T.,” 1761, has not long been superseded), began to attract general notice. Like Wetstein, he made a literary tour in England early in life (1769), and with far more profit; returning to Halle as a Professor, he published before he was thirty (1774-5) his first edition of the N. T., which contained the well-defined embryo of his future and more elaborate speculations. It will be convenient to reserve the examination of his views until we have described the investigations of several collators who unknowingly (and in one instance, no doubt unwillingly) were busy in gathering stores which he was to turn to his own use.

10. Christian Frederick Matthaei, a Thuringian [1744-1811], was appointed, on the recommendation of his tutor Ernesti, to the Professorship of Classical Literature at Moscow: so far as philology is concerned, he probably merited Bp. Middleton's praise, as “the most accurate scholar who ever edited the N. T.” (Doctrine of the Greek Article, p. 244, 3rd edition.) At Moscow he found a large number of Greek manuscripts, both Biblical and Patristic, originally brought from Athos, quite uncollated, [pg 217] and almost entirely unknown in the west of Europe. With laudable resolution he set himself to examine them, and gradually formed the scheme of publishing an edition of the New Testament by the aid of materials so precious and abundant. All authors that deserve that honourable name may be presumed to learn not a little, even on the subject they know best, while preparing an important work for the public eye; but Matthaei was as yet ignorant of the first principles of the critical art; and beginning thus late, there was much, and that of a very elementary character, which he never understood at all. When he commenced writing he had not seen the volumes of Mill or Wetstein; and to this significant fact we must impute that inability which clave to him to the last, of discriminating the relative age and value of his own or others' codices. The palaeographical portion of the science, indeed, he gradually acquired from the study of his documents, and through the many facsimiles of them he represents in his edition; but what can be thought of his judgement, when he persisted in asserting the intrinsic superiority of Cod. 69 of the Acts to the great uncials AC (N. T., Tom. xii. p. 222)216? Hence it results that Matthaei's text, which of course he moulded on his own views, must be held in slight esteem: his services as a collator comprehend his whole claim (and that no trifling one) to our thankful regard. To him solely we are indebted for Evan. V; 237-259; Act. 98-107; Paul. 113-124; Apoc. 47-502 (i.e. r); Evst. 47-57; Apost. 13-20; nearly all at Moscow: the whole seventy217, together [pg 218] with the citations of Scripture in thirty-four manuscripts of Chrysostom218, being so fully and accurately collated, that the reader need not be at a loss whether any particular copy supports or opposes the reading in the common text. Matthaei's further services in connexion with Cod. G Paul, and a few others (Act. 69, &c.) have been noticed in their proper places. To his Greek text was annexed the Latin Vulgate (the only version, in its present state, he professes to regard, Tom. xi. p. xii) from the Cod. Demidovianus. The first volume of this edition appeared in 1782, after it had been already eight years in preparation: this comprised the Catholic Epistles. The rest of the work was published at intervals during the next six years, in eleven more thin parts 8vo, the whole series being closed by SS. Matthew and Mark in 1788. Each volume has a Preface, much descriptive matter, and facsimiles of manuscripts (twenty-nine in all), the whole being in complete and almost hopeless disorder, and the general title-page absurdly long. Hence his critical principles (if such they may be termed) must be picked up piecemeal; and it is not very pleasant to observe the sort of influence which hostile controversy exercised over his mind and temper. While yet fresh at his task (1782), anticipating the fair fame his most profitable researches had so well earned, Matthaei is frank, calm, and rational: even at a later period J. D. Michaelis is, in his estimation, the keenest of living judges of codices, and he says so the rather “quod ille vir doctissimus multis modis me, quâ de causâ ipse ignoro, partim jocosè, partim seriò, vexavit” (Tom. ii, 1788, p. xxxi). Bengel, whose sentiments were very dissimilar from those of the Moscow Professor, “pro acumine, diligentiâ et religione suâ,” would have arrived at other conclusions, had his Augsburg codices been better (ibid., p. xxx). But for Griesbach and his recension-theory no terms of insult are strong enough; [pg 219] “risum vel adeo pueris debet ille Halensis criticus,” who never saw, ut credibile est,” a manuscript even of the tenth century (ibid., p. xxiii), yet presumes to dictate to those who have collated seventy. The unhappy consequence was, that one who had taken up this employment in an earnest and candid spirit, possessed with the simple desire to promote the study of sacred literature, could devise no fitter commencement for his latest Preface than this: “Laborem igitur molestum invidiosum et infamem, inter convicia ranarum et latratus canum, aut ferreâ patientiâ aut invictâ pertinaciâ his quindecim annis vel sustinui, vel utcunque potui perfeci, vel denique et fastidio et taedio, ut fortasse non nulli opinantur, deposui et abjeci” (Tom. i, Praef. p. 1): he could find no purer cause for thankfulness, than (what we might have imagined but a very slight mercy) that he had never been commended by those “of whom to be dispraised is no small praise;” or (to use his own more vigorous language) “quod nemo scurra ... nemo denique de grego novorum theologorum, hanc qualemcunque operam meam ausus est ore impuro suo, laudeque contumeliosâ comprobare.” Matthaei's second edition in three volumes (destitute of the Latin version and most of the critical notes) bears date 1803-7219. For some cause, now not easy to understand, he hardly gave to this second edition the advantages of his studies during the fifteen years which had elapsed since he completed his first. We saw his labours bestowed on the Zittau N. T. in 1801-2 (Evan. 605). On the last leaf of the third volume of his second edition, writing from Moscow in May, 1805, he speaks of a book containing collations of no less than twenty-four manuscripts, partly fresh, partly corrected, which, when he returned into Russia, he delivered to Augustus Schumann, a bookseller at Ronneburg (in Saxe Altenburg), to be published in close connexion with his second edition against the Easter Fair at Leipzig in 1805. Another book contained extracts from St. Chrysostom with a commentary and index, to be published at the same time, and both at Schumann's risk. “Utrum isti libri jam prodierint necne,” our author adds pathetically, “nondum factus sum certior. Certe id vehementer opto.” But in 1805 evil times were hastening upon Germany, [pg 220] and so unfortunately for the poor man and for textual students these collections have disappeared and left no trace behind.

10.a The next, and a far less considerable contribution to our knowledge of manuscripts of the N. T., was made by Francis Karl Alter [1749-1804], a Jesuit, born in Silesia, and Professor of Greek at Vienna. His plan was novel, and, to those who are compelled to use his edition (N. T. Graecum, ad Codicem Vindobonensem Graecè expressum, 8vo, Vienna, 2 tom., 1786-7), inconvenient to the last degree. Adopting for his standard a valuable, but not very ancient or remarkable, manuscript in the Imperial Library (Evan. 218, Act. 65, Paul. 57, Apoc. 83), he prints this copy at full length, retaining even the ν ἐφελκυστικόν when it is found in his model, but not (as it would seem) all the itacisms or errors of the scribe, conforming in such cases to Stephen's edition of 1546. With this text he collates in separate Appendices twenty-one other manuscripts of the same great Library, comprising twelve copies of the Gospels (Codd. N, a fragment, 3, 76, 77, 108, 123, 124, 125, 219, 220, 224, 225); six of the Acts, &c. (3, 43, 63, 64, 66, 67); seven of St. Paul (3, 49, 67-71); three of the Apocalypse (34, 35, 36), and two Evangelistaria (45, 46). He also gives readings from Wilkins' Coptic version, four Slavonic codices and one Old Latin (i). In employing this ill-digested mass, it is necessary to turn to a different place for every manuscript to be consulted, and Alter's silence in any passages must be understood to indicate resemblance to his standard, Evan. 218, and not to the common text. As this silence is very often clearly due to the collator's mere oversight, Griesbach set the example of citing these manuscripts in such cases within marks of parenthesis: thus “218 (108, 220)” indicates that the reading in question is certainly found in Cod. 218, and (so far as we may infer ex Alteri silentio) not improbably in the other two. Most of these Vienna codices were about the same time examined rather slightly by Andrew Birch.

11. This eminent person, who afterwards bore successively the titles of Bishop of Lolland, Falster, and Aarhuus, in the Lutheran communion established in Denmark, was one of a company of learned men sent by the liberal care of Christian VII to examine Biblical manuscripts in various countries. Adler [pg 221] pursued his Oriental studies at Rome and elsewhere; D. G. Moldenhawer and O. G. Tychsen (the famous Orientalist of Rostock) were sent into Spain in 1783-4; Birch travelled on the same good errand in 1781-3 through Italy and Germany. The combined results of their investigations were arranged and published by Birch, whose folio edition of the Four Gospels (also in 4to) with Stephen's text of 1550220, and the various readings contributed by himself and his associates, full descriptive Prolegomena and facsimiles of seven manuscripts (Codd. S, 157 Evan.; and five in Syriac), appeared at Copenhagen in 1788. Seven years afterwards (1795) a fire destroyed the Royal Printing-house, the type, paper, and unsold stock of the first volume, the collations of the rest of the N. T. having very nearly shared the same fate. These poor fragments were collected by Birch into two small 8vo volumes, those relating to the Acts and Epistles in 1798, to the Apocalypse (with facsimiles of Codd. 37, 42) in 1800. In 1801 he revised and re-edited the various readings of the Gospels, in a form to correspond with those of the rest of the N. T. Nothing can be better calculated to win respect and confidence than the whole tone of Birch's several Prolegomena: he displays at once a proper sense of the difficulties of his task, and a consciousness that he had done his utmost to conquer them221. It is indeed much to be regretted that, for some cause he does not wish to explain, he accomplished but little for Cod. B; many of the manuscripts on his long list were beyond question examined but very superficially; yet he was almost the first to open to us the literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of Venice. He more or less inspected the uncials Cod. B, Codd. ST of the Gospels, Cod. L of the Acts and Epistles. His catalogue of cursives comprises Codd. 127-225 of the Gospels; Codd. 63-7, 70-96 of the Acts; Codd. 67-71, 77-112 of St. Paul; Codd. 33-4, 37-46 [pg 222] of the Apocalypse; Evangelistaria 35-39; Apostolos 7, 8: in all 191 copies, a few of which were thoroughly collated (e.g. Evan. S, 127, 131, 157, Evst. 36). Of Adler's labours we have spoken already; they too are incorporated in Birch's work, and prefaced with a short notice (Birch, Proleg. p. lxxxv) by their author, a real and modest scholar. Moldenhawer's portion of the common task was discharged in another spirit. Received at the Escurial with courtesy and good-will, his colleague Tyschen and he spent four whole months in turning over a collection of 760 Greek manuscripts, of which only twenty related to the Greek Testament. They lacked neither leisure, nor opportunity, nor competent knowledge; but they were full of dislike for Spain and its religion, of overweening conceit, and of implicit trust in Griesbach and his recensions. The whole paper contributed by Moldenhawer to Birch's Prolegomena (pp. lxi-lxxxiv) is in substance very disappointing, while its arrogance is almost intolerable. What he effected for other portions of the N. T. I have not been able to trace (226, 228 Evan., which also contain the Acts and Epistles, are but nominally on Scholz's list for those books); the fire at Copenhagen may probably have destroyed his notes. Of the Gospels he collated eight codices (226-233), and four Evangelistaria (40-43), most of them being dismissed, after a cursory review, with some expression of hearty contempt. To Evann. 226, 229, 230 alone was he disposed to pay any attention; of the rest, whether “he soon restored them to their primitive obscurity” (p. lxxi), or “bade them sweet and holy rest among the reliques of Saints and Martyrs” (p. lxvii), he may be understood to say, once for all, “Omnino nemo, qui horum librorum rationem ac indolem ... perspectam habet, ex iis lectionis varietatem operose eruere aggredietur, nec, si quam inde conquisiverit, operae pretium fecisse a peritis arbitris existimabitur” (p. lxxiv). It was not thus that Matthaei dealt with the manuscripts at Moscow.

12. Such were the materials ready for Griesbach's use when he projected his second and principal edition of the Greek Testament (vol. i. 1796, vol. ii. 1806). Not that he was backward in adding to the store of various readings by means of his own diligence. His “Symbolae Criticae222 (vol. i. 1785, vol. ii. 1793) [pg 223] contained, together with the readings extracted from Origen, collations, in whole or part, of many copies of various portions of the N. T., Latin as well as Greek. Besides inspecting Codd. AD (Evann.), and carefully examining Cod. C223, he consulted no less than twenty-six codices (including GL) of the Gospels, ten (including E) of the Acts, &c., fifteen (including DEH) of St. Paul, one of the Apocalypse (Cod. 29) twelve Lectionaries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostolos, far the greater part of them being deposited in England. It was not, however, his purpose to exhibit in his N. T. (designed, as it was, for general use) all the readings he had himself recorded elsewhere, much less the whole mass accumulated by the pains of Mill or Wetstein, Matthaei or Birch. The distinctive end at which he aims is to form such a selection from the matter their works contain, as to enable the theological student to decide for himself on the genuineness or corruption of any given reading, by the aid of principles which he devotes his best efforts to establish. Between the text (in which departures from the Elzevir edition of 1624 are generally indicated by being printed in smaller type224) and the critical notes at the foot of each page, intervenes a narrow space or inner margin, to receive those portions of the common text which Griesbach has rejected, and such variations of his authorities as he judges to be of equal weight with the received readings which he retains, or but little inferior to them. These decisions he intimates by several symbols, not quite so simple as those employed by Bengel, but conceived in a similar spirit; and he has carried his system somewhat further in his small or manual edition, published at Leipzig in 1805, which may be conceived to represent his last thoughts with regard to the recension of the Greek text of the N. T. But though we may trace some slight discrepancies of opinion between his earliest225 and his latest works226, as might [pg 224] well be looked for in a literary career of forty years, yet the theory of his youth was maintained, and defended, and temperately applied by Griesbach even to the last. From Bengel and Semler he had taken up the belief that manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers divide themselves, with respect to the character of their testimony, into races or families. This principle he strove to reduce to practice by marshalling all his authorities under their respective heads, and then regarding the evidence, not of individuals, but of the classes to which they belong. The advantage of some such arrangement is sufficiently manifest, if only it could be made to rest on grounds in themselves certain, or, at all events, fairly probable. We should then possess some better guide in our choice between conflicting readings, than the very rough and unsatisfactory process of counting the number of witnesses produced on either side. It is not that such a mode of conducting critical enquiries would not be very convenient, that Griesbach's theory is universally abandoned by modern scholars, but because there is no valid reason for believing it to be true.

At the onset of his labours, indeed, this acute and candid enquirer was disposed to divide all extant materials into five or six different families; he afterwards limited them to three, the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Byzantine recensions. The standard of the Alexandrian text he conceived to be Origen; who, although his works were written in Palestine, was assumed to have brought with him into exile copies of Scripture, similar to those used in his native city. To this family would belong a few manuscripts of the earliest date, and confessedly of the highest character, Codd. ABC, Cod. L of the Gospels, the Egyptian and some lesser versions. The Western recension would survive in Cod. D of the Gospels and Acts, in the other ancient copies which contain a Latin translation, in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions, and in the Latin Fathers. The vast majority of manuscripts (comprising perhaps nineteen-twentieths of the whole), together with the larger proportion of versions and Patristic writings, were grouped into the Byzantine class, as having prevailed generally in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. To this last class Griesbach hardly professed to accord as much weight as to either of the others, nor, if he had done so, would the result have been materially different. The joint testimony [pg 225] of two classes was, ceteris paribus, always to prevail; and since the very few documents which comprise the Alexandrian and Western recensions seldom agree with the Byzantine even when at variance with each other, the numerous codices which make up the third family would thus have about as much share in fixing the text of Scripture, as the poor citizens whose host was included in one of Servius Tullius' lower classes possessed towards counterbalancing the votes of the wealthy few that composed his first or second227.

Inasmuch as the manuscripts on which our received text was based must, beyond question, be referred to his Byzantine family, wide as were the variations of Griesbach's revised text from that of Elzevir228, had his theory been pushed to its legitimate consequences, the changes it required would have been greater still. The very plan of his work, however, seemed to reserve a slight preference for the received text as such, in cases of doubt and difficulty; and this editor, with a calmness and sagacity which may well be called judicial, was usually disposed to relax his stern mechanical law when persuaded by reasons founded on internal probabilities, which (as we cheerfully admit) few men have been found able to estimate with so much patience and discrimination. The plain fact is, that while disciples like Moldenhawer and persons who knew even less than he were regarding Griesbach's system as self-evidently true, their wiser master must have had many a misgiving as to the safety of that imposing structure his rare ingenuity had built upon the sand. The very essence of his theory consisted in there being not two [pg 226] distinct families, but three; the majority deciding in all cases of dispute. Yet he hardly attempted, certainly neither he nor any one after him succeeded in the attempt, to separate the Alexandrian from the Western family, without resorting to arguments which would prove that there are as many classes as there are manuscripts of early date. The supposed accordance of the readings of Origen, so elaborately scrutinized for this purpose by Griesbach, with Cod. A, on which our editor lays the greatest stress, has been shown by Archbishop Laurence (Remarks on Griesbach's Systematic Classification, 1814) to be in a high degree imaginary229. It must have been in anticipation of some such researches, and in a partial knowledge of their sure results, that Griesbach was driven to that violent and most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrian in St. Paul.

It seems needless to dwell longer on speculations which, however attractive and once widely received, will scarcely again find an advocate. Griesbach's text can no longer be regarded as satisfactory, though it is far less objectionable than such a system as his would have made it in rash or unskilful hands. His industry, his moderation, his fairness to opponents, who (like Matthaei) had shown him little forbearance, we may all imitate to our profit. His logical acuteness and keen intellectual perception fall to the lot of few; and though they may have helped to lead him into error, and have even kept him from retracing his steps, yet on the whole they were worthily exercised in the good cause of promoting a knowledge of God's truth, and of keeping alive, in an evil and unbelieving age, an enlightened interest in Holy Scripture, and the studies which it serves to consecrate.

13. Of a widely different order of mind was John Martin Augustine Scholz [d. 1852], Roman Catholic Dean of Theology in the mixed University of Bonn. It would have been well for the progress of sacred learning and for his own reputation had [pg 227] the accuracy and ability of this editor borne some proportion to his zeal and obvious anxiety to be useful. His first essay was his “Curae Criticae in historiam textûs Evangeliorum,” in two dissertations, Heidelberg, 4to, 1820, containing notices of forty-eight Paris manuscripts (nine of them hitherto unknown) of which he had fully collated seventeen: the second Dissertation is devoted to Cod. K of the Gospels. In 1823 appeared his “Biblisch-Kritische Reise,” Leipsic, 8vo, Biblio-Critical Travels in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine and the Archipelago, which Schulz laid under contribution for his improved edition of Griesbach's first volume230. Scholz's “N. T. Graece,” 4to, was published at Leipsic, vol. i, 1830 (Gospels); vol. ii, 1836.

The accession of fresh materials made known in these works is almost marvellous: Scholz was the first to indicate Codd. 260-469 of the Gospels; 110-192 of the Acts, &c.; 125-246 of St. Paul; 51-89 of the Apocalypse; 51-181 Evangelistaria; 21-58 Lectionaries of the Apostolos; in all 616 cursive codices. His additions to the list of the uncials comprise only the three fragments of the Gospels Wa Y and the Vatican leaves of N. Of those examined previously by others he paid most attention to Evan. KX (M also for its synaxaria), and G (now L) Act., Paul.; he moreover inspected slightly eighty-two cursive codices of the Gospels after Wetstein, Birch, and the rest; collated entire five (Codd. 4, 19, 25, 28, 33), and twelve in the greater part, adding much to our knowledge of the important Cod. 22. In the Acts, &c., he inspected twenty-seven of those known before, partially collated two; in St. Paul he collated partially two, slightly twenty-nine; in the Apocalypse sixteen, cursorily enough it would seem (see Codd. 21-3): of the Lectionaries he touched more or less thirteen of the Gospels, four of the Apostolos. On turning to the 616 codices Scholz placed on the list for the first time, we find that he collated entire but thirteen (viz. five of the Gospels, three of the Acts, &c., three of St. Paul, one each of the Apocalypse and Evangelistaria): a few of the rest he examined throughout the greater part; many in only a few chapters; while some were set down from printed [pg 228] Catalogues, whose plenteous errors we have used our best endeavours to correct in the present volume, so far as the means were within our reach.

Yet, after making a large deduction from our first impressions of the amount of labour performed by Scholz, enough and more than enough would remain to entitle him to our lasting gratitude, if it were possible to place any tolerable reliance on the correctness of his results. Those who are, however superficially, acquainted with the nature of such pursuits, will readily believe that faultless accuracy in representing myriads of minute details is not to be looked for from the most diligent and careful critic. Oversights will mar the perfection of the most highly finished of human efforts; but if adequate care and pains shall have been bestowed on detecting them, such blemishes as still linger unremoved are no real subject of reproach, and do not greatly lessen the value of the work which contains them. But in the case of Scholz's Greek Testament the fair indulgence we must all hope for is abused beyond the bounds of reason or moderation. The student who has had much experience of his volumes, especially if he has ever compared the collations there given with the original manuscripts, will never dream of resorting to them for information he can expect to gain elsewhere, or rest with confidence on a statement of fact merely because Scholz asserts it. J. Scott Porter (Principles of Textual Criticism, Belfast, 1848, pp. 263-66) and Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. c-cii, 7th edition) have dwelt upon his strange blunders, his blind inconsistencies, and his habitual practice of copying from his predecessors without investigation and without acknowledgement; so that it is needless for us to repeat or dwell on that ungracious task231; but it is our duty to put the student once for [pg 229] all on his guard against what could not fail to mislead him, and to express our sorrow that twelve years and more of hard and persevering toil should, through mere heedlessness, have been nearly thrown away.

As was natural in a pupil of J. L. Hug of Freyburg (see vol. i. p. 111), who had himself tried to build a theory of recensions on very slender grounds, Dr. Scholz attempted to settle the text of the N. T. upon principles which must be regarded as a modification of those of Griesbach. In his earliest work, like that great critic, he had been disposed to divide all extant authorities into five separate classes; but he soon reduced them to two, the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan. In the Alexandrian family he included the whole of Griesbach's Western recension, from which indeed it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad line of demarcation: to the other family he referred the great mass of more recent documents which compose Griesbach's third or Byzantine class; and to this family he was inclined to give the preference over the other, as well from the internal excellency of its readings, as because it represents the uniform text which had become traditional throughout the Greek Church. That such a standard, public, and authorized text existed he seems to have taken for granted without much enquiry. “Codices qui hoc nomen [Constantinopolitanum] habent,” he writes, “parum inter se dissentiunt. Conferas, quaeso, longè plerosque quos huic classi adhaerere dixi, atque lectiones diversas viginti trigintave in totidem capitibus vix reperies, unde conjicias eos esse accuratissimè descriptos, eorumque antigrapha parum inter se discrepasse” (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. § 55). It might have occurred to one who had spent so many years in studying Greek manuscripts, that this marvellous concord between the different Byzantine witnesses (which is striking enough, no doubt, as we turn over the pages of his Greek Testament) is after all due to [pg 230] nothing so much as to the haste and carelessness of collators. The more closely the cursive copies of Scripture are examined, the more does the individual character of each of them become developed. With certain points of general resemblance, whereby they are distinguished from the older documents of the Alexandrian class, they abound with mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to vouch for the independent origin of nearly all of them, and their exact study has “swept away at once and for ever” (Tregelles' “Account of Printed Text,” p. 180) the fancy of a standard Constantinopolitan text, and every inference that had been grounded upon its presumed existence. If (as we firmly believe) the less ancient codices ought to have their proper weight and appreciable influence in fixing the true text of Scripture, our favourable estimate of them must rest on other arguments than Scholz has urged in their behalf.

Since this editor's system of recensions differed thus widely from Griesbach's, in suppressing altogether one of his three classes, and in yielding to the third, which the other slighted, a decided preference over its surviving rival, it might have been imagined that the consequences of such discrepancy in theory would have been strongly marked in their effects on his text. That such is not the case, at least to any considerable extent (especially in his second volume), must be imputed in part to Griesbach's prudent reserve in carrying out his principles to extremity, but yet more to Scholz's vacillation and evident weakness of judgement. In fact, on his last visit to England in 1845, he distributed among Biblical students here a “Commentatio de virtutibus et vitiis utriusque codicum N. T. familiae,” that he had just delivered on the occasion of some Encaenia at Bonn, in which (after various statements that display either ignorance or inattention respecting the ordinary phenomena of manuscripts which in a veteran collator is really unaccountable232) he declares his purpose, chiefly it would seem from considerations of internal evidence, that if ever it should be his lot to prepare another edition of the New Testament, “se plerasque codicum Alexandrinorum lectiones illas quas in margine interiore textui editionis suae Alexandrinas dixit, in textum recepturum” (p. 14). [pg 231] The text which its constructor distrusted, can have but small claim on the faith of others.

14. “Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, Carolus Lachmannus recensuit, Philippus Buttmannus Ph. F. Graecae lectionis auctoritates apposuit” is the simple title-page of a work, by one of the most eminent philologists of his time, the first volume of which (containing the Gospels) appeared at Berlin (8vo), 1842, the second and concluding one in 1850, whose boldness and originality have procured it, as well for good as for ill, a prominent place in the history of the sacred text. Lachmann had published as early as 1831 a small edition containing only the text of the New Testament, with a list of the readings wherein he differs from that of Elzevir, preceded by a notice of his plan not exceeding a few lines in length, itself so obscurely worded that even to those who happened to understand his meaning it must have read like a riddle whose solution they had been told beforehand; and referring us for fuller information to what he strangely considered “a more convenient place,” a German periodical of the preceding year's date233. Authors who take so little pains to explain their fundamental principles of criticism, especially if (as in the present case) these are novel and unexpected, can hardly wonder when their drift and purpose are imperfectly apprehended; so that a little volume, which we now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and labour, was confounded, even by the learned, with the mass of common, [pg 232] hasty, and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much removed on the publication of the first volume of his larger book. It was then seen, indeed, how clean a sweep he had made of the great majority of Greek manuscripts usually cited in critical editions:—in fact he rejects all in a heap excepting Codd. ABC, the fragments PQTZ (and for some purposes D) of the Gospels; DE of the Acts only; DGH of St. Paul. Yet even now he treats the scheme of his work as if it were already familiarly known, and spends his time in discursive controversy with his opponents and reviewers, whom he chastises with a heartiness which in this country we imputed to downright malice, till Tregelles was so good as to instruct us that in Lachmann it was but “a tone of pleasantry,” the horseplay of coarse German wit (Account of Printed Text, p. 112). The supplementary Prolegomena which preface his second volume of 1850 are certainly more explicit: both from what they teach and from the practical examples they contain, they have probably helped others, as well as myself, in gaining a nearer insight into his whole design.

It seems, then, to have been Lachmann's purpose, discarding the slightest regard for the textus receptus as such, to endeavour to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century, and this in the first instance by documentary aid alone, without regarding for the moment whether the sense produced were probable or improbable, good or bad; but looking solely to his authorities, and following them implicitly wheresoever the numerical majority might carry him. For accomplishing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as early as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only knew less than has since come to light (and even this is not quite sufficient), but he did not avail himself of Bartolocci's papers on Cod. B, to which Scholz had already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the fourth century at all, but varying in date from the fifth (ACT) to the ninth (G); and of these few (of C more especially) his assistant or colleague Buttmann's representation was loose, careless, and unsatisfactory. Of the Greek Fathers, the scanty Greek remains of Irenaeus and the works of Origen are all that are employed; but considerable weight is given to the readings of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at length as [pg 233] revised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from the Codices Fuldensis and Amiatinus: the Old Latin manuscripts abc, together with the Latin versions accompanying the Greek copies which he receives234, are treated as primary authorities: of the Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse Primasius also. The Syriac and Egyptian translations he considers himself excused from attending to, by reason of his ignorance of their respective languages.

The consequence of this voluntary poverty where our manuscript treasures are so abundant, of this deliberate rejection of the testimony of many hundreds of documents, of various countries, dates, and characters, may be told in a few words. Lachmann's text seldom rests on more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on two; in Matt. vi. 20-viii. 5, and in 165 out of the 405 verses of the Apocalypse, on but one. It would have been a grievous thing indeed if we really had no better means of ascertaining the true readings of the New Testament than are contained in this editor's scanty roll; and he who, for the sake of some private theory, shall presume to shut out from his mind the great mass of information God's Providence has preserved for our use, will hardly be thought to have chosen the most hopeful method for bringing himself or others to the knowledge of the truth.

But supposing, for the sake of argument, that Lachmann had availed himself to the utmost of the materials he has selected, and that they were adequate for the purpose of leading him up to the state of the text as it existed in the fourth century, would he have made any real advance in the criticism of the sacred volume? Is it not quite evident, even from the authorities contained in his notes, that copies in that age varied as widely—nay even more widely—than they did in later times? that the main corruptions and interpolations which perplex the student in Cod. Bezae and its Latin allies, crept in at a period anterior to the age of Constantine? From the Preface to his second volume (1850) it plainly appears (what might, perhaps, have been gathered by an esoteric pupil from the Preface to his first, [pg 234] pp. v, xxxiii), that he regarded this fourth century text, founded as it is on documentary evidence alone, as purely provisional; as mere subject-matter on which individual conjecture might advantageously operate (Praef. 1850, p. v). Of the many examples wherewith he illustrates his principle we must be content with producing one, as an ample specimen both of Lachmann's plan and of his judgement in reducing it to practice. In Matt. xxvii. 28 for ἐκδύσαντες, which gives a perfectly good sense, and seems absolutely required by τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ in ver. 31, BDabc read ἐνδύσαντες, a variation either borrowed from Mark xv. 17, or more probably a mere error of the pen. Had the whole range of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers been searched, no other testimony in favour of ἐνδύσαντες could have been found save Cod. 157, ff2 and q of the Old Latin, the Latin version of Origen, and a few codices of Chrysostom235. Against these we might set a vast company of witnesses, exceeding those on the opposite side by full a hundred to one; yet because Cod. A and the Latin Vulgate alone are on Lachmann's list, he is compelled by his system to place ἐνδύσαντες in the text as the reading of his authorities, reserving to himself the privilege of removing it on the ground of its palpable impropriety: and all this because he wishes to keep the “recensio” of the text distinct from the “emendatio” of the sense (Praef. 1850, p. vi). Surely it were a far more reasonable, as well as a more convenient process, to have reviewed from the first the entire case on both sides, and if the documentary evidence were not unevenly balanced, or internal evidence strongly preponderated in one scale, to place in the text once for all the reading which upon the whole should appear best suited to the passage, and most sufficiently established by authority.

But while we cannot accord to Lachmann the praise of wisdom in his design, or of over-much industry and care in the execution of it (see Tischendorf, N. T., Proleg. pp. cvii-cxii), yet we would not dissemble or extenuate the power his edition has exerted over candid and enquiring minds. Earnest, single-hearted, [pg 235] a true scholar both in spirit and accomplishments, he has had the merit of restoring the Latin versions to their proper rank in the criticism of the New Testament, which since the failure of Bentley's schemes they seem to have partially lost. No one will hereafter claim for the received text any further weight than it is entitled to as the representative of the manuscripts on which it was constructed: and the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient documents in preference to the many (so engaging from its very simplicity), which may be said to have virtually originated with him, has not been without influence with some who condemn the most strongly his hasty and one-sided, though consistent, application of it. Lachmann died in 1851.

15. “Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem isagogicam praetexuit Aenoth. Frid. Const. Tischendorf, editio octava:” Lipsiae, 1865-1872. This is beyond question the most full and comprehensive edition of the Greek Testament existing; it contains the results of the latest collations and discoveries, and as copious a body of various readings as is compatible with the design of adapting it for general use: though Tischendorf's notes are not sufficiently minute (as regards the cursive manuscripts) to supersede the need of perpetually consulting the labours of preceding critics. His earliest enterprise236 in connexion with Biblical studies was a small edition of the New Testament (12mo, 1841), completed at Leipzig in 1840, which, although greatly inferior to his subsequent works, merited the encouragement which it procured for him, and the praises of D. Schulz, which he very gratefully acknowledged. Soon afterwards he set out on his first literary journey: “quod quidem tam pauper suscepi,” he ingenuously declares, “ut pro paenula quam portabam solvere non possem;” and, while busily engaged on Cod. C, prepared three other editions of the New Testament, which appeared in 1843 at Paris, all of them being booksellers' speculations on which, perhaps, he set no high value; one inscribed to Guizot, the Protestant statesman, a second (having [pg 236] the Greek text placed in a parallel column with the Latin Vulgate, and somewhat altered to suit it) dedicated to Denys Affre, the Archbishop of Paris who fell so nobly at the barricades in June, 1848. His third edition of that year contained the Greek text of the second edition, without the Latin Vulgate. It is needless to enlarge upon the history of his travels, sufficiently described by Tischendorf in the Preface to his seventh edition (1859); it will be enough to state that he was in Italy in 1843 and 1866; four times he visited England (1842, 1849, 1855, 1865); and thrice went into the East, where his chief discovery—that of the Cod. Sinaiticus—was ultimately made. In 1849 came forth his second Leipzig or fifth edition of the New Testament, showing a very considerable advance upon that of 1841, though, in its earlier pages more especially, still very defective, and even as a manual scarce worthy of his rapidly growing fame. The sixth edition was one stereotyped for Tauchnitz in 1850 (he put forth another stereotyped edition in 1862), representing the text of 1849 slightly revised: the seventh, and up to that date by far the most important, was issued in thirteen parts at Leipsic during the four years 1856-9. It is indeed a monument of persevering industry which the world has not often seen surpassed: yet it was soon to be thrown into the shade by his eighth and latest edition, issued in eleven parts, between 1864 and 1872, the text of which is complete, but the Prolegomena, to our great loss, were never written, by reason of his illness and death (Dec. 7, 1874)237.

Yet it may truly be asserted that the reputation of Tischendorf as a Biblical scholar rests less on his critical editions of the N. T., than on the texts of the chief uncial authorities which in rapid succession he has given to the world. In 1843 was published the New Testament, in 1845 the Old Testament portion of “Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Cod. C)”, 2 vols. 4to, in uncial type, with elaborate Prolegomena, notes, and facsimiles. In 1846 appeared “Monumenta sacra inedita,” 4to, containing transcripts of Codd. FaLNWaa of the Gospels, and B of the Apocalypse; [pg 237] the plan and apparatus of this volume and of nearly all that follow are the same as in the Codex Ephraemi. In 1846 he also published the Codex Friderico-Augustanus in lithographed facsimile throughout, containing the results of his first discovery at Mount Sinai: in 1847 the Evangelium Palatinum ineditum of the Old Latin: in 1850 and again in 1854 less splendid but good and useful editions of the Codex Amiatinus of the Latin Vulgate. His edition of Codex Claromontanus (D of St. Paul), 1852, was of precisely the same nature as his editions of Cod. Ephraemi, &c, but his book entitled “Anecdota sacra et profana,” 1855 (second and enlarged edition in 1861), exhibits a more miscellaneous character, comprising (together with other matter) transcripts of Oa of the Gospels, M of St. Paul; a collation of Cod. 61 of the Acts being the only cursive copy he seems to have examined; notices and facsimiles of Codd. ΙΓΛ tisch.238 or Evan. 478 of the Gospels, and of the lectionaries tisch.ev (Evst. 190) and tisch.6. f. (Apost. 71). Next was commenced a new series of “Monumenta sacra inedita” (projected to consist of nine volumes), on the same plan as the book of 1846. Much of this series is devoted to codices of the Septuagint version, to which Tischendorf paid great attention, and whereof he published four editions (the latest in 1869) hardly worthy of him; but vol. i (1855) contains transcripts of Codd. I, venev. (Evst. 175); vol. ii (1857) of Codd. Nba; vol. iii (1860) of Codd. QWc, all of the Gospels; vol. iv (1869) was given up to the Septuagint, as vol. vii would have been to the Wolfenbüttel manuscript of Chrysostom, of the sixth century; but Cod. P of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse comprises a portion of vols. v (1865) and of vi (1869); while vol. viii was to have been devoted to palimpsest fragments of both Testaments, such as we have described amongst the Uncials: the Appendix or vol. ix (1870) contains Cod. E of the Acts, &c. An improved edition of his system of Gospel Harmony (Synopsis Evangelica, 1851) appeared in 1864, with some fresh critical matter, a better one in 1871, and the fifth in 1884. His achievements in regard to Codd. א and Β we have spoken of in [pg 238] their proper places. He published his “Notitia Cod. Sinaitici” in 1860, his great edition of that manuscript in 1862, with full notes and Prolegomena; smaller editions of the New Testament only in 1863 and 1865; “an Appendix Codd. celeberrimorum Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini with facsimiles” in 1867. His marvellous yet unsatisfactory edition of Cod. Vaticanus, prepared under the disadvantages we have described, appeared in 1867; its “Appendix” (including Cod. B of the Apocalypse) in 1869; his unhappy “Responsa ad calumnias Romanas” in 1870. To this long and varied catalogue must yet be added exact collations of Codd. EGHKMUX Gospels, EGHL Acts, FHL of St. Paul, and more, all made for his editions of the N. T. A poor issue of the Authorized English Version of the N. T. was put forth in his name in 1869, being the thousandth volume of Tauchnitz's series.

The consideration of the text of Tischendorf's several editions will be touched upon in Chapter X. To the general accuracy of his collations every one who has followed him over a portion of his vast field can bear and is bound to bear cheerful testimony. For practical purposes his correctness is quite sufficient, even though one or two who have accomplished very much less may have excelled in this respect some at least of his later works. For the unflinching exertions and persevering toil of full thirty years Tischendorf was called upon in 1873 to pay the natural penalty in a stroke of paralysis, which prostrated his strong frame, and put a sudden end to his most fruitful studies. He was born at Lengenfeld in the kingdom of Saxony in 1815 and died in 1874, having nearly completed his sixtieth year239.

16. “The Greek New Testament, edited from ancient authorities; with the various readings of all the ancient MSS., the ancient versions, and other ecclesiastical writers (to Eusebius inclusive); together with the Latin version of Jerome, from the Codex Amiatinus of the sixth century. By Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, LL.D.” 4to, 1857-1872, pp. 1017. [Appendix by Dr. Hort, 1879, pp. i-xxxii; 1018-1069.]

[pg 239]

The esteemed editor of the work of which the above is the full title, first became generally known as the author of “The Book of Revelation in Greek, edited from ancient authorities; with a new English Version,” 1844: and, in spite of some obvious blemishes and defects, his attempt was received in the English Church with the gratitude and respect to which his thorough earnestness and independent views justly entitled him. He had arranged in his own mind as early as 1838 the plan of a Greek Testament, which he announced on the publication of the Apocalypse, and now set himself vigorously to accomplish. His fruitless endeavour to collate Cod. B has already been mentioned, but when he was on the continent in 1845-6, and again in 1849-50, also in 1862, he thoroughly examined all the manuscripts he could meet with, that fell within the compass of his design. In 1854 he published a volume full of valuable information, and intended as a formal exposition of his critical principles, intitled “An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament.” In 1856 he re-wrote, rather than re-edited, that portion of the Rev. T. Hartwell Horne's well-known “Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” which relates to the New Testament, under the title of “An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” &c.240 In 1857 appeared, for the use of subscribers only, the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, as the first part of his “Greek New Testament” (pp. 1-216); early in 1861 the second part, containing SS. Luke and John (pp. 217-488), with but a few pages of “Introductory Notice” in each. In that year, paralysis, mercurialium pestis virorum, for a while suspended our editor's too assiduous labours: but he recovered health sufficient to publish the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1865, the Epistles of St. Paul down to 2 Thess. in 1869. Early in 1870, while in the act of revising the concluding [pg 240] chapters of the Apocalypse, he was visited by a second and very severe stroke of his fell disease. The remaining portion of the Pauline Epistles was sent out in 1870 as he had himself prepared it; the Revelation (alas! without the long-desired Prolegomena) in 1872, as well as the state of Tregelles' papers would enable his friends S. J. B. Bloxsidge and B. W. Newton to perform their office. The revered author could contribute nothing save a message to his subscribers, full of devout thankfulness and calm reliance on the Divine wisdom. The text of the Apocalypse differs from that which he arranged in 1844 in about 229 places.

Except Codd. ΟΞ, which were published in 1861 (see under those MSS.), this critic has not edited in full the text of any document, but his renewed collations of manuscripts are very extensive: viz. Codd. EGHKMNbRUXZΓΛ 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels; HL 13, 31, 61 of the Acts; DFL 1, 17, 37 of St. Paul, 1, 14 of the Apocalypse, Am. of the Vulgate. Having followed Tregelles through the whole of Cod. 69 (Act. 31, Paul. 37, Apoc. 14), I am able to speak positively of his scrupulous exactness, and in regard to other manuscripts now in England it will be found that, where Tischendorf and Tregelles differ, the latter is seldom in the wrong. To the versions and Fathers (especially to Origen and Eusebius) he has devoted great attention. His volume is a beautiful specimen of typography241, and its arrangement is very convenient, particularly his happy expedient for showing at every open leaf the precise authorities that are extant at that place.

The peculiarity of Tregelles' system is intimated, rather than stated, in the title-page of his Greek N. T. It consists in resorting to “ancient authorities” alone in the construction of his revised text, and in refusing not only to the received text, but to the great mass of manuscripts also, all voice in determining the true readings. This scheme, although from the history he gives of his work (An Account of Printed Text, pp. 153, &c.), it was apparently devised independently of Lachmann, is in fact essentially that great scholar's plan, after those parts of it are withdrawn which are manifestly indefensible. [pg 241] Tregelles' “ancient authorities” are thus reduced to those manuscripts which, not being Lectionaries, happen to be written in uncial characters, with the remarkable exceptions of Codd. 1, 33, 69 of the Gospels, 61 of the Acts, which he admits because they “preserve an ancient text.” We shall hereafter enquire (Chap. X) whether the text of the N. T. can safely be grounded on a basis so narrow as that of Tregelles.

This truly eminent person, born at Falmouth of a Quaker family January 30, 1813, received what education he ever got at Falmouth Classical School (of which I was Master twenty years later), from 1825 to 1828. At an early age he left the communion in which he was bred, to join a body called the Plymouth Brethren, among whom he met with much disquietude and some mild persecution: his last years were more happily spent as a humble lay member of the Church of England, a fact he very earnestly begged me to keep in mind242. The critical studies he took up as early as 1838, when he was only twenty-five years old, were the main occupation of his life. The inconvenient and costly form in which he published his Greek Testament, brought upon him pecuniary loss, and even trenched upon the moderate fortune of his true and loving wife. After several years of deep retirement he died at Plymouth, April 24, 1875: and whereas his widow, who has since followed him to the other world, was anxious that his great work should be as far as possible completed, Dr. Hort has manifested his veneration for an honoured memory by publishing in 1879 an “Appendix” to the Greek New Testament, embracing what materials for Prolegomena Tregelles' published writings supplied, and supplementary corrections to every page of the main work, compiled by the Rev. A. W. Streane, Fellow of C. C. C, Cambridge, which comprise a wonderful monument of minute diligence and devotion.

Of Tischendorf and Tregelles, that duumvirate of Biblical critics, I may be allowed to repeat a few words, extracted from the Preface to the Greek Testament of 1876, in the series of “Cambridge Texts:” “Eheu quos viros! natu ferè aequales, indole et famâ satis dispares, ambo semper in adversum nitentes, ambo piis laboribus infractos, intra paucos menses mors abripuit immatura.”

[pg 242]

17. “The New Testament in the original Greek. The text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D. [Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge], and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. [Hulsean Professor of Divinity there]. Vol. I. Cambridge and London, 1881.” “Introduction and Appendix,” in a separate volume, by Dr. Hort only, 1881. This important and comprehensive work, the joint labour of two of the best scholars of this age, toiling, now separately, now in counsel, for five and twenty years, was published, the text a few days earlier than the Revised English Version (May 17, 1881), the Introduction about four months later. The text, or one almost identical with it, had been submitted to the Revisers of the N. T., and to a few other Biblical students, several years before, so that the general tenor and spirit of our authors' judgement was known to many: the second edition of my present work was enriched by the free permission granted by them to announce their conclusions regarding passages which come up for discussion in Chapter XII, and elsewhere. Drs. Westcott and Hort depart more widely from the textus receptus than any previous editor had thought necessary; nor can they be blamed for carrying out their deliberate convictions, if the reasons they allege shall prove sufficient to justify them. Those reasons are given at length by Dr. Hort in his “Introduction,” a treatise whose merits may be frankly acknowledged by persons the least disposed to accept his arguments: never was a cause, good or bad in itself, set off with higher ability and persuasive power. On the validity of his theory we shall have much to say in Chapters X and XII, to which we here refer once for all. The elegant volume which exhibits the Greek text contains in its margin many alternative readings, chiefly recorded in passages wherein a difference of opinion existed between the two illustrious editors. Words or passages supposed to be of doubtful authority are included in brackets ([ ]), those judged to be probably or certainly spurious—and their number is ominously large—in double brackets ([[ ]]). Mark xvi. 9-20; John vii. 53-viii. 11 are banished to the end of their respective Gospels, as if they did not belong to them. Finally, quotations from and even slight allusions to the Old Testament, in great but judicious plenty, are printed in a kind of uncial letter, to the great benefit of the student.

This notice cannot be left without an expression of deep [pg 243] regret upon the loss of Dr. Hort at a comparatively early age. Much as the author of this work and the editor of this edition has differed from the views of that distinguished man, the services which he has rendered in many ways to the cause of sacred textual criticism cannot here be forgotten or unrecognized. His assiduity and thoroughness are a pattern to all who come after him.

18. The text constructed by the English Revisers in preparation for their Revised Translation was published in two forms at Oxford and Cambridge respectively in 1881. The Oxford edition, under the care of Archdeacon Palmer, incorporated in the text the readings adopted by the Revisers with the variations at the foot of the Authorized edition of 1611, of Stephanus' third edition published in 1550, and of the margin of the Revised Version. The Cambridge edition, under the care of Dr. Scrivener, gave the Authorized text with the variations of the Revisers mentioned at the foot. Both editions are admirably edited. The number of variations adopted by the Revisers, which are generally based upon the principles advocated by Westcott and Hort, has been estimated by Dr. Scrivener at 5,337 (Burgon's “Revision Revised,” p. 405). The titles in full of these two editions are:—

1. The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., L.L.D., Prebendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881.

2. Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ. The Greek Testament, with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1881. [Preface by the Editor, Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.]

[pg 244]

Chapter VIII. Internal Evidence.

We have now described, in some detail, the several species of external testimony available for the textual criticism of the New Testament, whether comprising manuscripts of the original Greek, or ancient translations from it, or citations from Scripture made by ecclesiastical writers. We have, moreover, indicated the chief editions wherein all these materials are recorded for our use, and the principles that have guided their several editors in applying them to the revision of the text. One source of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has been designedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty243; the absence of proof that a reading proposed to be substituted for the common one is actually supported by some trustworthy document being of itself a fatal objection to our receiving it244. Those that have [pg 245] been hazarded aforetime by celebrated scholars, when but few codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very seldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches: and the time has now fully come when, in the possession of abundant stores of variations collected from memorials of almost every age and country, we are fully authorized in believing that the reading to which no manuscript, or old version, or primitive Father has borne witness, however plausible and (for some purposes) convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as probable; even though there may still remain a few passages respecting which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they are now presented to us245.

In no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture destitute of external evidence, is the device of Lachmann for unsettling by means of emendation (emendando), without reference to the balance of conflicting testimony, the very text he had previously fixed by revision (recensendo) through the means of critical authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so much trouble misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by [pg 246] abstract judgement or individual prejudices. Not that the most sober and cautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal evidence, or withhold their proper influence from those reasonable considerations which in practice cannot, and in speculation should not, be shut out from every subject on which the mind seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we will or not, we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of two opposite statements, in themselves pretty equally attested to, which we judge the better suited to recognized phenomena, and to the common course of things. I know of no person who has affected to construct a text of the N. T. on diplomatic grounds exclusively, without paying some regard to the character of the sense produced; nor, were the experiment tried, would any one find it easy to dispense with discretion and the dictates of good sense: nature would prove too strong for the dogmas of a wayward theory. “It is difficult not to indulge in subjectiveness, at least in some measure,” writes Dr. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 109): and, thus qualified, we may add that it is one of those difficulties a sane man would not wish to overcome.

The foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad distinction between mere conjectural emendation, which must be utterly discarded, and that just use of internal testimony which he is the best critic who most judiciously employs. They so far resemble each other, as they are both products of the reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of Scripture: they differ in this essential feature, that the one proceeds in ignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the office of the other has no place unless where external evidence is evenly, or at any rate not very unevenly, balanced. What degree of preponderance in favour of one out of several readings, all of them affording some tolerable sense, shall entitle it to reception as a matter of right; to what extent canons of subjective criticism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of documentary authority; are points that cannot well be defined with strict accuracy. Men's decisions respecting them will always vary according to their temperament and intellectual habits; the judgement of the same person (the rather if he be by constitution a little unstable) will fluctuate from time to time as to the same evidence brought to bear on the self-same [pg 247] passage. Though the canons or rules of internal testimony be themselves grounded either on principles of common sense, or on certain peculiarities which all may mark in the documents from which our direct proofs are derived; yet has it been found by experience (what indeed we might have looked for beforehand), that in spite, perhaps in consequence, of their extreme simplicity, the application of these canons has proved a searching test of the tact, the sagacity, and the judicial acumen of all that handle them. For the other functions of an editor accuracy and learning, diligence and zeal are sufficient: but the delicate adjustment of conflicting probabilities calls for no mean exercise of a critical genius. This innate faculty we lack in Wetstein, and notably in Scholz; it was highly developed in Mill and Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His well-known power in this respect is the main cause of our deep regret for the failure of Bentley's projected work, with all its faults whether of plan or execution.


Nearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being founded in the nature of things, are alike applicable to all subjects of literary investigation, though their general principles may need some modification in the particular instance of the Greek Testament.

I. Proclivi Scriptioni praestat ardua: the more difficult the reading the more likely it is to be genuine. It would seem more probable that the copyist tried to explain an obscure passage, or to relieve a hard construction, than to make that perplexed which before was easy: thus in John vii. 39, Lachmann's addition of δεδομένον to οὔπω ἦν πνεῦμα ἅγιον is very improbable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by several of the chief versions. We have here Bengel's prime canon, and although Wetstein questioned it (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 157), he was himself ultimately obliged to lay down something nearly to the same effect246. Yet this excellent rule may easily [pg 248] be applied on a wrong occasion, and is only true ceteris paribus, where manuscripts or versions lend strong support to the harder form. “To force readings into the text merely because they are difficult, is to adulterate the divine text with human alloy; it is to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecisms of faltering copyists, in the place of the word of God” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, N. T., vol. i. Preface, p. xii)247. See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 28-31. Compare also above, Vol. I. i. § 11.

II. That reading out of several is preferable, from which all the rest may have been derived, although it could not be derived from any of them. Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. p. xlii. 7th edition) might well say that this would be “omnium regularum principium,” if its application were less precarious. Of his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for to be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matt. xxiv. 38 he248 and Alford would simply read ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ on the very feeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst. (13), a e ff, the Sahidic version, and Origen (in two places); because the copyists, knowing that the eating and drinking and marrying took place not in the days of the flood, but before them (καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμός ver. 39), would strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one of the several forms found in our copies: ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., [pg 249] or ἡμέραις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or ἡμέραις ἐκείναις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or even ἡμέραις τοῦ νῶε. In his second example Tischendorf is more fortunate, unless indeed we choose to refer it rather to Bengel's canon. James iii. 12 certainly ought to run μὴ δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; οὔτε (vel οὐδὲ) ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, as in Codd. אABC, in not less than six good cursives, the Vulgate and other versions. To soften the ruggedness of this construction, some copies prefixed οὅτως to οὔτε or οὔδε, while others inserted the whole clause οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καί before γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. Other fair instances may be seen in Chap. XII, notes on Luke x. 41, 42; Col. ii. 2249. In the Septuagint also the reading of א συνεισελθόντας 1 Macc. xii. 48 appears to be the origin both of συνελθόντας with A, the uncial 23, and four cursives at least, and of εἰσελθόντας of the Roman edition and the mass of cursives.

III. “Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multò proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum” (Griesbach, N. T., Proleg. p. lxiv. vol. i). This canon bears an influential part in the system of Griesbach and his successors, and by the aid of Cod. B and a few others, has brought great changes into the text as approved by some critics. Dr. Green too (Course of Developed Criticism on Text of N. T.) sometimes carries it to excess in his desire to remove what he considers accretions. It is so far true, that scribes were no doubt prone to receive marginal notes into the text which they were originally designed only to explain or enforce (e.g. [pg 250] 1 John v. 7, 8)250; or sought to amplify a brief account from a fuller narrative of the same event found elsewhere, whether in the same book (e.g. Act. ix. 5 compared with ch. xxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical Gospels. In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is always the more probably correct (ibid.). Circumstances too will be supplied which were deemed essential for the preservation of historical truth (e.g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted from the Lectionaries: and to this head we must refer the graver and more deliberate interpolations so frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other documents. Yet it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes wilfully omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e.g. υἱοῦ βαραχίου, Matt, xxiii. 35 in Cod. א and a few others), and that the negligent loss of whole passages through ὁμοιοτέλευτον is common to manuscripts of every age and character. On the whole, therefore, the indiscriminate rejection of portions of the text regarded as supplementary, on the evidence of but a few authorities, must be viewed with considerable distrust and suspicion.

IV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits the peculiar style, manner, and habits of thought of an author; it being the tendency of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. For example, the abrupt energy of St. James' asyndeta (e.g. ch. i. 27), of which we have just seen a marked instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted by the common text (e.g. ch. ii. 4, 13; iii. 17; iv. 2; v. 6): St. Luke in the Acts is fond of omitting “said” or “saith” after the word indicating the speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent scribes (e.g. ch. ii. 38; ix. 5; xix. 2; xxv. 22; xxv. 28, 29). Thus again, in editing Herodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well attested, while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrian termination should be chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon has a double edge: habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead [pg 251] the scribe to change the text to his author's more usual style, as well as to depart from it through inadvertence (see Acts iv. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24): so that we may securely apply the rule only where the external evidence is not unequally balanced.

V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a particular instance. Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is to abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of versions and ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of care and critical skill which they display.

Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied mutatis mutandis to the emendation of the text of any author whose works have suffered alteration since they left his hands: the next (so far as it is true) is peculiar to the case of Holy Scripture.

VI. “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspectâ merito habetur, quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifestè prae ceteris favet” (Griesbach, N. T., Proleg., p. lxvi. vol. i). I cite this canon from Griesbach for the sake of annexing Archbishop Magee's very pertinent corollary: “from which, at least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of the Orthodox opinion, may have had his sanction, have not been preferred by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy” (Discourses on Atonement and Sacrifice, vol. iii. p. 212). Alford says that the rule, “sound in the main,” does not hold good, when, whichever reading is adopted, the orthodox meaning is legitimate, but the adoption of the stronger orthodox reading is absolutely incompatible with the heretical meaning,—then it is probable that such stronger orthodox reading was the original (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition): instancing Act. xx. 28, where the weaker reading τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου would quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading τοῦ θεοῦ “would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.” But in truth there seems no good ground for believing that the rule is “sound in the main,” though two or three such instances as [pg 252] 1 Tim. iii. 16251 and the insertion of θεόν in Jude, ver. 4, might seem to countenance it. We dissent altogether from Griesbach's statement, “Scimus enim, lectiones quascunque, etiam manifestò falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis patrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque propagatas, ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati ecclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas temere fuisse” (Griesb. ubi supra), if he means that the orthodox forged those great texts, which, believing them to be authentic, it was surely innocent and even incumbent on them to employ252. The Church of Christ “inde a tertii seculi initiis” has had her faults, many and grievous, but she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful “witness and keeper of Holy Writ.” But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all wilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that they, like others of their craft, preferred that one out of several extant readings that seemed to give the fullest and most emphatic sense: hence Davidson would fain account for the addition ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ (which, however, is not unlikely to be genuine253) in Eph. v. 30. Since the mediaeval scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders, we will not dispute the truth of Griesbach's rule, “Lectio prae aliis sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens, suspecta est,” though its scope is doubtless very limited254. Their [pg 253] habit of composing and transcribing Homilies has also been supposed to have led them to give a hortatory form to positive commands or dogmatic statements (see Vol. I. p. 17), but there is much weight in Wordsworth's remark, that “such suppositions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of the ancient MSS.; and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly be worth the pains of collating them” (note on 1 Cor. xv. 49).

VII. “Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of letters, itacism and so forth,” have been designated by Bp. Ellicott paradiplomatic evidence” (Preface to the Galatians; p. xvii, first edition), as distinguished from the diplomatic testimony of codices, versions, &c. This species of evidence, which can hardly be deemed internal, must have considerable influence in numerous cases, and will be used the most skilfully by such as have considerable practical acquaintance with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in the first chapter of our first volume, when discussing the sources of various readings255: in fact, so far as canons of internal [pg 254] or of paradiplomatic evidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse process to that aimed at in Vol. I. Chap. I; the latter showing by what means the pure text of the inspired writings was brought into its present state of partial corruption, the former promising us some guidance while we seek to retrace its once downward course back to the fountain-head of primeval truth256. To what has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic testimony it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach's caution “lectiones rhythmi fallaciâ facillimè explicandae nullius sunt pretii” (N. T., Proleg. p. lxvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3 affords a memorable example. Here what once seemed the wholly unnatural reading ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, being disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination, is received by Lachmann in the place of καρδίας, on the authority of Codd. AB (sic) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven out of Scrivener's twelve, and Wake 12 or Paul. 277); to which add Cod. א unknown to Lachmann, and that abject slave of manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac. Codd. FK have καρδίας, with all the other versions. If we attempt to interpret καρδίαις, we must either render with Alford, in spite of the order of the Greek, “on fleshy tables, [your] hearts:” or with the Revisers of 1881 “in tables that are hearts of flesh;” yet surely σαρκίναις as well as λιθίναις must agree with πλαξί. Dr. Hort in mere despair would almost reject the second πλαξί (Introd., Notes, p. 119).

It has been said that “when the cause of a various reading is known, the variation usually disappears257.” This language may seem extravagant, yet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected by internal evidence, when it is clear, simple, and unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be lamented that this is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should uphold in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority of really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of [pg 255] another; yet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their proper sphere. An instance in point is Matt. v. 22, where the external evidence is divided. Codd. אΒ (in Δ secundâ manu), 48, 198, 583, 587, Origen twice, the Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit εἰκῆ after πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἀυτοῦ, Jerome fairly stating that it is “in quibusdam codicibus,” not “in veris,” which may be supposed to be Origen's MSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin version. It is found, however, in all other extant copies (including ΣDEKLMSUVΔ (primâ manu) Π, most cursives, all the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a Syriac equivalent, but the Greek word εἰκῆ) and Old Latin copies, the Bohairic, Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek Fathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards258, and even in the Old Latin Version of Origen himself; the later authorities uniting with Codd. ΣD and their associates against the two oldest manuscripts extant. Under such circumstances the suggestions of internal evidence would be precious indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic proof. “Griesbach and Meyer,” says Dean Alford, “hold it to have been expunged from motives of moral rigorism:—De Wette to have been inserted to soften the apparent rigour of the precept259.” Our sixth Canon is here opposed to our first260. The important yet precarious and strictly auxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now escape the attentive student; he may find them exemplified very slightly and imperfectly in the twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by recent critical editors of the Greek Testament; except perhaps by Tregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to [pg 256] some extent they influence his decisions; by Lachmann, in the formation of whose provisional text they have had no share; and by Dean Burgon, who held that “we must resolutely maintain, that External Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide” (The Revision Revised, p. 19)261. We will close this investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods (conceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is wont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers:

Readings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly avoid doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence is liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may degenerate into simple subjectivity. But though the temptation to misapply it be great, it must not be laid aside.... While allowing superior weight to the external sources of evidence, we feel the pressing necessity of the subjective. Here, as in other instances, the objective and subjective should accompany and modify one another. They cannot be rightly separated. (Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.)
[pg 257]

Chapter IX. History Of The Text.

An adequate discussion of the subject of the present chapter would need a treatise by itself, and has been the single theme of several elaborate works. We shall here limit ourselves to the examination of those more prominent topics, a clear understanding of which is essential for the establishment of trustworthy principles in the application of external evidence to the correction of the text of the New Testament.

1. It was stated at the commencement of this volume that the autographs of the sacred writers “perished utterly in the very infancy of Christian history:” nor can any other conclusion be safely drawn from the general silence of the earliest Fathers, and from their constant habit of appealing to “ancient and approved copies262,” when a reference to the originals, if extant, would have put an end to all controversy on the subject of various readings. Dismissing one passage in the genuine Epistles of Ignatius (d. 107), which has no real connexion with the matter263, the only allusion to the autographs of Scripture met with in the primitive ages is the well-known declaration of [pg 258] Tertullian (fl. 200): “Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsae Authenticae Literae eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque. Proximè est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum. Si non longè es a Macedoniâ, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam ...” (De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36.) Attempts have been made, indeed, and that by eminent writers, to reduce the term “Authenticae Literae” so as to mean nothing more than “genuine, unadulterated Epistles,” or even the authentic Greek as opposed to the Latin translation264. It seems enough to reply with Ernesti, that any such non-natural sense is absolutely excluded by the word “ipsae,” which would be utterly absurd, if “genuine” only were intended (Institutes, Pt. iii. Ch. ii. 3)265: yet the African Tertullian was too little likely to be well informed on this subject, to entitle his rhetorical statement to any real attention266. We need not try to explain away his obvious meaning, but we may fairly demur to the evidence of this honest, but impetuous and wrong-headed man. We have no faith in the continued existence of autographs which are vouched [pg 259] for on no better authority than the real or apparent exigency of his argument267.

2. Besides the undesigned and, to a great extent, unavoidable differences subsisting between manuscripts of the New Testament within a century of its being written, the wilful corruptions introduced by heretics soon became a cause of loud complaint in the primitive ages of the Church268. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, addressing the Church of Rome and Soter its Bishop (a.d. 168-176), complains that even his own letters had been tampered with: καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόστολοι ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ προστιθέντες; οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ κεῖται: adding, however, the far graver offence, οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα εἰ καὶ τῶν κυριακῶν ῥαδιουργῆσαί τινες ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv. 23), where αἱ κυριακαὶ γραφαί can be none other than the Holy Scriptures. Nor was the evil new in the age of Dionysius. Not to mention Asclepiades, or Theodotus, or Hermophylus, or Apollonides, who all under the excuse of correcting the sacred text corrupted it269, or the Gnostics Basilides (a.d. 130?) and Valentinus (a.d. 150?) who published additions to the sacred text which were avowedly of their own composition, Marcion of Pontus, the [pg 260] arch-heretic of that period, coming to Rome on the death of its Bishop Hyginus (a.d. 142)270, brought with him that mutilated and falsified copy of the New Testament, against which the Fathers of the second century and later exerted all their powers, and whose general contents are known to us chiefly through the writings of Tertullian and subsequently of Epiphanius. It can hardly be said that Marcion deserves very particular mention in relating the history of the sacred text271. Some of the variations from the common readings which his opponents detected were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circulation at the time, and, being adopted through no private preferences of his own, are justly available for critical purposes. Thus in 1 Thess. ii. 15, Tertullian, who saw only τοὺς προφήτας in his own copies, objects to Marcion's reading τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας (“licet suos adjectio sit haeretici”), although ἰδίους stands in the received text, in Evann. KL (DE in later hands) and all cursives except eight, in the Gothic and both (?) Syriac versions, in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and John Damascenus. Here the heretic's testimony is useful in showing the high antiquity of ἰδίους, even though אABDEFGP, eight cursives, Origen thrice, the Vulgate, Armenian, Ethiopic, and all three Egyptian versions, join with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort in rejecting it, some of them perhaps in compliance with Tertullian's decision. In similar instances the evidence of Marcion, as to matters of fact to which he could attach no kind of importance, is well worth recording272: but where on the contrary the dogmas of his own miserable system are touched, or no codices or other witnesses countenance his changes (as is perpetually the case in his edition of St. Luke, the only Gospel—and that maimed or interpolated from the others—he seems to have acknowledged at all), his blasphemous extravagance may very well be forgotten. In such cases he [pg 261] does not so much as profess to follow anything more respectable than the capricious devices of his misguided fancy.

3. Nothing throws so strong a light on the real state of the text in the latter half of the second century as the single notice of Irenaeus (fl. 178) on Apoc. xiii. 18. This eminent person, the glory of the Western Church in his own age, whose five books against Heresies (though chiefly extant but in a bald old Latin version) are among the most precious reliques of Christian antiquity, had been privileged in his youth to enjoy the friendly intercourse of his master Polycarp, who himself had conversed familiarly with St. John and others that had seen the Lord (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v. 20). Yet even Irenaeus, though removed but by one stage from the very Apostles, possessed (if we except a bare tradition) no other means of settling discordant readings than are now open to ourselves; namely, to search out the best copies and exercise the judgement on their contents. His locus classicus must needs be cited in full, the Latin throughout, the Greek in such portions as survive. The question is whether St. John wrote χξιϛ᾽ (666), or χιϛ᾽ (616).

Hic autem sic se habentibus, et in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito, et testimonium perhibentibus his qui facie ad faciem Johannem viderunt (τούτων δὲ οὕτως ἐχόντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσι δὲ τοῖς σπουδαίοις καὶ ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τούτου κειμένου, καὶ μαρτυρούντων ἀυτῶν ἐκείνων τῶν κατ᾽ ὄψιν τὸν Ἰωάννην ἑωρακότων, καὶ τοῦ λόγου διδάσκοντος ἡμᾶς ὅτι ὁ ἀριθμὸς τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ θηρίου κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ψῆφον διὰ τῶν ἐν ἀυτῷ γραμμάτων [ἐμφαίνεται]), et ratione docente nos quoniam numerus nominis bestiae, secundum Graecorum computationem, per literas quae in eo sunt sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex: ignoro quomodo erraverunt quidam sequentes idiotismum et medium frustrantes numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex decadis unam decadem volentes esse (οὐκ οἶδα πῶς ἐσφάλησάν τινες ἐπακολουθήσαντες ἰδιωτισμῷ καὶ τὸν μέσον ἠθέτησαν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ ὀνόματος, ν᾽ ψήφισμα ὑφελόντες καὶ ἀντὶ τῶν ἓξ δεκάδων μίαν δεκάδα βουλόμενοι εἶναι). Hoc autem arbitror scriptorum peccatum fuisse, ut solet fieri, quoniam et per literas numeri ponuntur, facilè literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat numerum, in iota Graecorum literam expansam.... Sed his quidem qui simpliciter et sine malitia hoc fecerunt, arbitramur veniam dari a Deo. (Contra Haeres. v. 30. 1: Harvey, vol. ii. pp. 406-7.)

Here we obtain at once the authority of Irenaeus for receiving the Apocalypse as the work of St. John; we discern the living interest its contents had for the Christians of the second century, even up to the traditional preservation of its minutest readings; [pg 262] we recognize the fact that numbers were then represented by letters273; and the far more important one that the original autograph of the Apocalypse was already so completely lost, that a thought of it never entered the mind of the writer, though the book had not been composed one hundred years, perhaps not more than seventy274.

4. Clement of Alexandria is the next writer who claims our attention (fl. 194). Though his works abound with citations from Scripture, on the whole not too carefully made (“in adducendis N. T. locis creber est et castus,” is rather too high praise, Mill, Proleg. § 627), the most has not yet been made of the information he supplies. He too complains of those who tamper with (or metaphrase) the Gospels for their own sinister ends, and affords us one specimen of their evil diligence275. His pupil Origen's [185-253] is the highest name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the New Testament, and employs language in describing the then existing state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its present [pg 263] condition, after the changes which sixteen more centuries must needs have produced. His statements are familiar enough to Biblical enquirers, but, though often repeated, cannot be rightly omitted here. Seldom have such warmth of fancy and so bold a grasp of mind been united with the life-long patient industry which procured for this famous man the honourable appellation of Adamantius. Respecting the sacred autographs, their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply passed by and were out of reach. Had it not been for the diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he writes)—καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων—he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων (Comment. on Matt., Tom. iii. p. 671, De la Rue). “But now,” saith he, “great in truth has become the diversity of copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who in correcting add or take away what they think fit276:” just like Irenaeus had previously described revisers of the text as persons “qui peritiores apostolis volunt esse” (Contra Haeres. iv. 6. 1).

5. Nor can it easily be denied that the various readings of the New Testament current from the middle of the second to the middle of the third century, were neither fewer nor less considerable than such language would lead us to anticipate. Though no [pg 264] surviving manuscript of the Old Latin version, or versions, dates before the fourth century, and most of them belong to a still later age, yet the general correspondence of their text with that used by the first Latin Fathers is a sufficient voucher for its high antiquity. The connexion subsisting between this Latin version, the Curetonian Syriac, and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is considerably older than the vellum on which they are written; the Peshitto Syriac also, most probably the very earliest of all translations, though approaching far nearer to the received text than they, sufficiently resembles these authorities in many peculiar readings to exhibit the general tone and character of one class of manuscripts extant in the second century, two hundred years anterior to Codd. אB. Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural records affords a text less probable in itself or less sustained by any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod. D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of Cureton's Syriac. Interpolations, as insipid in themselves as unsupported by other evidence, abound in them all277: additions so little in accordance with the genuine spirit of Holy Writ that some critics (though I, for one, profess no skill in such alchemy) have declared them to be as easily separable from the text which they encumber, as the foot-notes appended to a modern book are from the main body of the work (Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text, p. 138, note). It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephen thirteen centuries later, when [pg 265] moulding the Textus Receptus. What passage in the Holy Gospels would be more jealously guarded than the record of the heavenly voice at the Lord's Baptism? Yet Augustine (De Consensu Evangelist, ii. 14) marked a variation which he thought might be found “in aliquibus fide dignis exemplaribus,” though not “in antiquioribus codicibus Graecis,” where, in the place of ἐν σοὶ ἠυδόκησα (Luke iii. 22), the words ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε are substituted from Psalm ii. 7: so also reads the Manichaean Faustus apud Augustin.; Enchiridion ad Laurentium, c. 49. The only Greek copy which maintains this important reading is D: it is met with moreover in abc (in d of course), in ff1 primâ manu, and in l, whose united evidence leaves not a doubt of its existence in the primitive Old Latin; whence it is cited by Hilary three times, by Lactantius and Juvencus, to which list Abbot adds Hilary the deacon (Quaestiones V. et N. T.). Among the Greeks it is known but to Methodius, and to those very early writers, Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria, who seem to have derived the corruption (for such it must doubtless be regarded) from the Ebionite Gospel (Epiphan., Haeres., xxi. 13)278. So again of a doubtful passage which we shall examine in Chapter XII, Irenaeus cites Acts viii. 37 without the least misgiving, though the spuriousness of the verse can hardly be doubted; and expressly testifies to a reading in Matt. i. 18 which has not till lately found many advocates. It is hard to believe that 1 John v. 7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian, and even the interpolation in Matt. xx. 28 was widely known and received. Many other examples might be produced from the most venerable Christian writers, in which they countenance variations (and those not arbitrary, but resting on some sort of authority) which no modern critic has ever attempted to vindicate.

6. When we come down to the fourth century, our information grows at once more definite and more trustworthy. Copies of Scripture had been extensively destroyed during the long and terrible period of affliction that preceded the conversion of [pg 266] Constantine. In the very edict which marked the beginning of Diocletian's persecution, it is ordered that the holy writings should be burnt (τὰς γραφὰς ἀφανεῖς πυρὶ γενέσθαι, Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., viii. 2); and the cruel decree was so rigidly enforced that a special name of reproach (traditores), together with the heaviest censures of the Church, was laid upon those Christians who betrayed the sacred trust (Bingham, Antiquities, book xvi. ch. vi. 25). At such a period critical revision or even the ordinary care of devout transcribers must have disappeared before the pressure of the times. Fresh copies of the New Testament would have to be made in haste to supply the room of those seized by the enemies of our Faith; and, when made, they had to circulate by stealth among persons whose lives were in jeopardy every hour. Hence arose the need, when the tempest was overpast, of transcribing many new manuscripts of the Holy Bible, the rather as the Church was now receiving vast accessions of converts within her pale. Eusebius of Caesarea, the ecclesiastical historian, seems to have taken the lead in this happy labour; his extensive learning, which by the aid of certain other less commendable qualities had placed him high in Constantine's favour, rendered it natural that the emperor should employ his services for furnishing with fifty copies of Scripture the churches of his new capital, Constantinople. Eusebius' deep interest in Biblical studies is exhibited in several of his surviving works, as well as in his Canons for harmonizing the Gospels: and he would naturally betake himself for the text of his fifty codices to the Library founded at his Episcopal city of Caesarea by the martyr Pamphilus, the dear friend and teacher from whom he derived his own familiar appellation Eusebius Pamphili. Into this Library Pamphilus had gathered manuscripts of Origen as well as of other theologians, and of these Eusebius made an index (τοὺς πίνακας παρεθέμην: Eccles. Hist., vi. 32). From this collection Cod. H of St. Paul and others are stated to have been derived, nay even Cod. א in its Old Testament portion (see vol. I. p. 55 and note), which is expressly declared to have been corrected to the Hexapla of Origen. Indeed we know from Jerome (Comment. in Epist. ad Tit.) that the very autograph (“ipsa authentica”) of Origen's Hexapla was used by himself at Caesarea, and Montfaucon (Praeliminaria in Hexapl., chap. i. 5) cites from one [pg 267] manuscript the following subscription to Ezekiel, Ὁ Εὐσέβιος ἐγὼ σχόλια παρέθηκα. Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος ἐδιωρθώσαντο.

7. We are thus warranted, as well from direct evidence as from the analogy of the Old Testament, to believe that Eusebius mainly resorted for his Constantinopolitan Church-books to the codices of Pamphilus, which might once have belonged to Origen. What critical corrections (if any) he ventured to make in the text on his own judgement is not so clear. Not that there is the least cause to believe, with Dr. Nolan (Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. 27), that Eusebius had either the power or the will to suppress or tamper with the great doctrinal texts 1 John v. 7, 8; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts xx. 28; yet we cannot deny that his prepossessions may have tempted him to arbitrary alterations in other passages, which had no direct bearing on the controversies of his age279. Codd. אB are quite old enough to have been copied under his inspection280, and it is certainly very remarkable that these two early manuscripts omit one whole paragraph (Mark xvi. 9-20) with his sanction, if not after his example (see below, Chap. XII). Thus also in Matt, xxiii. 35 Cod. א, with the countenance only of Evan. 59, Evst. 6, 13, 222 (see under Evst. 222), discards υἱοῦ βαραχίον, for which change Eusebius (silentio) is literally the only authority among the Fathers, Irenaeus and even Origen retaining the words, in spite of their obvious difficulty. The relation in which Cod. א stands to the other four chief manuscripts of the Gospels, may be roughly estimated from analyzing the transcript of four pages first published by Tischendorf281, as well as in any other [pg 268] way. Of the 312 variations from the common text therein noted, א stands alone in forty-five, in eight agrees with ABCD united (much of C, however, is lost in these passages), with ABC together thirty-one times, with ABD fourteen, with AB thirteen, with D alone ten, with B alone but once (Mark i. 27), with C alone once: with several authorities against AB thirty-nine times, with A against B fifty-two, with B against A ninety-eight. Hence, while the discovery of this precious document has unquestionably done much to uphold Cod. B (which is the more correctly written, and doubtless the more valuable of the two) in many of its more characteristic and singular readings, it has made the mutual divergencies of the very oldest critical authorities more patent and perplexing than ever282.

8. Codd. אB were apparently anterior to the age of Jerome, the latest ecclesiastical writer whose testimony need be dwelt upon, since from his time downwards the stream of extant and direct manuscript evidence, beginning with Codd. AC, flows on without interruption. Jerome's attention was directed to the criticism of the Greek Testament by his early Biblical studies, and the knowledge he thus obtained had full scope for its exercise when he was engaged on revising the Old Latin version. In his so-often cited “Praefatio ad Damasum,” prefixed to his recension of the Gospels, he complains of certain “codices, quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos, paucorum hominum asserit perversa contentio,” and those not of the Old Testament alone, but also of the New. This obscure and passing notice of corrupt and (apparently) interpolated copies has been made the foundation of more than one theory as fanciful as ingenious. Jerome further informs us that he had adopted in his translation the canons which Eusebius “Alexandrium secutus Ammonium” (but [pg 269] see Vol. I. pp. 59, &c.) had invented or first brought into vogue; stating, and, in his usual fashion, somewhat exaggerating283, an evil these canons helped to remedy, the mixing up of the matter peculiar to one Evangelist with the narrative of another. Hence we might naturally expect that the Greek manuscripts he would view with special favour, were the same as Eusebius had approved before him. In the scattered notices throughout his works, Jerome sometimes speaks but vaguely of “quaedam exemplaria tam Graeca quam Latina” (Luke xxii. 43-4, almost in the words of Hilary, his senior); or appeals to readings “in quibusdam exemplaribus et maximè in Graecis codicibus” (Mark xvi. 14). Occasionally we hear of “multi et Graeci et Latini codices” (John vii. 53), or “vera exemplaria” (Matt. v. 22; xxi. 31), or “antiqua exemplaria” (Luke ix. 23), without specifying in which language: Mark xvi. 9-20 “in raris fertur Evangeliis,” since “omnes Graeciae libri paene” do not contain it284. In two places, however, he gives a more definite account of the copies he most regarded. In Galat. iii. 1 τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι is omitted by Jerome, because it is not contained “in exemplaribus Adamantii,” although (as he elsewhere informs us) “et Graeca exemplaria hoc errore confusa sint.” In the other of the two passages Jerome remarks that in some Latin copies of Matt. xxiv. 36 neque filius is added, “quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus, hoc non habeatur adscriptum.” Pierius the presbyter of Alexandria, elsewhere called by Jerome “the younger Origen” (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl., i. p. 128), has been deprived by fortune of the honour due to his merit and learning. A contemporary, perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii. 32) at Caesarea, his copies of Scripture would naturally be preserved with those of Origen in the great Library of that city. Here they were doubtless seen by Jerome when, to his deep joy, he found Origen's writings copied in Pamphilus' hand (Cat. Scriptt. Eccl., [pg 270] ubi supra), which volumes Acacius and Euzoius, elder contemporaries of Jerome himself, had taken pious care to repair and renew (ibid. i. p. 131; ad Marcell. Ep. cxli). It is not therefore wonderful if, employing as they did and setting a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the N. T., the readings approved by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome should closely agree.

9. Epiphanius [d. 403], who wrote at about the same period as Jerome, distinguishes in his note on Luke xix. 41 or xxii. 44 (Tom. ii. p. 36) between the uncorrected copies (ἀδιορθώτοις), and those used by the Orthodox285. Of the function of the “corrector” (διορθωτής) of an ancient manuscript we have spoken several times before: but a system was devised by Professor J. L. Hug of Freyburg (Einleitung, 1808), and maintained, though with some modifications, by J. G. Eichhorn, which assigned to these occasional, and (as they would seem to be) unsystematic labours of the reviser, a foremost place in the criticism of the N. T. Hug conceived that the process of corruption had been going on so rapidly and uniformly from the Apostolic age downwards, that by the middle of the third century the state of the text in the general mass of codices had degenerated into the form exhibited in Codd. D, 1, 13, 69, 124 of the Gospels, the Old Latin and Sahidic (he would now have added the Curetonian Syriac) versions, and to some extent in the Peshitto and in the citations of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his early works. To this uncorrected text he gave the name of κοινὴ ἔκδοσις, and that it existed, substantially in the interpolated shape now seen in Cod. D, the Old Latin, and Cureton's Syriac, as early as the second century, need not be doubted. There is some foundation for this position, but it was marred by Hug's lack of sobriety of judgement. What we may fairly dispute is that this text ever [pg 271] had extensive circulation or good repute in the Churches whose vernacular language was Greek. This “common edition” Hug supposes to have received three separate emendations in the middle of the third century; one made by Origen in Palestine, which he thinks Jerome adopted and approved; two others by Hesychius and Lucian (a presbyter of Antioch and Martyr), in Egypt and Syria respectively, both which Jerome condemned, and Pope Gelasius (a.d. 492-6) declared to be apocryphal286. To Origen's recension he referred such copies as AKM, 42, 106, 114, 116, 253 of the Gospels, the Harkleian Syriac, the quotations of Chrysostom and Theodoret; to Hesychius the Alexandrian codices BCL; to Lucian the Byzantine documents EFGHSV and the mass of later books. The practical effect of this elaborate theory would be to accord to Cod. A a higher place among our authorities than some recent editors have granted it, even than it quite deserves, yet its correspondence with Origen in many characteristic readings would thus be admitted and accounted for (but see p. 226). But in truth Hug's whole scheme is utterly baseless as regards historical fact, and most insufficiently sustained by internal proof. Jerome's slight and solitary mention of the copies of Lucian and Hesychius abundantly evinces their narrow circulation and the low esteem in which they were held; and even Eichhorn perceived that there was no evidence whatever to show that Origen had attempted a formal revision of the text. The passages cited above, both from Eusebius and Jerome—and no others are known to bear on the subject—will carry us no further than this:—that these Fathers had access to codices of the N. T. once possessed by Adamantius, and here and there, perhaps, retouched by his hand. The manuscripts copied by Pamphilus were those of Origen's own works; and while we have full and detailed accounts of what he accomplished for the Greek versions of the Old Testament, no hint has been thrown out by any ancient writer that he carried his pious labour into [pg 272] the criticism of the New. On the contrary, he seems to disclaim the task in a sentence now extant chiefly in the old Latin version of his works, wherein, to a notice of his attempt to remove diversity of reading from codices of the Septuagint by the help of “the other editions” (κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς λοιπαῖς ἐκδόσεσιν, i.e. the versions of Aquila and the rest), he is represented as adding, “In exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi” (Origen, Tom. iii. p. 671).

10. Hug's system of recensions was devised as a corrective to those of Bengel and of Griesbach, which have been adequately discussed in Chapter VII. The veteran Griesbach spent his last effort as a writer in bringing to notice the weak points of Hug's case, and in claiming him, where he rightly could, as a welcome ally287. But neither did Hug's scheme, nor that propounded by Scholz some years later, obtain the general credit and acceptance which had once been conceded to Griesbach's. It was by this time plainly seen that not only were such theories unsupported by historical testimony (to which indeed the Professor of Halle had been too wise to lay claim), but that they failed to account for more than a part, and that usually a small part, of the phenomena disclosed by minute study of our critical materials. All that can be inferred from searching into the history of the sacred text amounts to no more than this: that extensive [pg 273] variations, arising no doubt from the wide circulation of the New Testament in different regions and among nations of diverse languages, subsisted from the earliest period to which our records extend. Beyond this point our investigations cannot be carried, without indulging in pleasant speculations which may amuse the fancy, but cannot inform the sober judgement. Such is the conclusion to which we are reluctantly brought after examining the principles laid down, as well by the critics we have named above, as by Lachmann, by his disciple Tregelles, and even by the par nobile of Cambridge Doctors, Professor Hort and Bishop (formerly Canon) Westcott, of whose labours we shall speak presently.

[pg 274]

Chapter X. Recent Views Of Comparative Criticism.

Yet is it true that we are thus cast upon the wide ocean without a compass or a guide? Can no clue be found that may conduct us through the tangled maze? Is there no other method of settling the text of the New Testament than by collecting and marshalling and scrutinizing the testimony of thousands of separate documents, now agreeing, now at issue with each other:—manuscripts, versions, ecclesiastical writers, whose mutual connexion and interdependence, as far as they exist (and to some extent they do and must exist), defy all our skill and industry to detect and estimate aright? This would surely be a discouraging view of critical science as applied to the sacred volume, and it is by no means warranted by proved and admitted facts. Elaborate systems have failed, as might have been looked for from the first. It was premature to frame them in the present stage of things, while the knowledge we possess of the actual contents of our extant authorities is imperfect, vague, and fragmentary; while our conclusions are liable to be disturbed from time to time by the rapid accession of fresh materials, of whose character we are still quite ignorant. But if we be incompetent to devise theories on a grand or imposing scale, a more modest and a safer course is open. Men of the present generation may be disqualified for taking a general survey of the whole domain of this branch of divine learning, who may yet be employed, serviceably and with honour, in cultivating each one for himself some limited and humble field of special research, to which his taste, his abilities, or opportunities have attached him: those persons may usefully improve a farm, who cannot hope to conquer a kingdom. Out of the long array of uncollated manuscripts which swell our catalogues, let the student choose from the mass a few within his reach which he may deem worthy of complete examination; or exhaust the information some ecclesiastical writer of the first six centuries can afford; or [pg 275] contribute what he can to an exact acquaintance with some good ancient version, ascertaining the genius of its language and (where this is attainable) the literary history of its text. If, in the course of such quiet toil, he shall mark (as a patient observer will find cause to mark) resemblances and affinities more than accidental, between documents of widely different ages and countries; he will not only be contributing to the common stock what cannot fail to be available hereafter as raw material, but he will be helping to solve that great problem which has hitherto in part eluded the most earnest inquiries, the investigation of the true laws and principles of Comparative Criticism.

The last-mentioned term has been happily applied by Tregelles to that delicate and important process, whereby we seek to determine the comparative value, and trace the mutual relation, of authorities of every kind upon which the original text of the N. T. is based. Thus explained (and in this enlarged sense scholars have willingly accepted it), its researches may be pursued with diligence and interest, without reference to the maintenance or refutation of any particular system or scheme of recensions. The mode of procedure is experimental and tentative, rather than dogmatical; the facts it gradually develops will eventually (as we trust) put us on the right road, although for the present we meet with much that is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous. It has already enabled critics in some degree to classify the documents with which they have to deal; it may possibly lead them, at some future period, to the establishment of principles more general, and therefore more simple, than we can now conceive likely or even possible to be attained to.

1. In the course of investigations thus difficult and precarious, designed to throw light on a matter of such vast consequence as the genuine condition of the text of Scripture, one thing would appear at first sight almost too clear for argument, too self-evident to be disputed,—that it is both our wisdom and our duty to weigh the momentous subject at issue in all its parts, shutting out from the mind no source of information which can reasonably be supposed capable of influencing our decision. Nor can such a course become less right or expedient because it must perforce involve us in laborious, extensive, and prolonged examination of a vast store of varied and voluminous testimony. It is essential [pg 276] that divines should strive to come to definite conclusions respecting disputed points of sacred criticism; it is not necessary that these conclusions should be drawn within a certain limited period, either this year, or even in the lifetime of our generation. Hence such a plan as that advocated by Lachmann, for abridging the trouble of investigation by the arbitrary rejection of the great mass of existing evidence, must needs be condemned for its rashness by those who think their utmost pains well bestowed in such a cause; nor can we consistently praise the determination of others, who, shunning the more obvious errors into which Lachmann fell, yet follow his example in constructing the text of the N. T. on a foundation somewhat less narrow, but scarcely more firm than his. As the true science of Biblical criticism is in real danger of suffering harm from the efforts of disciples of this school, it cannot be out of place if we examine the pleas which have been urged in vindication of their scheme, and assign (as briefly as we may) our reasons for believing that its apologists are but labouring in vain.

2. Brevis vita, ars longa. For this lawful cause, if for no other, the most ardent student of Biblical criticism would fain embrace some such system as is advocated by Lachmann and his followers, if only it could be done in tolerable safety. The process of investigation might thus be diminished twentyfold, and the whole subject brought within a compass not too vast for one man's diligence or the space of an ordinary lifetime. The simplicity and comparative facility of this process of resorting to the few for instruction hitherto supposed to be diffused among the many, has created in its favour a strong and not unnatural prejudice, which has yielded, so far as it has yet yielded at all, to nothing but the stubborn opposition of indisputable facts. It will also readily be admitted, that certain principles, not indeed peculiar to this theory, but brought by it into greater prominence, are themselves most reasonable and true. No one will question, for example, that “if the reading of the ancient authorities in general is unanimous, there can be but little doubt that it should be followed, whatever may be the later testimonies; for it is most improbable that the independent testimony of early MSS., versions, and Fathers should accord with regard to something entirely groundless” (Tregelles, N. T., [pg 277] Introductory Notice, p. 2). No living man, possessed of a tincture of scholarship, would dream of setting up testimony exclusively modern against the unanimous voice of antiquity. The point on which we insist is briefly this:—that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous; that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies Codd. אABCD288? The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison; perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one. All the readings these venerable monuments contain must of course be ancient, or they would not be found where they are; but they cannot all be true. So again, if our search be extended to the versions and primitive Fathers, the same phenomenon unfolds itself, to our grievous perplexity and disappointment. How much is contained in Cureton's Syriac and the Old Latin for which no Greek original can now be alleged? Do not the earliest ecclesiastical writers describe readings as existing and current in their copies, of which few traces can be met with at present289? If the question be fairly proposed, “What right have we to set virtually aside the agreement in the main of our oldest uncials, at the distance of one or two centuries—of which, owing probably to the results of persecution, we have no MS. remains—with the citations of the primitive Fathers, and with the earliest versions?”: the answer must be rendered, without hesitation, no right whatever. Where the oldest of these authorities really agree, we accept their united testimony as practically conclusive. It is not at all our design to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly at variance290. We do not claim for the recent documents the high consideration and deference fitly [pg 278] reserved for a few of the oldest; just as little do we think it right to pass them by in silence, and allow to them no more weight or importance than if they had never been written. “There are passages,” to employ the words of a very competent judge, “where the evidence of the better cursives may be of substantial use in confirming a good reading, or in deciding us between two of nearly equal merit to place one in the text and assign the other to the margin291.”

3. It may readily be supposed that the very few manuscripts which, being ancient themselves, are regarded by the school of Lachmann as alone preserving an ancient and genuine form, have not been selected as virtually the sole authorities for the settling of the sacred text, except for reasons which those who thus adopt them regard as weighty, and which merit at any rate our best consideration before we put them aside as insufficient. The great uncials, we are told, are treated with so much deference, not only or chiefly because they are old, but because they have been rigorously tested and have proved on trial to deserve the confidence which has been reposed in them. The process of investigation shall now be stated, as fairly and even favourably as possible. It is not worth while, as it certainly is not our desire, to snatch a transient advantage by misrepresenting the views we are controverting. We would rather comprise in our own system all that is sound and exact in them, while we withstand the attempt to carry them beyond the limits which they may legitimately occupy, and refuse to generalize on the strength of facts which are only partially true.

We have already laid down the axiom admitted by all, that manuscripts of the original hold the first rank among our critical materials; versions, and, yet more, the citations of ecclesiastical authors being subordinate to them. Yet whatever other disadvantages the Patristic writings may labour under, we are at [pg 279] any rate certain respecting the age in which they were composed, the works themselves being assumed to be authentic. If Irenaeus, or Tertullian, or Origen, expressly assure us that particular words which they name were read in their copies of Scripture, we cannot withstand their testimony that such words were really found in manuscripts of the New Testament in the second and third centuries, one or two hundred years before Codd. אB were in existence. If, therefore, we take a various reading of the text for which any one of these venerable men has vouched, and observe that it is supported perhaps by a few manuscripts of various ages, then by a version or two, especially if they be natives of different countries, and flow together into the same stream from sources remote from each other;—the rather too if the reading be plausible and even probable in itself:—and if, after having formed an opinion that on the whole it deserves to be respectfully considered, we then turn to א or B, or to both, and discover the same reading in them also:—not only has the variation itself made out an urgent case for our acceptance, but the character of א and B as faithful witnesses is largely enhanced. It is moreover evident, that if the same method of investigation be pursued many times over with the same, or something approaching to the same success, the value of א and B as truthful codices will be proportionally increased.

A single good example of this process will make it yet more intelligible to the careful student. It shall be one that has been chosen for the purpose by more than one of the advocates of the system we are on the whole opposing. Of the two forms in which the Lord's Prayer is delivered to us, Matt. vi. 13 has the clause ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ in every known authority: in Luke xi. 4 the case is far otherwise. That Tertullian, when citing the words before and after it, should take no notice of it, would of itself prove little. Origen, however, once passes it by in like manner, once more expressly declares that it was not in St. Luke (παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ σεσιώπηται), a third time explains in his most happy manner why it was omitted by the one Evangelist, inserted by the other. The question thus raised sets us upon the inquiry what other evidence we have for rejecting the clause in St. Luke. It appears to be wanting in several Greek manuscripts, such as L, 1, 22, 57, 130 both Greek and Latin, 131, 226*, 237, 242, 426, 582, 604, and in the catenas annexed to 36, [pg 280] 237, 239, 253, 259, 426; several of these codices (as 57, 226, 242) not being much found in such company. It is absent from the Vulgate version, and apparently from some forms of the Old Latin, the rather as Augustine says that St. Luke gives five petitions in the Lord's Prayer, St. Matthew seven, and attributes the omission of our clause to some such reason as Origen had assigned. It is omitted also in the Armenian version, which, except for the later translation by Sahak from Syriac, might be supposed to differ toto caelo from the Latin in country and genius. The list is closed by the younger Cyril, a pure witness from another region, very different lines of evidence thus converging into one. Then comes the probability that if one of the Gospels contained the Lord's Prayer in a shorter form than the other, nothing was so likely as that a scribe in perfect innocence would supply what he considered an undoubted defect, without staying to reflect with Origen and Augustine that the two were delivered on different occasions, to different classes of persons, with different ends in view. Turning therefore now, with a strong case already made out for the omission of the clause, to א and B, which have been hitherto kept out of sight, we find that B has not the disputed words at all, nor had א by the first hand, but in one three centuries later. The clear result, so far as it goes, is at once to vindicate the claim of אB to high consideration, and to make out a formidable case against the genuineness of the six words involved. We say advisedly a formidable, not necessarily a fatal case, for the counter evidence is still very strong, and comes as much as that alleged above from different quarters, being also as early as widely diffused. It consists of Codd. ACDEFGHKMR292SUVΓΔΛΠ, of [pg 281] all cursives not named above, of the Old Latin b c f ff i l q, whereof f mostly goes with the Vulgate (hiant a e), the Bohairic, Peshitto, Curetonian, Harkleian Syriac (the Jerusalem not containing this week-day Lesson), and the Ethiopic versions. So far as this side as stated is weak at all, it lacks Patristic evidence (which cannot now be investigated for our purpose), and the balance of internal evidence is decidedly adverse to it.

4. The student may try the same experiments on two other passages often urged in this debate, Matt. v. 22, for which he will find the materials above, p. 255, and Matt. xix. 17, which will be discussed in Chap. XII. We freely admit that these are but a few out of many cases where the statements of ancient writers about whose date there can be no question are borne out by the readings of the more ancient codices, especially of א or B, or of the two united. Undoubtedly this circumstance lends a weight and authority to these manuscripts, and to the few which side with them, which their mere age would not procure for them: it does not entitle them to be regarded as virtually the only documents worthy of being consulted in the recension of the sacred text; as qualifying to be sole arbiters in critical questions relating to the New Testament, against whose decision there can be no appeal. Yet nothing less than this is claimed in behalf of one or two of them by their devoted admirers. In a court of justice, we are told, when once the evidence of a witness has been thoroughly probed and tested, it is received thenceforth as true, even on those points where it stands alone, and in the face of strong antecedent improbabilities. Now reasoning in metaphor has its advantages, as well for the sake of clearly expressing our meaning, as of making an impression on those we address; but it is attended with this grave inconvenience, that, since the analogy between no two things that can be compared is quite complete, we are sorely tempted to apply to the one of them properties which appertain exclusively to the other. In the present instance, besides the properties wherein documentary can be assimilated to oral testimony, such as [pg 282] general accuracy and means of information, an important element is present in the latter, to which the former has nothing parallel, namely, moral character, that full persuasion of a witness's good faith and disinterested integrity to which a jury will often surrender, and rightly surrender, all earlier impressions and predilections. Of this we can have nothing in the case of the manuscripts of Scripture which we now possess. In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest; but all this was over long before the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries began their happy task, as simple and honest copyists of the older records placed before them. Let their testimony be received with attention at all times; let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are no grave reasons to the contrary, but let not their paramount authority shut out all other considerations, external and internal, which might guide us to the true reading of a passage; nor let us be so illogical as to conclude, because א and B are sometimes right, that therefore they never are in the wrong293.

The results of this excessive and irrational deference to one of our chief codices, that which he was so fortunate as to bring to the light twenty-five years ago, appears plainly in Tischendorf's eighth edition of the New Testament. That great critic had never been conspicuous for stability of judgement. His third edition was constructed almost without any reference to the cursive manuscripts, which, unless they be, what no one asserts or imagines, merely corrupt copies, or copies of copies, of existing uncials, must needs be the representatives of yet older codices which have long since perished: “respectable ancestors” (as one has quaintly put the matter) “who live only in their descendants” (Long, Ciceronis Verrin. Orat., Praef. p. vi)294. In Tischendorf's [pg 283] seventh edition, completed in 1859, that error was rectified, and the sum of textual variations between the third and seventh edition in consequence amounted to 1296, in no less than 595 of which (430 of the remainder being mere matters of spelling) he returned to the readings of the Received text, which he had before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger experience had brought him back295. In the eighth edition another disturbing element is introduced, and that edition differs from his seventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency. The evidence of Cod. א, supported or even unsupported by one or two authorities of any description, proved with him sufficient to outweigh all other witnesses, whether manuscripts, versions, or ecclesiastical writers.

The foregoing examination will probably have satisfied the student that we have no right to regard Cod. B as a second Infallible Voice proceeding from the Vatican, which, when it has once spoken, must put an end to all strife. Yet nothing less than this is claimed for it by writers, who yet have bestowed [pg 284] much thought and labour on this controversy. “Seeing that the Vatican manuscript does not contain one single passage that can be demonstrated to be spurious, or that by the evidence of other manuscripts and of the context, admits of just doubt as to its authenticity, a position that no other manuscript enjoys, man is bound to accept the testimony of that manuscript alone, as his present text of the sacred record, wherever he possesses its teaching296.” I am not sure whether, if we conceded this writer's premisses, we should be bound to accept his conclusion; but the easiest way of disposing of his argument, as well as of that of persons, who, in heart agreeing with him, would hardly like to enunciate their principle so broadly, is presently to lay before the student a few readings of Cod. B, either standing alone, or supported by א and others, respecting whose authenticity, or rather genuineness, some of us must be forgiven if we cherish considerable doubts. It is right, however, to declare that this discussion is forced upon us through no wish to dissemble the great value of the Codex Vaticanus, which in common with our opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that we possess, but entirely by way of unavoidable protest against a claim for supremacy set up in its behalf, which can belong of right to no existing document whatsoever.

5. But indeed the theories of preceding critics, as well as the practical application of those theories to the sacred text, have been thrown into the shade by the more recent and elaborate publications of Drs. Hort and Westcott, briefly noticed in a preceding chapter, and claiming in this place our serious attention297.

[pg 285]

The system on which their text has been constructed has been vindicated, so far as vindication was possible, in Dr. Hort's “Introduction,” a very model of earnest reasoning, calling for and richly rewarding the close and repeated study of all who would learn the utmost that can be done for settling the text of the New Testament on dogmatic principles. The germ of this theory can be traced in the speculations of Bentley and Griesbach; its authors would confess themselves on many points disciples of Lachmann, although their process of investigation is far more artificial than his. But there is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture: and since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious, and even visionary. This much said by way of preface, we will endeavour to state the principles they advocate, as fairly and concisely as we can.

(α) The books of the New Testament, even the Holy Gospels themselves, could not well have been collected into one volume till some time after the death of St. John. During this early period, each portion of the inspired record would be circulated separately, until at length the four Gospels would be brought together in one book or Quaternion, and, since each component member had to receive a distinctive appellation, the simplest and [pg 286] the earliest headings would ascribe them to their respective authors, κατὰ Ματθαῖον, κατὰ Μάρκον, κ.τ.λ., the general title of the four being Εὐαγγέλιον. “It is quite uncertain to what extent the whole N. T. was ever included in a single volume in Ante-Nicene times” (Hort, Introduction, pp. 223, 268), only that the Gospels had certainly been collected together when Justin Martyr wrote his first Apology between a.d. 139 and 150, inasmuch as he appeals thrice over to the Memoirs of the Apostles, which he once identifies with the Gospels (οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ᾽ ἀυτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια). Justin's disciple Tatian, again, composed a Harmony of the Four (Διὰ τεσσάρων), respecting the precise nature of which we have recently gained very seasonable information. “The idea, if not the name, of a collective ‘Gospel’ is implied throughout the well-known passage in the third book of Irenaeus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations” (Hort, p. 321). Hence it is not unreasonable to suspect that our great codices (אABC), which originally contained the whole N. T., may have been transcribed in their several parts from copies differing from each other in genius and in date. With such a possibility before us we ought not to be perplexed if the character of the text whether of Cod. A or of Cod. B differs in the Gospels from that which it bears in the Acts and the Epistles; or if Cod. C in the Apocalypse, and Cod. Δ in St. Mark, as has been already explained under those MSS., appear to belong to a family or group apart from that of the rest of their respective codices.

(β) At this remote period, during the first half of the second century, must have originated the wide variations from the prevailing text on the part of our primary authorities, both manuscripts and versions, which survive in Cod. Bezae of the Greek, and in the Old Latin codices or at least in some of them. The text they exhibit is distinguished as Western, and they have been joined by a powerful ally, the Curetonian Syriac. Critics of every school agree in admitting the primitive existence of this Western recension, and in their estimate of its general spirit. “The earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically belong to it... But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this imposing early ascendency are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal [pg 287] character” (Hort, p. 120). “The chief and most constant characteristic of the Western readings is a love of paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted, and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness” (ibid. p. 122). “Another equally important characteristic is a disposition to enrich the text at the cost of its purity by alterations or additions taken from traditional and perhaps from apocryphal and other non-biblical sources” (ibid. p. 123). Especially may we note among other interpolations the long passage after Matt. xx. 28 which we cited above, Vol. I. p. 8.

(γ) We now come to the feature which distinguishes Dr. Hort's system from any hitherto propounded; by the acceptance or non-acceptance of which his whole edifice must stand or fall. He seems to exaggerate the force of extant evidence when he judges that the corrupt Western “was the more widely-spread text of Ante-Nicene times” (ibid. p. 120); but he tacitly assumes that many codices, versions, and ecclesiastical writers remained free from its malignant influence. The evidence of this latter class was preserved comparatively pure until the middle of the third century, when it was taken in hand, at some time between a.d. 250 and 350, “at what date it is impossible to say with confidence, and even for conjecture the materials are scanty” (ibid. p. 137), by the Syrian bishops and Fathers of the Patriarchate of Antioch, who undertook (1) “an authoritative revision at Antioch” of the Greek text, which (2) was then taken as a standard for a similar authoritative revision of the Syriac text, and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative revision, carrying out more completely the purposes of the first (ibid. p. 137). Of this twofold authoritative revision of the Greek text, of this formal transmutation of the Curetonian Syriac into the Peshitto (for this is what Dr. Hort means, though his language is a little obscure), although they must have been of necessity public acts of great Churches in ages abounding in Councils General or Provincial, not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiquity; no one writer seems conscious that any modification either of the Greek Scriptures or of the vernacular translation was made in or before his time. It is as if the Bishops' Bible had been [pg 288] thrust out of the English Church service and out of the studies of her divines, and the Bible of 1611 had silently taken its place, no one knew how, or when, or why, or indeed that any change whatever had been made. Yet regarding his speculative conjecture as undubitably true, Dr. Hort proceeds to name the text as it stood before his imaginary era of transfusion a Pre-Syrian text, and that into which it was changed, sometimes Antiochian, more often Syrian298; while of the latter recension, though made deliberately, as our author believes, by the authoritative voice of the Eastern Church, he does not shrink from declaring that “all distinctively Syrian readings must be at once rejected” (ibid. p. 119), thus making a clean sweep of all critical materials, Fathers, versions, manuscripts uncial or cursive, comprising about nineteen-twentieths of the whole mass, which do not correspond with his preconceived opinion of what a correct text ought to be (ibid. p. 163).

(δ) But one or two steps yet remain in this thorough elimination of useless elements. A few authorities still survive which are honoured as Pre-Syrian, and continued unaffected by the phantom revisions, which, for critical purposes, have reduced their colleagues to ignominious silence. Besides the Western, Dr. Hort has in reserve two other groups, the Alexandrian and the Neutral. The former retains a text essentially pure from Syrian (though not from Western) mixture, but its component members are portentously few in number, being tolerably void of corruption as regards the substance, with “no incorporation of matter extraneous to the canonical text of the Bible, and no habitual or extreme license of paraphrase ... the changes made having usually more to do with language than with matter, and being marked by an effort after correctness of phrase” (ibid. p. 131). There are no unmixed vouchers for this Non-Western, Pre-Syrian, Alexandrian class, though Cyril of Alexandria seems to come the nearest to purity (ibid. p. 141), [pg 289] then Origen, occasionally other Alexandrian Fathers, also the Sahidic, and especially the Bohairic version (ibid. p. 131). No extant MS. has preserved so many Alexandrian readings as Cod. L (ibid. p. 153). Cod. C has some, T and Ξ more: in the Gospels they are chiefly marked by the combination אCLXZ, 33 (ibid. p. 166). In Cod. A, for the Acts and Epistles, the Alexandrian outnumber both the Syrian and Western readings (Hort, p. 152), but they all are mere degenerations so far as they depart from Dr. Hort's standard

(ε) The Neutral type of text: so called because it is free from the glaring corruption of the Western, from the smooth assimilations of the Syrian, and from the grammatical purism of the Alexandrian. Only two documents come under this last head, Codd. B and א, and of these two, when they differ, B is preferable to א, which has a not inconsiderable Western element, besides that the scribe's bold and rough manner has rendered “all the ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription more numerous” than in B (ibid. p. 246). Yet, with certain slight exceptions which he carefully specifies, it is our learned author's belief “(1) that the readings of אB should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary, and (2) that no readings of אB can safely be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place them only on an alternative footing, especially where they receive no support from Versions and Fathers” (ibid. p. 225): and this their pre-eminence, in our critic's judgement, “is due to the extreme, and, as it were, primordial antiquity of the common original from which the ancestries of the two MSS. have diverged, the date of which cannot be later than the earlier part of the second century, and may well be yet earlier” (ibid. p. 223).

That אB should thus lift up their heads against all the world is much, especially having regard to the fact that several versions and not a few Fathers are older than they: for, while we grant that a simple patristic citation, standing by itself, is of little value, yet when the context or current of exposition renders it clear what reading these writers had before them, they must surely for that passage be equivalent as authorities to a manuscript of their own age. Nor will Dr. Hort allow us to make any deduction from the weight of the united testimony of אB [pg 290] by reason of the curious fact, demonstrated as well to his satisfaction (Hort, p. 213) as to our own, that the scribe of B was the actual writer of parts of three distinct quires, forming three pairs of conjugate leaves of א (see above, p. 96, note 1); but on this head we think he will find few readers to agree with him. His devotion to Cod. B when it stands alone is of necessity far more intelligent than that of the unnamed writer mentioned already, yet we believe that his implied confidence is scarcely the less misplaced. He is very glad when he can to find friends for his favourite, and discusses with great care the several binary combinations, such as BL, BC, BT, Bι, BD (which last, indeed, is unsafe enough), AB, BZ, B 33 or BΔ (for St. Mark) in the Gospels; AB, BC, &c., in the rest of the N. T. (Hort, p. 227). He does not disparage the subsingular readings of B, meaning by this convenient, perhaps novel, term, the agreement of B with “inferior Greek MSS., Versions, or Fathers, or combinations of documentary evidence of these kinds” (ibid. p. 230). But, when the worst comes to the worst, and Cod. B is left absolutely alone, its advocates need not despair, inasmuch as no readings of that manuscript, not involving clerical error (and “the scribe reached by no means a high standard of accuracy,” ibid. p. 233), must be lightly or hastily rejected, so powerfully do they commend themselves on their own merits (ibid. p. 238). This transcendent excellency, however, belongs to it chiefly in the Gospels. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles, if the value of A increases as has been said, that of B is somewhat diminished; while in the Pauline Epistles a “local Western element of B” (Hort, p. 240) brings it into the less reputable company of DFG or even of D alone. Hence in the formation of Westcott and Hort's Pauline text we sometimes meet with what appears the paradoxical result that the evidence of B alone is accepted, while that of B attended by other codices is laid aside as insufficient.

It is very instructive to compare the foregoing sketch of Dr. Hort's system, brief and inadequate, yet not we trust unfair, as it is, with the theory of Griesbach, for whose labours and genius we share much of his successor's veneration. As regards the modification of text called Western their views are nearly identical, only that Griesbach was necessarily ignorant of such important constituents of it as the Curetonian Syriac and the [pg 291] Old Latin codices which have come to light since his day, and thus was exempted from the temptation to which Dr. Hort has unhappily yielded, of believing that Codd. אB, with all their comparative purity, represent a primitive text already corrupted by certain accretions from which the Western copies were free (see below, p. 299 and note 1): a violent supposition which seriously impairs the homogeneousness and self-consistency of his whole argument (Hort, pp. 175-6). Griesbach's Alexandrian class includes not only that which Dr. Hort understands by the name, but the later critic's Neutral class also, which indeed we fail to distinguish from the other by any marked peculiar characteristics. The more mixed text which Griesbach called Constantinopolitan, and which is represented by Cod. A in the Gospels, in part by Cod. C, the Latin Vulgate, and later authorities, differs from Dr. Hort's Syrian in much more than name. Wider and deeper researches have made it evident that Griesbach's notion of a gradual modernizing of the text used from the fourth century downwards in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, would not adequately account for the phenomena wherewith we have to deal. The general, almost universal, prevalence of such a departure from the readings of אB, met with in ecclesiastical writers at least as early in date as the parchment of those manuscripts themselves, can be explained by nothing less than a comprehensive, deliberate, authoritative recension of the sacred books, undertaken by the chief rulers of the Antiochene Church, accepted throughout that great Patriarchate, yet, in spite of all this, never noticed even in the way of passing reference by writers of any description from that period onwards, until its consequences, not its process, became known to eminent critics in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Nothing less than the exigency of his case could have driven our author to encumber himself with a scheme fraught with difficulties too great even for his skill to overcome.

Dr. Hort's system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical foundation299. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it: but then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded himself, that its substantial truth is proved by results; and for results of themselves to establish so very much, they must needs be unequivocal, and admit of no logical escape from the conclusions [pg 292] they lead up to. But is this really the case? “Two Members of the New Testament Company” of Revisers, in a temperate and very able pamphlet, have answered in the affirmative, and have assigned, after Dr. Hort, but with greater precision than he, three reasons “for the belief that the Syrian text is posterior in origin to those which he calls Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral” (The Revisers and the Greek text of the N. T., p. 25). Granting for our present purpose the reality of this Syrian text, of whose independent existence we have no direct proof whatever, let us see what the three reasons will amount to.

(α) “The first reason appears to us almost sufficient to settle the question by itself. It is founded on the observation ... that the Syrian text presents numerous instances of readings which, according to all textual probability, must be considered to be combinations of early readings still extant.”... “The reader will find in Dr. Hort's own pages abundant illustration of the fact in eight examples rigorously analyzed, which seem to supply a proof, as positive as the subject admits, that Syrian readings are posterior both to Western readings, and to other readings which may be properly described as Neutral” (ibid. pp. 25-6). But the misfortune is that the subject does not admit of positive proof; that what appears to one scholar “textual probability,” appears to another a mere begging of the whole question. These eight examples have been re-analyzed by Canon Cook (Revised Version, pp. 205-18), and just before him by the Quarterly Reviewer (Revision Revised, pp. 258-65), writers not destitute either of learning or of natural acuteness, who would fain lead us to draw directly opposite inferences from Dr. Hort's. We will take but one specimen, the eighth and last, to make our meaning as clear as possible. “This simple instance,” says Dr. Hort complacently, “needs no explanation” (Hort, p. 104).

Luke xxiv. 53. καὶ ἦσαν διαπαντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες τὸν Θεόν. Thus it stands in the Received text with AC**FHKMSUVXΓΔΛΠ, all cursives, even those most esteemed by Westcott and Hort, with c f g, the Vulgate, Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, and Ethiopic virtually (εὐλογοῦντες καὶ αἰνοῦντες τὸν Θεόν). This is called the Syrian reading.

[pg 293]

The two so-termed Pre-Syrian forms are,

om. αἰνοῦντες καὶ אBCL*, Bohairic (Hort), Jerusalem Syriac. This is the Neutral and Alexandrian text.

om. καὶ εὐλογοῦντες D, a b e ff l, gat. bodl., Bohairic (Tischendorf). This is the Western text.

The assumption of course is that the Syrian reading is a conflation of those of the other two classes, so forming a full but not overburdened clause. But if this praejudicium be met with the plea that D and the Latins perpetually, B and its allies very often, seek to abridge the sacred original, it would be hard to demonstrate that the latter explanation is more improbable than the former. Beyond this point of subjective feeling the matter cannot well be carried, whether on one side or the other.

Dr. Hort's other examples of conflation have the same double edge as Luke xxiv. 53, and there is no doubt that Dr. Sanday is right in asserting that like instances may be found wheresoever they are looked for; but they prove nothing to any one who has not made up his mind beforehand as to what the reading ought to be. We have already confessed that there is a tendency on the part of copyists to assimilate the narratives of the several Gospels to each other; and that such Harmonies as that of Tatian would facilitate the process; that synonymous words are liable to be exchanged and harsh constructions supplied. Part of the value of the older codices arises from their comparative freedom from such corrections: but then this modernizing process is on the part of copyists unsystematic, almost unconscious; it is wholly different from the deliberate formal emendations implied throughout Dr. Hort's volume.

(β) The second reason adduced by the Two Revisers “is almost equally cogent” in their estimation. It is that while the Ante-Nicene Fathers “place before us from separate and in some cases widely distant countries examples of Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral readings, it appears to be certain that before the middle of the third century we have no historical traces of readings which can properly be entitled distinctively Syrian” (The Revisers, &c., p. 26). Now the middle of the third century is the earliest period assigned by Dr. Hort for the inception of his phantom scheme of Syrian revision, and we feel [pg 294] sure that the epoch of Patristic evidence was not put thus early, in order to exclude Origen, whose support of his Alexandrian readings Griesbach found so partial and precarious (see above, p. 226). In fact Dr. Hort expressly states that “The only period for which we have anything like a sufficiency of representative knowledge consists roughly of three-quarters of a century from about 175 to 250: but the remains of four eminent Greek Fathers, which range through this period, cast a strong light on textual history backward and forward. They are Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons; his disciple Hippolytus, of Rome; Clement, of Athens and Alexandria; and his disciple, Origen, of Alexandria and Palestine” (Hort, p. 112). Even if the extant writings of these Fathers had been as rigorously examined and as thoroughly known as they certainly are not, “their scantiness and the comparative vagueness of the textual materials contained in them” (ibid.) would hinder our drawing at present any positive conclusions regarding the sacred text as known to them. Even the slender specimens of controverted readings collected in our Chap. XII would suffice to prove that their evidence is by no means exclusively favourable to Dr. Hort's opinions, a fact for which we will allege but one instance out of many, the support given to the Received text by Hippolytus in that grand passage, John iii. 13300.

There are three considerable works relating to the criticism of the N. T. still open to the enterprise of scholars, and they can hardly be taken up at all except by the fresh hopefulness of scholars yet young. We need a fuller and more comprehensive collation of the cursive manuscripts (Hort, pp. 76-7): “a complete collection of all the fragments of the Thebaic New Testament is now the most pressing want in the province of textual criticism,” writes Bp. Lightfoot, and he might have added a better edition of the Bohairic also: but for the demands of the present controversy we must set in the first rank the necessity for a complete survey of the Patristic literature of the first five centuries at the least. While we concede to Dr. Hort that as [pg 295] a rule “negative patristic evidence”—that derived from the mere silence of the writer, “is of no force at all” (Hort, p. 201), and attach very slight importance to citations which are not express, it is from this source that we must look for any stable decision regarding the comparative purity in reference to the sacred autographs of the several classes of documents which have passed under our review.

(γ) Hence the second reason for supporting the text of Westcott and Hort urged by the Two Revisers relates to an investigation of facts hitherto but partially ascertained: the third, like the first, involves only matters of opinion, in which individual judgements and prepossessions bear the chief part. “Yet a third reason is supplied by Internal Evidence, or, in other words, by considerations ... of intrinsic or of Transcriptional Probability” (The Revisers &c., p. 26): and “here,” they very justly add, “it is obvious that we enter at once into a very delicate and difficult domain of textual criticism, and can only draw our conclusions with the utmost circumspection and reserve” (ibid.). On the subject of Internal Evidence enough for our present purpose has been said, and Dr. Hort's Transcriptional head appears to be Bp. Ellicott's paradiplomatic under a more convenient name. Our author's discussion of what he calls the “rudimental criticism” of Internal evidence (Hort, Part ii. pp. 19-72), if necessarily somewhat abstruse, is one of the most elaborate and interesting in his admirable volume. It is sometimes said that all reasoning is analytical, not synthetical; the reducing a foregone conclusion to the first principles on which it rests, rather than the building upon those first principles the materials wherewith to construct the conclusion. Of this portion of Dr. Hort's labours the dictum is emphatically true. Cod. B and its characteristic peculiarities are never out of the author's mind, and those lines of thought are closely followed which most readily lead up to the theory of that manuscript's practical impeccability. We allege this statement in no disparaging spirit, and it may be that Dr. Hort will not wholly disagree with us. Not only is he duly sensible of the precariousness of Intrinsic evidence, inasmuch as “the uncertainty of the decision in ordinary cases is shown by the great diversity of judgement which is actually found to exist” (Hort, p. 21), but he boldly, [pg 296] and no less boldly than truly, intimates that in such cases the ultimate decision must rest with the individual critic: “in almost all texts variations occur where personal judgement inevitably takes a large part in the final decision.... Different minds will be impressed by different parts of the evidence as clearer than the rest, and so virtually ruling the rest: here therefore personal discernment would seem the surest ground for confidence” (ibid. p. 65). For the critic's confidence perhaps, not for that of his reader.

The process of grouping authorities, whether by considerations of their geographical distribution or (more uncertainly) according to their genealogy as inferred from internal considerations (ibid. pp. 49-65), occupies a large measure of Dr. Hort's attention. The idea has not indeed originated with him, and its occasional value will be frankly acknowledged in the ensuing pages, so that on this head we need not further enlarge. In conclusion we will say, that the more our Cambridge Professor's “Introduction” is studied the more it grows upon our esteem for fulness of learning, for patience of research, for keenness of intellectual power, and especially for a certain marvellous readiness in accounting after some fashion for every new phenomenon which occurs, however apparently adverse to the acceptance of his own theory. With all our reverence for his genius, and gratitude for much that we have learnt from him in the course of our studies, we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which its adoption would force upon us301.

This last assertion we will try to verify by subjoining a select [pg 297] number of those many passages in the N. T. wherein the two great codices א and B, one or both of them, are witnesses for readings, nearly all of which, to the best of our judgement, are corruptions of the sacred originals302.

6. Those who devote themselves to the criticism of the text of the New Testament have only of late come to understand the full importance of attending closely to the mutual connexion subsisting between their several materials of every description, whether manuscripts, versions, or Fathers. The study of grouping has been recently and not untruly said to be the foundation of all enduring criticism303. Now that theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word families has come into disrepute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attaching themselves to each group. Systematic or wilful corruption of the sacred text, at least on a scale worth taking into account, there would seem to have been almost none; yet the tendency to licentious paraphrase and unwarranted additions distinguished one set of our witnesses from the second century downwards; a bias towards grammatical and critical purism and needless omissions appertained to another; while [pg 298] a third was only too apt to soften what might seem harsh, to smooth over difficulties, and to bring passages, especially of the Synoptic Gospels, into unnatural harmony with each other. All these changes appear to have been going on without notice during the whole of the third and fourth centuries, and except that the great name of Origen is associated (not always happily) with one class of them, were rather the work of transcribers than of scholars. Eusebius and Jerome, in their judgements about Scripture texts, are more the echoes of Origen than independent investigators.

Now, as a first approximation to the actual state of the case, the several classes of changes which we have enumerated admit of a certain rude geographical distribution, one of them appertaining to Western Christendom and the earliest Fathers of the African and Gallic Churches (including North Italy under the latter appellation); a second to Egypt and its neighbourhood; the third originally to Syria and Christian Antioch, in later times to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We have here, no doubt, much to remind us of Griesbach and his scheme of triple recensions, but with this broad distinction between his conclusions and those of modern critics, that whereas he regarded the existence of his families as a patent fact, and grounded upon it precise and mechanical rules for the arrangement of the text, we are now content to perceive no more than unconscious tendencies, liable to be modified or diverted by a thousand occult influences, of which in each single case it is impossible to form an estimate beforehand. Even that marked bias in the direction of adding to the record, which is the reproach of Codex Bezae and some of its compeers, and renders the text of the Acts as exhibited by DE, by the cursive 137, and the margin of the Harkleian Syriac, as unlike that commonly read as can well be imagined304, is mixed up with a proneness to omissions which we should look for rather from another class of documents (e.g. the rejection of ψευδόμενοι Matt. v. 11), and which in the latter part of St. Luke's Gospel almost suggests the idea of representing an earlier edition than that now in ordinary use, [pg 299] yet proceeding from the Evangelist's own hand (see p. 18)305. Again, the process whereby the rough places are made plain and abrupt constructions rounded, is abundantly exemplified in the readings of the great uncial A, supported as it is by the mass of later manuscripts (e.g. Mark i. 27; Acts xv. 17, 18; xx. 24); yet in innumerable instances (see Appendix to this chapter) these self-same codices retain the genuine text of the sacred writers which their more illustrious compeers have lost or impaired.

Hence it follows that in judging of the character of a various reading proposed for our acceptance, we must carefully mark whether it comes to us from many directions or from one. And herein the native country of the several documents, even when we can make sure of it, is only a precarious guide. If the Ethiopic or the Armenian versions have really been corrected by the Latin Vulgate, the geographical remoteness of their origin must go for nothing where they agree with the latter version. The relation in which Cod. L and the Bohairic version stand to Cod. B is too close to allow them their full value as independent witnesses unless when they are at variance with that great uncial, wheresoever it may have been written: the same might be said of the beautiful Latin fragment k from Bobbio. To whatever nations they belong, their resemblances are too strong and perpetual not to compel us to withhold from them a part of the consideration their concord would otherwise lay claim to. The same is incontestably the case with the Curetonian and margin of the Harkleian Syriac in connexion with Cod. D. Wide as is the region which separates Syria from Gaul, there [pg 300] must have been in very early times some remote communication by which the stream of Eastern testimony or tradition, like another Alpheus, rose up again with fresh strength to irrigate the regions of the distant West. The Peshitto Syriac leans at times in the same direction, although both in nation and character it most assimilates to the same class as Cod. A.

With these, and it may be with some further reservations which experience and study shall hereafter suggest, the principle of grouping must be acknowledged to be a sound one, and those lines of evidence to be least likely to lead us astray which converge from the most varied quarters to the same point. It is strange, but not more strange than needful, that we are compelled in the cause of truth to make one stipulation more: namely, that this rule be henceforth applied impartially in all cases, as well when it will tell in favour of the Received text, as when it shall help to set it aside. To assign a high value to cursive manuscripts of the best description (such as 1, 33, 69, 157, Evst. 259, or 61 of the Acts), and to such uncials as LRΔ, or even as א or C, whensoever they happen to agree with Cod. B, and to treat their refined silver as though it had been suddenly transmuted into dross when they come to contradict it, is a practice too plainly unreasonable to admit of serious defence, and can only lead to results which those who uphold it would be the first to deplore306.

7. It is hoped that the general issue of the foregoing discussion may now be embodied in these four practical rules307:—

(1) That the true readings of the Greek New Testament cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, whether manuscripts, versions, or Fathers, but ought to be the result of [pg 301] a patient comparison and careful estimate of the evidence supplied by them all.

(2) That where there is a real agreement between all documents containing the Gospels up to the sixth century, and in other parts of the New Testament up to the ninth, the testimony of later manuscripts and versions, though not to be rejected unheard, must be regarded with great suspicion, and, unless upheld by strong internal evidence, can hardly be adopted308.

(3) That where the more ancient documents are at variance with each other, the later uncial and cursive copies, especially those of approved merit, are of real importance, as being the surviving representatives of other codices, very probably as early, perhaps even earlier, than any now extant.

(4) That in weighing conflicting evidence we must assign the highest value not to those readings which are attested by the greatest number of witnesses, but to those which come to us from several remote and independent sources, and which bear the least likeness to each other in respect to genius and general character.

[pg 302]

Appendix To Chapter X.

Matt. vi. 8. The transparent gloss ὁ θε