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

See other formats

//V7

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz
Book Endowment for the Humanities

Class of 1924

m^ wuv

y K

Cornell University
Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924091353510

INTRODUCTION TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

EBERHARD NESTLE, Ph. and Th.D.

MAULBKONN

TRANSLATED FROM THE SECOND EDITION

{With Corrections and Additions by the Author)

WILLIAM EDIE, B.D.

KING EDWARD

AND EDITED WITH A PREFACE BV

ALLAN MENZIES, D.D.

PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF ST- ANDREWS

WILLIAMS AND NORGATE

14 HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON

10 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH

and 7 BROAD STREET, OXFORD

New York: G. P. TUTNAM'S SONS

1 901

FKINTED BY
NE1LI. AND COMPANY LIMITED

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

Professor Eberhard Nestle of Maulbronn is one of the
distinguished company of philologists who have in recent
years directed their attention to the study of the New Testa-
ment. He is by no means a stranger in this country.
Readers of the Expositor and the Expository Times are
familiar with his name, and are accustomed to receive from
him original and independent discussions of New Testament
textual problems. He is consulted by scholars both in this
BELLEvuE, EDiNHUKGH country and on the Continent on questions of Aramaic and

Syriac scholarship, and has contributed, in the way of
criticism and careful proof reading, to many important
publications of English scholars, such as Professor Swete's
edition of the Septuagint, 1 the publications of Mrs. Lewis
and Mrs. Gibson (The Sinaitic Palimpsest, etc), and the
Gospel of the Twelve Apostles recently published by Pro-
fessor Rendel Harris.

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

> See the Dedication to Dr. Nestle of Professor Swete's Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek, just published.

editor's preface.

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

Dr. Nestle's principal works are : — Die israelitischen Eigen-
namen nac/i ihrer religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung (Proper
Names in Israel : their significance for the history of religion),
the Prize Essay of the Leiden Tyler Society, 1876. An earlier
Prize Essay at Tubingen on the Septuagint and Massorah
of Ezekiel was also successful, but was not published.

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

Septuagintastudien, i.-iii., J 886, 1 896, 1898.

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

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

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

Philologica Sacra, 1896.

Minor publications collected in Margitialien und Materialien,

>893-

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

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

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

EDITORS PREFACE.

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

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

This translation, as the title-page indicates, has been made

from the second, enlarged, edition, and the author has kindly

furnished various corrections and additions,- bringing the

book in its English form up to date. Some additional

references to English books and periodicals have been

inserted by the translator.

A. M.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

History of the Printed Text since 1514,

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

PAGF-S
1-27

CHAPTER II.

Materials of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa-
ment 28-155

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

CONTENTS.

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

CHAPTER III.

Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the

New Testament, 1 56-246

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

CONTENTS.

Critical Notes on Various Passages of the New

Testament, 247-335

Appendix I. List of Greek and Latin Writers, . 33°

Appendix II. List of Passages referring to am-

ypa<f>a, ....-••• 34°

Index of Subjects, 343

Index of New Testament Passages referred to, . 35°

ABBREVIATIONS.

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

GGA. = Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen.

GK. = Zahn's Geschichle des neutestamentlichen Kanons. See

p. 196 n. 2.
LCbl. = Literarisches Centralblatt
PRE. = Protestantische Real-Encyklopadie. See p. 7.
ThLbl. = Theologisches Literaturblatt.
ThLz. = Theologische Literaturzeitung.
ThStKr. = Theologische Studien und Kritiken.
TiGr. = Tischendorfs N.T. Graece, editio octava maior, vol. iii.

See p. 6.
TU. = Texte und Untersuchungen.
Urt. = Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. See p. 6f.

W-H. = Westcott and Hort. See p. a 1.
W-W. = Wordsworth and White. See pp. 123, 131.
ZdmG. = Zeitschrift der morgenlandischen GesellschafL
ZfdPhil. = Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie.
ZfwTh. = Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie.

ADDENDA.

Page 6. To the Literature add : Riiegg, Die ntutestamentliehe
Textkritik sett Lachmann, Zurich, 1892.

Page 74. Two fragments of N.T. text have been published by
Grenfell and Hunt in The Amherst Papyri, Part I. : The Ascension
of Isaiah and other theological fragments (London, 1900). The first
consists of Hebrews L 1, written, along with Genesis i. 1, in a small
uncial hand of the late third, or more probably early fourth, century at
the top of a papyrus leaf containing a letter from Rome. The verse
from the N.T. exhibits the reading toi* irarpacriv v/tuc, which is not
found in any of the manuscripts. The other fragment consists 'of
Acts ii. n-22 with lacunae, written on vellum and dating apparently
from about the fifth or sixth century. It contains a few singular
readings such as : (verse 1 2) irpos t o v SXXov ; (13) {xKtva{ot> kiyovrts,
which is practically the reading of D, the only difference being that
D has the compound verb Biex\€va£ov ; (14) yvworov v/uv, apparently ;
(17) /icto roiVo with B instead of iv toTs ia-xaran TjfUpais, and also,
apparently, ^vnrio with the textus receptus; (20) wplv j) with the
textus receptus ; (21) 8s a»> with the textus receptus.

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

-fij^f 106(5). Ad d: Hilgenfeld, Thomas von Heraklea und die
Apostelgeschichte, in the ZfwTh., 1900, 3.

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

Page 1 39. To Kauflmann's Beitrage must now be added : v. Der
codex Brixianus (ZfdPhil. xxxii. pp. 305-335). In this important

xvi ADDENDA.

contribution Kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by Burkitt

in the Journal of Theological Studies,!, pp. 129-134. that Wordsworth

and White were mistaken in regarding the text of codex Bnx.anus (f)

as a recension of the Old Latin closely allied to Jerome's revision.

Burkitt holds that the text of Brixianus was corrected from the

Vuleate, and afterwards altered in conformity with the Gothic. the

only difference between Burkitt and Kauffmann is that the alter

believes that the text of Brixianus was derived from an ^earlier Latin

manuscript which had been altered in conformity with the Gothic,

and that it was aftewards assimilated to the Vulgate. Thus view

must also be noted in connection with the Old Latin codex gue (see

p. 118). For an example of the connection between Brixianus and

the Gothic see the note to p. 289, below.

Page 162. Add: (9) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, in cod. min. 90.

Fare 289. John vii. i S . For 'Iovfiolbi f here reads turbae, which is
interesting as agreeing with the Gothic, which has manager. Com-
pare the view of Burkitt and Kauffmann in the note to p. 139 above.
The variant is not mentioned in Tischendorf.

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

CHAPTER I.

HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

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

1. The honour of producing the first edition belongs to the Editio prin-
Spanish Cardinal Francis Ximenes de Cisneros (1437-1517). i e P s -
It was included in the so-called Complutensian Polyglot, which siatTpoiygiot.
takes its name from Complutum (now Alcala de Henares),
where it was printed. The plan of the work was conceived as
early as 1 502, in celebration of the birth of the future Emperor
Charles V. The scholar who had the principal part in it was
James Lopez de Stunica. The printing of the New Testament
was completed on the 10th January 15 14, and of the remaining
five volumes, comprising the Old Testament with Grammar
and Lexicon, on the 10th July 1517. On the 8th November
of the same year the Cardinal died. It was not, however, till

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

the 22nd March 1520 that Pope Leo X. sanctioned the publi-
cation of the work, the two Vatican manuscripts of the Greek
Old Testament, which had been borrowed in the first year of
Leo's papacy, having been returned on the 9th July 1519.'
On the 5th December 1 521, the presentation copy designed
for the Pope, printed on parchment and bound in red velvet,
was placed in the Vatican Library. No copies seem to have
reached Germany through the trade till the year 1522. Only
600 copies were printed, which were sold at 6\ ducats per
CO py — about £3 of our present English money. The Cardinal,
who enjoyed the income of a king but was content to live like
a monk, expended over 50,000 ducats on the undertaking. At
the present time, copies of the Complutensian Polyglot,
especially those printed on parchment, are counted among the
rarest treasures of libraries. The Old Testament is printed in
three columns, the Latin text of the Bible used in the Church
of the Middle Ages standing between the original Hebrew
text of the Synagogue and the Alexandrian Greek version,
" like Jesus between the two thieves." The New Testament
has only two columns, that on the left containing the Greek
text, that on the right the Latin version. For the sake of
those learning Greek the corresponding words in each are
indicated. The type is modelled on the characters found in
good manuscripts. Of accents, the acute alone is used to
mark the tone syllable.

Literature. — Scrivener, Introduction, ii. c. 7 ; Hoskier (see be-
low, p. 5) ; Frz. Delitzsch, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichtc der Poly-
glottenbibel des Cardinals Ximenes, Leipzig, 187 1; Fortgesetzte Studien,
1886; Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, p. 64. A facsimile of
the title-page and colophon will be found in Schaff's Companion to
t/te Greek Testament and the English Version. The decree of Pope
Leo X. is printed in the Greek and Latin Testament of Van Ess,
Tiibingen, 1827.

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

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

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

In the Preface to his undated Greek Psalter {circa 1497). a
triglot Bible was promised. Of this he was reminded from
London by Grocyn on the 6th October 1499. On the 9th
July 1 501 he wrote about it to the German humanist Conrad
Celtes, to whom he sent the first specimen page on the 3rd
September of the same year. (Facsimile in Renouard, L'ltn-
primerie des Aides 2 ' 3 .)

Still earlier, the Magnificat and the Benedictus l had been
printed among the hymns at the end of the Greek Psalter
(Milan, 1481 ; Venice, i486). These were the first portions of
the Greek New Testament to be printed, while the first printed
in Germany appeared at Erfurt in 1501-2. The first edition
of the Greek New Testament for sale was Erasmus's edition
of 1 5 16.

Literature. — On Aldus, see Nestle, Septuagintastudien, i. 2 ;
ii. 11. On Aldus's well-known device, the anchor and dolphin, see
Leon Dorez, Atudes Aldirus, Revue des bibliotheques, vi. (1896),
part 5-6, p. 143 ff. ; part 7-9; also J. R. Harris, The Homeric Cen-
tones, London, 1898, p. 24. The device is emblematic of the favour-
ite motto of Augustus and Titus, del amuSc /JpaSe'ws, Semper festina
lente.

2. Froben, the printer of Basel, was anxious to forestall the Erasmus,
costly edition of the Spanish Cardinal, and with this object ''' '
appealed on the 15th March 1515 to the famous humanist
Desiderius ERASMUS (1467-1536), then in England. His
edition appeared as early as the 1st March 15 16, and was
dedicated on the 1st February to Pope Leo. The printing
was begun in the previous September, and was partly super-
intended by Zwingli's friend, John Oecolampadius of Weins-
berg. Erasmus himself confessed afterwards that his New
Testament was " praecipitatum verius quam editum," though
he boasted that he had employed in its preparation not any
sort of manuscripts, but the oldest and most correct copies. 2
As early as 1734, J. A. Bengel recognised that in the Apoca-

1 Mary's Hymn, Luke i. 46-55 ; and Hymn of Zacharias, Luke i. 68-79.
- " Nee eis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis."

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAr. I.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

lypse Erasmus must have used only one manuscript, and that
partly mutilated, so that he was unable to read it correctly
and was obliged to supply its lacunre by means of a retrans-
lation from the Latin into Greek. And this conclusion was
confirmed in 1861 by the rediscovery of that very manuscript
by Franz Delitzsch in the Oettingen-Wallerstein Library at
Mayhingen. 1

In a parallel column Erasmus gave a translation of the
Greek into elegant Latin. The Emperor protected the edition
for four years by copyright, but as early as February 15 18 it
was reprinted by Aldus Manutius in his Greek Bible. It was
sanctioned by the Pope on the loth September 1518. Four
successive editions were afterwards prepared by Erasmus : the
second in 1519, the third in 1522, the fourth (improved) in
1527, and the fifth in 1535.

In his third edition, Erasmus for the first time incorporated
the well-known "comma Johanneum," the passage about the
Three Witnesses (1 John v. 7). He did so on the evidence of
a manuscript now in Dublin (Montfortianus,6i), in which the

1 At the present time this text of Erasmus is still disseminated by tens and even
hundreds of thousands by the British and Foreign Bible Society of London. To
this day the word iKaOapTijToi is printed in their editions at Apoc. xvii. 4, though
there is no such word in the Greek language as lutaeAprnt, meaning uncleanness. In
the concluding verses of the New Testament, which were retranslated by Erasmus
from his Latin Bible, there stands the lovely future &<t>mpfon for &<pt\tl. We find
also constructions like oin tint, Katirtp latlv, in c. xvii. 8, where, however, the
accentuation la-rh makes Erasmus responsible for an additional error he did not
commit, seeing that he at least printed tatw. Every college lad knows that
xaUff is construed with the participle, though it is not perhaps every one that will
sec just at once that xal iriptcrri is the correct reading. [Cf. Mark xv. 6, where
the MSS. fluctuate in like manner between hi> irapjrr oivro and trrtp jjtoDvto (ON-
nAPHTOTNTO.)] Other instances where the Textus Receptus has adopted the
reading of Erasmus in spite of the fact that it is unsupported by any known MS.
are to be found, e.g. in 1 Pet. ii. 6 (na\ wpttxu) and in 2 Cor. i 6. Luther,
who used Erasmus's second edition of 15 19, followed him in saying of the Beast,
" that is not although it is." This, however, is not so remarkable as that in the
year 1883 such things were still allowed to stand in the first impression of the Re-
vised Version of Luther's Bible issued by the Conference of German Evangelical
Churches, and only removed in their last Revision of 1892. The error in Apoc.
xvii. 8 was copied into the English Authorised Version of 1611 (" is not and yet
is ") but was corrected by the Revisers of 18S4 ("is not and shall come ").

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

Literature. — Scrivener, vol. ii. p. 182 ff. ; Frz. Delitzsch, Hand-
schriftliche Funde, i., Leipzig, 1861 ; H. C. Hoskier, A full Account
and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelium 604 . . .
together with ten Appendices containing . . . . (B) . . . . the various
readings by the five editions 0/ Erasmus, 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1 535.
. . . . (F) Report of a Visit to the Public Library at Bale, with fac-
simile of Erasmus's second MS. Evan. 2, .... London, 1890. On
Erasmus's supplementary matter, the New Version, Anriotationes,
Paraclesis ad lectorem, Methodus and Apologia, as also on the
entire practical and reforming aim of his N.T., see R. Stahelin
in the Protestantische Real-Encyklopadie, third edition, v. 438.
Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 126 ff.

3. The number of editions of the Greek New Testament Coilectioni
which have been brought out since the time of Ximenes is of Cl,ltl0ns -
about 1000. No library in the world contains them all. In
the last century the Danish Pastor Lorck possessed perhaps
the largest private collection of Bibles. This was purchased by
Duke Charles of Wtirttemberg, and has found a place in the
Royal Public Library at Stuttgart. Unfortunately, it is not
possible to supplement or enlarge it in the way that it deserves.
The largest collection of the present century is that of the
late Prof. Ed. Reuss of Strassburg. In his descriptive cata-
logue he established the genealogy of the separate editions by
a collation of the readings in 1000 selected passages. Several
editions he was unable to obtain : some he was obliged to
regard as of doubtful existence : others, again, mistakenly
quoted by previous collectors, he was able to discard once for

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

all. His labours form the basis of those further researches
prosecuted with much ardour chiefly in England and America :
in the latter by the German-Swiss scholar Philip SchafT (d.
20th Oct. 1893), and his American friend I. H. Hall (d. 1896),
in England by F. H. A. Scrivener (d. 26th Oct. 1891), and
in Germany by the American C. R. Gregory. Mention can
be made of only a few of these printed editions.

Literature.— Ed. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Graeci,
cuius editions ab initio typographic^ ad nostram aetatem impressas
quotquot reperiri potuerunt colkgit digessit illustravit E. R. Argentora-
tensis, Brunsvigae, 1872. Teschendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece
ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum apposuit
Constantinus de Tischendorf, Lipsiae (Hinrichs), vol. i. 1869; vol. ii.
1872 ; vol. iii., Prolegomena scripsit Caspar Renatus Gregory odditis
curis Ezrae Abbot, 1894, 8vo. (vol. iii. cited in the following part
of this work under the symbol TiGr.). F. H. A. Scrivener,
A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Fourth edition, edited by Ed. Miller, 2 vols., London, 1894. P.
Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version.
Fourth edition revised, New York, Harper, 1892. SchafTs Com-
panion gives, in an Appendix, Reuss's list of printed editions of
the Greek N.T., with additions bringing it down to 1887, by
I. H. Hall. It also contains an interesting set of facsimile illustra-
tions of twenty-one standard editions of the Greek N.T., showing
in each case the title-page and a page of the print I. H. Hall,
A Critical Bibliography of the Greek New Testament, as published
in America, Philadelphia, 1883. Also, by the same author, Some
Remarkable Greek New Testaments, in the Journal of the Society
of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Dec. 1886, 40-63. S. P.
Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
with remarks on its revision and a collation of the critical texts with
that in common use, 1 854. Copinger, The Bible and its Transmission,
being an historical and bibliographical view of the Hebrew and Greek
Texts, and the Greek, Latin, and other Versions of the Bible (both
manuscript and printed) prior to the Reformation. With 28 facsimiles.
London, Sotheran, 1897, large 8vo. H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung
in das Neue Testament (Allgemeiner Teil, Geschichte des Textes), Frei-
burg, 1886. Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibd in ilbersichtlicher

CHAP. I] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 7

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

4. The first to prepare a really critical edition of the Greek First critical
New Testament, i.e. one based on a collation of manuscripts, edlt,on -
was Simon de Colines (Colinaeus), the father-in-law of the
Parisian printer Robert Stephen (Estienne). In his edition, 1
which appeared in 1534, he adopted for the first time a number
of readings that are now generally accepted, though naturally
he did not succeed in gaining credit for them. Up till the
time of Mill and Bengel the publishers and their more or less
uncritical coadjutors simply reprinted the text of Ximenes
and Erasmus, mostly the latter, with trifling variations.

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

But a much more important feature was the collation of
fresh manuscripts. The credit of being pioneer in this respect
rests with the Parisian Typographer-Royal, Robert Stephen Stephen.
(1503-1559). He was assisted by his son Henry Stephen
( 1 528-1 598), particularly in the preparation of his third edition
of 1550, the Editio Regia, which takes its name from the
inscription on its title-page in honour of Henry II., BatnXe? t'
ayadw, Kparepw t aixniTiJ. 1 The first edition, called O miri-
ficam, from the opening words of its preface, appeared in 1 546.
The Editio Regia was the first to contain a critical apparatus

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAI". I.

in which fifteen manuscripts indicated by the Greek letters
£—,5- were collated with the text of the Complutensian which
was designated a. All the manuscripts employed were of
late date, with two exceptions, viz., the Codex Bezae, of which
we shall have a good deal to say in the sequel, and a Parisian
MS. of the eighth century, now known as L.

Verse division. An important innovation of another sort is due to the same
Robert Stephen, who printed at Geneva in the following year
(i 55 1) a fourth edition containing the Greek text with the
Latin version of Erasmus on the outer side and the Vulgate
on the inner. 1 With a view to carrying out this arrangement
conveniently, he divided the text into separate verses or very
small sections, which he numbered on the margin. In this
way he introduced into the New Testament not only a con-
venient verse-enumeration — there are 7959 verses in all — but
also the unfortunate practice of printing the text in separate
verses. Mill in 1707, and notably Bengel in 1734, were the
first to revert to the practice of printing the text in paragraphs
divided according to the sense while retaining the enumeration
of the verses in the margin. The customary division of the

Chapters. New Testament books into chapters is much earlier, having
been first invented in Paris for the Latin Bible by Stephen
Langton (died Archbishop of Canterbury in 1228), and at
once adopted in the earliest printed editions of the Vulgate.
It was employed in the Complutensian Polyglot with a sub-
division of the various chapters into ABC etc.

Literature.— Nov. Test, textus Stephanici a.d. 1550, ed. Scrivener,
Camb., 1859, 1871 etc. Hoskier (as above). . . . (B) A Reprint
ivith corrections of Scrivener's list of differences between the editions of
Stephen 1550 and Elzevir 1624, Beza 1565 and the Complutensian,
together with fresh evidence . . . by the other editions of Stephen of
1546, 1549, 1551. . . . Ezra Abbot, De Versilms,'m TiGr. 167-182.
I. H. Hall, Modern Chapters and Verses, in SchafFs Religious Ency-
clopedia, i 433. Journal of the Soc. of Bib. Lit. and Exeg., 1883,
60 ; 1891, 65.

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

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

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

(p. 1251 ff -)-

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

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

Following Stephen, the French theologian Theodore de Beza.
Beze (Beza 1519-1605), the friend and successor of Calvin

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

in Geneva, prepared, between 1565 and 161 1, four folio and
six octavo editions, 1 which are noteworthy as forming, with
the last two editions of Stephen, the basis of the English
Authorised Version. Beza was the owner of two valuable
Greek-Latin manuscripts of the Gospels with the Acts and
Pauline Epistles, one of which, the now so famous Codex
Bezae, he presented to the University of Cambridge in 1581.
He himself, however, made little use of these in his editions, as
they deviated too far from the printed texts of the time.
Beza seems also, in the preparation of his Geneva edition, to
have been the first to collate the oriental versions. For this
purpose he employed the Syriac edition of Emmanuel
Tremellius (1569), and for Acts and 1 and 2 Corinthians the
Arabic version put at his disposal by Franciscus Junius.

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

f An°wer 5 '. The Credit ° f P resentin g these oriental versions in a con-

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

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

1 Facsimiles of Folio 1598 and Octavo 1604 in SchafTs Companion.

CHAT. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

Of the Antwerp Polyglot 960 ordinary copies, were printed, 200
of a better quality, 30 fine, 10 superfine, and 13 on parchment, for
which last 16,263 skins were used. One of these Montaigne saw
and admired in the Vatican Library ; another, the copy dedicated
to the Archduke Alba, is in the possession of the British Museum.
The undertaking was the glory of Plantin's life, but it was also the
beginning of his financial difficulties. Copies were sold to book-
sellers at 60 gulden each, and to the public at 70 gulden (about j£6
ar| d .£7)- Ordinary copies now fetch from j£6 to j£j or £%■ At
the sale of the Ashburnham Collection in 1897 a parchment copy
realised ^79. The supplements, including lexical and other matter,
are still valuable to a certain extent. But here the collector must
note that certain parts have been reprinted.

On the Polyglots, see : Discours historique sur les principales editions
des Billies Polyglottes. Par PAuteur de la Bibliotheque Sacrie,
Paris, 1 7 13; especially pp. 301-554, "Pieces justificatives du dis-
cours precedent." Also, Ed. Reuss, Pofyglottenbibeln, PRE 2 , xii.
95- ,0 3 ( l8 83)- Max Rooses, Christophe Plantin, Imprimeur
Anversois, Antwerp, 1884. Fol. 100 plates. Also Correspondance
de Plantin, edited by Rooses. 2 vols. 1886. L. Degeorge, La
Maison Plantin a Anvers. 3rd ed. Paris, 1886. R. Lorck, Das
Plantin-Haus in Antwerpen. Vom Fels zum Meer, 1888-9, ix -
328-346. On the double imprint see Rooses, p. 123; A. Rahlfs
in Lagarde's Bibliotheca Syriaca, p. 19. On Plantin's connection
with the Familists see PRE 3 , v. 751-755.

A still more extensive undertaking than the Antwerp 2. Parisian.
Polyglot is that brought out in Paris by the advocate Guy
Michel LE Jay. This Parisian Polyglot extends to ten folio
volumes of the largest size, furnished externally in the most
sumptuous manner.. Le Jay expended his whole fortune on
the edition, and was obliged at last to sell it as waste paper,
being too proud to accept the offer of Cardinal Richelieu, who
wished to purchase the patronage of the enterprise for a large
sum and thereby acquire the credit of it. The scholars who
gave most assistance in the preparation of the oriental texts
were Jean Morin and the Maronite Gabriel Sionita, the latter
of whom superintended the Syriac portion. The two volumes
of the New Testament, viz. vol. v. i, comprising the Gospels,

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CIlAl'. I.

CHAR I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

and vol. v. 2, the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse, appeared in
1630 and 1633. I' 1 addition to the texts printed in the
Antwerp Polyglot, the Parisian contained a Syriac version of
the so-called Antilegomena, i.e. those parts of the New
Testament at one time disputed (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude,
and Apocalypse), and it had also an Arabic version, each
one being accompanied with a Latin translation. 1
3. London. Less sumptuous, but more copious, convenient, and criti-

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

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

For this Polyglot, in addition to the critical works of

1 Copies of Hie Parisian 1'olyjjlot now cost about £6.

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

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

Critical

attempts.

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

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

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

CIIAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

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

In 1675 John FELL, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, pub-
lished anonymously at the Sheldonian Theatre, i.e. the Oxford
University Press, an edition in the preparation of which more
than 100 Greek manuscripts were employed. Among the
ancient versions the Gothic of Ulfilas and the Coptic were
also made use of.

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

8. Encouraged by Bishop Fell, John MILL (1645-1707), Mill, '7°7-
about 1677, set to work upon an edition which appeared in
the year of his death. 1 The value of Mill's New Testament
lies in its extended critical apparatus, and particularly in its
Prolegomena. An enlarged edition was brought out in 17 10
by Ludolf Kiister of Westphalia(i670-I7i6), which, however,
had such a small sale that it had to be reissued with a new title-
page at Leipzig in 1723, and again at Amsterdam in 1746.
In Mill's time the number of various readings in the New
Testament was estimated at 30,000 : a competent estimate
will now make them more than four or five times as many.
That is to say, there are almost more variants than words.

Mention must also be made of Nicolaus Toinard's Latin-

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

if,

(iKKKK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHA1'. I.

Greek Harmony of the Gospels, which appeared at Orleans
in the same year as Mill's New Testament, and which was the
fruit of nearly as many years' labour. Toinard was the first
Catholic after Erasmus, and the last previous to Scholz, to
undertake a critical edition of the New Testament. He was
also the first editor after Beza to estimate properly the critical
value of the Vulgate.
Bentley. It was Edward Wells who set the example of greater free-

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

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

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

BeriRei. 9. As early as 171 1, G.D.T.M.D., i.e. Gerhard de Trajectu

Mosae (Maestricht) Doctor, a Syndic of Bremen, published
at Amsterdam an edition prefaced by 43 canons or rules of
criticism. Thereafter, in 1725, J. A. BENGEL (1687-1752)
issued his Prodromus Novi Testamenti Graeci recte cautcque
adornandi, in which he unfolded a most carefully thought-out
scheme for a new edition, undertaking to reduce all Gerhard
von Maestricht's 43 canons to one comprehensive rule of

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514. 17

four words. That was the principle now commonly expressed
in the shorter but less satisfactory form— lectio difficilior
placet. Bengel himself chose a more careful mode of ex-
pression— proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua. Six years later
he was able to issue his Notitia Novi Testamenti Graeci recte
cauteqiie adornati. It was published in 1734 at Tubingen by
Cotta in a handsome quarto. 1 In the same year a small
octavo edition appeared at Stuttgart in which he urged the
duty expressed in the motto,

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

Of the latter, four editions were afterwards brought out
Of the large edition, the Apparatus, pronounced by Hauss-
leiter to be a " memorable work of most solid and productive
learning," was reprinted separately after his death. Bengel
was too timid. He was unwilling to admit into the text any
reading which had not already appeared in some printed
edition. But he inserted new readings in the margin and
classified them. Out of 149 readings pronounced by Bengel
to be genuine, only 20 are not now generally approved. Out
of 118 whose genuineness appeared to him probable but not
quite certain, 83 are now accepted.
But Bengel's most important contribution to the textual
♦ criticism of the Greek New Testament consists in the sound
critical principles which he laid down. He recognised that
the witnesses must not be counted but weighed, i.e. classified
and he was accordingly the first to distinguish two great
groups or families of manuscripts. His principles were re-
affirmed by the celebrated philologist Lachmann, the first
great textual critic of our time, and the advance which the
latest English critics have made on Tischendorf is really due
to the fact that they have gone back to Bengel.

LiTERATURE.-Eb. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, tin Bild fur
1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

Wettstcin.

llriesliach.

1 8

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

For the time, however, Bengel's rival, John WETTSTEIN
(1693-1754), outdid him. His treatise on the Various Read-
ings of the New Testament was published as early as 1713,
to be followed by his Prolegomena, which appeared anony-
mously in 1730, and later by his New Testament, 1 which was
issued in two folio volumes in 175 1 and 1752. His Apparatus
is fuller than that of any previous editor, while he also gives
a detailed account of the various manuscripts, versions,
and Patristic writers. It was he who introduced the practice,
already referred to, of indicating the ancient MSS. by Roman
letters and the later MSS. by Arabic numerals. He too,
however, still printed the Elzevir text, following Maestrichfs
edition of 1735. At the foot of the text he placed those
readings which he himself held to be correct.

Literature.— Scrivener, Introduction, ii. 213; Carl Bertheau,
['RE-', xvii. 18-24, « 886.

10. J. J. GRIESBACII (1745-18 1 2) was the first in Germany
who ventured to print the text of the New Testament in the
form to which his criticism led him. He was the pupil of
Salomo Semler, who had combined the principles of Bengel
and Wettstein. These principles were adopted and carried out
by Griesbach. He enlarged the Apparatus by a more exact
use of citations from the Fathers, particularly from Origen,
and of various versions, such as the Gothic, the Armenian,
and the Philoxenian. In his classification of the witnesses,
Griesbach distinguished a Western, an Alexandrian, and a
Byzantine Recension. The edition, in four folio volumes,
printed by Gbschen at Leipzig (1 803-1807), is rightly de-
scribed by Reuss as " editio omnium quae extant specios-
issima." 2 His text was more or less faithfully followed by

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

■'- Facsimile of Ihe second edition, Halle and London, 1796, in SchaH s

Companion.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I 5 1 4.

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

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

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

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

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

It was Carl LaCHMANN (1793-1851) who first broke with Lachmann.
the Textus Receptus altogether. He was a master in the
domain of textual criticism. He distinguished himself first
in the department of classical and Teutonic philology, but
came afterwards to render equal service to the textual criti-
cism of the New Testament. His object was to restore the
text to the form in which it had been read in the ancient
Church about the year 380, going on the ground of the oldest
known Greek and Latin manuscripts, i.e. the oldest Eastern
and Western authorities. 1 He did not claim to go further
back than that date with any certainty. But it was still open
to question whether that were not possible, and whether the
grounds on which Lachmann's work was based might not be
still further extended and confirmed.

1 1. The task which Lachmann set before him was prose- Tischendori.
cuted with the most brilliant success in and from Germany by
Gottlob (Aenotheus) Friedrich Constantin von TlSCHENDORF
(b. 18th January 181 5, d. 7th December 1874). In the course

1 Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP I.

Trcgclles.

of several tours, first in Europe and afterwards in the East,
from the year 1841 onwards, he discovered and collated a
number of the most important and ancient manuscripts of
the Bible. Among these the most notable was the Codex
Sinaiticus, found by him on Mount Sinai in i8 S 9, and now in
St Petersburg the oldest known manuscript of the present
day which contains the entire Greek New Testament. On
the basis of the material collected by himself and others,
Tischendorf prepared eight different editions between 1841
and 1872. 1 His seventh edition, consisting of 3500 copies,
appeared in 1859, previous to the discovery of the Sinaiticus.
The text of this edition differed from that of 1849 m 1296
instances, of which no fewer than 595 were reversions to the
Textus Receptus. The text of the last edition, the octava
critica maior, which was issued complete in eleven parts
between 1864 and 1872, differed from that of the seventh in
3572 places The third volume of the editio octava maior,
containing the Prolegomena, was completed in three parts,
extending to 1428 pages, by Caspar Rene Gregory between
1884 and 1894, a work which affords the most complete survey
of what has been done on the Greek New Testament up to
the present time.

LlTE RATURE.-Scrivener,ii.235; TiGr., 1-22; fW-49-5*- Apart
from the Editio Octava Maior, the most useful ed.tions will be found
to be those of O. v. Gebhardt (see below, p. 23), or the Editio Aca-
demica ad editionem oct. maior. conformata, Leipzig, Mendelssohn,
i6mo, 1855, twentieth edition, 1899.

While the editions of Tischendorf were appearing on the
Continent, an edition began to be issued in England which
was completed in the course of twenty years. It was the work
of a Quaker, Samuel Prideaux TREGELLES (b. 1813, d. 1875),
who, while reaping no profit from his undertaking, has left in
it a monument to his fidelity. In this edition ( 1857-1879) 2

' Facsimiles of the edition of 1841, and the octava maior 1872, in Schafl's
Companion.
a Facsimile in SchafTs Companion.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1 5 1 4.

Hort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Literature.— The New Testament in the original Greek. The
text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John
Anthony Hort, D.D., Cambridge and London. Vol. i. Text
(Fourth Edition, 1898). Vol. ii., Introduction and Appendix
(Third Edition, 1896). A smaller edition of the text, 1885. Text,
from new type, in larger form, 1895. For "Some trifling Correc-
tions to W.-H.'s New Testament," see Nestle in the Expository
Times, viii. 479; i x . 9S) 333( 424 . See Life and Letters of F. /. A.
Hort, by his son, A. F. Hort, 2 vols., London, 1896 ; also article on
Hort, by Gregory in the PRE', viii. 368. Facsimile of the American
Edition with Introduction by Schaff, in SchafTs Companion.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE I 5 14.

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

Literature.-^ Resultant Greek Testament, exhibiting the text
in which the majority of modern editors are agreed, and containing
the readmgs of Stephen (.55°), Lachmann, Tregelles Tischendorf
Lightfoot, Ellicott, Alford, Weiss, the Bale edition (1880), Westcott
and Hart, and Die Revision Committee. By Richard Francs
Weymouth. With an Introduction by the Right Rev. the Lord
Bishop of Worcester. London, 1886. . . . Cheap Edition, 1892.
pp xix 644. Besides the editions mentioned in the title, the
Complutensian, Elzevir (1633), Scrivener and others are compared
in several places.
Weiss. Quite recently, Bernhard WEISS, of Berlin, began a new

and independent revision of the text, which has been
published in three large volumes with introduction and ex-
planatory notes.

Literature.— Das Neue Testament. Textkritische Untersuch-
ungen und Textherstellung von D. Bernhard Weiss. Erster Theil,
Apostelgeschichte : Katlwlische Briefe : Apocalypse. Leipzig, 1894.
Zweiter Theil, Die paulinischen Briefe einschliesslich des Hebrderbnefs,
1896. Dritter Theil, Die vier Evangelien 1900. Vol. i. is compiled
from Texle und Untersuchungen, ix. 3, 4 J viii. 3 ; vii. 1. The section
in vol. ii. entitled Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe, is taken from
TU. xiv. 3, and the corresponding section in vol. iii. from TU. xix. 2
(New Series, iv. 2). See " B. Weiss and the New Testament," by
C. R. Gregory in the American Journal of Theology, 1897, i. 16-37.

VunGcb- In Germany, O. von Gebhardt has done good service

hard.. by issuing the text of Teschendorf's last edition, with the

necessary corrections, and giving in the margin the readings
adopted by Tregelles and Westcott-Hort, when these differ
from the text. In the " editio stereotypa minor," the differ-
ences of Westcott-Hort alone are shown. In his Greek-
German New Testament, he also exhibits at the foot of
Luther's German text those readings wherein the text ol
Erasmus's second edition of 15 19, used by Luther, differs

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

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

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

N. T. Graece ex ultima Tischendorfii recensione edidit Oscar de
Gebhardt. Editio stereotypa minor. Lipsiae, i6mo., 1887. Fourth
edition, 1898.

The text of the Greek and Greek-German New Testa- Stuttgart
ments prepared by me, and issued by the Wiirttembere ? ew

tj.i ■ i ... . , , ' o testament.

Bible Institute, is based on a comparison of the three editions
of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and Weymouth. The varia-
tions of these editions are shown at the foot of the page,
where are given also the readings inserted by Westcott and
Hort in their Appendix and omitted by O. v. Gebhardt.
From Acts onwards, the readings adopted by Weiss are
indicated as well. In a lower margin, a number of important

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

manuscript readings are given. In the Gospels and Acts,
these are taken mainly, though not exclusively, from Codex
Bezae. In the Greek-German edition, the text (German)
is that of the Revised Version of 1892. Below it are
given the readings of Luther's last edition (1546), with
several of his marginal glosses and earlier renderings.

Literature.— Novum Testamentum Graece aim apparatu critico
ex editionibus et libris manu scrip/is colhcto. Stuttgart, 1898.
Second corrected edition, 1899. Also issued in two and in ten
parts, and interleaved. Third edition in preparation.

Schjoti. Fr. SCHJOTT published an edition at Copenhagen in 1897

the text of which was determined by the agreement between the
Codex Vaticanus (Claromontanus, from Heb. ix. 14 onwards)
and the Sinaiticus. Where they disagreed he called in the
next oldest manuscript as umpire. For this purpose he
employed for the Gospels the manuscripts ACDEFHP
K L P Q T U V X Z T A, for the Acts and Catholic Epistles
A C D E H K L P, for the Pauline Epistles A C D E F G
H L P, and for the Apocalypse A C P 1, 18, 38, 49, 92, 95.
At the foot of the text his edition gives, in two divisions, a
comparison with the Elzevir text and with that of Tischendorf-
Gebhardt (1894). From what source Schjott derived his
knowledge of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus is not men-
tioned. The photograph of the former seems not to have
been employed.

Literature. — Novum Testamentum Grace ad fidem testium
vetusiissimorum recognovit necnon variances leciiones ex editiombus
Ekeviriana et Tischendorfiana subjunxit Fr. Schjott. Hauniae, 1897,
pp. xi. 562.

BMjon. The edition of J. M. S. Baljon is in the main an abridg-

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

CHAP. I.] THE PRINTED TEXT SINCE 1514.

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

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

From the Catholic side little has been done in Germany in Catholic
this department of scholarship for a long time. In 1821 e " lons
Aloys Gratz reprinted the Complutensian at Tubingen ; while
Leander van Ess issued an edition which combined the
Complutensian and Erasmus's fifth edition. 1 This also appeared
at Tubingen in 1827. Both of these contained the Vulgate,
and showed where recent editions gave a different text.

Reuss mentions two Synopses, one by Joseph GEHRINGER
(Tubingen, 1842, 4"), the other by Fr. X. Patricius (Freiburg,
'853, 4°). and two small editions, one of which, by A. JAUMANN
(Munich, 1832), was the first to be printed in Bavaria. The
other is by Fr. X. REITHMAYER (Munich, 1847), and closely
follows the text of Lachmann.

There has also appeared recently at Innsbruck a Greek-
Latin edition in two volumes by Michael HETZENAUER, a
Capuchin. The first volume contains the Evangelium and
the second the Apostolicum. But as the strict Catholic is
bound by the decision of the Holy Office, Hetzenauer's
edition hardly falls to be considered here. A resolution of

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. I.

Apucrypha
and
Pseud-
cpigrapha.

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

1893-
It is impossible to enumerate here editions of separate

books of the New Testament. Many of these are in the form

of Commentaries. In addition to the works of Blass, to which

reference will be made later, mention may be made here of a

recent and most thorough piece of work — viz., The Gospel

according to St. Mark: The Greek Text, with Introduction

and Notes, by Henry Barclay Swete, D.D., pp. ex. 412

(London, Macmillan, 1898); also of The Gospel according to

St. Luke after the Westcott-Hort text, edited with parallels,

illustrations, various readings, and notes, by the Rev. Arthur

Wright: London, Macmillan, 1900; and of Hilgenfeld's edition

of the Acts in Greek and Latin. Berlin, 1899.

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

Literature. — Novi Testament! Graeci Supplementum editionilms
de Gebhardt-Tischendorfianis adcommodavit Eh. Nestle. Insunt
Codicis Cantabrigiensis Collatio, Evangeliorum deperditorum Frag-
menta, Dicta Salvatoris Agrapha, Alia. Lipsiae (Tauchnitz), 1896,
pp. 96.

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

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

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

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

2 9

CHAPTER II.

MATERIALS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.

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

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

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

Tertullian (Be rraescriptione Haereticorum, 36) mentions Thessa-
lonica among the cities in which he believed the letters of the
Apostles that were addressed there were still read from autograph
copies. 1 "Percurre ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc

1 Zahn, Gcuhichtc dts. N.T. Kanom, i. 652 ; Einleitung, i. 153.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

On the copy of Matthew's Gospel found in the grave of Barnabas
in Cyprus, vide Theodorus Lector (Migne, 86, 189); Severus of
Antioch in Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, ii. 81 ; Vitae omnium 13
Apostolorum : Bappa/Jas 6 koi 'Iidotjs . . . outos to Kara Marpaioi'
cuayytXiov oiK£«i>x''ip (i, s ypai/'as iv Tjj tjJs Kinrpov yjjcrcj) Tfkc lovrai. ' In
the Imperial Court Chapel the lessons were read from this copy on
Holy Thursday of every year. Fide Fabricius, £w. Apocr., 341.

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

In the Chronicon Paschale there is a note on the reading rpiVij for
tKTr) in John xix. 14, to the following effect : — xaSuis ra axpi/Jij fti/J\ia
7repie'x" o.vto re to i8io'x«'poi' ToC (uay y cXicttov, oirtp fii^pi
tou I'd' Ti-cc^uXaKTai X"P' Tl ® l °v «" T ?? E<£«criW ayiuiTarr] iKKkrjaia ko.1

1-0 tCiv TrKrrwv tVcicrf 7rpoo-Kwerrat. Bengel himself said on 1 John
v. 7 : — " Et tamen etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum
Johanneum, at alios vetustissimos codices graecos, qui hanc periocham
habeant, in occultis providentiae divinae forulis adhuc latentes, suo
tempore productum iri. (N.T. 420, 602, 770.)

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

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

success.

J. ('.. Berger, Be Autographis Veterum, Vitenb., 1723. 4".

J. R. Harris, New Testament Autographs (Supplement to the

1 From the Cod. Monac. 255am! 551, published by Aug. Thcnn in the Zeitschri/t

fiirwissenschaftlitlie Theohgic 29 (1887), 453.

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

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

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

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. U.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

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

Literature — W. Wattenbach, Ankitung zur griechischen Palaeo-
graphie, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1877 ; V. Gardthausen, Griechische Palato-
graph*, Leipzig, 1879; Fr. Blass, Palaeographie, Biicherwesen, und
Handschriftenkunde, in I. v. Miiller's Handbuch der klass.schen
Alterthumswissenschaft, 2nd ed., vol. i., Munich, 1892; E. M.

Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, London,
1891 ; T. Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, Berlin, 1882 ; W. A. Cop-
inger, The Bible and its Transmission ; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible
and the ancient Manuscripts, London, third edition, 1897 ; F. H. A.
Scrivener, Six Lectures on the Text of the N.T. and the ancient
Manuscripts which contain it, Cambridge and London, 1875 ; A
Collation of about 20 Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels, London,
1853 ; Adversaria critica sacra, Cambridge, 1893 ; Hoskier; Urt., pp.
, '<>> 54 5 O. Weise, Schrift- und Buchwesen in alter und neuer Zeit,
Leipzig (Teubner), 1899 (with Facsimiles: a popular work);
F. G. Kenyon, The Palaeography of Greek Papyri, Oxford, 1899
(with 20 Facsimiles and a Table of Alphabets, pp. viii., 160) ; Ulr.
Wilcken, Tafeln zur dlteren griechischen Palaeographie, Nach Origi-
nalendes Berliner K. Museums, Berlin and Leipzig, 1891 (with 20
photographs) ; G. Vitelli e C. Paoli, Collezione Fiorentina di facsimili
paleografici greci e latini, Firenze, 1884-1897 (with 50 Greek Plates
and 50 Latin, Folio) ; Charles F. Sitterly, Praxis in Manuscripts of
the Greek Testament : the mechanical and literary processes involved in
their writing and preservation (with table of Manuscripts and 13
Facsimile Plates), New York and Cincinnati, 1898, second enlarged
edition, 1900 ; F. Carta, C. Cipolla e C. Frati, Monutnenta Palaeo-
graphica sacra : Atlante paleografico-artistico composto sui manu-
scntti, Turin, 1899 ; Karl Dziatzko, Untersuchungen iiber ausgewahlte
Kapitel des antiken Buchwesens. Mit Text, Uebersetzung und Erkla-
rung von Plinii Histor. Nat, lib. xiiL § 68, 69, Leipzig, Teubner,
1900.

i. Manuscripts.

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHA1*. II.

Uncial,

Florence But of the New Testament, 3829 manuscripts
have been catalogued up till the present. A systematic
search in the libraries of Europe might add still more to the
list • a search in those of Asia and Egypt would certainly
do so Gregory believes that there are probably some two
or three thousand manuscripts which have not yet been
collated, and every year additional manuscripts are brought
to light. Most of these are, of course, late, and contain only
separate portions, some of them mere fragments, of the New
Testament. 1 Not a few, however, go much further back than
our manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament and most of
the Greek and Latin Classics. Only in the case of the
Mohammedan sacred books is the condition of things more
favourable. These came into existence in the seventh
century and the variations between separate manuscripts
are a vanishing quantity, because the text of the Koran was
officially fixed at a very early date and regarded as inviol-
ably sacred. Fortunately, one might almost say, it is quite
different with the New Testament, which was put together
in a totally different way. In its case the very greatest
freedom prevailed for at least a century and a half.

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

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

• The most convenient survey of these is given in Vollert's ■■ Tabellen zur neutesta-
mentlichen Zeitgeschichle : mit einer Uebersicht titer die Cod.ces m denen d.e N.T.
Schrten W sind." Leipzig, .897. Given in Sit.er.y (see above, p. 33)-

2 See«r.f. Plate I.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

were called litterae viajusculae, capitales, ttnciales, i.e. " inch-
high," as Jerome says with ridicule — uncialibus ut vulgo aiunt and Cursive
litteris onera magis exarata quant codices. Alongside of this " p "
there arose, even previous to the Christian era, a smaller
Cursive form {Minusculae), for use in common life, in which
the letters were joined. 1 This running hand found its way
into manuscripts of the Bible in the course of the ninth
century. In some cases, in Codex A e.g., both styles are
found alongside or following each other. 2

The oldest Cursive manuscript of the New Testament, the
exact date of which is known, is 481 6TV ; it bears the date
835. The great majority of New Testament manuscripts
belong to this later date, seeing that out of the 3829 manu-
scripts there are only 127 Uncials to 3702 Minuscules.
Greek copyists not being accustomed to date their manu-
scripts exactly, it becomes the task of palaeography to settle
the criteria by which the date and place of a manuscript's
origin may be determined. These are the style of writing —
whether angular or round, upright or sloping, the punctuation "
—whether simple or elaborate, and the different material and
form of the book. These distinctions, however, are often
very misleading. The following table will show the distribu-
tion of the manuscripts according to the centuries in which
they were written, as given by Vollert, Scrivener, and von
Gebhardt^: —

IVth Century,

Vth „

Vlth „

Vllth „

VHIth

IXth „

Xth „

1 See e.g. Plate X.

8 See Scrivener, i, p. 160 ; Rahlfs, Gollmger g t (ehrte Nathrichten, it

9**— 1 12.

» TiGr., pp. ,233 ff. ; Warfield, Textual Criticism of the N. T., p. 47.

Vollert.

Scrivener.

v. Gebh

2 i

3 1

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

,a Py rus and Manuscripts are distinguished according to the material on
parchment. which they are wr itten, which may be either parchment or

paper.

Parchment" derives its name from Pergamum, where it was
introduced in the reign of King Eumenes (I97-IS9 B.C.).
But prior to the use of parchment, and to a certain extent
alongside of it, papyrus" was used, especially in Egypt,
down to the time of the Mohammedan Conquest. Papyrus
books were originally in the form of rolls (volumtna). Only
a few fragments of the New Testament on papyrus remain.
The use of parchment gave rise to the book or Codex form.
In the case of parchment codices, a further distinction is
drawn between those made of vellum manufactured from the
skins of very young calves, and those made of common parch-
ment from the skins of sheep, goats, and antelopes.
,w r As early as the eighth century (not the ninth), the so-called

cotton paper {charta bombycina) was introduced from the East
This, however, never consisted of pure cotton, but rather of
flax and hemp. It had been in use for a long time in China
and the centre of Eastern Asia, but seems to have been un-
known in Syria and Egypt till after the fall of Samarcand in
704. From the thirteenth century onwards, paper made of
linen was employed.

In the New Testament, both papyrus and parchment are
referred to. In 2 Tim. iv. 13, Paul asks that the ^eXoiw he
had left at Troas might be brought to him, and t* /3i/3\i'a,
but specially rif wfiplva* Here, frXow means cloak
rather than satchel ; t£ j8i/8X/a are the papyrus books, pos-
sibly his Old Testament, while -rar /ue/u/3pdraf are clean sheets
of parchment. 11 In 2 John 12 the word x <*P T 'l<: is used of
papyrus. There, and in 3 John 13.ro pilaris the ink, and
the KaXapo, {lot. canna) is the reed pen, still used for writing
in the East. The quill pen, strange to say, is not mentioned
prior to the time of Theodoric the Ostrogoth in the sixth
century. The size of a sheet of writing paper may be in-

» The references are to the extended notes at the end of this section, pp. 408".

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

I n order to economize space, the writing was continuous, Scriptio
with no break between the words (scriptio contlnua),' breath-
ings and accents being also omitted.* This is a frequent
source of ambiguity and misunderstanding. In Matt. ix. 18,
e.g., EIIEAOQN may be either eU i\6w or e!ae\dmi>. In
Mark x. 40, AAAOIIHTOIMAETAI was rendered "aliis
praeparatum," aXXoic being read instead of aXX' oh- In Matt,
xvi. 23, AAAA may be taken either as a\\a or aXX' a. In
1 Cor. xii. 28, again, the Ethiopic translator read out instead
of oGf. The Palestinian-Syriac Lectionary translates 1 Tim.
iii. 16 as though it were o/ioXoyou/ucc <Lc fiiyu to-riV. There
is something to be said for this, but Naber's proposed reading
of Gal. ii. 1 1, on Kariyvtofiev ot %v, cannot be accepted.

Most manuscripts show two columns to the page. The Columns.
Sinaitic, however, has four, while the Vatican has three.
Columns vary considerably in width. They may be the Lines.
width of a few letters only, or of an average hexameter line "
of sixteen to eighteen syllables or about thirty-six letters.
Such a line is called a rr-n'xoc, and as the scribe was paid
according to the number of trrlxot, we find at the end of
several books a note giving the total number of aTi\oi contained
in them. In carefully written manuscripts, every hundredth,
sometimes every fiftieth o-n'x<>r is indicated in the margin.
These stichometric additions were afterwards adopted for the
entire Bible. Their value in many respects will be obvious. 1 '

As the church increased in wealth and prestige, New Testa-
ment manuscripts acquired a more sumptuous form, either
from the luxury of the rich or the pious devotion of kings
and churches. 1

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

matter over again. And so we have Codices Reseriptl or
Palimpsest! as they were called, a term known to Cicero, who
says, though of a wax tablet, "quod in palimpsesto, laudo
parslmoniam (ad Diversos vii. 1 8). Some manuscripts were
used as often as three times for distinct works in three
different languages e.g. Greek, Syriac, and Iberian. Codex
l b is one of these thrice used manuscripts, being written first
in Greek and then twice in Syriac. k
Punctuation. Marks of punctuation are hardly to be found in the earliest
times. It was frequently, therefore, a question with church
teachers whether a sentence was to be taken interrogatively
or indicatively, or how the sentences were to be divided, as
in the case of John i. 3 and 4. In the general absence of
punctuation, the appearance of quotation marks in some of
the oldest manuscripts, like Codex Vaticanus e.g., to indicate
citations lrom the Old Testament, is remarkable. 1
Size. The size of a manuscript varies from a large folio, which in

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

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

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OK CRITICISM.

intelligible on two grounds. One is that a New Testament
codex written in uncial characters is a very bulky and
ponderous volume running to about 150 sheets. Compara-
tively few would be in a position to procure such a costly
work all at once. The other reason is that the New Testa-
ment itself is not a single book, but a series of different
collections, which at first, and even afterwards, were circulated
separately. To the same reason is due the great variety in
1 the order of the several parts of the New Testament found in
the manuscripts, and still, to a certain extent, in our printed
editions." 1 It is not exactly known who it was that first
collected and inscribed in one volume the books and the
parts that now make up the New Testament. Such a single
volume of the entire New Testament was afterwards known
as a iravSeKTw, a °d in Latin, bibliotheca." The parts into
which the New Testament is divided are—

1. The four Gospels.

2. (a) The Acts of the Apostles.

(b) The so-called Catholic Epistles, i.e. those not ad-
dressed to any particular church or individual,
viz., James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John,
Jude.

3. The thirteen Pauline Epistles, or, including Hebrews,

fourteen.

4. The Apocalypse.

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

4«

Sundays and Holy days, for greater convenience in use. A
collection of selected passages from the Gospels was called
a EJayye'Xioi/, and in Latin Evangeliarium? in distinction to
the books containing the continuous text, which were called
TeTpaevayyeXiov, while the selections from the Epistles were
known as ' AttoVtoXoc or Ilpagair6<rTo\o<;. These lectionaries,
though mostly of later origin, are nevertheless important as
indicating the official text of the various provinces of the
Church. They show, moreover, how sundry slight alterations
found their way into the text of the New Testament.

We can easily understand why it is that manuscripts of the
Gospels are by far the most numerous, while those of the last
book of the New Testament are the fewest. Among the
Uncials, 73 contain the Gospels, and only 7 have the Apoca-
lypse. Of these 73 Uncials, again, only 6, viz. (i B K M S U,
or, if we include «, only 7 are quite complete ; 9 are almost
so; 11 exhibit the greater part of the Gospels, while the
remainder contain only fragments. Of the 20 Uncials of the
Pauline Epistles, only 1 is entirely complete — viz., K ; 2 are
nearly complete, D G ; 8 have the greater part. It is plain
that our resources are not so great, after all, as the number of
manuscripts given above would lead us to expect. Here
also there are iroXXoi k\>itoI, oX/yoi «XeicToi.

The manufacture of parchment is perhaps older than that of
Parchment, papyrus. It is said to owe both its name and wide circulation as
writing material to the encouragement given to its manufacture by
Eumenes II. of Pergamum (i97-«59 B.C.). Pliny's story, 2 which he
gives on the authority of Varro, is that Eumenes wished to found a
library which should, as far as possible, excel that of Alexandria.
To frustrate this intention Ptolemy Epiphanes prohibited the expor-
tation of papyrus to Asia Minor. (In the list of principal exports of
Alexandria, Lumbroso 8 mentions /3i'/JAo! and x^V in the second

> To obviate confusion, it would be well to use the Latin name Evangeliarium.
Eio77«AiffTi/>.oK means a Table of Lections. (See Brightman, in the Journal 0/
Theological Studies, 1900, p. 4481 and now Gregory, Textirilit, i. p. 334 f.)

1 Nat. Hist., xiii. II.

'■' Egitto, 2nd ed., p. 125.

place after UXta, and fitfiXia in the seventh.) Eumenes was accord-
ingly obliged to prepare parchment at Pergamum, and hence its
name, irepya/iijnj. The name first occurs in Diocletian's Price-
list, 1 and in Jerome. The word used in earlier times was Si(f>0ipai, 2 or
oVpptw, 3 or /«/i/?paVai as in 2 Tim. iv. 13, which last was taken from
the Latin. At first parchment was less valuable than papyrus, and
was used more for domestic and school purposes than for the
making of books, as the writing was easier erased from the skin.
, But it gradually supplanted papyrus, and with its employment came
also the change from the roll to the "codex" form of book. If
papyrus was the vehicle of Pagan Greek literature, parchment was
the means whereby the literature of the new faith became known to
mankind, and the remnant of the ancient culture at the same time
preserved. Origen's library, which still consisted for the most part
of papyrus rolls, was re-written in parchment volumes (o-iD/xanoc,
corpus) by two priests shortly before the time of Jerome. Our
principal manuscripts of Philo are derived from one of these codices. 4
When Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide a certain number of
Bibles for presentation to the churches of his Empire, he sent him,

not rolls, but Codices, Tm-nJKoyra o-bi/xarta iv 8i<t>8<pais.

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

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

■ Herodotus v. 58. On the connection of litera and lupeipa, see M. Breal
Rev. dts Et. grecques, iii. 10, 1890, 121 ff., and Rev. Crit., 1892, 13. In
Cyprus the schoolmaster was called the Si00fp<ixoi0o>.

• CJ. Codex D, Mark i. 6.

4 Cf. Victor Schultze, Rollt und Codex, in the Greifcwalder Studien, Gutersloh
1895, p. 149 ff.

4 2

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

Ink.

b
Papyrus.

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

For writing on papyrus, ink made of soot was employed. Three
parts of lamp black were mixed with one part of gum and diluted
with water. This ink, however, was easily washed off, and did not
stick well to parchment, and therefore recourse was had to ink made
of gall nuts. Sulphate of iron was afterwards added to it, with the
result that the writing material is frequently corroded with the ink.
From its having been boiled the mixture was also called cy»cav<m»',
hence our word " ink " (encre). Many old recipes for making ink are
still preserved. 2 Even in early Egyptian writing, coloured inks,
specially red, were used. One of the most beautiful manuscripts
extant is a Syriac Codex in the British Museum, of date 4r 1, in which
the red, blue, green, and yellow inks are still quite fresh. Eusebius
used cinnabar for numbering the paragraphs, and Jerome makes
mention of minium or vermilion. In times of great wealth
parchments were dyed purple and inscribed with gold and silver
letters.

Among ancient writers, Pliny gives the fullest description of the
preparation of papyrus, in his Hisloria Naturalis, xiii. n. 3 The
sheets were prepared, not from the bark, but from the pith of the
plant. This was cut into strips (<rx'8 a? ) as tmn and Droa(1 > arld .

1 Vide C. R. Gregory, Sur let cahiers des manuscrits greet, Academic des
Inscriptions, Aug. 1885 ; Berliner Phil. Wochenschrift, 1886, v. 159 ff.

2 Eg. in Cod. Barocc. I in the Bodleian, and in several Syriac manuscripts.

3 Vide G. Ebers, Kaiser Hadrian: also The Writing Material of Antiquity,
by Ebers, in the Cosmopolitan Magazine, New York, Nov. 1893 ; and especially
Dziatzko (see above, p. 33). On the papyrus plant (C) penis papyrus L., Papyrus
Antiquonim Willd.), see Bernard de Monllaucon, Dissertation star la plante ap-
pelfe Papyrus, sur Ic papier d'Egypte, etc. Memoires de l'Acadfmie Royale des
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, T. vi. Paris, 1729, 4to., pp. 592-608 ; Franz
Woenig, Die Pflanzen im alien Aegypten, ihre Heimat, Gesehiehte, Aullur,
Leipzig, 1886, pp. 74-129. J. Hoskyns-Abrahall pointed out that it is found in
Europe, not only in the neighbourhood of Syracuse in Sicily, but also on the
shores of Lake Trasimenc : see The Papyrus in Europe, in the Academy, 19th Mar.
1887. Lagarde raised a question as to the etymology of the word papyrus (which
has not yet been explained), whether it might not be derived from Bura on Lake
Menzaleh, where it was first manufactured, pa being the article in Egyptian ; see
his Mitteilungen, ii. 260. If this is so, there is the more reason for pronouncing
the y long, as ancient writers did, and not short as the modern fashion is—
papyrus, not pipyrus. Cf. Juvenal, iv. 24 ; vii. 101 ; Mart. iii. 2 ; viii. 44 ;
x. 97. Catull. xxxv. 2. Ovid, Met. xv. 753; Trisl. iii. 10, 27.

according to some, as long as possible. These were laid side by
side as firmly as might be, to form the first layer (o-xc'Sa). On this a
second layer was laid crosswise and fastened to the lower with
moisture or gum. The two layers were then compressed to form
the writing sheet (o-eX/s), which was carefully dried and polished
with ivory or a smooth shell. The roll (to/uk, KvKwSpos) consisted
of a number of atXiSa joined together to make one long strip —
sometimes as much as 20 or 40 feet long, or even longer. The
upper side, the side used for writing on, was the one in which the
fibres ran in a horizontal direction parallel to the edge of the roll. 1
The under or outer side was only used in cases of necessity. 2 The
first sheet (wp<dt6koWov) was made stronger than the rest, and its
inner edge was glued to a wooden roller (o/i^aAos), with a knob at
the end («'pas). The margin of the roll, what corresponds to the
edge of our books, was frequently glazed and coloured, while the
back was protected against worms and moths by being rubbed with
cedar oil. The title was inscribed on a separate label of parchment
(rWfni/Jos or o-i'AAu/?os). The separate rolls were enclosed in a
leather case (SitfrOipa or ^airo'Xi/s, see 2 Tim. iv. 13), and a number
of them kept in a chest (<<i/}<dto's or kio-ttj).

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

1 See U. Wilcken, Keeto odcr Verso, Hermes, 1887, 487-492.

a Apoc. v. 1 can no longer be cited in support of this practice, seeing we must
take «oi urifffftr with xarttrippajHrittyov, according to Grotius and Zahn. On
iwitti6ypa<t>»; cf. Lucian, Vitarum Audio, 9 ; Pliny, 3, 5 ; a tergo Juvenal,
1,6; in averta ehar/a, Martial, 8, 22.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

c
Taper.

Lead.

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

The collection of manuscripts brought from the East by the Arch-
duke Rainer gave a stimulus to the study of the early history of
paper-making, and at the same time supplied the materials for a more
exact investigation of the subject than had previously been possible.
Earlier works, therefore, like that of G. Meerman, De Chartae
vulgaris sen lineae Origine, ed. J. v. Vaassen, Hagae Comitum, 1 767,
have been superseded. The manufacture of paper seems to have
been introduced into Europe by the Moors in Spain, where it went
by the name of pergameno de panno to distinguish it from the perga-
meno de cuero. In the Byzantine Empire it was called ( v\oxdpru>v or
(vkortvKTov, as being a vegetable product It came afterwards to be
known as x^P 7 ^ Aa/xao-KTji'os, from its chief place of manufacture.
The Arabs introduced it into Sicily, whence it passed into Italy.
After 1235, we find paper mentioned as one of the exports of Genoa.
European paper is distinguished from that of Eastern manufacture
chiefly by the use of water marks, such as ox-heads, e.g., which were
unknown in the East. Older sorts of paper bear a great resemblance
to parchment. The Benedictine monks, who owned the fragments
of Mark's Gospel preserved in Venice, asserted that they were
written on bark. Montfaucon declared the material to be papyrus.
Massei said it was cotton paper. But the microscope shows it to be
parchment. In many manuscripts a mixture of parchment and
paper is found. This is so in the Leicester Codex, in which the
leaves are regularly arranged in such a way that the outer and inner
sheets of a quire are of parchment, while the three intermediate
sheets are of paper. See J. R. Harris, The origin of the Leicester
Codex of the New Testament, 1887, p. 14 ff.

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

temple of the Muses on Helicon. 1 A leaden tablet from Hadrumet
contains an incantation showing strong traces of O.T. influence. 2
At Rhodes there was recently discovered a roll of lead inscribed
with the 80th Psalm, which was used as a charm to protect a
vineyard. 3

Clay and brick were also used as writing material, a fact which Clay.
Strack has omitted to mention in his article on Writing in the
Realencyklopadie (see Ezek. iv. 1). So far, however, no traces of
N.T. writing have been discovered in the Ostraca literature of
which we have now a considerable quantity. We have tiles of this
sort dating from a period of over a thousand years from the time of
Ptolemy Philadelphus onwards, inscribed with ink and a reed pen.
Several of these contain portions of literary works suijh as those of
Euripides. 4

Linen was also written on. s It was used, e.g., for the Sibylline Linen.
Oracles (lintea texta, carbasus : Orac. Sib. ed. Alexandre, ii., 159,
178, 189). But up to the present no N.T. writing has been found
on linen.

On Paul's "books and parchments," see Zahn, Kanon ii., 938 ff. d
I am not aware if J. Joseph takes up this point or not in his La J/^' 5 . „
Bibliotheque de l'Apotre Paul (Chretien Evang., 1897, v. 224-227).
In the Theol. Tijdschrift, 1898, p. 217, the view that the /ic/t/Sparai
Paul sent for were blank sheets of parchment is called in question.
The most natural explanation, certainly, is that they were.

The N.T. makes no mention of the metal, wood, or bone stilus. e
By "the wild beast of the reeds" (Ps. Ixviii. 31) the Rabbis under- Pen -
stood the reed pen, which in Syriac also is commonly denoted by
i"Op, and they took it as referring to Rome and the Emperor, who
decided the fate of nations with a single stroke of his pen. 8 Luther,
moreover, was not without precedent in speaking of "governors
with the pen" in Jud. v. 14, as the Syriac version renders it in the
same way. In Ps. xlv. 2, the Hebrew [fly is rendered koAo^os (LXX),
<r X< m<OT (Aquila), and ypafalov (Symmachus). It is also rendered

1 Pausanias, ix. 31, 4.

a Dcissmann, Bibehtudien, 26-54.

' Hiller von Gaertringen, Berl. Sitz.-Ber., 21st July 1898.

1 See Wilcken, Verein von Alterttumsfrtundtn im Rheinland. Heft Ixxxvi
p. 234 ; also the Berl. Phil. Wochcnschrift, 1889, 26.

• Cf. Livy, B. iv. c 7 ; Pliny, xiii. 11, "postea publica monumenta plumbeis
volummibus niox et privata link-is coiifici coepta sunt."

• Jiidiuhes Literaturblatt, 1889, 10.

4 6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

™* by the translator of Jeremiah vih. 8, "here A^.U ha.
Si. **** m-t therefore be added to the B.bto name
foTpen. TpatU for ypa+.tbv, mentioned alongs.de of o^ ofa^r.^
in Jer. xvii. ,, seems to belong to the Spanish-Greek of the
Complutensian, but is really classic, as also >ts ^™£+ *£
According to the Rabbis, pens were among the things God
made in the evening of the last day of the creation. They were
also venerated by the Egyptians and the Greeks as an nven-
tion of the Deity.' According to Antisthenes* or Democntus,' a
young man, in order to enter the school of wisdom, require, to
have a /StfWbv «au™ ( = «»l ,o5) *al ypa+vov k« t kuc ™«Ao»
KM vov In Cyprus, the stilus is called «A*.imjp.oF, and the
Z^uJls in like manner J**^.**.' In the recently
discovered fragments of Diocletian's Z»/ 0/ »F«w, the section *«pc
.Xo^c (goose, swan, and peacock feathers, is followed .by that
^pl KaX^v «ri /..Xa^'ou, and then by that »«» «r%<* Ink costs
i 2 drachmae the quart; Paphian and Alexandrian KoXa F o, cost
4 drachmae; and K.iAa/xoi Se^'pas] ^Jrf/up] the same Baruch,
the <i,ayrwT*, purchased ink and a pen in the market of the
Gentiles, in order to write his letter to Jeremiah (.mrata .«
T V dyopav [V. 1. Wrropa,] r&< IM» W" X<V"." «~ ^ £A f va
r v 1 u«Xw])« Demosthenes was not the only possessor of a silver
stilus. Boniface, e.g., had one of that sort sent him from England.
Readinc and The following is a list of expressions relating to reading and wr.t-
S ing taken from the Greek Versions of the O.T. It makes no claim

to be complete. The passages will be found in Hatch and Redpath s
Concordance to the Septuagint.

d^/Sou., ivaytyv^^, fr<£ywxr«, toayvnnfr, aynypa^ov, arroKa-
Xwr«v; WXu&p* (^W), 0#W. ^X.oyp^o, (Est. ,,i. 13,
Complut.), jSi/SAxo^mj, /?./3XiV (/8v), 0.0W»Woi', /J./JXos (jBv-) ;

1 C/ the verses inscribed on a marble tablet discovered in Andros by Ross in

1844 : — ln t,

jyi, xpvffoBpoyot lens . • • ■

i<pa\*wr "t-pfifos iirifitpu^o aipfaha tfKray

t (, f 6iifva ypa<pi$'<T(rn> fi T-' Hvai *S<ri X'pM"

0p(KoA/oi' fiiarais Uph* \4yov . . • •

2 9ee Nestle, Bciigtl, p. 105.

' Zeilschri/t fiir das Humanistische Gymnasium, 1896, p. 27.

4 O. Hoffmann, Gritihischt DialtkU, i. 107.

» Probably pens of the first quality— j»oi-e7<Wrei.

« Harris, Last Words of Baruch, vi. 17, p- 5°

ya£d, ypdfifia, ypa/ifiartia, ■ypa/i./tarcvW, ypap.p.aT(v<;, ypafi/xaTinos, ypap>
/laroturayutytvt, ypairruv, ypafaiv (ava-, uiro-, fVi-, Kara-, <tw-), ypatfruov
(rriSr/poui-), ypatptvs (Ta^tfos), ypaiprj (am-, O7T0-, ow-), ypa<pK(ds, ypa^is;
hi<p6ipu>fta, StdiKtiv; tl\.T)fM, tit- or t'kxapormi', tVio-roXr;, ip/tyi-two,
<7T!o-tu'/«tos ypd/i/iaTa; Ot}<ravpo<t>vka£ ; KiiXa/tot (KaXa/tapioc, wifc
Field's Hexapla on Ezek. ix. 2) raV™, «c«paAis ; /uax&i/*, /it'Aai',
/MAayorSoxtiW, /u'Xtos, /u<rj/ud<rwoi', /xoAt/?os, /xoXi'/JrWos ; £i'/x»'s ; oVu£
aoa/iaiTifot, ofvypaVpot ; mramc, n-iraxtoW, 71-rvf, 7rru^)J, irv£tov ; o-fXiV,
oyuXr/, (rTijKoypatfiia, tr^tpayi^uv, (nftpayis, trxoivot ; to'/ios (^aprou xaiKOv
/mvoAou, Isa. viii. 1 ; also 1 Esdras vi. 23 for to'ttos), t«Oxo«, twos ;
Xapnjs, ^aprlov, xapTrjpia.

Ancient Homeric grammarians used to debate whether contiguous f
letters were to be read as one word or not. To obviate misunder- Diastole a " d
standing, they employed the vrroSuio-roAr; as the mark of division hyphen '
(o, t«, e.g.), and the wf,' b> as the mark of combination (bimgcovpoi,
not Arot KoCpoi). Such marks are also found in manuscripts of the
Bible, in the Septuagint, e.g., in the case of proper names. It goes
without saying that the scriptio continua made the reading as well as
the copying of manuscripts a matter of some difficulty. Hernias
(Visio ii. 1) says of the book given him to copy /xeTeypaf i^v vavra
irpos ypdfifM- oix rfipurmv yap tos rrwAAo^os. 1 For two instructive
mistakes in the Latin interlinear version of Codex Boernerianus
see p. 77.

Breathings and accents were found in various manuscripts of the c
Bible as early as the time of Epiphanius and Augustine. In our Brea, 6'ngs
oldest manuscripts they seldom occur before the seventh century. ^ aCCe " tS '
They were inserted by the first hand of the Ambrosian Hexateuch
<Swete's F), which is ascribed to the first half of the fifth century by
Ceriani. They seem to have been added to the Codex Vaticanus
by the third hand, probably in the twelfth century, and do not always
conform to our rules. Augustine, commenting on the rival readings
filiis and porcina, in Psalm xvi. 14, says : "quod (porcina) alii codices
habent et verius habere perhibentur, quia diligentiora exemplaria per
accentus notam eiusdem verbi graeci ambiguitatem graeco scribendi
more dissolvunt, obscurius est " (li. 504-5, in Lagarde's Probe einer
neuen Ausgabe, p. 40). Similarly, speaking of the difference between
pdfiSov airov and pdfi&ov airov, Gen. xlvii. 31, he says :— "fallit enim
eos verbum graecum, quod eisdem Uteris scribitur sive eius sive suae ;

1 Vide Hamack, T. und U., ii. 5, p. 68.

4 8

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

Abbreviation.

Divisions.

sed accentus [ = spiritus] dispares sunt et ab eis qui ista ^noverunt, in
codicibus non contemnuntur » (iv. 53 ed. Lugd. .586, cited by

SC T V he ne practice 4 of abbreviating words of frequent occurrence like
©2, X2, ANOTgoes back to very early times. So, too, does the use
of letters as numerals, I for 10, etc.

In dividing syllables the Greek copyists in general observed the
rule of beginning each new line with a consonant, A good many
exceptions occur however, especially in the Vaticanus, most of
which have been corrected by a later hand. These are indicated u,
the third volume of Swete's edition of the LXX. A good instance
of this is seen in Jer. xiv. 12, where the Vaticanus and Marchahanus
both originally had npcr ev< r ™ which in the former is corrected
to * P o ^.v, and in the latter to .port vcy^.v For examples
from the O.T. portion of the Codex Vaticanus see Nestle s Septua-
trintasludien, ii. 20.
h Carefully written manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments are

Stichometry. prov ided with a system of stichometry just as occurs in the better
manuscripts of the classics, as e.g. Herodotus and Demosthenes In
the N T. it is found specially in those Pauline Epistles that go back
to the recension of Euthalius. One of the writers of the Codex
Vaticanus has copied, in several of the books of the O.T. the sticho-
metric enumeration which he found in his original, and the numbers
show that the manuscript he copied contained almost twice as much
matter in a line as the one he himself wrote. See Nestle, Septua-
gintastudien, ii. 20 f . ; Lagarde, Die Stichometrie der syrtsch-hexa-
plarischen Uebersetzung des alien Testaments (Mitteilungen, iv
205-208). On the stichometrie list in the Codex Claromontanus of
the Pauline Epistles (D 2 ), see p. 76.

American scholars have counted the number of words in the Greek
N T In Matthew the number is 18,222, in Mark 11,158, in Luke
,9,209. Unfortunately, I am unable to give the total number in the
NT See SchafTs Companion, pp. 57, 17°-

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

Matthew,
Mark,

Letters.

89> 2 95
55.55°

Stichoi.
2480
'543

Luke,

John,

Acts,

3 John, .

Apocalypse,

For Philemon, Zahn gives

Letters.

97.714
70,210
94,000

1,100
46,500

'.5$7

Stichoi.
2714

1950
2610

31
1292

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

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

The Cola and Commata were quite different from the stichoi. Cola and
The length of the latter was regulated according to the space (space- com " mata -
lines), that of the former by the sense and structure of the sentence
(sense-lines). On cola and commata see Wordsworth and White,
De eolis et commatibus codicis Amiatini tt editionis nostrae, in the
Epilogus to their edition of the Vulgate, i. pp. 733-736. On the
stichometry proper see Ibid., p. 736, De stichorum numeris in
euangeliis.

Solomon perfumed with musk the letter he sent to Bilqis, Queen '

of Sheba, who herself could both read and write. 1 Mani inscribed ^"^"P' 5
characters on white satin in such a way that if a single thread was " "^
drawn out the writing became invisible. 2 On gold and silver writing
among the Syrians see Zahn, Tatian, Forschungen, 108, n. 1 ; also
R. Wessely, Iconographie (Wiener Studien, xii. 2, 259-279). ' The
earliest mention of this kind of writing that I know is in the Epistle
Of Aristeas, 3 <™ . . . rati Suupopo* SiWpoK, iv afc [>] ^ vop>0t<rl a
yeypa^ivr, XP^oypatpif. toIs 'IovSoXkoU ypafifuuri, OavfUHrw tlpyairpivov

1 Socin, Arabic Grammar, 2nd ed., p. 55, line 14 ; p. 56, line 12.
' ZdmG., xliii. 547.

* Konstantin Oikonomos, »<pl rw if Ifprivixnvv, Bk. iv. p. 975.

5°

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

^ In Alexander's copy of the Pentateuch the name of (,od ».s

written in gold letters. 1

On the fineness of the parchment and the beauty of the writing
see Chrysostom, Horn. 32 in Joannem : 0™% ^ r^ ™v »r»
XcminA Koi ro ™ ^r* kAX ot . Ephraem Syrus comm ended
this Christian munificence, as is pointed out in the Htstor. Poltt.
Blatter, 84, 2, 104. Gold writing is also mentioned in the Targum

""•The passage in the Epistle of Theonas to Lucian referring to the
use of purple-dyed parchment is thought by Batiffol to be derived
from that in Jerome's Commentary on Job, and he founds on this
an argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. In the
Martyrium of Qardagh the Persian, particular mention is made of the
remarkable beauty and whiteness of the parchment (nyiono.-) on
which he wrote his epistles. 3

For the preparation of his Bible, Origen procured the services not
only of rapid writers Kvy^o.) but also of girls who could write
beautifully (koAAiw^oi). Cassiodorus pleads-qui emendare prae-
sumitis, ut superadjectas literas ita pulcherrimas facere studeat.s ut
notius ab Anti./uariis scriptae fuisse judicentur." We also find him
making proposals for expensive bindings in the De lust., c 30 a
passage which, according to Springer,' has been overlooked in the
literature on illustrated bindings in modern histories of art.

On various decorated manuscripts see W. Wattenbach, Ueber die
wit Gold auf Purfur geschriebene Evangelien-handschrift der Hamil-
tonschen Bibliolhek, in the Berliner Sitz.Ber., 7th March 1889, xni.
141-156 Cf Berl. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1889, 33, 34- This manu-
script purported to be a gift to Henry VIII. from Pope Leo X., but
was rather from Wolsey. Bishop Wilfrid of Ripon (670-688) had
the four Gospels written with the finest gold. Boniface requested
his English friends to send him the Epistles of Paul wr.tten with
aold in order therewith to impress the simple-minded Germans
Jfd 12 d QQ), a fact of which Gustav Freitag makes use in his
llo undlntraban, p. 476. (See Die Christliche Welt, ,888, «.)
Cf. also the manuscripts of Theodulf in Paris and Puy (see below,

1 Hody, 1684, p. 254 T-

J Vide Harnack in the ThLz., 1885, cols. 321, 324, "• 5-

> Ed. Feige, p. 53- ' D ""'"- L ' CL ' °' "'

' Sachs. Sitz.-Bcr. (1S89), xi. 4, 3 6 9-

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

Illustrations must have made their appearance in Greek manu- Illustration,
scripts a whole century earlier than has hitherto been supposed if
H. Kothe is right in his interpretation of the passage in Diogenes
Laertius, ii. 3, 8 ( = Clem., Strom., i. 78, p. 364, Potter) : n-puiTos St
'Avafa-ydpas kcli fiifiKiov e£c'6Wc <rw ypa<f>V (" w ' tn a picture " : formerly
read as o-vyypa<£i}s). In addition to the works of Aristotle and the
obscene poems of Philainis, illustrated manuscripts were known to
exist of the works of the astronomers Eudoxus and Aratus, of the
botanist Dioscorides, of the tactician Euangelos, and of the geographer
Ptolemy. A description of the earliest illustrated Bibles is given by
Victor Schultze in the Daheim, 1898, No. 28, 449 ff., with good
facsimiles. On the horses in the chariot of Elijah in a Greek
manuscript of the ninth century in the Vatican Library, and on the
pictures of the horsemen in the codex of Joshua also contained there,
see F. aus'm Weerth in the Jahrbuch des Vereins von Altertums-
Freunden im Rheinland, Heft 78 (1884), Plate VI.

Cassiodorus had a Pandectes Latinus — i.e. a manuscript of the Old
Latin Bible of large size — which contained pictures of the Tabernacle
and the Temple. There is an old work on this subject by P. Zornius
entitled Historia Bibliorum pictorum ex anliquitatibus Ebraeorum el
Christianorum illustrata cum figuris, Lipsiae, 1743, 4to; and by the
same author, Von den Handbibeln der ersten Christen, Lips. 1738, also
Historia Bibliorum ex Ebraeorum diebus festis et jejuneis illustrata,
Lips., 1 741. See also Georg Thiele, De antiquorum libris pictis
capita quattuor, Marburg, 1897.

Palimpsests of Bible manuscripts came to be prohibited by the k

Church. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullan, Concilium quini- Palim P sests -
sextum, 680-681), in its 68th canon, IIcpi rou /ii) i(tlvat nn rwv
dirovnof fiijiKla. ttjs iraAoias nal vtas Sia&jiojs Sta<j>6clptw, forbids the
sale of old manuscripts of the Bible to the (2i(s\.ioKairri\oi or the
ILvpafiol, or to any persons whatever. 1 There was naturally a special
aversion to letting such manuscripts fall into the hands of Jews ; but
yet there were discovered, in the lumber room of the Synagogue of
Old Cairo, fragments of a Greek MS. of the Gospels, which had

1 Balsamon, the Canonist (c. 1200), complains that -rivis 81' ahrxpoKcpScui'
BiPKlwv tin Sfttm ypa'piir in*»ptv6itivot i*if\ti<t'o>, and he requests aiintluaai
Tatrra 5ii rovs fitflKtoitawfaovs Tout iwaxd^otTas THf 0*laiv ypa<pwv.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

been afterwards r£t r ^» -«:

A good example of the »|^^£^, «. « ^ - 5.

Punctuation. Lk . , 35, on which .«£« «■ J*^ «|-«, By a different

where Lachmann punctuates « ^ ^ WertMtt . Hort ke

punctuation in HeD. 1. 9, „„ rf i v( .i v In the former case the

S &l 6s vocative and nominative -P^ ^ In t ^ ^

Messiah is God, in the other God ^ the one ^.^

difference was not observed at firs by v ^

God or that God is Messiahs thron - C - s ™ P Svrus in

of such marks of division, the rule laid down b ^ ^ should

the year 35 o, and again ^^2" *4™ fifi**
be carefully «^^^^I W ^ W t« *«»«*«"

^ -TT" "£ 52 J XJ/ -A <W**r, P- M>- .Compare
f, ,«ray P a+ovTc (see Nestle * g tf on Mt . viu. 9 : w «

also what Chrysostom says regarding puna ^

^raiv^a^-ayov^v «ro J^J* On the change of

See a.so Victor ^ J^ver ,t o^ .« ^^ ^

the sense by ^ means of fate e ^ ^ ^^ . ^

--r^Set^^t:^^,,,
ci, a^s^^

addition to some enU e Bible CasM ^ ^^

ou t i„ 9 codices. Of the* voK J ^^ speaks of

the Epistles, and IX. the Acts ana *u ,f and

6 books of the Jew Tyumen oP wh, ch^pro ba y^ ^ ^
Mk., II. Lk. and Jr.., HI- Acta, I and ^ pauUne

Epistles, VI. Apocalypse. As a rule me F

Similarly, the singular type of text exhibited by cod. A in Mark

would show that this codex, or that from which it was copied, was

transcribed from different rolls or codices, each containing one

Gospel. See Zahn, GK. i. 63.

On the designation Bibliotheca and Pandectes for Bible manuscripts, . n

_ „ .. . . - »» • /. .1 .. .l DiDiiotneca.

see Zahn, GK. 1. 65. On -ra>\os, ibid. 67. He informs us that the

earliest mention of a Christian bibliotheca and its armaria is in the
J heathen protocol of the year 304, in the Gesta apud Zenophilum given
in Dupin after Optatus, p. 262. The next earliest notice is in
Augustine. The custodians of the bibliothecae were probably the
Readers. In Ruinart's Acta Saturnini a certain Ampelius is men-
tioned as " custos legis, scripturarumque divinarum fidelissimus
conservator." From Irenaeus, iv. 33, 2 Lessing concluded that at
that time the few existing copies of the Scriptures were in the custody
of the clergy, and were only to be perused in their presence. (Zusatze
zu einer notigen Antwort. Works, ed. Maltzahn, xi. 2, 179.) On this
point see Zahn, GK. i. 140.

(a.) UNCIAL MANUSCRIPTS.

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. H.

surpassed all his expectations, the entire remaining portions of
the Codex comprising a great part of the Old Testament and
the whole of the New, wrapped up in a red cloth. Not only
was the New Testament perfect, but in addition to the twenty-
seven books, the MS. contained the Epistle of Barnabas and
part of the so-called Shepherd of Hermas, two books of the
greatest repute in early Christian times, the Greek text of which
was only partially extant in Europe. Tischendorf managed to
secure the MS. for the Emperor of Russia, at whose expense
it was published in four folio volumes in the year 1 862 on the
thousandth anniversary of the founding of the Russian Empire.
In return for the MS. the monastery received a silver shrine
for St. Catherine, a gift of 7000 roubles for the library and
2000 for the monastery on Mount Tabor, while several
Russian decorations were distributed among the Fathers.

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

To what date does the manuscript belong ? There is still
extant a letter of the first Christian Emperor Constantine
dating from the year 331, in which he asks Eusebius, Bishop
of Caesarea in Palestine, to provide him with fifty copies of the
Old and New Testament for use in the principal churches of
his empire (TrevrtiKovra a-wfidna ev 8uf>depatf cyKaraiTKtioit;) and
puts two public carriages at the bishop's disposal for their
safe transport. We have also the letter that Eusebius sent
along with these Bibles, in which he consigns them ev
iro\vTe\a>s ija-Ktinevoig Tei'^eo-i Tpiaaa. /cat Terpacrva — i.e. " in
expensively prepared volumes of three and four." With former
scholars Tischendorf understood the expression Tpi<T<ra koi
Terpatra-a of the number of sheets in the quires of the manu-
scripts, as though they had been composed of ternions and
quaternions of twelve and sixteen pages respectively. Others
took it as referring to the number of columns on the pages,

CHAP. 11.I

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf believed to be one of
these fifty Bibles, being unique in showing four columns to the
page. The most probable explanation of the phrase is, how-
ever, that it indicates the number of volumes each Bible com-
prised, and means that each Bible of three or four parts, as
the case might be, was packed in a separate box. 1 Tischendorf,
as has been said, saw in Codex Sinaiticus one of these fifty
Bibles. He also thought that m was the work of four different
scribes, and was confident that one of these, the one who had
written only six leaves of the New Testament, was the scribe
of Codex Vaticanus. But other authorities bring w down to
the beginning of the fifth century.

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

1 On Constantine's Bibles, see Westcott, Canon, c ii. p. 426 ; Bible in the
Church, c. vi. p. 155 ff. ; Zahn, Geschichte aes N. T. Kanons, i. 64. Zahn com-
bats the supposition that the entire Bible was contained in each Codex, pointing
out quite rightly that in that case the latter could not have been tbptrajiipicTa,
and moreover that Constantine speaks oi <r« M <(ria, which does not mean codices
but something much more indefinite. Nor does he believe that Eusebius intended
to specify the number of sheets in each quire of the Codex or of the columns in
which it was written. " The fifty Bibles might and would be distributed in 200 to
400 volumes." According to the view taken above there would be from 150 to
200 of these. Cf. Scrivener, i. p. 118, n. 2.

'For the order of the books in «, see Westcott, Bible in the Church, Appendix
B, " Contents of the most ancient MSS. of the Bible (A, B, *, D, AmiaL)" ;
Hist, of the Canon, Appendix D, " Catalogues of Books of the Bible during the
first eight Centuries."

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

may be taken equally as indicating the age of x itself or that
of the exemplar from which it was copied 1 Jerome's recen-
sion of Origen's Lexicon of Proper Names in the Greek New
Testament is still extant, and in it Barnabas is cited like the
other books. In the Catalogus Claromontanus, which is a
very old list of the books of the New Testament, Barnabas is
even found before the Apocalypse, an arrangement which is
not found again in the succeeding centuries.
Canons N is also the oldest MS. that has the so-called Ammonlan

Sections and Euseblan Canons. In order to facilitate the
study of the Gospels, Ammonius of Alexandria arranged,
alongside of Matthew's Gospel, the parallel passages in
Mark, Luke, and John. For this purpose he was obliged
of course to dislocate these last 4 Eusebius, however,
simply divided the four Gospels into 1162 sections— viz,
355 in Matthew, 233 in Mark, 342 in Luke, and 232 in
John. These he numbered consecutively in each Gospel, and
then arranged the numbers in ten Canons or Tables. The
first contained those passages which are found in all the four
Gospels ; the second, third, and fourth those common to any
particular combination of three; the fifth to the ninth com-
prised the passages common to any two, and the tenth those
peculiar to each one. The number of its Canon was then set
under that of the section in the margin, and the Table inserted
at the beginning or end of the manuscript By this means
it was possible to know in the case of each section whether a
parallel was to be found in the other Gospels, and where. In
the margin opposite John xv. 20, e.g., we find the numbers
pX0 - e 139 T n i s te n s us that this 139th section of John

y ' 3

is also found in Matthew and Luke. For on referring to
Canon 3 we find that it contains the passages common to John,

■ Six leaves are now wanting between Barnabas and Hernias. What did these
contain, shall we suppose? Perhaps the Didache. Schmiedel makes a different
conjecture in the Literarischts Centralblatt, 1897, n. 49.

» Vide Wordsworth and White, Epilogs, p. 737. Dt Sectiombus Ammomants
in Evangeliis.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

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

1 'Ay-rtBKty-n »p4l wnXaiiraror May irj(ypa<poy ttStopOaifityoy X"P' *•<> kyltv
fiiprvpos Ha/nplKov htp Iwrlypatpov wpht t> WXii faroiri))i<ii»irit tii iliixt'pot
alrrtu IrwUttro txouaa oVtoi ' inTt\^ft<p9n «al ttopBiifri) rpht t4 i^a-wKa Tlpiyivovs'
'AvTuvTvot arriPaktv' nifufuXos Si6p$csaa.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

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

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

Tischendorf: (t) Notitia editions, i860; (2) Bibliorum Codex Sin-
aiticus Petropolitanus, Petropoli, 1862, fol. Vol I J'olegomena et
Commentary Vol. IV, Novum Testamentum (3) #. ™?%»£
Lips. 1863. (Die Anfechtungen der Sinathbel, L,ps. .863, Waffen
der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel, Lips. 1863.) (4) N.T Grace
ex S.naitico Codice omnium antiquissimo, Lips. ,865. Collattotextus
rracci editionis polyglottae cum Novo Testamento S,na,tuo. Append,x
editionis Novi Testamenti polyglottae, Bielefeldiae. Sutnpt.bus Vel-
hagen et Klasing, 1894, large 8vo, pp. iv. 96. (Preface only by
Tischendorf.) On Kenyon's showing, the recent papyrus discoveries
R ive no occasion for abandoning the conclusions formerly come to
regarding the age of these parchment manuscripts (A/«^ J,
p ,20). Scrivener, A full Collation of the Codex Sinattuus wxththe
Received Text of the N. Testament, 2nd edition, 1867. Ezra Abbo ,
"On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manu-
scripts of the Greek Bible," Journal of the American Oriental Society,
vol. x., i. 1872, pp. 189 fl".

A CODEX ALEXANDRINUS : middle or end of the fifth
century: written probably at Alexandria: contains a note in
Arabic stating that it was presented to the library of the
Patriarch of Alexandria in the year .098. The Codex was
sent by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles 1.
of England in 1628, and was deposited in the library of the
British Museum on its foundation in 1753. where it has been
ever since. It has been employed in the textual criticism of
the New Testament since the time of Walton. It was printed
in 1786 by Woide in facsimile from wooden type. The Old
Testament portion of it was also published in 1816-1828 by
Baber. The entire manuscript was issued in autotype fac-
simile in 1879 and 1880.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

The Codex is defective at the beginning of the New Testa-
ment, the first twenty-six leaves down to Matthew xxv. 6 being
absent, as also two containing John vi. 50-viii. 52, and three
containing 2 Cor. iv. 13-xii. 6. It also contains after the
Apocalypse the (first) Epistle of Clement of Rome and a
small fragment of the so-called second Epistle, which is really
an early sermon. In the Codex these are recognised as parts
of the New Testament, inasmuch as in the table of contents
prefixed to the entire work they are included with the other
books under the title i, <aivn SiadtiKi] 1 After them is given
the number of books 6nov j8i/3\ia, only the figures are now,
unfortunately, torn away. The contents indicate that the
Psalms of Solomon should have followed, but these have
been lost with the rest of the manuscript.

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

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

Woide, 1786; eiusdem, Notitia codicis Alexandrini, Recud. cur.
notasque adjecit G. L. Spohn, Lipsiae, 1788; Cowper, i860;
Hansell, 1864; Photographic facsimile by Thompson, 1879 ; and in
the Facsimiles of the Palsograpical Society, PI. 106.

1 This agrees with the last of the .so-called Apostolic Canons (85), which includes
KA^frros 'Ei«r rcXal tio among the Books of the New Testament after the Epistles
of James and Jude. See Westcott, Canon, Appendix D. iii. a.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

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

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

B. Codex Vaticanus par excellence, No. 1209 in the
Vatican Library at Rome, inserted there shortly after its
foundation by Pope Nicolas V., and one of its greatest
treasures. Like A it once contained the whole of the Old
Testament with the exception of the Books of Maccabees.
The first 31 leaves, containing Gen. i. i-xlvi. 28, are now
wanting, as well as 20 from the Psalms containing Ps.
cv. (cvi.) 27-cxxxvii. (cxxxviii.) 6. The New Testament
is complete down to Heb. ix. 14, where it breaks off at
K aOa[piet]. I and 2 Tim., Titus, Philemon, and the Apocalypse
are, therefore, also wanting. Rahlfs supposes that the manu-
script may have originally contained the Didache and the
Shepherd of Hermas as well. Erasmus obtained some account
of this manuscript, and Pope Sixtus V. made it the basis of
an edition of the Greek Old Testament, which was published
in 1586, thereby determining the textus receptus of that
portion of the Bible. — Would he had done the same for the
New Testament I This task was undertaken afterwards,
specially by Bentley and Birch. Professor Hug of Freiburg
recognised the value of the Codex when it was removed from
Rome to Paris by Napoleon in 1809. Cardinal Angelo Mai
printed an edition of it between 1828' and 1838, which, how-
ever, did not appear till 1857, three years after his death, and
which was most unsatisfactory. After Tischendorf had led
the way with the Codex Sinaiticus, Pope Pio Nono gave
orders for an edition, which was printed between 1868 and 1 872
in five folio volumes. Not till 1881, however, did the last
volume of this edition appear containing the indispensable
commentary prepared under the supervision of Vercellone,
J. Cozza, C. Sergio, and H. Fabiani, with the assistance of
U. Ubaldi and A. Rocchi. Then at last the manuscript was

CHAP. 11.J

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

photographed, the New Testament in 1889, and the Old
Testament, in three volumes, in 1890 — a veritable ijA/01/
avddqua. No facsimile now can give any idea of its original
beauty, because a hand of the tenth or eleventh century — or
as the Roman editors say, a monk called Clement in the
fifteenth century — went over the whole manuscript, letter by
letter, with fresh ink, restoring the faded characters and at
the same time adding accents and breathings in accordance
with the pronunciation of his time (ana£a, for example, and
aXiiwTig, tie). The Old Testament is the work of at least two
scribes, one of whom wrote down to 1 Sam. ix. 11, and the
other to the end of 2 Esdras. TischendorPs opinion with
regard to the writer of the New Testament has been already
noticed. There can be no question that B is more carefully
written than x. In the Gospels the Vatican exhibits a
peculiar division into 170, 62, 152, and 80 sections respec-
tively, which is found also in H ; in the Acts there is a
double division into 36 and 69. 1 The enumeration affixed to
the Pauline Epistles shows that these were copied from a
manuscript in which Hebrews came after Galatians, though
in B its position has been changed so as to follow 2 Thessa-
lonians. The copyist has also retained in part of the Old
Testament the enumeration of the stichoi which he found in
his original. In the New Testament the order of the books
is Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles. An
increased interest would be lent to this manuscript if, as has
been supposed, it represents the recension of the Egyptian
Bishop and Martyr Hesychius, of which Jerome makes men-
tion in two places. (Bousset, Textkritische Studien zum
Neuen Testament, pp. 74-110, see especially p. 96.) On the
Egyptian character of B, see also Burkitt in Texts and Studies,
v. p. viii. f., and compare below, p. 183 f. (See Plate IV.)

Hug, Commtntatio de antiquitate codicis Vatieani, 18 10. Vercellone,
DeW antichissimo codicc Vaticano delta Bibbia Greca, 1859; reprinted

1 On the Alexandrian division of the Gospels into 68, 48, 83, and 18 sections
respectively, see Kenyon in the Journal 0/ Theological Studies, i. 149.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

in his Dissertation* accademiche, Roma, 1864, "5 ff- F ' rst facsimile
reproduction, Bibliorum sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus ....
collatis studiis Caroli Vercellone et Josef hi Cozza editus, vol. v., Rome,
1868 • vol. vi. (Proleg. Comment. Tab. ed. Henr. Fabiani et Jos. .
Cozza'), 1881 j cf. ThLz., 1882, vi. 9. A. Giovanni, Delia Illus-
tration delF edizione Romana del Codice Vaticano, Rome, 1869.
Photographic edition, Novum Testamentum e Codice Vaticano
1209 ... phototypice repraesentatum .... cur ante Jos. Cozza-
Luzi, Rome, 1889, fol. ; see H. C. Hoskier, The Expositor, 1889,
vol. x. 457 ff. ; O. v. Gebhardt, ThLz., 1890, 16; Nestle, Sep.-St,
ii. 16 ff. Alf. Rahlfs, Alter und Heimat der Vatikanischtn Bibel-
handschrift (Nachrichten der Gesell. der Wiss. zu Gottingen, Philo-
logisch-historische Klasse, 1889, Heft i. pp. 7«-79>- In this article
Rahlfs seeks to prove that the number and order of the books in the
Old and New Testaments contained in B correspond exactly to the
Canon of the Scriptures given by Athanasius in his thirty-ninth
Festal Letter of the year 367. In it, Athanasius, after mentioning
all the canonic* ' books of the Bible, including those of the N. T.,
cites the extra-canonical books of the O. T. which are allowed to
be read, putting them after the second group, /?i'0Xoi <tti X w«s,
because two of these books, Wisdom and Sirach, were to be written
.rnxijSw- In the N. T. the Greek and Syriac forms of the Festal
Letter put Hebrews expressly between the Epistles to the Churches
and the Pastoral Epistles. In the Sahidic version of the Letter,
however, Hebrews stands before Galatians. This latter arrangement
is evidently the survival of a pre-Athanasian order which has been
longer preserved in the Sahidic translation. 1 But if B is the work
of Athanasius, it follows that it cannot be one of the Bibles
ordered by Constantine. In this case it would rather be written in
Egypt, and we should have in it the Recension of Hesychius, as
Grabe' supposed was the case in the O. T., while Hug held the same
view in regard to the N. T. text of this manuscript (see below, c. III.).
Against the theory of Rahlfs, see O. v. Gebhardt in the Tluologische
Litteraturzeitung, 1899, n. 20.

1 For the Festal Letter, see Westcott, Canon, App. D. xiv., p. 554 ; Bible in the
Chunk p. 159 ff. ; Preuschen's Anahcta, pp. 144 ff. ; Buigess, Fatal Utters of
Athanasius translated from the Syriac, p. 137. Sahidic published by C.
Schmidt in the Nachrichten mentioned above, 1898, p. 167 ff. He holds it to
be the original form of the Letter.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

C. Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, No. 9 in the National
Library at Paris, the most important of the palimpsests. This
manuscript receives its name from the fact that in the
twelfth century thirty-eight treatises of Ephraem, the Syrian
Father (d. 373), were written over the original text. After
various attempts had been made at its decipherment by Wett-
stein and others, Tischendorf in 1 843 and 1 845 published as
much of the New and Old Testaments as he was able to
make out after eighteen months' labour, thereby establishing
his reputation as a textual critic.

*The manuscript once contained the entire Bible, but the
whole of 1 and 2 Thessalonians has been lost, as also some
37 chapters from the Gospels, 10 from the Acts, 42 from the
Epistles, and 8 from the Apocalypse. There is no trace of a
chapter division in Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. This last
seems to have been copied from an exemplar consisting of
about 1 20 small leaves, one of which had been displaced by
some mistake. The Codex dates from the fifth century, and
may possibly have been written in Egypt Its earliest correc-
tions are important, and were inserted in the sixth century.

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

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

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

6 4

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

D Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, inferior to the fore-
going in age, compass, and repute, but perhaps surpassing all
of them in importance, by reason of its unique character The
manuscript was presented to the University of Cambridge in
1 581 by Calvin's friend Theodore Beza, " ut inter vere Chris-
tianas antiquissimae plurimisque nominibus celebernmae. It
is not earlier than the beginning of the sixth century, but
is of peculiar importance as the oldest of the Greek-Latin
manuscripts of the Bible. It now contains, with certain lacunae,
the Gospels (in the order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark), the con-
cluding verses of the Latin text of 3 John, followed immedi-
ately by the Acts, showing that in this manuscript the Epistle
of Jude either stood somewhere else or was absent altogether.
At least nine later hands can be distinguished in it. The first
scribe was more familiar with Latin than Greek, and therefore
inserts a Roman letter here and there in the middle of a Greek
word and has frequently to use the sponge to wash out the
mistakes he makes in writing his manuscript l Innumerable
passages occur, particularly in Luke and Acts, where the text
of D differs in the most remarkable manner from that of all
the Greek manuscripts we are acquainted with. It alone, e.g.,
contains after Luke vi. 4 the incident of the man working in
the field on the Sabbath day, to whom Jesus said, " O Man,
if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou,- but if thou
knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the Law.
It is the only one also that has the words in Luke xi. 2, " when
ye pray use not vain repetitions as the \onrol." In Luke xxni.
53 it says that the stone before the grave of Jesus was of such
a size 8, n6y« ukoctc «.5W, an addition in which it has the
support of only one Latin MS. and the Sahid.c Version.
A-ain in Acts xii. 10, it is alone in recording that there were
seven steps down from the prison in Jerusalem (Kari^av toi/v
fcrri /Sa^oJy). Other examples might be given of similar
peculiar interpolations for the explanation of which reference
must be made to c. III. below.

• E.g. AnECTALKEN, 122*, 4-

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

Kipling, Facsimile edition, Codex Th. Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 1793,
2 vols. ; Scrivener, Bezae Codex Cantabrigiensis. An exact copy in
Ordinary type . . . with critical introduction, annotations, and fac-
similes. 4to, pp. lxiv + 453, 1864. Collation of the same by Nestle,
Supplementum, 1896 (see p. 26). Cambridge University Press,
Photographic facsimile. Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis Quattuor Evan-
gelia et Actus Apostolorum continens Graece et Latine. 2 vols., pp.
830, 1899. ,2 guineas. (See Literature, 29th April 1899, p. 451
ff.); Dav. Schulz, Disputatio de Codice D., 1827; K. A. Credner,
Beiirdge zur Einltitung, vol. i., 1832, pp. 452-518; J. R. Harris,
Codex Bezae. A study of the so-called Western Text of the N. T.
(Texts and Studies, vol. ii.) Cambridge, 1891 ; also Credner and the
Codex Bezae. A Lecture delivered in the Divinity School, Cambridge,
igth Nov. 1892. (The Classical Review, vol. vii. 6, June 1893,
pp. 237-243); Chase, The Old Syriac Element in the text of Codex
Bezae, London, 1 893 ; also The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels,
London, 1895 ; Nestle, Some Observations on the Codex Bezae in the
Expositor, v. 2, 1895, p. 235 ; H. Trabaud, Un curieux manuscrit
du N. T. in the Revue de theologie et de philosophic, Lausanne,
1896, p. 378; Fr. Blass: 1. Die zwiefache Textiiberlieferung in der
Apostelgeschichte (Th. St. Kr., 1894, p. 86 ff.) ; 2. Acta Apostolorum
sive Lucae ad Theophilum Liber alter. Editio philologica, GSttingen,
'895 j 3- Acta Apostolorum . . . secundum formam quae videtur
Romanam, Leipzig, 1896 ; 4. Ueber die verschiedenen Textformen in
den Schriften des Lukas (Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1895, p. 712);
5. De duplici forma Actorum Lucae (Hermathena, Dublin, 1895, p.
121); 6.DcvariisformisEvangeliiLucani(Ibid.,D\\bX\n, 1896, p. 291) ;
7. Neue Texteszeugen fiir die Apostelgeschichte (Th. St. Kr., 1896,
p. 436) ; 8. Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucae ad Theophilum
Liber prior. Secundum formam quae videtur Romanam, Leipzig,
1897 ; fi. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte. Textkritische

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Untersuchung, Leipzig, 1897. ( = Texte und Untersuchungen. N. F

Zweiter Band, Heft ,) ; F. Graefe, Der Codex Bezae und das Lucas-

evangelium, Th.St.Kr., ,898,1. 1 16-140 ; compare especially, 0« M*

Italian Origin of Codex Bezae. 1. Codex Bezae and cod. 1071, by

the Rev. K. Lake; 2. The Marginal Notes of Lections, by the Rev

F E Brightman in the Journal of Theological Studtes, 1. 3 (April

1000) pp. 441-4S4- Codex ,071 is a minuscule on Mt. Athos , in

which the text of the Pericope Adulterae (John vm.) is essentially the

same as the singular text exhibited by D. It seems to have come from

Calabria The lectionary indicated in the margin of D points to a

mixed Greek and Latin population such as that in the South of Italy.

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

E Codex Basiliensis, by some ascribed to the seventh
century, but belonging more probably to the eighth : brought
to Europe by Cardinal John de Ragusio, who was sent on a
mission to the Greeks by the Council of Basel (1431): used
by Mill Bengel.andWettstein: Luke Hi. 4-1 5 a" d xxiv. 47-53
wanting : has been in the University Library at Basel since

1559. (Scrivener, i. p. 131. plate XL 2 7-> „ ,

F BOREELIAN US, written in the ninth century: so called
as belonging at one time to a Dutchman named John
Boreel- now in Utrecht: has many lacunae, some of which
have arisen since Wettstein collated the manuscript in 1730.

(Scrivener, i. I3«. plate XI - 28 -)

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

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

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

H. SEIDELIANUS II., of the ninth century, in Hamburg:
bequeathed with his library to his native city by Wolf, and
rediscovered there in 1838. (Scrivener, i. 134, Plate XII. 31.)
I. TiSCHENDORFlANUS II., fragments of seven manuscripts
in St. Petersburg found by Tischendorf in the Monastery of
Mar Saba, near the Dead Sea : consists of 28 palimpsest leaves
with Greek writing of the tenth century containing only 255
verses of the New Testament, of which 190 are from the
Gospels : the three oldest leaves are of the fifth century ;
some of them are perhaps parts of a once complete Bible :
detailed list of contents in Scrivener, i. 134 f.

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

K. CYPRIUS, No. 61 in the National Library at Paris:
middle of the ninth century : purchased in Cyprus for Colbert
in 1673 : one of the six, or including fi seven, complete uncial
manuscripts of the Gospels, the others being n BMSU (il).
Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate VII. p. 153.

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

GREEk NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP, ii;

M. CampiAnus,48 in the National Library, Paris: of the
ninth century : presented to Louis XIV. by the Abbe Francois
de Camps, 1st January 1706: contains the four Gospels com-
plete : one of the oldest manuscripts, with the exception of
D, that exhibit the pericope bf the adulteress, John vii. 53 ff.
Facsimile in Scrivener, i., Plate XII. p. 1 34.

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

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

The text of Codex N, including the new Russian fragments, has
been published with Introduction and Appendix by the Rev. H. S.
Cronin in Texts and Studies, v. 4, 1899. The Appendix contains a
collation of the Gospel of Mark in the Codex Imperatricis Theodorae
(Scriv. 473: Hort 8 1 : Tisch. 2P e : Greg. 565 ; see note on p. : 5 1 ). See
Nestle in the Zeitschrift fiir wiss. Theologie, 42 (iSjg), pp. 621-6*3.
Some leaves of another purple manuscript have been acquired in
Paris. See H. Omont, Acad, des Inscr., Mars-Avril 1900.

O. In Moscow, consists of a few leaves taken from the
binding of a book : contains 1 5 verses from John's Gospel
i. and xX. : written in the ninth century.

0*~ h . Psalters, in which are found, after the Psalms among

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

the poetic selections from the Bible, the Magnificat, the
B,enedictus, and the Nunc Dimittis from the first and second
chapters of Luke's Gospel. O c is a Greek Psalter of the sixth
century written in Latin characters and is at Verona. O d is a
purple Psalter of the seventh century at Zurich. O e at St
Gall is a Psalter of the ninth century, written partly in Latin
and partly in Greek.

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

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

S. Vaticanus 354 : one of the earliest manuscripts of the
Greek New Testament that bears an exact date. At the end
is written, typify 17 rifxia SeXrot airct\ Sta x«ipoy ipoC MixaljX
liovaxov dfiaprwXoO fnjv) Maprim a, foepqi e, top? r, erovs rvvf,
pSiKTiwvos f , i.e. at six o'clock on Thursday, 1st March
6457 in the 7th Indiction 1 or 949 A.D.

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

'An Indiction is a cycle of fifteen years, computed by the Greeks from 1st
September 312 a.d. Its introduction was ascribed to Constantine the Great. See
Scrivener, i., App. C, p. 380.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

the sixth century, a fragment of Matthew, formerly in the
possession of Bishop Porfiri Uspenski of Kiev, and now at
St. Petersburg. T a , of the seventh century, in Rome, part of
a Sahidic-Greek Evangeliarium, containing a few verses from
Matthew, Mark, and John. T e , of the sixth century (?), at
Cambridge, consists of four verses, Matthew iii. 13-16. T h
(T k in TiGr. p. 450), three leaves from Matthew xx. and
xxii. T" r , fragments of six Greek-Coptic and three Greek
Gospels of the ninth and tenth centuries, but possibly the
seventh and eighth, published by Amelineau in vol. xxxiv.
of the Notices et Extraits de la Bibliotheque Nationale, 1895,
363 ff. ; c/.v. Dobschutz in the Lit. Cent.-Blatt., 1895,42, 1857.
T contains the double conclusion of Mark's Gospel. T wo1 ,
similar leaves at Oxford which once belonged to Woide, but
by a different hand from T".

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

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

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

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

CHAP. II]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

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

35-

A. SANGALLENSIS, written at the end of the ninth or

beginning of the tenth century : now at St. Gall, where it was
probably transcribed by an Irish monk: has an interlinear
Latin version, and was not, therefore, like D, intended for
church but for school purposes. The Codex has the four
Gospels cqmplete with the exception of John xix. 17-35.
In Mark the text shows a closer agreement with CL than
in the other Gospels. The manuscript has been copied from
one written scriptione continua, and in consequence the words
are often wrongly divided. See G 8 below, p. 77.

Q*- 4 . Small fragments brought from the East by Tischendorf,
of which a belongs to the seventh century, and &"* to the
seventh, sixth, and seventh or eighth century respectively.
The first is in Leipzig, the others in St Petersburg. Or*
were formerly in the possession of Bishop Porfiri of Kiev.
A. Of the ninth century : contains the Gospels of Luke and
John entire : evidently the second part of a minuscule brought
to St. Petersburg by Tischendorf, No. 566 eTT (Greg.) 1 : mar-
ginal scholia are affixed to four passages in Matthew — viz.
iv. 5, xvi. 17, xviii. 22, xxvi. 74, giving the readings of to
'IovScukov, i.e. the lost Gospel according to the Hebrews, and
its subscription runs, eypa<f>i) xai avTefiXqOn « Twi/'IepoaroXvfiois
iraXatwv avriypa<pwv twv iv to opei ayl(p airoiceifiivasv iv
oTi'xo«y P<pt&' (2514) Kt<f>a\ats rve (345). The manuscript is in
the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Scrivener.i. 131, Plate XI. 30.
Cf. von Dobschiitz, Zwei Bibelhandschriften mit doppelter Schriftart
(TA. Lz., 1889, iii. 74 f.).

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

CHAP. H.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

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

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

O. v. Gebhardt, Die Evangtlien des Matthaus und des Marcus aus
dent Codex Purpureus Rossanensis herausgcgeben (T. und U., L 4,
1883). A. Haseloff, Cod. Pur. Rossanensis. Die Miniaturen der
gricehischtn Evangelitn-Handschrift in Rossano. Nach photograph-
ischen Aufnahmen herausgegeben. Leipzig, 1898 (contains 14 facsimiles
of the text and 15 photographic plates). Vide S. Berger in Bull.
Crif., 1899, 6 : also F. X. v. Funk, Die Zeit. des Cod. Rossanensis in
the Hist. Jahrbuch der Gbrresgeschellschaft, xvii. 2, 1896, 331-344.

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

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

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Acts and
Catholic
Epistles.

The last-mentioned codices have not yet been thoroughly
collated, some of them having been only recently discovered.
The following are indicated by Hebrew letters.
2 Of the ninth or tenth century: in the Monastery of St.
Andrew at Athos : contains the Gospels with lacunae.

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

-|a-i3 Several leaves dating from the fifth to the ninth century,
discovered at Sinai by J. R. Harris and published by 'him
(Biblical fragments from Mount Sinai, 1890): T 2 contains the
double conclusion of Mark: 1» is a purple fragment of the
seventh century containing a few verses from the first chapter
of Luke, perhaps only a quotation.

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

-1 An Oxyrhynchus fragment of the fifth or sixth century,
published by Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyrt
Part I. with eight Plates, London, 1898: contains only Mark
x. 50 f. and xi. IO f. : cited by Swete. (T« Greg.)

Part II. of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (1899. PP- 1-8) contains
a fragment of John's Gospel (cc. i. and xx.) from a sheet of a
papyrus codex written between 200 and 300 A.D. This is one
of the earliest fragments that have been discovered of a
papyrus book (not a roll). It exhibits already the abbrevia-
tions usually found in theological manuscripts, such as
62 m% IX WA. The Codex agrees with x in several
readings not found elsewhere. (T« Greg.) See Addenda, p. xv.

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

x A B exhibit the Acts and Catholic Epistles complete :

E 2 D have the Acts all but entire :

K L have the Catholic Epistles complete:

C P have the greater part of them.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

For k A B C D F* (a few verses of the Acts), see above.
E 2 . Laudianus 35, in Oxford, written at the end of the
sixth century: bilingual, Latin-Greek, the Latin occupying
the place of honour on the left : breaks off at Acts xxvi. 29 :
the text very peculiar and somewhat like that of D. The
manuscript was formerly in Sardinia, and was probably
brought to England by Theodore of Tarsus in 668. It was
employed by the Venerable Bede (d. 735) in his Expositio
of the Acts and afterwards in his Expositio Rctractata.
Archbishop Laud presented the manuscript with many others
to the University of Oxford. Fell and Mill made use of it.
Scrivener, i. 121, Plate X. 25.

G 2 . Of the seventh century, a single leaf in St. Petersburg
containing Acts ii. 45— iii. 8, torn from the cover of a Syriac
manuscript.

G". Of the ninth century, a palimpsest of six leaves in Rome
containing portions of Acts xvi. 32-xviii. 20. (Vat Gr. 2302.)
H 2 . Ninth century, in Modena, has the Acts with some
lacunae.

I 2 . Fragments in St Petersburg of the fifth and seventh cen-
turies: four leaves from three different manuscripts of the Acts.
Kg. Of the ninth century : brought to Moscow from Athos :
contains the Catholic and Pauline Epistles.

L 2 . Written at the end of the ninth century: in the Angelica
Library at Rome : contains the Acts from c. viii. onwards, the
Catholic Epistles, and the Pauline down to Hebrews xiii.

P 2 . Of the ninth century: formerly in the possession of
Bishop Porfiri of Kiev and now at St. Petersburg : published
byTischendorf: contains Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles,
and Apocalypse, with several lacuna.

Sj. Of the eighth or ninth century : at Athos : contains
Acts, Catholic Epistles, Romans, portions of 1 and 2
Corinthians, and Ephesians.

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

7 6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

Pauline
Epistles.

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

The third group is composed of manuscripts of the Pauline
Epistles. Of these there is a comparatively large number, which
may be taken as indicating the important position ascribed to
Paul even in early times, tt, however, is the only Codex that
contains his Epistles complete ; in D L they are almost com-
plete, and A B C E F G K exhibit the greater part of them.
For s ABC, see above.
A is defective in 2 Cor. iv. 1 3-xij. 6 inclusive.
B breaks off at Hebrews ix. 14, consequently 1 and 2
Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are wanting.

D 2 . CODEX CLAROMONTANUS: takes its name from Cler-
mont near Beauvais. The manuscript was written in the sixth
century, and is bilingual in Greek and Latin, having the
Greek on the left-hand page. The Greek is wanting in
Rom. i. 1-7. 27-30, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22. In Gal.
v. 9 D 2 reads SoXo't, and in verse 14 ev vfxlv, in both places
agreeing with Marcion. At least nine hands are distin-
guishable in the manuscript, one of whom corrected the text in
over 2000 places in the ninth or tenth century. Two leaves
are palimpsest, their text being written over part of a play
of Euripides. Hebrews has evidently been copied into the
Codex from a different manuscript by a later scribe. Before
it is a list of " versus scribtuarum sanctarum," one of the
oldest stichometric catalogues of the books of the Old and
New Testaments, which is derived from an early Greek
original. This Catalogus Claromontanus is given in West-
cott's History of the Canon, App. D, xx. p. 563, and in his
Bible in the Church, App. B, p. 309- See also Zahn,
Ceschichte des N. T. Kanons, II. 157-172, 1012; Jiilicher,
Einleitung, § 40. Thirty-five leaves of Codex D 2 were stolen
by John Aymont in 1707, but afterwards restored by their
purchasers, some of them in 1720, and the others in 1729.
(See Plates II. and III.)

E 3 . Sangermanensis, of the ninth century : also Greek-
Latin : brought from St. Germain de Pres to St. Petersburg
during the Revolution : in the Greek merely an incorrect tran-
script of D 2 , and may therefore be dismissed. See p. 179 ri. I.

F 2 . AUGIENSIS, of the ninth century: another Greek-
Latin manuscript : defective in Rom. i i-iii. 19 ; i Cor. iii.
8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philemon 21-25 •" Hebrews from
the first only in the Latin. The manuscript was formerly at
Reichenau (Augia Dives, hence its name). It was purchased
by Bentley in 1718 for 250 Dutch florins, and is now at
Cambridge. An editiori of it was published by Scrivener lit
1859. For F*, see above, p. 66.

Scrivener, An exact transcript of the Codex Augiensis . . . to which
is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various
portions of the Greek N. T., 1859. F. Zimmer, Der Codex Augiensis
eihe Abschrift des Boernerianus (ZfwTh., 1887, i. 76-91).

Gj. Boernerianus, of the ninth century, so called from
Professor C. F. Boerner of Leipzig, who purchased it in 1705 :
now in Dresden. It is a Greek-Latin manuscript, the Latin
being interlinear. It is manifestly the second part of A. and
has a close affinity with F 8 , though the Greek of F was not
copied from G, as Zimmer and Hort assert. The fact is rather
that both are derived from one and the same original, in which
e.g. o>i yayypa wa vofitjv efei, sicut cancer ut serpat, was found
in 2 Tim. ii. 17, and r/fxeda Se SovXwfievot, eramus autem
servientes, in Gal. iv. 3. This manuscript contains some
interesting Irish verses. 1 At the end of Philemon there
stands the title irpot AaovSaiaiaa;, ad laudicenses, but the
Epistle that should have followed has been lost.

P. Corssen, Epistularum Paulinarum codices graece et latine scriptos
Augiensem, Boemerianum, Claromontanum examinavit, inter se

1 "To Rome to come, to Rome to come,
Much of trouble, little of profit,
The thing thou seekest here,

If thou bring not with thee, thou findest not" ; etc., etc.

See Scrivener, i. 180.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

comfaravit, ad communem originem revocavit. Specimen primum,

1887. Alterum, 1889.

H 3 . Written in the sixth century, one of the most valuable

manuscripts, but unfortunately incomplete. Its leaves were

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

Recension. Epjstles

In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius,
afterwards known as Bishop of Sulce, 3 published an edition
of the Acts and Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which,
following the rules laid down by the Greek schools of
oratory, the text was carefully broken up into lines, the
length of which depended on the sense {sense-clauses), and
divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also pro-
vided a system of Church lections, added a summary of
contents to the various chapters, and catalogued the quota-

1 Or Evagrius. The name is difficult to decipher. See l«low, pp. 188 ff.

- 'E-ypa+ct leal <{t»«>T|y Kara tiva^iv <rrtix^' T<f5c -rh TeC X ot nayAou toB
4*ocrT(fAoi. irpij lyypa/inbv xol tvKardKntnrTov kviyvwaiv , . oKT«flMJ8ij SJ ii
|8l0Aos irpil t! Ir Ka.trapfa avTlypivpov ttjj /3iBM<>ei)K7)j toD oylou n<./jc/>[Aoi< x«<pl
ytypatipivov qvtov.

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

tions from the Old Testament and elsewhere in the separate
Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became
a sort of model for later times, and seems to have been made
use of for the Armenian version among the rest. The
comparison of the manuscript with those of Pamphilus,
as well as other additions, would seem then to have been
made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however,
thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system
in Codex H, but that Evagrius is to be read instead of
Euthalius in the place where the name has been erased.
This view is combated by Dobschiitz, and in part rightly.
Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian
sources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius.
But in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh century
in the library of the Laura at Mount Athos, Wobbermin
found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription,
ECOaXlov eTrto-Koirou IovXkijs ofiokoyla irtpi t»}c SpOoSogov
irlcrrews, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in
the second half of the seventh century and that Sulce was
in Sardinia. See G. Kriiger in the Lit. Cent. Blatt i8qq
No. 14.

Omont, Notice sur tin trh ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des
ipitresde S. Paul, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana, Texts
and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 96, 8.) Th.
Zahn, Euthaliana, Theol. Lit. Blatt., 1895, 593. 601. Ehrhard, Der
codex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus, Eine palaeo-
graphisch-patrologische Untcrsuchung in the Centralblatt fiir Biblio-
thekswesen, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v. Dobschiitz, Ein Beitrag zur
Euthaliusfrage, in the same magazine, 1893, pp. 49-70 ; Euthalius-
studien in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154 (1898) : also, Euthalius, in the
PRE 3 , v. pp. 63 1-633 (1898). Islinger, Die Verdienste des Euthalius
urn den neutestamentlichen Bibiltext, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare
On the Codex Pamphili and date of Euthalius, in the Cambridge
Journal of Philology, xxiii. 241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, The Hark-
lean Version etc., pp. 9, 27 (1889). See also J. A. Robinson, Texts
and Studies, vi. 1 ; C. Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius
p. 104 ff., and note 2, p. 188 below.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OI CRITICISM.

See above, p. 75-

K 2
U

m[ Codex Ruber, of the ninth century: four leaves
written in bright red ink or other colouring matter, two of
them in London and the other two in Hamburg.

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

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

O b . Of the sixth century, one leaf with part of Ephesians :

in Moscow.

Q, 2 . Of the fifth century, five papyrus leaves with fragments
of 1 Corinthians : in St. Petersburg.

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

S 2 . See above, p. 75.

T K . A few sentences from 1 Timothy. See TiGr., p. 44'-

T s . Two leaves containing 1 Corinthians i 22-29, written in
the ninth or tenth century, and published simultaneously with
T- Gregory now designates T* as T" «■"•', and T» as T" Paul .

3,. See above, p. 75-

I 14 . A fragment of papyrus containing part of 1 Corinthians,

cc. i., ii., Ill-, written in the fifth century.

The first seven verses of the first chapter of Romans have been
published in The OxyrhymhusPapyri,?zr\.U. (pp.8 f., Plate II.).
The fragment is probably a schoolboy's exercise. It is written
in a large rude uncial hand, and dates Jrom the firstjialf of
the fourth century.

In verse 7 it reads KY XPY IHY.

Apocalypse.

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

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

Altogether the number of Greek manuscripts is as
follows 1 : —

Uncials :

Gospels, ....
Acts and Catholic Epistles,
Pauline Epistles,
Apocalypse, .

73
19
28

Cursives,

Total, 127
3702

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

1 See Scrivener (Miller), i. p. 397'

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II.

attributed to the first century of the Christian era, is the work
of four scribes. But only one of these writes in a style
approximating to the book-hand ; the other parts are written
in a very cursive style on the back of an old account, probably
bv one who had borrowed a copy of the work for a short
time and transcribed it with the help of two or three friends
or slaves. Kenyon quite properly instances this as an illus-
tration of the manner of the origin and propagation of the
New Testament books, and suggests that this mode of pro-
pagation has to be considered in connection with times of
persecution. Our very oldest manuscripts are superb codices,
editions de luxe, such as could be prepared only in an age
when the Church had attained a position of affluence and
power The distinction referred to above is one that has had
but little attention paid to it hitherto, as is shown by the
illustration given in Harris's excellent work on the New
Testament autographs. It is manifest at the same time that
this consideration is of great importance in trying to under-
stand the origin and dissemination of the various readings
that occur in our manuscripts. It is just a pity that
Kenyon has not given a sample of this manuscript of Aris-
totle in his book, seeing that the latter is more accessible to
the ordinary student than the complete facsimile edited in
i8qi by the Trustees of the British Museum, or the Plate
published in the second volume of the work of the Pateo-
graphical Society.
Uncial and A further consideration is emphasised by means of these

minuscule discoveries-viz. that no distinction of time can be

SCript ' drawn between the uncial and cursive hands found in the

manuscripts. Even in the very earliest documents the hand
of common life displays a very cursive character, and a
fairly cursive uncial hand with ligatures is not necessarily
later than an uncial hand without ligatures. It is somewhat
different in the case of writing on parchment : here the o d
distinction of uncial and minuscule manuscripts is rightly
maintained, only we must guard against supposing that the

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

minuscule hand and the cursive are quite the same thing ; nor
must we forget that for a considerable time the older uncial
and the later minuscule scripts were in use together. 1 The
sharp line of demarcation, therefore, which has hitherto been
drawn in the textual criticism of the New Testament between
these two classes of manuscripts has no real justification in fact
The present account, however, is intended merely as a survey
of the position of things up to the present, and the following
description of the minuscules is subject to that limitation.

(&.) SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT MINUSCULES.

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

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

Since the time of Wettstein the minuscule manuscripts
have been indicated by Arabic numerals, the numbers in each
of the four groups beginning with i, so that one and the
same manuscript may have three or four numbers— i8ew. e.g.
being i^Acts, ^Paul, and 5iApoc, while 209 evv is the same
as 95 Acts, 108 P au '. and 46 A P° C - It is still more awkward
that in the two principal works on the minuscules, that of
Scrivener and of Gregory, the recently discovered manu-
scripts are numbered differently. Our enumeration will follow
that of Scrivener.

Minuscules of the Gospels.
1 (Acts I, Paul 1). Of the tenth century, but according to
others of the twelfth or the thirteenth, in Basel, with beautiful
miniatures which were stolen prior to i860. The manuscript
was borrowed by Reuchlin and used by Erasmus for his
second edition. (Scrivener, i. 137, Plate IX. 23.)

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

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

4-41 are all in the National Library at Paris. 4-9 and 38
Fenar Group, were used by Stephen. The most notable among them is 13,
together with 69, 124, 211, 346, 348, 556, 561 (788), 624, and
626, which are remarkable for their very peculiar form of
text and their additions. 1 Luke xxii. 43, 44 is found after
Matthew xxvi. 39, and John vii. 53-viii. 11 after Luke xxi. 38.
The subscriptions, moreover, state that Matthew was written in
Hebrew eight years after our Lord's Ascension, and contained
2522 prinaTa and 2560 stichoi, Mark pie/iaum ten years

1 Facsimiles of 13, 69, 124, 346 are given in Abbott's Collation of Four Im-
portant Manuscript! (Dublin, 1877); see Scrivener, i. 343, Plate XIII, 4°.

after the Ascension with 1675 pnfiara and 1604 stichoi, Luke
eA\>7i/«rT« fifteen years after with 3803 {lege 3083) pnfiara and
2750 stichoi, and John thirty-two years after with 1938 pnfiara.
These manuscripts were referred to a common archetype by
the Irish scholar Ferrar, and were accordingly denominated
the Ferrar Group, and indicated by the letter 3» before that
symbol was appropriated to the Codex Beratinus. Most of
them came from Calabria, and another has lately been added to
the number. Their additions, however, as Rendel Harris shows,
are rather of Syrian origin. In the first edition I ventured to
suggest that these manuscripts might go back to Lucian the
Martyr (d. 312) of whom Jerome makes mention, saying that
he knew of codices quos a Luciano (et Hesychio) nuncupates
paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio, quibus ....
nee in novo testamento profuit emendasse, cum multarum
gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae
addita (cod. E edita) sunt. That, however, is not possible in the
event of the so-called Syrian recension being thework of Lucian,
which Hort indicates as possible. In any case, these minuscules
have preserved to us a very early attempt to restore the text.

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

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

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

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

51. At Oxford : text resembles that of the Complutensian.
59. At Cambridge : has many points of connection with D.
61. Of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. This is the
notorious Codex Montfortianus, now in Dublin, which derives
its name from one of its later possessors. It was this manu-
script, « codex apud Anglos repertus," that decided Erasmus
to insert in his third edition of 1522 the passage of the Three
Heavenly Witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8- It was probably written
by a Franciscan monk of the name of Froy or Roy. Its
twin brother, the parchment codex Ravianus (Rau), formerly
numbered 1 10, and now in Berlin, which also contains the
passage, proves to be nothing more than a transcript of the
text of the Complutensian. Manuscripts, it may be observed,
continued to be prepared long after the invention of printing.
Melanchthon, e.g., wrote out the Epistle to the Romans three
times in Greek ; and the manuscript in the Zurich Library
hitherto cited as 56 1>aul <s nothing else than a copy of
Erasmus's printed edition of 15 16 made by Zwingli in the
following year.

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

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

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

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

140. Presented to Pope Innocent VII. by the Queen of
Cyprus. This manuscript reads SirjpdpwQi in Luke i. 64,
therein agreeing with the Complutensian.
146-153. In Rome, came from Heidelberg.
1 54-1 56. Once the property of Christina, Queen of Sweden.
157. In Rome: its text is said to bear a considerable
resemblance to the quotations found in the early Christian
writer Marcion. See below, p. 211.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

205-215 and 217 are in Venice, being part of the donation
of Cardinal Bessarion. 209 contains the whole of the New
Testament, and was the Cardinal's own copy which he had
with him at the Council of Florence in 1439.
218-225 are 'n Vienna.
226-233 af e in the Escorial.

2 37-259 are at Moscow, with the exception of four at
Dresden.

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

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

405-418 are now in Venice, and, like U, once belonged to
the Nani family.
422-430. In Munich.

431. This manuscript is sometimes stated to have perished
at Strassburg, in the war of 1870, like 180 Acts. This, how-
ever, is incorrect.
452. In Parma, one of the most superb codices.
. 473- Of the ninth and tenth centuries, a purple manuscript
with gold lettering, said to have been written by the Empress
Theodora. See under N. above, and note, p. 151.

481, dated 7th May 835, is the earliest manuscript of the
Greek New Testament bearing an exact date.
531. Written in a microscopic hand.

604. Written in the twelfth century, now in the British
Museum, exhibits 2724 variations from the Textus Receptus,
and has besides 270 readings peculiar to itself. It is the only
witness we know that supports that peculiar form of the second
petition of the Lord's Prayer found in Marcion in the second
century, and in Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth, e\6ira> to
dytov wvevfid aov i<p' iJ^Sc /cai Kadapttrdrw i^ua? (Luke xi. 2). 1

1 See Bliss's Pratfatit to his edition of Luke, pp. lxix f. (1897), and compare
Hastings' Dictionary of the Biblt, iii. p. 144 ; Hoskier, above, p. 5 ; below, p. 21 1.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

743 has the double conclusion in Mark.

107 1. See under D, p. 66.

In his Gospel according to St. Mark, Swete cites frequently,
in addition to those just mentioned and those of the Ferrar
Group, 1,28,33,66, 109, 118, 131, 157,209,238,242,299,435,
473,475.556>570,736.

Acts.

2 and 4. Used by Erasmus.

7-10. Used by Stephen.

J 5, 8 3> 173- These, like x in the Old Testament and H 3 ,
were compared with the Codex of Pamphilus — i.e. were
faithfully copied from such an exemplar.

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

42. Closely related to the Complutensian.

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

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

137 supplements D E where these are defective.

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

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

182. Numbered 1 10 by Hort, who calls it one of the best of
the cursives.

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

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

246. Written in gold letters for Charlotte, Queen of Cyprus

(d. 1487).

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

CHAP. II.']

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

Pauline Epistles.

7. Used by Erasmus.

56 and 66 are quite worthless, being simply copies of
Erasmus's printed text. (See above under 6i e ").

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

80 bears a close resemblance to 69"'.

Apocalypse.

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

36. A text akin to x.

38 has a text resembling that of A C.

68. Resembles A.

95 does so still more. This last has the reputation of being
one of the best minuscules of the Apocalypse.
. The number of minuscules under each class is, according
to Scrivener (Miller), as follows :—

Gospels, ,326

Acts and Catholic Epistles, . . . 422

Pauline Epistles, ... .497

Apocalypse, ,g 4

2429
A great many New Testament manuscripts are in England.
Some are in the possession of private individuals, like those
at Parham Park in Sussex belonging to Lord de la Zouche.
In 1870-72 the Baroness Burdett Coutts brought with her from
Janina in Epirus over one hundred manuscripts, of which
sixteen were of the Gospels, one of them belonging to the
Ferrar Group, and as many were Evangeliaria. There are

9 o

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. H.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

136 manuscripts of the New Testament in the British
Museum.

The number in Great Britain is . 438

In the National Library of Paris, . . . 298

In Germany 14°

In Italy 644

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

What a vast number of manuscripts are still waiting to be
examined is shown by the account given by Dr. von der Goltz.
Accompanied by Dr. G. Wobbermin, he made a journey to
Athos in the winter of 1897-98, and there in that ancient
Monastery, the Laura of St. Athanasius, he found, among about
1800 manuscripts altogether, including Lectionaries, some 250
codices of the New Testament, of which only a very few have
been noted by Gregory. And these manuscripts may be of
the very utmost importance, as witness the further statement
of the same explorer. He was looking through the manu-
scripts of the Apostolos, to which he and his companion had
to give most of their attention, when his eye fell on one written
in the tenth or eleventh century, containing the following note
before the Pauline Epistles: yey pd<j>9ai airo avriypa<f>ov iraXaio-
tcctou, o5 trelpav eXaftopev ws eTriTerevypevou tic rwv eiy ij/xay
e\Q6vru)v 'Qptyevous roptcv tj 6(ii\iZv ei? tov airotrroXov ....
ev oh ouv TrapaXXdrrei pip-oi'y irpos tu vvv dirocrroXtKa, SiwXijv
Tt)v Xeyopivtjv Trapc6i}Kap.ev e£a>6ev, Iva pij popia-Qn Kara trpoa--
OiJkijv tj Xei\lsiv qp.apTrjcr8at tovti to diroarroXiKOV. And from
the subscription at the end of the Pauline Epistles we learn
that the manuscript, or, as von der Goltz believes, the exemplar
from which it was copied, was written by a monk called
Ephraim. See further in von der Goltz, Eine textkritische
Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts herausgegeben
nach einem Kodex des Atliosklosters Lawra. Mil einer Doppel-
tafel in Lichtdruck. Leipzig, 1899. (Texte und Untersuch-
ungen, Neue Folge, ii. 4); and compare below, p. 190.

Literature. — On a evv , see Hoskier, above, p. 5.
On 13, see W. H. Ferrar, Collation of four important Manuscripts
of the Gospels, edited by T. K. Abbott, Dublin, 1877. J- P. P.
. Martin, Quatre manuscrits du N. T., auxquels on pent ajouter un
cinquilme, Amiens, 1886. J. R. Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar
Group, London, 1894. K. Lake, " Some new members of the Ferrar
Group of MSS. of the Gospels," in the Journal of Theological Studies
I. i. pp. 1 1 7-1 20. The well-known manuscript of the pre-Lutheran
German Bible, the Codex Teplensis, has the words from John viii. j
" in the morning he came again into the temple," after Luke xxi. 38^
an arrangement similar to that which is characteristic of the Ferrar
Group, in which John vii. 53-viii. n is found after Luke xxi. 38.
See S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 1894, p. 390. See Addenda, p. xv.

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

On 892="-, see Harris, "An Important Manuscript of the N. T."
in the Journal of Biblical Literature, ix., 1890, 31 ff.

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

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

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

(c.) LECTIONARIES.

Till quite recently the Lectionaries, or Books of Church Lectionari^
Pencopae, were even more neglected than the minuscules.
And yet they are reliable witnesses to the text of the Bible in
the provinces to which they belong, on account of their
offical character and because their locality can be readily
dist«ngu,shed. The slight alterations of the text occurring at
he begmning of the pencopae, and consisting usually in the
•nserfcon of the subject of the sentence or of \ n introductory^
cause, are eas.ly recognisable as such, and deceive no one.
It .s not always easy to determine the date of such books
because the uncial hand was employed in this sort of manuSipt'
much longer than in the other, Among the oldest, ^J

9 2

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OK CRITICISM.

is 135, a palimpsest (of which there is a considerable number
among the Lectionaries), assigned by Tischendorf to the
seventh century, and 968, written on papyrus and ascribed to
the sixth century, which was found in Egypt in the year
1890. When these Lectionaries originated has not yet been
clearly made out. 1 Up till the present 980 Evangeliaria— i.e.
Lessons from the Gospels— have been catalogued, and 268
Apustuli or Praxapostoli— i.e. Lessons from the Acts and
Epistles. Some of them are magnificently executed ; some,
alas, have been sadly mutilated. 117, in Florence, is a very
beautiful codex; and 162, in Siena, is perhaps " one of the
most splendid Service-books in the world." 235 may have
been written in part by the Emperor Alexius Comnenus
( 108 1 - 1 1 1 8). 286 is the Golden Evangeliarium on Mount Sinai,
dating from the ninth to the eleventh century, though the
tradition of the monks says that it was written by no less a per-
sonage than the Emperor Theodosius (d. 395). Tischendorfs
352-360 are nowin the National Libraryat Paris. 355 isprinted
in Omont's Catalogue (see above, p. 71). 45" 1 is a fragment
of black parchment inscribed with gold letters preserved at
Vienna. 2 40 is kept in the Escorial along with the reliques of
St. Chrysostom, and regarded as his autograph. 3 Bilingual
Lectionaries are also found, in Greek and Arabic for example.
The arrangement of these Service-books varies with the time
and region in which they were composed. Several fragments
which were formerly regarded as parts of manuscripts of the

1 Zahn asserts that traces of a system of Lections are to lie found as early as in
Irenacus, and likewise in Codex D. Einhiluw;, ii. 355, on Luke i. 26.

J On Luke viii. 15 Tischendorf observes that in 49"' (a Lectionary of the
tenth or eleventh century, now in Moscow, presented to the Monastery of the
Mother of God toD /Sporroxfou by Niccphorus, Metropolitan of Crete, and Antistcs
of Laccdremon, in 1312) the lection cij rij t(a iKK\r,ata! ended with this
verse (1 5) and the words attached to it, " And so saying He cried, llethathath cars
to hear, let him hear," and that the additional verses were not read cit tV
^yd\ V " iKKKnaiav, but vv. 20, 21-25 followed immediately after the words
ir iiro/ioi-p (v. 15). _

3 On the " Livre d'Kvangiles repute avoir appartenu a S. Jean Lnrysostomc,
(f. Ch. Graux, in the Kcvue ilc J'hilohgie, Avril 1887.

Gospels should perhaps beclassed among the Evangeliaria — e.g.
the solitary leaf of a Bible manuscript Wiirtemberg is known
to possess, and the Tubingen Fragment, formerly classed
among the uncials as R of the Gospels, but now enumerated
as 481^1. An important Syriac Lectionary will fall to be
considered under the head of the Versions.

For further details, reference must be made to Scrivener,
to TiGr., and now especially to Gregory, Textkritik, i. pp.
327-478-

2. Versions.

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

East.

West.

South.

certainly understood the Hebrew of the Old Testament.
But those words of His that have been preserved are
Anmzxc-talitha, abba, and so is sabaqtani in Matthew xxvn.
46 and Mark xv. 34, if that is the original form of the text,
and not asabthani, as a number of manuscripts show.

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

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

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

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

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

> Cf. Eusebius, Dcmom. Evan., Hi. 7, «5. ^P^P" "> *■***».« t»i ..,» t.8
■I„„.8 7 p.*i» -T P («» Xf**r«> "» " T * *"* "«"ArfM*».». Zahn - GK -
i. 33 ; Theoph., v. 64 ; Laud. Const., xvn. 9.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

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

L. J. M. Bebb, Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic
Quotations, etc., in Studia Biblica, ii., Oxford, 1890. Lagarde, De
Novo Testamento ad Versionum Orientalium fidem tdendo. Berlin
{1857); with slight alterations in his Ges. Abhandlungen, 1886,
pp. 84-119. Reprinted 1896. Urtext (see p. 7). Copinger (see
p. 6). An earlier bibliographical work is the Bibliothtca Sacra
post .... Jacobi Le Long et C. F. Boerneri iteratas curas ordine
disposita, emendata, suppleta, conlinuata ab A. G. Masch. Halle,
1778-90, 410. Pars I., De editionibus textus originalis. Pars II.,
De versionibus librorum sacrorum (3 Vols.). R. Simon, Histoire
critique des versions du N. T., 1690. Nouvelles observations sur le
texte et les versions du N. T., 1695.

(a.) SYRIAC VERSIONS.

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

9 6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

perhaps the "Common," which is sometimes pronounced
Peshitta (*«riD , t?>?) and spelt simply Peshitto.

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

The earliest notice of a Syriac Gospel is found in Eusebius's
Ecclesiastical History, iv. 22. That historian mentions that
Hegesippus (c. 160-180) quotes certain things from the
Gospel of the Hebrews— i.e. of the Palestinian (?) Jewish
Christians, and from the Syriac (sc. Gospel), and particularly
from the Hebrew dialect, showing that he himself was a con-
vert from the Hebrews («c te toO KaO' 'E/Spalovs evayye\lov

K(Xt TOV HvptaKou KClt ASlOJf CK T))f 'E/^aiiSof Sta\fKTOV TIVU

TiBrjaiv, €fj.(t>alvo)v e£ 'E/3pa<W iavrov TreTricrTevKevui). This can
hardly be understood otherwise than as implying that a
Syriac version was already in existence. Whether it con-
tained all the four Gospels or only one of them, or Tatian's
Harmony of the Gospels, as Michaelis supposed and as Zahn
has recently shown some ground for believing, or whether
it contained a primitive Gospel, now perished, cannot be
established with certainty.

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

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

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

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

From early sources it was known that Tatian, 1 a Syrian and Tatian.

'The date of Tatian's birth is uncertain. Zahn decides for the year no. He was
in the prime of manhood by the year 160. See I Iastings, Bible Dictionary, ii. p. 697.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

a pupil of Justin Martyr, composed a harmony of the Gospels
called the Diatessaron— i.e. to Sta rtaaapw edayyeXiov, an ex-
pression which may be taken either as referring to the four
Gospels or as a musical term equivalent to harmony or chord
This Harmony was in use among the Syrians till the fifth
century. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, informs us that he
destroyed 200 copies of it in his semi-Syriac, semi-Greek
diocese. 1 About the same time Bishop Rabbulas of Edessa
(407-435) instructed his presbyters and deacons to see that
all the churches possessed and read a copy of the Distinct
Gospel— i.e. not mixed or harmonised. The Lewis-Syr.ac
bears this very title, Gospel of the Distinct or Divided, which
is found also as the title of Matthew's Gospel in the Curetoman
version Tatian's Harmony has not yet been discovered in
Syriac but a Latin Harmony of the Gospels derived from it
has Ion- been known, and in 1883 a Harmony in Arab 1C was
published by Ciasca which proves to be a translation from the
Svriac made by Ibn et-Tabib (d. 1043) or a recension of it.
A" tin in 1836 the Armenian version of a Syriac Commentary
by Kp'hraem of Edessa (d. 373) was printed, and translated
into Latin in 1876. [Evangelii coucordantis expositio facta a
S Ephracmo doctor* Syro. In Latinum translata a J. B. Auclier,
ed G Moesin-rer. Venetiis.] Finally Theodor Zahn discovered
in the works of the Syriac writer Aphraates, who wrote between
r7 and 345, quotations which must be derived from this
Harmony of Tatian ; and isolated quotations from Tatian
are also found in later Syriac authors. And so the materials
are provided for deciding the question whether or not Tatian
made use of an earlier Syriac version in the preparation
of his Harmony, and how Titian), Syrc»(rcu,„), Syr- and
Syr*Ma»0 - are related to each other. The most probable view
perhaps is that T is the earliest form in which the Gospel came
to Syria, that in Syr", and Syr*™ we have two attempts to ex-
hibit T in the form of a version of the separate Gospels which

> See liclow, |>. 213, n. 3.

^ Tl.e Pesl.ilto, so indicated f.on. llic principal edit.,,,, l.y Scl.aaf, 1708-9.

chap. 11.]

MATERIALS OK CRITICISM.

were not generally accepted, while Syr^ch actually succeeded
and passed into general use.

The interest attaching to this question may be learned from
the form in which the text of Matthew i 16 is given in these
witnesses. Syr** agrees exactly with our present Greek text,
but Syr"' presents a form which, when translated into Latin,
reads, Joseph cui desponsata virgo Maria gennit Jesum Chris-
tian. Now, the only Greek manuscripts that present a form
corresponding to this are four minuscules, 346, 556, 624 and
626, which differ in this respect even from the other members
of the Ferrar Group to which they belong. In these four
manuscripts the verse reads, 'W^ $ pi>i'TTtvQT l o-a (sic) Trapflevos
Ma/jiaM iyevvna-ev '\t]aovv rov Xeyopevoi' Xpio-rov. In the Latin,
however, this text is represented by a number of the oldest
manuscripts, seven at least, one of which omits the word virgo,
while two have peperit instead of gcnuit, and top Xeyo/uepop is
omitted. But in Syr*'" we find: Joseph: Joseph aulcin cui
desponsata (erat) virgo Maria gcnuit Jesum Christum. The
passage is similarly cited in the recently published Dialogue

of Timothcus and Aquila} along with two other forms, thus :

'luKwfi iyevv>]<Ttv rov 'Ia><ri;r/> top ItpSptt ilaplat, eg m eyewjOy
'hicrouf 6 Xeyoficvos XptaTOf, /cui 'lustrhf eyeivijtrcp top 'Ujctovp toi/
Xeyonevov XpitTTop

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

1 Tlu Dialogues of Athanasim and Za.ekaeas, and oj Timothy and A./ni/a
Edited with Prolegomena and Facsimiles l,y F. C. Conybeare (Oxford 1898 •
''""*" Oxomimia, Classual Series, Part nil.). See Notice in the Lit Chi '
1099, No. 5, col. 154 f. '

100

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

solitary Greek manuscripts, written probably in Calabria at
the close of the Middle Ages. How are these facts connected,
and how do they stand to the other two readings, that of the
common Greek text, and that of the Lewis-Syriac ? The
history of the text of the New Testament presents many such
problems,
l'hiloxemis- But Syrian scholars were not satisfied with those forms of

Polycarp. the New Testament already mentioned. In the year of
Alexander 819 (a.d. 508), 1 a new and much more literal
version was made from the Greek at the desire of Xenaia
(Philoxenus), Bishop of Mabug 2 (488-518), by his rural Bishop
Polycarp. l'art of this version was published in England by
Pococke in 1630— viz. the four Epistles in the Antilegomena
not included in the Peshitto, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude.
Unfortunately this edition was prepared from a somewhat
inaccurate manuscript, which is now in the Bodleian Library.
The later European editions of the Syriac New Testament
took the text of these Epistles from Pococke's edition, which
was also the one used for critical editions of the Greek text.
In 1886 Isaac H. Hall published a phototype edition of
another manuscript of this version (the Williams MS.), the
property of a private gentleman in America, and corrected
from it the text of the Syriac New Testament issued by the
American Bible Society. The other parts of this version
have not yet been found, but the same American scholar
thought he discovered the Gospels in a ninth century
manuscript belonging to the Syrian Protestant College in
Beirut, and deposited in the Library of the Union Theo-
logical Seminary in New York.^ Bernstein thought he made
the same discovery in 1853 in a 'manuscript belonging to the
Angelica Library in Florence.
Thomas of On the basis of four manuscripts sent from Diarbeker in

iicraclca. 1? ^ to Dr Gloucester Ridley, Joseph White published,

1 Dates arc still reckoned in Syria according to the Greek era, counting from the
year 312 11. c.

2 Hierapolis, now Membiclsch on the Euphrates.

I. II. Hall, Syiim Maims, rift Gospels oj a Prc-If.irklmsian Version, 1883.

CIIA1'. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

IOI

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

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

> The Gospels appeared in 1778. the Acts and Catholic Epistles in 1799, and
the Pauline Epistles in 1803. '"' K

102

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OK CRITICISM.

« 03

midst with a bloody tail" (,u«roy, ovpa, aifia). Another
Syriac version, in which this error is avoided, was discovered
in 1892 by J. Gwynn in a Codex belonging to Lord Crawford,
and published by him as the first book printed in Syriac at
the Dublin University Press. Still more interesting is it to
know that in a manuscript, once the property of Julius Mohl,
and now in Cambridge, both the so-called Epistles of Clement
are found after the Catholic Epistles. This manuscript, part
of which was published by Bensly in 1889 (see above, p. 79)-
contains a note at the end to the effect that it was derived,
so far as the Pauline Epistles are concerned, from the copy
of Pamphilus. 1

About the same time and in the same region, Paul of Telia

translated one of the best Greek manuscripts of the Old

Testament into Syriac almost as literally as Thomas of

Harkel, thereby doing immense service in the construction

of the Syriac Hexapla, a work of inestimable value for the

textual criticism of the Old Testament.

Evangelism Mention may be made here of another Syriac version of

Hierosolymi- the New Testament, the so-called Jerusalem or Palestinian

tanum. ^^ ^^ ^ Syr™"). This version, hitherto known

almost solely from an Evangeliarium in the Vatican of the

year 1030, was edited by Count Miniscalchi Erizzo at Verona

in 1861-4, and an excellent edition was published in 1892 in

Bibliothecae Syriacae a Paulo de Lagarde collectae quae ad

philologiam sacram pertinent. And now not only have two

fresh manuscripts of this Evangeliarium been discovered on

Mount Sinai by J. R. Harris and Mrs. Lewis, and edited by

Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, but fragments of the Acts and

' In TischendorPs critical apparatus these fragments are indicated as SyrPl««<M
or as Syr"»i.lel It would be better to use the symbol SyrP*«Tl for the first
version of 508 made by Polycarp for Philoxenus, and Sy.~ for Thomas of
Harkel's recension of 616. Gebhardt's notation is as follows :-Syr* is the Cure-
Ionian j Syr» is the Peshitto j Syr* is the Harklean, of wh.ch agam Syr" is the
text Syr- the margin, Syr<« sub asterisco j Syr* is the Jerusalem Syr.acj while
Syr^"' is the text of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Zahn proposes to .nd.cate
the Philoxenian (Tischendorfs Syr>»<") by Syr', and the Harklean by Syr> ; for the
Gospels he would employ Syr°, Syr', Syr" ; Syr', therefore, .s the I esh.tto.

Pauline Epistles have also been found and published, as well
as portions of the Old Testament and other Church literature. 1
The dialect in which these fragments are written is quite
different from ordinary Syriac, and may, perhaps, bear a close
resemblance to that in which Jesus spoke to His disciples.
At what time and in what region this entire literature took
its rise is not yet determined with certainty. The Greek text
on which the Evangeliarium is based has many peculiarities.
In Matthew xxvii. 17, e.g., the robber is called Jesus Barabbas,
or, rather, Jesus Barrabbas, a fact known to Origen, but now
recorded only in a few Greek minuscules by the first or second
hand.

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

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

Literature on the Syriac Versions : —

J. G. Christian Adler, Novi Testamenti Versiones Syriacae,
Simplex, Philoxeniana, et Hierosolymitana. Denuo examinalae el ad
/idem codicum manu scriptorum .... novis observationibus atque
tabulis aere incisis illustratae. Hafniae, pp. viii. 206. With eight
Plates. 1789, 410. For the complete list of editions up to 1888, see
my Litteratura Syriaca (Syr. Gr., 2nd edition, pp. 20 ff.). Appendix
thereto in Urt., 227 ff.; R. Duval, La Litterature Syriaque. Paris,
1899, pp. 42-67; TiGr., 813-822; Scrivener, fourth edition, ii.
6-40, with the help of Gwilliam and Deane ; The Printed Editions
of the Syriac New Testament, in the Church Quarterly .Review, 1888,

1 Land, in the Antcdota Syriaca, iv., 1875; Harris, Biblical Fragments from
Mount Sinai, 1800 ; Gwilliam, in the Aiucdota Oxonitmia, Semitic Series, i. 5,
1893 ; ix. 1896 ; Lewis-Nestle-Gibson, Studia Sinaitica, vi.

104

GREEK NEW, TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

July, 257-297 ; G. H. Gwilliam, in the Studia Biblica et Eccksiastica

(Oxford), ii. 1890, iii. 189 1 ; F. C. Conybeare, The growth of the

Peshitta Version of the New Testament, in the American Journal of

Theology, 1897, iv. 883-912; Burkitt, in the Journal of Theological

Studies, i. (July 1900), 569 ff., referring to his forthcoming edition of

the Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, says that he has had to go over the

Gospel quotations of St. Ephraem, and closes by saying, " I confess

that I am unconvinced that what we call the New Testament -

Peshitta was in existence in St. Ephraem's day, and I believe that we

owe both its production and victorious reception to the organizing

energy of the Great Rabbula, Bishop ofEdessafrom 411 to 435 a.d."

1. Till Gwilliam's edition of the Gospels appears, which has been

promised since 1891, the best edition will be the Editio Princeps of

Widmanstadt, 1555; then that of Leusden and Schaaf, Novum

Domini noslri Jesu Christi Testamenlum Syriacum aim versione latina

aira et studio J. Leusden et C. Schaaf editum. Ad omnes editiones

diligenter recensilum ct variis Icctionibus mag/10 labore collectis

adornatum. Lugd. Bat., 1709, 4to. Ace. Schaaf, Lexicon Syriacum

concordantiale. The text reprinted by Jones at Oxford, 1805 ; the

editions of the London Bible Society, 1816 and 1826, and better

still, the Syriac and New-Syriac editions of the American

Mission in Urmia, 1846, and of the American Bible Society of New

York, 1868, 1874, and frequently (with the Nestorian vocalisation).

An edition is promised from the Jesuit Press at Beyruth, Nouveau

Testament Syriaque en petits caracteres, dapres plusieurs manuscrits

anciens, id. par le P. L. Cheikho.

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

J. D. Michaelis, Curae in Versionem Syriacam Act. Apost. cum
consec/ariis criticis de indole, cognationibus et usu vcrsionis Syriacae
tabularum Novi Foederis. Gottingen, 1755. C. L. E. Lohlein, Syrus
Epistolae ad Ephesios interpres in causa critica 'denuo examinatus,
Erlangen, 1835.

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

CHAT. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

105

new edition appears its place will be taken by Baethgen's Retransla-
tion into Greek (Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des
Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt, Leipzig, 1885); and more
especially by Albert Bonus's Collatio codicis Lewisiani rescripti
evangeliontm Syriacontm cum codice Curetoniano, Oxford, 1896; and
by Carl Holzhey's Der neuentdeckte Codex Sinaiticus untersucht. Mit
einem vollstiindigen Verzeichnis der Varianten des Codex Sinaitiais
und Codex Curetonianus, Munich, 1896. See A. Bonus, The Sinaitic
Palimpsest and the Curetonian Syriac, in the Expository Times, May
x 895> P- 3 8 ° A"- The publications of T. R. Crowfoot, Fragmenta Evan-
gelica, Pars I., II., 1870, 1872, and Observations on the Collations in
Greek of Cureton's Syriac Fragments, 1872, contain useful material,
but there are a good many mistakes.

3. The Editio Princeps of the Lewis text is, of course, that of
Bensly, Harris, and Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed

from the Sinaitic Palimpsest Cambridge, 1894. To this

must be added its complement by Mrs. Lewis, Some Pages of the

. Four Gospels retranscribed (with or without an English translation),
London, 1896; further, Last Gleanings from the Sinai Palimpsest,
Expositor, Aug. 1897, pp. m-119; also, An Omission from the
Text of the Sinai Palimpsest, Expositor, Dec. 1897, p. 472. On the
discovery of the manuscript, see Mrs. Gibson, Now the Codex was
found, .... Cambridge, 1893, and Mrs. Lewis, In the shadow of
Sinai, .... Cambridge, 1898; also Mrs. Bensly, Our Journey to
Sinai, .... With a chapter on the Sinai Palimpsest. London,
1896. See also Mrs. Lewis, The Earlier Home of the Sinaitic
Palimpsest, Expositor, June 1900, pp. 415-421. The text has
been translated into German by Adalbert Merx, who has added a
brief but valuable critical discussion. Berlin (Reimer), 1897. The
second part, comprising the commentary, has not yet appeared. See
also Gwilliam's notice of the editio princeps in the Expository Times,
Jan. 1895, p. 157 ff.

4. On Tatian, the latest and best is Zahn, Evangelienharmonie,
PRE 3 , v. (1898), 653 ff.; also his Forschungen, i. (1881), Tatian's
Diatessaron, ii. p. 286 ff. (1883), iv. (1891); Gesch. des Kanons, i
387-414, ii. 530-556. J. H. Hill, The earliest Life of Christ ever
compiled from the Four Gospels, being the Diatessaron of Tatian
(c. a.d. 160), literally translated from the Arabic Version. Edinburgh,
1893. J- R- Harris, The Diatessaron of Tatian, a Preliminary
Study. Cambridge, 1890. The Diatessaron, a Reply, in the Con-

io6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

10;

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

5. On the later Syriac versions, see Urt., 228, 236 f. ; Gwynn,
The older Syriac Version of the four Minor Catholic Epistles,
Hermathena, No. xvi. (vol. vii.), 1890, 281-314. Merx, Die in der
Peschito fehlenden Briefe des Neuen Teslamentes in arabischer der
Philoxeniana entstammender Uebersetzung .... Zei/schrift fiir
Assyriologie, xii. 240 ff., 348 ff., xiii. 1-28. Bensly, The Harklean

Version of the Epistle to the Hebrews, . . . Cambridge, 1889. In
this edition will be found the subscription mentioned above, con-
necting the manuscript with that of Pamphilus. See Addenda, p. xv.

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

(b.) LATIN VERSIONS.

The name most closely associated with the Latin Versions Jerome,
of the New Testament is that of Jerome (Hieronymus). This
scholar was born at Stridon, on the borders of Dalmatia, 1
about the year 345, and educated at Rome. After leading
for some time a hermit life in Palestine, Jerome returned to
Rome, and it was during his residence there, in the year 382,
that he was urged by Pope Damasus to undertake a revision
of the Latin version of the New Testament then in use. This
he did, and in 383 sent the Pope, who died in the following
year, the first instalment of the work, the Four Gospels,
accompanied with a letter beginning thus :— " Thou compellest
me to make a new work out of an old ; after so many copies
of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole
world, I am now to occupy the seat of the arbiter, as it were,
and seeing they disagree, to decide which of them accords
with the truth of the Greek ; a pious task, verily, yet a
perilous presumption, to pass judgment on others and oneself
to be judged by all." He anticipates that everyone, no matter
who, learned or ignorant, that takes up a Bible and finds a
discrepancy between it and the usual text will straightway
condemn him as an impious falsifier who presumed to add to
or alter or correct the ancient Scriptures. But he comforts
himself with the reflection that it is the High Pontiff himself
that has laid this task upon him, and that the testimony of
his jealous opponents themselves proves that discrepancies
are an indication of error (verum non esse quod variat, etiam
maledicorum testimonio comprobatur) ; for if they tell us we
are to rest our faith on the Latin exemplars, they must first
say which, because there are almost as many versions as
manusenpts (tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices) •
if it is to be the majority of these, why not rather go back to

'See F. Bulie, Wo lag Stride,,, die Heimat <Us h. Hieronymus' in the

F ^f/:L^:ti Vienna " 898 - Aho/ - a >---•/-"

io8

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OK CRITICISM.

109

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

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

Codex, and believe himself to have any knowledge of both
languages, than he made bold to translate it (ausus est in-
terpretari). The advice he himself gives is to prefer the
Italic version to the others, as being the most faithful and Itala.
intelligible (in ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala prae-
feratur; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sen-
tentiae. De Doctrina Christiana, it. 14, 15). On the ground
of this passage, the pre-Jeromic versions have been compre-
hended under the title of the Itala, as distinguished from
Jerome's own work, which is called the Vulgate, seeing that Vulgate,
it became the prevailing text in the Church of the Middle
Ages. By the Itala, Augustine himself, however, must have
referred to a particular version, and, according to the usage
of that time, the word cannot mean anything else than a
version originating in or prevalent in Italy—/.*, the North of
Italy, what is called Lombardy. It is not difficult to under-
stand how it came to pass that Augustine used such a
version in Africa, seeing that he was a pupil of Ambrose,
Bishop of Milan. In recent times Burkitt has revived the
opinion that by Itala Augustine means neither more nor
less than Jerome's Revision of the Gospels. He demon-
strates that Augustine's De Consensu, written about the year
400, is based on Jerome's revised text. In this, Zahn 1
agrees with him on grounds that admit of no question so far
as this point is concerned. But Wordsworth-White 2 will
not admit the inference that Augustine must have meant
this Revision when he spoke of Itala in the year 397, seeing
that in his letter to Jerome, 3 written in 403, he thanks God
for the interpretation of the Gospel, " quasi de opere recenter
cognito/' while in his earlier letters to Jerome * he makes no
mention of it: "quod mirandum esset si in opere ante sex
annos publici iuris facto earn collaudasset." 6

• EmUilung, ii. 195. . Efibgu, ad Evangtlia, p. 656.

3 No. 71 ; 164 in Jerome's letters.

4 No. 56 (a.d. 394), 67 (397), 101 (402).

» Burkitt's view was expressed more than three-quarters of a century ago by
C. A. Breyther, in a dissertation entitled, Dt vi quam antiouissimat versions

j 10 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CHAP. II

(i.) Latin Versions before Jerome.

Old Latin Where, when, and by whom was the New Testament, or at

Texts. least W ere parts of it, first translated into Latin? From the

passage in Augustine quoted above, we learn that it was done
by all and sundry in the very earliest times of the Christian
faith. Rome used to be regarded as the place where the
Latin versions took their rise. But it was observed that Greek
was very commonly employed as the written language at
Rome, especially among Christians. The first Bishops of Rome
have pure Greek names, and even the first representative of the
Roman Church with a Latin name, the Clement that wrote
the Epistle to the Corinthians about the year 95, even he
wrote in Greek. Moreover, when the relics of the Old Latin
Bibles began to be examined, it was observed that their
language, both in vocabulary and grammar, entirely agreed
African with that found in African writers of that age, and in some

things agreed with these alone. It is, of course, a fact that
the majority of the writers of that age known to us are
African. Till quite recently, therefore, it was held to be
tolerably well made out that the birthplace of the Latin Bible
is to be found in Africa. It was regarded by many as
equally certain, that in spite of the statements of Jerome
and Augustine, and in spite too of the various forms in which
the Old Latin Bible now exists, these all proceed from a
common origin, or at most from two sources, so that it was
not quite correct to speak of a " multitude of translators " in
the very earliest times. The settlement of this question is
rendered more difficult by the fact that, while the extant
copies of the pre-Jeromic Bible are undoubtedly very early,
they are few in number, and for the most part mutilated.
The reason of this is not far to seek. For, as time went on
and Jerome's new version came to be more and more ex-
clusively used, manuscripts of the earlier version lost their

quae extant latinat iv crhin evangeliorum IV. habmt (Metseburg, 1824). See
v. Dobschiitz, ThI.-., 1897, "35-

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

Ill

Latin.

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

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

1. Gospels.

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

The codex was edited by Irico in 1748, and by Bianchini in
1 749 along with some of the others in his Evangeliarium Quadruplex.
This latter edition was reprinted, with some inaccuracies, in Migne's
Patrologia Latina, vol. xii. The manuscript was again edited by

I 12

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CIIAI*. II.

Belsheim ; Codex Vercelknsis. Quatuor Evangelia ante Hieronymum
laiine translata ex reliquiis Codicis Vercellensis, saeculo ut videtur
quarto scripti, et ex Edit font Iridium principc denuo cdedit (sic)
Jo. Behheim. Christiania, 1894.

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

Edited by Bianchini (see above). A Spagnolo, L' Evangeliario
Purpureo Veronese. Nota (Torino, 1899. Estratta dagli Atti dell'
Accademia Reale delle Scienze di Torino).

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

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

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

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

Two other fragments were published in 1893 by Hugo Linke from
a transcript made for Bianchini in 1762. The entire codex was
edited by Belsheim, Christiania, 1 896. See von Dobschiitz in the
LCM., 1896, 28.

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

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

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

113

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

ff 2 . Corbeiensis II., written in the sixth century and now in
Paris : contains the Gospels with several lacunae.

On Belsheim's editions of ff, and ff 2 (1881 and 1887), see E. Ranke
in the ThLz., 1887, col. 566, and S. Berger, Bull. Crit., 1891,
302 f.

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

g 2 . Sangermanensis II., written in an Irish hand of the
tenth century, has a mixed text: in Paris (Lat. 13069).

h. Claromontanus, of the fourth or fifth century, now in
the Vatican : has the Old Latin text in Matthew only. The
manuscript is defective at the beginning down to Matt. iii. 1 5
and also from Matt. xiv. 33-xviii. 12.

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

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

Edited by Belsheim, Codex Vindobonensis membranaceus purpureus
.... antiquissimac evangeliorum Lucae et Mara translationis Latinae
fragmenta edidit Jo. Belsheim. Lipsiae, 1885 (cum tabula).

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

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

k. Bobiensis, of the fifth century, is perhaps the most
important of the Old Latin manuscripts, but unfortunately
contains only fragments of Matthew and Mark. It is said to
have belonged to St. Columban, the founder of the monastery
of Bobbio, who died in the year 615. It is now preserved at

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

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

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

Edited by H. Fr. Haase, Breslau, 1865, 1866: Evangeliorum
quattuor vetus latino, interpretatio ex codice Rehdigerano nunc primum
edita.

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

Fragmenta Novi Testamenti in translation latina antehieronymiana
ex libro qui vocatur Speculum emit et ordine librorum Novi Testamenti
exposuitf. Belsheim. Christiania, 1899.

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

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

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

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

eighth century.

a 2 . Is part of the same manuscript as n. It consists of a
leaf containing Luke xi. 11-29 and xiii. 16-34. It was found
in the Episcopal archives at Chur, and is preserved in the
Rhaetisches Museum there.

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

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

r or r s and r 2 . Usserianus I. and II., are both in Dublin. The
former is written in an Irish hand of the seventh century, and
has several lacunae. r 2 belongs to the ninth or tenth century
and has an Old Latin text in Matthew resembling that of r v
It shows affinity with Jerome's text in Mark, Luke, and John,
of which, however, only five leaves remain.

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

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

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

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

aur. Aureus or Holmiensis, written in the seventh or eighth
century, exhibits the Gospels entire, with the exception of
Luke xxi. 8-30. An inscription in old English states that
the manuscript was purchased from the heathen (the Danes ? )
by Alfred the Alderman for Christ Church, Canterbury, when
Alfred was King and Ethelred Archbishop (87 1-889). It was
afterwards in Madrid, and is now at Stockholm. It is really
a Vulgate text with an admixture of Old Latin readings.
Published by Belsheim in 1878.

S. Is the interlinear Latin version of A (see p. 72), and
is interesting on account of its alternative readings given in
almost every verse— e.g. uxorem vel conjugem for ywaiica,
Matt. i. 20. Compare Harris, The Codex Sangallensis, Cam-
bridge, 1 891.

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

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

scripts of the Gospels, see Peter Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe
zu den vier Evangelien. Leipzig, 1896 (TU., xv. 1). This has
been supplemented by von Dobschiitz's Prolog zur Apostelgeschichte.
See also Jiilicher in the GGA., 1896, xi. 841-851. J. S. in the Revue
Critique, 1897, vii. 135 f. H. Holtzmann in the Th. Lz., 1897,
xii. col. 231 ff. A. Hilgenfeld, Altchristliche Prolegomena zu den
Evangelien in the ZfwTh., 1897, iii. 432-444.

2. Acts.

[ As for the Gospels,
m ) r

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

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

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

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

Published by Ceriani in his Monumenla Sacra et Pro/ana, i. 2, pp.
127, 128. Milan, 1866.

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

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

p 2 , written in the thirteenth century, exhibits a text with

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

117

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

Published by Berger : Un ancien texte latin des Actes des Apotres,
etc. Paris, 1895. See von Dobschiitz in the ThLz., 1896, 4;
Haussleiter in the Th. Lbl., no. 9 ; Schmiedel in the L. CM., no. 33 ;
E. Beurlier, Bull. Crit., 1896, 32, p. 623.

s 2 . Bobiensis, a palimpsest of the fifth or sixth century at
Vienna, containing fragments of Acts xxiii., xxv.-xxviii., and
of James and 1 Peter.

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

w. Is the symbol given by Blass to a paper manuscript of
the New Testament written, it seems, in Bohemia in the
fifteenth century, and now at Wernigerode. In the main it
exhibits Jerome's text even to a greater extent than p, but
preserves elements of the Old Latin, particularly in the latter
half of the Acts. The mixture is similar to that observed in
the Provencal New Testament, 1 which is derived from a Latin
manuscript of this nature, and to that in the pre-Lutheran
German Bible. (See Urt., p. 127 f.)

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

3. Catholic Epistles.

h )

m LAs above.

S )

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

Edited by Belsheim in the Theologisk Tidsskri/t for den evangelisk-
lutherskeKirkeiNorge (N.S. Vol. ix. Part 2); also by J. Wordsworth,
The Corbey St. James, etc., in Studia Biblica, i. pp. 1 13-150. Oxford,
1885.

1 Photolithographed by CI4dat from a MS. at Lyons.

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

119

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

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

4. Pauline Epistles.

m. As for the Gospels.

d e f g. The Latin versions of the Greek Codices D E F G.

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

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

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

Ziegler, Italafragmente der paulinischen Briefe. Marburg, 1876.
VVolfflin, Neue Bruchstiicke der Freisinger Itala (Munchener Sitz-
ungsberichte, 1893, ii. 253-280).

r 2 . Also at Munich, a single leaf, with part of Phil. iv. and
of 1 Thess. i.

r 3 . In the Benedictine Abbey of Gottweih on the Danube:
fragments of Romans v. and vi. and of Galatians iv. and v.,
written on leaves used as a book cover.

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

x 2 . At Oxford, of the ninth century, contains the Pauline
Epistles : defective from Heb. xi. 34-xiii. 25.

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

Fathers.

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

5. Apocalypse.

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

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

On account of the small number of these manuscripts the Latin
quotations of the Latin Fathers are valuable, especially "
those of Cyprian of Carthage, 1 and after them the recently
discovered citations in Priscillian, who was the first to suffer
death as a heretic in the year 385. In the Apocalypse we
have the quotations of Primasius, Bishop of Hadrumet (ca.
SSO), who used in his commentary on the Apocalypse not
only his own Old Latin Bible but also a revised version the
same as that used by the African Donatist Tyconius. In
attempting to classify these witnesses it was found that the
text of certain manuscripts coincided with that of the Bible
used by Cyprian— viz., in the Gospels k especially, in Acts h,
and in the Apocalypse Primasius and h. This family has
accordingly been designated the African.

Tertullian, a still earlier African Father, undoubtedly refers
to the existence of a Latin Version in his time, but the
quotations found in his Latin works cannot be taken into
account, for this reason, that in citing the New Testament he
seems to have made an independent translation from the
Greek for his immediate purpose. 2

'J. Heidenreich, Der neuteUamenlluhe Text bei Cyprian verglichen mil cUm
Vulgatatext. Eine textkritiuhe Untenuchuug zu den h. Schriften des Neue,,
lestamentes. Bamberg, 1900.

2 This is the view of Za hn. Others, however, have no doubt that Tertullian
made use of a La, ln version. Hoppe, in his treatise, De sermone Tertullianeo
Quaes, ones Selectae (,897), p. 6 (de Craedsmis Tertulliani) says, " Permultas
en, m (construcfo„es)T. mutuatus est vel ex scriptoribus graecis, quibus assidue
studu.t, vel ex l.brorum sacrorum translations latina graecismis abundante, qua

120

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II. J

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

121

Old Latin
Texts.

As for the quotations in Augustine, they are found to
resemble the text of f and q in the Gospels, particularly the
former, and that of q, r, and r 3 in the Epistles. To this group,
therefore, the name Italian has been given. It has, however, been
deemed necessary to regard this Italian family as being itself
a revised and smoother form of a still earlier version styled
the European, which is thought to be represented by g, g 2 , and s
in the Acts, by ff in the Epistles, and by g in the Apocalypse.

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

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

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

(2) de hoc a c f, de facto b, de eo d, de isto e*, vg.

(3) ecce a c d f, vg ; et ecce b e.

(4) viri duo a f, duo viri b c d e , vg.

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

vg.

(6) iuxta illas a f, secus illas b c e, vg ; eis d.

(7) in veste fulgenti a f, vg ; in veste fulgente b c e, in amictu
scoruscanti d.

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

(9) v. 11 : et visa sunt abc (visae) ef, vg; et paruerunt d.
(io)illis a, ante illos b, vg; apud illos ce, in conspectu

eorum d, coram illos f.

utebatur." And to this he adds, " Quam multa vocabula graeca in Tertullianeum
sermonem ex Itala quae vocatur ttanslatione redundaverint, discas ex Roenschii
libio cum impigritate consctipto, qui inscribitur, Itala und Vulgata, ed. sec, p.
238." The Itala is cited for sciant quia (p. 18), absque (p. 44), and for the use of
the superlative for the positive (p. 49). On this last the writer refers to Rdnsch,
p. 415, and adds, "ex Itala T. hunc usum aliquotiens assumpsisse videtur,
quamquam in universum vitat." Cf. Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. iii. p. 251 ff.

(n) tanquam a, sicut be, vg ; quasi c d f.

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

( 1 3) v. 13: municipium a, castellum b c d e f, vg.
(i4)stadios habentem LX ab hierusalem a, quod aberat

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

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

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

Is not this almost exactly as Jerome said : tot exemplaria,
quot codices ? And when we take into account that all this
variety in the Latin manuscripts is not simply due to a differ-
ence in translation, but that a similar diversity exists in the
Greek, 1 we can easily understand what a task it is to extricate
the original text from out these conflicting witnesses. At the
same time, we have evidence of the singular position in which
D stands to all the others ; while the last example also affords
an illustration of the way in which mistakes might arise.
The reading p ovo/xa in verse 13 would preclude any possi-
bility of misunderstanding. But suppose the reader or the
translator had before him a manuscript like D, in which the
reading was ovo/tart. What happened, we shall suppose, was
this. The phrase, " Emmaus by name," was taken as refer-
ring, not to the village, but to the subject of the sentence ;

1 Thus we have, following the numbers given above, in verse 4 (i) awopuotiu
and Siaropiuriat (or tiai-opcir), (2) iripi toistou and ir«pi airrov, (3) iSov and km
1J01/, (4) avtptt 8i>o and Ivo aytptt, (5) twtartiaw and wapturrnKtigay, (7) n
ffffli)Ti aarpaTToiuri) (or Auuraa) and «■> taBitatrriv aoTpanTovoais (or \ivkcus),
(8) <p0o£ui' (or <v <po0w) t> ytroptimv «ai k\wov<twv and tv(po$oi St -ytvo/icyai
"**""'' (9) ™ rpoTanra and to wpoauwev {avraiv); in verse II, (10) lywnav aurav
and its omission ; in verse 13, (14) t ^ K oyra and ikcitof t^xoyra, (15) f orcpa and
ovopan, ('6) Eji/ioom and ovKa^atvt. Of these (8), (15), and (16) are found
only in D. In the case of (15) the very same variation is found at Tob. vi. 10 in
the two recensions represented by Codtx Valicanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

122

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

the other name, Cleopas, was then inserted from verse i8, and
in time placed even before Emmaus by a later copyist And
accordingly we find, even in Ambrose of Milan, that the two
travellers are regularly called Ammaon et Cleopas. It was
just as Jerome said : a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, a
praesumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, a librariis
dormitantibus aut addita aut mutata.

(2.) The Latin Version of Jerome.

It is a comparatively easy task to restore the work of
Jerome; first of all because all our present manuscripts are
derived from one and only one source, secondly because the
number of existing manuscripts is very great, and lastly
because some of them at least go back to the sixth century.
Codex There is a Codex in Paris which formerly belonged to the

Epteinacensis. church of St willibrord at Echternach, written, by an
Irish hand of the eighth or ninth century, and containing
a subscription copied from its original to the following effect :
proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca
Eugipi praespiteri quern ferunt fuisse sci Hieronymi, in-
dictione VI. p(ost) con(sulatum) Bassilii u. c. anno septimo
Cod« decimo. That must have been in the year 558. Codex

AmUtinus. Amiatinus, now in Florence, was formerly supposed to belong
to the same time, but this turns out to be a mistake, because
it has been proved that it was written for Ceolfrid, Abbot of
Wearmouth, who died at Langres on the 25th September 716,
on his way to Rome, where he intended to present this
Codex to the Pope. One of the oldest and most valuable
manuscripts of the Vulgate is at Fulda, where it has been
Codex preserved, perhaps, from the time of Boniface. This Codex

Fuldensis. Fuldensis was written between 540 and 546, by order of
Bishop Victor of Capua, and corrected by himself. It con-
tains the whole of the New Testament according to Jerome's
version, only in place of the four separate Gospels it has a
Harmony composed by Victor, who followed Tatian's plan,

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

123

and White.

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

The task of restoring the original text of Jerome's version Wordsworth
has been undertaken in England by the Bishop of Salisbury,
who has been at work on all the available material for more
than fifteen years. The edition bears the title, Novum Testa-
mentutn Domini nostri Jesu Christi secundum editionem sancti
Hieronymi ad codicum manuscriptorumfidem recensuit Johannes
Wordsworth in operis societatem adsumpto Henrico Juliano
White. Five parts of the first volume have already ap-
peared, containing the four Gospels with an Epilogus ad
Evangelia} In France, J. Delisle, the Director of the Paris
National Library, has rendered great service by his work
upon the manuscripts under his care ; while Samuel Berger
has constituted himself pre-eminently the historian of the
Vulgate by bringing fresh testimony from the early Middle
Ages and the remotest provinces of the Church to bear upon
the history of the Vulgate and its text as well as on the
origin and dissemination of the different forms. In his com-
pendious Histoire de la Vulgate pendant Us premiers slides du
moyen age (Paris, 1893), he has, e.g n indicated no fewer than
212 different ways in which the books of the Old Testament
were arranged in the manuscripts that he examined, and
thirty-eight varieties in the order of the New Testament books.
In Germany Bengel applied himself to the reconstruction of
the Latin text of the Bible in the last century, and in this he
was followed by Lachmann in the present century, while
Riegler, van Ess, and Kaulen have added to our knowledge
of the history of the Vulgate. Dr. Peter Corssen has
followed up the labours of Ziegler and Ronsch in the par-
ticular field of the pre-Jeromic Bible and its text with a
methodical examination of the earlier editions, and E. v.
Dobschiitz has begun to publish Studies in the Textual
Criticism of the Vulgate. The valuable researches of Carlo
Vercellone (1860-64) were concerned almost exclusively with
1 «889. 9«. 93i 9S. 98 ; cited in the sequel as W.-W.

124

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Jerome.

the Old Testament, and do not seem to have been fol-
lowed up in Italy. " Utinam Papa Leo XIII.," says Gregory,
"tanta scientia tanta magnanimitate insignis curam in se
suscipiat textus sacrosanctorum Bibliorum Latini edendi ;
cura, opus ecclesia et Papa dignum." Meanwhile Words-
worth and White appear to have accomplished as much as
is possible at present in the field of the Gospels. 1
MSS. used by The principles on which Jerome went in his revision of
the text have been already referred to, but what the early
Greek manuscripts were that he employed is not yet clearly
made out. The relics of the material he used are as scanty
as those of his own work. He must, however, have been
able to make use of manuscripts that went back to Eusebius,
seeing that he adopted the Eusebian Canons in his New
Testament. But there are certain readings in Jerome which
we have not yet been able to discover in any Greek manu-
script that we know. For instance, he gives docebit vos omnem
veritatem in John xvi. 13, where our present Greek editions
read oSnyrjcret ifias iv t/J aXnOela irdcrfl, so that he would seem
to have read Siriyqa-erai i/xiv t^c a\q6etav ircurav. As a
matter of fact, this reading does occur in two passages of
Eusebius and in Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as in the Arabic
version of Tatian, but it has not been discovered in any
Greek manuscript. 2 In the other parts of the New Testa-
ment, the revision of which was perhaps completed by the
year 386, Jerome inserted hardly any new readings from
the Greek, but contented himself with improving the grammar
and diction of the Latin. His work on the Old Testament
was much more comprehensive, but does not fall to be
discussed here.

It was only by degrees that Jerome's recension gained

1 On the Epilogus to the first volume of their Oxford edition, see especially
S. Bergerinthe Revue Critique, 1889, pp. 141-144 ;and on the whole, Burkitt,
The Vulgate Gospels and the Codex Brixianus, in the Journal of Theological
Studies, I. i. (Oct. 1899) pp. l2Q-«34.

» Compare E. Maugenot, Les manuscrits greet des /vangiles employe's par Saint
Jerdme, in the Revue des sciences ecclisiastiques, January 1900.

History of
the Vulgate.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

125

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

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

A further revision was made by Stephen Harding, third Harding.
Abbot of Citeaux. About the year 1109 he prepared a

126

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

standard Bible for his congregation, in which the Latin text
of the New Testament was corrected by the Greek. At the
same time the Old Testament was revised from the Hebrew
with the help of some Jewish scholars. Harding s copy of
the standard Bible, in four volumes, is still preserved in the
Public Library at Dijon. A similar work was done for his
monastery by William, Abbot of Hirsau.
Correctoria. Attempts were also made to settle the text by means of
the so-called Correctoria Bibliorum, in which those readings
which were supposed to be correct were carefully collected
and arranged. The University of Paris in particular did a
great deal in this way, and such was its influence, that by
the middle of the fifteenth century the Parisian text was the
one most commonly followed in manuscripts, and the inven-
tion of printing gave it a complete ascendancy over the

others. ,

,,intedtext. The first fruits of the printing press are understood
to be the undated " forty-two line Bible," usually called the
Mazarin Bible, seeing that it was the copy in the library of
Cardinal Mazarin that first attracted the attention of biblio-
graphers. The first dated Bible is of the year 1462.
Copinger estimates that 124 editions were printed before
the close of the fifteenth century, and over 400 during
the sixteenth. The first edition in octavo, " for the poor
man/' was issued at Basel in 1491 from the Press of Froben,
the same printer who prompted Erasmus to prepare the first
Greek New Testament. The first edition in Latin with
various readings was printed in 1504. In the following year
Erasmus published the Annotations which Laurentius Valla
had prepared for the Latin Bible as early as 1444- The
year 1 528 saw the first really critical edition. It was brought
out by Stephen, who used in its preparation three good
Paris manuscripts— the Bible of Charles the Bald already
referred to, that of St. Denis, and another of the ninth
century, the New Testament portion of which has now dis-
appeared. He afterwards published in 1538-40 another

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

127

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

The latter part of this decree was carried into effect in Sixtine.
the papacy of Sixtus V. His predecessor, Pius V., began the
work of revising the text of the Bible, and a " Congre-
gatio pro emendatione Bibliorum " gave twenty-six sittings
to it in the year 1569. His successor seems to have allowed
the work to lapse, but Sixtus V. appointed a new com-
mission for the purpose under the Presidency of Cardinal
Caraffa. The Pope himself revised the result of their
labours, which was printed at the Vatican Press that he had
founded. This edition, which takes its name from him,
was issued under the Bull " Aeternus ille" of the 1st March
1589, and published in the following year. It is the first
official edition of the Vulgate. Sixtus died on the 27th
August 1590, and was succeeded by four Popes in the space
of two years. His fourth successor in the Chair of Peter,
Clement VIII., issued a new edition under the name of Clementine,
the old Pope, accompanied by the Bull "Cum sacrorum"
of the 9th November 1592. This edition, containing a
preface written by Cardinal Bellarmin, was substituted for
the former, and has continued from that day without any
alteration as the authorised Bible of the entire Roman

128

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

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

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

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

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

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

W.-W.)

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

chap, ii.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

129

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rus. The so-called Rush worth Gospels, written by an Irish

130

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

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

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

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

tol. Written in the eighth century : this manuscript, which
was written by a Visigoth, was given by Servandus of Seville
to John, Bishop of Cordova, who presented it to the See of
Seville in 988 : it was afterwards at Toledo, and is now at
Madrid. It was collated for the Sixtine Recension by
Palomares, but reached Rome too late to be of use. (T in
W.-W.)

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

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

1. G. Riegler, Kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, Sulzbach, 1820;
Lean, van Ess, Pragma tisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata im Allge-
meinen und zunachst in Beziehung auf das Trientische Decret,
Tiibingen, 1824 ; Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz, 1868 ;
Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers sihles du moyen
age, Paris, 1893 (List of the chief works dealing with the history of
the Vulgate given on p. xxii. ff.).

2. On the subject of the Itala see Ziegler, Die Lateinischen Bibel-
ubersetzungcn vor Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus, Munich,
1879; Zycha, Bemerkungen zur Itala/rage, in the Eranos Vindo-

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

131

bonensis, ,893, 177-184; Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala
(■texts and Studies, vol. iv., No. 3, 1896).

3. On the language see Rdnsch (d. 1888), Itala und Vulgata, and
Edition 1875; also 2% dltesten lateinischen- Bibeliibersetzungen nach
threm Werthe fiir die lateinische S/rachwissenscha/t, by the same
SW C ff anea ****** Bremen, ,891, 1-20; Kaulen,
Handbuch zur Vulgata, Eine systematise/^ Darstellung ihres Sprach-
charakters, Mainz, 1870. Saalfeld, De Bibliorum S. Vulgata Edi-
twms Graecttate, Quedlinburg, 1891.

4- Editions of the Text:-Among the earlier works the most
important is that of Sabatier, which is not yet superseded, in the
Old Testament at least, Bibliorum sacrorum Latince Versiones antique,
sen Vetus Itahca, etcetera: quacunque in codicibus MSS. et antiquorum
hbns reperxn potuerunt, etc., opera et studio D. Petri Sabatier, 3 vols
foho,> Rhe.ms, 1743. J os . Bianchini (Blanchinus), Evangeliarium
Quadruples, 2 vols, folio, Rome, , 749 (copies now cost about £4)
After a long interval work in this field has been resumed in the Old
Latin Biblical Texts, published at the Clarendon Press, Oxford, of
which four parts have appeared :_x. The Gospel according to St.
Matthew from th, St. Germain MS. ( gl ), now numbered Lat. lI553
in the National Library at Paris, with Introduction and five Aplen-
^ydited by John Wordsworth, D.D., 1883 (6/-). 2. Portions of
gospels according to St. Mark and St. Matthew from the Bobbio
MS.Jk), naiv numbered G. VII. ,5 i„ the National Library at Turin
together with other fragments of the Gospels from six MSS. in the
Libraries of St Gall, Coire, Milan, and Berne (usually cited as
n, op as, and t). Edited, with the aids of Tischendorfs Tran-
scripts and the printed Texts of Ranke, Ceriani, and Hagen, with two
facsimiles, by J. Wordsworth, D.D. W.Sandav DD

°M V^Ts MA ' l886 (2lA) - 3- The Four Gospels.Jrom the
Munich MS( q ), now numbered Lat. 6224 in the Royal Library at
Munich with a Fragment from St. John in the HofBibliolhTkat

sZTi ( S*,w- S °"> EditCd > Witk * aid "f TiscindorfsTrat
script (under the direction of the Bishop of Salisbury), by H.J. White,

1 The New Testament is contained in vol ii; xi, i

.743 on the .h.e-pages of three vo.utsZ ih "a isl t e ° at thTeL" "* **
wh.ch says, •• E preIo exiit hic tomus ^ «« ™ at * <" d ; P- ">S,

P. .350, .s a misprint. The imprimaturs of thefirst votrTar darf ' " Th"
work was reprinted with new title-pages at Paris bv Fr nl ? , J 37 -' "

cost from £15 to ^25. y dot> ' 7S '- Co P ies "°w

132

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Dialects.

Bohairic.

M.A 1888 (12/6). 4. Portions of the Acts of the Apostles, of the
Epistle of St. James, and of the First Epistle of St. Peter from the
Bobbio Palimpsest (s), now numbered Cod. 16 in the Imperial Library
at Vienna. Edited, with the aid of Tischendorfs and Belsheim's
printed Texts, by H.J. White, M.A., with a Facsimile, 1897 (5/-).
(See notice in the Expository Times, April 1898, p. 320 ff.)

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

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

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

(c.) EGYPTIAN VERSIONS.

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

What used till lately to be called Coptic 1 is merely one of
the dialects into which the language of ancient Egypt was
divided. And here we must distinguish three main branches—
the Bohairic, the Sahidic, and the Middle Egyptian.

(1) Bohairic 2 is the name given to the dialect that was
spoken in the Bohaira— i.e. the district by the sea and there-
fore Lower Egypt, the neighbourhood of Alexandria. It was

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

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

133

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

(2) Sahidic is the name used to describe the dialect of Sahidic.
Upper Egypt It is sometimes and not improperly spoken

of as the Thebaic in distinction to the Memphitic.

(3) Under the Middle Egyptian l we have to distinguish — Middle
(a) The Fayumic, spoken in the Fayum — i.e. the district to the Byptiao '

S.W. of the Delta, watered by the Joseph Canal, and separated
from the valley of the Nile by a narrow strip of the desert It
was in this district that those recent papyrus discoveries were
made which have enriched the libraries and museums of Europe.
(6) The Middle Egyptian proper, or Lower Sahidic, a dialect
which has its home on the site of ancient Memphis.

(c) The dialect of Achinim, which preserves a more primitive
form of early Egyptian than any of those already referred to.
In the eleventh century the Coptic Bishop Athanasius
specifies three dialects of the Coptic language— the Bohairic,
the Sahidic, and a third which he says was already extinct,
and to which he give's the name of Bashmuric ; but whether
this last is to be identified with the dialects included above
under the name of Middle Egyptian, is not quite certain.

(1.) The Bohairic Version.
This version, formerly designated as the Coptic, was first Bohairic.
used for the New Testament by Bishop Fell of Oxford, who
was indebted for his knowledge of it to Marshall. It was
afterwards employed by Mill for his edition of 1707. It was
first published in 17 16 by Wilkins (or rather Wilke), a

' On the Middle Egyptian, see W. E. Crum in the Journal of Thuhrtcal
Studies, I. 3 (April 1900), pp. 416 ff. J n ""° sica '

134

CREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Sahidic,

Prussian who had settled in England, with the title, "Novum
Testamentum Aegyptium vulgo Copticum." His edition was
accompanied with a Latin translation. In 1734 Bengel
obtained a few particulars regarding this version from La
Croze, the Berlin Librarian. An edition of the Gospels by
Moritz Schwartze appeared in 1846-47, and after his death
the Acts and Epistles were published (1852) by Paul Boet-
ticher, afterwards distinguished under his adopted name of
de Lagarde. About the same time Tattam prepared a wholly
uncritical edition of the entire New Testament, including the
Apocalypse which did not originally form part of this version. 1
Steindorff is of opinion that the Bohairic version originated
in the Natron Valley during the fourth or fifth century, but
others affirm that it is older, or at all events rests on an older
foundation. The order of the New Testament books was origin-
ally: (1) the Gospels, in which John stood first, followed by
Matthew, Mark, Luke, (2) the Pauline Epistles, with Hebrews
between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim., (3) the seven Catholic Epistles, and
(4) the Acts. More than fifty Bohairic manuscripts are pre-
served in the libraries of Europe, and from these an edition has
been prepared for the Clarendon Press in two volumes, with
exhaustive Introduction by G. Horner (1898).

The Greek text on which this version is based is regarded
by present critics as particularly pure, and free from so-called
Western additions.

(2.) The Sahidic Version.
It was a long time before this version attracted any atten-
tion. In his New Testament, Wilkins mentioned two manu-
scripts, " lingua plane a reliquis MSS. Copticis diversa," and
Woide in 1778 announced his intention of editing certain
fragments of the New Testament " iuxta interpretationem
superioris Aegypti quae Thebaidica vocatur," which were
afterwards published by Ford in 1799- At the close of last
century and the beginning of this, various other fragments

' Westcott, Canon, Fart II., chapter ii., § I aibfinem.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

135

were issued by Tuki, Mingarelli, Miinter, Zoega, and Engel-
breth, but it was not till more recent times that really import-
ant parts of the Old and New Testaments were published
by Amelineau, Ciasca (in two vols.), Bouriant, Maspero,
Ceugney, and Krall. In 1895 Goussen gave us a large part of
the Apocalypse. 1 This version, like the former, contained the
entire New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse,
and originally exhibited the Gospels in the same order — John,
Matthew, Mark, Luke. Hebrews, however, stood between
2 Corinthians and Galatians. Its Greek original was quite
different from that of the Bohairic version. (See Plate VIII.)

(3.) The Middle Egyptian Versions.

Of these only fragments are as yet known to exist. Portions Middle
of Matthew and John, and of 1 Cor., Ephes., Phil., Thess., and E eyP tian -
Hebrews in the Fayumic, or, as it used to be called, the Bash-
muric dialect, were first published by Zoega in 1809, by Engel-
brethin 181 1, and especially by Bouriant( 1889) and Crum( 1893).

Fragments in the Lower Sahidic have been published in the "
Mitteilungcn aus der Sammlniig der Papyrus des Erzherzogs
Raincr.

In the Achmim dialect, James iv. 12, 13 and Jude 17-20
are the only fragments that have been discovered as yet, and
these have been published by Crum. Whether these frag-
ments are really parts of a separate version, or merely dialec-
tical modifications of the Sahidic, is not quite certain. 2

As to the date of these versions we have no definite informa-
tion. It has been understood from certain passages in the
Life of St. Anthony, who was born about the year 250, that
in his boyhood he heard the Gospel read in Church in the
language of Egypt, but that need not imply the existence of
a written version, as the translation may have been made by a

1 H. Hyvemat, Un fragment in/dit de /aversion sahidique du Nouvcau Testament
(Ephes. i. 6-ii. Si). Revue Biblique, April 1900, pp. 248-253. The fragment
is of the eighth or ninth century.

3 See also the Greek and Middle Egyptian manuscript published by Crum and
Kcnyon, referred to above, p. 70.

>3 6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

137

reader who interpreted as he read. In the third century,
however, versions may have arisen, and it was certainly in the
South that the first attempts at translation were made. Our
oldest known manuscripts, a Sahidic containing 2 Thess. iii.,
and one in Middle Egyptian of Jude 17-20, date from the
fourth or fifth century. The Sahidic version seems to have
been made first, then the Middle Egyptian, and finally the
Bohairic. To what extent the one influenced the other is a
question requiring further investigation.

A correct edition and a critical application of these Egyptian
versions is, next to a fresh examination of the minuscules,
the task of most importance at present for the textual criticism
of the New Testament. For the Sahidic version in particular
represents a type of text found hitherto almost exclusively in
the West, and looked upon as the outcome of Western corrup-
tion and licence, whereas it may really bear the most re-
semblance to the original form. In the Acts especially its
agreement with the text of Codex D is remarkable. One
might instance, e.g., the mention of Pentecost in Acts i. 5, the
insertion of the Golden Rule in its negative form in xv. 20, 29,
the relation of the vision in xvi. 10, and the description of the
stone which twenty men could not roll away in Luke xxiii. 53,
all of which are now found in a Greek-Sahidic manuscript.
The Sahidic version, like the Bohairic, is well represented in
European libraries, and the manuscripts are dated as a rule
in the Egyptian fashion according to the years of the Martyrs —
i.e. according to an era reckoned from August or September
284 A.D.

TiGr., 859-893. Scrivener 4 , ii. 91-144, revised by Horner, with
additions by Headlam. H. Hyvemat, Etude sur les Versions Copies
de la Bible (Revue Biblique, v. (1896) 427-433, 540-569; vi. 1 (1897)
48-74. Urt., 144-147. Forbes Robinson, Egyptian Versions, in
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i. (1898) 668-673. w - E -
Crum, Coptic Studies from the Egypt Exploration Fund's Report for
1897-1898, 15 pp. 4to. For the Gospels, Horner's edition eclipses all
others. It is entitled, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the

Northern dialect, otherwise called Memphitic or Bohairic, with Intro-
duction, Critical Apparatus, and literal English Translation. Vol. I.
Introduction, Matthew and Mark, cxlviii. 484. Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1898; Vol. II. Luke and John, 548 pp., 1898. See notice
by Hyvemat in the Revue Biblique, 1899, pp. 148-iS . and also w - E -
Crum, lib. cit., where reference is also made to the Manuscrits Copies
au Muse'e . . . . a Leide, 1897. As Horner's edition as yet only
covers the Gospels, the remaining portions of the New Testament
must still be sought in the two parts published by Lagarde after
Schwartze's death, Acta Apostolorum coptice (1852), and Epistulac
Novi Testamenti coptice (1852). On Brugsch's Recension in the
Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vii. (1853) pp.
ii5-i2i,see ibid., p. 456, and Lagarde, Aus dem deutschen Gclehrten-
leben, pp. 25-65, 73-77. Tattam's Bohairic-Arabic edition was pub-
lished by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The first fragments of the New Testament in Sahidic appeared in
Tuki's Rudimenta in 1778, and Woide's editio princeps, announced
in the same year, was brought out after his death by Ford in 1799.
Amelineau's Fragments Thibaines in'edits du Nouveau Testament
were published in vols, xxiv.-xxvi. of the Zeitschrift fur dgyptische
Sprache (1 886-1 888). Considerable portions of the Apocalypse
were issued in facsimile by Goussen in the first Fasciculus of his
Studia Theologica (Lipsiae, 1897). Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical
writings have also been discovered in recent times, as, for example,
the Acta Pauli in a manuscript of the seventh century, written in
Sahidic consonants with Middle Egyptian vocalisation. These
are to be published by A. Schmidt. See Addenda, p. xv.

See also Amelineau, Notice des manuscrits copies de la Bibliothique
Nationale renfermant des textes bilingues du Nouveau Testament, in
the Athenaum, No. 3601, p. 599.

The foregoing versions are those of most importance in the
criticism of the text. There are, however, one or two others
which, though inferior in value, are still interesting. Among
these is—

(d.) THE GOTHIC VERSION.

This is the work of Ulfllas — i.e. Wolflin — a Cappadocian by Gothic,
descent, who in the year 340 succeeded Theophilus, the first

138

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Bishop of the Goths. 1 While the tribe was still settled in the
Crimea, he is said to have invented an alphabet, and translated
both the Old and the New Testament for their use. In the Old
Testament Ulfilas followed the Septuagint according to the
Recension of Lucian of Antioch (d. 312), which circulated in
the diocese of Constantinople. In the New Testament the
text is likewise essentially that of Chrysostom. The traces of
Latin influence which were supposed to be discernible in the
version, and which may either have existed from the first or
been introduced at a later time, relate at most, perhaps, to
matters of orthography.

(1) The Gothic version first became known through the
so-called Codex Argenteus which Ant. Morillon, Granvella's
secretary, and Mercator the geographer saw in the Monastery
of Werden in the sixteenth century. It was afterwards seen
at Prague by Richard Strein (d. 1601). In 1648 it was
brought to Sweden as a prize of war, and presented to Queen
Christina, or her librarian, Isaac Voss. It was purchased by
Marshall de la Gardie in 1662, bound in silver, and deposited
in the library at Upsala, where it has since remained. Ten
leaves were stolen from the manuscript between 182 1 and
1834, but restored, after many years, by the thief upon his
deathbed. This magnificent Codex was written in the fifth
or sixth century on purple with gold and silver lettering. It
now comprises 187 leaves out of 330, and contains fragments
of the four Gospels in the order, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark.
It was published for the first time in 1665, from a transcript
made by Derrer ten years before.

(2) Codex Carolinus, the Wolfenbiittel palimpsest already
referred to as Q of the Gospels (see p. 69 above) and the
Old Latin gue of Paul (see p. 1 18), contains some forty verses
of the Epistle to the Romans. It was first published in 1762.

1 The dates of Ulfilas' birth and death are uncertain. He certainly lived till
autumn 381 or 383. The date of his life is variously given as 310-380 or 318-388.
According to Kauffmann, the Synod at which Ulfilas was consecrated Bishop was
that of Antioch, De Emaeniis, 341.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

139

(3) Fragments of seven palimpsests in the Ambrosian
Library at Milan, discovered by Cardinal Mai in 1817. Like
Codex Carolinus, they are in all probability from the
Monastery of Bobbio. They exhibit part of the Pauline
Epistles and fragments of the Gospels. A few quotations
from Hebrews are also found in a theological work. No
portion of Acts, (Hebrews), Catholic Epistles, or Apocalypse
has as yet been discovered. Editions of the Gothic version
have been published by Gabelentz and Lobe (1836-1843),
Stamm (1858), Heyne "(1872) (i8a6), Bernhardt (Halle, 1875,
1884), and Balg (Milwaukee, 1891). St. Mark was edited by
Miiller and Hoppe in 1881, and by Skeat in 1882.

Literature. — On Ulfilas, see Scott, Ulfilas, the Apostle of the
Goths, Cambr., 1885. Bradley, The Goths, in the "Story of the
Nations " Series, 1 888. Gwatkin, Studies ofArianism, 1 882. Urt., pp.
1 19-120, where see literature, to which add Eckstein, Ulfilas und die
gothische Uebersetzung der Bibel, in Westermann's Illustr. MonatShefte,
Dec. 1892, 403-407 ; Jostes, Das Todesjahr des Ulfilas und der Ueber-
tritt der Gothen zum Arianismus (Beitrdge zur Geschichte der deutschen
Sprache, xxii. i. 158 ff.). Jostes gives 383 as the date of Ulfilas's
death. On the other side, see Kauffmann, Der Arianismus des
Wulfila in the ZfdPhil, xxx. (1897) 93-113; Luft, Die arian-
ischen Quellen iiber Wulfila in the ZfdAltert., xlii. 4 ; Vogt, Zu
Wulfila's Bekenntnis und dem Opus imperfectum, ibid. Kauffmann,
Beitrdge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibeliibersetzung in the
ZfdPhil.; (ii.) das N. T. (xxx., 1897, 145-183); (iii.) das gotische
Matthdusevangelium und die Itala ; (iv.) die griechische Vorlage des
gotischen Johannesevangeliums (xxxi., 1898, 177-198): also by the
same author, Aus der Schule des Wulfila. Auxentii Dorostorensis
epistula de Fide, Vita, et Obitu Wulfila im Zusammenhang der
Dissertatio Maximini contra Ambrosium herausgegeben. Strassburg,
1899. P. Batiffol, De quelques homilies de St. Chrysostome et de la ver-
sion gothique des ecritures (Revue Biblique, Oct. 1899, pp. 566-572),
see also ThLz., 1900, No. i. ; LCbl., 1900, No. 28. On the relation
of the Gothic version to the codex Brixianus (f), see Burkitt in
the Journal of Theological Studies, i. p. 131 ff.,and compare Addenda,
p. xv.

On the Gothic language^and writing, see Douse, Introduction to

1 4 o

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT:

[CHAP. II.

the Gothic of Ulfilas. London, 1886 ; the grammars of Braune and
Skeat, and the dictionaries of Schulze, Heyne, and Bernhardt ; see
also Luft, Studien zu den iiltesten germanischen Alfabtten, Giitersloh,
1898, viii. 115, who traces eighteen characters to the Greek alphabet
and nine to the Latin and Ulfilas's own invention. On R. Lowe's
Reste der Germanen am schwarzen Meer (Halle, 1896), see the
story told by Melanchthon according to Pirkheimer (Th. St. und
Kr., 1897, 784 ff.).

To what extent the remaining ancient versions were taken
directly from the Greek or influenced by one or other of those
already described is still subject of dispute.

(e.) THE ETHIOPIC VERSION.

According to the tradition of the Abyssinian Church, the
Ethioplc version of the New Testament was made from the
Greek previous to the fifth century. Dillmann accepts this
as correct, but Gildemeister would assign it to the sixth or
seventh century, and thinks that traces are discernible of
Syrian Monophysitism. Guidi decides for the end of the
fifth or beginning of the sixth century. In addition to the
usual twenty-seven books, the Ethiopic New Testament has an
Appendix consisting of a work on Canon Law in eight books
called the Synodos, so that the Ethiopian Church reckons in
all thirty-five books in the New Testament In later times
the version was undoubtedly corrected from Arabic and Coptic
texts. The first edition appeared in Rome in 1548-1549, but
neither it nor those issued since are of any real critical worth.

At least a hundred Ethiopic manuscripts, mostly of late
origin, exist in the libraries of Europe. What is perhaps the
oldest is preserved in Paris. It dates from the thirteenth
century, and exhibits the Gospels in an unrevised text.

Literature. — See TiGr., 894-912. Scrivener, ii. 154 ff. re-written
by Margoliouth. Urt., 147-150 (F. Praetorius). R. H. Charles,
Ethiopic Version in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, i 791-793.
C. Conti Rossini, Sulla Versione e sulla Revisione delle Sacre Scritturt
in Etiopico, in the Z. fitr Assyriologie, x. 2, 3 (1895). The view of

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

141

Lagarde (Ankiindigung, 1882, p. 28; cf. also Gesammelte Abhand-
lungen, lxi. 113), that this version may have been made from the
Arabic or Egyptian in the fourteenth century, is now generally
rejected.

{/.) THE ARMENIAN VERSION.

La Croze, the Berlin Librarian, thought this the " Queen of
the Versions."

Till the fifth century of the Christian era Syrian influence
was supreme in Armenia, and the inhabitants of that region
first received the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
in the form of a translation from the Syriac. But in the year
433 two pupils of Mesrob, returning from the Synod of
Ephesus, are said to have brought back with them from Con-
stantinople a Greek Bible, and having learned Greek in Alex-
andria, to have translated it into Armenian. According to
another account this was done by St. Sahak (390-428) about
the year 406. The first edition of the Armenian New Testa-
ment was brought out in Amsterdam in the year 1666 l by
Osgan of Eriwan, who had been sent to Europe four years
previously by the Armenian Synod. It was edited from a
defective manuscript, the missing portions of which Osgan
supplied from the Vulgate. A better edition was published
in 1789 by Zohrab, who used twenty manuscripts, and especi-
ally a Cilician Codex of the year 13 10. He was of opinion
that the Armenians did not receive the Apocalypse before the
eighth century. Zohrab's text was collated for Tregelles by
Rieu, whom Tischendorf seems to have drawn upon in his
editions.

The Armenian manuscripts display variations of several
sorts. In some John's Gospel precedes the Synoptists, in
others it is followed by the Apocryphal " Rest of St. John."
The Apocalypse was not read in church prior to the twelfth
century. In the oldest manuscript of the entire New Testa-
ment, at Venice, which dates from the year 1220, the order of

1 Or ins according to the Armenian reckoning.

142

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

the other books is Acts, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse, Pauline
Epistles, with the Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul. In
Moscow there is a manuscript of the year 887, in Venice one
dated 902, in Etschmiadzin one written in the year 986 and
bound in ivory covers of the third or fourth century. In the
last-mentioned Codex the words, " of Ariston the Presbyter,"
are found after Mark xvi. 8, as the heading of what follows.
(See Plate IX.) We learn from this, what is evidently correct,
viz., that the present conclusion of Mark's Gospel is due to a
certain Ariston, who may perhaps be identified with Aristion,
the teacher of Papias in the second century. The earlier
Armenian version also contained the two verses Luke xxii.
43, 44, which were omitted in the later.

Literature. — TiGr., 912-922. Scrivener, ii. 148-154. F. C.
Conybeare, Armenian Versions of N. T, in Hastings' Bible Diction-
ary, \, 153 f. See also J. A. Robinson, Euthaliana, c. v. ; The
Armenian Version and its supposed relation to Euthalius, in Texts
and Studies, vol. iii. (1895). On Aristion see Expositor, 1894,
]). 241, and below, p. 295.

(g.) THE GEORGIAN VERSION.

This version, called also the Grusinian or Iberian, is thought
to have been made from the Greek in the sixth century, though
it may also be derived from the Armenian. It contains the
pericope adulters (John vii. 53-viii. 1 1), but places it immedi-
ately after ch. vii. 44, which is the more remarkable, seeing
that in the Old Latin Codex b, the passage from vii. 44
onwards has been erased. The Georgian version was first
printed at Moscow in 1743.

Scrivener, ii. 156-158; rewritten by F. C. Conybeare. TiGr.,
922 f.

(ll.) THE ARAUIC VERSIONS.

Some of these were made directly from the Greek, others
from the Syriac and the Coptic, while there are also manu-
scripts exhibiting a recension undertaken at Alexandria in

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

'43

the thirteenth century, The New Testament was even cast
into that form of rhymed prose made classic by the Koran.
As early as the eighth century we find Mohammedan scholars
quoting various passages of the New Testament, particularly
the sayings regarding the Paraclete in John xv. 26, 27, xvi. 13,
which they understood of Mohammed. He himself, however,
knew the Gospel narrative from oral tradition only. The
oldest known manuscript is perhaps one at Sinai, written in
the ninth century, from which Mrs. Gibson edited the text of
Romans, .1 and 2 Cor., Gal., and Ephes. i. i-ii. 9, in the Studia
Sinaitica, ii. The four Gospels were published in 1864 by
Lagarde from a Vienna manuscript, in which a number of
various readings were cited from the Coptic, Syriac, and Latin,
this last, e.g., being adduced in support of a reading hitherto
found only in D, one Old Latin (g), and the Lewis-Syriac :
ovk €tatu Svo tj rpeis (rui»]yfxevoi .... Trap' off ovk et/ii ev fiitrw
avrwv (Matthew xviii. 20). The first edition of the Gospels
appeared at Rome in 1591. In common with the remaining Other
versions of the New Testament, Persic, Old High German, versio1
Anglo-Saxon, Bohemian, and Slavonic, these secondary Arabic
versions are not only exceedingly interesting from the point
of view of the history of language and culture, but they are
also valuable here and there for the restoration of the original
text. In the present work, however, we cannot enter more
fully into them.

Literature.— TiGr., 928-947. Scrivener, ii. 161-164. Urt,
>5°-'55- *". C. Burkitt, Arabic Versions, in Hastings^ Dictionary^
vf the Bible, i. 136-138, where see literature. liurkitt thinks that
the oldest monument of Arabic Christianity is the manuscript
formerly belonging to the Convent of Mar Saba, now known as
Cod. Vat. Arab. 13, and numbered 101 in TiGr., which is generally
assigned to the eighth century. It originally contained the Psalter,
Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, and is derived from the Syriac. Frag-
ments of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and of the Pauline Epistles, are
all that now remain. From the same convent come two manuscripts
of the ninth century, containing a version made directly from the

144

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Greek, and perhaps ultimately derived from the Greek-Arabic
manuscript cited as @ h , of which only four leaves have been pre-
served (see above, p. 72). On a Graeco-Arabic MS. connected
with the Ferrar Group (211"), see Lake in the Journal of Theological
Studies, i. 117 ff. Most of the Coptic manuscripts are accompanied
by an Arabic version. The one contained in Cod. Vat. Copt. 9 of the
year 1202 is the best, and forms the basis of our printed editions.
The first revision was undertaken in the year 1250, at Alexandria,
by Hibat Allah ibn el-Assal, and a second towards the end of the
thirteenth century, from which the variants in Lagarde's edition are
derived. An Arabic version of the Acts and all seven Catholic
Epistles, found in a ninth century manuscript at Sinai, and numbered
154 in Mrs. Gibson's Catalogue, is published by her in Studia
Sinaitica, vii. (1899).

For the remaining versions of the N. T, see Scrivener, ii. pp.
158-166 (Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Persic). These minor
versions will be treated in vol. iv. of Hastings' Bible Dictionary,
under the general heading of Versions. See also Urtext und
Uebersetzungen der Bibel.

3. Quotations.

Syr third source of material for the restoration of the text
of the New Testament is Quotations found in other books.
These are of great value, because they represent, for the most
part, definite manuscripts existing in certain places at the
time of the writer quoting them, and also because a large
number of them belong to a time from which no codices
have come down to us. The value of their testimony de-
pends, of course, on the conditions already mentioned (p.
32) — viz., that the author quoted accurately, and the copyist
copied faithfully, and the editor edited correctly. Quotations
made by Jewish writers as well as by Christian will fall to be
considered, only it is doubtful if in their case we have more
than one or two uncertain allusions to Matthew v. 17. So,
too, will the quotations made by pagan opponents of Chris-
tianity, particularly those of Celsus in the second century, and
of the Emperor Julian. But here again we are not in posses-

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

sion of their complete works, which can only be restored by a
similar process and with more or less uncertainty from the
quotations from them found in the writings of the Apologists. 1
The books of those Christian Churches which were isolated
from the main church will also be valuable. Even a verse of
Scripture carved upon a stone in an old ruin may have some-
thing to tell us.

Brief quotations were usually made from memory. It was
not so convenient to turn up the passage in an old manuscript
as it is now in our handy printed editions. 2 In the case of
longer passages and verbal quotations generally, indolent
copyists were sometimes content with simply adding xai ra
e£ijs. In the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 22, for example, where
the entire prayer of Manasses was meant to be given, the
copyist of a certain manuscript, 3 after writing the opening
words from Kvpte down to Stxalov, omitted all the rest,
amounting to thirty-one lines of print, substituting simply
km to (£>js Ttjs evxnf a vfieit ovk ayvouTe. (See further,
Apost. Const., i. 7, Lagarde, p. 8, 23 ; ii. 14, p. 28, 7. 1 1 ; 29, 2).
This, however, is not without its parallel in modern times.
As late as 1872, an Oxford editor, in bringing out Cyril of
Alexandria's Commentary on the Gospel according to St.
John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the
quotations in his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to
set up the rest from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus.
Another editor in Vienna, in preparing an edition of Cyprian's
Works, preferred those very manuscripts in which the Scrip-
tural quotations had been accommodated to the current text
of later times. Only when a quotation is given by an author

1 Celsus's polemic against Christianity has perished, but considerable fragments
are embedded in Origen's Reply. See Antc-Niccne Christian Library, vol xxiii
(Clark, Edin.).

J Clement of Alexandria cites Matt, xviii. 3 in four different ways. He quotes
Matt. v. 45 six times, and only once accurately.

3 Pelropol. gr. 254, formerly cited as Paris, coisl. 212, written in the year mi
the oldest manuscript that Lagarde was able to use for his edition of the Apostolic
Constitutions. Further examples of the untrustworthincss of manuscripts and
printed editions will be found in the small print at the end of this section

146

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

several times in exactly the same form is it safe to depend on
the actual wording, or when in a Commentary, e.g., the con-
text agrees with the quoted text. Collections of Scriptural
passages like the Testimonia of Cyprian and the so-called
Speculum of Augustine are also taken directly from manu-
scripts of the Bible.

Francis Lucas of Brugge was the first to explore the
writings of the Church Fathers for the express purposes of
textual criticism. They are referred to in four notes found in
the Complutensian Polyglot. In his edition of 1 5 16, Erasmus
cites a whole series of Patristic witnesses — Ambrosius,
Athanasius, Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzen,
Origen, and Theodoret. Since that time all judicious critics
have paid attention to them. Valuable service has been
rendered for Tertullian by Ronsch, and for Origen by
Griesbach. For Augustine, Lagarde is specially to be men-
tioned. Most ot the Fathers were thus cared for by Burgon,
who indexed the New Testament quotations in sixteen large
volumes, which were deposited in the British Museum after
his death. The only pity is that the works of those very
Fathers that are of most importance are not yet satisfactorily
edited. All the more welcome, therefore, is the appearance
of the Vienna Academy's Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Latinorum, of which forty volumes have been issued since
1 867, and of the Berlin Academy's edition of the Ante-Nicene
Greek Fathers, of which one volume of Hippolytus and two of
Origen have made their appearance. 1

The earliest Fathers are valuable chiefly for the history of
the Canon. That is to say, their evidence must be taken
simply as showing what New Testament writings they were
acquainted with, and here the argumentum ex silentio is to
be applied with caution. This is the case with Barnabas and
Clement' 1 in the first century, and Ignatius and Hennas in the

1 See extended note (2) at the end of the chapter, p. 149.

1 On the question whether Clement of Rome knew the second Epistle of Paul
to the Corinthians, see J. H. Kennedy, The Second and Third E[>islles of St. Paul
to the Corinthians. London, 1900, p. 142 ff.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

147

first half of the second. Even with the much more extensive
writings of Justin, there is still considerable dispute — e.g., as to
what Gospels he made use of. 1 Irenaus of Lyons is valuable
on account of his extreme carefulness, and would be particu-
larly so if it could be proved that he brought his New Testa-
ment with him from Smyrna 2 and if his writings were extant
in Greek, and not, as is the case with most of them, in Latin
only. In Egypt Clement of Alexandria holds a prominent place,
but by far the most distinguished of all is the great Biblical
scholar of antiquity, Origen (d. 248). Already we find these
writers appealing to manuscripts, and distinguishing them by
such epithets as " good," " old," " emended," " most," or " few."
In the case of the Ante-Nicene Fathers their locality is an
important consideration, whether Antioch, Cassarea (Eusebius),
Egypt. Constantinople {Chrysostom), or Cappadocia {Theodore),
etc. Their expositions of Scripture are preserved in the so-
called Catenae, or continuous commentaries, in which the
interpretations of different Fathers are arranged continuously
like the links of a chain. It not unfrequently happens in
these Catenae that the words of one writer are cited under the
name of another. The evidence afforded by the writings of
the Heretics is no less valuable, if we except those passages,
which are not numerous, in which they are understood to have
altered the text of the Scriptures. The works of Marcion have
been preserved for the most part in Latin by Tertullian. They
have recently been collected and restored by Zahn. The
Latin translator of Irenasus also belongs, in all probability,
to the time of Tertullian, and not to the fourth century. This
unknown translator seems to have preserved the Scriptural
quotations of Irenaeus with greater fidelity than the later
Church Fathers who cite them in the Greek. Of Latin
writers contemporary with or subsequent to Tertullian, those
of most importance for the text of the Old Latin Bible are
Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine and

1 Westcott, Canon, Part I., c. ii. 7.
1 Ibia., Part II., c. i. I. ; c. ii. 4.

1 48

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAT. II.

his opponent Petals, and for the Apocalypse, Tyconius and
PrimasiM, From the works of Augustine Lagarde collected
no fewer than 29540 quotations from the New Testament
in addition to 13276 from the Old.

Valuable testimony is also afforded by Syrian and Armenian
writers. It is only with their assistance, e.g., that it has been
possible to restore one of our oldest authorities— the Diatessaron
of Tatian— which dates from the second century.

(1) Further examples might be adduced of the unreliable nature
of manuscripts and printed editions.

We find, e.g., in the voluminous commentary of the so-called
Ambrosiast'er, 1 the following note on the quotation in 1 Cor. ii. 9 :—
"Eye hath not seen, etc."— "hoc est scriptum in Apocalypsi Hehae
in apocryphis." In place of the last five words, two manuscripts and
all the printed editions previous to that of St. Maur— i.e. prior to
the year 1690— have "in Esaia propheta aliis verbis."

Compare also what Zahn says in his Einleitung, ii. 314- "A
comparison of the quotations in Matthew with the LXX. is rendered
more difficult by the fact that in manuscripts of the latter written
by Christians, and especially in Cod. Alexandrinus, the text of the
O. T. has been accommodated to the form in which it is cited in
the N. T. C/., also, p. 563 on the quotation from Zechariah
xii. 10, found in John xix. 37. The same writer says (p. 465) : " I"
the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos (circa 860), all the manu-
scripts save one assert the peaceful death of John (cV «pto
avtwavcraTo), but this one says the very opposite, paprvpiov «ar^Wai,
and goes on to make certain other additions." On the other hand,
we must not forget in this connection the testimony preserved by

• Ambrosiaster is Ihe name given to the unknown writer of a Commentary on
the Pauline Epistles, which till the time of Erasmus was attributed to Ambrose.
In recent times Dom G. Morin has raise.l the question whether the writer may
not be one Isaac, who is known to have lived in the papacy of Damasus. He
was a Jewish convert to Christianity, and afterwards returned to his former faith.
See Dom ('.. Morin, V Ambrosiaster el Icjttif convert! Isaac, (oiitemforam du fape
Damase, in the Kevue d Histoirc et dc Literature religkusts, iv. 2 (1899), 112.
This writer informs us that a new edition of the whole of Ambros.aslcr will be
brought out by A. Amelli on the basis of a very old manuscript from Monte Cassino.
Morin believes that the text of this manuscript, in spite of its age, is " fortement
retouche, Jont on a elimine la plupart des traits vraiinent interessants ' {ibid.,
p. 121).

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

I49

Eusebius to the scrupulous care taken by Irenaeus for the propaga-
tion of his writings in the identical form in which he wrote them.
According to that historian, he wrote at the end of one of his works
the following note : — 'OpKifa <re toi» fi€Taypaij/6p.€vov to fiiP\(ov
tovto Kara toO Kuptov r/fiuiv l-qcrov Xpicrrov koI xard ttjs iv&6£ov irapovcriat
avrov, tjs ipxtrat xpivai fin-as Kal vtKpovi, iva airi/JaAAj/c o fintypaxfiu)
<cai KaTO/jrJwoTjs outo irpos to Avriypaiftov tovto o8tv fxtTiypaipui cirt/xcXuJs,
km toi> opKov toutoi' ofioiuK /Kray/iu^js koX Or/irai iv ra ayTtypdifw. 1

(2) It was Lagarde who most clearly recognised and pointed out the
unsatisfactory way in which the Fathers had previously been edited.
How much care is necessary in the matter of the text is shown by
the discussions connected with the treatment of Scriptural quotations
in the new Vienna edition of Augustine (see Urt., 76, 94 ; Preuschen,
in the ThLz. for 1897, 24, col. 630). Even in the new Berlin
edition one cannot absolutely rely on the form of the Scriptural
quotations exhibited in the text, but must always verify it by means
of an independent examination of the apparatus. A few passages
from the first volume of Origen recently published will show this,
and prove at the same time how faulty the editions have been
hitherto. This first volume of Koetschau's new edition of Origen
opens with the Exhortation to Martyrdom (cis /tapTvpiov Ti-poTpomKot),
a work which is to be assigned to the year 235. The text of
previous editions is grounded solely on a manuscript at Basel
written in the sixteenth century (No. 31, A. iii. 9), which is itself a
copy, and a not altogether correct copy, of a Parisian manuscript
written in the year 1339, not known to the first editors of Origen
(P = suppl. grec. 616). Moreover, the Basel manuscript was not
transcribed with sufficient accuracy, or the print was not super-
intended with sufficient care by the scholar who prepared the first
printed edition of 1674. With the help of a fresh manuscript
(M = Venetus Marc. 45, of the fourteenth century) it is now estab-
lished that the writer of P arbitrarily altered the text in a great
number of passages, and, above all, abridged it mainly by the excision
of Scriptural quotations. Where Origen, e.g., in citing a passage
gives all three Synoptists, P quite calmly drops one of them. The
Panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus is treated in the same way, this
manuscript omitting about too out of some 1200 lines of print. And

1 This reminds us of how Luther used to entreat the printers to let his writings
stand as he wrote them.

ISO

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

these were the texts to which till the present we were referred for our
Patristic quotations I To take an example :

On tous c>ous Ao'yous, Luke ix. 26, Tischendorf, who in his seventh
edition gave tous «>ous ( = my followers) as the correct reading,
observed that this reading, without Ao'yous, was supported by D a e 1
Or., i. 298. But he added— and this is a proof of the carefulness
with which the quotation from Origen is employed here— sed prae-
cedit ovti tira.io"xyvTtov avrov 7/ tows Aoyous avrou. But if we turn
up this passage in the new edition, we find that it now reads (i. 34,
9 ff.) : out' CTrauTxyvT* " o-vtov r] tous oikuous aurou r] tous Xoyovs
avrov, and then the three parallel passages are quoted in the order
frequently found in Origen — viz., Matthew x. 33 = Luke ix. 26 = Mark
viii. 38. Previous editions entirely omitted this last quotation, as
well as the words in the context, 17 tous oik«ous outou. But now
everything is in order. The words out' cn-aio^un-cof avrov refer to
oo-Tis 8' av anapvrjo-r]rai fit in Matt. x. 33 ; tj tous oikcious ovtou to os
yap av nraio-xyvQTj fit koi tous ifiovs in Luke ix. 26.; and 17 tous Aoyous
avrov to os yap av tiraio-xwOrj fit koi tous e/xous Aoyous, in Mark vill. 38.
So that whereas, on the ground of previous editions, Tischendorf was
obliged to point out a discrepancy between Origen's context and his
peculiar quotation from Luke, the context of the new edition serves
to cQB&in this peculiar quotation, and shows at the same time that
we can accept it on the authority of this very passage, as against
a former passage (p. 296 = 31, 7), where the verse in Luke is found
in the newly-employed manuscript also with the words tous c/xous
Aoyous. That the editor should have put Aoyous in the first passage
within brackets, or at least have pointed out the discrepancy between
it and the quotation further down, would have been too much to
expect, seeing that his manuscripts of Origen gave no manner of
ground for doing so ; it is the duty of those who investigate the
Scriptural quotations in Origen to pay attention to such things. But
there are also passages where the editor has actually gone in the face
of his manuscripts, and wrongly altered the text of his Scriptural
quotations, having evidently allowed himself to be influenced by the
printed text of the N. T., and paying too little respect to the
manuscripts.

An attentive reader will have observed that the reading in Luke
ix. 26, tous c/ious = my followers, which is now established for Origen,
is at present supported by D alone of the Greek manuscripts and by
three Old Latin witnesses. (It is also found in the Curetonian

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

15'

Syriac, but unfortunately the corresponding words in the Sinai-Syriac
could not be made out with certainty by Mrs. Lewis ; see Some Pages,
p. 72 = p. 168 in the first edition). Now, look at the passage in
Origen's work, i. 25, 26 ff. (p. 293 in De la Rue's edition) : o /icv yap

Martfatos aveypa(f>( Aeyoira roe Kvpiav . . . . o ot Aovxas . . . . o Of
MapKOS' d/3/3a 6 TraTr/p, Swara ow iraVra- irapbrtyM k.t.K. The passage

is printed thus by Koetschau, agreeing exactly with the earlier
printed editions and our texts of the N. T. in Mark xiv. 36. But
in this he is far wrong. Because, as his own apparatus shows us, the
Venetian manuscript, which he rightly follows elsewhere, reads the
words in the order Swara wavra o-ol, which is exactly the order of
the words (Mark xiv. 36) in D, but again in no other Greek manu-
script with the solitary exception of the cursive 473. 1 But there are
even passages where Koetschau follows the printed text of the N. T. in
the scriptural quotations in despite of both his manuscripts. In i. 29,
•3 ('• 2 95 De la Rue), where Matt. x. 17-23 is quoted, he inserts
after wis y ti AaAiJo-i/Tf the clause SoS^orrai yap ifuv iv iKttvy tjj wpa
ri AaAijo-irrt from Matt. x. 19, on the supposition that these words
may have dropped out of the archetype of M P on account of the
homoioteleuton. But they are also omitted in Cod. D of the N. T.
And this, moreover, is not the only point of agreement between this
manuscript and the text given in this quotation. There is, e.g., the
omission of 8c in v. 17, the reading n-apaSaio-oucrtv in v. 19, which
Koetschau has altered to the more grammatical vapaowo-iv, again with-
out sufficient reason and in defiance of both his manuscripts, and the
omission of ifiwv in v. 20, of which there is no mention in Tischendorf
(see the Collation of D in my Supplementum). Origen also agrees
with D, though not verbally, in reading kclv ix touti/s Stunuo-iv cpcuycrc
cts ttjv oAAr/f further down (v. 23), where again Koetschau seems to
me to have unnecessarily inserted tiji>, which is omitted in his prin-
cipal manuscript and also in D. Compare, also, i. 22, 12, where
Origen agrees with D in reading <ptpu>o-iv (Luke xii. n) instead of

1 Called iv" by Tischendorf, and numbered 81 in Westcott and Hort, and 565 in
TiGr. Mark of this manuscript was edited by Belsheim in 1885, with a collation
of the other three Gospels. It is a valuable cursive, as appears from what is said of
it in W-H : " The most valuable cursive for the preservation of Western readings
in the Gospels is 81, a St. Petersburg manuscript called 2J" by Tischendorf, as
standing second in a list of documents collated by Muralt. It has a large ancient
element, in great measure Western, and in St Mark its ancient readings are
numerous enough to be of real importance." See above, under Codex N
p. 68.

152

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

eio-dWpuio-ii', read by our critical editions on the authority of tt B L X,
or Trpo<T(j>ipw<TU' by the textus receptus with A Q R, etc. Both
concur, also, in the omission of the first rj t( in the same verse.

What is here said as to the close affinity of Origen's Bible with
Codex D is corroborated by the testimony of the Athos manuscript
discovered by von der Goltz (see above, p. 90). This manuscript
confirms what we knew before — viz. that Marcion's text had -xpunov
and not Kupiov or 6c6v in 1 Cor. x. 9. But it also tells us what we
did not know — viz. that xP l<rr ° v was tne on ' v reading known to
Origen, and that Kvpiov in the Synodical Epistle addressed to Paul of
Samosata, published by Turrianus (in Routh's Reliquia Sacra, ill- 2
299), is not the original reading but a later substitute for xpioroV.
This is made out by Zahn in the ThLbl., 1899, col. 180, who con-
cludes by saying that Clement, Eel. Proph., 49, should not be omitted
in a proper apparatus, and that Kvpiov ought never again to be printed
in the text. Our most recent editors, Tischendorf, Westcott and
Hort, Weiss, and Baljon, put Kvpiov in their text without so much as
mentioning xpio-ToV in the margin, or among the Noteworthy Rejected
Readings, or in the list of Interchanged Words (Weiss, p. 7). In the
Stuttgart edition the text is determined by a consensus of previous
editions, and I was obliged to let Kvpiov stand in the text, but I have
put -xpio-Tov in the margin, as Tregelles also did. In this instance the
textus receptus is actually'oetter than our critical editions. The
rejected reading is again the Western, and Zahn, in commenting on
the newly-discovered testimony as to the text of 1 John iv. 3 (see
below, p. 327), pertinently remarks that "here again it is perfectly
evident, as any discerning person might have known, that many
important readings which were wont to be contemptuously dismissed
as Western, were long prevalent in the East as well, not only among
the Syrians but also among the Alexandrians, and were only discarded
by the official recensions of the text that were made subsequent to the
time of Origen." These illustrations will serve to show that not only
is the editing of the Patristic texts no easy matter, but also that the
employment even of the best editions is not unaccompanied with risks.
See Koetschau, Bibelcitate bet Origenes, ZfwTh., 1900, pp. 321-378.

(3) The Rev. Prebendary Ed. Miller is at present at work on a
Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels, on the ground of
Burgon's Collection and his own researches. A specimen of this
work (Matthew v. 44) is given in his Present State oj the Textual
Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels, which was printed for private

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

153

circulation, and may be had of the author. 1 In this little pamphlet
he takes up the question (p. 30) whether Origen in the De Oratione 1
(De la Rue, i. 198 ; Koetschau, ii. 299, 22) quotes from Luke (vi. 28)
or Matthew (v. 44), and decides for the latter. Koetschau is of
the opposite opinion, giving " Luke vi. 28 (Matthew v. 44)." In the
case of Patristic quotations, it will be seen that matters are frequently
very complicated. It must be borne in mind, too, that the various
writers did not use the same copy of the Scriptures all their life long.
At different times and in different localities they must necessarily
have had different copies before them.

(4) It is further to be observed that in the case of controversial
writings, such as those of Origen against Celsus, and Augustine
against the Manichaeans, the question must always be considered
whether the Scriptural quotations found in them are quotations made
by Origen and Augustine themselves, or taken by them from the
writings they assail or refer to ; and also whether the quotations have
been made directly from a manuscript of the Bible, or from the
works of a previous writer. Borrowing from an author without
acknowledgment may have been a much more common thing in
olden times than it is even at present.

In Clement of Rome (c. 13), in Clement of Alexandria (Stroma ta,
ii. p. 476), and partly also in the Epistle of Polycarp (c. 2), we find
the following quotation : — " Be ye merciful that ye may obtain mercy :
forgive that ye may be forgiven : as ye do, so shall it be done to you :
as ye give, so shall it be given to you : as ye judge, so shall ye be
judged : as ye are kind, so shall kindness be shown to you : with
what measure ye mete, it shall be meted unto you." We find also in
Clement of Rome (c. 46), and in Clement of Alexandria (Stromata,
iii. p. 561), the quotation : " Woe to that man : it were good for him if
he had never been born, rather than that he should offend one of my
elect : it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his
neck and he be drowned in the depth of the sea, than that he should
offend one of my little ones." Neither of these quotations is found
literally in our canonical Gospels. Accordingly, Rendel Harris con-
cludes from the testimony of these various witnesses that they must
have been taken from an Urevangelium, now perished (Contemporary

1 The First Part has been issued : A Textual Commentary upon the Holy
Gospels. Part I. St. Matthew, Division I., cc. i.-xiv. (London, Bell, 1899).
See notice by Gwilliam in The Critical Review, May 1900. In this work
Origen is also cited for Matt. v. 44.

154

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. II.

Review, Sept. 1897). This view is combated, it seems to me rightly,
by H. T. Andrews in the Expositor}' Times for November 1897,
p. 94 f He thinks it probable that Clement of Alexandria and
Polycarp are both dependent on Clement of Rome. 1

(5) In spite of all these difficulties, a systematic examination of the
Patristic quotations remains one of the most important tasks for the
textual criticism of the N. T. We have most useful collections,
both ancient and modem, of passages from the Fathers to illustrate
the history of the Canon, and their use of the Scriptures has been
scrutinised in the interests of dogmatic history, but there are not
yet, so far as I know, any collections of Patristic quotations to eluci-
date the history of the text. Two things are specially wanted at
present. One is a collection, arranged according to time and locality,
of all the passages in which the Fathers appeal to avTtypa<f>a. In the
new volumes of Origen, e.g., we find two such references— Kara rivai-anr
a\mypa<piav rov Kara Mapxov eiayycAibu (i. 113), and koto ra koivo.
tCv AvTiypafav (ii. 52>. 2 The other desideratum is a collection of
all the passages in the biographies of the Saints where mention is
made of the writing of Biblical manuscripts. It is said of Evagrius,
e.g., in the Historia Lausiaca (c. 28 in Preuschen, Palladius, p. in),
€v<f>vu>s yap lypa<p( rbv 6£vpvyx°v \<^P aK ^VP a > ar >d the preparation of
Biblical manuscripts is also referred to in the Vita Epiphanii (ed.
Petav. ii.), and in Cassiodorus, De Institution Divinarum Literarum
(see above, p. 50). On the use hitherto made of Patristic testimony
see the section De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis in TiGr., 1 129-1230.
An abridged list of those mentioned there will be found in Baljon's
Neiv Testament, pp. xv.-xxiii. A catalogue of the names and dates
of the Patristic writers most frequently cited in critical editions of the

1 In the Expository Times for October 1897, p. 13 ft. I have called attention
to another instance in which a Scriptural quotation (Isaiah Hi. 5) is given with
remarkable similarity in the Apostolic Constitutions, with its original (i. 10, iii 5,
vii. 204), in Ignatius (Ad Trallianos, viii.), and in 2nd Clement (c. xiii.). Similar
things are to be observed even in the N.T., as, e.g., in Mark i. 2, where a quotation
from Malachi iii. 1 is inserted between the heading, " In the prophet Isaiah," and
the words taken from that book. But they are found also in the writings of Paul,
which has led to the view that he may possibly have used some sort of dogmatic
anthology of the O. T. Clement of Alexandria has a good many quotations from
Philo. On his quotations from the Gospels, see P. M. Barnard, The Biblical
Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.
Texts and Studies, v. 5, Cambridge, 1899.

2 See below, Appendix II., 'Avrlyptupa.

CHAP. II.]

MATERIALS OF CRITICISM.

155

N. T. is given in Scrivener, ii. pp. 172-174. 1 See also Urt., p. 22,
56 f., 94. On the Old Latin Didascalia, see Ed. Hauler in the
W.S.B., 1895, vol. cxxxiv. p. 40 ft, and the Mitteilungen of B. G.
Teubner, 1897, ii. p. 52." On the Biblical text of Filastrius (C.S.E.,
vol. xxxviii., 1898), see Kroll in the notice of Marx's edition in the
Berlin. Phil. Wochenschrift, 1898, 27. On Jovinian, see TU., New
Series, ii. 1, etc. On the quotations from the Gospels in Novatian
(Pseudo-Cyprian) see Harnack in TU., xiii. 4.

1 Vide infra. Appendix I.

* Fasciculus i., edited by Hauler, 1900.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

157

CHAPTER III.

THEORY AND PRAXIS OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 1

There is no special theory of the textual criticism of the
New Testament. The task and the method are the same for
all literary productions. The task is to exhibit what the
original writer intended to communicate to his readers, and
the method is simply that of tracing the history of the docu-
ment in question back to its beginning, if, and in so far as,
we have the means to do so atour command. Diversity of
treatment cafi only arise when the fortunes of one written
work have been more chequered and complicated than those
of another, or when we have more abundant means at our dis-
posal to help us in the one case than in the other. The task
is very simple when we have only one completely independent
document to deal with, as in the case of several of the recently
discovered papyri, but this occurs very seldom with literary
texts. In this case all that we have to do is to see that we
read the existing text correctly, and then by means of the

1 I could desire no better motto for this third section than the words of Augus-
tine : Codicibus emendandis primitus debet invigilare sollertia eorum qui scripturas
nosse desiderant, ut emendatis non emendati cedant (De Doctrina Christiana,
ii. 14, 21, where the saying about the interpretum numerositas, cited on page 108,
is also found). Or if not these words, then those of our Lord himself, ylytaSf
Siieitioi Tpax-tfrrai, which Origen applied to the verification of the canon, but
which, taken in the sense of 1 Thess. v. 21, are equally applicable to the work of
the "lower" criticism. Apollos, the pupil of Marcion, also vindicated the right
of Biblical criticism with these same words. Epiphanius, Haeres., xliv. 2 (Zahn,
GK.,i. 175).

so-called internal criticism to determine whether the text so Jpje™*^
received can be correct. Even when several witnesses are at
our command, we cannot altogether dispense with this internal
criticism in the matter of sifting and weighing their testimony,
only it would be unfortunate were we left with such a sub-
jective criterion alone. For not only in such a case would
different scholars come to very different conclusions, but even
one and the same scholar would not be able to avoid a certain
amount of uncertainty and inconsistency in most cases. The
principle laid down in the maxim, lectio difficilior placet, or, as
Bengel more correctly and more cautiously puts it, proclivi
scriptioni praestat ardua, is perfectly sound ; that reading is
correct, is the original reading, from which the origin of
another or of several others can be most easily explained.
But how seldom can this be established with certainty ! Take
an illustration : —

How does the Apocalypse, and the New Testament with it, Conclusion
conclude ? Leaving out of account additions like " Amen " Apoc e a | ypS e.
or " Amen, Amen," and variations like " The grace of the Lord
Jesus," and " our Lord Jesus," and " the Lord Jesus Christ,"
and "Christ" simply, we find that the following forms are
given : —

(l) JUt TO.

iravrwv

(2) fitra

■jravTaiv

(3) r^«Ta

irairrwv

(4) fiera

iravrtav

(S) /*"■<*

VfiWV

tj/AWV

twv ayiwv

tow ayiwv

How are we to decide without external evidence which is
the correct form ? Even supposing we know that the first
two are out of the question, and why they are so, it is very
difficult on internal grounds alone to decide between the
other three. Lachmann, who did not know of (5), decided
in favour of (4). But so does Tischendorf, Weizsacker, and
Weiss, the latter giving as his reason for doing so that (5), tow
ayiwv, is explanatory of (4), wuvtwv, which is manifestly too

>58

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

general, and that (3) is the result of a combination of these
two. On the other hand, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort
favour (5), without so much as mentioning (4) in their margin ;
while Bousset, the latest expositor of the Apocalypse, regards
(3) as the correct reading, and thinks that in all probability
both (4) and (5) are due to a transcriptional error. Who is to
decide when doctors disagree ? Manifestly one might argue
oh quite as good if not better grounds than those of Weiss to
the very opposite conclusion — viz. that a later writer who
wished the Apocalypse, and with it the New Testament, to
conclude with as comprehensive a benediction as possible,
substituted the words " Grace be with all " in place of the
restricted and somewhat strange expression " Grace be with
the saints." I did not observe that Bousset still defends the
third form when I said in the first edition of this work that this
reading does not fall to be considered at all. But my reason
for saying so was not " because this form proves to be a com-
bination of the other two," or " because the authorities for it
are later," but because it could be shown that its supporters
follow a corrected text in other places as well as this ; and I
concluded with observing that the decision between (4) and
(5) could not be made to depend solely on internal criteria
either, but depended on the decision come to regarding the
general relationship between the witnesses that support each
one, in this instance between A, as supporting (4), and x, as
supporting (5).

(1) It may be stated here, merely by way of comment, that the first
form of the benediction, " with you all," was clearly translated into
Greek by Erasmus from his Latin Bible, without the authority of a
single Greek manuscript. But in spite of this, it is still propagated
in the textus receptus by the English Bible Society, and even in the
last revision of Luther's German Bible it was allowed to stand with-
out demur. The English Authorised Version had it in this form,
but the Revised Version adopts the fifth form " with the saints," and
puts (4) in the margin, with a note to the effect that " two ancient
authorities read ' with all.' "

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

159

The second form, "with us all," which was adopted by
Melanchthon in his Greek Bible of 1545, published by Herwag, is
just as arbitrary an alteration. The third form, " with all the saints,"
is read by the Complutensian with Q, with more than forty minus-
cules, and the Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian versions. The fourth,
"with all," is found in A and Codex Amiatinus, while the fifth,
"with the saints," is given by N and the Old Latin g. In the
Syriac version of the Apocalypse, edited by Gwynn in 1897, a sixth
form seems to have been brought to light, which Baljon, who himself
decides for (5), cites as ficra irairaii' rStv ayiW airov : Syr*"!™ 1 .
But the pronoun, which in Syriac is indicated by a suffix only, is
employed now and again merely to represent the Greek definite
article, so that this new Syriac manuscript does not give us a sixth
form but only another witness to the third. On the other hand,
Gwynn mentions the omission of the entire verse in Primasius, a fact
that neither Tischendorf nor Weiss takes the least notice of, and he
adduces lastly that a manuscript of the Vulgate reads "cum omnibus
hominibus." One sees from an illustration like this what an amount
of pains is required seriously to apply, even in a single point,
Bengel's principle that the smallest particle of gold is gold, but that
nothing must be passed as gold that has not been proved to be such
(Introduclio in Crisin Novi Testamenti, § I, p. 572).

(2) Literature.— See especially Gebhardt (Urt., p. 16). Ed.
Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schriften des N. T, Braunschweig, 1887,
§ 351 ff. S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the NT. ( = vol. iv. of Home's Introduction, 1877). F. H. A.
Scrivener (see above, p. 6); also Adversaria Critica Sacra, edited
by Miller, Cambr. 1893. B. F. Westcott, The New Testament in
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii., London, 1863. C. E.
Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism, Oxford, 1890. Westcott-
Hort, vol. ii. (see p. 21). B. B. Warfield, Introduction to the Textual
Criticism of the N. T., New York, 1887; London, 1893. J. W.
Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark,
Oxford and London, 187 1 ; also The Traditional Text of the Holy
Gospels vindicated and established, edited by Miller, London, 1896;
also, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy
Gospels, edited by Miller, London and Cambridge, 1896. The
Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N T. held at New
College on May 6, 1897 ; with a preface (by Miller) explanatory of
the Rival Systems, 1897, pp. xvi. 43. Ed. Miller, The Present State

i6o

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

161

of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels (see above,

P- «52)-

Martin (Abbe J. P.), Introduction a la Critique tcxtuelk du N.T,
in five volumes, with plates and facsimiles: vol. i. pp. xxxvi. 327,
Paris, 1884, 25 fr. ; vol. ii. pp. ix. 554, 1884, 40 fr. ; vol. iii. pp. vi.
512, 1885, 40 fr. ; vol. iv. pp. vi. 549, 1886, 40 fr. ; vol. v. pp. xi.
248 and 50 pp. of facsimiles, 1886, 20 fr. Also by the same author,
Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au N.T. conserves
dans les Bibliotheques de Paris. Supplement to the foregoing, Paris,
1884, pp. xix. 205, with facsimiles, 20 fr. ; Quatre manuscrits im-
portants du N.T. auxquels on peut en ajouter un cinquieme, Paris,
1886, pp. 62, 3 fr. : Les plus anciens mss. grecs du N.T, leur origine,
leur veritable caractere, in the Revue des Quest. Hist., 1884, No. 71,
pp. 62-109; Origine et la Critique textuelle du N.T, Paris.
Reprinted from the Rev. des Quest. Hist, for Jan. 1885, No. 73,

pp. S- 62 -

Th. Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons: vol. 1., Das N.T. vor
Origenes, Part 1, 1888; Part 2, 1889. Vol. ii., Urkunden und
Belege zum ersten und dritten Band, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1892.
The third vol. has not yet appeared. The order of the books of the
N.T. is discussed in vol. ii. p. 343 ff., and the conclusion of Mark's
Cospel in the same vol., p. 910 ff.

Salmon (Geo.), Some thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T,
London, 1897, pp. xv. 162. Blass, Philology of the Gospels, London,
1898, pp. viii. 250. Ada Bryson, Recent Literature on the text of
the N.T in the Expository Times for April 1899, pp. 294-300.
M. Vincent, History of the Textual Criticism of the NT, 1 900. G. L.
Cary, The Synoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the Textual Criticism of
the N.T, New York, 1900. See also Prof. Jannaris in the
Expositor, vol. viii. of Series V. There is an article in the American
Journal of Theology, 1897, iv. p. 927 ff., entitled Alexandria and the
N.T, which I have not been able to consult.

In attempting to restore the text of the New Testament
as nearly as possible to its original form, it is essential to
remember that the New Testament, as we have it to-day,
is not all of one piece, but consists of twenty-seven separate
documents now arranged in five groups, and that every several
document and every several group has had its own peculiar
history. Of these groups the most complicated, perhaps, is

the one with which the New Testament opens — viz. the
Gospels.

It is quite uncertain when our four Gospels were first Gospels,
written together in one volume and arranged in the order
that is now common. The Muratorian Fragment on the
Canon l is defective at the beginning, but seems to imply this
arrangement. It was supposed that the Gospels were written
in the following order — viz. Matthew first and John last The
order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which is found in nearly
all the Greek and Syriac manuscripts, was made popular by
Eusebius and Jerome. The former followed it in his Canons,
which were afterwards adopted by Jerome in his Latin Bible.
According to Eusebius (Eccl. Hist., vi. 25)," Origen knew this
order, though he very frequently cites the Gospels in the
order Matthew, Luke, Mark.

The following arrangements are also found : —

(2) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, in the earlier (Curetonian)
Syriac and in the Canon Mommsenianus, a catalogue of the
Books of the Bible and of the works of Cyprian, originating
in Latin Africa about the year 360, and first published by
Mommsen. 3

(3) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, in the so-called Ambrosi-
aster and in a Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books.

> The fragment was edited by Tiegelles with a facsimile in 1867. It is given
in Westcotts Canon of the N. T., Appendix C, where also see the section on the
Muratonan Canon, Part i. c. ii. It will be found also in Preuschen's Analtcta
Kurzere Ttxte .... pp. 129-137 (the eighth number of G. KrUger's Sammlung
ausgtwahlttr tirchen- und dogmcngtschUWchcr QuelUnschriften, Freib. and
Leipzig, 1893).

• Quoted in Westcott, Canon, part ii. c. ii. § 1, and in Zahn's Einleilung ii i 7 o
Given in Preuschen. In the manuscripts it is entitled " Indiculum Veteris et
Novi Testament! et Caecili Cipriani." It was first made known from a MS
at Cheltenham in 1886. As it is mostly assigned to the year 365 (see also'
JUlicher, EmUilung, p. 336) the words of W.-W. may be repeated here : " S. Berger
tamen aliter sentit, rationibus commotus quarum una certe nobis satis vera videtur
Concordant enim numeri in Veteri Testamento cum codicibus Hieronymianis"
e.g. in libns Regum quattuor, Esaiae, Jeremiae, et duodecim Prophetarum'
Tobiae, et Macchabeorum secundo. Indiculus tamen sine dubio anUquus est"

162

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

(4) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke— i.e. the two Apostles put
before the two pupils of Apostles, in the Codex Claromon-
tanus. 1 This order occurs also in the Arabic writer Masudi's
Meadows of Gold?

(5) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, in Codd. D and X, in the
Apostolic Constitutions, in Ulnlas, and especially in the Old
Latin Manuscripts; see Corssen, Monarchianische Prologe,
p. 65, in TU. xv. I. 3

(6) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, in Codex k.

(7) John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the Vocabularies of the
Egyptian versions.

(8) John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, in Tertullian and cod. 19.
See Arthur Wright, Some New Testament Problems, p. 196 ff. 4

This very variety shows that for a long time, perhaps till
the third century, at all events much longer than the Pauline
Epistles, the Gospels were propagated singly, perhaps on
rolls, and only afterwards incorporated in a codex. And
this makes it probable that the text of our manuscripts was
not taken from a single copy of the first Tetraevangelium.
More than probable we cannot call it, seeing that a copyist
may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging
the order of the books given in his exemplar, as may still be
gathered luckily from the position occupied by Hebrews in
Codex B. The probability is heightened, however, by the
fact that our manuscripts display a considerably greater
amount of textual variation in the Gospels than in the Pauline
Epistles, though not in all to the same extent as in D which
contains an entirely peculiar recension, especially in Luke.
One of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by
the discovery made by E. Lippelt, a pupil of Professor Blass.
The order of the books in D is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark,
Acts, where it will be seen that the two portions of the book

1 Catalogus Claramontanus given in Westcott, Canon, Appendix D, p. 563.

2 Translated into French, dairies (Tor, i 123 : one volume into English by
Sprenger. 1841 ; Sayous, Ji'sus Christ (faprts Mohammed, p. 34.

3 See Zahn, Einl., ii. 176; GK„ ii. 364-375. l°'4- ' See Addenda, p. xvi.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND l'RAXIS.

163

inscribed to Theophilus are separated by Mark. Now Lippelt
observed that while the name Johannes is regularly spelt with
two v's ('Iwaww) in Matthew, John, and Mark, it is just as
regularly spelt with one ('Iwdvqs) in Luke and Acts, sundered
though these two books are by Mark, where the other spell-
ing prevails. 1 This shows an accuracy of tradition which is
surprising, but till now it has only been traced in this one
manuscript. The others write the name throughout with two
v's and B as consistently with one. In this connection the
question naturally arises whether certain liberties were not
taken with the books on the occasion of their collection and
arrangement. Resch,^., thinks that it was then that thesecond
Gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in
most of our manuscripts, and Rohrbach holds a similar
opinion. 2 I have elsewhere expressed the idea that the
peculiar opening of Mark is to be accounted for in this way. 3
Zahn, however, doubts whether the use of ap\V and -reXo?
for apxerai and ireKeadi}, incipit and explicit, can be estab-
lished for early times. 4 I have found it in Greek Psalters,
though not very early, I admit, where ap\i twv wSwv occurs
instead of wSat as the superscription of the Hymns at the
end of the Psalter. 5 However, there is no need to dwell

1 The numbers are as follows : —

Matthew,

-*-

John,

Luke,

Mark, .

See Blass, Lucat ad Tluophilum liber prior, p. vi. f., Philology of the Gospels,
p. 75 f., where three of Lippelt's numbers are corrected with the help of Harris.
See also Expository Times, Nov. 1897, p. 92 f. I cannot understand why Wendt,
in the new edition of his Commentary on the Acts, should take not the slightest
notice of this far-reaching discovery. On the spelling in the Latin manuscripts,
see W.-W., Epilogus, 776.

a Der Schluss des Markus-Evangeliums, der Vier-Evangclicn-Kanon, und die
kleinasiastischen Presbyter (Berlin, 1894).

* Expositor, Dec. 1894. * Einleilung, ii. 221.

• See Coxe's Catalogue of Greek MSS. in the Bodleian Library, 1854.

164

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

lurther on this point. Zahn (p. 174) is quite right in his con-
tention that the usual titles Kara MaOQatov, eta, 1 imply a
collection of the Gospels of which EvayyeXtov is the general
title.

If, then, for the sake of simplicity, we take as our goal the
first manuscript of the Tetraevangelium, one would think it
must be possible with the means at our command gradually
to work back to it Even the latest of our manuscripts is
surely copied from an earlier one, and that one from another,
and so on always further and further back, so that all we have
to do is to establish their genealogy, pretty much as Reuss
has done for the printed editions of the New Testament ; and
seeing we have manuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth
century, that means that the entire period of a thousand years
prior to the invention of printing is bridged over at once, so
that the task would appear to be simply that of throwing a
bridge over the first few centuries of the Christian era. And
by going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating
those that prove unreliable, it must be possible, one would
suppose, in this way to arrive at the original. But a little
experience will shortly moderate our expectations.

At the outset it is very much against us that we have no
really serviceable text for comparison. The text of our
present critical editions is a patchwork of many colours, more
wonderful than the cloak of Child Roland of old. In fact it
is a text that never really existed at all. In the preparation
of my Supplement, which I undertook with the object of
making the text of Codex Bezae easily accessible to every one,
I compared the text of that manuscript with that of Tischen-
dorf-Gebhardt's edition, and I saw clearly that my work would
necessarily present a very confused appearance indeed. I also
issued an interleaved edition of my Stuttgart New Testament
with a similar object — viz. to furnish a convenient means of

1 On cata or kata in the subscriptions, titles, prefaces, etc., of Latin manu-
scripts, see the index in W.-W., to which add the remarkable phrase cata Umpus,
which codex e gives in John v. 4, in place of secundum Umpus in the other
manuscripts.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND FRAXIS.

165

comparing the text of manuscripts and of Patristic quotations,
but that, too, labours under the same disadvantage. Whoever
intends really to further the textual criticism of the New
Testament will have to issue a copy of a single manuscript
printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient for
the comparison of different texts, something like Tischendorfs
edition of Codex Sinaiticus (Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum,
1 863), which, however, is of little use for other purposes, or like
Schjott's edition of the New Testament (see above, p. 24).
But as these are in the hands of very few, there is nothing for
it at present but to take one of our most common texts,
always bearing in mind its composite character. This feature
of the text appears at the very outset in the title. In k B (D)
it is Kara NaQBaiov. Codex D is defective at the beginning
down to c. i. 20, but Kar iiaddaiov is found regularly as the
title at the top of the pages, a fact which Tischendorf has
overlooked. Most other manuscripts, C E K M etc., have
EcayyeXioi' Kara NarOatov. If this latter is held as incorrect,
then all these manuscripts should for the future be dropped
out of account and x B D alone be regarded as authoritative.

Again, in verse 2, n* has Io-ok twice, while the others have
la-aax, so that N too would drop out, leaving B standing
alone. But then in verse 3 our editors forthwith reject B,
which reads Zape, and decide in favour of the others which
have Za/oa. Whether this may not be a little premature,
seeing that there are other places where e is found for final
n,» and that one manuscript, 56, has deliberately corrected
Zapa into Zape in Gen. xxxviii. 30, where a third has Zape, we
do not pause to determine. The point is simply this, that in
these first three verses there is no manuscript that is always
right in the judgment of our editors. True, the cases we
have been considering are trifling, the differences being of an
orthographical nature merely, and one must not be too par-
ticular in such matters, though at the same time the oft-
quoted maxim, minima non curat praetor, is nowhere less

1 See Field, Htxapla, i. p. lxxii.

i66

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

influence.

applicable than in textual criticism. But the same state of
things reappears immediately where we have differences
involving important matters of fact. What is the fact in
verse 1 1 ? Did Josias beget Jechoniah, or did he beget
Joachim and Joachim Jechoniah? Verse 16 has already
been referred to : in this case our oldest Greek manuscripts
would give no occasion to mention the verse. But in verse
25 we have again to ask which is correct, erticev viov or freKtv
Dogmatic rov vlov avrijs rov irpwTOTOKov ? And when we hear Jerome
say — Ex hoc loco quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios
filios habuisse Mariam, dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi
qui habeat et fratres, we learn already how dogmatic motives
may have some influence upon the form of the text. And,
moreover, when we call to mind the words of Luke ii. 7, we
are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing
Parallel influence in the Gospels — viz. the tendency to alter the text

passages. j n con f orm ity with the parallel passage. Apart from the

stylistic peculiarities of Codex D, we meet with no materially
important variants in our Greek manuscripts of Matthew till
we come to the Sermon on the Mount. The only thing is in
iii. 15, where two Latin witnesses have an addition which is
evidently taken from a Greek source : et cum baptizaretur,
lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes qui
advenerant (congregati erant). This interpolation, however,
does not concern the criticism of the text of the New Testa-
ment, seeing that it is derived from some source outside the
Canon.

On the other hand, there is a great question as to the order
of the first three Beatitudes in Matthew v. 3-5, whether they
are to be read in the order given in the common text, irruxol

TrevOovvres .... irpaeit ..... or as our recent

editors prefer ittw\oI .... irpaeif .... Trevflowrec. 1 The
latter arrangement is attested by only two Greek manuscripts
— D and 33. Now, if their evidence is accepted here in spite of

1 The order, irpafir .... wraxot .... wivSovvrts, in Baljon is due lo a
strange oversight which is not corrected in the Addenda et Corrigenda.

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

167

CHAP. III.]

its apparent weakness, how can we justify the refusal to
acknowledge the authority of D in other similar cases?
Verse 22, but a short way down, is a case in point Here D,
with most authorities, exhibits the sorely-contested «*£- But
our modern critics will have nothing to do with it, going by
K B, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius. Merx (Die vter
kanonischen Evangelien, pp. 231-237) has recently come for-
ward as a strong supporter of it, on the ground that Syr" n also
has it, 1 but how is its omission, especially by Jerome, to be
explained ? The Vulgate itself shows that it was easier to
insert it than to omit it, because out of twenty-four manu-
scripts collated in W.-W. three have it, though it certainly
does not belong to the text of the Vulgate. 2

In view of these illustrations, which serve to show the some-
what haphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto
has been arrived at, the question becomes very important
how the original text is to be restored in disputed or doubtful
cases.

The first case, or, if we like to call it, the last, but at all <**£»£
events the one most easy of settlement, is when the correct
reading is no longer found in any of our witnesses, neither in
Greek manuscript, version, nor patristic quotation. Here
we must simply have recourse to conjecture. Not long ago
philologists evinced such a fondness for conjectural emenda-
tion that the question might not unreasonably be asked why
they did not rather themselves write the text that they took
in hand to explain. At the same time, the aversion to this
method of criticism which till recently prevailed and still to
some extent prevails, especially in the matter of the New
Testament text, is just as unreasonable. Tischendorf, e.g., did
not admit a single emendation of this nature into his text,
while Westcott and Hort consider it to be necessary in only a

1 To the passages which may be adduced in support of the reading, add Clement,
Horn. 7j 32 (Lagarde, 92, 35), <a 32 (118, 31).

* Codex D and Syr ,ln also agree in omitting v. 30, but this is probably no more
than a remarkable coincidence.

1 68

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAr. III.

very few cases, such as Colossians ii. i8, though they also
decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text. For
AEOPAKENEMBATEYflN in this passage, which Weizsacker
renders " pluming himself upon his visions," they would read
AEPA KENEMBATEYfiN, which is obtained by the omission
of a single letter and a different division of the words. In
Holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in, 1 the
example of Cobet and his school being followed by such critics
as S. A. Naber, W. C. van Manen, W. H. van de Sande-Bak-
huyzen, van de Becke Callenfels, D. Harting, S. S. de Koe,
H. Franssen, J. M. S. Baljon, J. H. A. Michelsen, and J. Cramer. 2
Baljon has adopted a great number of such conjectural emen-
dations in his edition of the text published in 1898 (see above,
p. 24). In place of 7roX\oJ SiSaa-KaXoi, e.g., in James iii. 1,
Lachmann would read ttwXoi SuvkoXoi, Naber irXavoSiSaa-KaXoi,
while Junius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer iroXv-
XaXoi on the ground that m 04 has nolite multiloqui esse. 3 So
far, therefore, this last is not pure conjecture. For Kptveru in
Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished to read Kipvarw, because the verb
in found in the Peshitto at this place is elsewhere used to
translate Qpoe'iv (Matt xxiv. 6), rapucrativ (John xiv. I, 27),
eyKoirrew (Gal. v. 7), and also Sia<rrpe<peiv (Eccl. vii. 18 ; xii. 3).
My proposal to read eir\ trovrov in Apoc^xviii. 17, a reading
adopted by Baljon in his text, instead'ofeiri tottov or eir)
irXolwv as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but
it has the support of super mare in Primasius. 4 There is
therefore no objection on principle to the method of con-

1 See Urt. , 55 ff, where works on this subject are cited.

2 See also Linwood, Remarks on Conjectural Emendations as applied to the New
Testament, 1873.

3 On the symbol m, see above, p. 114.

* The converse occurs in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iv. 15, in the address of Polycarp's
Martyrium. There the reading kotA Mvtqv, which is also found in the Syriac,
should, according to Harnack's Chronologic der altchristl. Lit., i. 341, be replaced
by kotA Ttavra rirov, or rather by kbtA T(fxoc which is found in I Mace. xii. 4 ;
2 Mace. xii. 2. Compare also the variation found in the manuscripts in 2 Cor.
x. 15 between xoiroif, irowif, and toitoij, and between totos and totoj in Judith
vi. 21. See also Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., \. 15, 23.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

169

jecture, nor to the adoption of conjectural readings in the text,
though it is only to be resorted to as the ultima ratio regis and
with due regard to all the considerations involved, transcrip-
tional, linguistic, and otherwise. 1 There is no essential difficulty
in supposing, e.g., that Kipvarw in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted
into Kpwarw and then into Kpivirw. Such a transposition of
the liquid is quite common in all languages. 2 But we must
see if Kipvarw has the sense required in the passage. There is
no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far, therefore,
the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true that
evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word
proposed to be inserted. Passow, e.g., gives to rrjt <f>v(rtwt
trxXripov Kipvav from Polybius iv. 21 , 3, and rhv iroXiv Kipvav from
Aristophanes i. i. In spite of this, however, I have consider-
able misgivings whether this sense of the word is in harmony
with Pauline usage and is suitable to the context of the
passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural reading on
transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82),
a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing

1 The opposite view is expressed in Scrivener, ii. 244 : " It is now agreed among
competent judges that Conjectural Emendation must never be resorted to, even in
passages of acknowledged difficulty"; and he quotes from Roberts ( Words of the
New Testament'): "conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field ....
simply because there is no need for it." With this, however, he does not quite
agree. He admits that there are passages respecting which we cannot help framing
a shrewd suspicion that the original reading differed from any form in which they
are now presented to us. He notes as passages for which we should be glad of
more light, Acts vii. 46, xiii. 32, xix. 40, xxvi. 28 ; Rom. viii. 2 ; I Cor. xii. 2,
where Ephes. ii. II might suggest 8ti tori; 1 Tim. vi. 7 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12 ;
Jude 5, 22, 23. G. Kxllger expresses himself to the same effect. He would have
no conjecture, however well founded, received into the text See his notice of
Koetschau's Origen in the L. Cil., No. 39, 1899. I find that Swete has had no
objection to adopt a conjecture of mine in his second edition of the last volume of
the Cambridge Septuagint (Enoch xiv. 3). If such a thing is permissible in the
case of Enoch, why should it not be allowable in the New Testament ? As clever
suggestions maybe noted iKoXdipiaay for the hapax legomenon lm<pa\[&oav, Mark
xii. 4 (Linwood, Van de Sande-Bakhuyzen) and \ta/8irovai for pavtirtvai, I Tim.
v. 13 (Hitzig). Lagrange (A'evue Bibliquc, 1900, p. 206) cautions us against
" preter de Pesprit a 1'Esprit Saint."

2 Compare my conjecture of DnnglJ for Dginip, Ps. lxviii. 31, and see below,
p. 236.

170

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

Eclectic
method.

prevalent at the time when the corruption is supposed to have
originated. Luke's handwriting must have been very bad
indeed if we are to suppose that the scribe of D or the parent
manuscript mistook qpirfa-acrde for the enigmatical ifiapvvaTe
in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable how he came to
write S6£n instead of Se£ia in v. 3 1 , or conversely wrote edegavro
instead of iSogacrav in xiii. 48, or that KAITOYTQ2YN#S2NO-
Y2IN was made into KAIOYTOSEYN^NHZOYSIN or
vice versa} A slight experience in the reading of ancient
manuscripts shows how easy it is to make mistakes of this
sort. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this sort actu-
ally do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus,
and Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish's Handy
Co?icordance of the Septuagint? though of course the examples
there are all from the Old Testament. We have, e.g., dyrnrdio
for aTraraco ; uyu-rrt) for inrd-rr) ', ayia^w for dyopd^io ', dyioy for
alyeios, dyyeiov, dypos, ytj ; aStaKvros for SidXvros ', /8aXXo>
and its compounds for Xafiftuvu) and its compounds ; Aady for
i-aoV, etc.

It is more difficult to answer the question how the text is
to be restored in cases where there is no lack of external
evidence. We have already seen that critics have hitherto
adopted an eclectic mode of procedure. In general, whenever
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree, editors, Tischendorf as well
as Westcott and Hort, give the preference to their testimony.
But if they do not agree, what is to be done? And what if
a third reading seems on internal grounds to be better than
either? In his Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament, Salmon very pungently, but not altogether incor-
rectly, describes Westcott and Hort's method on the lines of
an anecdote told of Cato by Cicero : " To the question what
authorities should be followed, Hort answers, Follow B n.
But if B is not supported by x? Still follow B, if it has the

1 Meyer-Wendt 8 , p. 51. For an example of 2 repeated by mistake, cf.
EI5ITEAOI in B, Mark xiii. 13. Its erroneous omission is quite common.
- Bagster, London, 1887.

CHAP. HI.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

171

__pport of any other manuscript. But suppose B stands
quite alone? Even then it is not safe to reject B unless it
is clearly a clerical error. But suppose B is defective ? Then
follow n. And what about D ? What about killing a man I "
Lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of
the stake. Codex D has not been gagged outright, to be sure,
but it has been shoved aside, and only now and then with
remarkable inconsistency has its evidence been accepted as
trustworthy. For one must surely call it inconsistent to follow
one side as a rule and then all at once to take sides with that
which is diametrically opposed to the first. In his Introduc-
tion, Hort, in the most brilliant manner one must admit, has
established the principle that the restoration of the text must
be grounded on the study of its history, and no one has
studied that history as carefully as Hort has done. But the
question remains whether he has not interpreted the history
wrongly, whether what he calls the Neutral text is really the
original, and whether that which he rejects as a Western
Corruption is really to be regarded as such.

I cannot presume to judge ; but I have the feeling that the History of

r ..,»,-. t transmission.

history of the transmission of our New Testament text must
be studied in quite another way from that in which it has
been done hitherto, and in a twofold direction : —

(1) The manuscripts and their relation to each other must
be subjected to a still more searching investigation, and

(2) The works of the ecclesiastical writers, especially the
Commentaries and the Catenae, must be thoroughly explored
for any information they may have to give regarding the
history of the text of the New Testament, and these two
results must then be set in relation with each other.

With regard to the former task, it might not be essential to
make such a minute collation of the manuscripts as Ferrar,
Hoskier, and other investigators deemed necessary, and as
is certainly the right thing to do in the case of the oldest
documents. With such a mode of procedure, the task could
not be accomplished in any conceivable time. But suppose

172

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

Analogous
works.

the work was organised the way that Reuss did with the
printed editions, by selecting say a thousand passages for
comparison, it would be possible, and in a very short time we
should be much better informed than we are at present as to
the state of the text in our manuscripts, and especially in the
minuscules.

Such a task, moreover, must be preceded by a fresh scien-
tific statement of the way in which the text was propagated
previous to the invention of printing, on the lines laid down
by Hort in the first fourteen paragraphs of his Introduc-
tion} A necessary preliminary to this is the study of
genealogy, in which we have an excellent guide in Ottokar
Lorenz's Lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen Genealogie
(Berlin, 1898). See especially the first chapter of Part I. on
the distinction between Genealogical Tree (Table of gene-
alogy) and Table of Ancestors, and the third chapter of Part
II. on the problem of Loss of Ancestors.

All the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures,
such as crossing, heredity, and so forth, fall to be considered
also in the genealogy of manuscripts, the only difference being
that in the latter case new features make their appearance.
It has been asserted somewhere that if an Englishman, a Dutch-
man, a German, a Frenchman, and an American meet in a
company, the nationality of each is at once recognisable,
but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical
relationships, and that the same impossibility exists in the
case of the manuscripts of the New Testament. That is
perhaps an exaggeration, but it is certainly a surprising
fact that so few even of our latest manuscripts can be
proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts still in
existence, or at least to be derived from a common
original.

It will be a very great help, particularly to those beginning

1 See Isaac Taylor's History of the Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern
Times (1827); and compare also the text-liooks on Hermeneutics, e.g. in
I. v. MUller's Handbuch der klassisthen Alteilnmsivissenschaft.

CHAP. HI.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

173

work in this field, to compare the method and results of
investigations pursued in similar and perhaps easier depart-
ments of study. Apart from the works of classical philolo-
gists, or works like the new edition of Luther's writings, a
great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of
late years in the matter of textual criticism, some of it very
extensive, some of it less so. Ed. Wdlfflin, eg., devoted his
attention to the Rule of St Benedict of Nursia, who died j^ .^
some time after the year 542. His Rule, which extends only
to eighty-five pages of the Teubner size, is extant in manu-
scripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries.
By a comparison of these, Wolfflin was convinced that we
still possess the Rule essentially in the identical wording of
the original vulgar Latin, that Benedict himself had after-
wards made certain alterations and additions, and that we
have therefore to distinguish several (fortasse tres) editions. 1
Wolfflin purported to give the text of that recension which
he took to be the earliest. But we had no more than time
to congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at
by this experienced philologist, when behold, another totally
different conclusion was announced by a younger worker in
the same field. Wolfflin had done little more than compare
the manuscripts, but Lud. Traube applied also the external
evidence afforded by the history of the text, and discovered
that certain manuscripts that Wolfflin had thrown aside
possessed a greater claim to originality. 2

Similarly, E. C. Richardson gave several years to an ex- De Viris
amination of all the accessible manuscripts of the De Viris Illustnbus -
lllustribus of Jerome and Gennadius, a work not much larger
than the Rule of Benedict These manuscripts, about 120 in

1 Benedicti regula monachorum. Rcctnsuit Ed. Wolfflin, Lipsiae, Teubner,
1895, PC xv - 8 5> 8vo. See also his article on the Latinity of Benedict in the
Arch. f. Lot. Lexikogr. ix. 4, 1896, pp. 493-521.

' Textgeschichte der Regula S. Bentdicti (Abh. d. 3 CI. d. i. At. d. Wiss.,
vol. xxi., Munich, 1898). Compare also The Text of St. Benedict's Rule by Dom
C. Butler, O.S.B. Reprinted from the Downside Review, December 1899,
12 pp.

'74

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

175

number, he grouped, and then framed his text in accordance
with them. 1 While his work was in the press, an edition was
published by C. A. Bernoulli, based on some of the manu-
scripts that Richardson also had used. 2 But from the very
first sentence onwards, the two editors follow contradictory
authorities, so that while one gives parvam as the correct
reading, the other reads non parvam. But more than that,
the same Part of Texte und Untersuchungen that gave us
Richardson's laborious work contained a second piece of
work on the same material — viz., O. v. Gebhardt's edition of
the so-called Greek Sophronius, which is an old version of
Jerome's book. And the last chapter of this version, which
is autobiographical, contains indications, according to v.
Gebhardt's Introduction, that Jerome issued two editions of
his book, so that, if this be so, an entirely new grouping of
the manuscripts becomes necessary.

In the case of Holl's researches on the Sacra Parallela of
John Damascene, published in the same Collection, 3 matters
are too complicated for beginners in textual criticism, but of
Julian's non-biblical texts mention may be made of the Recherches sur

la tradition manuscrite des lettres de I'Empereur Julien by
S. Bidez and Fr. Cumont (Brussels, 1898), as showing how
much can be attained by combining the internal and external
history of the transmission of literary texts. 4 In the field of
Biblical texts, and particularly of the New Testament, the
study of Wordsworth and White's Epilogus to the first volume
Latin New of their Novum Testamenlum Latine is to be specially recom-
Testament. me nded, particularly c. iv. De Patria et Indole Codicum nos-
trorum, c. v. De Textus Hisloria, and c. vi. De Regulis a nobis
in Textu constituendo adhibitis. As was said before, Jerome
undertook his revision of the Gospels in the year 383 ; his
work was of an entirely uniform texture, apart from a few

1 TU. xiv. i, 1896.

2 Krilger's Sammlung, Heft xi., Freiburg and Leipzig, 1895.

3 TU, New Series, i. I, 1897.

* Compare also the differences between the editions of Josephus, published by
Niese and Naber.

CHAP. III.]

passages where a correction may have occurred even in the
original manuscript ; and there is a sufficiency of manuscripts
extant, some of them going back to the sixth century. One
of these, which formerly belonged to the Church of St.
Willibrord at Echternach, contains a note dated 558, and
copied into, it from the parent manuscript, to the effect : proe-
mendavi ut potui secundum codicem in bibliotheca Eugipi
presbyteri. quern ferunt fuisse sancti Hieronymi. (See above,
p. 122.) In these circumstances it must surely be pos-
sible, one would think, to arrive at some satisfactory con-
clusion. And yet, in spite of all this, and in spite of long
years of labour, many a problem remains to perplex the
editor of the Vulgate. To begin with, there is one striking
circumstance. Jerome executed his work at Rome, in
obedience to the commission of Pope Damasus. One would
therefore expect to find the best manuscripts in Rome, or at
least originating from Rome. But that is by no means the
case: " praeter expectationem accidit ut pauci vel nulli ex
codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem Romanam clare
ostendant" The manuscript that editors consider the best —
viz. Codex Amiatinus, now at Florence — was certainly at
Rome for a long time, but it was sent there as a present from
beyond the Alps ; indeed, it came from England. And on the
other hand it was not from Rome that the Latin Bible came
to England, or to Canterbury in particular, although Augustine
was sent thither by Pope Gregory the Great, but from the
South of Italy; in fact, it was from Naples. Codex Fuldensis,
which may have been brought to Fulda by Boniface, formerly
belonged to Bishop Victor of Capua ; the Echternach manu-
script referred to above came from the Lucullan Monastery
at Naples, while the manuscript from which Codex Amiatinus
was copied was written by Cassiodorus of Vivarium, and
therefore came from Calabria. The history of the trans-
mission of the Latin Bible reveals many other facts as strange
as these in connection with the locality to which manuscripts
belong. We must be prepared, therefore, for similar surprises

176

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

in the case of Greek manuscripts also, and need not be
astonished to hear that the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae, so
much decried as " Western," takes us back to Smyrna or
Ephesus by way of Lyons and by means of Irenaeus. 1
Families. It is also very instructive to observe that after long years of

the most thorough study of their manuscripts, Wordsworth
and White refrain from constructing stemmata or genealogies
of these. All they venture to do is to distinguish certain
large classes or families, and within these again to bring
certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship with
each other. They distinguish two main classes. In the first
they reckon five, or it may be four, Italian-Northumbrian
manuscripts, A A H* S Y, two Canterbury O X, three
Italian JMP, the two mentioned already from Capua-Fulda
F and Lucullan-Echternach EP, and the Harleian Z, so called
from a former possessor and now in the British Museum.
To the second class belong five Celtic D E L Q R, three
French B BF G, and two Spanish C T. After these come
the witnesses to the history of the text in the stricter sense of
the term, the recensions made by Theodulf (H c 9) and Alcuin
(KV NT), and, for the form which the text assumed in the
later manuscripts and in the printed editions, the Salisbury
Codex W. We should have great reason to congratulate
ourselves, could we arrive at like certain results in the region
of the far older and more diversified history of the trans-
mission of the Greek text, but there too we shall encounter
the same general features — viz., a form of the text in the
printed editions, in the later manuscripts, in the Recensions,
the dates of which are still to be determined (Lucian,
Hesychius ?, Pamphilus), and in the families, which are only
to be classified in a general way.

It is also instructive to find that in the case of several
manuscripts, Wordsworth and White are obliged to observe
that they seem to have been corrected from the Greek, H*

1 See, however, the two articles by Lake and Brightman, On the Italian Origin
of Codex Bezae in the Journal of Theological Studies, i. 441 ff

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

177

(p. 709), M (p. 711), EP» (p. 712), D R L (pp. 714. 7i6),
which suggests the possibility of Greek manuscripts also
having been influenced by one of the versions, be it Latin or
Syriac.

Finally, when we enquire as to the relationship between
Jerome and the Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by
him, we find that that manuscript must have been most
nearly related to the Sinaiticus, while it had no sort of con-
nection with Codex D. Whether this result tells in favour
of n or the reverse, we will not pronounce at present : Jerome
certainly avers that he made use of a Graecorum codicum
emendata conlatione .... sed veterum (p. 108), only veterum
is a comparative term, and it might quite well happen that to
Jerome that form of text appeared to be the best which was
most recent or most widely circulated in his neighbourhood,
and that he would have nothing to do with such a singular
form of text as D exhibits, even supposing he was acquainted
with it, a point we cannot decide. The intimate connection
in various passages between his text and that of the cursive
473 ( 2P *) ' s remarkable, and especially the many points of
resemblance between the Irish manuscripts (D L R) and the
members of the Ferrar Group.

And this brings us back from our survey of the history of
the Latin text to that of the Greek, where we seem to have
got at least one fixed point to begin with in this perplexing
chaos, for that is the first impression we gain on glancing at
the mass of Greek manuscripts before us. But here again
our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed, and we
shall learn only too soon that even this is no Archimedean point
from which we are able to regulate this world of disorder.

If we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the Ferrar Group,
passage usually indicated as John vii. 53-viii. 1 1 occurs in
Luke, and in exactly the same place in each one — viz. after
Luke xxi. 38 — we must needs conclude that the manuscripts
exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately connected
with each other. This is the case with the cursives 13,69,

i;8

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

1 24, 346, 624, 626. Whether the others that are reckoned in
this group have this same peculiarity, I am not perfectly sure.
Now one would naturally expect that these manuscripts
would also coincide in the other peculiarities characteristic of
Variation. this group. But on the contrary, they part company over the
very first and most conspicuous of these — viz. Matthew i. 16.
Here, unfortunately, 13 and 69 are defective, but we can com-
pare 124 and 346. And we find that whereas the former has
the usual text, the latter, with the support of 556, 624, 626,
exhibits in place of rov avSpa .... Xpitrror, the reading
already mentioned, w ^vi/arevdeia-a TrapOevos Maptap. eyevvn<rev
'Ina-ovv tov \ey6p.evov XpurroV. Which of these readings is
right, or whether both of them may not be wrong, we need
not enquire at present. It is sufficient to point out that one
and the same mother may give biith to very different children.
The specific difference will be inherited from the other of the
two parents, in this case represented by the copyist, and will
depend on whether he is painstaking, careless, violent, arbi-
trary, well-informed, or the reverse. But the mother herself
has a great number of hereditary or acquired peculiarities
which, the latter no less than the former, may be transmitted
to the children in a variety of ways. There is perhaps no
manuscript in existence which is entirely free from corrections,
while, on the other hand, there are many so overlaid with
corrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognis-
able. Codex B, on the whole, is in a very good state of
preservation, but it was supposed lately (see ThLz., 1899,
col. 176) that its first hand wrote in John viii. 57, "and
Abraham saw thee" instead of "and hast thou seen
Abraham," as all our editors read in that passage. 1 The
supposition proved to be incorrect, but if that could possibly
happen with B, what must have happened in the case of
manuscripts that are so full of corrections as n and D, if they
came to be copied in later times ? Suppose that one scribe
took the trouble to copy the text of the first hand, while

1 See below on John viii. 57, p. 289.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

1 79

another thought it his duty to follow the corrections, the
result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would
be scarcely recognisable. And in the course of centuries
how often may not this process have been repeated. No
wonder, therefore, that so few manuscripts have as yet been
clearly made out to be the descendants of our oldest codices,
so as to permit of their being removed from the board with
one sweep, as having no independent testimony to contribute,
as is the case with E 8 which is merely a bad copy of D,
(p. 77), or that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship
existing between two manuscripts like F 8 and G 3 (p. 77). 1
Nor need we be surprised to find that some of our most
peculiar witnesses seem to have remained absolutely child-
less, while a less valuable race is perpetuated in many
copies. The words of Homer — olq irep <pv\\wv yeverj, toiij Si
tea) av&piav — may be applied conversely to the leaves to which
we entrust our immortality : habent sua fata libelli. The
only unfortunate thing is that we are so little able to follow
the course of these fates by means of external testimony.

When the Emperor Constantine e.g. asks Eusebius to External
supply him with fifty copies of the Scriptures at once, we
cannot but suppose that these became authoritative over a
large area. But in which of the classes into which our manu-
scripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for these
now? 8 And conversely if, in another locality, heathen per-

1 An instructive discussion of the relationship between D, and E, is given in
Hort's Introduction, §§ 335-337. It is possible that one copyist in Rom. xv.
31-33 took \va v Siaxoyla fiov i) «ir 'Upovaa\hn .... 5ii i*< AVj^aToj Qtav, and
the other wal h tvpofopla fiov v 4y 'Up .... Si} dtK-tmaros XpivTav 'lijcroD — i.e.
two entirely different recensions.

" Zahn very properly remarks (Th. Li/., 1899, 16, 179): "One must not, at
least as regards the N. T , confound Eusebius with Pamphilus, or, if I might say
so, with the firm of Pamphilus and Eusebius. If the fifty Bibles that Eusebius
provided at the bidding of the Emperor for the use of the churches of the capital
had contained a text of the N. T. prepared on the basis of the previous works and
commentaries of Orlgen, the entire subsequent history of the text of the N. T. in
the region of Constantinople, revealing as it does the extensive propagation of the
Antiochean text, would be perfectly incomprehensible. As in the matter of the
canon so also of the text of the N. T., Eusebius emancipated himself from the

testimony.

i8o

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. HI.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

181

secution was directed specially against the Bibles of the
Christians, this cannot have been without some effect. Accord-
ing to C. Hiilsen (Bilderaus der Geschichte dcs Kapitols, Rome,
1899), even the Roman Bishop Marcellinus, with his deacons
Strabo and Cassianus, in the year 304, burned, in front of the
temple of Juno Moneta, those Gospels which ten years later
were made the law of Christian Rome by the Emperor Con-
stantine. These scattered notices must be much more care-
fully collected and considered than hitherto, and combined with
the results obtained from the collation of the manuscripts.

Recensions. Most of our information with respect to the recensions of

the Bible comes from the Syrian Church, and is concerned
rather with the Old Testament than with the New ; but the
recensions of the former may throw some light on those of
the latter.

Lucian. (a) As the result of their researches, Westcott and Hort have

made it very probable, on internal grounds, that a recension
of an official nature was undertaken in Syria, perhaps at
Antioch, about the fourth century, and that to this recension
are due the origin and propagation of that form of the text
of the New Testament which was widely disseminated in the
Byzantine Empire, now represented in our,later minuscules, and
made the textus receptus by means of the first printed editions.
Lucian, the celebrated founder of the Antiochean school of
exegesis, suffered martyrdom in the year 311 or 312, most
probably the latter. Of all the names that we know, none has
a better claim than his to be associated with such a recension,
and the conjecture derives some support from the passage
of Jerome cited above (p. 85). 1 It is, perhaps, even better
supported by what we know of Lucian's recension of the Old
Testament. In his preface to the Chronicles, Jerome wrote :
' Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat

school of Origen, and attached himself to that of Antioch, at least in this par-
ticular instance fraught with such important consequences for the history of the
Bible."

1 See Hort, Introduction, §§ 1S8, 1S0

auctorem, Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris
exemplaria probat, mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinae
(v./. Palaestinos) codices legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos
Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt ; totusque orbis hac inter
se trifaria varietate compugnat." Now it is true that the words
of a man like Jerome must not be pressed too far, and what
may have been true in his day might be quite different in a
comparatively short time— think e.g. of the fifty copies of the
Bible that Eusebius Pamphili had sent to Constantine, or the
Bible or Bibles sent by Athanasius to Constans 1 — at the
same time it has been established beyond all doubt by Field
and Lagarde, that it is to Lucian we must refer a peculiar
recension of the Greek Old Testament preserved in a good
many manuscripts, the one found in the unfortunately small
remnant of the Gothic Old Testament and especially in the
numerous Biblical quotations of the famous theologian John
of Antioch, better known as Chrysostom of Constantinople,
who was a pupil of Lucian. The probability, therefore, is
very great that the same thing will hold good of the New
Testament portion of the Bible of Ulfilas and Chrysostom.
As regards the former, Kauffmann has expressed a decided
opinion to this effect in his work on the Gothic Bible cited
above (p. 139). The supposition would be converted into
something like certainty if it could be proved on palatographs
grounds that this or that New Testament manuscript belongs
to this or that Old Testament manuscript of Lucianic deriva-
tion as part of what was originally one and the same complete
Bible. This is a point which I am not in a position personally
to investigate, and I must therefore content myself with throw-
ing out this suggestion, and with adding in support of it that
we have the express testimony of the Menologies for saying
that Lucian bequeathed to his pupils a copy of the Old and
New Testaments written in three columns with his own hand.

1 Athanasius, writing to Constans, says in his first Apology : rf ii(\(py aov o\>*
typwfya >i fiovov Stc .... na\ 3tc nvnria tux 8tlwv ypaipb'y Kf\tvuavrot avrov
fiot KaratTKtuairai, raura iroiJiaas &ir«<TT«iAa.

182

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

183

There is a statement in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis, 1
which seems, however, to refer only to the Old Testament
portion, to the effect that it was discovered in a concealed
cupboard (-Kvpyl&Kos) in the house of a Jew at Nicomedia in
the time of Constantine. Long ago Hug and Eichhorn attri-
buted the " Asiatic " or " Byzantine " recension to Lucian, and
no decided objection can be established to the view of Hort,
which Gregory also is inclined to accept (TiGr., p. 814). 2

1 It is given in Syriac in AbW Martin's Introduction A la critique lextuelle
du N. T., Plate XX. No. 35 (1883), from the MS. de Paris, 27, f 88 b, and
also in Lagarde's Bibliotheca Syriaca, 259, 22-27. From the Greek wvpylaicos,
which becomes KpD-nB in the Semitic, the Syriac forms another diminutive
KJipo-ne, which is still omitted in the Thesaurus Syriacus, 3240 ; cf. Bar Bahlul,
1606, 9 (App. p. 64). In place of xvpylana, Oikonomos would read the genitive
wvpyicrKov {-wfpt ruv 6 tp^vtvTwv, iv. 500).

a Not only does the Old Testament promise to shed some light upon an obscure
problem in the New, but the converse may also be true — viz. that the history of the
text of the New Testament may contribute to a better understanding of that of the
Old. It was long observed that many peculiarities of the Lucianic revision of the Sep-
tuagint occur also in the witnesses to the Old Latin version (see especially Driver,
Notes on Samuel, p. li ; Urt., 78). No proper explanation of this phenomenon
could be given so long as-the Old Latin version of the Old Testament was looked
upon as homogeneous and of great antiquity. But the New Testament, for which we
have far more Old Latin manuscripts than for the Old, shows that the Old Latin pre-
Jeromic version had a chequered history, and in particular that at a certain time a
revision was undertaken, the result of which is found especially in Codex Brixianus
(f, seep. 112), and which " non solum interpretationem veterem stilo elegantiori
emendabat, sed etiam lectiones novas protulit. Notatu certe dignum est, in ista
emendatione Itala eminere lectiones quae in maiori parte codicum Graecorum appa-
rent, quas Recensioni Syrac vel Antiochenae adiudicant Westcott et Hort." So say
Wordsworth and White, p. 654. If the same thing holds good of the Old Testa-
ment, then the relationship between the Old Latin and Lucian at once becomes
evident, and the supposition is not so absurd that the marginal glosses of Codex
Legionensis,* which are particularly striking on this view of the case, may have
been translated into Latin from Lucian. These considerations, moreover, may
possibly throw fresh light on the question that I have raised elsewhere (Urt,,
p. 78), whether Lucian may not also have used the Peshitto in his recension of the
Old Testament. I see that it has been taken up by J. Mentan, in his little book,
entitled, La Version grecqtie des Limes de Samuel, prfciaUe d'uue Introduction sur
la critique textuelle (Paris, 1 898). On pp. 96-113 he discusses the same question —
whether Lucian knew and used the Peshitto. He answers the question in the
affirmative: "It is therefore probable that as regards certain passages of the
Books of Samuel, in his work of revision, or rather of correction, Lucian did not
■ Called Codex Gothicus in Hasting!,' Bible Dictionary, iii. p. 50 £.

(6) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out Hesychius.
how matters stand with regard to the recension of Hesychius.
Jerome commends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testa-
ment, but contemptuously rejects it for the New ; and accord-
ingly, in the decree of Pope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels " quae
falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius,
apocrypha " (c. vi. 14, 1 5). Considering the important position
of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast number of manuscripts
referred with more or less certainty to that locality, it is the
more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have as yet
been discovered of the recension of which " Alexandria et
Aegyptus .... Hesychium laudat auctorem," and that till
the present moment the most divergent views have been held
with regard to it. And this is true of the Old Testament no
less than of the New. One view, for which a good deal can
be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.) — viz. that we have
the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. Rahlfs, who was the Codex B.
first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (lid. cit.,
p. 78, note 7) ; " If we care to trust ourselves to pure hypothesis,
we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex, mani-
festly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was
prepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The

follow the Hebrew text as his sole and infallible guide/but availed himself of
others also, and that one of those principal authorities was the Syriac version."
We often enough find i 2vpc> cited as an authority in the Greek Commentaries on
the Old Testament Whether it is also mentioned for the New Testament is a
point that seems not yet to be looked into.

I may add that Bickel concludes his short article in the Zeitschrift fiir kalh.
Theol., iii. 467-469, entitled, " Die Lucianische Septuagintabearbeitung nachge-
wiesen," by saying : " In establishing the recensions of Lucian and Hesychius for
the Septuagint, we may be held as settling the question whether traces of these
may not also be found in the New Testament."

In his EinltUung, ii. 240, Zahn says : " Without a doubt many readings which
had a considerable circulation in the second and third centuries, some of them being
of no small importance and extent, were gradually ousted from their place in the
text from the fourth century onwards, and some of them dropped out of the later
tradition altogether. And it is equally true that many interpolations were current
in these later centuries which were unknown in the second. But whatever our
judgment be in doubtful cases, we are still always in a position to support it with
extant documents."

1 84

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

I8 S

locality in which the manuscript was produced supports this
conjecture, while the time is not inconsistent with it." I am
not aware if Rahlfs knew that Athanasius had executed wvKTia
twv Oelwv •ypcKpw for Constans, and I am not sufficiently
acquainted with the minutiae of the ecclesiastical history of
that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to
hazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius
for the Emperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every
Church History records, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum
and Italy, and that Athanasius fled to Rome to Julius II.,
which would help to explain how Codex B comes to be in
that city. 1 I cannot ascertain however from the books at
my command, whether any particular resemblance has been
observed between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical
quotations found in those writings of Athanasius that belong
to this period of his life, that is, prior to the year 350. And,
besides, one has always to take into consideration how very
little reliance can be placed as yet on the text of the Biblical
quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In the Book of
Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text which
is not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement and
Origen, nor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was em-
ployed first by Cyril of Alexandria, and which is the basis of
the Sahidic version. This fact may have an important bearing
on the question as to the text of the New Testament as well. 2
As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion that the Sahidic
version was the work of Hesychius, but we have very little
information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in
particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that
name. Here also, the evidence afforded by palaeography
would need to be examined with a view to ascertaining
whether or not any of the manuscripts agreeing with B in the

1 Rahlfs cannot, of course, assent to this supposition, seeing thai he regards
Codex B as depending on the Festal Letter containing the Canon of Athanasius,
which was not written till the year 367.

2 See especially Lagarde, Sep/.-S/tidien, 1892, and Moore's Commentary on
Judges, 1895, p. xlvi.

Book of Judges— viz. G (Brit. Mus., 20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58,
63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena Nicephori— has a
counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On
Codex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobschutz
(ThLz., 1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts A
and s66 evv - (Greg). 1 According to the latter, the difference
in size precludes the supposition that A and 566 are the New
Testament portion of the manuscript described by Rahlfs (Joe.
cit). But if they are not written by the same scribe, they both
undoubtedly come from the same school of copyists. At most,
however, A-566 would only possess importance for the recen-
sion of Hesychius if the text they, or rather it, follows were
different from that with which it was collated. Its subscription
shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were collated
with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important
bearing on the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, GK. ii. 648.

(c) We have nearly as little certain information regarding Eusebius-
the third, and perhaps most important, of the recensions * mp '
mentioned by Jerome in connection with the Old Testament,
that of Eusebius and Pamphilus, which goes back to Origen.*
So far as I know, the references which Origen makes in his Origen.
extant writings to his own labours in the field of textual
criticism, relate only to the Old Testament. At the same time

1 See above under A, p. 72.

9 There is no need to discuss here the other expressions used by Jerome in
his letter of the year 403 to the Gothic priests Sunnia and Fretela, seeing that
these relate only to the Old Testament. But the words themselves may be
quoted: " Breviter admoneo ut sciatis, aliam esse editionem, quam Origenes et
Caesariensis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores kou^", id est communem
appellant, atque vulgatam, et a plerisque nunc Aouitiarrfr dicitur, aliam septuaginta
interpretum quae in i^awXois codicibus reperitur, et a nobis in latinum sermonem
fideliter versa est, et Jerosolymae atque in orientis ecclesiae (so Lagarde, Librorum
V. T. (an. pari prior, p. xiii. from Vallarsi, i 635 ?) decantatur .... «oif4
autem ista, hoc est communis, editio ipsa est quae et septuaginta, sed hoc interest
inter utramque quod kou^ pro locis et temporibus et pro voluntate scriptorum
vetus corrupta editio est, ea autem quae habetur in IJarXoTr et quam nos vertimus,
ipsa est quae in eruditorum libris incormpta et immaculata septuaginta interpretum
translatio reservatur " (ibid., 637). , For Aoi/Kiavifr Oikonomos (iv. 499) would read
AovKiart*.

1 86

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

his complaint as to the evil condition of the manuscripts of
his day refers to the New Testament, and to the Gospels in
particular. Nwi <5e SiiXovoti, he says, in his Commentary on
Mattheiv, Bk. xv. 14, ttoAX^ ytyovev 1} twv avTtypd<puJv Sia<j>opd,
elre airo pa.Qvp.laf tivwv ypa<f>ewi>, eiVe dtro roXyuijy tivwv (io\Qt]pd^
T17S SiopQwaeuig twv ypa<pop.evwv, eiTe Kat airo tuiv to eairoiV
Sokovvtu iv rg Siopddxret irpoa-TiOevrwv t) a<f>aipouvToov. 1 He tells
us in the same place how, deou SiSovtos, he found ways and
means of remedying the evil by the employment of the critical
symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus and asterisk,
Tt]V p.ev ovv iv TOiy avTiypa<f>oi<: tiJs TraAaiay Sta6t)Ki]s 8ia<f>u>viav,
6eov StSovros, fvpofiev laaaaQat. According to his own express
declaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved,
for it is only extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism
at that time at least was confined to the Old Testament :
in exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me
posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von Gebhardt
consequently says (Urt., 25) that this statement from
Origen's own mouth should have kept anyone from ascrib-
ing a formal recension of the New Testament text to him,
alluding to Hug's system of recensions ; but at the same
time he will not deny that the works of Origen, who was a
man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the highest
importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testa-
ment. As a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal
chiefly to Origen's manuscripts of the Old Testament, but
several references are also found to his New Testament
manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii. 418):
legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit non
credere veritati ? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three
words only) quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur,
omisimus. The words are a gloss interpolated from ch. v. 7,
but they are also found in Origen, though only in the Latin

1 A. D. Loman would emend this passage by reading tin Airi /loxtfipiai xiji

Siopdwotus ric ypaQopivwy tin na! Awi r6\fiijs tu>ui> tuv tA iavroU toKQwra
(Leiden. Theol. Tijdschr., vii., 1873, 233).

CHAP. Ill]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

I8 7

translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our Greek
manuscripts, in C D c E K L P, and likewise in most codices
of the Vulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The
same writer says on Matthew xxiv. 36 (ii. 199): in
quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum est "neque filius,"
quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplari-
bus hoc non habeatur additum ; sed quia in nonnullis legitur,
disserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no
doubt the Presbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after
the Diocletian persecution. He was styled " the younger
Origen" on account of his learning, and was perhaps the
teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, Viri III., 76 ; Eusebius, Eccl.
Hist., vik 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is a surname
of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact
that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen's
exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also
extant only in Latin, and there expounded so fully that
there cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his
text, and, moreover, had no conception of their omission in
other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this
fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up
the question where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars
of Pierius. I suppose it would be in Caesarea, where he also
saw the (Bible ?) volumes of Origen transcribed by Pamphilus
with his own hand, and actually obtained possession of his
copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets. 1 Even
supposing that what is meant by exemplaria Adamantii is
not really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply

1 What he says is ( Viri Illust. , c. 75): Pamphilus presbyter, Eusebii Caesar-
iensis episcopi necessarius, Unto bibliothecae divinae amore flagravit, at maximam
partem Origenis voluminum sua manu descripserit, quae usque hodie in Caesar-
iensi bibliotheca habetur. Sed et in duodecim prophetasvigintiquinqueV(>)74<ri«r
Origenis volumina manu eius (i.e. Pamphili) exarata repperi, quae tanto amplectoi
et servo gaudio, ut Croesi opes habere me credam. Si enira laetitia est unam
epistulam habere martyris, quanto magis tot rnilia versuum, quae mihi videntur
suis sanguinis signasse vestigiis. The above is Richardson's text. Bernoulli
(Kruger's Sammlung, Heft xi. 1895) reads habentur, Sed in, and videtur, and also
omits volumina.

i88

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

the copy that Origen used most or used last, that copy
might have been authoritative for Pamphilus if not for
Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes necessary for us
to try and discover the Origenic text in the New Testament
as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our
manuscripts go. back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of
the Pauline Epistles. In addition to a very practical
suggestion as to the lending of books, 1 and a notice of its
preparation and of the original writer, this manuscript has
also the following note: avr€^\r]Qti 6e 17 /8//3\oc irpoc to ev
Ka«o-a/oia avrlypafpov t>}? /3i/3\io0tikw tov ayiov Hafx<f>t\ou
X«p« yeypanpevov (avrov). From this subscription Field
(Hexapla, i. p. xcix) has concluded that the library of
Pamphilus was still in existence in the sixth century, but
it is doubtful whether the subscription may not have been
found in the original of H and copied into it along with the
text, as is the case with a similar note copied into the
Euthalius. minuscules 15, 83, 173. In any case this manuscript is our
principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or, as it
used to be called, the recension of Euthalius. 2 I have no
intention of discussing the question whether it should be
Euthalius or Evagrius : Von Dobschiitz (Euthaliusstudien,
p. 152 n. 1) has promised to give us further particulars

1 llpoaiptttvriaii' icopuvts tlpt loynikrutv Btluy SiSdcrKoAor' &v mi /if xpfoys
at>Tt$ifS\ov \dfi0avt, ol ykp airooirat Hanoi' ' Ayrlo>paats' Brjaaupby «X W *' <*"« *y*v
/xariKuy ayaduy wal iracric aydpu-wots iroOrjibv apfioylais ti jcal votitlKats ypo.fifs.alt
KtKoafnjfieyov — vif t^jv a\i)Stiav — 06 5aVw at wpo\tipus tipI oirt' at <t>9ovtaw rijt
u(ptKttas, xp4l<"» ! * T °'» 0U«f iyrif3ii3\oy Xafifiivoiv. The last seven words,
which are erased in H, are supplied by the minuscule 93P«»> and the Armenian
version. On avrlfafiKoy =" borrowing-receipt " or " voucher," see ThLz., 1895,
283, 407. See also Robinson, Euthaliana, Texts and Studies, iii. 3.

2 To the literature referred to on p. 79 should be added the second section of
Bousset's Textkritische Studien (TU. xi. 4, 1894), entitled, Der Codex Pamphili,
pp. 45-73. Bousset affirms the close connection between the Corrector of
Sinaiticus indicated by Tischendorf as c and Codex H. I have established the
connection of this corrector in the Psalter with Eusebius by means of the latter's
Commentary on the Psalms (see above, p. 58). As yet no one appears to have
examined the New Testament quotations in Eusebius. Cf. however Bousset,
Thl.z., 1900, 22, 611 flf.

CHAP. HI.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

I89

as to the Syriac texts relating to the subject. I would
merely call attention to two facts, viz. —

(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the Harklean.
exemplar of Pamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean
Syriac published by Bensly (see above, pp. 79, 106).

(2) That the name Evagrius, which Ehrhard proposes to Evagrius.
read in place of Euthalius in Codex H, is actually found
associated with the library of Pamphilus in another manuscript

of the Old Testament. I n his Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorutn
Sinaitici (Lipsiae, i860), pp. 73-122, Tischendorf published
" Ex Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori Siculi ;
Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis." The latter he took
from a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe's Report
.... on the Greek MS S. yet remaining in the Levant (1858,
p. 61), professed to contain "Origenis Hexapla cum Scholiis"
after the Philocalia. In reality they are Origen's Scholia on
the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published in a different
form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the Nova Patrutn
Bibliotheca, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia -
proper are prefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes on
the use of the obelus and the asterisk, and on the different
arrangement of the chapters in the Hebrew and Greek texts,
followed by another explanation of the same sort under the
title Evayplov trxoXioi'. 1 Who they are that are referred to in
the scholion as having collated the book (t£>v avTi/3e/3X^K6ra>v
to fiifiXioy) we learn from the subscription, which says :
fiert\}j<pdri<Tav a<f>' 5>v tvpoficv e£air\5)v koi 7raA«i' avra xetp\ (leg:
avTO\eipi) Uafi<f>t\oc koi EiWjSioc SiopOuxravTO. This sub-
scription, which Oikonomos published fully fifty years ago

1 It runs : Btaly ta* wportTay/iiyoy tx°vai roy ipiSiiiy Sit; ta* '(Ipiytyijy
iwiytypafifiivov (x" tout? t$ povoavwdgif R - f t,rl Si M dWTa 4y t$ 'l40- ttra
Si irtpl Siaipuytas /)l)Tuy TiyHy Tuy iy t$ 4Sa</>ly tf ixUatiiy iariy a%6\ia, iwtp
«al kiItu ytytvitvtay rtptta-nyfiivTfy *x» »>wt«t*wmVi)i', ray h.vTi0t0KrfKaTtiv to
0i0\loy tarty- Sao. Si afi<pi06kat f{» xtlfitya fart, l(u vtytvxway ittpitartyixiytiy
*X«' TpoTtTa-rytfVqy, Sib. tA o\i\>a wpoatT^aay kot' airi to5 fityi\ov ( !pi,,J m
Sioaani\ov Ira nh S<i{p kcitA Ktyou to axi\loy t^pttrSm, iy ioxWj fiiy T i, arT1 .
ypitptty ruy farSy ohttt ixiiruy, iy tout*. Si /xt> oDtbi Kfi/»Va>v t) fi-qt' four
ajtpoiiivuv ical 01a tuCto wpoartSiyruy.

190

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

Later
revisers.

from that Patmos manuscript, 1 should be added to those
usually cited — viz. those appended to Ezra and Esther in »,
to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex Marchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings
in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in Codex Chisianus 88.
With what has been said the student should compare
what Von der Goltz tells us of a critical work upon the text
of the New Testament belonging partly to the tenth and
partly to the sixth century. 2 This, too, goes back to Origen,
and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part of which
is unfortunately erased, the work mentions "a manuscript
written by the hand of St. Eusebius." As Zahn elsewhere
shows, the writer of the Athos manuscript did not base his
own work on this Codex of Eusebius, and in one passage he
expressly contrasts it with the text of Origen which he follows.
In spite of this, however, this Athos manuscript must be taken
into account in dealing with the recension of Pamphilus. Still
more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according to
Conybeare and von Dobschutz. 3 Even the Latin manuscripts
may contain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has
shown that the table of chapters in Hebrews given in Codex
Fuldensis and in a manuscript indicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9,
is nothing but a translation of the corresponding part of
" Euthalius." 4 Unfortunately the relics of the literary activity
of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the Scriptures, 6 are
exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is extant only in a
Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt to
specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible
by means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless.

(d) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive
at the oldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take

1 nepi tw i ippirimvTwv, iv. 904. Athens, 1844-1849.

' Ttxte unci Unlersuchtmgen, xvii. (N.F. ii. ) 4. See above, p. 90.

» Euthaliusstudien, pp. III-I15 ; 115 ff.

4 Neue Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, ii. 3, 3 (1894), pp. 360-363. Com-
pare also von Dobschutz, lib. cit., III.

5 fiiKiiXTa ii »apa toiii KaB' iifias vivTas Sitirpiirt rp w(f>\ rk 6«Ta \6yla
yvjitriwrATTi irwDvtfl. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii. II.

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

191

CHAP. III.]

account of the labours of any later individuals in the formation
of the Greek New Testament. Among these were Emperors
and Empresses like Constantine and Constans, who exerted
themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures, and perhaps
even made copies of them with their own hands, but these
we may disregard. 1 The work of Andreas and Arethas on
the Apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of
that book. One naturally turns here to Krumbacher's
History of Byzantine Literature, but the index to the first
edition of that work contains only two references to the New
Testament, neither of them bearing on our present subject.
The matter is one which may be commended to those who
have the time and the opportunity and the willingness to
investigate it, and considering the ardour with which the
study of Byzantine antiquities is being prosecuted at present,
it may suffice merely to throw out this hint.

(e) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much Pte-Origenic
uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have
already considered— those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, .
and the Ferrar Group. Considering the amount of evidence
at our command — how the external testimony points in the
same direction as the manuscripts themselves, and, indeed, how
probable is the whole nature of the operation in question — one
would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of
all. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks
without any hesitation of " the official recensions originating
subsequent to the time of Origen" (ThLbl., 1899, 180).
The vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these re-
censions does not look very promising for the result of our
investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen, when
activity in this field was more disconnected and might be
said to run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further

1 See above, p. 87 ff., on Evan. 473, Act. 246, 419, Evl. 286, and compare Zahn,
TkLbl., 1899, 181 : Would that some one with the time and opportunity to work
in the Monasteries of Mount Athos applied himself to the Codex written in the
year 800 by the unhappy Empress Maria (Lambros 129, S. Pauli 2). Since
the above was written the manuscript has been collated by Von der Goltr.

192

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. HI.

difficulty that some of the writers who fall to be considered
in this period came in later times more or less justly under
the imputation of heresy, with the consequence that the
results of their labours were less widely disseminated, if not
deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like these any
attempted revision of the text must have been equally mis-
chievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or
from the opposite. That there were Siopdooral who were
supposed to correct the text in the interests of orthodoxy
we have already learned from Epiphanius. Indeed, from our
point of view the action of the orthodox correctors must
be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the books
without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange,
and even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of
style it seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands
that the Gospels received that reserved and solemn tone which
we would not now willingly part with, and which can be
compared to nothing so much as to those solemn pictures of
Christ that we see painted on a golden background in
Byzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the
slightest doubt that the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly,
was originally narrated in a much more vivacious style. Just
consider this, for example. In all our present authorities —
Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac, Egyptian, and so
forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception, so
far as I am aware — we read the beautiful words: "your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask
Him," irpo tov vfias aiTtjcrai auTov (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with
this what we find singly and solely in Codex D and the Old
Latin h, irpo tov avoi^ai to trro/ua, antequam os aperiatis,
" before ever you open your mouth." To me it is a striking
indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality
is wanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott
and Hort among their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor
even cited by Baljon in his critical apparatus, and that our
commentators have not a single syllable about it, so that our

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

'93

students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form
of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New Testament
did no more than bring such things to the notice of those
who previously were unacquainted with them, I should
consider it had done no small service. But take another
illustration from the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. " Cut
it down, why cumbereth it the ground," — that is how our
ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant
husbandman in Luke xiii. 7 : esicoyfrov uvt>')v ivarl xai tijv ytjv
Karapyei. Here again, the great majority of our witnesses
of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning, except
that a good many (ALT etc.) insert a very prosy ovv
after the imperative, while B 80 read tov tottov for ri/v yijv.
And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), " till I shall
dig about it and dung it," there is again no various reading in
our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant in-
terchange of (/3dX&)) Koirpia, Koirplav, and Kowpov. What a differ-
ence do we find here also in the text of D : " bring the axe,"
(pepe Ttjv a£ivnv, adfers securem ; and, " I will throw in a basket
of dung," fia\w Ko<f>ivov Kowpiwv, mittam qualum ( = squalum)
stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff 2 i 1 q, from which
it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the
Alcuinian recension of the Vulgate written in gold. 1 Here
again, our editors and commentators for the most part take
no notice. " Bring the axe " is omitted by Weiss, father and
son, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by Baljon, while
Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of
course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual
proof of greater originality. But the whole question is raised
as to the principles by which we are to be guided in esti-
mating the comparative value of the witnesses. One might
be inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice

On n&<pivov Kttxplwv, see Chase, Syro-Latin 7'ext, p. 135 f. It may be
observed in passing how variously «caTaf>7«i is rendered in the different Latin
manuscripts— \iz. by cvacuat in b fp lq, by delinet in ft ; ' c i r, by intrirat in e,
and by cecupat in d and the Vulgate.

194

GREER NEW TESTAMENT.

[CIIA1'. III.

of some scribe by whom D or its parent manuscript was
written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort, and most
recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite
the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In
the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of
the case, because as yet we have no other testimony to <pepe
i> u£'i»/i> than D d. But it is not so likely in the case of
Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the testimony of D is supported
by that of h. To justify our neglect of these witnesses, we
should require to prove either that h is derived from D or D
from h. 1 So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet
maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is
an impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to
the fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century
(see p. 1 13). 2 The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second
and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date
the text of Matt. vi. 8 read, "before you open your mouth."
But it is quite impossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke
xiii. 8 {ko<j>ivov Koirp'ucv). Here too, of course, one might take
exception and say that as D is bilingual, its Greek text might
be derived from the Latin. Fortunately, however, it happens
that the Latin of D, that is, d, differs from all the other eight
Latin witnesses in reading not cophinus but qualus, and it is
cophinus that is a loan word from the Greek'; so that this
objection, actually raised against D in the case of other read-
ings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be observed,
moreover — a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in
Westcott and Hort— viz., that Origen also seems to have read
"basket." The passage is again one that is extant only in

1 The evidence of il in this passage cannot tie had, unfortunately, as eight
leaves (a quaternio) containing the Greek of Matt. vi. 20-ix. 2, and the Latin of
vi. 8-viii. 27, have gone amissing.

- Unfortunately h exhibits only the text of Matthew, otherwise I might simply
have leferred to the list of variants on p. 120. I am not aware if what Words-
worth and White (vol. i. p. xxxii) say of this manuscript is still true : Codex hodie,
ut fertur, in bibliotheca Vaticana inveniri non potest.

3 Sec Index in Wordsworth and White, p. 75 1.

chap. 111]

THEORY AND I'RAXIS.

195

the Latin translation of Rufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or.
3, 452 among the witnesses supporting Kowpia; but Westcott
and Hort expressly mention that Origen's context appears to
support the reading icocpivov (" Lev. lat. Ruf, 190, apparently
with context ")

Here, then, we have these three stages : —

(1) D d alone, <f>epe -riji' ('i^'tvijv — i.e. one solitary Greek

manuscript.

(2) D supported by h, Uvoi$at to a-ro/xa — i.e. the same

solitary Greek manuscript with the addition of one
representative of a version.

(3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen,

KOtpwov Koirplwf — i.e. the same solitary Greek manu-
script with the addition of eight representatives
of one version and one not absolutely certain
quotation.

What then ? Can it be allowable to judge a reading's claim
to be mentioned and considered from the number of the
witnesses supporting it, and like Westcott and Hort and
Baljon to mention the third only, and take no notice of the
other two? I think not. For just as in certain circum-
stances the correct reading may no longer appear in any
manuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in
another case the truth may have only one solitary represen-
tative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries
(Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary witness either a manuscript, a
version, or a quotation. On the other hand, it may have' a
whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and supporting it.
In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with the
case whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. The
true man is willing and able to stand alone, and to many
a witness of this sort we must apply the words of Socrates : a
fxtv a-wiJKa yeviaia- oinat Se kui it fii, cri/i^/crj. If we have been
able to verify the word of a witness once, several times,
frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in cases'

196

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CIIAI'. III.

CHAP. Ill ]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

'97

where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must
make allowance for human fallibility — quandoque bonus dor-
mitat Homerus ; least of all in matters of this kind must we
look for inerrancy. A manuscript whose testimony was
decisive on every point would be even a greater miracle than
a book printed without a single error at the time of the
Incunabula, which the printers of that age would have
regarded as an eighth wonder of the world. But how to
estimate the character of such a witness, seeing that the sub-
jective feeling, the instinctive perception of what is original,
is as little to be trusted as the number of the witnesses — that
is the difficulty. And what is the point that our discussion
has brought us to? From the "official recensions of the
text " made in the later centuries, we sought to get back to
similar works of earlier times, and we found that the original
text may have suffered as much at the hands of orthodox
revisers and correctors, who toned down and obscured the
fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands of
heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements. 1

Unfortunately very little definite information has come down
to us from those early times, and as that relates more to the
history of the canon than of the text, reference must be made
here to the monumental work of Zahn. 2 Two figures, however,

1 At the same time it must be pointed out here that not only in Luke and Acts,
hut in all the books of the N. T., it is wrong in principle to present the alternative
11 original or later alteration " or even forgery. The dilemma can be wrongly
stated, lilass was not the first to express the opinion, " Lucam bis edidisse
Actus." De Dieu did so before him, and by an examination of those passages of
the Gospels in which the original text has been preserved in purely "Western"
witnesses Hort (§ 241) was led to suppose that the Western and non- Western
texts may have "started respectively from a first and a second edition of the
Gospels, both conceivably apostolic." Similarly Wordsworth and White are
unable to explain the origin and propagation of several readings in the manu-
scripts of the Vulgate otherwise than by supposing that the primitive document
itself contained certain variants (corrections) in the passages in question.

2 Geschickte des ncutcstamentlichcn A'atwns (Erlangen) : I. Band, Das N. T.
vor Origenes, I and 2 Halfte, 1888-89 ; II. Band, C/rt linden mid Belege zurn
erstcn ttnd drilltn Band, 1890-92. It is to be hoped that the third volume
will not be long in making its appearance. Along with this we must take his

emerge from this chaos who have left their traces on the
history of the text as well, Tatlan and Marcion, the former
chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the
Pauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more
than once in the chapter on the " Materials " (Tatian, p. 97 f. ;
Marcion, pp. 76, 87), and both will require careful considera-
tion here in our treatment of the principles involved in the
reconstruction of the text. How much would be achieved
could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the
Gospels, or the Gospel and the Apostle of Marcion !

{f) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a Heretics,
few less important notices to be gleaned from their own and
the preceding time.

Nearly all the heretics were in turn accused of falsifying the
Scriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true,
" jedere ketter heef t zijn letter " (every heretic has his letter,
his text of the Scriptures). In early times Justin charged the
Jews with such falsification in the Old Testament, and Lagarde
was sometimes inclined to suspect that the Massoretic
numbers in Genesis had been manipulated by the opponents
of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently made
against the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and when
we glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseud-
epigraphical writings, 1 it is abundantly evident that at various
times there was a good deal of falsification — i.e., a good deal
written under false names. At the same time it cannot be
denied that alterations were also made on early Christian
works and the books of Scripture in the interests of dogma.
These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from quite harm-
less changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections,

Forschttngen zur Geschickte des netUestamentlichen Kanoiis mid der altkirchlichcn
Literatur, of which six volumes have been published (1881-1900). Meanwhile
Zahn's Einlcilung in das Nctu Testament (Leipzig, I., 1898 ; II., 1899, 2nd ed.,
1900) cannot be too strongly recommended. It contains a great deal of valuable
material for the criticism of the text. Needless to say, textual criticism is the basis
on which all sound exegesis rests.
1 A small selection will be found in Preuschen, Analecta, pp. 152-157.

198

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

and, it may be, even wilful corruptions. 1 But most assuredly
the heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this
offence : Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra.

As Julicher {Eitd., 378) points out, the orthodox Church
teachers were very fond of making this charge against the
heretics: TrapaX\d<T<reiv, irapaxapdcr<retv, pqSiovpyeiv, SiutpQeipeiv,
egcupeiv, a<j>ayt£ttv, KaropQovv (ironically), airoKoirreiv, irapcucoV-
Teii', wepiKoirTuv, /uLeraTtOevai, TrpocrTiOevat, interpolare, adul-
terare, violare, corrodere, dissecare, auferre, delere, emendare
(ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere, these are some
of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion gave
occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke
and the Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics,
especially the Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Nova-
tians, Arians, and Donatists, and against the Nestorians, the
same accusation is made as was formerly brought against the
Jews. Even within the pale of the Church one party attri-
buted such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster, e.g., believed
that in the case of important discrepancies between the Greek
and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the
presumption of the Greek writers who had interpolated
spurious matter. Jerome was afraid this would be said of
him if he ventured to make the slightest alteration : quis
doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in vocem,
me falsarium, me, damans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid
in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in
Apoc. xxii. 18 f. was also referred to the "falsifiers," who
thought it more convincing and more reverent to observe the
rules of grammar and logic than to abide by all the peculiar
expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of Cyprian
bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting
the verse John v. 8, substituted for Kpa^aTToi the better
Greek word a-Kifnrovt, another shouted to him in the hear-
ing of all the multitude, " Art thou better than he who said

1 Here again, unfortunately, we have no collection of notices referring to the
history of the text as distinguished from that of the canon.

CHAr. III.J

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

199

Kpa^arroi that thou art ashamed to use his words?" 1 And
it is a well-known fact that in the time of Augustine there
was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation over
Jonah's " gourd " (cucurbita) or Jonah's " ivy " (hedera). A
few references at least may be collected here : —

(1) On a certain Sunday 2 in the year 170 or thereabouts,
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Rome
through their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the
following among other passages (Eccl. Hist., iv. 23) : — 'Ettio-toXos yap

a&f\<f>tav a£iia<T<i.VTUiV fit ypauVat !ypa>fiu. Km Tavras oi tov Sia/36Xov
ciTrdaroAoi 3 £i£av(u>v ytyifuxav, a fiiv cfaipoCires, d Si 7rpooTif?«TCS.
Ols to oval K€irat. 4 Oi 6dvpao-r6v apa, 5 tl ko.1 t£>v Kvptanuiv
paSiovpyrjo-ai nvcs tVi/Jf'/JA.TjrTai ypatpuiv, 6it6t€ xal Tail oi Totavrai?
cirty3c/3ovAcu'xao~t. The Kvptaxat ypatpal are in all likelihood the
Gospels (the Syriac renders " the writings of our Lord "), but may
also include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we are to take
the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would appear that
these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted by means
of "additions" and "omissions." The last sentence, if it is put
correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us to infer
that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his surprise that the
writings of the Lord should have been falsified. To which Dionysius
replies that certain letters of his own had been falsified also, and that
it was therefore no wonder if they did the same to the writings of
the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or, even) with those that were
inferior to them. The simplest explanation of the words is, un-
doubtedly, that Dionysius sought to console himself over the fate that

'Julicher, he. cil., from Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., i. II. On the Latin form
grabattum, see W.-W., Index, p. 756, incl^iroi/i occurs as early as Clem. Al.
facet., 1, 2, 6. In the parallels to Mark ii. 6, Matthew has xKiyti (ix. 6), and
Luke kAivKiov (v. 24). Cf. the passage cited by Ligarde (De Novo Test., 20=
Gcs. Abh., 118) from Lucian's PhilofscueUs, II ; 6 MUar airis ipimvos rby
cTKi^iroSa 4<p' ov Ikck^uitto $x <t0 *'* bypbv k-wiwv.

2 Tr/r trfintpov ely Kvptatciiv iitiipav itrtydyofny, iv ?J aviyvwixtv i/fiuy ri,v
ixHTTQKty' ^y ilofHV iti wort ivaytyuffKovrts vovOirt IffBai, us xa\ ri^y wportpav
7]fuy 81A K\flntVTOS ypatptiaav.

3 Cf. Matt. xiii. 27, SouAoi tou oixotftnriiToi/, and also the superscriptions of the
N. T. Epistles, particularly those of Paul, where JoC\oj 'Ij|<roG Xpurrov is varied
by iwiaraKot '1. X.

' " is reserved "— Syr. » "but '—Syr.

200

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

201

had befallen his letters, by reflecting that it was not surprising that they
had falsified his letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed
to do the same even to the writings of the Lord. On the first inter-
pretation, one would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger
expression to describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred
writings than the mere oi> Oavpaarov. Who are meant by tu<«?
One most naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account,
Soter, whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed
a book against the Montanists.
Anemonites. (3) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical
History (c. xxviii.), entitled Xltpi iw Trp> 'Apripuivos a'pto-iv e£apx»js
irpofitf3kT)p€Vv 0T01 TC tov rpoirov yiyovacri. Kai ojra>5 Tas dyi'as ypai/>as
&ia(f>Oiipai TtroXprjuao-iv, Eusebius quotes the following complaint from
an earlier source, entitled the Little Labyrinth ( ± 235) :— I>a<pas piv
6Was d(pd/3u)S pepaSiovpyrjica&iv, 7RoreaJS 8« dpxaias Kavova. ^flcTJ/icao-i,
Xpioroi' 8« rjyvo-qKaa-iv, ov Tt al 6tiai Xe'youca ypa<£al tjjTovvTK, but

occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry, Euclid, Aristotle,
Theophrastus, and Galen, Tats twv Artltmtv Tex>ais, t*jv a.ir\jjv rutv
Otituv ypatpiov ttuttiv KairrfXtvovTc: .... 81a toJto Tats Otiats ypa<£ais
dipd/Jujs eVt'/JaXop Taj %tipas, Xt'yoi'Tes ovtos Siu>p6u)Ktvai. Kai on
tuvto pi) Ka.Ta.il/iv86p.tvos airmv Xe'ycu, 6 fiovXoptvos SuVaTai paOriv. El
yap tis 0tXjJo-« o-uyKO/uVat airwv ixdo-Tov ri avTiypa<fia i(tTaitiv wpos
aAXjjXa, Kara jtoXv av tvpoi Sia<pu)vovvTa. ' Ao~vp<f>iDva youy «orai Ta
'AcrKXTprtdSou to« ©toSbYou. IIoXXSi' SI co-tip tinroprjo-aj. 01a to
^kXoti/xws cyyeypdcpoW tovs paOijras avriov to i<ft fKaorov avriov, us
airol KaXovQ-i KO.T uipd hi pi v a. Tovrio-Ttv r)<pavio-p€va. ndXip 8e toutois
ra 'Epp.o<piXou oi 0"woS«. Ta yap 'AttoXXwci'Sou ov8t aiTa. tavrols coti
avpfpiDva- "Evetrri yap crvyxpivai Ta irpoTipov vir airu>v ' icaTao-Ktv-
ao-6'cVra tois varepov iraXiv imSiaoTpatpiio'i, ko\ tvp€iv Kara 7roXu
dira8on-a. "Ooip 8« ToXprjs icrri tovto to apaprr/pa, cwos /")8c ckciVou?
dyi/otti'. *H yap ou iriO"T€uouo-ip 'Ayiut IIptv/AaTi \c\i\uaL Ta? p«ia?
ypa^ms, Kai tiVif aVuTTor ij tauTovs ^yowiTai o-o<£(DT«poi/9 tov Aytou
Tlv€vpaTos inapxeiv, xal ri. Ircpov 7/ SatpovSxriv ; OiSf yap dpcijo-ao-tfai
Swairai iavruiv ttvai to ToXp-qpa, brroTav koa. Tfl a^ruii' X"P' H
ytypappiva, kox wap' &v Ka.Tt)\r)6r)o-av pr) Toiavras irapi\af3ov tos
ypatpaf kox 8tifat di'Ti'ypa<pa, oflcv auTa pfT€ypdiparTO, pr) f\ioo-i>.
"Evioi Si airuiv ov&i Trapayapa(ro~tiv j)(i'n>o-av aiTas, dXX' drrXuis

1 This reading is confirmed by the Syriac as against bit airoC read by
Christophorson and Savil.

CHAP. HI.]

apvrjcrdptvoi toV Te vopov icaX tovis irpoiprjTaf avopov k«u afftov Stoao - -
KaVas jrpo<pdo-ti X"P' T0S > € '* to-xaTOf a7ru>X«'as o\tdpov KaTwXio-8rjO-av.

The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the
writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because
their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts,
" each one's emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are
corruptions," as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not quite
certain that KaTuipdmpiva really means corrected manuscripts of the
Bible, and not the heretics' own works — i.e., whether we should

Understand avriypatfia ru>y Otiwv ypaiftwy after Ta 'Ao-icXTpruiSoi;, Ta

©eoSdYou, to 'Ep/xo<^Aou, to 'AjtoXXwi'iSou and not rather ypa.ppa.Ta or
o-urrdy/iaTa. In the former case we shall have to search for a
Tecension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in
the case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a
later. This interpretation of the words does certainly receive sup-
port from the positive way in which the historian argues from the
conduct of these heretics, that they either did not believe in any
inspiration of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better
themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive tos
ypa<f>as in that form (Toiavras) from their (Christian) instructors, and
were not able to show any older copies from which their own were
transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, we
may conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius
mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvii. 9,
Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts ii. 22,
1 Tim. ii. 5 ; while Hippolytus argues against them on the ground
that in John i. 14, it is not to irvtvpa but 6 Xo'yos o-dp£ iyivtro. No
sure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T.
passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. The
most probable instance is Luke i. 35. " If we may trust the state-
ment of Epiphanius," says Harnack (Monarchianismus, PRE 3 , x. 1 88),
" Theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from
the first (810 »tai to yfwwpcvov Ik <rov ayiov kXjjStjo-ctoi, uios ©eou), 1 as

1 The passage is a conspicuous example of the importance of punctuation.
Bengel punctuates S^iof, kAi)04"itiii vlhs e«oG, and Westcott and Hort Syior
«Atl9VtTai, ulis Sfou. Weiss is accordingly not quite right in citing Bengel
along with Bleek and Hoffman as supporting the view of Tertullian (see Eengel's.
Gnomon). It will be difficult to prove that Tertullian's construction is impossible
"on account of the position of «\i)04<r<Tai." Westcott and Hort surely know
Greek, and Tertullian knew it better than any of us.

202

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAF. III.

Marcosians.

if the words 816 ko.1 were wanting, which makes the sentence imply
that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his approving himself.
But perhaps Theodotus omitted Sio Kal altogether, just as he seems
to have read irctv/ia Kvpiov instead of Trvtvfm ayiov, in order to obviate
all ambiguity/' The latter reading is not mentioned in Tischendorf,
and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion amounts to this, that
whereas he understood Zyiov to be the subject of the sentence,
Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it from ytvv&mvov.*
(3) Speaking of the Marcosians, 2 Irenfeus says (92): — "Evia Bi
Kal Tutv iv EuayyeAi'u) Kdfiivwv cis toJtov tov x,apaKTrjpa f-(0apfu>^ovaiv
.... dAAa. <tai iv ru tiprjKevai • iroAAaias iirtdv/irjo-a Akoxxtcli iva tSiv
Adyiuv Kal ovk (<r)(OV tov ipovvTa, ip.<j>aivovr6s <pa<ri Sdv Ola tov «vos tov

1 It seems worth while to quote here Harnack's words on these notices of the
earliest attempts at textual criticism. He says (Hid., p. 189) : "The charge pre-
ferred against the disciples of that erudite Tanner (Theodotus) by the author of
the Little Labyrinth is threefold. He complains of their formal and grammatical
exegesis of Scripture, of their arbitrary system of textual criticism, and of the
extent to which they were engrossed in Logic, Mathematics, and empirical Science.
At the first glance, therefore, it would appear that these people had no interest
to spare for Theology. But the very opposite is the case. The complainant
himself has to confess that they employed the method of grammatical exegesis
' with the object of establishing their godless conclusions,' and textual criticism
in order to correct the manuscripts of the holy Scriptures. In place of the
allegorical method of exposition, the grammatical is the only right one, and we
have here an attempt to discover a text more nearly resembling the original .
instead of simply accepting the traditional form. How inimitable and charming
really are these notices I . . . . These scholars had to be generals without an
army, because their grammar and textual criticism and logic might only discredit
in the eyes of the churches that christological method which long tradition had
invested with admiration and respect. ... As ' genuine ' scholars— this is an
exceedingly characteristic description that is given of them — they also took a
jealous care that none of them lost the credit of his conjectures and emendations.
No remnants have been preserved of the works of these the first scholarly exegetes
of the Christian Church (the Syntagma knows of the existence of such ; <f. Epiph.
Iv. c. 1)." So writes Harnack. Nothing, however, is said in the text of Eusebius
of a jealous watch over the priority of the conjectures. In the sentence which
Harnack renders " for their disciples have with an ambitious zeal recorded what
each one has corrected as they call it, that is corrupted (deleted ?)," ^iAotI^wj
iyytypiipBai is to be understood simply of a diligent record of "corrections"
undertaken solely out of an interest in their contents. According to the Syriac
i/fanr/tliia is not to be rendered by "deleted," but as Harnack translates it: cf.
the various Syriac versions in Matthew vi. verse 16 (SyrP), verses 19 and JO (SyiP°).
On the validity of the charge of inventing false Scriptures, see Zahn, GK. I, 296 f.
2 Westcott. Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. § 8, p. 308 ff.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

203

ak-qOHi Zva ©edV. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii. 17,
but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words of
Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text itself. 1 The still
earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to be taken as referring to this
practice, 8s av fi<8o&tv)j to. Adyta tov Kvpiov irpos Tas (Si'as iiriOvfuas
Kal Aeyj; p-yrt avao-Taaw f-^Tt uplo-w [etvai], ovtos jrpojTOTOKOS io-ri tov
Sarava. For the exposition of the passage see Zahn, GK. i. 842.

(4) That Basilides 2 altered the text of the Gospels as received by Basilides
the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical views,

and incorporated them in their altered form in his Evangtlium, is
shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (GK. i. 771). He shows also
that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic narrative may have
prepared the way for the belief that Simon the Cyrenian was crucified
instead of Jesus, if this was really his doctrine.

(5) Hippolytus says of Noetus (Lagarde's edition, 45, 19) : oirdrai' Noetus
yap #<Ar;(Tii)o-ii' -rravovpyfvtudai, irtpiKOTTTOVO-l Tas ypatpdf. He means

by this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quota-
tions, and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying
regard to the context. But compare ibid., line 7 ff., al fiiv yap ypatftal
6p6uK Kiyovo-iv, ci AAa av Kal Not/tos vofj- ovk rJSt; Si ci Ndip-os /"j vofi,
Trapa. touto ck/SA^toi al ypadW-

(6) Heracleon, 3 the Valentinian, is said to have read irivri instead Valen-
of i£ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration himself or llnlans
found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly made out.
There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon, or in our com-
mentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, Introd., ii. 260, n. 3, where
reference is made to Lightfoot's Colossians, p. 336, n. 1. Origen,
commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in support of the reading

" Bethany," which, he says, " is found in almost all the manuscripts."
In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the
Scriptures, Irenaeus says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12): scripturas
quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt, quemadmodum
ostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6) : ko.1 ot iwvov U

toiv (uuyy<AiK<D>< Kal Tu>v a7ro<7ToAiitaiv TrtipCivrai ras a7roSct£ct; irouio~9ai
irapaTpiirovTK Tas lpjir)\i!a<; ical pa.SiovpyovvT€S Tas «f7ry>jo-eis, ciAAa Kal

tK v6p.ov Kal wpo^rrruiv. But in i. 11,9 he says of them : Illi vero qui
sunt a Valentino .... suas conscriptiones proferentes, plura habere

1 Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. p. 31a a Ibid., p. 291.

3 Ibid., p. 303 ff. Cf. Texts and Studies, vol. i. 4 : The Fragments of Heracleon,
by A. E. Brooke, M.A.

204

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

Gnostics.

gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia, siquidem in tantum processerunt
audaciae, uti quod ab his non olini sci iptum est, " veritatis evange-
lium " titulent, in nihilo conveniens apostolorum evangeliis, ut nee
evangelium sit apud eos sine blasphemia. For the continuation and
discussion of the passage, see Zahn, GK. ii. 748. See also
Westcott, Canon, p. 298 ff.

Zahn (GK. ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text
of the manuscripts, by the omission of \mip avrdv, e.g., in 1 Cor.
xv. 29, and the insertion of OtoT-qrv; in Col. i. 16.

In 1. 8, i, IrenEeus accuses them of e'£ aypd<f>u>v avayivuio-KovrfS ko.1
to &r] Acyd/j.ei'ov i$ ap.pov o~\oivta irAeVcis cttitticWoi'Tcs. The proverb
is from Ahikar.

The well-known charge made by Celsus (Orig. con. Ce/s., 2, 27 ;
Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the
re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration : Mcto ravrd
rival Tail' 7rio-TcuoVT<i)i' <pr)<rli> (Celsus) is tV p-idrfS T/Koiras ti's to
€<f>€arrdvai avrots /iira^apaTTftv Ik ttJs ttooittjs y/xi^T/s to tvayytkiov
T P l XV K< " TfT P a XV KaL no ^ a XV' *"' «X ouv ""P 05 Toiis f'Xcyj£ous dpvi\o-6at.
McTa^apa^aj'Tas ot to tuayyeAiov dAAovs ovk oTSa 77 Tovs diro MapKia)vos
Kal tous diro OvaXivrivov olfiai 8i kol toiis dwo AovKidvov. Tovro Of
Xtyopfvov ov rov Adyov (o~rlv fyKKtjpa. aAAa Tuiv ToA^^o"avTa»'
paSiovpyrjo-at ra tiayyt'Aia. Kal uio-irtp ov <£iAoo-oaSi'as lyK.\i)p£ fio~iv
oi o-o^tiora\ 17 01 'EiriKOvpeioi t) 01 IIcpnraT^TtKOt rj oiTik«s ttot av waiv
ol \pcvo\>&o£ovvTts, ovrwi oi tov aXrjOivov \pto~Tiayto-fWv €yKXrj/ia 01
p.tra^apdrrovrf'i ra euayyeAta Kat atpeVcis ^tyas c7rciO"dyoiT€S to*
/JouArJ/xaTi T77S 'I^ffoO SiSacrKaAias.

(7) Clement (Strom., iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics corrupted
the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing the emphasis
(in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in copying manu-
scripts ?) ; see Zahn, GK. i. 424. On Tertullian's complaint as to the
way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see below, p. 276.

(8) Clement (Strom., iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. ion, to which he
annexes the reason found in verse f)b, and then goes on to say, 7} <Js
Ttft s tu>v pfrariOivruiv to euayye'Ata, Maxdpiot, <pT)0-iv, ol Stoiiuy/iO'Oi vrrc/J

rrjs SiKaioowris, oti aiTol to-oPTm TeAtioi. Zahn (GK. i. p. 4 1 ') makes
the surmise that when Clement spoke of certain persons who " trans-
posed " or altered the Gospels — i.e., took liberties with the text, he
may have been thinking of Tatian, whose personal intercourse he
may have enjoyed for a length of time, and with whose Greek writings
he shows himself to be familiar.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

205

(9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene Simon Magus
Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the Scriptures Marcionites
by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as addressing

the Fathers at Nicrea, and enjoining them, in dealing with heretics,
to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the holy Scriptures
and those who merely interpret them falsely. The arch-heretic Simon
Magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious Scripture. His sect
possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which they gave the title
"Liber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi." The Phocalites
(Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the Church's
New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in which
the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the Marcion-
ites : Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt addideruntque
Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in locis, quaedam
vero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio omnino sustu-
lerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret opinionibus
ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt "Librum propositi finis."
See Zahn, GK. ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi, Cone. Coll.,
ii. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, 2nd. ed.,
i. 361-368, 282 f. ; Harnack, Der Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Manila
von Maipherkat, TU. (New Series), iv., 1899; ThLz., 1899, 2.

(10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (De Spiritu, iii. 10) : Quern Arians.
locum ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de
vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de
Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae infideli-

tatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque occupa-
verat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus suis
incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium vestrum
in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc etiam
in oriente fecistis.

(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, Greeks,
xvii. 100 f.) : Et tamen sic (i.e. prj dpapr^o-avra) praescribitur nobis

de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod facit
studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti non
potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi verba
legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere videatur. Con-
stat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus graecis translatos
(esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas temporum servavit et
probat : postquam autem a concordia animis discedentibus et haere-
ticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus coeperunt, multa immutata

206

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[chap. in.

Marcion.

sunt ad sensuni humanum, ut hoc contineretur in litteris quod homini
videretur, unde etiam ipsi Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem
verum arbitror, quando et ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur :
nam hodie quae in latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur
a veteribus posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correc-
tion "hodie quae" for "hodieque" in the last sentence is due to
Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as
being the earliest instance known to me of the collocation of ratio
and auctoritas as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Com-
pare the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier
polemics — e.g. against Prierias, and also later in his protest at
Worms.

Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. r, with reference to Acts
xv. 20, 29 : Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen
a sanguine abstinendum adulterant scripturam, quartum mandatum
addentes "et a suffocatis observandum," quod puto nee ne Dei nutu
intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt.

(g) Marcion.— We have more exact information in regard
to Marcion's great undertaking than to these slender attempts
at textual criticism. Here there is a fuller stream of testi-
mony both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. It must be
confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been directed
more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally
than to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here
again, the works of Zahn throw most light upon the subject ;
in other works, like the PRE e.g., this side of Marcion's
activity is very superficially treated. Several points have
already been referred to here and there in the previous part
of this work, but the question must now be treated as a
whole. 1

1 On the literature of the subject, </. Zahn, GK. i. 585-718, Das N. T.
Marriotts ; ii. 409-529, Marriotts N. T. All other works are superseded by
this, but mention may still be made of A. Hahn, Das Evangclittm Marriotts in
seiner urspriinglichen Gestalt ( 1 823) ; Thilo, Codex Apocryphus Nei'i Testamenti
(1832 : for this work Hahn attempted to restore the text of Marcion, pp. 401-486) ;
A. Kitsch), Das Evangelitiin Marriotts mid das kanonische Evangelittm des Lucas
(1846); Hilgenfeld, in the Z.f. hist. Theol., 1855, pp. 426-484; Sanday, The
Gospels in the Second Century , c. viii.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

207

In the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion's
New Testament, Zahn avers that no church teacher of the
second century occupies such an important position in the
history of the ecclesiastical canon as does that early writer.
If this is really so, it becomes all the more important for us to
inquire whether traces of his influence may not be discover-
able also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament.

Marcion's New Testament, which was at the same time his His New
entire Bible, consisted of two books of moderate compass —
viz. a Gospel-Book, which he seems to have called EvayyeXtov
simply, and a collection of ten Pauline Epistles called, prob-
ably by himself, to 'Attoo-toXikov (sc. f}i/3\lov). The Epistles
were arranged in an order which was evidently thought to
correspond to that of their composition — viz., Gal., I and 2
Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos ( = Ephes.), Col., Phil.,
Phm. He was unanimously accused by the Church teachers
of having mutilated the ecclesiastical Bible in the manufac-
ture of his own, and also of having corrupted the text here
and there by means of interpolations, particularly in the case
of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted. They com-
plained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it
for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are
employed nowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted
not words merely but whole pages. They compared his work
upon the manuscripts to that of a mouse. 1 And as for his
disciples I Every day they were improving their Gospel.
Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the
writings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work,
and removed whatever did not concur with their views. 2

1 The proof passages will be found in Zahn, GK. i. 620, 626, 663 : machaera non
stilo : erubescat spongia Marcionis (Teit., v. 4, p. 282. Is it permissible to infer
from this that minium was already used in manuscripts of the Bible at that time?
— cf. Augustine, Con. Jul., iii. 13: ipsum libri tui argumentum erubescendo con-
vertatur in minium) : non miror si syllabas subtrahit, quum paginas totas plerumque
subducet. Quis tam comesor mus Ponticus quam qui evangelia corrosit (con. Marc.
i. 1) : tuum apostoli codicem licet sit undique circumrosus (Adamantius).

2 See the passage from Tertullian (cotidie reformant illud (sc. evangelium),
prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), and from Adamantius (Psettdo-Origenes, de
la Rue, i. 887 = Lat. in Caspari Anecdota, i. 57) in Zahn, GK. 1 613.

208

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

209

But according to testimony extending over a long stretch
of time, their text of the Scriptures seems to have under-
gone fewer alterations during that period than that of
the Catholic Church (Zahn, GK. i. 613). In comparing
the text of these two collections " it should be clearly
understood that the Church's text, whose treatment by
Marcion is in question, is not to be identified with that
of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of Epiphanius,
but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church
or in the Roman community about the year 1 50. The text
of the ecclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his
labours can no longer be restored in every word, but sufficient
means are at our command to give us a general idea of the
form which the text of the Pauline Epistles presented in the
second century, and at the same time to ascertain in many
separate instances what text Marcion had before him. It turns
out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion's text
to one who compares it with the textus receptus, or with one of
our modern critical editions, without knowing much about the
history of the text, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but
was pretty common in the West in early times. Now it is
quite inconceivable, in view of the implacable hostility of the
Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned as it was unceas-
ingly as being heretical and spurious, should have exerted any
positive influence on that of the Church. 1 It follows, accord-
ingly, that all those things in Marcion's Bible that seem to
the uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are
attested by Catholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic
writers, were not invented by Marcion, but taken by him from
the Church's Bible of that time, or from one such Bible at all
events, and were only gradually ousted from the text used by
the Church." 2 All this, which is taken word for word, with

1 Cf. also GK. p. 681.

'' Cf. Westcott, Canon, Pt. I. c. iv. §9, Marcion: " Some of the omissions can
be explained at once by his peculiar doctrines, but others are unlike arbitrary
corrections, and must be considered as various readings of the greatest interest,

the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from
Zahn's dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at
that time have been self-evident, but, like Zahn's further
statements in the same place, has not yet been sufficiently
attended to, especially in our commentaries on Luke and
the Pauline Epistles. He points out, eg., that Tertullian, in
speaking of the change of the address "ad Ephesios" to
" Laodicenos," credits Marcion with the intention of being " et
in isto diligentissimus explorator," so that it is possible that he
compared several manuscripts in order to discover the original
wording. 1 In such cases, therefore, the question may be asked
whether Marcion may not really have preserved the original
text, and whether his text, so far as it is corroborated by any
independent tradition, should not be estimated much higher
than it is by the textual critics of the present. 2 Zahn deserves
all the more credit for giving such careful attention to ques-
tions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his inves-
tigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt
chiefly with those passages in which Marcion's intentional
alterations have been preserved. Reference may be made,
e.g., to the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled
Minor Emendations, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his His
hostility to the Old Testament with its God of Righteousness, tf n™ nda '
omitted the quotations from the Old Testament altogether, or
dropped the introductory formula of quotation in Rom. L 17,
xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13 ; excluded all the references to Abraham

dating as they do to a time anterior to all other authorities in our possession "
(p. 315). See also note at the end of the paragraph, where certain readings
peculiar to Marcion are cited.

1 Cf. also ibid., p. 684, and see below, p. 313. '

' Cf. also ibid., p. 682 : " I repeat that readings which are proved to be earlier
than Maicion by their simultaneous occurrence in his text and that of the several
Catholic witnesses deserve greater consideration both in the Gospels and Epistles
than has generally been accorded them. It is much more important to ascertain
whether a certain reading has the support of Marcion than to observe that it
occurs in this or that uncial manuscript. In spite of this, however, the critical
notes in our commentaries hardly ever refer to Marcion, not to speak of their
doing so systematically."

2IO

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

Marcion
and the
Western
Text.

[CHAP. III.

in Galatians except in iv. 22 ; altered ar/voouvre^ t^c too Oeou
SiKaioa-vvnv in Rom. x. 3 to wyvoouvres -roe 6eov ; removed the
words yevofxevov en ywaiKus, yevofitvov viro vo^iov from Gal.
iv. 4; changed the active construction into the passive in
1 Cor. iii. 17 ; and elsewhere strove after greater condensation,
lucidity, and brevity of expression. Marcion, says Zahn, had
good grounds for believing that the text of the Scriptures
had not remained unchanged during the century that had
elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with
more truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles ;
but to attempt to rid the Apostle's text of all supposed cor-
ruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material what-
ever, but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive
sense of what was genuinely Christian and apostolic, was the
undertaking of a giant, as Irenaeus calls Marcion. And his
disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have
exceeded the intention of the master and editor, "just as
many Lutherans at the present day look upon Luther's trans-
lation, with all its faults, as the very word of God, and hardly
capable of improvement."

In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone
still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism
of the text. 1 His main conclusions will hardly be contested.
Among these are the following : —

1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although
his text displays various elements belonging to Matthew and
Mark ;

2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the
ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the
same or similar features ;

3. That Marcion's text shows 2 none of those small " apoc-
ryphal additions" which we find combined with the contents
of our Gospels in Justin and Tatian.

1 Pp. 409-449, on the criticism of the sources ; pp. 449-529, the restoration of
the text. On p. 449 f. he gives his verdict on the earlier works of Hilgenfeld,
Volkmar, and van Manen in this direction. : Zahn interjects " as yet."

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

211

Zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manu-
scripts which still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited
to Marcion, and which are precisely the Western witnesses,
the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of the Greek. 1 Compare,
^..onLukev. 14, 34,39; vi. 25 f, 31,37 ; viii.45; ix. 6, 16, 22 ;
x. 22, 25 ; xi. 20, 41 ; xii. 14, 31, 58 f.; xviii. 35 ; xx. 36;
xxi. 27, 30 ; xxiv. 6, 26, 37. But there are also passages where
Marcion parts company with D and its associates — e.g., vi. 22,
26, 29 ; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages display-
ing agreement between Marcion and D 2 G 2 preponderates :
Gal. ii. 5; iii. \\b; v. 1, 14, 24; 1 Cor. i. 18 ; 2 Cor. v. 4;
1 Thess. iv. 16; Eph. i 9, 13; iii. 10; iv. 6; v. 28 ff. The
agreement between Marcion's text and that of the minuscule
157 was previously emphasised by Zahn — e.g., in Lukexvi. 12,
where the reading to tfiov instead of to ii/xerepov {finerepov B L)
is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript alone and three
old Latin (eil), and in. xxi. 30, where only one other of the
minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading
Trpo/8aX<oo-ji/ tov Kapirov avruiv? In Luke xxiv. 26, D and
Marcion are our only witnesses for the reading Sri instead of
otlxi'. How is this to be explained ? Zahn, e.g., holds that it is
a mere coincidence that Marcion's reading, " prophetas suos," 3
in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with tovs ISlovs -n-po^Tac read by
D 2 E 2 K 2 L 2 , i.e., the representatives of the Antiochean recen-
sion, with which Marcion elsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing
he founds throughout upon a Western text In the great
majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple enough.

1 We have not yet discovered a manuscript containing exactly Marcion's text.
The chances of our still doing so are very small in view of the hatred with which
Marcion was pursued. But when the libelli of certain libellatici have been found,
and also a great part of the Gospel of Peter, we need not despair of finding other lost
works as well. Codex 604 is interesting as exhibiting the Marcionite reading,
tKBiiu rb Tvivpi trov l<j>' iifias «ol KaOapitriru wiat, in the Lord's Prayer, Luke
xi. 2. The same manuscript omits pt \4yrt thai in Luke ix. 20, and xiyovaa
in verse 35. Compare also Jlllicher, CUichnisredcnJesu, ii. 5 : " Marcion, who
perhaps created the Roman text of Luke xxi. 30."

a On this passage W.-W. observe : " D ex Latin is forsan corrcctus."

3 "Licet sius adiectio sit haeretici." Tertullian.

212

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

213

Tatian.

Marcion began his career at Rome, so that we may naturally
expect him to give us a Western text. So far, therefore, one
might be tempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto,
although a text attested by Marcion and the Church in
common is surely entitled, even in respect of its antiquity, to
much more consideration than has been paid to it heretofore.
The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of the
problem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as
his, or at all events one of a similar sort, represented in a
totally different quarter — viz. in Tatian. 1

(h) Tatian 2 has already been referred to in a general
way above (p. 97 ff): we shall now give the testimony of
the early church regarding him verbatim. If we leave
out of account the somewhat doubtful reference in Hege-
sippus (p. 96), and an equally uncertain allusion to the
title of his Harmony in Origen, 3 the testimony from purely
Greek sources is confined to a few sentences in Eusebius, 4

1 In the critical notes at the end of this chapter I have cited a number of
Marcion's readings from Zahn's work, with the hope that these will now earn
a fuller recognition in our theological commentaries. See e.g. on Luke xviii. 20 ;
xxiii. 2 ; xxiv. 37 ; I Cor. vi. 20 ; xiv. 19.

s See Literature on p. 105 !., lo which add Westcott, Canon, Tart I. c iv.
§ 10.

3 Defending the plurality of the canonical Gospels against the Marcionites, he
says : to aATie&s Sia rtandpwv SV iarw ttiayyeMoy (Philotalia, ed. Robinson, 47 ;
Zahn, GK. i. 412; PRE", v. 654). From what Origen says, Contra Celsum,
vi. 51, it would seem that he himself heard Tatian.

4 Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iv. 29, with reference to the Encratites : Xpirrai piy olv
oStoi Ni)^ V Kal npoipijTaiJ Kal EvayytXlms (Syriac has p'Sj)lK), lilus IpfiriylioyTts
twv itpHv tA yoijiiaTa ypa(pajy .... fJKaa<piip.oiivTU 8i Uav\ov rbv bwoaroXov
aOtroiiaiv outoC tAs 'EitiotoAAj, juij5( tAi Tipd(tis ray h.*o<ni\wv KaTaStxo'fMi'oi.
fiivroi yt -xpirfpos avray Apxiyor Tariaybs avvdtptidy nw Kal auyayaiybv ovk
oi5' Siriuj t£v 'EvayyiUlvv crvySiU Tb Aii Ttacrdpwv toCto wpocray4iia<ril>' o Kal
irapd tutiv elfftVi (ptpirai. ToC Si 'AitootoAov <paa\ roXuvaal Tiraj alirby piTa-
(ppiaai (puv&s iis iTribiopBoifityoy avTur tV ttji (ppiaiws (rivTativ. KaTaA«\onr<
Si oEtoj iroAii ti jtJ\tj0oi ypnp.p.d T ay k.t. A. In the Syriac version it runs : But this
Tatian, their first head, collected and combined and framed a {or, the) p'SiiiK
and called it p-iotn, that is " the combined," which is in the possession of many
till this day. And it is said of him that he ventured to alter certain phrases of
the Apostle (the plural points in the Syriac are to be omitted) as with the object
of amending the composition of the phrases. And he has left many writings, etc.

a notice in Epiphanius, 1 and a scholion in a manuscript of
the Gospels.'

For more exact information we are indebted solely to the
Syrian church. The Greek writer Theodoret gives us most
details. 3 The notices contained in Syriac and Arabic sources
are more numerous than the Greek, but they are shorter and
must be omitted here. 4 It becomes necessary, therefore, to
consider very carefully whether any vestiges of Tatian's work
are preserved in our witnesses for the text, and how these
may, and indeed must, be used in its criticism. I assume
as having been demonstrated by Zahn, that Tatian's Diates-
saron was a Syriac work, and I take it as very probable that
the Curetonian Syriac and the Lewis Syriac present us with
two works based on, or at least influenced by, that of Tatian.
To what extent the same is true of the Peshitto as well need
not be considered here, the main problem being to elucidate
the connection between Tatian and the Western witnesses.
And here we are at once confronted with a matter of great
uncertainty — viz., whether there might not also have
been a Greek Harmony of the Gospels either antecedent to

1 Epiphan., Hatret, 46, 1 (Pet. 391) : Ktyoucri 8c rb 5,4 nandpuy ZuayyiAioy
i/w aurov yiytyyjaQai, twtp kotA 'ZfipalovS Ttvis KaXovtri.

3 Minuscule Evan. 72 (Harleianus 5647 of the eleventh century) on Matt, xxvii.
48 : iTnlfittuffat] in «fi rb Had* laroplav ivayytMoy AioSwpov ical TariayoC «al
&\>.uy Sia<pipay aylaiy vartpuy tooto irpoo~KiiTai. Instead of bioSupov, Harnack-
Prcusclien (i. 493), read Aiatiipov, whether rightly or not I do not know. Noth-
ing being known of the historical Gospel of one Diodorus, it is natural enough to
conjecture (Zahn, Forsth., i. 28) that the reading should be SiA 5', but what becomes
then of upov Kal ? Harnack suggests Sia 8' iipou TaTiarov, but see Zahn, Forsch. ,
ii. 298. The omission of the article before 81A 8' is a difficulty.

3 In his 'Eitito/iJ) alptTiicijs KuKOfivBlas (i. 20 ; vol. iv. 312), written in the year
453, he says at the end of the chapter on Tatian ;— olror xal to Sia THradpuv
Ka\oip.tyoy auyriSttxty tvayy4\toy, rds rt ytvaXoyias ir<piK<tyai Kal tA SAAa So-a
in ffwippaTos Aa£lB Kara adpKa ytytvviinivov rbv xvpioy l*{Kv\iau>, Ixp-fjoavro 8c
Tot'Tif 00 parol 01 Tqt txtlvtv ffi^iuopfal, oAXd xal 01 toTi Aitoo-toXikoit ftro/tfi/oi
Soy/iairi, tV' ttji vvvBijuljr KOHOvpyiay ovk lyywuSrt s, a\X* arXovartpcy us
uvyrdnip Tip $l$\lu xW^fHvoi. Elpov << xiyii wKtlovs I) tiMoirfaf fliflAoui
Toiaiirar iv rats wap' b>uv i*«\iialais rtTifirifi/yas, xal rdaas avyayayuv a»«*«'u7jK
xal tA ray rtrrdpvy tbayytXiarwy iurrtiff-fiyayoy.

' See Hamlyn Hill, Earliest Lift of Christ, etc., p. 324 ; Hope W. Hogg, Ante-
Nicene Library, Additional Volume.

214

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. Ill]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

215

the Diatessaron or contemporary with it, which Tatian him-
self made or employed. Zahn thinks not, mainly because
from the side of the Greek Church we have almost no notice
whatever of the existence of anything of this sort, nor of
Tatian's own work either. Harnack seems not to be con-
vinced of the correctness of Zahn's position. 1 He even
declares that Harris's Preliminary Study 2 has only confirmed
his " conviction that Tatian composed a Greek Harmony ol
the Gospels." 3 That treatise is accompanied by a facsimile
of the fragment of Mark in Codex W u , " the contents of which
display an affinity with the text of the Diatessaron (with the
original text ?)." 4 At all events Harnack is of opinion that
Harris's conclusions with regard to a Pre-Tatian and a very
early Harmony of the narrative of the Passion are very
premature, and in his judgment should either not have been
put forward at all in a Preliminary Study or suggested with
more deliberation. G. Kriiger also puts "this Combined
Gospel written in Syriac (Greek ?) " in his History of Early
Christian Literature, § 37. On the other hand, Hogg in § 12 of
his Introduction, 6 Non-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron, says
nothing of a Greek text, and in § 19, where he raises the
question, " In what language was it written ? ", he speaks only
of the " view favoured by an increasing majority of scholars,
that it was written in Syriac," and then asks, on this view,
"was it a translation or simply a compilation?" and lastly,
which is the main question, " what precisely is its relation to
. . the Western text generally ?"

In his first work, written prior to the publication of the
Arabic text, Zahn very frequently pointed to the fact that
the so-called Western witnesses — i.e., Codex D and the Old

1 See Die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten, 1882, pp. 196-218, and,
on the other side, Zahn, Forschungen, ii. 292 ff.

2 The Diatessaron of Tatian : a Preliminary Study, 1890.
"See ThLz., 1891, col. 356.

4 It is not clear whether Harnack gives this as his own opinion or not. For a
reading of cod. W d , akin to that of Tatian, see below on Mark vii. 33, p. 264.

5 Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Additional Volume, p. 38.

Latin manuscripts, agree so often with Tatian. 1 His explana- Tatian
tion of this phenomenon is very simple — viz., that Tatian western
returned from Rome to his old home in Syria about the Text.
year 172, and took with him from the West his text, which
was just the Western text. This view would present no
difficulty if it were only the case that the Diatessaron shared
the peculiarities of the Western text, but is the fact not
rather the converse of this — viz., that D, the leading repre-
sentative of that text, shares the peculiarities of a Harmony
of the Gospels, might we say, in short, of the Diatessaron ?
Not only are certain readings the same in both texts, but the
Western text seems actually to exhibit features which can
scarcely be regarded otherwise than as the outcome of a
Harmony. I have given expression to this opinion ere now ;
it struck me forcibly when I was collating the Codex Bezae
for my Supplementum Novi Testamenti Graeci. In order
to afford a more convenient survey of the vast number of
variants, I followed the paragraphing of Westcott and Hort's
edition. Now look at the variants there. Whereas the
majority consist of quite separate and disconnected read-
ings, I was obliged at the beginning of the pericopae regu-
larly to copy half a line or even a whole line from D, its text
differed so much from that of our present editions at the
beginnings of the pericopae, and there only to the same
extent. See, e.g., Luke v. 17, 27; vii. 1, 18 ; ix. 37; x. 1, 25 ;
xi. 14 ; xii. 1 to the end ; xxiv. 13. It is true this phenomenon
is most frequently observed in Luke, where I had previously
explained its appearance in another way by supposing like
Blass that it was due to the author having issued two editions
of that Gospel. But neither is it altogether absent from the
other Gospels. It occurs most seldom, as might be expected,
in Matthew, but examples may be seen in xvii. 22, 24 ; xx. 29.
In Mark see iii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 7. There are other features
besides this which are difficult of explanation on any other
grounds. For these I may briefly refer to the second of

1 See Forschungen, i. 130, 140, 216, 228 f., 237, 248, 263.

2l6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

the works relating to this part of the subject, The Syro-
Latin Text of the Gospels, by F. H. Chase, 5 in which a special
chapter is devoted to the question of" Harmonistic Influence''
(pp. 76-100). The writer calls attention there to three points,
viz. :—

1. " The text of Codex Bezae shows constant indications
of harmonistic influence." This, however, is nothing new.
Jerome, e.g., complains of amalgamations of this sort. But
then,

2. "In such harmonized passages readings occur which we
are justified by other evidence in considering as Tatianic
readings."

3. " There are other signs of the influence of Syriac phrase-
ology in, or in the neighbourhood of, such readings due to
harmonistic influence."

I waive consideration of this last point, but as regards the
second it is noteworthy, and bears out what I have said above,
that Chase in this connection goes almost entirely by passages
from Luke with the exception of Matt. xxi. 18; xxiv. 31 f. ;
xxvi. 59 ff. ; and Mark viii. 10 ; xiii. 2 ; x. 25 ff. From Luke
he instances iii. 23-38 ; iv. 31 ; v. 10 f., 14 f. ; vi. 42 ; viii. 35 ;
xi. 2 ; xx. 20 ; xxi. 7 ; xxiii. 45 ff. ; xxiv. 1.

I should like, however, to call attention here to one passage
to which Chase refers in another connection — viz., the extensive
interpolation after Matt. xx. 28 (Chase, pp. 9-14). It is true,
as Zahn expressly points out, 2 that neither Ephraem nor
Aphraates, who were our only sources for the Diatessaron
prior to 1881, " shows any traces of this long and in part apoc-
ryphal interpolation, nor yet of Luke xiv. 7-10, from which
the most of it is taken." But in the Arabic Tatian, 3 Luke
xiv. 1-6 and xiv. 7-1 1, 12-15 are found after Matt. xx. 1-16
at the end of § 29 and the beginning of § 30 respectively.
The verse Matt. xx. 28, regarding which Zahn was uncertain

1 London, Macmillan, 1895. 2 Forsckungen, i. 179.

3 This will be found most conveniently in Hogg's translation— Ante-Nicene
Library, Additional Volume.

CHAR III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

217

whether it was in Tatian or not, seeing that neither Ephraem
nor Aphraates mentions it, is found in § 31, 5 between Mark
x. 44 and Luke xiii. 22, while Matt. xx. 29*7 ( + Mark x. 46a)
follows a little further down in § 31, 25. So far, indeed,
this result is not favourable to our theory. But I ask my-
self in vain how else this interpolation is to be explained
except as an attempt at harmonising. Now, seeing that its
text is found in one Syriac, two Greek, and half a dozen Latin
witnesses (the particulars are given in the critical note, p. 255),
the further question arises, Whence comes it ? The most ready
answer will be, " it comes from the Greek, whence it passed to
the Latin on the one side and to the Syriac on the other."
As for the Latin, it is certain that the majority, perhaps even
all, of the Latin forms are derived from the Greek. But are
the Syriac as well ? Or is not rather the converse true, how-
ever strange it may seem at the first glance, that the Greek is
a translation of the Syriac ? There is the word SenrvoKX^riop,
e.g., which strikes me as it did Chase, as being particularly
strange. I admit that I should not care to build a hypothesis
of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage alone.
I would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept
in view in further investigations. And I would supplement
it by another question whether, in the case of the first being
negatived, it may not be true after all, pace Zahn, that there
was a Greek Harmony alongside the Syriac and probably
going back to the same author. May not the close re-
semblances traceable between Tatian and the Western text
be also accounted for on the supposition that instead of
Tatian being influenced by the latter, it really goes back to
Tatian ?

I would ask this question specially in regard to the Western
text of the Pauline Epistles. What is meant by the state-
ment of Eusebius cited above as to Tatian's treatment of
these Epistles? liera<f>pda-ai may certainly mean to translate,
but then one translates an entire text and not fwvds rivat
merely, and, moreover, one does not translate J>j ewiStopOov/xtvoi

218

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

219

avrwv rhv Tr/y <j>pd<rews avvragiv " with a view to improving
the phraseology and syntax." Do not our Western witnesses
present us with a work of this description ? I am well aware
that such hypotheses are like that regarding the author of
the N ibelungenlied where there was a great poem without a
name and one or two great names without poems, and so
various combinations were made, for each of which something
could be said, while none of them could be said to be proved.
That may be the case here too. But at present I feel disposed
to attribute a considerable share in this peculiar " Western "
Syro-Latin. text to Tatian. And as this name " Western," the inappro-
priateness of which has long been recognised, becomes on this
supposition more inappropriate still, I am inclined to recom-
mend the freer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by
the work of Chase, I mean that of " Syro-Latin.'' In his
preface Chase puts in a plea for its use, citing a sentence
from the Dublin Revieiv of July 1894, p. 52, in which H.
Lucas says : " The time is, we hope, not far distant, when the
term Western will give place to the term Syro-Latin, the only
one which truly represents, in our opinion, the facts of the
case. 1 ' Just as when we wish to indicate those languages and
tribes that extend from the Indian to the German and Keltic
we say Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Keltic, if we wish to be more
exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the French, so
the term Syro-Latin would be the best designation for a form
of text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among
the Syrians in the East as among the Greeks in the centre
and the Latins in the West. But be that as it may, one thing
is clear, that many problems here await solution. But they
will not for ever defy methodical investigation.

The foregoing was all written before I saw the analysis given by
Zahn in his Geschichte des Kanons, i. 383 ff. Reading it, I am sur-
prised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a thorough
investigation of the subject long ere now. Personally, I am pre-
cluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this direction.
Zahn says: "The quotations of Aphraates frequently presuppose a

different Greek text (of the Pauline Epistles) than that lying at the
foundation of the Peshitto. The repeated resemblances to Western
texts, Claromontanus, Boernerianus (D G), Tertullian, and other
Latin witnesses are particularly striking. In the earliest Syriac
Gospel the same phenomenon appears even more conspicuously.
How is it to be explained ? Shall we suppose that this type of text
was dispersed equally throughout all parts of the Church during the
second century? In that case we should have to regard it as the
earliest form at which we can arrive, on the principle laid down by
Tertullian : quod apud multos unum invenitur, non est erratum sed
traditum. But," says Zahn, " even those who venerate the Western
tradition of the text— i.e. those who, like myself, are of opinion that
it does not get nearly its due share of attention from present-day
critics — will decline to assent to this proposition. Because the result
of this view would be to establish the rule that the so-called Western
tradition invariably deserves the preference over those others, even
over our oldest Greek manuscripts themselves. Even if we limited
it to those elements of the text in which the furthest East agrees
with the furthest West, the result would still be a text to which no
cautious critic would pin his faith. A more natural explanation of
this striking condition of things is required." Zahn finds this in the
supposition that there was formerly a close intimacy between the
Syrian Church and Rome. "Just as the Princes of Edessa had
much direct intercourse with Rome, so to all appearance had the
Church there." In proof of this, he points to the early intrusion of
Marcion's doctrines and Bible into Mesopotamia, to the participa-
tion of the Church of Edessa in the Easter controversy and its
agreement in that matter with Victor of Rome, and to the Abgar
Legend which connects Edessa with Zephyrinus of Rome (199-216)
by way of Antioch, and represents Peter as sending the Epistles of
Paul from Rome to Edessa. " Considering the anachronisms that
legends usually exhibit, may we not take this to be the expression of
an historical fact, viz. that a text written in the West formed the basis
of the earliest Syriac version of the Pauline Epistles ? This supposi-
tion is confirmed by the earliest history of the Gospel among the
Syrians— viz. by the Diatessaron." ' After a most thorough discus-
sion of all the questions relating to that book (pp. 387-422), Zahn

1 Cf. p. 393: "To judge from Ephraem's Commentary, the Diatessaron con-
tains scarcely as much apociyphal matter as Codex Cantabrigiensis of the Gospels
and Acts."

220

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

221

discovers in this part also (the Gospels) an intimate connection
between the text on which it is based, and the form assumed by the
text of the Gospels in the West during the second century. And he
believes that it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of
the remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very
matter of their textual corruption and licence than this, that this
text came from Rome to Syria. And so the final question arises,
" whether a connection does not exist between the first Gospel and
the first text of Paul and the Acts in the Syriac, and whether the
entire N. T., as the Doctrine of Addai says, was not a present which
Tatian brought with him from Rome to his countrymen, and adapted
for their use by means of a free translation and revision ? " Zahn
thinks that a positive answer cannot be given, but he refers pointedly
to what Eusebius says regarding Tatian's treatment of the Pauline
Epistles, and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced
on the occasion and in the form of a translation from the Greek into
Syriac, and that the reason why Eusebius had such hazy notions
regarding it as well as the Diatessaron, is most likely that both the
books were in Syriac, and used only in the Syrian Church. A closer
investigation of the Pauline Epistles in the Syriac is needed to decide
these questions.

To these propositions of Zahn I have but the one objection
stated above, that the expressions used by Eusebius point far too
plainly to a revision of the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles, which
could have been done only on the original Greek. 1 Zahn himself
points out that the words of Eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere
said of the Theodotians (Eccl. Hist., v. 28, 15. 18; see above,

p. 200).2

1 In his N. T. urn 200, p. 10S, Harnack treats Zahn's interpretation of the words
of Eusebius as a bad blunder. The latter defends himself by saying among other
things that it is not quite clear whether Eusebius himself was aware of the double
meaning of the word furaippiiiai which was employed in the tradition (he says
ipaat) reported to him. He thinks that Rulinus might be said to have " para-
phrased " certain commentaries of Origen, correcting his thought and phraseology
in many places. True, but in Eusebius it is <jWdi rival rov anoar^Kov, not whole
epistles, that Tatian is said to have "metaphrased."

2 On the words of Jerome (ad Tit.praef., vii. 686), " Sed Tatianus Encratitarum
patriarches, qui et ipse nonnullas Pauli epistolas repudiavit, hanc vel maxime, hoc
est ad Titum, apostoli pronuntiandam credidit, parvipendens Marcionis et aliorum
qui cum eo in hac parte consentiunt assertionem," compare Zahn, Forsch., i. 6,
GK. i. 426.

(i) The Western Text.— We thus find ourselves face to face Western Text,
with what has been called the only burning question of the
textual criticism of the New Testament— the question, namely,
of the place to be assigned to the so-called Western text.
Our treatment of the external testimony has led us back
through Lucian, Pamphilus, Hesychius, and Origen, to Marcion
and Tatian, that is, into the middle of the second century.
But the question is now whether we must stop here, or whether
it is not possible to ascend with certainty even somewat higher
by means of an investigation of the material afforded by the
manuscripts themselves. The " Higher Criticism," e.g., seeks
to get behind the Synoptic Gospels to the documents which
the authors or editors used in their composition; is it not
possible for the " Lower Criticism " to recover with certainty
at least the primitive text of the New Testament books ? And
is that not most readily found in the so-called Western text ?
We have been obliged to make frequent reference to it already ;
the question for us now is, " What is the value of Codex Bezae
and its associates?"

It was observed by Theodore Beza himself, the scholar whose
name the Codex justly bears, that the text of this manuscript
differed in so many respects from that of others, especially in
Luke and Acts, that he could give no explanation of it satis-
factory to himself. He was not led to suppose that the altera-
tions were due to heretics ; nevertheless, like a cautious man,
he thought it more advisable to preserve the Codex than to
publish it. Eight hundred years before, Bede was similarly
impressed by the Codex which we now know by the name of
Laudianus, E 2 . He indicated " quaedam quae in Graeco sive
aliter seu plus aut minus posita vidimus." He was uncertain
" utrum negligentia interprets omissa vel aliter dicta, an incuria
librariorum sint depravata sive relicta .... namque graecum
exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo." When the
manuscripts began to be more systematically collated, Bengel
declared that the criticism of the text would be much simpli-
fied if one were not bound to trouble himself with these

222

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

223

codices, which, as being written in Greek and Latin, he called
vere Irilingucs. Old students of the Maulbronn College have
told me that Ephonis Baumlein the most distinguished
philologist of our Institute in this century, and editor of Dis-
quisitions on the Greek Particles and similar works, was always
referring to the Codex Cantabrigiensis, though they themselves
never rightly understood about this Codex, or indeed about
such things at all. I do not know who it was from whom I
myself first heard of it ; certainly there was no particular
importance attributed to it in my student days or at the college
where I was. On the other hand, Teschendorf admitted its
claims in opposition to all the other Greek manuscripts in
several passages, such as Mark ii. 22 ; xi. 6 ; Luke xxiv. 52, 53,
etc. In other places he did so at first, but changed his opinion
afterwards — e.g., in Acts xi. 12, while in others again, like
Acts xiii. 45, he was inclined to accept its testimony, asserting
expressly : Ceterum D quantopere passim inter omnes testes
excellat constat. One of the things for which Westcott and
Hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to
Codex Bczae and its associates. Some of their remarks upon
it will be found in the note below. 1

1 Inlrod.y ii. § 170, p. 120. On all accounts Ihc Western text claims our attention
first. The earliest readings which can he fixed chronologically belong to it. As
far as we can judge from extant evidence, it was the most widely-spread text of
Ante-Nicene times ; and sooner or later every version directly or indirectly felt
its influence. But any prepossessions in its favour that might be created by this
imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous
study of its internal character. The eccentric Winston's translation of the Gospels
and Acts from the Codex Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles from the Codex
Claromontanus, and liornemann's edition of the Acts, in which the Codex liczae
was taken as the standard authority, are probably the only attempts which have
ever been made in modern times to set up an exclusively, or even predominantly,
Western Greek text as the purest reproduction of what the Apostles wrote. This
all but universal rejection is doubtless partly owing to the persistent influence of a
whimsical theory of the last century, which, ignoring all non-Latin Western docu-
mentary evidence except the handful of extant bilingual uncials, maintained that the
Western Greek text owed its peculiarities to translation from the Latin ; partly to an
imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and extension of the Western text as revealed
by Patristic quotations and by versions. Yet even with the aid of a true perception
of the facts of Ante-Nicene textual history, it would have been strange if this text,

That peerless scholar, P. de Lagarde, has even greater Lagarde.
claims to honourable mention in this connection, though but

as a whole, had found much favour. A few scattered Western readings have long
been approved by good textual critics on transcriptional and to a great extent insuffi-
cient grounds ; and in Teschendorf's last edition their number has been augmented,
owing to the misinterpreted accession of the Sinai MS. to the attesting documents.
To one small and peculiar class of Western readings, exclusively omissions, we shall
ourselves have to call attention as having exceptional claims to adoption.

§ 202 (p. 149). In spite of the prodigious amount of error which D contains,
these readings, in which it sustains and is sustained by other documents derived
from very ancient texts of other types, render it often invaluable for the secure
recovery of the true text ; and, apart from this direct applicability, no other single
source of evidence, except the quotations of Origen, surpasses it in value on the
equally important ground of historical or indirect instructiveness. To what extent
its unique readings are due to licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful
reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost, it is impossible to say ; but
it is remarkable how frequently the discovery of fresh evidence, especially Old- Latin
evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in which 1) had hitherto stood
alone.

§ 240 (p. 175). On the other hand there remain, as has been before intimated
(§ 170), a few other Western readings of similar form, which we cannot doubt to be
genuine in spite of the exclusively Western character of their attestation. They
are all omissions, or, to speak more correctly, non-interpolations of various length,
that is to say, the original record has here, to the best of our belief, suffered inter-
polation in all the extant non-Western texts. . . . With a single peculiar
exception (Matt, xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words are omitted by the
Syrian as well as by the Western text, the Western non-inlerpolations arc con-
fined to the last three chapters of St. Luke.

§ 241. These exceptional instances of the preservation of the original text in
exclusively Western readings are likely to have had an exceptional origin.

In the edition of 1896, the surviving editor (Westcott) appends an Additional
Note which contains a further exceedingly valuable admission in the same direc-
tion. It is as follows : —

Note to p. 121, § 170 (p. 328): "The Essays of Dr. Chase on The Syriac
Element in Codex Be:ac, Cambridge, 1893, and The Syro- Latin Text of th<.
Gospels, Cambridge, 1895, are a most important contribution to the solution of a
fundamental problem in the history of the text of the N.T. The discovery of the
Sinaitic MS. of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the
oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the
primary Greek texts. A careful examination of the passages in which Syr"" and
k are arrayed against k B, would point to the conclusion." [The proper title of
Chase's Essays is The Old Syriac, under which shorter (outside) title Zahn also
quotes (hem {Einl., ii. 348).] This statement by Westcott sounds strange after the
remark made in the Preface. " For the rest," he says there, " I may perhaps be
allowed to say that no arguments have been advanced against the general
principles maintained in the Introduction and illustrated in the Notes since the
publication of the First Edition, which were not fully considered by Dr. Hort and

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND TRAXIS.

225

little regard was paid to his representations during his life-
time. As early as 1857, he said of Codex Cantabrigiensis :
facile patet, quum similibus libris careamus et ultra Evangelia
et Actus nondum cogitem, totius editionis meae quasi funda-
mentum futurum esse hunc codicem Cantabrigiensem, sed
eutn eis librarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint
(Gcsam. Abh., p. 98). His chief merit, however, lies not in his
having estimated Cantabrigiensis so highly, but in having
assigned a lower value to the other manuscripts. By com-
paring D with the earlier versions, and particularly by
relying on the testimony of Epiphanius, he recognised in it
a representative of an "editio emendatorum orthodoxorum
temeritate corrupta'' {ibid., p. 96). Compare also his Ueber-
sichl i'tber die Bildung der Nomina, p. 213, where he instances
eTa^av avafialvew of the " emendati " for Trapi'/yyeiXav avafiaivew
of D. 1

u lass . General attention was first directed to the question of the

Western text, when Blass came forward with his view that it
was quite wrong to present the problem in the shape of an
alternative between D and A B, because both groups were
right, D and its associates representing a first edition of the
Acts and a second of Luke, and the other group conversely.
I hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a veritable
Columbus Egg, and to this day I am firmly persuaded that
Blass's theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate
of the Western text. Readers may, perhaps, be struck by the

Zahn. fact, which Zahn has since made public (Etui, ii. 348), that in

his practical class at Erlangen, in the winter of 1885-6, he set
as the subject of the prize essay an " Investigation of the
materially important peculiarities of Codex D in the Acts,"
and made a note at the time of the result which he hoped to
see the investigation arrive at — viz., " either the author's first

myself in the long course of our work, and in our judgment dealt with accurately.
—Auckland Castle, March 27, 1896. B. F. D."

1 See my Philologica Sacra, p. 3, where I have cited this passage of Lagarde.
His lumk may not be very accessible to textual critics.

draft before publication or his hand copy with his own
marginal notes inserted afterwards." Zahn himself got no
further, but he was not surprised when Blass came forward
with his clearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypo-
thesis. In one point, certainly, Zahn does not agree with
Blass, and that is in the application of the hypothesis to Luke.
He holds that the text which Blass restored as the Roman
form or second edition of Luke is essentially nothing but a
bold attempt to restore what is called the Western text ; that
the question to which such different answers have been made
as to the value of this type of text — for it is not to be spoken
of as a recension in the proper sense of that term — is by no
means confined to the Third Gospel, but touches the others
as well and the Pauline Epistles also ; that the reason why
the divergence of the Western text from that exhibited in the
oldest manuscripts and the great majority of Greek witnesses
is more conspicuous in Luke, is simply that we have the
additional testimony of Marcion for that Gospel, but the
question is essentially the same in all the cases ; that whereas
in Acts we have two parallel texts both possessing equal
authority, in Luke the case is different, where in determining
what the evangelist actually wrote, we have to choose one or
the other of two mutually exclusive propositions ; that this
verdict on the text of Luke, however, in no way invalidates
the conclusion come to as regards the text of the Acts. But
further, Zahn, who even before this had avowed himself an
"admirer of the Western text," stands up determinedly for
the view that this same Western text, which I shall, like Zahn
and Blass, indicate henceforward as /3, contains much that is
original. He says that just as we must beware of a super-
stitious idolatry of what are styled the best manuscripts, 1
which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of much
older tradition (Marcion, Irenaeus), so we have equally to be
on our guard against a morbid preference for every interest-

1 "Thou shall worship no manuscripts" was one of the ten commandments
that Lehrs gave philologists.

226

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

227

ing and fanciful excrescence of the riotous tradition of the
second and third centuries. Such a preference would
logically imply that the scholars who took in hand to revise
the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply
corrupted it, somewhat after the fashion of those who set
themselves to "improve" our Church hymns in the age of
Rationalism. More than twenty years ago, when I was a
Tutor at Tubingen, I had the impression to which I frequently
enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues, that
modern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong
tack. The textual study of the New Testament was out of
my province at that time, and is really so still, were it not
that, as Augustine says, it is necessary for everyone who
devotes himself to the holy Scriptures to take up such studies.
Nor am I inclined thus far to fall foul of the system to which
Westcott and Hort devoted the labours of a lifetime, and in
the building up of which they had at their command such an
apparatus as is far beyond the reach of a German, especially
of one who is not attached to any University. And as for
the results of Zahn's researches, I prefer to look upon myself
here as a mere learner and admirer. In the presence of such
doughty warriors I feel like a spectator upon the battlefield
of New Testament textual criticism, and I would beg that
what follows, as well as what has been already said, be re-
garded as but suggestions, the acceptance or rejection of
which by others may perchance serve to bring a younger
generation nearer to the goal. In this spirit I have in my
Philologica Sacra ( I— 1 5th March 1896) taken as a starting-
point the reading in Luke xxii. 52, \aov = vaov = tepou, which
is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf, and have sought by
means of one or two analogous cases to show " how frequently D
preserves the correct reading." I have instanced eirrtnrXao-iova,
Luke xviii. 30 ; <pavra<Tp.a, xxiv. 37 ; Sepptv Ka/mjXov, Mark
i 6 ; ijvoiyufvoui, i, 10, which might, however, be inserted from
Matt. iii. 1 6, Luke iii. 21 ; opyio-dels, Mark i. 40; 6/xota^ei, Matt.
xxvi. 73.

In the first sketch of this Introduction, written in the year
1895, I referred to the addition found in Matt, xxvii. 49,
which is manifestly taken from John xix. 34, and is read by
many authorities, among these being s B C. 1 I said then :
" Only two possibilities are conceivable. Either the passage
stood here originally, and was removed at an early date on
account of its variance with John xix. 34, or it is an inter-
polation. In the latter case, it must have been inserted at a
very early date, and all the witnesses containing it, which
elsewhere are so frequently and so widely divergent, must
then go back to one and the same exemplar. Because the
third possibility— viz. that the same sentence was inserted
in different copies in the same place quite independently
of each other, no one will consider to be at all likely. But
if the second supposition is to be held as correct, then we see
just what amount of importance is to be attached to the
concurrence of our oldest witnesses, particularly our chief
manuscripts x B C L. They are not streams flowing inde-
pendently from the same fountain of Paradise: they flowed
together for a good part of their course, and were consider-
ably polluted before they parted company."

Two years later, when the first edition was issued, I added :
" This too must now be asserted with far greater emphasis,
that the concurrence of B x, on which so much stress has
been laid hitherto by almost all textual critics, proves nothing
at all. In Sirach the common archetype of B k was younger
than the origin of the Latin version, manifestly a good deal
younger, because it already contained errors that had not yet
made their appearance in our other manuscripts (or in their
sources). Salmon (p. 52) is of opinion that the text which Salmon.
Westcott and Hort have restored is one that was most in
favour in Alexandria in the third century, and that came

1 This passage was the subject of a heated discussion between Severus and
Macedonius at Constantinople in the year 510. On this occasion the superb copy
of Matthew's Gospel, which had been discovered in the grave of Barnabas in the
reign of the Emperor Zeno, was brought upon the scene.

228

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

229

there, perhaps, in the century previous. This is not far from
Bousset's view that B perhaps contains the recension of
Hesychius. Salmon calls the results of Westcott and Hort
' an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has
been stolen.' Burgon's paradox, that the reason why B and
X have survived is that they were the worst, seemed to
Salmon at first to be a joke, but he now thinks it not improb-
able that they were set aside on account of their divergence
from the form of text that acquired ascendancy at a later
time. If that be so, then they met the same fate that they
themselves prepared for the primitive form they supplanted ;
and just as they, with the help of Tischendorf and Westcott
and Hort, dislodged the Textus Receptus of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians, and
made themselves the Textus Receptus of the end of the nine-
teenth century, so perchance will Codex D, which the builders
despised, become the foundation-stone of a new structure.
In Urtext, p. 54, Oscar v. Gebhardt alludes to the objections
raised partly against the entire method of Westcott and Hort,
partly against their particular estimate of Codex Vaticanus,
and partly also against the position they have assigned to
what they call the Western text, and he too says : 'If
these objections are valid, then the sure foundation which
they seemed at last to have secured for the text of the New
Testament begins once more to totter.' "

Since this was written, my impressions have been greatly
confirmed, particularly by Zahn's Einleitung ; only I must
admit that I am now less in a position than ever to make any
definite proposals as to the way in which the goal of the
textual criticism of the New Testament is to be reached. To
follow one witness or one group of witnesses through thick
and thin, which would really be the only consistent course,
will seemingly not do. 1 And the " eclectic method " to which

1 Compare what Westcott and Hort say of Whiston and Bornemann, cited
above, p. 222, and particularly the section on the twofold recension of the Acts
in Zahn's Einleitung, ii. J 59, pp. 338-359. See also Burkitt's Introduction to

Bousset was led in his work on the Apocalypse as the only
possible one, is surely the opposite of the genealogical,
which we must acknowledge to be in theory the only
correct method. But first of all, a fresh application of it
would require to be made. And as the task is too great for
any single worker, might it not be well if, in the exegetical
classes of our Theological Faculties, the separate witnesses
were either examined anew, or, conversely, selected passages
of the text, quite small passages— a single chapter, or a single
epistle like 2 or 3 John or Philemon — were given out to
different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses for
each passage, and the results then compared with one another ?
Furthermore, the critical apparatus would require at once to
be lightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakeably
recognised to be the representatives of a definite recension,
and the Lucianic recension printed separately with or without
an apparatus, just as was done by Lagarde himself for half of
the Old Testament. Finally, the Western text would require
to be much more thoroughly examined than has hitherto been
the case. It is true that Weiss has given a special part of
Texte unci Untersuchungen to an examination of Codex D in
Acts, but without prejudice one may be quite sure that a
solution of the problem is not to be found in the way in
which Weiss seeks it. No doubt he establishes among other
things the fact, that in the Speeches of Peter displays
almost no variation, but then he makes no attempt to explain
this fact or make any use of it. It is an indication of con-
siderable progress to find Zahn going so carefully into matters
of the text in an Introduction to the New Testament, and his
appreciation of the Western text is most gratifying. At the Luke and
same time the reader will naturally ask whether Zahn's verdict
on the jQ text in Luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with

Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria ( 7'exts and Studies, v. 5),
especially p. xviii : " Let us come out of the land of Egypt, which speaks, as
Clement's quotations show, with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether
the agreement of East and West, of Edcssa and Carthage, will not give us a surer
basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels."

230

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

regard to Acts. Is it not true in this connection that "he
who says A must also say B " ? If you admit that there were
two editions of Acts, you must make the same admission in
the case of Luke. And conversely, if there was no second
edition of the Gospel, must you not then look for some other
explanation of the variations in Acts? For it seems quite
certain that the variants in Luke xxiv. are most closely
related to the text of Acts i. Or how else are the readings
in Luke xxiv. 51-53 to be explained? Westcott and Hort
have one way of explaining them. They say that kcu ave<f>tprro
et'c rov ovpavov "was evidently inserted from an assumption
that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel
must be the Ascension. The Ascension apparently did not
lie within the proper scope of the Gospels, as seen in their
genuine texts ; its true place was at the head of the Acts of
the Apostles as the preparation for the Day of Pentecost, and
thus the beginning of the history of the Church;' That is all
very well, and it may also be the case that Trpoa-Kwjo-avTes
avrov in v. 52 is the natural result of the insertion of kcu

ai>€<pepero etc rov ovpavov.

But how then are we to account for

the interchange of cvXayovvrti and a<VoOn-fc in the next verse,
which is found in precisely the same groups of witnesses? 1

If this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse 53,
it may be confidently asserted that the omission of the Ascen-
sion and the Worship of the Exalted Lord by any later scribe
is all but inconceivable from the moment that Luke was sepa-
rated from Acts and placed among the Gospels. If such a

1 Attention may be directed in passing to the interesting way in which the
witnesses are distributed. Thus we have in verse 51, for the omission of xai
avfptp. (it t. oip. K* D Syr" 1 " a b d e fT 1*, Aug. 1/2 ; verse 52, omit wpomw
aiiriv, D Syr 1 '" a b d e ffl, Aug. l/l ; verse 53, alvovvrtt for tvKoyovvrfs Dabde
ff 1 r (Aug.); (Syr'''" here has I'naD, not I'naPO which represents atvowrts in
Luke ii. 13, 20, xix. 37, and, therefore, must have read tiikoyowrts in this passage).
Now I ask, is it right to accept the testimony of D and its associates in verse 52,
only to reject it in verse 53? And what amount of weight is added to the testi-
mony of D by the addition of that of tt* ? Schiller says in Till : "The strong is
mightiest alone : united e'en the weak are strong" — how far are both these notions
true in textual criticism ?

CHAI'. Ill]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

231

thing were possible at all, it would be in the case of irpocncw?-
aavres avrov, as there is no express mention in Acts i. of the
disciples worshipping. On the other hand, the omission
becomes quite conceivable as soon as the author added a
SevTepos Xoyoc to the irpwToc. So far these variants appear
to me to fit in very well with Blass's theory and with no other.
Zahn, as far as I can see, has nowhere expressed any opinion
regarding them, certainly he says nothing of the variation be-
tween alvovvres and evXoyovvres, which is the one of most im-
portance critically, though it is of least consequence materially.

Graefe, following on the lines of Birt and Ruegg, supposes
that the shorter form was due to want of space, that Luke
was glad to get the shorter form all into his roll at the foot
the first time he wrote it out, and sent off the book to
Theophilus in that form, hoping to deal with the Ascension
in the second of his books. In the second edition he had suffi-
cient space to admit of the insertion of <ccu ave<pipcro eiy rov
ovpavov, then o( it poa-KvvijcravTes airroV.and finally of evXoyouvres- 1
These additions he made, feeling, rightly enough, that there '
could be no more fitting conclusion to his Life of Jesus than
a brief allusion to the Ascension, which he had already
described more particularly in the Acts. At the same time
he substituted ew<t eiy for e£a> -rrpos. Graefe thinks that all
these changes are connected with the alterations made also
in the introduction to the Acts, though he omits to say what
the connection is.

Weiss, father and son, omit the words ku\ avetpepero eiy rov
ovpavov as "a gloss derived from Acts i.," and "likewise" the
words Trpoa-Kvvt'ia-avTei avrov in verse 52 (is this also a gloss
from Acts i.?). Which text they hold to be correct in
verse 53 they do not say. 2

1 So Graefe, but it is not apparent whether the »a! that belongs to this reading
is to be supplied before it or after. Evidently he intends to read alv. ital •t'Ao-y.
with the great majority of witnesses, and not tlKoy. nal ai*. with the Ethiopic
version. See Th. St. A'r., 1898, i. J36f. The passage is regarded by Westcott
and Hort as a good example of " conflation," § 146.

' See now Textkritik dcr vicr Evangehen , pp. 48, 18 1.

232

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

AiVefV is the specifically Lucan word for "to praise,"
while euXoyelv in this sense does not occur in Acts at all,
and only in the first two chapters of Luke. Further, as any
concordance will show, a «»«V is the regular equivalent of VSn
and Ev\oyeii> of 113, while aii>eiv is rarely used for "pa or
€u\oye~w for SSa This confirms the supposition that aivovvret,
which is preferred by Teschendorf but rejected by Westcott
and Ilort, is the original reading.

In order to show the full extent of the difficulty of the
problem, we shall take along with this passage from the end
of the Gospel a single instance from the Acts. How does
the Apostolic Decree read in ch. xv. ? " To judge any matter
before knowing the facts of the case is inadmissible." So
Hilgenfeld says in his magazine, adding that the matter of
the Apostolic Council, as it is called, and the Decree have
been so judged. He himself restores the whole text in this
passage to the form that Blass has adopted as the Forma
Romana — i.e., to confine ourselves to this point of main im-
portance, he omits " things strangled."- On the other hand,
Harnack, in the article to which reference will be made below,
comes to the conclusion that the Eastern, i.e. the common, text
is the original, and the Western a later correction made sub-
sequent to the Didache, and not earlier than the first decade
of the second century. 3 The same conclusion is reached by
Zahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question
(Em/., ii. 344 ff.) : " The two texts are here mutually exclusive,
and therefore cannot both be derived from the same author
(xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25)." But he immediately adds: "The fact

1 k'w,~iv is not given in Cremer's Dictionary among the synonyms of tv\oyt7v,
and is only cited on p. 610 with the reading aivowrfj na\ eiAo-yoC/Ttt from this
passage.

* See Hilgenfeld, Das Apestcl-Concil narii scincm ursfningluhen Wortlante in
the ZfwTh., 42 (1899), 1, 138-149.

3 Harnack, Das Aposteldecret (Acta xv. 29) und die Blass'sclie Hypothese,
Berlin, 1899. From the Sitzungshcrichte der preuss. Akad. dtr Hiss. Noticed
in the Expository Times for June 1899, p. 395 f. See also the Berliner philolog-
ische I Vochenschrifl of the 13th May 1899.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

233

that Blass, in this important point, as in many another of
less consequence, declares a certain thing to be an original
element of the text which turns out to be simply an early
corruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his
hypothesis." That is quite true and must be borne in mind
in connection with the objection raised by Wendt, that
" manifest clerical errors are found in the actual text."
The passages are also used by Corssen as an argument
against Blass. The remarks of the latter in reply to the
strictures of Corssen (Evang. sec. Lucam,p. xxvi)seem to me to
be not without reason, but in any case it is strange that altera-
tions should have been made in an official document like the
Decree in Acts xv., no matter whether these were due to the
writer himself or a later intermediary. That there was some
method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence in three
places. But again I must emphasise the superiority of Codex
D. Whereas in ch. xv. 20, 29 the shorter text is represented
by other witnesses as well, in ch. xxi. 25 it is supported by D
with the sole addition of Gigas Holmiensis. 1 I have not to
decide the question here ; I simply commend it to a searching
investigation, in which attention must be paid to the ap-
parently meaningless differences in the use of particles and
synonyms, of simple and compound words, and such-like
seeming minutiae. I can only repeat how frequently the
thought occurred to me when I was comparing Scrivener's
edition with that of v. Gebhardt for my Supplement, that here
was no alteration of a later scribe, and what then ? The
simplest explanation was that both readings were due to the
author himself, who on the one occasion purposely set down
the one reading and on the other the other.

There is another question in connection with the Western
text which has been even more neglected than the former —
viz. the amount of importance to be attached to it in the case
of the Pauline Epistles. What about Eusebius's reference to
Tatian's work on these Epistles ? I frankly confess that not

1 See critical note in the Expositor's Greek Testament (Knowling), in loco.

2 34

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

criticism.

till the printing of this work was begun did I become aware,
mainly from Zahn's Einleitnng, how many problems are here
waiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must
for the present forbear making any attempt in this direction.

Here I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of
textual criticism, and thereafter adduce a number of New
Testament passages which are of interest from a critical point
of view.

Rules of (Ji) General Rules of Textual Criticism. — In its essence the

task of the textual critic resembles that of the physician, who
must first of all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before
attempting its cure. Manifestly the first thing to do is to
observe the injuries and the dangers to which a text trans-
mitted by handwriting is liable to be exposed. A correct
treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis.

The injuries which a text receives will vary according as it
is multiplied by Dictation or by Copying-. The fifty Bibles
which Eusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be
written to dictation. In the early times of the Church, copying,
as has been already mentioned, would doubtless be the more
usual method of multiplication. Here, however, we must
make a single exception in the case of Paul, who for the
most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. He
evidently dictated them. He certainly did not have them
simply written out from his own rough draft.

Illegibility. (i) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though

not most frequently, in a word or group of letters being
illegible, or in their being read for some psychological reason
otherwise than as they were intended. However attentive the
copyist may be, he may still be in doubt as to the way in
which a word or passage should be read, and may decide
wrongly. Proper names, e.g., are often very doubtful. 1 More
frequently however the mistake will be due to inattention.
The context may lead the copyist to expect a certain word ;
he sees one like it, and inserts the former in its place.

1 Cf. the passage of Hernias cited above, p. 47.

CHAP. III.] THEORV AND PRAXIS. 235

(2) It frequently happens, particularly in copying the old Horaoio-
scriptio continua, that the eye of the scribe jumps from one
word or group of letters to another the same or similar to it,
either before or after it. In the former case the intervening
words will be repeated, in the latter they will be omitted.
Scholars designate these errors as dlttogTaphy and elision re-
spectively ; printers know them under the name of a marriage
and a funeral. The former mistake is not so serious, because
it is at once detected on reading over the copy. A peep into
any manuscript will show how frequently this error occurs,
the repeated words being enclosed in brackets or surmounted
with dots. 1 In Codex B such passages give us an opportunity
of observing the beauty of the original writing, because the
painstaking man who retraced the old writing with fresh ink
in the eighth, or tenth, or eleventh century, or whenever it
was, adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks,
left these untouched. This kind of mistake very often happens
in passages where a group of characters catches the eye for any
reason, such as the occurrence of the abbreviation mark, 82,
1AHM, AN02, etc., and at the transition to a new page or
leaf. The omission of a piece of the text of various length by
homoioteleuton is as common, and is more serious. 2 Any
critical apparatus will show the frequency of its occurrence.
We often find there the note "a voce alterutra .... ad

1 A good example is seen in Ezek. xvi. 3. In the Sixtine edition of 1586 a new
page (692) occurs in the middle of the sentence lianaprvpov ttj ItpovauXiJH rat
avofitas avriis rait \tytt Kvpios rrj Upov<ra\-Tjti, with the result that the eight words
from the first ltpovaa\i)p to the second are printed twice by a recessive homoio-
teleuton, while in Codex 62 they have dropped out altogether owing to a forward
error of the same sort. The former mistake is tacitly corrected in all reprints, but
the latter could not be detected from the context alone without other testimony.
Compare also Mark ix. 10 in codex T of the Vulgate and ff of the Old Latin. In
the former the passage from rcsitrrexil to rtsurrexil is repeated, in the latter it
is omitted.

8 I had a teacher once who invariably tried to get over any difficulty in the
Greek classics by saying that the text was corrupted by homoioteleuton. We did
not always agree with him ; he was perhaps a little too ready with this way out of
a difficulty, but any one with experience knows how very apt this mistake is to
occur.

236

CREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

237

altcrutram desunt" or " a voce 1° ad vocem 2" (3 ) transilit,''
or " vox .... alterutra et intermedia desunt." Coin-
pare, e.g., Codex D, Matt, xviii. 18 from yij? t0 7^> x - 2 3 >
xxiii. 14-16. The result is worst when the mistake is not
discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are patched
together in some way with more or less success. Lacuna:
that have not been doctored are very helpful in determining
the relationship between different texts. 1
Confusion. (3) As errors of the tongue and the memory 2 rather than

of the eye may be reckoned the Transposition and Confusion
of particular combinations of letters or entire words. The
former occurs so frequently in connection with a liquid, that
in some cases it ceases to be a mistake. Thus we have on
the one hand the confusion of tcopicoSeiXos with KpoKoSeiXot,
JLapxiSwv with Carthago, and on the other, e/3uXov with eXafiov,
fiijBapaftu with fttfiajiupa, John i 28 ; Kipmirto with Kpiverio,
•kovtov with ronrov, pro, talent, Matt. xxv. 14-30, with p-o,
cities, Luke xix. 17, 19. Akin to this is the confusion of
vowels with a similar sound, to which are to be ascribed all
cases of itacism, as it is called — eyeipe and tyeipai, — ecrOe and
— ecrdai, eraipoii and erepoif, \p>](TTO<! 6 Kvpios and xpio-ro? o
Kuptos, 2 Cor. xii. 1 ; (jwpeaoo/uLev and <j>opeaopev, t\oip.€v and
e'Xo/n.(i; Rom. v. I ; p.eru Stwyp.a>v and p.era Siwyp.6v- Mani-
festly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dicta-
tion than in copying.

A third class of errors of a more conscious or semi-conscious
description is due to the substitution of words or forms of
similar meaning. Thus, for Xtyet we may have eiire or ecf>n or
a-wiKplvaTo, or the simple form may be replaced by the com-
pound or vice versa, or one preposition may be substituted for

1 This applies to printed editions as well as to manuscripts. Van Ess's reprint
of the Sixtine Septuagint (1824) is very carefully done, yet five words have dropped
out in Joel iii. 9. These are omitted in all the later editions uf 1S35, 1855 (novis
curis correcta), 1868, and 1879, and Here oidy supplied by myself in 1887 on the
occasion of the third centenary of the Sixtine edition. They are omitted in
TisrhendorPs first edition of 1850, and also in the second of 1856.

-' In ancient limes people always read aloud, even when reading hy themselves.

another. 1 Separate words are very frequently transposed
without seriously affecting the sense. Thus, in Acts iv. 12,
we find nearly all the possible permutations of the three
words ovofia eo-nv erepov actually represented— viz., in addi-
tion to this (2) ovop.a erepov eerriv ; (3) erepov ovopa eerriv ; (4)
eo-rtv erepov ovop.a ; (5) ecrriv ovona erepov. 2 On Luke xvn. IO,
Merx says (Die vier kanonischen Evangelicn, p. 246) : " Let it
be observed that the position of ixpeioi fluctuates between
(1) SovXot axpeiol eap-ev ; (2) SovXol ecrpev axpeioi D, and
(3) Lxptioi SovXol etrjuev. Such fluctuations are due to the
different arrangement of a word that did not originally
belong to the text, but was appended as a note and after-

1 Scrivener would explain the "remarkable confusion" of the two prepositions
rpo and jrpocr, when compounded with verbs, which we meet e.g. in Matt,
xxvi. 39; Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5, 13; xxii. 25, by saying that
the symbol r4A is used indifferently for rpc and wpocr in the Herculanean rolls, and
here and there in Codex Sinaiticus. Seeing that it has become a bad habit in
Hebrew Grammars to speak of Aleph proslhetieum instead of protheticum, and
that the practice is still defended (Gesenius-Kaulzsch 91 , p. 64, n. 3, "rightly
so ") after my notice of it (Marginalien, p. 67), I have given some little attention to
this confusion, and could cite dozens of examples. Others, of course, have noticed
it as well as myself. In his N. T., i. 20, B. Weiss says : "The compounds with
irpo and tpoa are interchanged quite heedlessly,'' and he cites in proof of this
eight passages from the Acts. He writes similarly in ii. 34. I shall instance only
one or two cases in connection with this same word lrpJliais. Pilra on Apost.
Const., 5, 17 (p. 32S) : *p°< ) t<">' restituimuscum Vatican. 2, 3, 4, 5, vulgo vpitrSt atv ;
Excerpta n#pl T\a8a>v, cd. R. Schneider (Programme of Diiisdurg, 1895), where the
manuscripts deviate in five passages, pp. 5, 14. 20 ; 6, 5 ; 13, 7. 13, and we read
in § 10, AvTiKtiTai !i tp6aitais piv bQatptott, etc., and in § II, irpiaStait pie
oiv rftrrl irpofffl^KTj trrotxttov kot' apxfoi olov trraipis, kara<pls Kal oaraipls. Both
times, of course, it should \x upABfois, as the belter manuscripts have it.
Wherever mention is made of the "shew bread," D invariably turns it into "extra
bread," by reading npondtotvs instead of irpoOfVccu*. Tischendorf first called
attention to this in Luke vi. 4, but it occurs also in Matt. xii. 4. I have no doubt
myself that in the case of verbal forms, the a was inserted in. order to avoid the
hiatus l>cfore ihe augment. Compare npoiridijKtv for irpot$r)Ktv, Ex. xxiv. 23 ;
KpoatBi}H(t$, Ps. lxxxix. 8, Symmachus ; wpoav*0tnriv or wpoatwtditnjv. Gal. i. 16.
In Wisdom, vii. 27, the first hand of Sinaiticus even writes irpocr^iiToj for
prophets. It is disputed whether the title of one uf Philo's books is irpo-Kaihivfiara
or irpbj [to] iraiSf u/iaTa. Etc. etc. Sapientl Silt.

- We find all the possible permutations of the words aiirols t\i\ijatv & 'Iqaovi in
John viii. 12. See my note on Codex Purpureus Petropolitanus (N) in Hilgen-
feld's Zeitsihrift fur wissensi haftliche Theoh^ie, 42 (1 899), p. 623.

238

CREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. Ill,

wards incorporated with the text. Such fluctuations point to
the interpolation of the fluctuating word." This judgment
has to be accepted with caution. For one thing, it is not at
all clear which word it is that fluctuates. In this particular
case, one might say that SovXoi fluctuates as much as axpeioi,
and the copula still more. Moreover such an interpolation
becomes at once an integral part of the text, and its insertion is
no longer visible. Only if several copies were made of that
exemplar in which the interpolation was first introduced
could fluctuation of this sort originate. Such transpositions
are much more frequently of a harmless order, as each one
may perceive for himself. The writer's thoughts fly faster
than his pen and anticipate a word that should not come in
till later. One of the most frequent cases of transposition is
that of 'Iqcrous XpitTTos and Xpicrros 'lqcrous in the Pauline
Epistles.
Additions. (4) Akin to this last is a class of mistakes originating in

the border region between the unconscious and the conscious
or intentional — viz. that of Additions. One can readily
understand how easy it was to insert a Kvptos or !> Ki'ptos
r/fjiwv, a fjiov after ira-nip on the lips of Jesus, the subject at
the beginning of a sentence, especially of the first sentence
of a pericope, or the object in the form of a pronoun.
Bengel proposed to omit the name of Jesus in some twenty-
five places, for which he was ridiculed by Wettstein, as may
be learned from my work on Bengel, p. 74. Now, everyone
admits that Bengel was right. Under the head of "Inter-
polationes breviores," Wordsworth and White first give
examples "de nomine Jesus," then of "Christus, Dominus,
Deus," and then of " Pronomina." It is evident that in this
way the wrong word may be supplied now and again.
Perhaps one of the most interesting cases is Luke i 46.
All our present Greek witnesses make Mary the composer
of the Magnificat, but Elisabeth's name is attached to it in
three Old Latin manuscripts, in the Latin version of Irenaeus,
according to the best manuscripts, and in some manuscripts

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

239

known to Origen (or to his translator, Jerome: the passage,
unfortunately, is found as yet only in the Latin). 1

(5) To the category of conscious alterations belong first
of all grammatical corrections, then assimilations to parallel Corrections,
passages, liturgical changes introduced from the Evangeliaria,
as, e.g., the addition at the close of a pericope of the words
o tywv "> Ta oKoveTw which occurs in all sorts of manuscripts in
the most diverse passages, or indications of time, such as iv
tw Kcupw e/ceiVoi at the beginning of a pericope, 2 and lastly,
alterations made for dogmatic reasons, if any such can be
established. It is impossible to deny that dogmatic concep-
tions had some influence on the propagation of certain read-
ings if not on their origin — as, e.g., on the form assumed by
the words in Matt xix. 17, rl fie Xeyei? a-yaOov, or on the
omission of the words ovSe 6 w'dy in Mark xiii. 22 ; compare
also above, p. 106. On the whole, however, there is no real
ground for the scepticism that was for a time entertained with
respect to our texts in this connection. A sober criticism
will be able in most cases to restore the correct form. Its
conditions will be apparent from what has been said in the
foregoing.

Gerhard von Maestricht laid down forty-three Critical Canons of
Canons, and Wettstein set forth in his New Testament his
Animadversiones et Cautiones ad examen variarum lectionum
Novi Testamenti necessariae (vol. ii. 851-874). In 1755 J. D.
Michaelis added to his Curae in versionem Syriacam Act.
Apost. his Consectaria critica de ... usu versionis Syriacae
tadu/arum Novi Foederis. 3 Bengel reduced all the rules to a
single one. Quite recently Wordsworth and White compre-

1 See Harnack, Das Magnificat der Elisabeth (Lukas i. 46-55) in the Berliner
Sitzimgsberiihtc of the 17th May 1900, p. 538 ff. A good example of how glosses
may creep into-the text is afforded by Philo " Quod det." II (Cohn, I, 266).

* On the influence of a system of pericopne on the text of Codex D, see
Scrivener's Introduction to his edition of the manuscript, p. Ii, and Zahn, Einl.,
"• 355-

3 See Semler's edition of J. J. Wctsteinii libclli ad crisin atque interfreta-
tionem N.J',, Ha be, 1766. m

240

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

241

bended the rules they followed in the preparation of the text
of their Latin New Testament in four sentences. Of these
the first two apply to a version only, and therefore do not
concern us here ; * while the fourth {brevior lectio probabilior)
is but another form of Bengel's canon. The third alone may
be regarded as new and deserving of attention — viz., vera
lectio ad finem victoriam report at. That is to say, if a phrase
is repeated in several passages in the same or similar terms,
and displays variants in the earlier passages, the reading of
the later passage will, as a rule, be the correct one, the
reason being that copyists are apt to consider a certain
reading to be an error the first time it occurs, and therefore
to alter it, but come in the end to admit it as correct.

I would once more briefly emphasize the following pro-
positions : —

(1) The text of our manuscripts must not be regarded

as homogeneous, but must be examined separately
for each part of the New Testament. A manuscript
that exhibits a very good text in one book does not
necessarily do the same in the others. The same
thing holds good of versions and quotations.

(2) The text is preserved with less alteration in the

versions than in the manuscripts. 2

(3) In the Gospels that reading is the more probable

which differs from that of the parallel passages.

(4) The influence of the ecclesiastical use of the Scrip-

tures on the text must be more carefully attended
to than heretofore. 2

1 (I) Lectin quae in veteribus latinis non apparel probabilior est. (2) Codices
qui cum graecis N B L concordant plerumque textum Hieronymianum osten-
diint.

2 In view of the frequency with which the witnesses fluctuate between ^w and
ifiiy, riti'm and in'tv, etc., it is impossible to adjust their claims on any mere
arithmetical principle. Zahn (Eiii/., ii. 61) calls attention to an important con-
sideration in support of the reading vfiiv in 2 Peter i. 4, which applies to other
passages as well— viz., " that when the New Testament epistles were read at divine
service, finiU would very readily and very frequently be substituted for until, which

CHAP. III.]

(5) One of the most valuable aids in estimating the

importance of the witnesses is the proper names,
particularly those of less frequent occurrence.

(6) " Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua."

Of these propositions only the last two need be illustrated proper
further, particularly the second last. For it is really remark-
able to what extent this consideration has been neglected
hitherto. To the best of my knowledge there is as yet no
monograph in which the proper names are treated from a
critical point of view. And yet these are for the critic fre-
quently the only points of light in vast regions of darkness.
They are to him what the lighthouse is to the mariner or the
fossil to the geologist. This makes their neglect all the more
strange. Had there been a systematic examination of the
proper names of the New Testament, Lippelt's important
discovery with regard to the spellings 'Iwavns and 'Iwuvvn?
might have been made long ere now (see above, p. 162 f.).
Weiss's critical studies in Acts deserve honourable mention
in this connection. But Westcott and Hort, who have paid
attention to these things with their usual exactitude, were

excluded the reader or preacher." Compare Acts iv. 12 : iv 5 S«> ffiuflr/i'oi — ,
ijfias or ufias?

It might be laid down as a second rule in this connection, that particular
importance attaches to those versions in which the distinction of the persons does
not depend simply on a single letter but on a separate word (nobis : vobis, etc.). In
versions of this sort the original reading is preserved from the first ; in the case of
the others, the change could be made at any point of the transmission, especially
when it was helped by the nature of the writing, which must also, of course, be
taken into account.

A glance over the verse enumeration in the margin of one of the modern
editions of the text will reveal, perhaps, most clearly how strong is the tendency
to interpolation. Of the verses into which Stephen divided the Greek N.T.
(1551), the Stuttgart edition omits entirely the following from the Synoptic
Gospels — \iz., Matt, xviii. 11 (xxi. 44, TUchen.), xxiii. 14 J Mark vii. 16;
ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28; Luke xvii. 36 (xxi. 18, W-H margin); xxiii. 17
(xxiv. 12, 40, Tisch.). Compare also Matt. xx. 28; xxvii. 35, 38, 49; Mark
vi. II ; xiii 2 ; Luke vi. 5 ; ix. 55 ; xii. 21 ; xix. 45 ; xxi. 38 ; xxii. 19!., 43 I., 47 ;
xxiii. 2, 5, 34, 48, 53 ; xxiv. 5, 36, 51, 52. In the case of several verses this or
that part had to be omitted. Luke' xx. 30, e.g., is reduced to the three words,
ital i S<vT«por, with the result that it becomes the shortest verse in the N.T.

242

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

simply on the wrong tack in this case when they asked
whether the various persons who bore this name might not
have spelt it differently, as in the case of Smith, Smyth,
Smythe, etc. Similarly the genealogies give rise to a whole
host of problems of which no account has been taken hitherto.
See above, p. 165, for the reading Zape exhibited by B in
Matt. i. 3 ; and compare Sela, given by Syr 5 '" in verses 4 and 5,
with 2aXa in Luke iii. 32. Tischendorf omits the testimony
in Matt. i. 5, while Baljon passes over both the variants,
though they are certainly of more importance than the varia-
tion in the spelling of Boe'y, Boo'y, Boo'f. In Luke iii. 27 the
word NK'tn i s converted into a proper name 'Pijo-a. From this
fact some very interesting conclusions might be drawn with
regard to the sources of Luke's Gospel, but this is a matter
lying outside the scope of this chapter. On the other hand,
the fact that in the fourth Gospel the traitor is called not
'laKuptwTin, or anything like it, but utto Kapvutrov by a in
ch. vi. 71, where his name first occurs, and by D in every
other place in that Gospel (xii. 4 ; xiii. 2, 26 ; xiv. 22), raises a
very strong presumption in favour of these two manuscripts
and indeed of the fourth Gospel. On this see my Philo-
logica Sacra, p. 14, and my notes, with Chase's unconvincing
replies, in the Expository Times for December 1897, and
January, February, and March 1898. I am very glad to see
that Zahn now inclines to the same view {Einl., ii. 561).
Considerable weight is given to it by the fact that these two
manuscripts seem to be the only ones that have preserved the
correct reading in the case of other names as well.

What is Apollos called in Acts ? He is mentioned by D
only in ch. xviii. 24, where he is called ' kiroWwvios. x* calls
him 'A-ireXX^? in xviii. 24 and xix. I. This reading is sup-
ported in the former passage by the minuscules 15 and 180,
and in the latter by 180 alone. Wendt now agrees with
Blass in thinking it probable that the original form in Acts
was 'AweWiji, which was altered in the main body of manu-
scripts in conformity with 1 Corinthians, just as utto Kapvdrov

CHAP. Ill

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

243

in John was accommodated to 'la-Kapuorrn given by the
Synoptics. But what about D ? I must ask with Salmon. Even
Weiss says in this connection (Codex D, p. 18): "The most
that can be said for ' AnoWwtos is that this form, differing as
it does from that prevailing in the Pauline Epistles, has the
presumption of originality, seeing that there was always a
temptation for the scribes to accommodate it to the latter." 1
In his earlier work on the text (p. 9) he seems not to have
considered this point.

I cannot understand how Weiss could at first explain
'IwvdOas, which is found in D (Acts iv. 6) in place of 'lwdv(v)t}S
read by the other witnesses, as a " clerical error," whereas now
(Cod. D, p. 108) he deems it more natural to suppose that a
corrector inserted the name of the son of Annas and the
successor of Caiaphas mentioned by Josephus (Antiq. xviii. 4, 3)
in place of that of the entirely unknown John, than that
the name of Jonathan, even supposing it was unknown to the
copyist, which applies equally to that of Alexander mentioned
along with him, was replaced by John, which was a very
common name, the name of the Apostle so frequently
mentioned before. It could, therefore, be only a purely
accidental clerical error. Headlam, in his article on John
(Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 676) seems to know
nothing of all this. But perhaps Weiss sees on the same page
of the aforesaid book that the mistake of Johanan and
Jonathan occurred elsewhere also, and remembering Bengel's
principle, considers that 'laWflac is the script 'io ardiia, and,
therefore, the praestantior?

In 2 l'eter ii. 15 the father of Balaam is called Motrop,
which is quite peculiar. Westcott and Hort and Weiss, in
their fondness for B, write Bewp. But this is most certainly

1 The best discussion of the form 'AwfMrjj will again lie found in Zahn, Einl.,

i »93-

- See my note in ihe Expository Times fur July 1900, p. 478, where I have brought
forward a new witness for the reading Jonatha— viz., Jerome's Liber interpnta-
lionis Hcbraicorum nomiuwn. He explains the word as "to/iwiba dans vel
cohimha icniens."

244

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[CHAP. III.

CHAP. III.]

THEORY AND PRAXIS.

245

a correction which is combined with the original to form
ftetopcrop in x. The only thorough discussion of the passage
that I know is in Zahn's Einleitung, ii. 109. The only thing
that might be added to his data in the LXX. is that, accord-
ing to Holmes-Parsons, the Georgian version has uiov toi"
/3o<ro'p in Jos. xiii. 22. 'EeTr<fiwp, as the name of Beor, has
crept into various manuscripts in several places from Jos.
xxiv. 9 — e.g. into the Armenian in Gen. xxxvi. 32, Codex 18 in
Num. xxii. 5, Codex 53 in Num. xxiv. 15, where Cod. 75 has
Se/3e<op, and into Lucian in 1 Chr. i 43. There seems to me
to be a confusion between Gen. xxxvi. 32 ( = 1 Chr. i. 43)
and the following verse, in which Bosra occurs. In Gen.
xxxvi. 33 one manuscript observes, ij /Wop iro'Atc t»k 'Apa/8/ac
>) vvv KaXovfieitj fido-pa.. Jerome also renders "ex Bosor." 1
Boo-o'p also occurs as the name of a place in Deut. iv. 43 ;

1 Sam. xxx. 9 ; I Mace. v. 26. On this last passage see
ZdPV., 12, 51; 13, 41. For other interpretations (Hebrew
pronunciation of the Aramaic mine)" see Pole's Synopsis on

2 Peter ii. 15.

It is worth observing that minuscule 81 displays a close
agreement with B in other places as well as this.

On the names in the catalogue of the Apostles, see Zahn,
Einl., ii. 263 ; on 'lepova-akij/j. a.nd'Iepo<r6\up.a, ii. 310 ; on Jesus
Barabbas, ii. 294; on Barachias in Matt, xxiii. 35, i. 454,
ii. 308. On the confusion between Isaiah and Asaph in Matt,
xiii. 35, and between Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Isaiah in other
passages, compare Ambrosiaster's note on 1 Cor. ii. 9 cited
above, p. 148.
" He who seeks in the wild fir wood, will still find many a cudgel good."

1 Volck has an article of four and a half pages on Balaam in the PRE 9 , iii. 227 ff.,
hut he says not a syllable about the form Boo6p, which is too bad. In Hastings'
Dictionary of the Bible it is at least mentioned though not explained.

- ijn is explained as the Hebrew form of the Aramaic Til'3 by C. B. Michaelis
(De Pa> onoma sia, § 30) ; Hiller, Onomas/icitm, 1706, p. 536 j and Bernardus (in
Marck, In praecipuas qnasdam partes Pentateitchi Coiiimentarius , Leyden,
1713, 366). Marck himself makes it the equivalent of lino. M. M. Kalish, Bible
Studies, i. The prophecies of Bileam, London, 1877, contributes nothing to the
solution of the question.

The rule that the shorter text is the more original is a Textus
subdivision of Bengel's canon. It is specially the case when "
two longer forms are opposed to it which are mutually ex-
clusive and whose origin can be explained from the shorter.
As examples of this Zahn adduces, in addition to the double
conclusion of Mark's Gospel, the following : —

John vi. 47 : Tn<r T etW, n B L T, + " in God," Syrcu. sin, + ( «V
fVACDTAAIl

John vii. 39 : vveS/ia, X K T II, + ayiov L X T A A, + SeSo-
fi€vov it vgde, + ayiov eir' avroh, D f goth, + ayiov SeSofievov,
B 254 Syrs'n. hark. . . .

James v. 7 : irpoip.ov, B 31, pr. vtrov A K L P, pr. napirov x
9 ff etc.

It is equally clear that a reading is incorrect which proves
to be a mixture of two others (conflate readings). The re-
spective claims of these others must be adjudged on other
considerations. Thus we have —

Luke xxiv. 53 : atvouvres, D a b e.

evXoyovvres, x B C* L.

atvouvret Kai euAoyoui/TCf, A C 2 X T A A II.

etJAoyoi/iTef Kai aivovvrcs, Ethiop.
Acts vi. 8 : TrXqpw x^P'toc, sABD,

irXt'lplJ! TTt<TT€Wt, H P.

ttX))/)»j9 \dpiTOi Kai 7n'o-Tea>c, E.

In general that reading will have the best claim to origin-
ality which stands first in the combination. Further illustra-
tions are unnecessary.

In order to fulfil the promise of the title of this chapter, the
foregoing exposition of the Theory of New Testament criticism
should be succeeded by a further part dealing with its Praxis.
Such a part would contain particular illustrations of the way
in which the criticism of the text has been handled by our
authorities hitherto and the way in which it must be treated
in accordance with the foregoing principles. The following
notes do not and cannot claim to be a complete fulfilment of

246

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[chap. iu.

this great task, more especially as in the preceding part we
were unable to arrive at a finished system of textual criticism.
I have therefore contented myself witli bringing together a
series of passages of interest from a critical point of view. In
doing so I have freely drawn upon Zahn's Introduction. For
this I feel sure the reader will thank me, while at the same
time I trust that the author will pardon the liberty I have taken.
I have made use, as far as possible, of the additional material
afforded by editions later than those of Tischendorf and West-
cott and Hort, particularly of the Sinai-Syriac. This collec-
tion may therefore serve in some degree to supplement our
commentaries, which, though their merits in other directions
are to be freely conceded, still leave much to be desired in
the matter of textual criticism. A purely critical commentary
on the New Testament is a great desideratum. The follow-
ing notes are to be regarded not as the commencement of
such a work, but simply as a stimulus thereto. I myself felt
it to be a defect in the small Stuttgart edition of the New
Testament that want of space obliged me to omit all refer-
ences to the origin and significance of the various readings
selected from manuscripts. For many of these an Annotatio
Critica in an Appendix like that in the larger edition of
v. Gebhardt would scarcely have been sufficient. What
information, e.g., would it have imparted to a reader to have
given the numbers of the two minuscules 346, 556 after the
reading in Matt. i. 16? What he needs is an Apparatus
Criticus or a Commentarius Criticus such as Hengel appended
to his edition, or like that which Burk published separately
in his second issue. Ed. Miller has promised to give us one
for the Gospels, only it will proceed on principles which very
few of us will be able to accept.

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THE GOSPEL.

Matthew.

WITH regard to the title, Westcott and Hort say (Introduction,
6 423 p 321): "In prefixing the name EYAITEAION in
the singular to the quaternion of 'the Gospels,' we have
wished to supply the antecedent which alone gives an .
adequate sense to the preposition RATA in the several titles.
The idea, if not the name, of a collective ' Gospel ' is implied
throughout the well-known passage in the third book of
Irenajus, who doubtless received it from earlier generations.
It evidently preceded and produced the commoner usage by
which the term Gospel denotes a single written representation
of the one fundamental Gospel." Compare Zahn, GK., i. 106 ff. ;
Ein/eitung, ii. 172 ff., 178 f. : " Of recent editors, Westcott and
Hort have most faithfully interpreted the original idea by
setting EvayyeXiov on the fly-leaf, and Kara Uaddatov, etc.,
over the separate books/' I have followed the same principle
in the Table of Contents prefixed to the Stuttgart edition of
the New Testament. Compare above, pp. 164, 165. On the
spelling Ma00«<"oy, instead of Mcn-0a?oy, compare on the one
hand the LXX. manuscripts, which exhibit the forms UaOavul,
M«00awa, Marflawa ; Ma-rraOi'ay, MaT0a0i'ar, Ma00a0<'«y (see
Supplement I. to Hatch and Redpath's Concordance to the

248

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MATT.

Septnagint), and on the other, Blass's Grammatik des neutesta-

mentlichen Gricchisch, § 3, 1 1 (English Trans, by Thackeray,

1898, p. 11).
i. 16. There are three forms of the text here —
(i) Iwar]</> rov avSpu Map/a?, e£ j)c eyevvi'fit] 'I»j<rouc o

Xeyofifvof XpKTToi : all our Greek uncials and almost all the

minuscules.

(2) 'lwo-T)</>, w fxvtj(mvQel<Ta irapBcvos Napia eyevvrjcrev tov
'h)(Toiif (tov Xeyoixevov) XpttrTov: most of the Old Latin
(a d g 1 k q, with b c similarly), Curetonian Syriac, Armenian,
and four minuscules— viz., 346, 556, 624, 626, with slight
divergencies.

(3) 'loicrr/gi- 'Iwah'P Se, <o fiirjaTeudeia-a (or fxe/xviio-Teu/xevt] ?) qv
wapdevos Mupla, eyevvn&ev tov 'h/crovv Xpitrrov : the form under-
lying the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. 1

These readings are discussed in the " Additional Note " to
A T otes on Select Readings, Westcott and Hort, Introduction
(1896), p. 140 ff. Reading (2) is dismissed on external
grounds as displaying the characteristic features of the
" Western "' type of text. Reading (3) is regarded as inde-
pendent of (2), neither confirming it nor confirmed by it.
Taken therefore on its own merits, it must yield to the
received text (1), as it is easier to suppose that (3) is derived
from ( 1 ) than vice versa.

Zahn goes fully into these various forms (Einleitttng, ii.
291-293). He begins by saying that it is impossible, except
on a very loose view of the facts, to conclude that the Sinai-
Syriac here preserves the original text, which was gradually
displaced for dogmatic reasons by the modified form pre-
sented in (2), and ultimately by that given in (1). On the
contrary, the Curetonian-Syriac preserves an early form of
text, and one that had a pretty wide circulation, so that it
cannot be due to an orthodox alteration of the Sinai-Syriac.

1 See Mrs. Lewis, in the Expository Times, November 1900, p. 56 ff., What
have we gained in the Sinaitie Palimpsest, I. St. Matthew's Gospel, where a
number of important variants are cited from that manuscript.

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 249

"If it be the case that the latter, like the former, is derived
from a Greek original, and that these two earliest versions of
the ' Distinct ' Gospel are not independent of each other but
are two recensions of a single version, then it follows that the
recension which agrees exactly with a demonstrably old
Greek text (in this case the Curetonian Syriac) preserves the
original form of the Syriac version ; while, on the other hand,
the one which deviates from all the Greek, Latin, and other
forms of the transmitted text (in this case the Sinai-Syriac)
is derived from the other by a process of intentional altera-
tion. " There would be nothing to object to this reasoning
were it not that, as it seems to me, there is a flaw in the
second of the premises stated above, which of course vitiates
the conclusion. In the main, it is true that the Sinai-Syriac
and the Curetonian are not independent, but two recensions
of a single version, but their common original was, as Zahn
himself was the first to suggest, Tatian's Diatessaroh, which
did not contain the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel. So
that the Sinai-Syriac may also go back to a Greek text (such
as has been discovered in the Dialogue of Timothy and
Aquila, see above, p. 99), and be earlier than the' Curetonian.

Zahn concludes his examination of this passage by saying :
" We may give up all hope of finding in early manuscripts
and versions any indication that Joseph was regarded as the
natural father of Jesus by the writers of lost Gospels which
may have been employed in the composition of the canonical
Matthew and Luke. A writer like Matthew, whose purpose
was to silence the calumnies raised against the miraculous
birth of the Messiah, and who knew how to utilise the smallest
details of an intractable genealogy to this end, cannot at
the same time have accepted in his narrative statements
directly contradicting his view of that occurrence. Any
text of Matthew's Gospel containing such features would
be pre-condemned as one that had been tampered with in
a manner contrary to the conception of the author."

i. 18. The reading yeVeo-tc is now supported by the newly-

250

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MATT.

discovered Oxyrhynchus Papyrus. It was adopted in the
text by Vignon (Geneva, 1574). Origen knew no other read-
ing than yei'irxrn, which is also attested by L (Codex D is
defective here). Westcott and Hort have accordingly given
it a place in their Appendix. Weiss explains it as an altera-
tion made in conformity with the verbal forms eye'wijue,
eyewi')Bi), occurring in the previous part of the chapter. Zahn
(Einieitung, ii. 270, 289) thinks it is probably original. The
two oldest and the latest Syriac have a different word here
from that in i 1. These agree with Irenaeus in the omission
of 'Itjcrov. Zahn thinks this is probably correct.

i. 25. On -rrpwroTOKov, see above, p. 166, and the Oxford
Debate, p. 4 ff.

v. 25. On avTiStKos = xyibvi, see Lagarde, De Novo, 20 (Ges.
Abhdl., 188); quern Matthaei locum quum imitaretur et rideret
Lucianus in Navigio 35, avriSiicos non fe'rebat : ?a>? en ku6' <>S6v
eiaiv 01 TroXf/iioi, tirixeipwuev avroi?.

vi. 1. Sikuio<t(ivi}v, N" B D Syr 9 '" : eXeijjuocrt/Kiji', most authorities :
Somv K* : " your gifts," Syr"' Zahn (Einl., ii. 311) asks whether
these variants may not go back to a time when the Aramaic
Gospel was interpreted orally in these different ways? The
agreement exhibited between K a and Syr 11 ' is particularly
strange.

vi. 13. There is a considerable amount of unanimity now
with regard to the doxology which used to be so much dis-
cussed. Among the witnesses supporting its insertion are
Syr 1 ", which, however, omits koi 17 8uvafxi$, and the Sahidic,
which omits kui 17 S6£a. Syr 5 '" is unfortunately lost here. In
addition to the testimony previously known for the insertion
of the Doxology, there is now that of the Teaching of tlie
Apostles, one of the earliest Church writings. But the very
fact that the Teaching is a Church work reveals the source ol
the Doxology — viz. liturgical use. The Conclusion was early
added in Church worship from Old Testament analogies ; in
the First Gospel it is out of place. The Greek manuscripts
from which Jerome made his version knew nothing of it, and

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

251

accordingly the Catholic Church omits it to this day. Luther
also passed it over in his Catechism, in which the exposition
of the Conclusion is limited to the word " Amen," and says, " it
is added that I may have the assurance that my prayer will
be heard." In the Greek Church the Amen was explained
as equivalent to yevono, " so may it be."

viii. 7. Fritzsche (1826) took this verse as a question of sur-
prise. This view has been renewed by Zahn {Einl., ii. 307).

viii. 24. The words " erat enim ventus contrarius eis," which
are found in one manuscript of the Vulgate in W-W after
" mari," and in four after " fluctibus," are an interpolation from
Mark vi. 48. Tischendorf cites two Greek minuscules in sup-
port of it. Lagarde's Vienna Arabic manuscript (see p. 143)
mentions it as an addition of the " Roman " version.

xi. 19. Schlottman and Lagarde explain the variation be-
tween tpya and rexva as a confusion of the Aramaic *"W (ser-
vant: irafc) and tn?I> (work). See Zahn, Einl., ii. 31 1 f., and
compare also Salmon, Some Thoughts etc., p. 121 f. It is
still to be shown, however, that rexva is ever used as the
equivalent of *1?V. Hilgenfeld (ZfwTh., 42. 4, ,p. 629) refers
to 4 Esdras vii. 64 (134), where the Latin and the first Arabic
version read ■' quasi suis operibus" the Ethiopic " quasi filiis
suis," and the Syriac " quia semi eius sumus."

xii. 36. See on xviii. 7.

xiii. 35. diu 'Haa'tou rod irpo<j>T)TOv is now attested only by
N*, two members of the Ferrar group, and some other
minuscules, but Eusebius and Jerome found it in several
manuscripts, and it was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a
proof of Matthew's ignorance. It is certainly, therefore,
genuine, although it is omitted by Syr" n , Syr c ", by the
" accurate " manuscripts according to Eusebius, 1 and by the
"vulgata editio" according to Jerome. The conjecture of
the latter, that 'Acrdtp was the original reading, which was
changed to 'Kcraiov by some unintelligent copyist and then
dropped as incorrect, only serves to show what sort of ideas

1 Corderius (Catcn. Pml., ii. 631) substitutes "ancient" for "accurate."

252

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MATT.

he had with regard to textual criticism. The assertion of the
Breviarium in Psalmos, p. 59 f, that all the old manuscripts
read " in Asaph propheta '• is pure fiction. Compare 'Upe/ilov
in Matt, xxvii. 9, where one would expect Za\apiov, and
where we find that 'Upefilov is omitted by some witnesses
and replaced in others by Zaxaptou or " Esaiam." " Esaiam "
has also crept into the Vulgate manuscript rus (W-W's R).
On the insertion, omission, and interchange of such names,
see W-H's discussion of this passage, and the "Supple-
mentary Note" by Burkitt on Syr sln in the edition of 1896,
p. 143. For an interesting exchange of names (Jonah and
Nahum), see Tobit, xiv. 8. Asaph is called 6 irpofo'rrw in
2 Chron. xxix. 30. Compare Zahn, EinL, it. 313 f Weiss 9
would omit the word on the ground of insufficient testimony as
being simply introduced from Hi. 3, iv. 14, viii. 17, and xii. 17.

xiv. 3. Zahn {EinL, ii. 309) thinks it extremely improbable
that D and certain important Latin witnesses should have
removed the (wrong) name, Philip, from this passage on the
ground of their better knowledge, while allowing it to stand
without exception in Mark vi. 17. He believes rather that
they have preserved the original text, and that 4>«X(Wov is
here an interpolation from the passage in Mark. Weiss 9 ,
on the other hand, sees no reason why it should be either
bracketed or omitted. The possibility of its being inserted
is shown by the fact that it also crept into six or seven
manuscripts of Jerome, collated by W-W. This is one of
the passages where Tischendorf in his seventh edition frankly
preferred Codex D to all the other Greek witnesses.

xv. 4b. For Oapdrw TeXevrdrw, Syr ou has Supnj, evidently in
accordance with Exod. xxi. 17. In the Arabic Diatessaron
(§ 2 °. 2 3) tne second half of this verse seems to be replaced
by Mark vii. 106. After " morte moriatur" in this passage,
Ephraem adds " et qui blasphemat Deum cnicifigatiir," which
Zahn {Forsch., i 157) thinks he must have found in his
original. This apocryphal addition, which has no other
testimony than that of Ephraem, does not seem to Zahn like

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 253

a passage that had been afterwards removed from the text of
the New Testament with complete success {Forsch., i. 241).
The correct explanation of the words is given by Harris :
they are the Peshitto rendering of Deut. xxi. 23. Compare
Driver's Deuteronomy on the passage, and the reference there
made to Lightfoot's Galatians (Extended Note on iii. 13,
ninth edition, p. 152 f.). Symmachus also renders the words :
'propter blasphemiam Dei suspensus est," while Onkelos

says 3'Sbxx " mp am hp, and Siphre own nx bhpv ':'30. Th
should be noted in connection with Matt. xxvi. 65, and still
more so with John xix. 7. The only passage usually cited
there is Levit. xxiv. 16, according to which Jesus should have
been stoned. Our commentators pass too hastily over the
question why the Jews insisted on crucifixion instead of
stoning.

xvi. i8p, 19. So far as the criticism of the text is concerned,
there is no occasion for entering on the discussion whether
this passage, like the one resembling it in xviii. 15-18, is
original or not. There may, however, be cases in which one
cannot overlook the fact that where the "lower" criticism
ends the "higher" begins. Compare, on the one side, Zahn,
Forsch., i. 244 ff, and on the other, Resch, Login, p. 55;
Paralleltexte, ii. 1 87-1 96, 441.

xvi. 22. The peculiar reading, " compatiens," which is found
in the Arabic Tatian (J. H. Hill, p. 137, § 23. 42 : Zahn, G K.,
ii. 546), and which Sellin has also traced in Ephraem, is now
explained by the Syr 8 " 1 of Mark viii. 32 : see my note in
Lewis, Some Pages, p. xiii. The very same play upon the
words Din, " to pity," and on, " to be far from," is found as late
as in the Histoire de Mar-Jabalalui, de trois autres patriarchies,
ed. Bedjan, 1895, p. 407, line 14; p. 408, line 4. For
a moment I thought of Spyio-Oels and cnrXayxvKrOtU in
Mark i 41.

xviii. 7. The Dictum Agraphum ru ayaOa e\6eiv Sec,
/uaxapio? <5e Si' o5 tpxtrai, which, according to the Clementine
Homilies (xii. 29), 6 T»jy aXi;0ei'a? Trpo<j»'p->i$ %<l>1' was known

254

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MATT.

also to Ephraem (cf. Zahn, Forscli., i. 241 f on § 50. 4). An
exact parallel to this "harmless expansion of the canonical
text" is seen in the form which Matt. xii. 36 assumed in
Codex C of the Palestinian Syriac Evangeliarium : that " for
every good word that men do not speak they shall give
account" (see Lewis, In the Shadow of Sinai (1898), pp.
256-261 ; and thereon, ThLz., 1899, col. 177).

xviii. 20. On the form in which this saying is found in the
Oxyrhynchus Logia, compare Ephraem (Moesinger 165), " ubi
unus est ibi et ego sum.'' Zahn believes that Ephraem found
this in his text, but that Aphraates, who also has it, arrived at
it by way of a " spiritual interpretation *' of the canonical words.
After quoting the comments of Aphraates on these words,
Zahn says : " It appears certain, therefore, that Aphraates
did not find in his text the apocryphal sentence given in
Ephraem, but by way of interpretation reached the same
thought that Ephraem found in his text as a word of comfort
spoken by Jesus to the lonely. (Ephraem introduces the
saying with the words: 'He comforted them in His saying.')
The interpretation, which may not have been original in
Aphraates, became first a gloss and then part of the text of
Tatian's Harmony." This should be noticed in connection
with the Oxyrhynchus Logion. See Burkitt in the Introduc-
tion to Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement ( Texts and Studies,
v. 5, p. xiv).

xx. 13. The peculiar form of the householder's reply given
in Syr"', M ,', aSUet fxe (Baethgen, /x>) not kottous irdpexe) is
ignored by Tischendorf. Our commentators also err in not
taking note of the variant a-vi'e^wv^d trot for rae^wijiroj
not. Compare the similar variation in John \ iii. 57 ; also
Luke xviii. 20, tu? erroXur otSa, read by the Marcionites instead
of oiotti ; and Ephes. v. 14, eTn^uuaen tov Xpto-roC, derived
through a presupposed reading, eirt^adaet troi 6 X/jiotoV
~Lvve<l>wvri<Tu <rot in Matt. xx. 13 is also attested by Syr" n ,
which agrees with the common text in the first member of
the verse. It is also found in the newly-discovered purple

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 255

manuscript in Paris. The Arabic Tatian agrees with the
usual text in both members. On the strange mixture of this
verse and Luke xvi. 25 in Petrus Siculus (eTaipt, ovk aSiKU>
<re- aireXafits tu <ra iv ry fan <rov vvv apov to aov kui
vwaye) see Zahn, GK., ii. 445.

xx. 16. The concluding member of this verse is now rightly
omitted with slILZ and the Egyptian versions. All the
Syriac versions have it, including the newly-discovered Syr" ln .
It is worth observing that the verse with this addition forms
the close of a lection in Syr hler .

xx. 28. VVestcott and Hort devote one of their " Notes on
Select Readings" to the addition to this verse, and in the
edition of 1896 Burkitt adds that it cannot have stood in
Syr* 1 ", because there was not room for it on the leaf that is
missing between Matt. xx. 24 and xxi. 20. According to
W-H the passage is Western, being attested by D $ among
the Greek manuscripts and by the Latin and Syriac versions.
" The first part only, vfjteii — eivat, is preserved in m, ger, and
apparently Leo, who quotes no more ; the second part only,
eio-epXop-tvot — XP'W 01 '' m g er 2 anc ^ apparently Hilary. The
first part must come from an independent source, written or
oral ; the second probably comes from the same, but it is in
substance identical with Luke xiv. 8-10." Tischendorf states
that of the Old Latin, four (f g 2 1 q) omit the section, which,
however, is found in c d e ff, i2 g, h (m) n, two manuscripts of
the Vulgate (and. emm.), the Old German, and the Saxon.
To these W-W add also the Old Latin r, two manuscripts
of the Vulgate not usually employed by them, and, of
those forming the basis of their edition, H"' s H O — i.e. the
Theodulfian Recension. A hand of the tenth century has
written on the margin of O, " mirum unde istud additum :
cum Lucas parabolam de invitatis ad nuptias et primos
accubitus eligentibus decimo canone, ubi M(atthaeu)s sua
non communia dicit referat." This resembles the marginal
note attached to the passage by Thomas of Heraclea (not
given by Jos. White, but by Adler, from Cod. Assent., 1):

> 5 G

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MATT.

Haec quidem in cxemplis antiquis in Luca tantum leguntur
capite 53: inveniuntur autem in exemplis graecis 1 hoc loco :
quapropter hie etiam a nobis adiecta sunt.

The word SenrvoKXijrwp, which Resch took from this
passage into the text of his Logia Jesu, for 6 a-e kqi avrov
KaXeaus, found in Luke xiv. 9, should itself have provoked
investigation. The only Latin witnesses which render it in a
substantive form ared, which has coenae invitator both times,
and m, which has invitator the first time. The others give it
as a relative clause (qui vocavit, invitavit), so that they may
have read it in the form in which it stands in our present
text of Luke. 2 It is impossible not to believe that some
connection exists between these substantive expressions
and the Syriac srvoBTW sno, "master of the feast," which
is found in Syr cu and Syr ,in , and is also given by Aphraates,
for tw (C£*.-Xi;/c()'t( uvtov in Luke xiv. 12 (Aphr. 388, 12-19;
Zahn, Forsch., i. 85, note). Syr cu has it both times in this
passage of Matthew. 3

Bengel, like our modern expositors, says nothing of the
interpolation in his Gnomon, and his view with respect to it

1 Or "exemplo graeco." according as the plural points are inserted or not.
The passage is printed in Syriac by Cureton, p. xxxvi, who says that it is also
found in the margin of the London manuscript of the I'eshitto, 14456. He also
gives the verses in which Juvencus paraphrases this text.

- The other variations of the Latin witnesses are extremely instructive — \iz. :
locis eminentioribus superioribus g., emni. honorificis m

clarior dignior d m g 2 emm. honoratior e

(leorsum inferius g., emm. infra m

inferior humilior minor

superius sursum in superiori loco,

utilius utile gloriam.

This variety is an indication of the early age at which the text was translated into
Latin.

:l The Thesaurus Syriaais does not contain the word either in col. 1405 under
tureen, or in col. 2205 under too.

It may also he oW-ned in passing, that the passage is one of those whose
sense is entirely changed by the insertion or omission of the negative in this or
that witness (see below on Gal. ii. 5). Instead of Ka l in jitifri-os, S) r cu reads «al
^>'l Ik uttCoyos. Moii'over, it takes jVc?™ as imperative, a fact that Tischendorf
has failed to notice.

MATT.J CKITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

257

has, therefore, to be gathered from his apparatus. " Inter-

jicit cod. Lat. vetustissimus Vos autem, etc Vid. Rich.

Simon, Obs. Nonv., p. 31. Et sic fere Cant, {i.e., D) cuius
lectio passim exstat. Idem vero Codex Graeca sua ad Latina
haec, quae modo exscripsimus, confecit : Latina autem sua, sub
manu, vehementius interpolavit, magno argumento Iicentiae
suae. Eandem periocham legit Juvencus, Hilarius : habentque
praeterea codd. Lat. aliquot, et inde Sax. Ex. Luc. xiv. 8 (.,
interveniente forsan Evangelio Nazaraeorum .... Priorem
duntaxat partem, ' Vos autem .... minui ' habet alius cod.
Lat. antiquiss. ut si Librarius, cum describere coepisset, non
scribendum agnosceret : eandemque Leo M. sic exhibet. Et
tamen . . . porro ab hoc loco ad Luc. xxii. 28, verbum cres-
cendi protulit Cant, coenaeque invitator ei dicitur StnrvoKXtjTwp.'
The truth is, of course, the very opposite of this, as is shown
by the indicative quaeritis and the imperative of the Syriac,
which are both derived from the ambiguous fyrtire. There
cannot be the slightest doubt of this, seeing that the dis-
covery of Codex Beratinus (<£) has added a second Greek
witness in support of the interpolation. It reads tXa-nwv
(cf. minor, c), omits the km before eVe'Xfy; just as m does with
et, has aye in place of trvvaye (accede: d, collige), and the com-
parative xPW/J-uTepov (utilius) for the positive read by D d.
The word SenrvoxXt'iTuip also occurs in <£.' It is not found
in Bekker's Pollux or in Schmid's Hcsychitts, and the only
instance that ancient lexicons are able to cite for its usage is
that of A theiueus, who observes (4. 171 B) that Artemidorus
calls the eXearpos by that name. The note appended in
Hase-Dindorf's Stephanus was not correct at the time of its
publication : Quidam codices Matt. xx. 27, Hesych., Wakef.
Kust. Od., p. 1413, 3; nor the quotation from Ducange: A. in
Lex. MS. Cyriili exp. itrriarup. In the same work Senrvo-
KXt)T6piov is cited from Eust, //., 766, 58, and as an explana-

1 I see that Chase, who discusses th,e passage in pp. 9-14 of his Syro-Lalin
7«rr, has the same impression : " the compound Greek word in D, 6 tu^Q K \f, T wp,
seems intended to represent the Syriac expression ' the lord of the supper.'"

258

(JREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MATT.

tion of lo-Ttaroptov from the Lex. MS. Cyrilli. The word
therefore belongs to the later popular language. The ques-
tion is whether it may not also belong to the vocabulary of
Tatian. Moreover, it reminds us of the equally rare word
KTTjTwp in Acts iv. 34.

On the occurrence of the passage in Tatian, see Zahn,
Forsc/i., i. 85, 179. On the questions connected with its inter-
polation see Chase and p. 216 above.

xxii. 23. We have in this verse an illustration of the difference
caused by the insertion or omission of the article. I f we read ol
Xeyovre? with N c E F G etc., then the words introduce the creed
of the Sadducees (" who say,'' Weizsacker: " members of that
sect who deny the resurrection," Stage) ; if we omit 01 with N*
B D and Syr 8ln , we have then what they actually said to Jesus.
But as this would be the only place where Matthew gave an
explanation of this sort regarding Jewish affairs, the article
should be omitted. See note in loco, Expositors Gird- Testa-
ment, and compare the margin of the Revised English Version,
xxiii. 35. N 1 omits vlou (Hapux'ov, which is replaced in the
Gospels of the Hebrews by " filium Joiadae." Zahn (EM.,
ii. 308) refers to the view of Hug, adopted by Eichhorn and
many others, that the author, or redactor, or translator of
Matthew made this Zechariah, who is rightly called the son
of Jehoiada in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the son of Barachiah
in order to identify him with the Zechariah, son of Baruch,
who was murdered by the Zealots (Josephus, Bell., iv. 5. 4).
He points out that this would involve a prediction on the
part of Jesus, and that, moreover, the scene of the murder
is different in the two cases: that the locality in Matt,
points to 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, and that Matthew's mistake
in calling him the son of Barachiah is due to a confusion
with the Zechariah mentioned in Isa. viii. 2, or that in
Zech. i. 1. It should be observed, however, that Lucian
alone calls the murdered person in Chronicles by the name
of Zechariah; the LXX calls him Azariah.
xxv. 41. See on Luke xx. 35.

MATT.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS l'ASSAGES. 259

xxvi. 73. 'O/xotdfa was formerly attested by D alone, but
has now the further support of Syr"". The clause K ai 1? AaAta
crou ofioiafa has crept into a great number of manuscripts,
including even A, in Mark xiv. 70. There Tischendorf
remarks, " Omnino e Mt. fluxit," in which he is quite right.
But he is wrong when he says " ipsum ofiotdfa glossatoris est."
Because the glossator must then have been earlier than Tatian
(Ciasca, p. 87), and the parent of all those manuscripts. The
converse is the truth— viz., that D alone preserves the original
reading, and that 8q\6v ae iroiei is the voice of the 8top6u)T>k-

xxvii. 9. The name of the prophet, which was omitted in
some manuscripts, according to Augustine, is now omitted
only by a b and the two minuscules 33 and 157. Augustine
also observes that Matthew himself would have noticed his
mistake or had his attention called to it by others. On this
compare my notes on ifiapivare in Acts hi. 14, which I have
explained by supposing that the author read oma: or oman
instead of D mD3 (Philologica Sacra, p. 40; above, p. 170).
Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome evidently still found 'Upeplou in
all the manuscripts. 'Aa X apiov is supplied only by 22 and
Esaiam by 1. See on Matt. xiii. 35, and compare Expository
Times, November 1900, p. 62.

xxvii. 16. Zahn (EM., ii. 294) points out that Origen also
found Jesus given as the prenomen of Barabbas " in very
ancient manuscripts," but that in all probability Tatian did
not have it, seeing that Bar-Bahlul cites it expressly as the
reading of the "Distinct" (i.e., not harmonised) Gospel.
Jerome says that in the Gospel of the Hebrews he was called
by a name meaning "Alius magistri eorum," so that he must
have been thinking not of Bar-'abbam but of Bar-rabbaw.

xxvii. 49. See above, p. 227, and compare Burkitt, Texts
and Studies, v. 5, p. xix.

xxyiii. 18. Compare Dan. vii. i 4 b (LXX), Ktl \ ^66„ avr«
efoucr.a, and also Dan. vii. 13 ( = Matt. xxvi. 64), vii 14 f
( = Matt.xxviii. 18). See the English Revised Version ivit/i
marginal References (Oxford, 1899).

26o

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MARK.

According to the subscriptions found in various minus-
cules, the Hebrew Matthew was translated into Greek "by
John," or "by James," to which some add "the Brother of
the Lord," or "by Bartholomew, the celebrated Apostle
(iravevcpjuov), but as others say by John the Theologian, ol
Kai aXyOws eipiJKCHTtv." See Teschendorf, and Zahn, Einl., ii. 267.

Mark.

As if to enforce the desire to which I have given expression
above (p. 246), there has come into my hands Blass's Texl-
kritisclie Demerkungen zu Markus. If the statements con-
tained in the introductory remarks are correct, and scarcely
any other view is possible in the circumstances described,
then the textual criticism of the first and second Gospels is a
hopeless matter. " An evangelist or teacher who obtained
possession of the originally anonymous Commentarius could
not feel bound to respect the external form, but considered
himself justified in correcting it if it seemed to him to be
defective, and even felt called to correct or complete its sub-
ject matter." Blass reminds us that we have whole classes of
documents, legends of saints e.g., which were treated with the
utmost possible freedom by the copyists, who in fact were in
this case editors and revisers. But he says that no one has
treated Mark quite so drastically as all this. His summing
up of the matter is, that the critic can often do no more
than recognise and admit the early multiplicity, and that
in such a case it were best to print the text in parallel
columns. At the same time he is able to distinguish some of
the variants as later falsifications or corruptions. Universally
trustworthy authorities there are none ; here one group is
right, there another, and we no sooner give them credence
than they mislead us with some fresh error.

We are far removed, truly, from the confidence displayed
by Tischendorf in the treatise he published shortly before his
death in 1873 in answer to the question, " Have we the genuine

MARK.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

26l

text of the Evangelical and Apostolical writings ? " All the
more urgently, therefore, do we need fresh studies in textual
criticism, and their appearance in Germany is the more gratify-
ing on that account. The Markus-Studien of Dr. H. P. Chajes
(Berlin, 1899), however, are quite beside the point. They
are purely imaginary, having neither substance nor method.

i. 1. On the title, see above ; Zahn, Einl., ii. 220 ff., 235 ;
Swete, in loco ; and on this last, S. D. F. Salmond, in the
Critical Review, April 1 899, 206 f. : " We do not see, how-
ever, why Professor Swete should regard the opening verses
as probably not a part of the original work. One might say
the same of the whole paragraph with which the Gospel opens,
or, for that matter, the whole chapter. The documentary
evidence is substantially the same in each case, and the
internal considerations are much too indeterminate." It may
be pointed out, as remotely analogous to this, that before
Matt. i. 18 the margin of harl (Z in W-W) contains a note
in a hand of the ninth or tenth century to the effect, " genea-
logia hucusque: incipit evangelium secundum Matthaeum,"
while Y has the words "incipit evangelium secundum
Matthaeum " in the text, and eight manuscripts begin verse 18
with capital or red letters. Compare Scrivener, I. c. iii., on
the divisions of the text in B and other manuscripts.

For the way in which the opening sentences are to be con-
strued, reference must be made to the commentaries. It may
be said here, however, that parallels may be cited from the
New Testament for each of the three possible constructions.

These are (I) 'Ap X h «af)coy .... avrov, eyevero ; (2)

'^PXh • • • • Ka0u>? .... avrov. 'Eyevero ; (3) Apxh ....
Ka&of .... auTov, eyevero. For (1) and (2) compare
Luke iii. 1 ff., and for (3) 1 Tim. i. i ff. Origen favours the
first construction (Contra Celsum, ii. 4; vol. i. p. 131). As
regards the text it need only be said that K at is read before
eye'vero (v. 4) by N 1 , and that <Se is found after it, not only
in the Copti«, but also in Syr hler .

i 2. Origen here read eyi and euwpoa-de'v crov (i. 131). But

262

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MARK.

the former should be omitted with B D etc., and the latter with
all the good authorities. It follows that Matt. xi. 10 is not taken
from Mark i. 2 (Zahn, Einl., ii. 316, 332). One can see how im-
portant the so-called " lower " criticism may be for the " higher."
in; ix. 7. See on " Punctuation " above, p. 52.
i. 29. " B here has e£e\6i>v %\0ev, and D b c e q Pesh. have
substantially the same. This is not an improvement, because
it excludes Peter and Andrew. The reading of Syr"" 1 is
peculiar, ' and He went out of the synagogue and came into
the house of Simon Cephas (Andrew and James and John
were with him), and the mother-in-law etc."' See Zahn,
Einl., ii. 252, and below on ix. 14.

i. 41. The remarkable " Western reading" opyurOelt is dis-
missed by Swete with a reference to W-H, who call it "a
singular reading, perhaps suggested by v. 43 (ipfSpipn<rdp.€vos),
perhaps derived from an extraneous source." In my Philologica
Sacra, p. 26, I have expressed the opinion that it is impossible
to suppose a copyist altered a-wXayxvicrOeU to opyiaOeit, even
though infipi/jLricranevos does follow two verses further down. 1
Either opyrj, opylfaOai has another meaning in Biblical Greek,
which is quite possible, or we have here an instance of a differ-
ence in translation. The confusion of the gutturals, e.g., is very
common. Compare Ps. xii. 6, rve', Gr. V'D< ; Ps. xiv. 6, »ay =
liii. 6, -pn; noe»i in Isa. xxxix. 2 for vdb»i in 2 Kings xx. 13 ;
Ps. xxii. 25, nuy, where Gr. has Se'ijo-ic = nunn ; Ps. xcvii. 1 1,
ini, Gr. mereCKtv = nit ; and especially Mark ix. 19 in
the recently-published Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum of
Lewis-Gibson, where Cod. B has jvmo for njno found in A B.
Compare also "in, Matt. vii. 11 (p. 68), and ~iy (p. 135). A
glance at the Thesaurus Syriacus 3953 shows that Djn is used,
not only for fSpovrav, but also for <rir\ayxvi£«r6ai, o-repyeiv,
and <rufi-iradeiv, while DVinK stands for xaXeTraiveiv, ayavaKTeiv,
and yoyyu'fce. Payne-Smith gives no instance of opyifaQat.
The usual Syriac word for it even in Syr"'" and Syr" ler is tn

1 The case is quite different in I Mace. v. 2, where the first hand of N wrote
i,pyUr»n<ra> for {$n\ti<r;jo. Here ipyMr, occurs immediately before it.

MARK.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

263

or nonriK ; both verbs are found together in I Mace. vi. 59 for
the simple mpyhBnvav (nm monriK). It is worth noting that
in Col. iii. 13, opynv is read by F G, where D* has pep.yfnv, and
the other authorities p.on<f»)v.

On the reading in Mark i. 41, see Harris, Fragments etc.
(•895), p. 6. He shows that Ephraem had 6pyur9tlt in his
text alongside of a-irXayxvitrdeK. The Arabic Diatessaron,
in which the pericope does not come till § 22, follows the
usual text, and so, too, does Syr* ,n .

ii. 14. Zahn {Einl., ii. 263) holds that " Levi son of Alphaeus"
is the original reading here and not " James," and that it was
taken from Mark into the Gospel of Peter. The reading
" Jacobum " was also taken into the first hand of the Vulgate
manuscript G from D 13, 69, 124, a b c d e fT 2 r. In Koetschau's
new edition of Origen, the name is no longer spelt Ac/Sijc
but Aei/i/y (i. 1 13, 19; Cod. P : Aew'c).

iii. 17. Our expositors might tell us where Luther got his
" Bnehargem," which is retained in the German Revised
Version. On Daniel ii. 7 Jerome has " Benereem." I have
looked in vain in Lyra, Pole's Sy?iopsis, Calov, and Wolf.

iii. 31. We have here to choose between (caXovirec (»BCL
etc.), (fxovoOvTet (D etc.), and grp-ovtrres (A) : A leaves a space.
I am inclined to think that <pwvovvTe<; is the original reading,
which was improved by the substitution of the more usual
word KaAoiVrec, just as ov <pwvevvroi axovm was altered to
XaXton-oc in the Delphic Oracle in Herodotus i. 47. Com-
pare a similar variation in Heb. xi. 13, where the original
reading Kopuo-dpevoi (a* P) was thought to be improved by
the substitution of Xa/3oVrec (n c D E K) or TrpotrSegdnevoi (A).
Here, too, A stands alone. Was it never copied ?

vi. 16. There is a discrepancy in the Eusebian Canons in
this verse which has not been explained. Both Tischendorf

and Wordsworth and White number this verse $ . But

according to the table in TiGr., p. 152, W-W, p. 10, pericope
58 belongs to the tenth Canon as being one that is peculiar to

264

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MARK.

Mark. As a matter of fact it is not so, unless Eusebius meant
aKovaat 6i at the beginning of the verse. It is remarkable
that Eusebius did not make the whole of verses 14-20
one pericope of the second canon, but numbered 14, 15 as

" and 17-20 as * . He must therefore have found some-

2 ' 2

thing peculiar in verse 16 to make it 58.

vi. 20. This passage is very instructive from a textual point
of view. Most authorities read that " Herod had put John
in prison, heard him and did much," or " heard much of what
he did," ai<ov<ras avrov TroXXa (a) eVo/ei. But in place of this
last word x B L and the Bohairic version alone read ijirnpu,
" was much perplexed when he heard him." The great
majority of expositors decide at once in favour of the latter
reading, setting aside eiroltt as the scriptio proclivior. But in
that case should it not have been tjiropdTO ? In classical Greek
it should undoubtedly, but in Biblical Greek we find tjiropei in
Wisd. xi. 5, 17, for example, and what is specially worth
noting, Sitjiropei in the parallel passage Luke ix. 7, for which
D, it is true, has ijiropefro. The passage may therefore be
taken as showing that the correct reading has been preserved
in a very few witnesses. Strict logic, moreover, would lead
us to infer that not one of our 1300 manuscripts is derived
from any one of these three, but that x B L continued childless.
Is that likely ? Field, it may be added, decides in favour of
eiro/ei (Otium Norvicense ; see Expository Times, August 1899,
p. 483), and so, too, does Burkitt ( Texts and Studies, v. 5,
p. xix). In Philo, i. 264, line 8 (ed. Cohn), the manuscripts
vary between fieTcwpowoXeiv, — wopetv, — iroieiv, and — Xoyeiv.

vii. 33. Codex W, published by Harris in facsimile (1896),
here exhibits a very peculiar reading which Harnack ( ThLz.,
1891, p. 356) thinks has affinity with Tatian. It reads : eirrvaev
fit tovs SaKTvXovt avTov Kai efiaXev eiy to &ra rov Ktixfiou Kai
rj\jsaTO Trji yXwcro-w tov /moyiXaXov. This gives us quite
another view of the occurrence than most of the authorities
do. It seems much more natural certainly to moisten the

MARK.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

265

fingers before putting them in the ears than before touching
the tongue. It reads somewhat similarly in Syr ,ln , which says
that " he put his fingers and spat in his ears, and touched his
tongue." 1 This manuscript exhibits other noteworthy read-
ings, which will be found most conveniently in Swete.

ix. 14. The singular, eXOmv elSev, has the support of D,

while Syr"'" takes the side of the plural, iXOovres .... etSov.
Zahn decides for the latter. He explains the plural by saying
that the original narrator was evidently one of the three dis-
ciples who were with Jesus on the Mount, in all probability
Peter, as tradition has it. Peter, of course, in telling the story,
used the first person and the plural number, "When we came
down from the mountain we saw, etc." Mark, reporting the
words of Peter, turned the first person into the third, retaining
the plural number. Zahn explains in the same way the some-
what peculiar expressions in Mark i. 29. Here Peter said,
" we {i.e. Jesus, Andrew, and himself) came into our house
with James and John." In reporting Peter's words Mark
paraphrases " we " and " our," and says, " they came into the
house of Simon and Andrew with James and John." See
Zahn, Einl., ii. 245 f.

x. 30. Neither Tischendorf nor Swete observes that in
addition to the readings <Wy/xti>e and Siwytnou the singular
Stwynov is exhibited by D. Has the mysterious reading «'$
ttov in Clem. Alex. (Qitis Dives) anything to do with this?
It is worth remarking that the Vienna Arabic manuscript
(Lagarde: Storr) has a note after "post persecutionem " to
the effect that this is the " Roman " reading.

xiv. 51. Kai veae/o-fcoy tij, sBCL; veuvl(TKos Si t<9, D ; k<u
tit tic itcWaxof, A E etc. This last is rejected by Zahn on
the ground that the text has evidently been accommodated
to verse 47, under the false impression that another of the
disciples is referred to. It is adopted, however, by Tischen-
dorf 8 , and supported by Brandt, Die Evangelische Geschickte
etc., Leipzig, 1893, p. 23 ff.

1 So given in Merx's edition, Imt not in Lewis. — Tr.

266

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[MARK.

xiv. 65. k'XaBov, sAB and most authorities : eXd/xBavov,
DG, 1,13, 69, 2>"\ al 10 : eBaXXov, H. . . . : eBaXov, EMU etc.
The simplest explanation of this variety of readings is that
eXdnftavov was first, and that it was changed into the more
common aorist ZXaBov, which then became eBaXov or eBaXXov-
The converse is not so likely, viz. that efiaXXov or eBaXov
became first eXaBov and then eXd/xBavov, or that eXaBov gave
rise directly both to iXd/xBavov and eBaXov or eBaXXov.
On these and also on internal grounds the reading of D G is
to be preferred : " they began to spit upon him, and con-
tinued to buffet him."

xv. 28. Syr 51 " is now to be added to the authorities that
omit the interpolation. On the interesting names, Zoatham
and Chammatha, Dysmas and Gestas, Titus and Dumachus
(i.e. Qeofxd\os), see Berger in the notice of Wordsworth, and
White's Epilogits mentioned above, and also J. R. Harris in
the Expositor, March 1900, p. 162 ff., April, p. 304.

xv. 34. It is extraordinary that no reference is made in
Swete's edition to the very singular reading of Codex D, wvlSitras
instead of eyicaTtXnre?. In addition to the testimony of the
Old Latin manuscripts c (exprobrasti me), i(me in opprobrium
dedisti), k* (maledixisti : see Burkitt in the Journal oj Theo-
logical Studies, i. p. 278), this reading is attested in Greek by
Macarius Magnes. No explanation of it has yet been given
that is in all respects satisfactory. See Expository Times,
August 1898, and February, March, and April 1900.

xvi. 9-20. The English Revisers had not the courage to
omit the conclusion. They print it quite like the rest of the
text, only they separate it from the foregoing by a somewhat
wider space than usual, and give a note in the margin to the
following effect — viz. " The two oldest Greek manuscripts
and some other authorities omit from verse 9 to the end.
Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.' 1
The German Revised Version has no remark to offer, which is
easily accounted for on the principles on which that version is
made. The most careful discussion of the passage is now that

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

267

of Svvete, pp. xcvi-cv. See also Zahn, Einl., ii. 227-235, 237,
240, and compare the Appendix in Chase's Old Syriac Ele-
ment, pp. 150-157, "Note on Mark xvi. 9-20," and Arthur
Wright, The Gospel according to St. Luke, p. xv.

The subscription of several minuscules bears that Mark's
Gospel was written at Rome ten years after the Ascension,
and delivered to the brethren there by Peter, the irpwroKopv
<j>alo<; of the Apostles. Others give Egypt as the place of
origin. It is of more importance to observe that A 20, 262,
300 contain the note: avreBXijOtj op-o'iu)? e/c tw tcnrovSao-ftevwv.
This refers to the subscription to Matthew found in these
manuscripts : eypd<pi /ca< avreBXtfOr) « tO>v ev Iepoo~oXvfiois
iraXatwv dvTiypd<pwv tS>v ev tu> dyiw opei airoKetfievwv. A similar
subscription occurs in 2"*, a minuscule of considerable import-
ance for Mark (473 in Scrivener ; see above, p. 151, n.).

Luke.

Apart altogether from the question how the numerous and
decided peculiarities of Codex D are to be explained, we find a
great many problems connected with the text of Luke's Gospel.

On the supposed title 9ee Zahn, Einl., ii. 383.

i 26. In place of the definite indication of time, Blass
follows certain Latin authorities, especially the Latin Irenaeus,
in giving : in ipso (or, eodem) autem tempore, ev avrw Se ra
Kaipw. Zahn points out (Einl., ii. 354) that this is the cus-
tomary formula for the beginning of a pericope in the Lec-
tionaries, and that while no doubt in the later Greek system
the pericope of the Annunciation began with verse 24, 26 is
the more appropriate beginning. He adds that in any case
the origin of this formula is evident, and that Cod. D, which
here parts company with the Latin witnesses, gives other
indications besides this of the influence of a pericope-system.
See the Introduction to Scrivener's edition of the Codex, p. Ii.

i. 46. On the reading Elisabeth, see above, p. 238.

i 63. The B text inserted the words eXvQ-q »J yXaura-a

268

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

ain-ov before teal iOavfiaarav iraVrtf, by way of explaining the
astonishment of the people. Zahn thinks this an absurd
misplacement, seeing that the mention of Zechariah's speaking
does not come till the following verse, and the people could
not know that his tongue was loosed till they heard him
speak. Syr sl " accordingly corrects this by putting the men-
tion of the astonishment after that of the speaking, in which
it is followed by Blass.

ii. 4- 5- In the /3 text Blass adopts the reading clvtoIs, and
transposes the clause Sia to thai wVouy e£ oIkov tat irarpm
AaveiS to the end of verse 5. This arrangement is also
exhibited by D. Syr"" reads " both." One Old Latin manu-
script has essent, but as it exhibits the clause in the usual
place, Zahn thinks that essent is manifestly a clerical error for
esset. The Syriac, he points out, is derived from Tatian
See Eini., ii. 355; Forsch., i. 118; GK., ii. 561 ; Vetter, Der
dritte Korintherbrief (1 8.94), 25.

ii. 7- One Latin manuscript (e) has obvolverunt and colloc-
averunt, which may be compared with essent in verse 4.
Zahn thinks that the plural here is due to the reflection that
the mother does not usually herself attend to a new-born
infant.

ii. 14. How does the Christmas song of the angels run
exactly ? Is it £ V wOp^ots eCSccla,, or iv av 6. eO<Wa ? The
question belongs more to exegesis than textual criticism.
The whole matter turns upon a single letter, but it divides
Western Christendom in two parts. The Latin Church reads
it as in hominibus bonae voluntatis, " among men of goodwill,"
or, as modern critics understand it, "among men of God's
good pleasure.'* The second reading makes it "goodwill to
men." Which should it be ? The former reading, the geni-
tive, is supported by «• A B* D, the Latin, and the Gothic,
whereas nearly all the other witnesses, including the Bohairic'
the three Syriac, and A itself in the Hymns at the end of the
Old Testament Psalter, have the nominative. One thing
seems to me decisive in favour of the nominative. Scarcely

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

269

any part of the New Testament is so steeped in the Hebrew
spirit as the first two chapters of Luke's Gospel. As Field
points out in the third part of his Otium Norvicense, the
Greek avOpwiroi corresponds to the Hebrew expression " son
of Adam," which cannot take another genitive after it — "sons
of Adam of goodwill." On the other hand, the word goodwill
in Hebrew is always followed by the preposition correspond-
ing to the Greek eV. So that, till we have further testimony,
I would retain the nominative and the tripartite division,
notwithstanding the authority of Tischendorf, Westcott and
Hort, Weizsacker, Stage, and Blass, who, by the way,
mentions no variants in the /8 text.

ii. 40. D here reads iv aurw in place of eir' avro. The
difference is slight, but not unimportant from a theological
point of view. It is not accidental, as is shown by the
corresponding change of eV into eSy in ch. iii. 22.

iii. 22. Zahn regards this as one of the passages wherein D
and its associates have preserved the original reading. They
exhibit here eyw crrifitpov yeyevvriKa <re in place of eV <ro\
evSoKvtra. He says, moreover, that "those who hold the
former as original need not lament its disappearance from
tradition subsequent to the year 300" (Einl., ii. 240, 356).
See Burkitt in Barnard's Biblical Text of Clement, pp.
xiii. 38.

iii. 23 ff. May not the peculiar form of the genealogy in D
be explaimed by the Diatessaron, which originally had no
genealogy ? The index of the Latin edition shows that there
was none originally, but we find in the text one compiled
from Matt. i. 1-16, Luke iii. 34-37, Matt. i. 17. The first-
known manuscript of the Arabic Diatessaron had Matt. i. 1-17
in § 2, and Luke iii. 24-38 in § 9. The better manuscript,
discovered later, has no genealogy in the text, but it contains
one compiled from Matt, and Luke, inserted between the
close of the work and the subscription by way of appendix
See Zahn, GK., ii. 539 ; J. R Hill, Earliest Life of Christ
etc., p. 3 f.

270

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

iii. 27. The correct explanation of 'Pij<ra is that given by
Plummer in his Commentary on Luke, and quoted by Bacon
in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 140. " Rhesa, who
appears in Luke, but neither in Matt, nor in 1 Chron., is
probably not a name at all, but a title which some Jewish
copyist mistook for a name. Zerubbabel Rhesa or Zerubbabel
the Prince (K^tO) has been made into 'Zerubbabel (begat)
Rhesa.' " The interpretation of Rhesa as " prince " is, how-
ever, not new. See Pole's Synopsis: it was not safe to use
the proper name Zerubbabel in Babylon, seeing that it meant
" ventilatio Babelis," and the name Sheshbazzar was therefore
substituted for it Sic filii eius Meshullam et Hanania, quia
vix ibi tuto aut proprie dici potuerunt Abiud, i.e. patris mei
est gloria, et Rhesa princeps (Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae).
Reuchlin (Rudimenta, p. 18) gives the explanation WfQ (sic)
qui cognominatur Mesollam. This interpretation, however,
lends no real support to Sellin's theory.

iv. 34. The exclamation ea, which Zahn (GK., i. 682) says is
unknown in the New Testament, is omitted by D, eleven Old
Latin manuscripts, and also by Marcion. It is supported by
a considerable number of witnesses in Mark i. 24. According
to Zahn, these witnesses took it from Luke, but of this I am
by no means certain. Syr" ln omits it in both places. In
Luke it is also omitted by four manuscripts of the Vulgate
mentioned by Wordsworth and White.

iv. 34 Marcion invariably omits Nafapijce. There is, how-
ever, no other authority for its omission. See Zahn, GK, i.
685 ; ii. 456.

iv. 44. lovSalas is the better attested reading, and on
account of the improbability of its being invented, should be
regarded as the original. See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 373.

v. 5- 'Emo-rcn-a in the New Testament is peculiar to Luke.
In place of it D has SiSda-KoXe here, and xupie in viii. 24. It
retains iinaTaTa, however, in viii. 45, ix. 33, ix. 49, and
xvii. 13.

v. 14. The long interpolation at the end of the verse found

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 27 1

in D d is derived from Mark i. 45 and ii. I, though there are
slight differences. It is introduced here for harmonistic
reasons. Was it taken from Tatian ?

v. 27. After the name of Levi, D inserts tov rod 'k\<f>alov,
which, according to Zahn, is not original. See Einl., ii. 263.

v. 39. Marcion agrees with D in the omission of this verse.
Syr* 1 " and Syr" are, unfortunately, both defective here. To
the authorities for its omission should be added r, which
Weiss does not mention. On the reasons for the omission
of the verse, see Zahn, GK., i. 681.

vi. 5. Zahn is of opinion that the narrative of the man
working on the Sabbath is taken from the same source as
Mark xvi. 9 ff., and the pericope adulterae.john vii. 53-viii. 11
— viz. from Papias, and that it may be historically true. See
his Einleitung, ii. 355. Westcott and Hort insert it among
their "Noteworthy Rejected Readings," and Resch puts it
among the " Logia Jesu." The Sinai-Syriac is defective here.
For a long time it was thought that D and Stephen's /3 were
different manuscripts, and they are here cited by Mill as " duo
codices vetustissimi." This was shown to be a mistake by
Bengel. Grotius also speaks of "nonnulli codices," and,
according to Mill, thought the words were " adjecta ab aliquo
Marcionita." The narrative seems to have remained quite
unknown during the thousand years that elapsed between its
relation by D and its publication by Stephen in 1550.
According to Scrivener's edition of Codex Bezae, p. 435,
none of the ten or twelve later hands that worked upon the
manuscript down to the twelfth century and even later,
seem to have touched the page on which this narrative
stands (205^). It would seem, therefore, that no copy was
ever made of this manuscript either. How much would have
been lost had it also disappeared entirely ?

vi. 10. Whether u>s icdl ij aXXij is genuine or not is of no
material consequence so far as the exposition of the passage
is concerned, but it is important in connection with the ques-
tion of the relationship of Luke to the other Synoptics. The

272

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

words are wanting in Mark iii. 5, but occur in Matt. xii. 13.
See Zahn, Einl., ii. 420.

vi. 31. Zahn is not sure if Marcion's text contained the
Golden Rule in this passage in the negative form. GK., I
680 ; ii. 462.

• vii. 27. Zahn thinks that enirpocrdev trov should perhaps be
omitted here {Einl., ii. 316).

viii. 43. The words larpoh irpotravaKiivatra o\ov tov filov are
omitted in B D. Zahn holds it to be an " unworthy insinua-
tion " to suppose that Luke, being himself a physician, toned
down the expressions used by Mark as reflecting on the credit
of his profession. The words are more likely to be a gloss
from Mark. See Einleitung, ii. 437.

ix. 1. This verse is written three times over in codex H.
This cannot be a mistake. It might have been written twice
by inadvertence, but not three times. The reason lies in the
fact related — viz., the conferring of the power over evil spirits,
ix. 16. The reading ev\6y>i<rev eir' avrout crept into the
Vulgate manuscript called G by Wordsworth and White from
the Old Latin. It is now attested also by Syr' ln . See Lewis,
Some Pages, in loco. Zahn thinks it is deserving of special
attention {GK., i. 682). In this he is quite right.

ix. 18. Marcion here had tov vIovtov avQpiinrov. See Zahn,
GK., i. 686.

ix. 52-56. " It is impossible to suppose that the shorter
form of the text is the original, and the longer due to a later
interpolation, as this would imply what is incredible — viz., that
one of Marcion's most antinomian readings found its way into
a large number of Catholic manuscripts (D, the Peshitto,
Harklean Syriac, most Latin witnesses, Chrysostom, etc.).
The only probable explanation is that the Catholic writers
objected to 54^ and 55^ on account of the use made of them
by the Marcionites, and the apparently Marcionitic character
of their contents. They were particularly offensive when
taken together. Accordingly, some manuscripts like e and
Syr cu omitted only 54*, others, like A C, only 55*, while

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

273

others again, like B L Syr* ln , boldly omitted both The

words were written by Luke and not invented by Marcion."
Zahn, GK., i. 681, ii. 468; Einl., ii. 357.

x. I. Instead of 70, B D, Tatian, the Syriac, and the Latin
give 72. According to Zahn, the number has nothing to do
with the Jewish enumeration of 70 Gentile nations, languages,
or angels, nor the 70 members of the Sanhedrim, the 70
translators of the Old Testament, or with any other number
70. These 70 were not sent to the Gentiles, and Luke gives
no hint of the allegorical significance of their number. Any
such allegorizing was foreign both to himself and Theophilus,
neither of whom was a Jew. See Einl., ii. 392.

xi. 2. On fiaTroXoytw wt ot \onrol in D, see my Philologica
Sacra, pp. 27-36.

xi. 3. There is a certain amount of probability in Zahn's
view that Marcion was led to insert aov after apros eiriovcrtot
by thinking of John vi. 33 f, a passage which suggested itself
to Origen also in this connection. See Zahn (GK., i. 677, ii.
471), who thinks it probable that Marcion interpreted the
words in a spiritual sense ( = supersubstantialis\

xi. 53. The text of D here displays several marked varia-
tions, which, however, do not affect the sense of the passage.
Zahn sees in them the arbitrary alterations of a later time ;
but Weiss thinks that in some particulars they may preserve
the original.

xii. 1. Marcion, seemingly, and Jerome omit irpSrrov, which
is attested by most of the Old Latin witnesses, with the
,> exception of b. See Zahn, GK, i. 692, ii. 474.

xii. 14. The words >j nepicrrhv were omitted by Marcion
(Zahn, GK., i. 682). They are also wanting in the Sinai-
Syriac (see Lewis, Some Pages).

xii. 38. The mention of the evirepivh <j>v\aK>) by Marcion
and other authorities is due, according to Zahn (GK, ii. 683 ;
Einl, ii. 356), to the " magisterial consideration " that an
orderly householder would not come home from the festivities
after midnight or in the early hours of the morning, but at the

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

274

latest in the first watch of the night, which was still called
the evening. The reading is also found in Irenes, but not
in the Sinai-Syriac. , . , r

xii. 5 i. /3«Ae,V OW is found here in Syr- in place of
Trowai (De Syr"), mittere (b 1), JoSwu (usual text). 1 his
is interesting in view of Marcion. See Zahn, GK, 1.604, u. 47°-
Tertullian seems to have been mistaken in th.nking that
uaxcuaav was read in place of S^ep^ in this connection
fmachaeram quidem scriptum est Sed Marcion emendat,
quasi non et separatio opus sit machaerae).

xiii. 8. See above, p. 193 ff. Chase cites this passage as an
indication of the laxity of transcription of which D was guilty
in introducing what appears to be a common agricultural
phrase. In Columella (De Re Rustica, xi. 3) we find con-
fecta bruma stercoratam terram inditam coph.nis obserat.
Chase also cites from the manuscript notes of Hort the refer-
ence to Plutarch, Vita Pompeii, 48, avrod Si r.y KOirptm koQivov
Kara «#aX* to5 BtfXou Kare^Sare. Better than any words
of mine are those of Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 3 46:-No one with
any perception of the difference between naive originality and
a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and stylistic con-
siderations can fail to assent to the following propositions-
viz (1) as regards contents and form of expression B (t.e. the
text of D and its associates) has preserved much original
matter, which from the very first was peculiarly liable to
alteration, and which was set aside by the learned revisers
from the end of the third century onwards (Lucian, Hesychius,

Pamphilus), etc. ,

xvi 12 While the common text with Syr" 1 " reads u^repov,
for which B L have jp&npo*, Marcion alone supports 157
e i 1 in reading e>oV. How is this to be explained? Com-
pare above, p. 21 1, and Zahn, GK, i. 682.

xvi 19 Zahn denominates the introductory words found
in D, rf w S'e «a! fripa* irapajSoA*. " a liturgical gloss at the
beginning of a pericope." Blass, too, omits them from the
text.

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 275

xvi. 22, 23. n* most Old Latin witnesses, and the Vulgate
omit Kal at the beginning of verse 23, and read erd<j»i ev tu>
qSfl. This conjunction of the words is attested by Tatian
and Marcion. The Sinai-Syriac presupposes the form " was
buried. And being in Hades he lifted up his eyes." Atten-
tion may be drawn to the detailed notice of the different
readings by Wordsworth and White. They say : Asyndeton
in Johanne tolerabile, in Luca vix ferendum videtur. . . . Vix
dubium est quin Lucas ipse scripserit K at erd<f>i)- K cu ev tw
q.8fl, sed Kal secundum in antiquissimis codicibus ut nunc in
N* casu omissum, ex conjectura tribus modis restitutum
videtur, sc. koi ev t£ <f8 a , et eV Si rw aS p et eV ™ SS a k<u ;
quae lectiones omnes in codicibus Latinis referuntur, et ter-
tiam ab Hieronymo ex traditione codicum suorum servatam
magis quam ex ratione praelatam credimus. See Zahn, GK,
i. 682, ii. 480.

xvii. 1 1. " In all likelihood ixecrov, without the preposition,
as given by D, is the original form. This was variously
replaced by waftecrov (Ferrar Group), which is not amiss, by
Sia fierov (A X, etc), which is not so good, and by Sia ne<rov
(n B L), which is very bad." Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 391.
Compare, also (for peaov), Jiilicher, Gleichnisreden Jesu, ii. 516.
xvii. 21. Marcion inserts ISov before «€«", which Zahn holds
to be original. Syr"" reads "here it is, or there it is," and
therefore apparently omits the first ISov as well. See Lewis,
Some Pages. Wordsworth and White omit Tischendorfs
g L * from the authorities given by him in support of the
omission of the second ecce.

xviiL 20. On the alterations made on the text here by the
followers of Marcion, see Zahn, GK, i. 616, ii. 484.

xviii. 25. The evidence in support of the readings Tpfoaros
and e \oV w is very strong ( N B D L). The choice of the
terms Tp ^a for Tpvwma or rpvpaXui, and /3e\oVij for fiatf,
betrays the language of the physician. See The Exposito/s
Greek Testament, Acts of the Apostles, Introduction, pp. 9-1 1 ;
Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 427 f., 435 f.

276

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

xx. 35. With reference to this verse, Tertullian makes the
following charge against the Marcionites : Nacti enim scripturae
textum ita in legendo decurrerunt : " quos autem dignatus est

deus illius aevi " ; " ilHus aevi " " deo " adjungunt cum sic

legi oporteat," quos autem dignatus est," ut facta hie distinctione
post " deum " ad sequentia pertineat " illius aevi," etc. Zahn
insists, as against Ritschl, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar, that this
requires not only the insertion of viro rod Qeov after kot-
a£twdevres, but also the active voice instead of the passive, as
though the Marcionites had read oi)s 6e KaTi/fiWei- o 0eoj tow
amvos nelvov, Tv X e?x «« tJjj arairrdirca*. A similar change of
construction occurs in Matt. xxv. 41, where it is quite certain
that to hrowavnevov is a correction of the stronger expression
o nrolnaaev 6 xar.fp fiov, found in D, I, 22, ten Old Latin manu-
scripts, and the earliest Fathers.

xxi. 30. The insertion of toc Kapirbv avruv may be but a
trifling addition, intended to facilitate the sense (Zahn, GK.,
i. 682), at the same time it is an interesting question how it
comes to be in D, 157, 572 (see above, p. 211). Wordsworth
and White say that D here is '• ex Latinis forsan correctus."
Syr ,ln agrees with Syr ca in inserting the words.

xxii. 16. For irXtipuidjj D reads kchvov /3/oo>0/}.. On this see
my Philologica Sacra, p. 38, where it is suggested that these
two readings are due to the confusion of rfa and ^>3«. This
occurs several times in the Old Testament—^. 2 Chron.
xxx. 22, where tatn is represented in the LXX by awere-
\taav. But even apart from the question of a Hebrew foun-
dation for the variant, I am inclined to regard koivov (ipwdij
as the original, and irXtipwdfi as the correction.

xxii. 16-21. The narrative of the Last Supper is extant in
three forms. There is (1) the common text, (2) that exhibited
by the two most important of the Old Latin witnesses (b, e), in
which verse 16 is followed by 19a, after which come 17, 18, 21,
so that 196 and 20 are wanting altogether. The text of
Syr" ln and Syr° u resembles this. There is further (3) the form
exhibited by D and four Old Latins, which has the same order

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

277

as (1), but omits verses 19b, 20. Zahn decides in favour of (2).
See his Einleitung, ii. 357 ff. It is to be observed that the
last discovered Syriac omits the nominatival clause to virlp
ifiwv eKxvvvofievov after tQ> aifxarl fiov, which is the only member
that seems to be derived, not from 1 Cor. xi. 24 f, but from
Matthew and Mark, and that does not agree in construction
with the rest. This confirms the supposition that these two
verses are not part of the original text See Westcott and
Hort, Notes on Select Readings, p. 63 f. ; Plummer, Commentary
on St. Luke in the International Series (T. & T. Clark). Com-
pare also the article by the latter in Hastings' Dictionary of the
Bible (Lord's Supper).

xxii. 36. On apa.ru> Basil the Great (d. 379) remarks:
aparw tjroi apet' ovra> yap xal ra iroXXa twv avriypaipw
e\u . . . . iuy firi eTvai irpoarayfia dXXd irpo<f»rrelav irpo-
Xryoiroj rod Kvplov. At present D is quite alone in exhibit-
ing the reading apei, which is worth noting in view of ra
iroWa above.

xxii. 43, 44. These verses, with their mention of the Bloody
Sweat and the Strengthening Angel, are omitted in A B RT,
one Old Latin (f), the Bohairic, Sahidic, and Armenian
versions, and the Sinai-Syriac. On the other hand, they are
read by the Curetonian Syriac and the Peshitto, by the first
and third hands of tt (the second hand enclosed them in
brackets and cancelled them by means of dots), by D, as also
by most of the Old Latin witnesses and the Vulgate. In the
Greek Lectionaries they are omitted at the place where one
would naturally expect them, but are found in the text of
Matthew xxvi., together with portions of John xiii., in the
Liturgy for Holy Thursday. This explains their insertion
after Matt. xxvi. 39 in the Ferrar Group, at least in 13, 69,
124. The first of these, moreover, repeats the first two words
of verse 43 (£$$>} St) in Luke, but no more. The necessary
inference is that these verses are no part of the original text
of Luke. They go back, however, to a time when extra-
canonical traditions from the Life and Passion of Jesus were

278

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

in circulation either orally or in writing. Zahn holds that D
here has preserved what Luke wrote.

xxiii. 2. Zahn (GK., i. 668) expressly points out that Mar-
cion did not invent the additional words Kat KaraXvovra rov
vonov Ka\ Toiis TT/oo^i/Tay, but found them in his exemplar.
They occur in eight Old Latin and at least five Vulgate
manuscripts, among which are four of the early codices
collated by Wordsworth and White. One of them omits et
proplietas, while some others have nostrum after legem. Weiss
takes no notice of this addition, nor of the further addition in
verse 5 of the words aifocnpe<t>ovTa to? ywaticas Kai ra tckvo,
supported by at least two Old Latin manuscripts, both of
which add non enim baptizantur sicut et nos, while one of them
exhibits the still further extension nee se mundant. If the
addition were really made by Marcion, it would be all the
more deserving of attention. The omission of the additional
words in verse 2 is conceivably due to homoioteleuton, the eye
of the scribe passing from KaraXvovra to KwXvovra. In the
case of verse 5, the mention of the women and children is quite
consistent with what is said elsewhere in the narrative of the
Passion, but the reference to baptism and purification is not
so clear. Codex c has the singular baptizatur, but this is
merely a clerical error.

xxiii. 34. The case of the First Word from the Cross is
remarkable. This verse, containing the words, " Father, for-
give them, for they know not what they do," is bracketed in K
by an early corrector, and then restored ; it is omitted by B
without being replaced ; it is inserted in D by a hand not
earlier than the ninth century, and omitted by two Old Latin
manuscripts, by two Bohairic codices, by the Sahidic version,
and by the newly-discovered Sinai-Syriac. Is it possible to
suppose that a Christian would have cancelled these words in a
Bible manuscript like a, unless he had valid reasons for doing
so in the tradition of the Gospel text ? Zahn thinks they were
omitted from D by mistake. On the Order of the Seven Words
see my note in the Expository Times for June 1900, p. 423 f.

LUKE.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

279

xxiii. 38. The notice of the three languages in which the
Inscription on the Cross was written is taken from fhe text of
John, and is read by all the Latin authorities with the single
exception of codex Vercellensis (a). Syr 5 '" is now to be added
to the witnesses supporting the omission of the clause. Its
use of the word Kpua reveals the ultimate affinity of this
version with the Curetonian Syriac. The interpolation, as
Zahn rightly asserts (GK., i. 675), points to the estimation in
which John's Gospel was held at an early date. Its insertion
in Luke is undoubtedly erroneous.

xxiii. 43. The insertion of rm eirnrXfaaovTi in D, as well as
the other variants found in this manuscript, viz. eXfwri?, which
is also read by D in Luke xxi. 7, and ddpaet, which is inserted
by others in Luke viii. 48, is attributed by Zahn (Einleitung,
ii. 356) to some preacher who sought in this way to contrast
the penitent thief with his comrade. With the substantival
expression eXewny, compare StnrvoicXijTtap exhibited by D in
Matt. xx. 28. On the somewhat rare verb eiwrXqo-a-eiv, com-
pare the new edition of Origen, i. 5, 8 ; also Clement Alex,
(ed. Dindorf), i. 186, 188.

xxiii. 53. After Ktlfievon U, with a few minuscules, reads
Kai wpo(T€Kv\t(Ttv \180v p.eyav eirt Tqv Ovpav tow fivqfielov,
while three Vulgate manuscripts have a similar addition et
inposito eo inposuit monumento lapidem magnum. On the
other hand D, with its Latin, reads Kat (JeVroy (leg. reOevrot)
avrov eirtOijKev tb fiv>]fji€i \160v ov f/toyis ukocti e/a'A ioc The
same thing is found in the Old Latin manuscript c, et cunt
positus esset in monumento, posuerunt lapidem quern vix viginti
volvebant. The Sahidic and T 1 exhibit a similar expansion
of the text. In this addition, which Scrivener thought was
" conceived somewhat in the Homeric spirit," Harris detects
a Latin hexameter which the scribe of Codex Bezae " de-
liberately incorporated into his text and then turned into
Greek." See his Study of Codex Bezae in Texts and Studies,
ii. 1, 47-52. Chase, on the other hand, adduces Josephus,
Bell. Jud., v\. 5, 3 (Syro- Latin Text, p. 62 ff.). Compare my
Philologica Sacra, pp. 39, 58.

28o

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[LUKE.

xxiv. 6. The reading Scru (D, c, Marcion, etc.) in place of
w? is now attested also by the Sinai-Syriac.

xxiv. 32. In place of Kwo/xivi) (a text) and KCKaXvunevi) (D),
Blass inserts ftefiapnfiei") in the text on the authority of the
old Syriac versions, the Armenian, and the Sahidic. But in the
Syriac this last reading is due to a transcriptional error of -vp»
for -vp< (see Mass himself, p. 120, and compare tKe variants
-ipio and ipio in Rahmani's Testamcntum D. N. Jesu Christi,
p. 112,6); and as the Armenian is derived from the Syriac,
the only question becomes whether the Sahidic reading is due
to the same error. KeKaXv/m/ntvn in D, which has hitherto
baffled explanation, is shown to be a purely clerical error by
comparison with Heb. xii. 18, where also KtKuvfitvb) becomes
K£KLikv/jinevy in the Greek of D and in Pseudo-Athan. 57.

xxiv. 34. V< >r XeyoiTdf D reads Xe'yoire?, which is simply a
clerical error arising easily from the influence of the Latin,
which would be the same in either case. For the conclusions
drawn from this reading by Resell, see his Aussercanonische
Para/lettcxtf, hi. 779 f. Other examples of the same mistake
( — ef for — ,<?) occur in Matt. xxii. 16; Acts vi. II, xvi. 35;
Rom. vi. 13. It is interesting to observe that Origen had
^//uwi'o? Ktu KAeoVa (i. 1 84, ed. Koetschau).

xxiv. 37. Zahn (GK., i. 681) rejects the supposition that
the reading rpuiTtta-fxu for irvev/xa was coined by Marcion and
taken from a Marcionite Bible into D. That he is right
in doing so appears from Chase, who shows that <j>uvriurfia
here is the same as Sdi/iouov acrwtxuTov in Ignatius (Ad
Sniyrnaeos, hi. 2). See my Pliilologica Sacra, p. 25. The
Semitic equivalent of (/ximroyxu as well as of Saifiovtov is
isc;.', tost;;, 1 which is used in both the earlier Syriac versions,

1 See also von Dubscluitz, Das A'ery^uia Petri, p. 82, where lie cites the
passage of Origen relating to the Doitrina Petri, which is also quoted by Tischen-
(iorf on Luke xxiv. 39, and insists rightly that in the LXX Saiftiyiov is never
employed to represent nn. Conybeare's articles on "The Demonology of the New
Testament" in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1896) I have unfortunately been
unable to consult. Joh. Weiss never mentions tpavTaopa in his article on Damonen
mid Dtniionisehe in the I'KE :i , iv.

JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

28l

the Curetonian and the Lewis, to represent r/>an-a<r/za in Matt,
xiv. 26 and Mark vi. 49. I find that NINC is used for irveu/ia
in the translation of Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., v. 16, ed. Wright-
Maclean, p. 289).

xxiv. 39. All the authorities agree in saying that Marcion
omitted the words ifri]\ai<TaTe fie ku\ "Se-re, while Tertullian
and Epiphanius state that he also omitted crd/o/caj k<u. See
Zahn, GK., ii. 495, who adds that " the longer clause — i.e.
^rtiXatju'ia-aTi /ue /cai "Sere — is also omitted by D, it (with the
exception of Colbertinus), vg, but not Syr cu , as Tischendorf
wrongly states." This however is a misapprehension. The
om in Tischendorf refers only to fxe after yfriiXa^i'ia-are. This
is omitted by Syr cu as well as by D and also by Syr" ln . It
would be more exact to say, however, that the xai before
IStre is also omitted by Syr cu . Moreover, Syr" 1 " agrees with
Syr c " in reading on ey<« eifit avros after "Sere.

The subscription of certain minuscules states that Luke's
Gospel was written fifteen years after the Ascension. Some
say eiV 'AXegavSpelav t>]v fxeyftXriv, others iv 'Pitf/ii;, while one
says very strangely, er tj) 'Attik/J.tiJc BoKOTa/a?, " for Theo-
philus, who became bishop after divine baptism." A, 262, 300
also contain here the notice of careful collation. The chapter
enumeration in these manuscripts is not the same, being 342,
349, and 345 respectively.

John.

In this Gospel the attention of textual critics was long
confined to the passage vii. 53-viii. 11. They failed to
observe that in other places there are clauses and whole verses
whose omission or interpolation has to be investigated in con-
nection with vii. 53 (T., as, for example, iv. 9, v. 3, 4, and that
interesting questions of textual criticism are raised in other
parts of the book as well.

Chapter xxi., which the last two verses of the preceding
chapter clearly show to be an Appendix, is equally well

282

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[JOHN.

attested by all the authorities, while the omission of xx. 31
by the first hand of G is just one of those unaccountable
phenomena which make their appearance so frequently in the
domain of textual criticism. The same thing is probably to
be said of the omission in s of the last verse of chapter xxi.
Tischendorf was of opinion that this last verse in », together
with the concluding ornament and subscription, was not by
the same hand (A) as had written the Gospel of John, but by
another (D) who had acted as corrector, and had written part
of the Apocrypha and six leaves of the New Testament.
Tregelles, on the other hand, who examined the passage in
Tischendorf's presence, thought the difference was due simply
to the scribe having taken a fresh dip of the ink : that at all
events the scribe who wrote the Gospel (A) did not intend it
to conclude with verse 24, otherwise he would have added a
concluding ornament and subscription as in the case of
Matthew and Luke. The verse is found in all the other
manuscripts and versions with which we are acquainted, and
the question with regard to n* is interesting only from the fact
that a few manuscripts do contain a scholium to the effect
that the verse is an addition (ir/ootrdi/iri;) inserted in the margin
(e£w6ev) by one of the scholars (tivos twv ifiiXoirovwv), 1 and
afterwards incorporated in the text by another without the
knowledge of the former (/caTaye'eroc (?) Se <=<ra>6ev ayvoia tv\ov
toC TrpwTov ypa<pews viro tivos twv iraXaiZv fxev, ovk aicpiftwv
Se, Kai p.epot ti/c rod evayyeXiov ypa<fifj<; ycvofievov). This
entire note, however, is evidently no more than an inference
drawn from the contents of the verse, as the Syriac Com-
mentary of Theodore shows. See further, Zahn, Einleitung,
ii. 495, and the reference to the Commentary of Ishodad
in Sachau's VerzeicJinis der syrisclten Handschriften in Berlin,

P- 3°7-

With respect to the pericope adulterae, on the other hand,
we may be quite certain that it did not originally stand in the

1 This description is elsewhere understood as applying to Theodore of
Mopsuestia.

JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

283

position it now occupies (vii. 53— viii. 11), nor indeed in John's
Gospel at all, although the decision of the Holy Office of the
13th February 1897, which was confirmed by the Pope two
days later, obliges Catholic exegetes to hold it as genuine. It
is omitted in a great many manuscripts and versions — e.g. in
» B L T. A and C are defective here, but the amount of
space shows that they could not have contained it. It is
omitted in the Syriac and Egyptian versions, in the Armenian
and the Gothic, in some Old Latin codices, and in the earliest
of the Greek and Latin Fathers. On the other hand it is
found in all the manuscripts of Jerome and in Codex D,
which is the only one of the earlier Greek manuscripts to
contain it. In some minuscules and later Armenian manu-
scripts it stands at the end of the fourth Gospel, where now
Westcott and Hort put it. In minuscule 225, written in the
year 1192, it follows vii. 36; in the Georgian version it comes
after vii. 44; while in the Ferrar Group — i.e. in minuscules 13,
69, 124, 346, 556 — it is inserted after Luke xxi. 38. Its in-
sertion after vii. 36 is probably the result of an accidental
error. In the Greek Lectionaries the liturgy for Whitsunday
begins at verse 37 and extends to verse 52, followed by viii. 12,
so that the pericope was, by mistake, inserted before instead
of after this lection. Its position in the Georgian version is
the more remarkable, seeing that in the Old Latin Codex b,
which contained the pericope by the first hand, the entire
passage from vii. 44-viii. 12 has been erased. As a probable
explanation of its position in the Ferrar Group after Luke
xxi. 38, it has been suggested that the scribe inserted it there
owing to the resemblance between Luke xxi. 37 and John
viii. 1, and also between Luke xxi. 38 (wpQpi^e) and John
viii. 2 (SpOpov). Harris thinks that its proper place is in John
between chapters v. and vi., because reference is made in
v. 45,46 to the Mosaic Law, which is also mentioned in viii. 5.
But the remarkable thing is that here again the text of D
differs in a conspicuous manner from that of the other wit-
nesses. In viii. 2 the words ko\ ko6i<tik ehihaaicev ainoxx; are

284

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[JOHN.

wanting : in verse 4 we meet the sentence iiciretpd£ovTe<; ainov
o'l tepeh ha excoaiv icaTrjyoplav ainov, which does not come till
after verse 5 in the other text : for tiot^etq D has dfiapria : in
verse 5 it reads, Mtai/o-fj? 8e iv tS vop.ip exiXevo-ev rat TOtaira?
XiOdgeiv, for which the other text has iv Se tu vo/mo Maxrfjs
ivereiXaro to? roiavTas Xido/3oXeio-0ai : in verse 1 1, D has
viraye where the other text has iropevov. Now, if two persons
got such an easy sentence as " Moses in the Law commanded
to stone such " to translate from Latin, Hebrew, or any other
language into Greek, one of them might quite well use KeXeveiv '
and XiOd^ew, and the other ivreXXeo-Oat and XiOofioXelv. And
so the question is suggested whether the two forms in which
the text exists were not derived from different sources, that of
D, e.g., from its Latin. But on closer examination the latter
supposition is seen to be impossible. For the Latin corre-
sponding to e^mo-tv KarTjyopiav ainov is " haberent accusare
eum, ' showing that the Latin translator read Karnyopeiv in
his original, 1 and for <u<rre -Kama* iljeXdelv he has " uti omnes
exire," where again the infinitive speaks for the priority of the
Greek. On the other hand, it is to be observed that, accord-
ing to Eusebius (Eccles. Hist., iii. c. 39, sub fin.), Papias knew
and recorded an incident irepl yvvancbs em iroXXais d/«ipTuu?
Bia0Xrj6eicrij<; em rov Kvpiov, f/v to KaO' 'E0paiov<; evdyyeXiov
irepLexet- So that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (i.e.
the Palestinian Jewish Christians) contained a narrative
similar to this, we may say quite confidently, contained this
narrative. From that Gospel it was taken and inserted in
some manuscripts after Luke xxi., in others after John vii.
By the time of Augustine it was so widely propagated in the
Latin that he thought it had been removed from certain
manuscripts by people of weak faith, or rather by enemies of
the true faith, " credo metuentes peccandi immunitatem dari
mulieribus suis." The pericope is no part of John's Gospel,
though it belongs to the oldest stock of evangelic tradition.

1 The same variation occurs in Luke vi, 7, where K* 13 S X read Kcmiyoptiv
(Ka-rqyofiriam D), while K« AEF have Karijyoplav.

JOHN-1 CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 285

On the question whether it may not originally have stood
between Mark xii. 17 and xii. 18, and so between Luke xx.26
and xx. 27, see Holtzmann in the ThLz., 1898, col. 536 f
Vide supra, p. 66.

i. 5. Zahn raises the question what word Ephraem found in
his copy of the Diatessaron corresponding to KariXafie, seeing he
gives vicil. In this connection I might (with the proviso that
the reading may be more easily explained from the Armenian)
point out that the Syriac word aSntrn corresponds to /caraXa-
fierwo-av in Sirach xxiii. 6. This stands elsewhere for ap\u>,
Beo-iro^w, efowtajio, Karaicvpieuw, Kvpievw, Kparoi. EQ3 also
frequently represents the Greek KaraXapfidvetv. The Sinai-
Syriac for John i. 5 is unfortunately lost.

i. 13. The reading 8? eyevwjOri is, so far as is known

at present, attested by Latin witnesses only, " qui natus est."
But as Zahn is careful to point out (Einl., ii. 518), it did not
originate on Latin soil, for Justin presupposes it, and, more-
over, Irenaeus constantly applies the passage to the Incarna-
tion, while the Valentinians, who had the usual text, were
accused by Tertullian of falsification. And it is not proved
that the two last-mentioned used anything but a Greek Bible.

i, 17. According to early testimony, this verse, so frequently
quoted since the time of Ritschl, once ran : " The Law was
given by Moses, but its truth came by Jesus." See Zahn,
Forsch., i. 121, 248.

i. 18. Zahn agrees with Hort in holding that the originality
of the reading (wvoyevrj'} 6eb<; (without the article) is established.
See Westcott and Hort, Notes on Select Readings ; Zahn,
Einleitung, ii. 544, 557 ; Westcott, Commentary on John, in loco.
It may be mentioned here that Codex Monacensis of Origen's

i vlis

Commentary on the Gospel of John has fiovoyevr)? Oeo? with
and wo? both written above the line in a later hand. This gave
rise in the Codex Regius to the reading 6 tiovoyevrjs wo? fleo?.

i. 28. Is it firjdafiapd or fir)Qaviq ? The former is exhibited by
the Sinai-Syriac, the Curetonian, and the margin of the Hark-

286

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[JOHN.

lean, and the latter by the other three Syriac, and the Arabic
Diatessaron. With regard to the former, is it the case, as is
supposed by many, that it is due simply to a conjecture of
Origen, and that Syr cu and Syr si " took it from him ? Accord-
ing to Zahn {GK., i. 406), Hilgenfeld pointed in this direction
in the ZfwTh., 1883, 119. See also Lagrange, Origene, la
critique textuelle et la tradition topographiquc (Revue Biblique,
iv., 1895, pp. 501-524). Origen explains (iriOavia as oIko<;
viraxorjs, and the Syriac as " place of praise." Compare on
this the much-discussed passage in the Gospel of Peter
(viraKor) rjKovero, c. xi.). BrjOa^apd, on the other hand, he
interprets as oIkos KaTa<ricevrj<;, so that he must either have
spelt it Bethbara, N-13 n<3, as in Jud. vii. 24, or taken it as
Beth-ha-bara. It is spelt BrjOaafiapd in Lagarde's Onomastica
Sacra, 240, 12, and Bethabara in 108, 6 (Bethbaara, Codex
B). Jerome (see Onomastica Sacra) interpreted the name as
" domus humilis ( = ?) vel vesperae " in Joshua xv. 6, as " domus
multa vel gravis " in xv. 59, and as dowcijTo? in xv. 61, follow-
ing Symmachus. Luther had Betharaba, but in three im-
pressions of the New Testament and in three of the Postils he
had Bethabara (according to Bindseil-Niemeyer), and in the
margin Bethbara, with a note in which reference is rightly made
to Jud. vii. 24, "ut mysterium consonet." See my German or
Greek-German New Testament. It may be asked if " Ainon "
in John iii. 23 has any connection with Bethania. Compare
fflJJj rvn in Jos. xv. 59. For iv Alva>v e has in eremo and f has
in deserto. How is this to be explained ? Compare Zahn,
Einleitung, ii. 561.

i. 34. For vto? N*, Syr c ", Syr sl ", and e read e/c\€KTO?. D is here
defective. Zahn thinks the latter reading is original, and the
former an example of an early and widely current alteration.
Westcott and Hort insert cacXc/cto? among their Noteworthy Re-
jected Readings. The two readings are combined in some manu-
scripts " electus Alius Dei." See Zahn, Eini, ii. 515, 544, 557.

i. 41. Zahn here decides for the nominative irpSnos. Both
the disciples of John who attached themselves to Jesus found

JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

287

their brother, but Andrew was the first to do so. See Ein-
leitung, ii. 477 f.

ii. 2. In his Commentary on the Gospels, extant in the
Armenian only, we find Ephraem saying, "Graecus scribit
recubuit et defecit vinum" (§ 53), which shows that he had a
Greek exemplar before him containing the itacism inXldrj for
iicKqfh). See Zahn, Forsc/i., i. 62, 1 27, and compare Luke xiv. 8,
where Antiochus, Homil., iii., has KaraK\i6rn for k\t]0tjs.

ii. 3. Zahn is perhaps right when he says that no critic
need doubt for a moment that the original reading is the
longer, genuinely Semitic text exhibited by n*, the Harklean
Syriac, and the best Latin manuscripts. D is defective, as
also Syr™ and Syr ,ln .

iii. 5. ffaaiXeiav twv oupavtov is attested only by N*, a few
minuscules, by c m, and certain early Fathers, in place of
fja<n\eiav tov 6eov, which has now the support of the Sinai-
Syriac. Zahn thinks the former reading to be correct (Ein-
leitung, ii. 294). If that is so, this will be the only place where
the expression is found in the New Testament outside the
Gospel according to Matthew, where it occurs some thirty-
three or thirty-four times. See note on " The Kingdom of
Heaven " in the Expository Times for February 1896, p. 236 ff.

iii. 24. Zahn (Einl., ii. 515) thinks that the omission of the
article before <f>v\aKrjv shows that there was some uncertainty
regarding the fact mentioned by John. This, however, is
open to question. That the insertion or omission of the
article may be of importance is shown by such examples as
John v. 1 ; Matthew xxii. 23 ; Acts xvi. 6 ; James ii. 2.

iii. 34. Our knowledge of the text of the Sinai-Syriac here
rests solely on the last reading of Mrs. Lewis: " Not accord-
ing to his measure gave (or, gives) God the Father." This
rendering, as well as the insertion of o 0eo? in many Greek
texts, is due to the fact that m/evfia was not taken as the
subject of the sentence.

iv. 1. For 6 Kvpwf Tischendorf reads o 'Itjo-oOs, which is prob-
ably correct. 'O icvpio<; is elsewhere found only three times

288

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[JOHN.

in John — viz., vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20. According to Zahn (Einl.,
ii. 391) the first two passages are explanations outside the
Gospel narrative interjected by the evangelist, while the words
in the last passage are spoken from the point of view of the
disciples.

iv. 9. The words oil yap cruy^o&Wat 'lovScuoi 2a/*ap«ratc
were retained by Lachmann and by Tischendorf in his
seventh edition, because the only authorities known at that
time for their omission were D a b e. But when the first
hand of x appeared in confirmation of the testimony of these
witnesses, the words were dropped by Tischendorf and
bracketed by Westcott and Hort. Syr cu and Syr* ln insert
them, and perhaps Tatian. Zahn is inclined to admit them.
" The classic brevity of the interjected explanation speaks for
its genuineness." See his Einleitung, ii. 549.

v. 1. f/ iopTtj is supported by x C etc., and eoprr) by A B D
etc. On the chronology, see Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 516.

v. 3#, 4. After ^rjpwv D alone inserts rrapaXimicwv, and then
adds, with A 2 C 3 1 T A A II (this last, however, with asterisks),
the clause fKBe^op-eixov rrjv tov vSaro<; kIvt)<jw. The shorter
text is given by x A* B C* L. The whole of the fourth verse
is omitted by x B C* D, 33, 157, 314. In this case D and A
change sides. Within the limits of the verse there are a
great many variations, which show that it is a very early
addition. Some of the words are hapax legomena, like 8>/7roTe,
Tapaxrj, voatjfia. Zahn thinks the gloss may have been one of
the "expositions" of Papias. According to the Commentary
of Ishodad, Theodore of Mopsuestia did not consider this
verse as part of the Gospel of John (Sachau, Verzeichnis der
syrischen Handschriften, p. 308). See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 557.
Cyril says the incident occurred at Pentecost.

v. 36. Zahn {Einl., ii. 557) calls fielfav a difficult reading,
and one that could not have been invented : " I, as a Greater
than John, have the witness of God."

vii. 8. oinrat has taken the place of ovk in all the uncials
except x D K M P, a fact which reveals its antiquity. Owe

JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

289

is retained also by Syr cu and Syr sln . The change was intro-
duced to obviate the inconsistency between vii. 8 and vii. 10.
Porphyry (apud Jerome, Contra Pelagium, ii. 17) on the
ground of ovk, accused Jesus of " inconstantia et mutatio,"
and Schopenhauer (Grundprobleme der Ethik, 2nd edition,
p. 225) cited this passage as justifying an occasional falsehood,
saying that "Jesus Christ himself on one occasion uttered an
intentional untruth." See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 547.

vii. 15. See Addenda, p. xvi.

viii. 57. According to the authority cited in the ThLz.,
1899, p. 176, the first hand of Codex B is supposed to have
written eopaxeo-e: "the final e has been erased, and the e
preceding it changed into a." I have examined the photo-
graph of B in the Stuttgart Library, and can find no trace of
an e ever having stood after a. The blank space of the size
of two letters is meant to divide the sentences. It is the
case, however, though neither Tischendorf, Fabiani, nor the
pamphlet of 188 1 mentions it, that the first hand wrote eopaices,
which was then made into e<upa/ca? by means of a stroke
drawn through the o. The matter is not insignificant in view
of what is said in Westcott and Hort's Notes on Orthography,
Appendix, p. 168. Burkitt supposes that eopaiceae was the
reading of the ancestor of x B ( Texts and Studies, vol. v. 5. p. ix). 1

1 When examining Codex B I took occasion to look at certain other passages,
and discovered some strange mistakes in Tischendorf s statements with regard to
that manuscript, as I did previously in the case of Codex D. In 3 John 13 B has
iAAi for 4\A\ on which Tischendorf has no note. Westcott and Hort mention
the passage in their Notes on Orthography, ii. p. 153, but say nothing about B.
On Jude 5 we find Tischendorf saying in his Apparatus : «iSot«, sine u M ar cum
ABC 2 .... s-(Gb°») a( jd. „„„ cum „ K L. But u/iaj stands quite plain in
B. Had they known this, Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort would certainly
have printed their text differently. How far back this false testimony with regard
to B extends I am unable to certify. It is found in TischendorPs seventh edition
of 1859, and in Huther's Commentary of the same date. I repeat my Ceterum
censeo, that two or three sharp eyes should really revise the statements current
about H. Thi> one is repeated from Tischendorf by Baljon, Weiss, and aU our
Commentators. At the same time, Weiss has quite properly inserted „ M „ in his
text, on the ground that while there was no occasion for its interpolation its
omission is quite conceivable. He will, no doubt, be gratified to see his reasoning
confirmed by this weighty testimony afforded by Codex B.

290

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[JOHN.

xii. 7. Terrjpriicev, without ha, has the support of a compara-
tively large number of manuscripts. Peerlkamp and De Koe
read ha rt . . . . rer^Kev ; Zahn (Einl., ii. 518) has no
doubt that the correct reading is ha .... Toprjo-y, and that
it was replaced by rerripr^Kev (without ha) on the ground that
this Mary was not among the women who came to the
sepulchre to anoint the body of Jesus. He says that the true
text presupposes that Mary would like to use the remainder
of the ointment to anoint the body of Jesus after his death,
and that the words of Jesus were intended to prevent Mary
and the disciples afterwards following the suggestion of Judas,
xiii. 2. The change of a single letter here is important from
a harmonistic point of view. s'BL read Seitrvov yivo/ievov,
i.e., " during supper," but s'AD have Setirvov yevofievov, which
means " after supper." Compare Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 520.

xiii. 34. On the form in which this saying was cited by the
Marcionites, see Zahn, GK. i 678.

xviii. 12 ff. The Sinai-Syriac, probably following Tatian,
gives the following arrangement of the verses — viz., 12, 13,
24, 14, 15, 19-23, 16-18, 25-28. On this see Zahn, Einl.,
ii. 521. Spitta would arrange the verses, 12, 13, 19-23, 24, 14,
15-18, 25^ 27,28. See Zahn, Einl., ii. 558. It does some-
times happen that a leaf of a manuscript is misplaced, but it
is hard to account for such transpositions as these. Compare
the Journal of Theological Studies, October 1900, p. 141 f.

xix. 5. Though not properly connected with the criticism
of the text, the question may be asked here, by way of a
contribution to a subject much discussed of late, whether
the expression iSov 6 avdpanro<; may not be connected with
KL"3 "a. Compare 6 av9pa>iro<; and o vibt tov dvOpdmov in
Mark ii. 27, 28. In this passage of John, B omits the article
before av6pa>Tros, reading ISoii avOpanros simply. See the
Expository Times, November 1899, p. 62 ff., "The Name Son
of Man and the Messianic Consciousness of Jesus," where
Schmiedel's article with the same title in the Protestantische
Monatshefte is noticed.

ACTS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

291

xix. 37. The quotation, according to Zahn, is made from
the Hebrew. The LXX has eirt^Xe^ovrat irpos fie avQ' 8>v
KUTwpxwavro. The later Greek versions all seem to have kept
the first, three words as in the LXX but to have variously
corrected the second clause, for which Aquila gives w 5
e&Kevrio-av, Theodotion «r ov egeKevryo-av, Symmachus
efiirpordev eTre£eicei>Tn<rav. Compare with this Apoc. i. 7, oiTiwy
avrov e^KevTijcrav ; Barnabas vii. 9, oifrovrai avrov ....
KaraKtvTri<ravT€$\ ]\XSt\n,Dial. 32, eirtyvwo-eade ei? ov egeKevrfaaTe.
It has accordingly been supposed that John in the Gospel
and Apocalypse followed some unknown Greek version which
exhibited the characteristic forms oxfsovrai (found only in
John and Barnabas) and elt ov ifctcevrqarav (given by John,
Justin, Theodotion, and partly by Aquila). But this sup-
position is simply a proof of unwillingness to admit a palpable
fact — viz., that in the Gospel and Apocalypse John gives an
independent rendering of the original text of Zechariah xii. 10,
and that Barnabas and Justin follow John. See Zahn,
Einleitung, ii. 563.

The subscriptions state that the fourth Gospel was written
thirty or thirty-two years after the Ascension, at Ephesus, in
the reign of Nero, or, as some say, of Domitian. It is also
said to have been published by Gaius, the host of the Apostles
(Sta Tai'ov tov ^evoSo\ov tu>v airocrrokwv). Others say that it
was dictated to Papias of Hierapolis the disciple of the
Apostle. On the alleged autograph (!8i6xeipov) preserved at
Ephesus, see above, p. 30.

Acts.

It would unduly enlarge the extent of this work were I to
go on mentioning all the passages in the Acts that are more
or less striking from the textual point of view. This book has
already been more frequently referred to than the others. I
would again refer the student to Zahn's Introduction. I agree
with that writer in thinking it impossible in many cases to

292

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[ACTS.

suppose that a scholiast manufactured the text we now find in
Codex D with no other material before him save the usual text
and his inkhorn. At the same time there is undoubtedly room
for much diversity of opinion with respect to many matters of
detail. I would instance such a simple narrative as that of
Acts iii. 1-5, and ask what reasonable ground a copyist could
have had for altering o? into outoj, areviaas into efifiXtyas,
/3\e\Jfav into areWoe, eireixex into arei/lo-as or vice versa, or for
omitting or inserting virapx<»v or Aa^eiV. 1 Such changes
might, however, be introduced by an author who writes a
passage twice over. Without himself being fully conscious of
his reasons for doing so, he might substitute a final construc-
tion for a participle, introduce or remove an asyndeton, replace
one word by its synonym, and make all the striking linguistic
changes which a comparison of the two texts reveals.

Time will show whether I am right in my conjecture that
efiapvvaTe in iii. 14 is due to an error in translation. In illustra-
tion of the interchange of Xaou and Koo-pouin ii. 47, I have cited
in Philologica Sacra, p. 39, a number of instances of the con-
fusion of av or KDV with uhv or no'jy, to which I would now add
Daniel viii. 19, Sirach xlv. 7; xlvii. 4; Matt. i. 21 (in the
Curetonian Syriac). Compare also Eusebius, Eccles. Hist.,
iv. 15, 26; History of Mary, ix. 17; xiv. 11 (ed. Budge).
Whether the change in the passage in question is really to be
explained in this way, or by the supposition of an "anti-Judaic
tendency," as Corssen prefers (Gottinger gelehrte Anzeigen,
1896, vi. 444), may be left an open question for the present. I
would just point to one thing in favour of my view, and in
answer to what Zahn says in his Einkitung, ii. 423. He says
there : " Linguistic considerations are against the supposition
that a pure Greek like Luke, the physician of Antioch, was

1 Further instances of changes requiring investigation are :— tpuTar and
iropoKaXtii' ; opai> and Afa^m ; 07*11' and iptpttv ; «px«"*«' and vwayuv; vwapx'tr
and tifii ; cvv and fitra ; tit and tv ; ws, /i«XP' and »XP' i fvnoy and
tunpooetv ; tTtpos and a\\os ; oikoj and oikio ; iroit and vaiSioi' ; ro\is and Kwpq ;
\aos and ox^oj ; vaos and itpor ; <ptyyos and <pus ; active and middle voice,

apx e0 "" a '' etc '

ACTS] CRITICAL NOTES ON VAKluUS PASSAGES.

293

able to read a Hebrew book. For a thousand Jews (Syrians
and Copts) who were able at that time to read, write, and speak
Greek, there would be at most a single Greek possessed
of a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic. And
I confess that I have hitherto sought in vain for this rara avis."
Quite true, but how do we know that the physician of Antioch
was a pure Greek? All the Prologues to the Gospels unani-
mously call him " natione Syrus." I have pointed out in my
Philologica Sacra, p. 13, what is very generally admitted, that
in the New Testament "EXXi/cey denotes simply the "heathen,"
whether they speak Greek or not. 1 The woman mentioned in
Mark vii. 26 was a 'EXXijw? Xvpo- < PoivtKi<rcra to yeVor, and in
the same way Luke was a^XXije of Antioch (Acts xi. 20), but
2,vpos to ye'i/oc. He is one of the thousand who could read,
write, and speak Greek, though he was not above making such
a mistake in translation when using a Hebrew or Aramaic
book as I think he certainly does in Luke xi. 41, and as I am
inclined to think he does in Acts iii. 14, till I find a better
explanation of the reading eBapvvare than has yet been given. 2
I am glad to see from Zahn that more than seventy years ago,
in his dissertation entitled De Codice Cantabrigiensi (1827),
p. 16, Schultz suggested that the text of D may perhaps be

1 Sec, however, Romans i. 14, and compare Zahn, Einl., i. 263. — Tr.

8 I have already (p. 37) referred to the frequency with which mistakes, often
quite incredible mistakes, in translation occur. A few additional instances may
be cited here.

There is, for example, that of Ephraem in John ii. 2, mentioned above, p. 287.

According to Aphraates 41, 16, Jesus promised to the mourners pDKOFIJ I'D?!,
i.e. that they should be cntrtated. The writer of the text, therefore, that Aphraates
used, must have taken Tafmna\,ty here in the sense of "to entreat." See Zahn,
I'oruhttngeu, i. 78.

The same writer (383, 16) renders the words in Luke xvi. 25 cur ii JJi wapaxa-
Xflrai in the form H3D rVV3 ]*T K1DV, i.e. " but to-day thou enlreatest of him ",
where raptxnaKfir is again taken in the sense of " to entreat ", though a different
word is used for it. See Zahn, ibid.

Again, Aphraates (390, 4) renders wapixKiKriv {avruv) in Luke vi. 24 i'DnilQ,
" their prayer, their request." Zahn, ibid.

The last clause of John v. 14 is rendered " that thou mayest have need of nothing
else," where xf"' a must have been read instead of x"/""- Zahn, Forschungen,
i 161 f. Compare also the Syriac text of Apoc. ii. 13 ; viii. 13, etc.

294

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[ACTS.

derived from a Syriac version. According to what I have
said above on Tatian, this view must certainly be admitted as
possible, and I see that it has been revived by Chase.

A new solution of the textual problem in Acts has been
suggested by Aug. Pott (Der abendldndische Text der Apostel-
geschichte und die Wir-Quelle, Leipzig, 1900). He thinks that
the original narrative drawn up by Luke existed as a separate
work for some time after it had been worked up into our
canonical Acts, and that notes were taken from the former and
inserted in the margin of the latter, and in this way came into
the text of Codex D and its associates. Against this, how-
ever, there is the fact that similar problems emerge in the
Gospel of Luke where this distinction cannot be made.

For the sake of brevity I append notes to a few passages only
of Acts.

But at the outset I must express my surprise that Wendt,
even in his eighth edition of 1899, repeats the statement that
the title of the book in D is irpafi? airo<rr6\u>v. Even without
the assurance given by Blass in his Grammatik, § iii. 1, 2, it
should be borne in mind that " laxnv stands equally for both
Baxnv and Saxreiv," and that accordingly irpafc may be either
irpa^eii or 7rpafi?. In the case before us it is the former. As
illustrations take the following from D in Acts : — Swa/u,
iii. 12, iv. 7 ; vum, vi. 7 ; .?, iv. 30; /«i«w rpi<t, vii. 20 ; and
conversely ffKet-^evs neyaXr), vii. II ; p.ipet<;, viii. 21 ; Swap-eati
and c777/iu(H? side by side in ii. 22. Compare also Mark vi. 2 ;
vi. 14 ; xiii. 25 ; Luke xxi. 26 ; Acts viii. I 3 ; (Swa/uv Totamai ;
at Svvap.i<; ; Swa/tK fieydKas;). It is true that in every case in
which the title is written out, which occurs only five times
altogether, it is 7r/oafi?, but this is to be understood as plural,
like actus in the Latin. It came afterwards to be used as
singular in the Syriac (Zahn, Einl., ii. 370, 383, 388), but that
is nothing strange. We say "the Times says" \ and we
have an analogy in the use of the word biblia in the Middle
Ages when the neuter plural biblia bibliorum became biblia
bibliae (singular feminine).

ACTS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 295

i 23 It is a matter of commentary rather than of textual
criticism, but Wendt, in his eighth edition, asserts that nothing
further is known of this Joseph surnamed Justus. Eusebius,
on the authority of Papias, mentions wapdSofrv wept lowrnv
T hv brucbflhna Bapvapav worn, <fc hPwpw fapfuiKov
«WtWo ? koI wSfe itfik 8^ Tr,„ rov Kvpiov yfa, bnpwarm
(Eccles. Hist., iii. 39)- The name of Aristion is inserted in the
margin of this passage in Rufinus's Latin translation of
Eusebius. This marginal gloss acquires a peculiar importance
from the fact that the name Ariston is inserted in the Etsch-
miadzin manuscript of the Gospels over Mark xvi. 9-20,
apparently ascribing these verses or their main contents to
him. Compare Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 231, and see Plate IX.

iv. 6. On the reading 'WoAk in D for 'Iwdvm,^, see above,

iv. 24. 1 See Harris, Two Important Glosses in the Codex

v. 39. I Besae, Expositor, November 1900, pp. 394-4°0.

xi. 27, 28. In his treatise, " On the Original Text of Acts

xi. 27, 28 " (Berliner Sitz.-Berichte, Heft 17), Harnack comes

to the conclusion that the Western text here cannot be the

original.

xv. 20, 21. On Harnack's examination of the Apostolic
Decree, see Selbie in the Expository Times for June 1899,
p. 395. Harnack comes to the same results as Zahn, but
draws the opposite conclusion from them. See above, p. 232 f.
xvi. 6. The article is omitted before TaKaTiic^p x (i, P av b Y
x A B C D minuscules. For this Blass, on the authority of p,
which reads "Galatie regiones," substitutes to? TdXATiKas
X wpa<i = " vlcos Galatiae." On this see Zahn, Einleitung, i.

133. The omission of the article does not necessitate taking
■n)v <t>pvylav as an adjective (so Wendt 8 ) ; it might still be

rendered " through Phrygia and Galatian territory."

xvii. 27. In my Philologica Sacra, p. 42, I say that it was

easier to change to delov (/3) into rov 6eov (a) than vice versa.

To this Wendt replies in his eighth edition, p. 294, by saying,

" In all probability offence was taken at the representation of

2y6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[ACTS.

God himself as an object of to ^Xa<j>av. ' Yes, there is a
considerable difference between Hector alive and Hector dead,
and of the latter it could be truly said {Iliad, xxii. 372 f.) :

r Q8e Be ti? eXireaKev IBiav e? tt\ij<tIov aWov'
12 ttottoi % fx.a\a Bij p.aXaK(i)repo<; ap,<pa<l>da<rQai.

But the delov of which Paul speaks on the Areopagus is most
assuredly no more and no less a noli me tangere than the fled?.
Among the witnesses in support of to Be'iov is Clement of
Alexandria. I can only repeat what Zahn says : " Whoever
is careful to bear in mind that our earliest manuscripts are
some two hundred years later than Marcion, Tatian, and
Irenjeus, and has any sense of the difference between naive
originality and a regularity due to liturgical, dogmatic, and
stylistic considerations," cannot but judge differently with
respect to /?.

xviii. 3. See my article, " The Handicraft of St. Paul," in
the American Journal of Biblical Literature, xi. 2, 1892, on
lorarius as the Syriac rendering of oK-qvo-rrotos = i/mji/toto'/ao?,
o-KVTOTOfio*;, leather-cutter, and the notes in the Expository
Times for December 1896, and January and March 1897.
Chrysostom calls Paul <tkvtot6ho<;, and in the Inventio
Sanctae Cruris, it is said, "exercebat artem scaenographiam."
This last word I have explained as a confusion with <ricr)vop-
pa<f>iav, as Professor Ramsay also does. In the Compendious
Syriac Dictionary of. J. Payne Smith (which must not be
confounded with the Thesaurus of her father), lorarius is
explained as " a maker of rough cloth for tents or horse-
cloths." But there is nothing said about tents even by the
Syriac scholiasts. The correct meaning will be found in
Brockelmann. Celsus (Origen, Contra Celsum, vi. 33) speaks
of eKeivos imb Kprj/ivov eppififiivos, fj «? [iapaOpoi* eWp.ei/09, j)
trfXpvy TreTTviyfiiiHv;, rj itki/toto/ios, fj \idol-6o<;, r) aihrfpevs.
1'aul is evidently referred to after Judas Iscariot, but who
are meant by Xido^oot and crtSr)pev<;?

xix. 6. I fail to understand how anyone can dismiss D here

PAUL.]

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

297

with the remark, " On account of Paul's express declaration as
to the desirability of the gift of tongues being supplemented
by that of interpretation (1 Cor. xiv. 5, 13, 27), this addition
seemed to be required in this case where Paul communicated
the gifts of the Spirit" ( Meyer- Wendt, eighth edition, p. 312).

xx. 4. For Aep(3aio<; D* has Aovftepios or Aovffpux;, and g
doverius. Moreover, D* has Bepweuoy, not Repvcuos, as Tischen-
dorf has it. Valckenaer and Blass insert a comma after Paw?,
and substitute Be for kcu after Aepficuos, with the result that
Gaius becomes a Thessalonian, and Timothy a Derbean.
For this Zahn sees no necessity. See his Einleitung, i. 149.

xxviii. 16. On crrpaTOTreSap^Tj? (/9) which Gigas renders
princeps peregrinorum, see note on xxvii. 1, in Knowling's Acts
of the Apostles, Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 516;
article "Julius" in Hastings' Bible Dictionary; Ramsay in
the Expositor, November 1900; Zahn, Einleitung, i. 389 f.
Wendt (eighth edition, p. 420) omits the words in xxviii. 16,
on the ground that their omission either by mistake or design
is very unlikely, but their insertion, on the other hand, quite
intelligible. This only shows how little reliance can be placed
on subjective criticism.

We are not yet sufficiently well acquainted with the sub-
scriptions of the minuscules, but it may be cited here that in
one of them Luke is called o-we'/cS^/io? HavXov, and in another
0et)y6po<! 6 avyypdilra? oirro? efnrvevtrei Beta.

Pauline Epistles.

In the arrangement of the books of the New Testament,
it has become customary to follow the order adopted by
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, who place the Catholic
Epistles before the Pauline. In the Stuttgart edition of the
New Testament, however, I have, in accordance with earlier
usage, put the Pauline Epistles after the Gospels and Acts.
Considering what is said by Hort himself in § 422 of his
Introduction, and also what we find in No. 6 of Berger's List

298

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[PAULINE

of the various arrangements of the books of the New Testa-
ment (Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 339 f.), it might have been
more correct to have put Paul immediately after the Gospels, as
in Codex Sinaiticus. But seeing that the Latin and German
Bibles at present exhibit the order, Gospels, Acts, Pauline
Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and that Meyer's Commentary is
also arranged on this principle, I have retained this arrange-
ment for the sake of uniformity.

Here again I must refer the student for matters of detail to
larger works, especially to Zahn's Einleitung. A few of the
more important passages will be considered in the sequel, but
previously something may be said here of the origin and
circulation of the collective writings of Paul.

1. Paul, accompanied by Silvanus and Timothy, came from
Philippi to Thessalonica on his second missionary journey,
somewhere about the year 54, though Harnack puts it as
early as 49-50. There he gathered together a church in the
short space of three or four weeks, if we may credit the
account given in Acts xvii. 2 in this particular. At all
events he was not long there. Disturbances similar to those
in Philippi arose, which compelled him to leave the city. He
came to Athens. In his anxiety over the internal and
external circumstances of the newly-founded church at
Thessalonica, he sent back Timothy from Athens to confirm
those he had left behind. When his messenger returned he
wrote to the Thessalonian Church, in all probability not from
Athens but from Corinth, where he had gone in the interval
of Timothy's absence. This letter we know as the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians. It is uncertain whether the
apostle, as in most other cases, dictated the epistle, writing
only the salutation and concluding benediction with his own
hand (compare 2 Thess. iii. 17:0 acnracrfibi tj) enfj £«pl
IlavXov, o iariv at]/xelov ev Trday iirKnoXrj' ovra><; ypd<f>a>), 1 or

1 On the custom of dictating letters, see Norden, Die anlikc Kumtprosa (1898),
p. 954 ff. On the autograph additions to the letters of the Emperor Julian, see
Bidez and Cumont, Recherches etc., p. 19 (see above, p. 1 74).

EPISTLES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 299

whether he wrote it all himself in large letters, as he did in
the case of the Epistle to the Galatians which he wrote
■nrfKUoii; ypd/tficun (Gal. vi. Ii), either on account of some
affection of the eyes or because he was a craftsman and had
little practice in writing. The epistle was intended for the
entire church at Thessalonica, of which Aristarchus, Secundus,
and perhaps also Gaius (see above, on Acts xx. 4), are known
to us by name. It was probably addressed to the oldest, or
most prominent, or most active member of the Christian com-
munity. At the close of the epistle, the writer expressly
adjures them to see that it is read by all the brethren. It
would, therefore, be read aloud at the next meeting of the
congregation. There and then, some poor slave or aged
woman would ask to have the letter for the purpose of
copying it. What became of the original we do not know.
In the very first copy that was made, mistakes and alterations
would make their appearance, and these would be multiplied
with every fresh copy.

2. At the close of the Epistle to the Colossians (iv. 16), Paul
asks that when they have read it, they will see that it is also
read in the Church of Laodicaeans, and that they themselves
read the epistle from Laodicaea (tj?i/ e* AaoSucelas). From
this it has generally been supposed that an epistle of Paul
to Laodicaea has been lost. An epistle with this title was
restored at a very early date, in the second century. It is
no longer extant in Greek, but many Latin manuscripts and
editions of the Bible contain it, and it is also found in the pre-
Lutheran German Bibles. But the epistle from Laodicaea
referred to by the Apostle may perhaps have been the
circular letter which we now know as the Epistle to the
Ephesians, and which may have been intended to go, among
other places, to Laodicaea, and from there to Colossae. How-
ever that may be, we see that at a very early date there were
epistles of Paul to various places, and that copies of these
might be made at each place, and still further distributed.
A parallel case is that of the Koran, the different recensions

300

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[PAULINE

of which are distinguished according to the cities whence they
originated. Even at that time, therefore, the beginnings of a
collection of the Pauline Epistles might be made. By the
time that the Second Epistle of Peter was written, it was
known that " brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to
him, had written many epistles, in which were some things
hard to be understood" (2 Peter iii. 15).

3. When a great man dies, we have usually a collection of
the letters he received in his lifetime, but not of those he him-
self wrote, and to collect these last is frequently a matter
of considerable difficulty. We have therefore reason to con-
gratulate ourselves that we have, within the covers of the New
Testament, epistles of Paul addressed to the most diverse
regions— to Macedonia (1 and 2 Thess., Philippians),to Achaia
(1 and 2 Corinthians), to Asia Minor (Ephesians, Colossians,
Galatians), and to Italy (Romans), not to speak of the so-called
Pastoral or private Epistles — epistles, moreover, the dates of
which extend over a period of at least eight years. 1 It is, of
course, evident that the appearance of an epistle in this collec-
tion is not in itself a guarantee of Pauline authorship. But
on the 'other hand, the collection must have been made at a
very early date, because we find, almost without exception,
not only the same number of Pauline epistles, but also the
same order of their arrangement. There is scarcely any
evidence of the circulation of a particular epistle by itself.
True, the order now usually adopted, which has been the pre-
vailing order from the fourth century onwards and which
seems, for the most part, to arrange the epistles according to
their length (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe-
sians, and so on), is not the original. In the Muratorian Canon
(so called from its discoverer), which is a very old catalogue of
the books of the Bible, the Epistles to the Corinthians stand

1 What an amount of perplexity would have been avoided had Paul been in the
way of dating his letters exactly, or had the copyists preserved the dates, supposing
they were there originally I One, but only one, of the epistles of Ignatius, bears a
date — vii. that to the Romans : lypw^a i/iir ToDra rp »pi iw(* Ka\aySuf 2«»-
TijtjBptai' (x. 3).

EPISTLES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3OI

at the head of the collection and that to the Romans at the
end. Tertullian had the same arrangement, while Marcion,
for dogmatic reasons apparently, put Galatians first, then

1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans. The present condition of our
Epistle to the Romans is also supposed to point to its former
position at the end of Paul's epistles to the churches. In that
epistle the concluding doxology is found at different places,
while many look upon chap. xvi. 1-23 as a separate document,
originally intended for Ephesus, which was attached to the
entire collection at the end. Among other varieties of arrange-
ment it may be mentioned that Colossians frequently followed

2 Thessalonians. When and where the first collection took
its rise, and by whom the second arrangement was introduced,
can no longer be determined with certainty. Zahn thinks the
first originated at Corinth about the year 85, his reason being
that it seems to be presupposed in the Epistle to the Corinthians
written by Clement of Rome about the year 95. The second
he would date from Alexandria, between 220 and 260. If we
might suppose that all our extant manuscripts are derived, not
from separate copies of the Epistles, but from a copy of the
earliest collection, it would serve to explain how it comes that
certain corruptions have found their way into the text of all
our manuscripts — e.g. in Colossians ii. 18. On the other hand,
the variations at the end of Romans, e.g., are of such a sort
that their origin seems to be anterior to the formation of the
collection.

It is not so difficult to understand how it is that the Epistle
to the Hebrews, which, it is certain, was not written by Paul,
varies so much with regard to its position in the collection.
In the Syriac Bible, and in the majority of later Greek manu-
scripts, it comes after all the Pauline epistles, the reason being
that the Syrian Church did not consider it to be really of the
number of these. (See Westcott, Bible in the Church, p. 233 £).
In the earlier Greek manuscripts, however, it occupies the
tenth place, standing between the epistles of Paul to the
churches and the Pastoral Epistles. In the early Sahidic

302

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[ROMANS.

version, and in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia,
it is found between 2 Corinthians and Galatians ; in the parent
manuscript of Codex B it stood between Galatians and Ephe-
sians. In his Histoire de la Vulgate, p. 539 f., Berger gives
seventeen different ways in which the Pauline epistles are
arranged in Latin Bibles — viz., Col., Thess., I Tim. ; Thess.,
Col., 1 Tim.; Phil., Laod., Col.; Col., Laod., Thess.; Col.,
Thess., Laod. ; Thess., Col., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Laod. ; Thess., Col.,
Laod. ; Phil., Laod., Heb. ; Heb., Laod. ; Heb., 1, 2 Tim., Tit,
Phil. ; Apoc, Laod. ; Ephes., Col. ; Gal., Laod., Ephes. ; Ephes.,
1, 2, 3 Cor., Laod.; Phil., Thess., 1 Tim. ; Apoc, 3 Cor.; Col.,
Phil.

Romans.

With regard to the very name and introduction of the
Epistle to the Romans, it is worth observing, that while the
words ei/'Pw/LLn are read in verses 7 and 15 by all our manu-
scripts, with the sole exception of G, their omission by Origen
is attested by the critical work discovered by von der Goltz on
Mount Athos (vide supra, pp. 90, 190), which says that Origen
takes no notice of the words : oure ev Tjj efayiicrei ovre iv to>
pi]Tw fivtjfiovevei. The Latin commentary has them, and pre-
supposes them in the exposition. Our editions of Origen have
hitherto given them once in the Greek as well (iv. 287), but
we must wait for the new edition before we can say with
certainty that this is correct The matter is not devoid of
importance. If the omission is original, then it is possible to
think that Romans, like Hebrews, was originally a circular
letter; while on the other hand, if the words are an integral
part of the epistle, we may suppose with von der Goltz that
they were afterwards dropped when the epistle began to be
read in church, so as to make it applicable to all Christians.
See Jacques Simon, Revue d' Histoire et de Litte'rature religeuses,
iv. 2 (1899), 177 ; Zahn, Einleitung, i. 278 ; TkLbl., 1899, 179.

i. 3. On the Syriac reading "of the house of David," see
Vetter, Der apokryphe dritte Korintherbrief, 1894, p. 25, and my

ROMANS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 303

Note in the Lectionary published in Studia Sinaitica, vi. (see
above, p. 106).

i. 13. For oil 6e\u D» G Ambrosiaster read owe olo/xai,
which Zahn thinks sounds more natural, and quite likely to be
replaced by the other expression so common in Paul's epistles.
Einleitung, i. 262.

i. 15. For Ofttv D* reads iv v/uu, G hr' v^w, g in vobis.

i. 16. Marcion was accused of having removed trpSnov or re
irparov from his text. This, however, is not so (see Zahn,
GK., i. 639; ii. 515). It is also omitted in B G, showing, as
Zahn thinks, that it was regarded as obnoxious at an early
date (Einleitung, i. 263). Marcion did, however, drop the
quotation from Habakkuk in the next verse.

ii. 16. Marcion in all probability wrote to fvayyekiov with-
out fiou, which is now omitted only by 37 d». In the time of
Origen and in the centuries following, Marcion's disciples
laid emphasis not on /xov, but on the fact that euarfyiXiov is in
the singular number. They charged the Church with having
not one Gospel, but several. See Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 171.

v. 1. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weymouth all
follow the mass of the uncials in reading Sjpu/tev, and I was
therefore obliged to give this as the text of my Stuttgart
edition of the New Testament For myself, however, I hold
with Scrivener and Weiss that fypn*, is certainly the correct
reading. The same mis-spelling occurs in several manu-
scripts in John xix. 7, ^ vo^v %a>/«*. For the reason of
it, see Schmiedel's Winer, § 19. According to Zahn, ev^aa,
must be considered the right reading, and «^fc (verse 2)
taken also as subjunctive. See his Einleitung, i. 264.

v. 21. The words toO kv P u>v ij/mJi; were omitted by Erasmus
and, therefore, also by Luther. This is not noticed by
Tischendorf, nor by Baljon, who follows him.

xi. 13. Op.lv Si is read byxAB P, for which D G L have {,uZ v
yap. Zahn thinks it difficult to say which is right, but that
the sense is much the same in either case. Einleitung, i. 265 f.

xni. 3. The conjecture tyadoepyf, is thought by Hort to

304

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[ROMANS.

have ;i certain amount of probability {Notes on Select
Readings, in loco). Schmiedel also thinks it deserving of
consideration {Winer, § 19).

xiv. 5. On the omission of yap (15 D G), see Zahn,
Einleitung, i. 266.

xiv. 23. Conclusion of the Epistle. The best discussion of
the Conclusion of the epistle will now be found in Zahn's
Einleitung, vol. i. § 22, pp. 267-298, Die Iutegritdt des
Rbmerbriefs. Compare also Riggenbach, Kritisclie Studien
tiber den Schluss des Rdnierbriefs : two treatises published in
the Neue Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, Erster Hand, 1 892.
Bonn, 1892 ; Die Adresse des 16. Kapitels des Rbmerbriefs,
pp. 498-525 ; Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie, Rbm. xvi. 25-27
im Zusammenhang mit den iibrigen den Schluss des Rbmerbriefs
betreffenden textkritischen Fragcn crbrtert. Also, F. J. A. Hort,
Prolegomena to the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians,
1895 ; Sanday and Headlam, Commentary on Romans.

In certain manuscripts prior to the time of Origen, the
Doxology was found between xiv. 23 and xv. I. It now stands
after xiv. 23 in A L P and about 200 minuscules, while at the
same time the epistle is certainly continued to xv. 13. Bengel
alone has suggested a reason for this. He supposes that the
solemn words in xiv. 23, irav Be o ouk eic iriinew ufiapria i<niv,
were felt to form an unsatisfactory close to a church lection, and
that the doxology was accordingly inserted here. Moreover,
seeing that no part of xvi. 1-25 was included in any lection,
this would be an additional reason for attaching the doxology
to the end of chapter xiv., as otherwise this grand passage
might not be read at all. It must be confessed, however, that
this explanation is not altogether satisfactory.

It is further to be observed that the Benediction is found
sometimes after xvi. 20, sometimes after xvi. 23, and some-
times in both places. In the last case it is found under three
conditions : (1) before the doxology, (2) without it, (3) after it.
With regard to the single Benediction, it is inserted after
verse 20 in sARC, and after verse 23 in D G. An explana-

ROMANS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 305

tion of these variations has frequently been sought in the
supposition that chapter xvi. is part of an epistle addressed
to Ephesus, which has in some way been incorporated in the
Epistle to the Romans. On this supposition the only question
is whether the whole of chapter xvi. belongs to this Ephesian
epistle or only the first twenty verses, while verses 21-23
belong to the original Epistle to the Romans. Improbable as
this may appear at the first glance, it admits of an easy
explanation. It may be due to the fact that Romans once
stood at the end of the collection of Pauline epistles. Or we
may suppose that the commendatory epistle for Phcebe
addressed to Ephesus and the Epistle to the Romans were
written at the- same time, and that in sending them off, the
sheet containing the former by some mistake slipped in before
the last sheet of the Roman epistle. On this view, the first
benediction in verse 20,^ x dp K . . . . jueff b^v, would belong
to the Ephesian epistle, while the second, ^ x dp K .... ^ra
■rrdmwv inwv to the Roman. The uncial L would then be
right in retaining both, while D E F G will have omitted
the benediction the first time it occurred, and >• ABC
the second time.

At the same time it cannot be disguised that there are diffi-
culties in connection with the close of chapter xv. Minuscule
48 omits the last verse (33). In verse 32, B reads simply t m
ex X apa ?\6w, while the other witnesses have i\0w, and vary
between (Tviavmrai^fxai i^iv and «./a\W£o fieO' vfxwv. 1 Zahn
thinks that the original position of the Doxology is after
x.v. 23 and nowhere else. Now the authority for inserting
the Doxology there only is L and many minuscules, A P and a
few m.nuscules having it in both places. If Zahn is right
should not the testimony of L be accepted in other places as

and^r Tu ; erbS I CO " , P are E *° d - »»■ '7- where the LXX has M ,„.
and Aqmla i„ ( *„ { , ; Isa . xxx.v. ,4, LXX *,„.*«„«,, Aquila 4„W. •

306

(JREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[I COR.

well as this, or at least have more deference paid to it than
seems now to be the case. The testimony for the omission of
the Doxology there has recently been endorsed by that of the
Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, published in Studio Simiitiai, vi.

xv., xvi. Zahn points out that we cannot consistently lay
stress on the supposed entire absence of these chapters in
Marcion, unless we are prepared to maintain at the same time
that the other passages which he fails to mention, such as
Gal. iii. 6-9, 15-25, iv. 27-30 ; Romans i. 19-ii. 1, iii. 31-iv. 25,
ix. 1-33, x. 5-xi. 32 ; Coloss. i 15^, 16, were unknown to him,
and only smuggled into the text afterwards by falsifiers on
the Catholic side. Zahn thinks it probable that Marcion
struck out the numerous personal references in chapter xvi.
as being useless and unedifying for the Church of his day.

xv. 23, 24. Zahn holds that the later Antiochean reading
eXevao/Jiut wpbi v^ds (n c L Euthal., etc.) is undoubtedly spurious,
and the yap as certainly genuine (Eiii/eitrtug, i. 267).

xvi. 27. Zahn (Einlcituug, i. 286) is inclined to regard <?> as
the correct reading here for two reasons: (1) because the
incompleteness of the sentence made it liable to correction,
and (2) because the correction is effected in very different
ways. In some manuscripts <J> is changed into «irr<3 (P, Copt.,
31, 54), in others it is omitted altogether (B F-lat. Syr.),
while in others again ei'»; takes the place of o, 1} (55, 43-scholion).

Subscription: irpos 'Ywnalavs simply, SfABCD; others,
eypui utto KoplvOou oV< $o!/3>)<; tIj? Siokovov, to which some
add rw tv Keyxpeuh e/c(t\i;(r/aj ; others, iypa<j») Sia leprlou
€ire/JL<j>6>) Se Stu •foi'/Si;? (tiro Ko pivQiwv.

1 Corinthians.

All the manuscripts in which the number of the epistle is
indicated by a word and not by a numeral (<i) call it irpdri],
never irporepa. Origen, however, says iv t\j irporipa irpos
KopivOlovs 6 IlaCXoy (ii. 347)-

i. 2. The words r/yiacrfxivon iv Xpianp '\t](rou are read imme-

I COR.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

307

diately after Oeov by B D* G. This arrangement is adopted
by Weiss, and supported by Zahn as undoubtedly genuine
(Einkitung, i. 210). Heinrici is inclined to regard it as a
transcriptional error which was very apt to occur in copying
stichometric manuscripts. But were there stichometric manu-
scripts antecedent to the time of Codex B ?

iii. 22. Marcion seems to have dropped the name of Apollos
here. Indeed, there is no trace in Marcion of any of the
passages where Paul mentions his name. " What was Apollos
to the Church of the second century ? " (Zahn, GK. i. 649.)

v. 2. For eTrevOj'io-are Naber suggests iirevot'io-ttTf. This is
not noticed by Baljon, who is elsewhere careful to mention
the conjectural emendations proposed by his countrymen.

vi. 20. It was doubtless owing to a transcriptional error that
Marcion read apare between 8o£u<raT€ and tov deov. But
how it originated, whether from apa Se = apa Si] or by ditto-
graphy, it is hard to say.

x. 9. In place of tov xvpiov we find tov XptarTov read by
D G K L, Marcion, Irenaeus (iv. 27, 3), Clement (Eel. Proph.,
49), and the early versions. See above, p. 152, and compare
Zahn on the reading 'Ii/o-oCf for nvptof in Jude 5 {Einkitung,
ii. 88 f).

xiv. 19. For vol mod Marcion read "per legem" 01a tov
vo/mov, which was arrived at partly by a transcriptional error
and partly by conscious alteration. This could not have
occurred, however, unless the original reading was Stu toC
vodi fiov, which is still found in a good many manuscripts,
and not to> vol' /jlov, the reading preferred by most of our
editors. The latter is perhaps the result of an assimilation to
the construction of yXtoo-trp.

xiv. 31-34. These verses are variously punctuated by recent
editors, the main difference being with regard to the arrange-
ment of the clause iy iv irao-ats ruff e(C/cX.;o-/a(f twv aylwv.
This clause is referred to verse 31 by Westcott and Hort,
who place a comma after irapaKaXwvTm and bracket the
intervening words (32, 33a) as a parenthesis. Tischendorf

3o8

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[I COR.

and Weiss place a period after eipt'ivw, and link the d>? clause
to what follows. This arrangement Westcott and Hort
indicate in their margin. For details and reasoning, see the
Commentaries.

xiv. 34, 35. These two verses follow verse 40 in D E F G
93, Ambrosiaster, and Sedulius. In Codex Fuldensis, verses
36-40 are found in the macgin after verse 33, where they
were inserted by Victor of Capua (see p. 122), who did not,
however, remove them from their place further down. He
must therefore have had before him a manuscript exhibiting
this arrangement. We must suppose either that all these
manuscripts are ultimately derived from one and the same
exemplar, in which this arrangement of the verses occurred,
or, as Heinrici suggests, that the original document itself gave
occasion to this variety by having these verses written in its
margin. Our modern editors are unanimous in following the
usual order.

xv. 38. Zahn has shown that in all likelihood the substitu-
tion of irvevfia for the first aw/na was due to certain followers
of Marcion. See his GK. i. 615 ; also Z eitschrift fiir Kirchen-
geschichte, ix. 198 ff.

xv. 47. On Marcion's reading, 6 Seurepos Kuptos e£ ovpavov,
see Zahn, GK. i. 638, who suggests that this may have been
an early gloss that Marcion made use of, seeing that it is in
the highest degree improbable that the heretic and some of
his most violent opponents should alter the original text in
exactly the same way.

xv. 55. Tertullian found ve<Vo? in Marcion, and he therefore
leaves it an open question whether the word signifies victoria
tua or contentio tua (v. 10, p. 306). See Zahn, GK. i. 51.

xvi. 22. On "Maranatha," see Zahn (Einleitung, i. 215 ff.),
who, while admitting that no objection on the ground of
language or grammar can be made to reading the word as
N'ns po = 6 Kvpios qfiwv q\6ev (not epxerai or e\ev<rerai), prefers
with Halevy, Bickell, and Noldeke, to take it as s*n xno =
Kvpie tp\ov, which corresponds to the Peshitto rendering of

2 COR.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 309

Apoc. xxii. 20, vw Nno xn (epxov icvpie 'l^arov). See note by
Schmiedel in the Hand-Commenlar on 1 Cor. xvi. 22, and
the article by Thayer in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible,
sub voce. Luther has " Maharam Motha," but whence he
derived this I do not know.

Subscription : eypdupij awo iiXiwirwv (rijs McuceSovtas) Sia
"Zreipava icai Qoprovvarov not 'AxaiVcou (Kovaprov) kcu TtfioOeoV,
al. viro HavXov Kai "LuxrBivovs ; al. awo 'E<j>i<rou t<Js 'Acn'aj.

2 Corinthians.

i. 12. Recent editors adopt the reading ayiornri on the
authority ofst'ABCKMP etc. Zahn, however (Einlei-
tung, i. 243), prefers airXoTtp-i as given by s c D E G etc.
Meyer thinks that airXorirri was substituted for ayio-np-t as
being the more usual expression. Tischendorf is wrong in
saying : de suo add. syr" " el cum puritate. The Syriac has
sn 1 ?!*! Nni3'tJ3i Nnvnai stmo'iroa— i.e. lv airXoTtrri <a\ iv
fiXiicpweta l koa in X ,l P lTi [tov] Oeou ave<TTpd<ptip.ev ev tw k6u/xu>
xai ovk ev. . . . .

vii. 2. Zahn (GK. i. 650; ii. 515) thinks perhaps the whole
section vii. 2-xi. 1 was omitted by Marcion : " Let us cleanse
ourselves from defilement of the flesh and blood .... for I
espoused you as a pure virgin to one husband, (even) Christ"

Subscription: ey/jd^i; airo $t\tirirwv (+t% UwctSovtat)
+ Sia TtTOU ( + Bappa/9a) itaJ Aovko.

Galatlans.

i. 8. As illustrating how far the sharpest critic may be led
astray by his fondness for conjectural emendation, it may be
mentioned here th at H itzig (Das Buck Hiob, 1874, p. 199),
suggested that H AX2 formerly occupied the place of ^ e( >
in this verse, and that this means J) apxiepevt !

1 See I Cor. v. 8, where the Syriac has Kmcnp— i.e. i-v^riTM— for
&\i)8 t las.

3io

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[GAL.

i. 1 8. For K>i<fiuv, as given in our critical editions, Zahn
(Einleitung, ii. 14) would read llirpov. He accounts for the
remarkable transition from the name Ilerpoy in ii. 7, 8 to
Kiji/>af in ii. 9, u, 14 very well by saying that Paul in the
latter verses is echoing the language used by the Judaizers
from Palestine, just as he does in speaking of the Three as
cnvKoi. Seeing that Paul persistently employs the name
K>/0«9 in 1 Corinthians, a scribe might have introduced this
name, with which he had become familiar, into Galatians i. 18
also, just as 'l<TKupiwr>]<; was carried over from the Synoptics
into most manuscripts of John's Gospel, displacing the title
utto Kapvwrov. The following table will show the distribution
of the Greek manuscripts in support of the readings Kij0«?
and IIeT/509 in Galatians : —

Gal. i. 18,

ii. 7,

ii. 8,

ii. 9,

ii. 11,

K?7^)a9.
n* A B 17, 67**, 71.

riei-po?.
s'DEFGKLP.
omnes.
omnes.

D E F G (A omits).
D E F G K L.

»BCKLP etc.
sABCHP.
ii. 14, xA BC10, 17, 67**, 137. DEFGKLP.

It will be observed that in ii. 9 K L P take the side of n (A)
B, while in verse II P alone does so, and that D E F G are
the only witnesses that are consistent.

ii. 5- oh ou(5e is omitted by D*, by Tertullian, who ascribes
the negative to Marcion (Adv. Marcionem, v, 3), by certain
manuscripts known to Victorinus Afer, who says " in plurimis
codicibus et latinis et graecis ista sententia est Ad horam
ccssimus subjectioni" and by the Latin translator of Irena;us
(Adv. Haereses, iii. 13, 3). Ambrosiaster calls attention to
the discrepancy between the Greek and Latin manuscripts :
" Graeci e contra dicunt Nee ad horam ccssimus;' and similarly
Sedulius. Bengel remarked on the proneness of scribes to
insert or omit a negative: "Omnino apud Latinos lubrica
sub calamo est non particula . . Saepe etiam in graecis

GAL.]

CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

aliisque ovk omissum." See Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 3 1 AT,
who says that the subject is one deserving of special treat-
ment. Bengel refers to the exhaustive discussion " de nega-
tionibus quae Pandectis Florentinis recte male additae vel
detractae sunt," but there might be a good deal said on these
theological Sic et Non also.

A single letter or little word more or less, and the sense of
a passage is completely changed. Did Paul say that in his
contention with the Apostles he gave place " for an hour," or
■' not for .an hour," oh irpb? wpav, or oU ovSe irpos wpav, or irpos
iopav simply ? In Gal. v 8 is it 17 iraa-novrj €K tov koKovvtos
vp.a<;, or ovk e'/c? In I Cor. v. 6 is it " your glorying is good"
or " not good," koXov or ov KaXbvl In Rom. iv. 19, KaTevoqtrev
or 01! KiiTevoti<Tev? In 2 Peter iii. 10, evpeOi'io-erai or ov\
evpeOi'iaerai, or are both these wrong? Compare, for example,
the reading p.aKpav in Matt. viii. 30, where almost all the
Latin witnesses, and Jerome too, read " non longe " ; and
John vi. 64, where we have o«" fiij TrirrTevovrei, and also 01
■wi<rTeiovT€s (« G). In this latter passage the reading '■ cre-
dentes " was adopted in the Sixtine edition of the Vulgate,
but " non credentes " in the Clementine ; Wordsworth and
White decide for the latter against the Sixtine text. In
John vii. 8,sDR etc., read ovk, for which B and the majority
of the witnesses have oviru, but this is manifestly a correction.
In John ix. 27 we have ovk ^Kovo-are, where a solitary Greek
manuscript (22), which, however, has the support of the
Vulgate and half the Old Latin witnesses, reads ijitoiWre:
audistis. In Romans v. 14 we find both tow? fit] afiapTuvovrat
and tovs afiaprdvoi/Tas. In I Cor. iii. 7 A reads uiare 6 <pvrevwv
e/TTiv ti, omitting the negative ; in ix. 8 we have both ravra
Xeyei and ravra ov Xe'yei ; while in xiii. 5 B and Clement of
Alexandria actually assert that " love seeketh what is not her
own, to nr) eain-ij?"! Again, in I Cor. xv. 5 I the position of
the negative fluctuates between the first and second member
of the sentence, so that we have Trdi/i-e? p.tv ov and ov irciin-er.
Similarly, in Col. ii. 18 we find « hopaKtv and a nh iopaKev;

3'2

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[GAL.

and in Apoc. iv. il qo-av xai eKTi<rOti<rav and owe 'i<rav *«'
eKTi<rOti<rav — i.e. " they were called out of nothingness into
existence."

In Codex D seven cases of this variation occur in Acts
alone— viz. iv. 20, v. 26, 28, vii. 25, xix. 40, xx. 20, 27.
Compare, further, Matt. xii. 32, where in place of afadfacrat
B* reads ovk a<f>e6foerai. In Matt xvii. 25 one Latin manu-
script makes Peter say " utique non " in answer to the ques-
tion, " Doth not your master pay tribute ? " We have in
Matt. xxi. 16, wcoutti and owe axoi'eiv; xxi. 32, ti€T€fie\)')6ijT€
and ov /ieTe/xeXijflijTe ; xxiv. 2, ov /3X«'ir£Te and fiXiirere. In

Mark viii. 14, owe efyo" ana " etx w > x ' n - l 9> * a * °^ ^ °"&' ***
and ovS' ov. Luke xi. 48, o-wcvoWeire : nn awevSoKtiTe ; xxi. 21,
€Kxt»p€iTW(rav : m»j €KX<eptiTU)(rav. John 11. 1 2, ou iroXXay :
■7roXXac ; xv. 1 9, owe eo-re : ij-re ; xx. 8, iiricrrevo-ev : ovk eirto-reutrev.
Acts xxv. 6, irXe/oi/y: ou ttXc/ouc. Rom. iv. 5, fiij epya£opevtp:
epya^ofievm (Studia Sinaitica, vi. p. lxvi); x. 3, ov\ virtrayri<rav :
uireTa'yijcrai/ {ibid.). I Cor i. 19, trw/era* : acrwerbif ; iv. 6,
iva /*>j: 1va\ iv. 19, ou tw \6yoV- rbv \6yov\ vi. 5, ovSttt
<To<j6oc : o-o<f>6t ', vi. 9, ou *cX»?poi'0|U)}<rowri»' : leX^povo/njo-owrn'
(B* 93) and wV» versa in verse 10. 2 Cor. v. I, axci/ooiroiVror :
ovk axeipoTrotijTOi (non manufactani). Gal. iv. 14, ovk e£ov-
OeinfaaTe: e^ovQev^aare (x*). Heb. x. 2, ovk w: av: k&v.
2 Pet. i. 12, fif\\t')<Tii) : ovk afnt\fow : ov ptWifati). I John v. 17,
ov irpoy fldfaTov : irpot Oavarov. Apoc. iii. 8, fiixpav : ov
HiKpav. 1

ii. 20. Tischendorf fails to mention that Marcion read
ayopuo-avTot (redemit) in place of ayairfoavros. The variant
is of sufficient importance to justify a reference to Zahn, GK.

1 To these examples, gathered quite incidentally, one might add as many bom
the Old Testament and other books if one paid any attention to them in reading.
Take, for example, Herodotus i. 24. Was the votive offering that Arion set up
at Taenarum piya or 06 julya ? In the Germania xv. I did Tacitus say of the
Germans " non multum venationibus, plus per otium transigunt," or " multum
venationibus, etc."? In the new edition of Origen (i. 87, 16) Koetschau reads
bxpfotpa where the manuscript and the earlier editions have xpV'M". and he lets
an ouk stand which others omit, etc.

EPHES.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3'3

ii. 499. I cannot at this moment recall any instance of a
confusion between ayopavas and ayairyo-as, though it is not
an unlikely mistake to make. In Leviticus xxvii. 19, the
first hand of B by mistake wrote ayopaaas for ayiauras.

v. 9. Epiphanius accused Marcion of having altered fu/uot
to ooXoi". See Zahn, GK. i 639; ii. 503. Cf. above, p. 76.

Epheslans.

Tertullian says (Adv. Marcionem, v. 17) : Ecclesiae quidem
veritate epistulam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non
ad Laodicerios, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare
gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator. Nihil
autem de titulis interest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit,
dum ad quosdam.

iv. 19. For airijXyqito'Tef D here reads a7ri;XTrncoTef. A glance
at AIIHArHKOTEC and AnHAIIIKOTEC will show how
easy it was to make such a mistake in the days of uncial script.

v. 14. The reading irf^avcreit rov Xptarov is attested by
D*, some Latin manuscripts, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
See above, p. 254.

Subscription : eypa<pi into 'Vip.^ : -l-rSia Tvx'ikov.

Phlllpplans.

L 3. (vxapirrw r xvpup tjuwv by D* E* F G. Zahn
defends the latter in the Zeitschriftfur kirchliche Wissenscliaft,
1885, p. 184, and in his Einleitung, L 376 calls it the " genuine
text" Haupt says (Meyer 7 , 1897, p. 3): The reading eya>
p.iv fi'xapio-TuJ, which is commonly ignored, is, it appears to
me, rightly recommended by Zahn and Wohlenberg. But
Haupt himself ignores the second half of the reading tw xvplu)
tjfxwv (lor to 6cf> p-ov), which is far more important from a
theological point of view, and is content merely to explain at
length why Paul should thank his God. Weiss, in his Text-

314

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[PHIL.

kritik dcr paulinischen Briefe (pp. 6, 7), mentions eyu>, but says
nothing about piv, or the change from Kvplw ripwv to 6eo> pov.
But you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
If you accept eyw /ui- evx'tptvTw you cannot reject tw Kvplw
i'ihwv. Haupt, moreover, thinks it is far-fetched to suppose
with Zahn that eyu> pev contains an allusion to something the
Philippians had said. But that is by no means the case, as
we may learn from what Deissmann and Harris tell us of
the epistolary style of those days (see A Study in Letter
Writing, Expositor, September 1898, p. 161 ff.). But if the
Western group preserves the correct text at the very outset
of the epistle, what about it further down ?

i. 7. For x«/hto? Ambrosiaster has " gaudii," so that he
must have read yapa?. J. Weiss proposes to read xpt'ms
(TliLz., 1899, col. 263). X' l P"! anc ' X a / oc ' are frequently inter-
changed — e.g. in Tobit vii. 18; Sirach xxx. 16. Xo'/ooc is
found for x u P< iV m 1 >S - xxix. (xxx.) n. The scribes felt a
difficulty with xP tia nl Kom. xii. 13, and still more so in
Ephes. iv. 29. Ephraem found xpcla nl p' ace °f X e 'P 0V
in John v. 14 (see above, p. 293, note 2).

i. 14. Zahn and Haupt omit rov Qeov with D K etc. So
does J. Weiss, who takes occasion to make certain important
observations on the attempts hitherto made to restore the
text. See T/iLz., 1899, col. 263.

iii. 14. Till lately Tertullian was our only authority for the
reading " palmam incriminationis " in place of to fipufieiov
T»";y oitti (fX»;<reo)? {De resurrcctionc airnis, 23). It was accord-
ingly supposed that he had read aveyKKijveox; instead of avw
/cXi/o-ew?. We learn now from the Athos manuscript, dis-
covered by von der Goltz, that Origen also cited the reading
«rey(v\»;<r«<? in his commentary as being avey vwapevov tv tktiv
(itTiyptitfiot?. Even supposing that riva uvrlypaipa turned out
to be no more than a single copy, or even Tertullian's quota-
tion which Origen had become acquainted with in some
way, his mention of this reading is in the highest degree
interesting.

I THESS.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3»5

Subscription: eypdi ciVo 'Viiptjt : + Si 'ETra<ppoStTov. + Sta
TifioOeou not 'Eira<j>po$iTOV.

Colosslans.

ii. 16. On the reading Kipmrw suggested by the rendering
of the Peshitto, and the Latin version of Ephraem's Com-
mentary on the Pauline Epistles, see above, p. 168 f. It was
advocated by Lagarde in his Proplietae Chaldaice, p. Ii. Zahn
rejects it on the ground that it would require irepi ftpaxreuis
in place of ti> fipwo-et, and also that Kptvew agrees better with
KaTctftpadevtiv in verse 18.

ii. 18. On this difficult passage see above, p. 168. Zahn
thinks it quite certain that m is a later insertion even in the
Syriac, seeing that Ephraem knows nothing of it. Of the
various conjectural emendations, he regards that of C. Taylor
as the most probable — viz. aepa KevenfiaTtvwv. This is also
the view of Westcott and Hort. See their Introduction, " Notes
on Select Readings," in loco; Zahn, Einleitung, i. 339.

iv. 14. The words 6 tarpoi 6 ayairrjTOs were omitted by
Marcion. See Zahn, GK. i. 647 ; ii. 528. Two minuscules
omit the words 6 aycnnp-of.

Subscription : eypr'nptj airo Ywpqt Ski Tvxt>cov(+ koi Ti/uodeov)
Kai 'Ovr)<r'ip.ov.

\ Thessalonians.

ii. 7. One can easily see how doubt should arise as to the
correct reading here when we observe the form of the words
in the uncial script, ErENHGHMENNHIIIOI. Moreover,
we must remember that N at the end of a line was very fre-
quently indicated merely by a stroke above the preceding
letter, thus : ErENHOHME. The same alternative readings
are presented in Hebrews v. 13, and in Clement of Alexandria,
i, 140, 7, where Codex F exhibits i'/Vioi, and M, which is the
most important manuscript, has n/moi in the text and >/7rioi in
the margin.

3i6

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[I TIM.

ii. 15. Zahn (GK. ii. 521 ; cf. also i. 644) restores Marcion's
text here in the form twv kqi tov Kvpiov flijo-ow] onroKTiivavrnDv
Kat Toi/y irpo^Tat avrwv. Marcion founds throughout upon a
Western text, and the fact of his agreement in this instance
with the Antiochean Recension (D 2 E 2 K 2 L 2 ) is declared by
Zahn to be a mere coincidence, more especially as the latter
here reads tov? iSlout irpo]Tas. " Had Marcion," he says,
"really written iSlovt, Tertullian would have translated the
passage differently, and would scarcely have applied the term
adjectio to a qualifying expression inserted before Trpo^rrai."
What Tertullian says is, "dicendo et prophetas suos licet suos
adjectio sit haeretici." The term tSios is employed so fre-
quently to represent the pronoun when no particular emphasis
is intended to be conveyed, that there seems to me no neces-
sity for Tertullian translating rois ISlovs vpo^as suos pro-
phetas, or rendering the words in any other way than prophetas
suos. Compare above, p. 211.

iii. 3. Lachmann here reads p.tjSev aralveadai with Reiske
and Venema. Beza and Bentley suggested era\e vtcrOai, Hol-
werda avalveorOai, Peerlkamp awtdfadai. Zahn has no hesita-
tion in adopting nqgiva <raive<r8ai, which he understands in the
original (metaphorical) sense of to flatter, to talk over or
cajole. See Einleitung, i. 1 58.

1 Timothy.

i. 4. OiKoSonlav, or oiKoSo/uL^v, which is attested by Irenaeus
and a good many Latin witnesses, and received into his text
by Erasmus, is nothing but an early transcriptional error for
otKovofilav.

111. 1. "The reading dv6pu>mi>os o Xayot is attested in Greek
only by D* but it was the prevailing reading in the West till
the time of Jerome. When I consider the improbability of
its being invented, and its liability to alteration in conformity
with 1 Tim. i. 15, iv. 9 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1 1 ; Tit iii. 8, 1 am compelled,
in spite of the one-sided nature of the testimony, to conclude

I TIM.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

3«7

that it is original. It is a proverbial expression of general
application and profane origin " (Zahn, Einleitung, i. 4S2).
This reading is usually ignored by our editors and commenta-
tors, and yet the passage is one that plays an important part in
the ordination of the clergy, and therefore one on the correct
interpretation of which a good deal might depend. Westcott
and Hort merely mention it in their Notes on Select Readings
and insert it in their Appendix. It is not cited by von Gebhardt
in his edition. For my own part I am not quite convinced of
its originality. At the same time it is hard to understand
how niETOS by any clerical error could be transformed into
ANINOZ, and so become ANePOIIlNOZ.

iii. 16. In his Forschungen, vol. iii., Beilage iv. p. 277, "Zum
Text von 1 Tim. iii. 16," Zahn published two or three lines
from some parchment fragments in the Egyptian Museum of
the Louvre, which, he thinks, belong to the IV-VI century.
The last three lines run — ei/cre/Setac pxxnup • • ■ • | u> e<t>avepti>Bij
e .... I km tS ... . He says, " The w in the second last
line is undoubtedly meant for o. This adds another to the
Greek witnesses supporting this reading, which has till now
been attested only by the Latin manuscripts, by other am-
biguous or doubtful witnesses, and probably by the first Greek
hand of Codex Claromontanus. The km in the last line is, so
far as I am aware, supported by no other evidence." The
reading 6eos, which was formerly so much discussed, seems to
be simply an early transcriptional error, OC being read as
9C — i.e. 6eoi with the usual mark of abbreviation. The old
dispute over the reading of the earliest manuscripts (most of
them exhibit a correction at the place), whether the middle
stroke of the in the oldest codices A C is by the first or
second hand, or whether in the case of A it may not be simply
the tongue of an E shining through from the other side of the
parchment, cannot seemingly be decided now in the present
state of the manuscripts. 1 Codex A was examined by

1 In his Lucian Lagarde gives examples of his being deceived by certain
letters shining through from the opposite side— e.g. Esther v. 22 and 27. This

3i8

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[2 TIM.

Scrivener both with and without the aid of a magnifying
glass perhaps twenty times in as many years. Dean Burgon
devotes seventy-seven pages of his Revision Revised to a dis-
cussion of the reading. The facility with which a variant of
this sort may arise is shown by the perfectly analogous pas-
sage, Joshua ii. 1 1. Here B and F read Kvplos o &o? vpw OC
ev ovpavw avu>, while on the other hand A in place of OC has
OC, which in this instance is correct In 1 Tim. iii. 16 the
other witnesses— viz. the versions and the Fathers— throw
their weight into the opposite scale.

iv. 3. Isidore asks whether kwXvovtwv .... awexea-Oai
Ppwp.a'Twv may not be a atpdXpa of the scribes for avTe X e(r6at,
to which Oecumenius replies that it is no afriXpa KaXXiyp a <p iK 6v
but good Attic Greek for K u\iet» dirb rit fipwaecos. The ex-
planation of Theophylact, however, is nearer the mark, that
a-vpfiovXeveiv is to be supplied from K wXueiv. Bentley,
Toup, Bakhuyzen, and Bois would supply «Aei»Vr<w before
a7r«r' X ea-0ai, while Hort suggests the substitution of J, awTtaBai
or Ka \ yeue<r6ai in place of awexeaOai. There seems to be no
need of such expedients.

Subscription : eyp^r, airb AaorWac-H/T.c earw p-nrpdiroXtt
Gpvylat t? ? KawaTiivn (IIa«maw,y) : al. airb NikottoW : al.
airo 'AQrjvwv: al. airb ' Poypr^ + 81a Titov.

2 Timothy.

iv. 19. After 'A K v\av two minuscules (46 and 109) insert
AiKTpwT'w ywaha a vTov KU \ Zipalav^npatav 109) Ka \ Zjvwva
roue vlovs avroO. The interpolation is derived from the Acta
Pauli, and is to be connected not with Aquila, but with the
" house of Onesiphorus." See Zahn, Einleitung, i. 4 1 1 .

Subscription: iypdfr avo Aao<Wa f : al. dirb TriW + SVe
€K Sevrepov irapicrTr, llaOXot tu> Kalaapi Nepwvt.

IT' I", 1TI in ' eres ' in g «*■ The following verse begins with „, and Lagarde
thought that the firet scribe had added another „ by mistake and afterwardslsed
it whereas .1 turned out that what he took to be MH was nothing else than HN
shining through from the other side.

HEB.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

319

Titus.

i. 9, 1 1. Considerable additions are made to the text after
both these verses by Codex 109. This manuscript is num-
bered 1 1 in the Library of St. Mark at Venice, and described
by Gregory as " haud malae notae." It contains both a
Latin and an Arabic version, and dates from the thirteenth or
fourteenth, or, as some suppose, the eleventh, century. After
verse 9 we read : py \eiporoveiv Siyapovs fiySe Sta/covou? avrovs
Troteiv, ptjSi yuvaiKas tx €lv ** Styaplai' ptjSe TrpoaepxecrOuxrav ev
tw dvaiacrrnpitp XeiTOvpyclv to QeloV root apxovras toit aSiico-
xpiras Kat dpirayas Kai iffevtrras Kai aveXajpovat e\eyx £ *% ^ov
Sidicovof. After verse II we find to tckvo tous iSlovt yoveis
vfiplfavrat 5 TvirTovra? iirtoTOfit^e Kai IXry^e Kai vovdtTtt ajy
■jrarip TSKVa.

Subscription: irpbf Titov (+t!j? KptjTwv «c/cAijo7ay irpwrov
eiricrKOTrov xtipoTovtiQevra) eypa<pt) airo HiicoiroXeuK Trjs Mcuce-
Sovlat (missa per Arteman : al. per Zenam et Apollo).

Hebrews.

i 3. Instead of <f>epwv, the first hand of B wrote <pavepwv,
which a second hand altered to <f>epwv, while a third restored
<pavepwv, and wrote in the margin apaOearaTe Kai koks, a<pes
tov [? to] iraXaiov, p.!) perairoiti. A great deal of material
might be collected from the margin of old manuscripts, not
only for the history of Prayer, as von Dobschiitz recently
observed, but for other interesting departments of the history
of civilisation.

ii. 9. The reading x">pii Qeov instead of x , *P lTt ^ eo ^ ls now
found only in M and in the second hand of 67. Origen,
however, was aware of the various reading : x^P'S 8eov t) oVep
ev Titri avTiypa<f>oii x<*piTi deov. It seems to be a primitive
transcriptional error.

x. 34. We have here to choose between Seo-pois and Staploif.
The latter is manifestly the correct reading. It is attested

320 GREEK NEW TESTAMENT. [CATH.

by A D* and certain minuscules, among which are 37**, 67**.
This last is a Vienna manuscript (Vindob. gr. theol. 302),
whose marginal readings exhibit a text closely resembling
that of the uncials B M, which are defective in Hebrews x.
Aeo-,uo(? non is supported by x D' H K L I', Clem. Alex.,
Origen (i. 41, where, however, /tov is omitted by M* P,
according to Koetschau's new edition), and by d e (vinatlis
comvi). Zahii (Einleitung, ii. 122) thinks that the connection
of the reading Sear/mots nou with the tradition of the Pauline
authorship of the epistle is suspicious. We find the reading
adopted in those regions where the tradition was accepted.
It may, however, have been the means of confirming and
spreading the tradition, seeing that Clement of Alexandria is
actually aware of it. Pseudo-Euthalius, e.g., employs the
reading in support of the Pauline authorship (Zacagni 670).

In this same verse x A H have preserved the proper
reading tuin-mV 'Eavroh, as given by D E K L, is a would-
be correction.

xi. 23. In certain manuscripts (D and three Vulgate
codices) an entire verse is insertedafterver.se 23: lllrrru neyus
yevo/Aei'ot; Mmuo-i;? utei\ci> t<w AlyvwTtov kuthvow rrjv Tairelvwcriv
tct .io<t/V/><T<k avrov. Its position shows it to be an interpolation.

xiii. 9. The present tense TrepnraTovvTes is exhibited only
by n* A D*, all the other witnesses having TrcpnruTi'ia-avres.
The minority are in the right here. A correction is not always
an improvement.

xiii. 1 8. Zahn accepts the km before irtp\ fa™. It is found
only in D d and Chrysostom. This combination of witnesses
is very rare.

Subscription : eyptlfn ( + i^pniari 31) utto rfc 'I-rnXiay Sta

TtfXodtOU: III. (ITTO Aftip/KV'. III. (ITTO ' Vw/Mft.

Catholic Epistles.

The variety in the order of the Catholic Epistles is even
more significant than that of the Pauline. When the Syrian

El'IST.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 321

Church of Edessa obtained the New Testament, it consisted
only of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, and the Acts. It
contained neither the Apocalypse nor the Catholic Epistles.
This is proved among other things by the fact that not a
single quotation from these writings is found in the Homilies
of Aphraates, the date of which falls between 336 and 345.
At a later date the Syrian Church accepted the Epistle of
James, 1 Peter, and 1 John, but the four so-called Anti-
legomena — viz. 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude — are to this
day excluded from their Canon of the New Testament.
Even in the West, James was not reckoned among the books
of the New Testament previous to the fourth century. There
is no mention made of it in Africa about the year 300,
although it was cited at Rome and Carthage at an earlier
date. At Alexandria, however, all the seven Catholic
Epistles were counted in the New Testament as early
as the time of Clement, 1 and their place in the Canon
becomes more and more firmly assured from the time of
Eusebius onwards.'- At the same time, the order of their
arrangement varies very considerably. Indeed, every possible
variety occurs, except that Jude seems never to have been
placed first, nor 2 Peter last. Thus we find James, 2 Peter,
3 John, Jude; James, Jude, 2 Peter, 3 John; 2 Peter, James,
Jude, 3 John ; 2 Peter, 3 John, James, Jude; 2 Peter, 3 John,
Jude, James, etc. 3 It follows that in the case of this group of
New Testament writings, as well as in that of the preceding,
it is necessary and possible to distinguish the three longer
from the four shorter epistles in tracing the history of the
text. And we see at the same time what justification Luther
had in drawing a line between these epistles and the principal
books of the New Testament as having been held in quite a
different estimation in early times.

1 Cf. Westell, Canon, 1'arl II. ch. ii. § 1, p. 354 ff. ; Bible in the Church
p. 125 f-

' Cf. Wcstcott, Bible in the Church, p. 153 ff.

■' Sue Article on The Catholic Epistles, by SalmonJ, in Hastings' Dictionary of
the Bible, i. p. y y) f. ■ ■ s J

322

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[l PETER.

1 Peter.

iii. 22. After Qeov the Vulgate inserts dcgluticns mortem ut
vitae aetemae haercdcs efficeremur, " apparently from a Greek
original which had the aorist participle kutuwiwv ; cf. I Cor.
xv. 54" (W-H, Notes, in loco). See Vetter, Der dritte
Korintherbrief.

2 Peter.

i. i. Zahn considers ev StKaioo-vvg the original reading, and
els 8iKato(rvvr)v a later correction due to taking ttIo-tiv ev Sik-
(lioa-vvi) together as " faith in righteousness." The last two
words are to be taken with \axovaiv. Einlcituitg, ii. 59.

i. 2. Zahn agrees with Lachmann and Spitta in holding
that ev ewtyvwaei tov Kuplov >)nu>v is the correct text here — that
is to say, he omits tov Oeou koi 'Iijo-oi". Tischendorf's Appara-
tus is very diffuse on this verse, and Baljon's note, which is
extracted from it, is accordingly not quite satisfactory. 1 Like
all the other editors, he gives ev eiriyvwo-ei tov Qeov kui
'Irjerov tov Kvplov fowv in the text, but the only variants he
mentions are the insertion of Xpio-rov after 'I>;crot7, and the
omission of ijfiwv. There is no notice of the omission of the
words tov Qeov koi 'Itjcrov by any of the witnesses. They
are not found in P, the best manuscripts of the Vulgate (am
fu dem harl), Philoxenian and Harklean Syriac, nor in
minuscules 69, 137, 163. These last, however, the Syriac and
the minuscules with m, insert 'Itjcrov Xpio-Tov after fawv.
Kiihl believes that the shorter form is probably due to the
fact that in the epistle Christ is everywhere regarded as the
object of eirlyvaxTts. But this is really very improbable. For
the scribe could not have been aware of this when he began

1 It is certainly difficult to construct an Apparatus which shall lie concise and
yet clear. In Jude 22 Baljon adopts iXiart in the text, and yet he leaves the
apparatus arranged in such a way as to suggest that he intended to read i\4yx*rt
with Tischendorf.

2 PETER.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 3 2 3

to write the epistle, so that he must have turned back and
deleted the words K at Qeov kol\ 'lyo-oS afterwards. At the
same time it is a fundamental principle of textual criticism
that the lectio brevior is to be preferred. Reference may be
made to the Epilogus of Wordsworth and White, ch. vi., De
regnlis a nobis in textu constituendo adhibitis, where the very
title of section 4 implies this principle : " Cum brevior lectio
probabilior sit, codices A F H* M Y plerumque praeferendi
sunt," and where the most conspicuous examples of this rule
are said to be " Additamenta nominum propriorum, et prae-
cipue sanctorum — e.g. Jesus, Christus, Dominus, Deus." It is
true that in the passage before us we have not simply a case
of the insertion of a word or words understood ; at the same
time, here if anywhere the text is more likely to have been
extended than abbreviated. It remains to be seen whether
P exhibits a good text in other passages of the Catholic
Epistles as well as this, but so far as the minuscules 69 and
137 are concerned, they justly bear a good reputation. Hort
calls 69 one of the better cursives, and 137 has a text so
closely resembling that of Codices D E as to be of material
assistance when these are defective. The minuscules are too
often regarded as mere ciphers ; as if a cipher more or less
behind a number did not make a vast difference. In the very
next verse we find 137 supporting k A in reading to. iravTa,
which is accepted by Tischendorf and Weiss, and preferred
also by Kiihl. In this instance it contradicts P, which omits
tu with B C K L.

i 1 2. Here fteWt'jo-w is given by n A B C P, ov fieWi/aw by
8 f tol (non differam), and owe a/xcXi/o-o) by K L etc. (" the
Antiochean recension and the Syriac versions," Zahn).
" Me\\>;eno, with the present infinitive, can hardly be simply
a periphrastic future. The idea is rather that the writer will
be prepared in the future, as well as in the past and in the
present, to remind them of the truths they know, whenever
the necessity arises. As they had no evidence of the fulfil-
ment of this promise, the copyists and translators found a

324

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[2 PETER.

difficulty with this expression, and hence the variants." Zahn,
Einlcitung, ii. 53 f.

i, 15. The reading <rirov8<ifa, found in s* 31, and the
Armenian, is also attested by the Philoxenian Syriac, a fact
which Zahn regards as important. "On transcriptional
grounds the reading (tttouSutw, preferred by our editors,
would appear to be confirmed by the reading airov&utraTt,
exhibited by the Harklean Syriac and a few minuscules.
Hut in reality both these latter readings merely serve to show
that a difficulty was felt again in admitting a promise on the
part of Peter which he seemed never to have fulfilled." Ein-
lcitung, ii. 54. Compare on /xeWyaw above.

i 21. It is probable that Theophilus of Antioch (Ad
Autolycum, ii. 9) read (01) dywi (toO) deod wdpu-rrot, the form
exhibited by « and A (" the chief representatives of the
Antiochean family"), and also by several Latin witnesses.
See Zahn, GK. i 313 ; Chase on 2 Peter in Hastings'
Dictionary of the llible, vol. iii. p. Sol.

ii. 13. On this passage Zahn remarks (Einlcitung, ii. 53):
" The similarity of 2 Peter to the Epistle of Jude was doubt-
less a source of textual corruption. But it may also aid us
in correcting the text. Because, whichever of the two we
regard as the original, in any case the one is our earliest
witness to the text of the other. If we accept the reading
<<y<<7ru(? in Jude 12, it follows either (1) that Jude read
aya-B-rtiy in 2 Peter, and that this is the original reading there,
or (2) that Peter, supposing he wrote second, altered Jude's
<<y«7n«y to uttut<us, which it is hard to conceive, the former
being so unmistakable, and the latter much less suitable to the
context. In either case, therefore, t\y,'tiruit would seem to be
the correct reading in 2 Peter ii. 13." No doubt the alteration
of uynTTdis to ('ittutuis is " hard to conceive," but it is not
inconceivable. As illustrating how a piece of writing may
be misread, it is sufficient to point to Justin's mistake with
regard to " Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio." 1 As regards the par-

Thc inscription on a column at Umnc dedicated lo a Saliine goil which Justin

2 PETER.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 325

ticular words before us, I may be allowed to cite my Philo-
logica Sacra, p. 47, where I have referred to the frequent
confusion of ayairaw and a-n-aruw, ayaict] and airuTtj in manu-
scripts of the Old Testament. In Ps. lxxviii. 36, for example,
out of more than one hundred manuscripts that have been
collated, not one has preserved the correct reading n-Kwrnaav;
all have ijytnr>i<rav. In 2 Chron. xviii. 2 again only one has
the correct text >}iritTa. From a psychological point of view,
therefore, it would seem more natural to suppose that cnri'truis
is the original reading in the passage under consideration,
and ayuirai? the transcriptional error. The authorities for
each are distributed as follows : —

«ya7raif. a7r«Tujc.

f A'Bm vg, Syr"" 11 . xA'CKLP....

2 Peter 11. 13, ^ Syr hork - mK , Sahid. Syr" nr \ Copt., Arm.

fsBKL vg, Sahid., Copt.,
Jude 12, J Syr"" 1 ', Syr 1 - \ Arm. A ^ 44. 5&.

In the first edition of this work I said it was strange, con-
sidering the frequent confusion of uyuiri; and uirurti, that
Tischendorf goes by the majority of his witnesses in the case
of 2 Peter ii. 13 (Westcott and Hort in their text, Weiss,
Weymouth, and Baljon all do the same), " whereas the same
word should be read in both cases, and that uy«Tui?. Other-
wise it would be necessary to suppose that the text was
already corrupt when the one writer used the epistle of the
other, no matter whether Peter or Jude : quod variat, verum
esse non potest." I cannot understand an argument like that
of Kiihl (Meyer 8 , on 2 Peter ii. 13, p. 428): " a-Karats is pre-
sumably original in one of the passages, most likely in
2 Peter, as «yu7r«ic goes better with vfxwv in Jude 12 than
with uvtwv here. B has ayuTracj in both places, and C in the
same way uttutuh!, which is explainable on the supposition

read as " Simoni Sancto Deo," and understood as referring to Simon Magus.
See Kurtz, Church Hillary (Macphcrson), i. p. 97 ; Neander, Chunk Jluloiy
(Bohn), ii. p. 1 23, note.

326

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[2 PETER.

that originally the one word stood in the one passage and the
other in the other. Nearly all recent expositors favour the
reading airuTaiy in 2 Peter." I am glad now to have the power-
ful support of Zahn in my dissent from that view. Reference
may be made to the excellent article on Jude by F. H. Chase
in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, ii. 799-805. His first
paragraph is on the "Transmission of the Text," and the
article is a model of what such things should be. 1 On the
Philoxenian Syriac see the work of Merx mentioned above,
p. 106 (5). On the rest of the verse, see Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 7 1.
He points out that Tischendorf's apparatus is misleading here,
as it fails to notice the omission of vp.iv by the Philoxenian
Syriac, the Sahidic version, the Speculum of Pseudo-Augus-
tine (m), and by Pseudo-Cyprian. In his opinion it is an
interpolation due to the crw — of arwevwxovfievoi. These pro-
nouns are very liable to be interpolated, as is pointed out by
Wordsworth and White in their Epilogus, p. 729, where
these " additamenta " come next after " Proper Names" ; see
above, p. 238.

ii. 15. On Botrop, seep. 243 f.

ii. 22(5. In Hippolytus, Re/utatio, ix. 7, we find : fier ov
iroXv Se eiri tov avrov f36p/3opov aveKuXtovro. On the con-
nection of this with 2 Peter ii. 22, see Zahn, GK. i. 316.
Wendland tried to make out that it is a saying of Heraclitus.
Compare also Clement, Ao'yoj HpoT/oeTrruco'r, x. 96 : v^ yap,
<puatv, ijSovTai fiopfidpw fiaWoi/ t] KaQaptp vSari, kcu eir! <popirrui
finpyawovatv kotu. AijfioKpiTov.

iii. 6. The conjectural reading Si ov for Si' £>v Schmiedel
thinks well worth}' of consideration. See his Winer, § 19.

iii. 10. None of the variants here appears to be the correct
reading (Kara/cmio-erai in various forms : arpavta-O^a-ovrai : evpe-
6>'l<reTai). What is required is a passive form of pew, or one of
its compounds (? Siappv>'i<reTai).

iii. 16. The article is inserted before ewta-roXait by x and
K L P (" the Antiochean recension "), but omitted by A B C.

1 Compare also the articles on 1 and 2 Peter by the same writer in vol. iii.

I JOHN.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

327

Zahn, who would omit it, points out that «- Tra'o-aiy rah eiricr-
ToKaii would imply a complete collection of Paul's Epistles,
and would include all the constituents without exception,
whereas without the article the phrase contrasts one epistle
known to the readers with those of all kinds that he had
written. See Einleitung, ii. 108. Tischendorf admitted the
reading now favoured by critics in his seventh edition, but
rejected it in the eighth. This same thing occurs not
infrequently. See the article on 2 Peter by Chase in
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. p. 810.

1 John.

iv. 3. Von der Goltz has shown conclusively what was long
a matter of conjecture, that Origen not only knew the reading
o \vei tov 'lycrouv, but seemingly preferred it ; and that Clement
also cites the text in this form in his work on the Passover,
which is all but entirely lost. He has also established anew
the reliable nature of the Latin version of Irenseus in the
matter of Biblical quotations. See Zahn in the T/iLbl., 1899,
col. 180 ; Einleitung, ii. 574.

v. 7. The " comma Johanneum " needs no further discussion
in an Introduction to the Greek Testament, but its history on
Latin soil is all the more interesting. The fact that it is still
defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only
from a pathological point of view. On the decision of the
Holy Office, confirmed by the Pope on the 15th January 1897,
see Hetzenauer's edition of the New Testament, and the notice
of it by Dobschiitz in the ThLz., 1899, No. 10. On the litera-
ture, compare also Rolling (Breslau, 1893) ! W. Orme's Memoir
of the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses,
1 John v. 7 (London, 1830), New Edition, with Notes and
Appendix by Ezra Abbot (New York, 1866); C. Forster, A
New Plea for tlu Aut/ienticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly
Witnesses (Cambridge, 1867); H. T. Armfield, The Three
Witnesses : The disputed Text in St. John (London, 1893).

328

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[JAMES.

James.

An Arabic scholion, attributed to Hippolytus, cites this
epistle under the name of Jude. See Zahn, GK. i. 320, 2 ;
323, 3. In two minuscules cited by Tischendorf, 'laKtifiov
is followed by rod aSehfoG Qeov or aSe\<f>o6eod, and in one of
the subscriptions by rod aSe\<j>oQeov. The subscription in ff
reads " explicit epistola Jacobi filii Zaebedei (sic)." See Zahn's
Einleitung, i. 75.

ii. 2. a-waywyriv appears without the article in »* B C and
one of Scrivener's minuscules. This reading is accepted by
Zahn, who sees in it an indication that those to whom the
epistle is addressed were in possession of several synagogues,
that is supposing the word to mean meeting-place, and not
simply assembly, as he himself is inclined to believe. See
Einleitung, i. 60, 66.

Jude.

5. This verse exhibits an uncommonly large number of
variants. Thus e!S6rat occurs with or without ifias after it ;
for Travra we find both TraVray and toOto ; while the position
of diraf varies, the word being found before irivra, on, and
Aaw. But even that is not all. Most recent editors read Sn
Kvpwt, but we find also 6V1 'Vow : on 6 fleor : and Sn 6 Kvpiot
(textus receptus). Tischendorf's apparatus might lead one to
suppose that the witnesses for 'Vow and 6 0e6i omit 5n alto-
gether, but that is not so. The ambiguity is due to the loose
way in which the note is given. Westcott and Hort think it
probable thjrt the original text wasJ3TI0, and that this was
read as OTIIC, and perhaps as OTIKC. Kiihl thinks that the
easiest explanation of the variants is to suppose that Kvpiot
was the original reading, and that 'Vow and 8e6 s were derived
from it. But it seems to me that Zahn has better reason on
his side when he argues for Sn 'Vow as the original reading.

APOC] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES.

329

He first of all eliminates 6 debt as having no great attestation,
and as being found alongside of xvptos in Clement (domtnus
deus). The choice, therefore, lies between Kupios and 'Vo5j.
The latter has by far the stronger external attestation, it is
the lectio ardua, and is, on internal grounds, also to be pre-
ferred. See Einleitung, ii. 88.

22, 23. Zahn has a strong impression that this passage lies
at the foundation of Didache, ii. 7 : ov (uo-foeis iravra avQpwirov,
dWa ov? /xiv kXeyfait, irepl Si &v irpo<rev£n, ovt Se ayairt}<reis
virip tw ^vx>'iv o~ov. If this is really so, we have here a piece
of very early testimony, not certainly to the actual words, but
to the thought conveyed. See Einleitung, ii. 86.

Subscription : At the end of the Armenian Bible of 1698
we find a note to the effect that " this epistle was written in
the year 64 by Judas Jacobi, who is also called Lebbaeus and
Thaddaeus, and who preached the Gospel to the Armenians
and the Persians."

Apocalypse.

Apart from particular passages, the last book of the Bible
cannot be unreservedly recommended to the devout laity for
special study, but it is peculiarly well adapted as an introduc-
tion to the method of textual criticism, and that for two
reasons. First of all, because the number of available wit-
nesses to the text is comparatively small, and, secondly,
because these are more easily grouped here than in the other
divisions of the New Testament. Reference may be made in
this connection to the first part of Bousset's critical studies on
the text of the Apocalypse, where the distinction drawn by
Bengel between the Andreas and Arethas groups of manu-
scripts is correctly emphasized. At the same time Bousset
himself comes to the rather unsatisfactory conclusion that an
eclectic mode of procedure is all that is possible at present.
An attempt has been made above (p. 1 57) with the conclusion
of the Apocalypse. We shall now try a few further examples.

330

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[Aroc.

In order to ascertain the relationship of the manuscripts we
must select passages that exhibit a considerable divergence of
meaning with a small variation of form. Such a passage
occurs in the last chapter. In Apoc. xxii. 14, after the
words "blessed are they,' we read, in the one class of wit-
nesses, " that wash their robes,'' in the other, " that do his
commandments." That is to say, we have in the one case
OIIIAYNONTeCTACCTOAACAYTON and in the other
01ll010YNTeCTAC6T0AACAYT0Y. The difference is
exceedingly small, especially when we consider that in early
times 01 was frequently written Y, and GN at the end of
a line H. I haye no doubt that "wash their robes" is the
original reading here and that "do his commandments" is the
later alteration, though, of course, others will hold the oppo-
site view. For the former we have the authority of s A, for
the latter that of Q (i.e., B"i" r ; see above, p. 80) with its
associates. The question now becomes: Are there any
passages where x and A part company, and which are decisive
in favour of x? It is impossible to say offhand whether N or
A has preserved the correct text, s contains corrections that
A does not, and vice versa. Take another example.

The author of the Apocalypse follows the Hebrew idiom,
according to which the word or phrase in apposition to an
oblique case is put in the nominative. 1 Thus we have :

ii. 20. Trfli ywu'iKit 'Ief«j8e\ 1; \eyovtra- Q makes this >/ Ac'yei,
and the corrector of s Tin' Xeyova-av. Similarly, iii. 12, r/j?
KKii'j;; l(povcT(t\S]/m 1} KaTa{$<uvov<T<t, where again Q has i; Kara-
/3<«Ya, and n' rijc Kiira^uivavain. Hut it is not only the later
corrector of s that does this: the first scribe of that manu-
script does it himself. For example :

xiv. 12. n has toi' T>}pw'ivTtev instead of oi riipowres; in
verse 14 i'xot/Ta instead of k'xwv ; in xx. 2, tw o<pw instead of

1 See I) I ass, Grammar of N. T. Greek, § 31, 6, Eng. Tr. , p. 80 f. Compare the
similar German idiom used in the titles of books, "von X. Y. ordcntlicher Professor."
How naturally this comes to a Hebrew is shown by the fact that Sal. bar, in his trans-
lation of the Massorctic note at the end of the books of Samuel (Leipzig, Tauchnitz,
1S92, p. 158), anmng other lovely things has " ad mortem Davidis rex Israelis."

APOC.] CRITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 33'

o 5>r, etc. In other places A, in this last A alone, it appears,
has preserved the correct text.

There are other places, again, where the correct reading is
preserved, perhaps, only in a later manuscript, or in none at
all. We may compare with the idiom in the Apocalypse
what we find at the beginning of the book in the passage
about the seven spirits before the throne of God.

i 4. r'nro twv tTTTu Trvcvut'iTUiv .... evwiriov rod Opovov
ain-ot". In the space indicated by the dots Erasmus has a ecrriv,
Codex 36 has u eiW, Q and C have Ii, which is adopted by
Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, X and A have ru>v, which
is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, and by Westcott and
Hort in their margin, while Codex 80 has nothing at all. All
these variants are explainable on the supposition that the
original reading was ru. Exception being taken to this con-
struction, one copyist made it tS>v, the other u, the third
supplied the copula, and the fourth dropped the offending
word altogether. Similarly, in chap. v. 13, x alone has pre-
served the correct reading to, for which the others have o or
!> eo-Tii'. Another case is ii. 13, where the writer wished to
say, " in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was
slain.' According to the idiom mentioned above, while 'Ai/TtVa
was in the genitive, » fxdprut would be in the nominative of
apposition. But owing to the influence of this nominative,
A.i>Ttwa was made nominative so as to agree with it, and the
sentence then ran, ev rah tjixipai^ 'ArriVay o fiapTVs fxou ....
oc . . . . which could not be construed. The consequence
was corrections of all sorts. The boldest expedient was
simply to drop the of, but other means were adopted to
relieve the construction. After i)nepui<; some inserted aiy or iv
ah, Erasmus read i/xah, x has tV rati, and some Latin witnesses
Mis. But read 'AiTiVu in the genitive and all is in order. 1

1 In this (independent) suggestion I am glad to find myself in agreement with
Lachmann (Sludien und Kriliken, 1830, p. 839), and Westcott and Hort(ii., App.,
137). I see that lialjon and Zahn too follow if. Hut Housset still writes Jinipats
aU.

332

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[AI'OC.

The Apocalypse presents quite a number of passages en-
abling us to distinguish the manuscripts. There is very little
difference in form between Xitrnvri and Xoivuvn (i. 5), aerod
and ayyi\ l)V (viii. 13), \IQ 0V and Xlnw (xv. 6), but it makes a
great difference whether we read "who redeemed us" or
" who washed us," an •' eagle flying " or " an angel flying,"
"wearing pure linen " or " wearing pure stone." These varia-
tions are the result of accidental errors in transcription. But
we meet an instance of intentional alteration in xiii. 18, where
the number of the beast is variously given as 666 and 616.
Grouping the witnesses for the former variants we have—
1 5- Xveravn, x A C, Syriac, 1 Armenian.

Xoua-uvri, O I', Vulgate, Coptic, Ethiopia

viii. 13. «€T«i7, ,v A Q, Vulgate, Syriac, 1 Coptic.

Ethiopia
nyyeXou, P, Armenian.

The two readings are combined not only by certain com-
mentators, but in some manuscripts, UyyiXiw ^ ,' (tT0| -
xv. 6. XlQov KaOapdv, A C, am fu demid tol.

Xlvov KuOapov, P, Syriac, 1 Armenian, Clementine-
Vulgate.
Xii'om/ KuOupoi' is read by O, and K tiftiini,i>i Xivow
by «.

Trcgelles and Westcott alone accept the reading \!0oi> ; all
the other editors regard it as an early transcriptional error.
Holtzmann refers to the parallel passages i. 13, iv. 4, vii. 9, 13,
xvii. 4, xviii. 16, xix. 8, 14, in support of XW, but they point
rather the other way. For " fine linen " Apocalypse has
/3iWii'(if five times, but never once Xlvos, which means only
the material, and not the garment made of it. Moreover, we
find a parallel in the Old Testament, though in another con-
nection, in Ezekiel xxviii. 13, where we' read ™t« XlBov
XP'io-tov e'wSecWiii, so that X/fW here must not be so confi-
dently rejected. A<'(W was more liable to be changed to

Including Gwynn's Syriac numncripl : see nliuu', p, 102.

AI'OC.l CRITICAL NOTES ON VAUIOUS PASSAGES.

333

Xlrov than vice versa, as the Vulgate shows, in which the
authorised printed edition has linteo where the manuscripts
read lapidcm. At the same time one cannot but admit that
primitive transcriptional errors do occur. The reading uyyeXou
in viii. 13, to which certain manuscripts prefix evos, seems
to me to be corroborated by dXXov "tyyeXov -Keropuvov in
xiv. 6. Or are we to read <' ( eT<>V there in the face of all
the witnesses ?

v. 1. The correct text here is that adopted by Zahn :
yeypu/x/xtiov i'crwOev ku) "nria-Oev KUT€(T<j>payiafxivov. Grotius,
though mistaken as to the true text, was the first to give the
right interpretation of the words by taking eo-w (eatoOev) with
yey piiixnivov, and egaodev (o7r«xr)ei>) with KiiTea-cppayitrfjievoi:
" Locus sic distinguendus yeypap.ftivov evw, K(u egi»6ev KUTea-
ff>puyitrfi.tvov." This combination of the words (" haec nova
distinctio") was combated for the reason among others that
it deprived them of all their force and rendered them super-
fluous, for who ever saw a roll that was written on the outside
and sealed on the inside. See Pole's Synopsis, where it is said
of Grotius, "tarn infelix interpres Apocalypseos est magnus
ille Hugo in rebus minusculis." Zahn (Einleitiing, ii. 596)
improves the text of Grotius, but retains his connection of the
words. He holds that eat.iOev and oiriadev are not correlative
terms, and that the idea of a papyrus roll written on both
sides (o-ia-ftoyparpov) must be abandoned ; compare above,
p. 43, 11. 2. The book was, in fact, not a roll but a codex. Two
things point to this. There is, first, the fact that is said to be
e-\ ti> 6e£tuv. Had it been a roll it would have been ei> rfi
oej-ifi. Moreover, the word used for opening the book is
I'tva'igui, and not, as in the case of rolls, uveXlacruv, uveiXeiv, or
(«'(i -TiW«c. That it was not written on the outside is also
shown by the fact that it was sealed with seven seals, the
purpose of which was to make the reading of the book im-
possible. Not till the seventh seal is broken is the book open
and its contents^ displayed. This /3,/3\<W is quite different
from the fttftXuplSiov mentioned in chapter x. 2, 9. See also

334

GREEK NEW TESTAMENT.

[AFOC.

E. Huschke, Das Buck mil 7 Siegeln (i86o),to which Zahn
refers (lib. cit. 597).

ix. 17. For vaKivdivous Primasius has spineas ( = «kui'0/Vouy),
a reading which neither Bousset nor Baljon, strange to say,
think worth recording. Bousset rightly observes that in the
following verse trvp corresponds to iruptuo?, and Oeiov to fciwow,
so that Kairvos lets us see what the writer understood as the
colour of hyacinth — viz. the colour of smoke. But the ideas
of " thorns " (spineae) and " smoke " are even more closely
related.

xiii. i3. Irenreus found 616 given as the number of the
beast in some manuscripts, which he could only explain as a
transcriptional error: "hoc autem arbitror scriptorum pec-
catum fuisse ut solet fieri quoniam et per literas numeri
ponuntur, facile literam Graecam quae sexaginta enuntiat
numerum in iota Graecorum literam expansam." In reality,
however, the change from £ to t would be a contraction rather
than an expansion, and the alteration would seem to be
intentional, seeing that 666 in Hebrew characters gives the
Greek form Neron Kesar, and 616 the Latin Nero Kesar.
Irenajus himself, however, appeals to the fact that the number
666 was found ev irucri rati mrouSulois /ca! upxulots ai'Tiypi'itputf,

IXUpTVpOVVTUIV UVTWV CKUVWV TIOV (CUT o\]riv tqv'\oi('wvy}v eWpttKOTWV

(v. 30, 1-3). The opening words in the Latin translation
run, " in omnibus antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scrip-
turis. 1 ' The subscription which he himself appended to his
own principal work (see above, p. 149) shows how scrupulously
exact he was with respect to avrlypa-pu, so that we may give
him credit for having consulted old and reliable manuscripts
of the Apocalypse. The erroneous reading (616) is now found
only in C and two minuscules (5 and 11).

xxii. 11. The only authorities cited by Tischendorf in
support of the reading cWw0iJt« (in place of Stxaioawnv
•?roi>;i7(iTft)) are the two minuscules 38 and 79 and the
Clementine Vulgate. But we find the passage alluded to
in the epistle which the Church of Lyons wrote giving an

A POC] CKITICAL NOTES ON VARIOUS PASSAGES. 335

account of the Martyrdom of the year 177: Iva TrXiipwdjj n
ypa<f»'i- o ai/o/uoy avo/J.>]<TuT(i) en, Kai 1) StKitios SikuuoOi'itw en
(apud Euseb., Eccles. Hist., v. 1, 58). This lends such support
to the reading SucaiwQt'iTw in Apoc. xxii. 11, that Zahn not
unnaturally speaks of it as "certainly the original text"
(GK. i. 201). E. A. Abbott places the date of the Epistle of
the Church of Lyons as early as 155 (see Expositor, 1896,
i. 1 1 1-126). Another aspect would be given to the question if
the Greek form of the Epistle were derived from a Latin, or
if, as Resch supposed, the words were a quotation of a saying
of Jesus (Agrapha, § 133, p. 263 ff.).

I take the opportunity of appending to Resch's work the fine
saying which Zahn cites from Augustine's Contra Adversarium
Ligis et Prophetaruvi (ed. Bassan. x. 659 ff.) as an otherwise
unknown Apocryphum. The disciples asked Jesus "de
Judaeorum prophetis, quid sentire deberet, qui de adventu
eius aliquid cecinisse in praeteritum putantur." And He,
" commotus talia eos etiam nunc sentire, respondit : Dimisistis
vivum qui ante vos est et de mortuis fabulamini." A similar
saying from the Acta Petri Vercell. 10 is cited by Harnack in
connection with the third of the Oxyrhynchus Logia : " Qui
mecum sunt, non me intellexerunt.''

APPENDIX I.

The following is a list of writers most frequently cited in critical
editions of the New Testament. They are arranged chronologically,
but it must be remembered that the dates are more or less uncertain,
and that in the case of many writers the period of activity lies in
two centuries : —

Grkf.k.
Clement of Rome,
Ignatius,
Barnabas,

First Centurv.

A- 95
d. 107 ?

Latin.

Didache,

Hernias,

Marcion (in Epiphanius
and Tertullian),

Aristides,

Polycarp,

Justin Martyr,

Clementine Homilies and

Recognitions,
I'apias,

Gosfel of Peter, .
Tatian,
Athenagoras,
Theophilus of Antioch,
Celsus (in Origen),
Hegesippus,
Irena;us (see Latin),
Clement of Alexandria,

Second Century.
?

fl.

140?

'45
'39
»55
165

ca.
fl.
ca.
fl.
fl.
d.
ca.
fl.

190
140
170
170

177
182
180
180
d. 202
fl. 194

Tertullian, . fl. 200

Irenrei Interpres (according to

Tischendorf and Gregory, but

see below).

APPENDIX T.

337

Third Century.

Greek.

Latin.

Hippolytus, .

fl. 220

Julius Africanus, .

fl. 220

Gregory Thaumaturgus,

d. 265

Origen,

d. 248

Cyprian,

d. 258

Dionysius of Alexandria,

d. 265

Novatian,

fl. 251

Porphyry,

d. 304

Lactantius, .

fl. 3°6

Pamphilus, .

d. 308

Arnobius,

d. 306

Methodius,

d. 310

Victorinus of Pettau,

• d. 303

Didascalia, .

Apostolic Constitutions

(and fourth century,

etc.).

Fourth

Century.

Arius

A- 3*5

JacobusNisibenus( Syrian

)-d. 338

Juvencus,

A- 33«>

Eusebius of Casarea, .

d. 340

Irenaei Interpres (ac-

Aphraates (Syrian),

fl. 340

cording to Westcotl

Eustathius, Bishop of

and Hort).

Antioch, .

A- 35°

Hilary of Poictiers,

d. 368

Zeno, .

«■ 35°

Victorinus of Rome,

fl. 360

Athanasius, .

d- 373

Damasus, Pope, .

fl. 366

Ephraem (Syrian),

d- 373

Lucifer,

d. 37i

Basil the Great, .

d- 379

Pacianus,

fl. 370

Evagrius of Pontus,

d. 380

Optatus,

A- 37i

Cyril of Jerusalem,

d. 386

Philastrius, .

fl. 380

Amphilochius,

fl. 370

Gaudentius, .

A- 387

Macarius Magnes,

A- 373

Rulinus,

A- 397

Gregory Nazianzen,

d. 390

Ambrose,

d. 397

Gregory of Nyssa,

d. 394

Ambrosiaster,

fl. 390

Diodorus of Tarsus,

d- 394

Chromatius, .

fl. 390

Didymus of Alexandria,

d- 394

Tyconius,

A- 39°

Theophilus of Alexandria

, fl. 388

Jerome,

d. 420

Epiphanius, .

d. 403,

Priscillian, .

ca. fin.

Chrysostom,

fl- 4°7

Auctor libri De Rebaptis-

Isidore of Pelusium,

fl. 412

mate.

33«

APfENDIX I.

Fifth Century.

Greek.
Nonnus,

Theodore of Mopsuestia,
Victor of Antioch,
Cyril of Alexandria,
Theodotus of Ancyra,
Basil of Seleucia, .
Socrates,

Theodoret,

Cyrus,
Euthalius,
Sozomen,

Bishop of

fl. 400
d. 429
d. 430
d. 444
fl. 431
fl. 440
fl. 440

d. 457
d. 458
fl. 440

Latin.

Faustus, fl. 400

Hilary of Aries, . d. 429

Augustine, . d. 430

Prosper of Aquitania, . fl. 431

Sedulius, . A- 431

Leo the Great, fl. 440

Petrus Chrysologus, d. 455

Gennadius, . . fl. 459

Vigilius, . fl. 4 8 4
Auctor libri De fromis-
sionibus.

Sixth Century.

Candidus Isaurus,

Severus of Antioch,
Theodorus Lector,
Andreas, Bishop of

Ctesarea, .
Maxentius, .
Cosmas Indicopleustes,
Eutychius, .
Chronicon Paschale.

fl. 500

fl. 5"

fl-5*5

ca. fin.

?
A- 535
A- 553

Fulgentius, Bishop of

Ruspe,
Justinian,
Caesarius of Aries,
Primasius, .

d- 533
fl-53o
d- 543
fl-55o

Victor, Bishop of Tunis, d. 565
Cassiodorus, . d. 575

Gregory the Great, d. 604

Antiochus the Monk,
Andreas of Crete,
Maximus Confessor,
Modestus of Jerusalem,

Seventh Century.

fl. 614 j Peter the Deacon,
■ A- 635?

d. 66:
?

Eighth Century.

Damascenes, Johannes, fl. 730 I Bcde,
Nicephorus, . . fl. 787 I

Petrus Siculus, . ?

d - 735

APPENDIX I.

339

Ninth Century.

Greek.
Photius of Constanti-
nople, . • . d. 891

Latin.

Tenth Century.

Arethas, • '

Symeon, . ■ ■ ?

(Ecumenius, • ca. 950 ?

Suidas the Lexicographer, ca. 980

Eleventh Century

Theophylact, Bishop of

Bulgaria, . . . fl. 1077

Twelfth Century.

Euthymius Zigabenus, . fl. m6
Nicetas of Byzantium, . d. 1 206

APPENDIX II.

'Avrtypa<t>a.

I had intended to give in full those passages of the Fathers known
to me in which mention is made of manuscripts prepared by them-
selves or others. In this way I hoped to make a start towards sup-
plying the desideratum spoken of on p. 154 above. But I feel that
in order to be anything like complete, this would occupy too much
space for the present work. Even the passages in which Origen
speaks of avTiypa<t>a, though not " innumerable," as Zahn says
with a touch of exaggeration, are yet too numerous to be included
here. A considerable number of such passages are already given
in full in TischendorPs Editio Octava. I have contented myself
with giving here an alphabetic list of these, in order to facilitate a
geographical and chronological survey of the relevant matter. Where
only one passage is given, it will be found in full in Tischendorf.
Passages in which the word avriyptuftov itself or its synonyms (codex,
exemplar, etc.) does not occur, but where express mention is yet
made of readings found in manuscripts, are given in brackets.

Some surprising facts are brought to light by such quotations.
Witness the remark made by Basil the Great (ob. 379) on Luke
xxii. 36, who tells us that in Cappadocia in his time many manu-
scripts, indeed, if the text is correct the majority of manuscripts (to.
jroAAi tuc avTiypd<t>wv), exhibited a reading now found in only one
single manuscript, and that the main representative of the " Western "
text ; I refer to Codex Bezae. See above on Luke xxii. 36. I may
mention here that a certain " Basilius diaconus"was the possessor
of a magnificent Bible, the cover of the first part of which was
used for Codex Syrohexaplaris Ambrosianus. The inscription ran :
t BIBA02 A TON ©ElfiN | rPA*flN 1IAAAIA2 KAI || NEA2
AIA011KH2 AIA<t>EP|EI| AE BASIAEin AIAKON«t|. See the

APPENDIX 11.

341

facsimile and description in Ceriani's edition, Monuvunta Sacra et
Pro/ana, vol. vii., folio.

Adamantius (i.e. Origen), see Hieronymus. rnrrprted in

Ambrosiaster, Rom. v. ,4; the quotation should b ^corrected „
accordance with Haussleiter, Forschungen, iv. 32 ; (Rom. xn. 13),
1 Cor. v. 3 ; Gal. ii. 5.
Ambrose, Luke vii. 35; Gal. iv. 8.
Anastasius, Matt, xxvii. 18.

Andreas, Apoc. iii. 7. ..

Apollinarius, possibly mentioned in the scholia in Codex Marchalianus
(see Swete's Septuagint, iii. p. viii), John vn. 53.

, see Macedonius.

Apollonides, Eusebius, Ecdes. Hist., v. 28.
Arethas, Apoc. i. 2, iii. 7.
Asclepiades, Eusebius, Ecdes. Hist., v. 28.

Athanasius (also Pseudo-Athanasius), Matt. v. 22 ; 2 Thess. 11. 9 ; tor
his mention of the raria made for the Emperor Constans, see
above, p. 181, note, and p. 184; Zahn's Forschungen, 111. 100,

GK. i. 73- /D ... ,

Augustine, Matt, xxvii. 9 ; Luke iii. 22 ; Rom. v. 14 ; (Rom. xm. 14) J

1 Cor. xv. 5 ; Phil. iii. 3.
Basil (the Great), Luke xxii. 36 ; Ephes. i. 1 ; Zahn, Einleilung,

i 345-
Bede, Acts, passim.

Chronicon Paschale, John xix. 14 (see above, p. 30).
Chrysostom, John i 28.

Didymus, 2 Cor. i. 1. t t

Epiphanius, Matt. i. 8, ii. 11 (ris n^pas lavrw, tj tow drjvavpovs, u.s

c X « cV.a tSx &mypA4*n>, i. 43°. " o8 5)- See Westcott and Hort,

"Notes," in loco; Matt. viii. 28; Luke viii. 26, xix. 41,

(xxii. 43 f.) ; John i. 28 ; Ephes. i. 1.

Eusebius, Matt. xiii. 35, xxvii. 9 ; Mark i. 2, xvi. 3, 9 ff. ; John

xix. 14.
Euthalius, Jude 25.

Euthymius, (Mark xvi. 9) ; John vii. 53.
Gregory of Nyssa (Pseudo-), Mark xvi. 2, 9.
Hermophilus, Eusebius, Ecdes: Hist., v. 28.
Hesychius, Mark xvi. 2, 9.
Hieronymus (Jerome), Matt. xiii. 35, xxi. 31, xxiv. 17 ; Mark iii. 17,

342

APPENDIX II.

xvi. g ; Luke ii. 33, (xviii. 30), xxii. 43 f. ; John vii. 53 ; Acts
xv. 29 ; 1 Cor. ix. 5 ; Gal. ii. 5, iii. 1 ; Ephes. iii. 14 ; 1 Tim.
v. 19 j Heb. ii. 10.
Irenaeus, Apoc. xiii. 18 (see above, in loco).
Isidore, Heb. ix. 17.

Macedonius (see Draeseke, ThStKr., 1890, 12), Rom. viii. 11.
Marcion, see Epiphanius, Ephes. i. 1.
Maximinus, 1 Cor. xv. 47.
CEcumenius, Acts xiv. 26.

Origen, Matt. ii. 18, viii. 28, xvi. 20, xviii. 1, (xix. 19), (xxi. 15),
(xxvii. 9), xxvii. 16 ff. (see above, in loco); Mark ii. 14;
Luke i. 46; John i. 28; Rom. iv. 3, xvi. 23 (see Zahn, Ein-
leituiig, i, 276, 285); Col. ii. 15.
Pierius, see Hieronymus.
Severus, Mark xvi. 9.
Socrates, 1 John iv. 3.
Theodoret, Rom. xvi. 3.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Heb. ii. 10.
Theodotus, Eusebius, Ecclts. Hist., v. 28.
Theophylact, 2 Thess. iii. 14; Heb. ii. 10, x. 1.
Victor, Mark xvi. 9.

Mention is made of avriypafa in anonymous scholia on Matt. ii. 18,
xx. 28, (xxii. 12); Mark xi. 13; Luke xvi. 19 (giving the name
of the Rich Man as Ninive, i.e., Phinees ; see Rendel Harris in the
Expositor, March 1900); Luke xxii. 43 f., xxiv. 13; John i. 29,
vii. S3, xxi. 25 ; Rom. viii. 24.

INDEX I.

Abbot, E.,9, 58.

Abbreviation, 48, 315, 317, 330.

Accentuation, 47, 61.

Achmim, dialect of, 133, 135.

Acts, text of, 224, 294.

Adamantius, 187.

Additions, 238.

Adler, 19, 103.

African Latin, 1 10, 1 19.

Aggaeus, 96.

Alcuin, 125, 176.

Aldus, 2.

Ambrose, 109, 205.

Ambrosiaster, 148, 205.

Amelineau, 70, 135, 137.

Amelli, 1 13.

Ammonian sections, 56.

Andreas, 191, 329.

Anselm, 7.

Antilegomena, 12, 95, 321.

Anthony, 135.

Antwerp Polyglot, 10.

Aphraates, 98, 216, 254, 293, 321.

Apocrypha, 26, 1 37.

Apollonides, 200 f.

Apollos, 242.

Apostolicum of Marcion, 207.

Arabic version, 142.

Aramaic, 93.

Arethas, 191, 329.

Arians, 205.

Arias Montanus, 10.

Aristion, 142, 295.

Armenian version, 141.

Artemonites, 200.

Article, importance of the, 258, 287,

288, 295, 328.
Asclepiades, 200 f.
Asterisks, 101, 186.
Athanasius, 62, 181, 183.
Dialogue of A. and Zacchaeus,

99 n.
Athos manuscripts, 90, 152, 190.

Augustine, 108, 120, 147.
Autographs, 29 f, 97.

Bale, 139-

Baljon, 24, 168.

Barabbas, prenomen of, 103, 244, 259.

Barnabas, 30, 54 f.

Bamard, 15411.

Basil the Great, 277, 340.

Basilides, 203.

Hashmu ric dialect, 1 33.

Bathgeo, 105.

Batiffol, 73, 75, 139.

Bebb, 95.

Bede, 75, 221.

Bellarmin, 127.

Belsheim, 112 ff.

Benedict, Rule of, 173.

Bengel. 3, 16, 30, 123, 221, 256.

Bensly, 79, 97, 102, 105.

Bentley, 16, 77, 83.

Berger, J. G., 30.

Berger, S., Ill, Il6f, 123, 130.

Bernhardt, 139.

Bernoulli, 174.

Bernstein, 100.

Bertheau, 18.

Bessarion, 87.

Beurlier, 117.

Beza, 9, 64, 221.

Bibliotheca, 39, 53.

Bidez, 174.

Birch, 19.

Bianchini, III f., 131.

Blass, 32, 65, 163, 224, 260.

Bohainc version, 133.

Boniface, 46, 122.

Bonnet, 26.

Bonus, 105.

Boetticher, see Lagarde.

Bouriant, 135.

Bousset, 91, 158, 329.

Brandscheid, 26.

344

INDEX I.

Breathings, 47.
Hrightman, 66.
British and Foreign Bible Society, 4,

Brugsch, 137.

Burgon, 83, 146, 159.

Burkitt, 97, 104 f, 109, 131, 139, 143,

229.
Byzantine Recension, 21, l8off.

Canons of Criticism, 16, 234, 239.

- — — Eusebian, 56, 263.

Capitals, 34, 59, 261.

Cary, 160.

Caryophilus, 14.

Cassels, 106.

Cassiodoms, 50, 128, 175.

Castle, 12.

Catalogus Claromontanus, 76, 162.

Catenae, 147.

Celsus, 144, 204, 296.

Ceolfrid, 122.

Cephaleus, 7.

Ceriani, 116.

Ceugney, 135.

Chapter division, 8.

Charlemagne, 125.

Charles the Bald, 125.

Charles, K. II., 140.

Chase, 65, 216, 274.

Cheikho, 104.

Chronicon Paschale, 30.

Chrysostom, 92, 181.

Ciasca, 135.

Clay as writing material, 45.

Clement of Rome. 59, no, 153.

of Alexandria, 147, 153, 204.

Clementine Vulgate, 127.

Codex, 41.

Cola and Commata, 49.

Colinaeus, 7.

Columns, 37.

Comma Johanneum, 4, 26, 30, &6, 327.

Complutensian Polyglot. 1.

Conflate readings, 245.

Confusion of vowels and consonants,

I68JT., 236, 262.
Conjectural emendation, 167.
Constans, 181, 183.
Constantine, 54, 205.
Contents of manuscripts, 38, 52.
Conybeare, 79, 99, 142.
Copinger, 6.
Coptic dialect, 132.
Copying, mistakes in, 37, 170, 234 ft,

3'3. 330.

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum

Latinorum, 146.
Corrections, intentional, 192, 209, 239.
Corrector (5np0a>T^s), 57.
Correctoria Bibliorum, 126.
Corruption of the text, Greek and Latin

terms for, 198.
Corssen, 116, 123.
Cotton paper, 36, 44.
Courcelles, 14.
Cozza, 60, 62.
Crcdner, 65.
Criticism, object of textual, 28, 156.

subjective, 157.

Cromwell, 12.

Cronin, 68.

Crowfoot, 105.

Crum, 135 f.

Curetonian Syriac, 97, 104, 248.

Cursive script, 35, 81 f.

Cursive manuscripts, see Minuscules.

Cyprian, 117, 119, 147.

Cyril Lucar, 13, 58.

Damasus, 107.

Dated manuscripts, 69, 72, 300 n.

Deane, 101, 103.

De Dien, 101.

AenrroKX^Toip, 217, 256.

Delisle, 123.

Delitzsch, 2, 4, 5.

Dialects of Egypt, 132.

of Palestine, 93, 103.

Diatessaron, see Tatian.
Dictation, 234, 29S.
Didascalia, 155.
Dillmann, 140.
Dionysius of Corinth, 199.
AiopflwTi'jr, see Corrector.

Al00f'pa, 41, 43.

Dobschiltz, von, 70, 72, 79, 123.
Dogmatic alterations, 166, 197 f., 200 ft.,

209, 239.
Dutch school of conjectural criticism,

168.
Dzialzko, 33.

Eckstein, 139.

Eclectic method of criticism, 170.

Editio Regia, 7.

Editions, number of, 5.

collections of, 5.

size of, 7.

Catholic, 25.

Egyptian versions, 132 IT.
Ehrhard, 79.

INDEX I.

34S

Ellis, 16.

Elzeur, 13.

Engelbreth, 135-

Ephraem, 98, 106, 216, 254.

Erasmus, 3, 146-

Erizzo, 102.

Errors, sources of, 234 II.

Ess, van, 25.

Ethiopic version, 140.

Etschmiadzin manuscript, 142, 295.

Eug'P us i I22>

Eumenes, King of Pergamum, 40.

Eusebius of Caesarea, 54, 5°. "79. >»5-

Eusebian Canons, 56, 263.

Euthalius, 78 f., 188.

Evagrius,78n.

Evangeliaria, 39 f., 9' '•. lob -

Fabiani, 60, 62.

Families of manuscripts, 17, 1 19. '7° "•

Fathers, list of. See Appendix I.

Fayumic dialect, 133, 135- .

Falsification of text by heretics, 197 n-

Fell, 15, 133-

FerrarGroup,84f..99. '77-

Field, 181, 264.

Ford, 134.

Froben, 3, 126.

GabelenU, 139-

Gebhardt, O. von, 7, 22 ., 73, 174-

Gehringcr, 25.

Gelasian Decree, 183.

Genealogical method, 164, 171".

Gennadius, 173.

Georgian version, 142.

Gibson, 97, 105, 106, 144-

Gildemeistcr, 140.

Gnostics, 203 f.

Goltz, von der, 90, 190.

Goodspeed, 91.

Gospels, collection and order ot, 101 1.

division of, 56, 61.

title of, 165, 247.

Gospel-book of Marcion, 207.

Gothic version, 137 ff.

Gousscn, 135, 137-

Graefe, 66, 231.

Grandval Bible, 125.

Gratz, 25.

Graux, 48.

Gregory, Pope, 125.

Gregory of Nyssa, 87.

Gregory, C. Rene, 6, 7, 20, 83, 91,
III.

Grenfell, 74-

Gfiesbach, 18.
Guidi, 140.

Gwilliam, 96. lo 3. 10 4-
Gwynn, 102, 106.

Haase, 114.

Haberlin, 43.

llahn, 206 11.

Hall, Isaac H., 6, 8, 100.

Hammond, 159.

Harding, 125.

Harklean Syriac, 79. «°°- Io6 ' ,89,

255.
Harmony of the Gospels, 16, 98.
Harnack, 155, 202, 232
Harris, J. K., 30, 44. <>5. 74. 86, 9L

97, 102, 105 f., 115. 153. 2I 4-
Haseloff, 73.
Hauler, 155.
Haussleiter, 311.
Hebrew Bible printed, !.
Hebrews, Gospel of the, 72, 9°-
Hegesippus, 96.
Heidenreich, 119 m
Henten, 127. 128.
Heracleon, 203.

Heretics, their falsifications, 197 •>•
Hermas, 47, 54.
Hermophilus, 200 f.
Hesychius, 61, 62, 183 ff.

Hetzenauer, 25, 132.

Heyne, 1 39.

Hieronymus, see Jerome.

Hilgenfeld, 26, 116. Addenda.

Hill, 105.

HiUig, 169, 309.

Hogg, 106, 214.

Holtzmann, 6, 116.

Holzhey, 105.

Homer, manuscripts of, 33.

Homoioteleuton, 235!.

Hoppe, 139.

Horner, 134, 136.

Hott, 21, 170 f.

Hoskier, 5, 62, 83.
Hug, 61, 182.
Hunt, 74-
Hyvernat, 135, 13°-

Iberian version, see Georgian.

Ignatius, 146, 300 n.

Illustrated manuscripts, 51.

Indiction, 69.

Indiculus Chettonianus, 161.

Ink, 42.

Interpolation, 238, 241 n.

346

INDEX I.

Irenams, 147, 176, 202 fT.

Irico, III.

Irish hands in manuscripts, 77, 113, 129.

Iscariot, the variants, 242.

Ishodad, 282.

Islinger, 79.

Itacism, 236, 287.

Itala, 109.

'Iwawijs, spelling of the name, 162 f.

Jacob, 63.

Jannon, 7.

Jaumann, 25.

Jebb, 16.

Jerome, 107, 124, 173.

Jerusalem Syriac, 102, 106.

Jostes, 139.

Jovinian, 155.

Julian the Apostate, 144, 174.

Jiilicher, 116, 198.

Junius, 10.

Karkaphensian version, 103.

Karlsson, 116.

Kauffmann, 139, 181. Addenda.

Kaulen, 123, 130, 131.

Kcnyon, 33, 58, 81.

Kipling, 65.

Knapp, 19.

Koetschau. 149 ft.

Krall, 135.

Kroll, 155.

Klister, 15.

La Croze, 66, 134, 141.
Lachmann, 19, 83, 123.
Lagarde, Paul dc, 30, 60, 95, 102, 106,

137, 140, 143. 223-

A. de, 106.

Lake, 66, 73, 91.

Land, 103 n.

Langton, 8.

Laodic^ea, Epistle to, 77, 114, 129

207,299,313.
Latin versions, 107 ff.
Laud, Archbishop, 75.
Lead as writing material, 44.
Lectionaries, 39, 91.
Lejay, 11.
Le Long, 95.
Leo X. , Tope, 2, 3.
Leusden, 104.
I^ewis, 97, 102, 105, 106.
Lewis Syriac, see Sinai Syriac.
Linen as writing material, 45.
Lines in manuscripts, 37.
Linke, 112.

Linwood, 168 n.

Lippelt, 162 f.

Liturgical alterations, 91, 239, 267.

Loebe, 139.

London Polyglot, 12.

Louvain Vuigate, see Ilenten.

Lohlein, 104.

Lowe, 140.

Lucas Brugensis, 127, 146.

Lucian, 85, 138, 180 If.

Luft, 139, 140.

Luther, 5, 149 n., 286, 309.

Mace, 16.

Mae»tricht, Gerhard von, 16, 239.
Mai, Cardinal, 60, 113, 139.
Manuscripts, age and locality, 35.

contents, 3S, 52 f.

de luxe, 49.

material, 36, 40 ff.

number, 33, 81 , 89, 90, 92.

size, 38.

Marcion, 87, 205, 206 ff.

Marcosians, 202.

Margoliouth, 106.

Marshall, 133.

Martin, Abbe, 160.

Martyrs, era of, 136.

Masch, 95.

Maspero, 135.

Masudi, 162.

Materials for writing, 40 ft.

Matthaei, 19.

Ma-rflatoj, spelling of the name, 247.

Mazarin Bible, 126.

Melanchthon, 86, 140, 159.

MefiPpivai, 36, 41.

Memphitic dialect, 133.

Mercator, 138.

Merx, 105, 106.

Mesrob, 141.

Michaelis, 104.

Middle Egyptian versions, 133, 135.

Mill, 15.

Miller, 6, 152, 159.

Mingarelli, 135.

Minuscules, 34, 82, 83 If.

Moldenhauer, 19.

Montfortianus, 4, 86.

Mori lion, 138.

Morin, 11.

Morrish, 170.

Miiller, 139.

Mllnter, 135.

v abbreviated at the end of a word,
3>S. 33°-

INDEX I.

347

Name of Dives, 342.

Names, importance of proper, 241.

of the two thieves, 266.

of prophets confused, 251, 258.

Negative liable to be omitted, see ov.

Nestle, 3, 17, 23, 26, 48, 65, 132.

Noetus, 203.

Northumbrian manuscripts, 125, 176.

Novatian, 155.

Number of words in the N.T., 48.

of manuscripts. See Manuscripts.

of Greek editions printed, 5.

of letters in the N.T., 48.

Obelus, 101, 186.

Oikonomos, 49n., 189.

Old Latin version and manuscripts, I ioff.

Order of the Gospels, 161 f.

of the Catholic Epistles, 321.

of the Pauline Epistles, 300 f.

Order of words, variation in the, 237.

Origen, 147, 149 ft"., 185 ff.

Orthodox correctors, 1 92.

Osgan, 141.

ov, omission and insertion of, 3 Ion -

Oxyrhynchus papyri, 74, 80.

Palieography, 32 f., 81 (., 1 81, 184.
Palestinian Syriac, 102.
Palimpsest, 37, 51, 63.
Pamphilus, 57, 78, 185 ff.
wavSJKTTis, 39, 53.
Paper, 36, 44.
Papyrus, 36, 42.
Parchment, 36, 40.
Paris Polyglot, II.

Correctoria, 126.

Patricius, 25.

Paul's "Books," 45.

Paul of Telia, 102.

Pens, 45.

Pericopae, 39, 91, 239, 267, 277.

Pericope adulters, 68, 84, 112, 142,

177, 282 ff.
Peshitto version, 95, 103 f.
Philoxenian Syriac, 100.
Pickering, 7.
Pierius, 187.
Pius V., Pope, 127.
Plantin, 10 f.
Pococke, 100.

Polycarp the Chorepiscopus, irjo.
Polyglots, I, 10 ft.
Pott, his view of Acts, 294.
Praetorius, 140.
Praxapostolos, 40, 92.
Preuschen, 161, n. 1.

Printing of the. N.T., earliest, I, 3.
I Primasius, 119, 148.
1 Priscillian, 119.

too and wpot, 237 n.

Prologues in Latin Gospels, 1 15 '•

Proper names, see Names.

Provencal New Testament, 117.

Psalters, 3, 68.

Pseudepigrapha, 26.

Punctuation in manuscripts, 38, 5 2 -

importance of, $2, 201, 204,»'26l,

276, 297.

Quatemio, 41.
Quotations, 32, 144 ff.
Quotation, marks of, 38.

Rabbulas of Edessa, 98, 104.

Kahlfs, 35 n., 62, 183 ff.

Ranke, 113, 129.

Ravianus, 86.

Reading and writing.Greek termsfor, 46.

Reed pen, 45.

Rehdiger, 114.

Reithmayer, 25.

Resch, 26, 280.

Resultant Greek Testament, 22.

Reuss, 6, 11, 159.

Richelieu, 11.

Ridley, 100.

Riegler, 130.

Rieu, 141.

Riggenbach, 190.

Robinson, 79, 106.

Rocchi, 60.

Roll, 36, 41, 43.

Ronsch, 118, 123, 131, 146.

Rooses, 1 1 .

Rossini, 140.

Rilegg, 231. Addenda.

Rules of textual criticism, 234 ff.

Saalfeld, 131.
Sabatier, III, 131.
Sachau, 282.
Sahak, 141.
Sahidic version, 1 34.
Salmon, 160, 170, 227.
Saubert, 14.
Schaaf, 104.
Schaff, 6.
Schjett, 24, 165.
Schmidt, 137.
Schmiedel, 56 n., 117.
Scholz, 19.
Schultze, 41 n., 51.
Schulz, 65.

348

INDEX I.

Schwartze, 134.

Scriptio continua, 37, 47, 315, 330.

Script, various kinds of, 34 f., 81 fl'.

Scrivener, 6, 8, 33, 58, 65, 77, 83.

Sections, 56, 61 n.

Seidel, 66.

Semler, 18.

Sergio, 60.

Simon of Cyrene, 203.

Simon Magus, 205, 324 n.

Simon, Richard, 15, 95.

Sinai Syriac, 97, 105.

Sionita, 11.

Sitterly, 33.

Sixtus V., 1'ope, 127.

Skeat, 140.

Speculum Augustini, 114.

SteindorfT, 134.

Stephen, Henry, 7.

Robert, 7, 126.

Stichometry, 37, 48, 49.

Stilus, 45.

Si rein, 138.

Stunica, I.

Stuttgart New Testament, 23.

Subjective criticism, 157.

Subscriptions, 57, 69, 72, 78, 122, 188,

189, 260, etc.
Sulke, see Euthalius,
Swete, 26.

Syllables, division of, 48.
Synodos, 1 40.

Synonyms, interchange of, 236.
Syriac versions, 95 fl".
Syro-Latin, 216, 218, 223.
ffufidrtovy 4' 1 54 '•

Tatian, 97, 105, 212 ff.

his Diatessaron, 98, 105, 212 fT.

Tattam, 134.

Taxvypd<t>oi, 50.

Taylor, Isaac, 172 n.

Tertullian, 29, 119, 146, 147, 276.

t«D X oj, 53.

Textual criticism, literature of, 6, 159.

Textus brevior, 245.

Textus receptus, 13,

Thaddaeus, 96.

Thebaic dialect, 113.

Theile, 19.

Theodore of Tarsus, 75.

Theodoret, 98, 213.

Theodotus, 200 f.

Theodulf, 125.

Thomas of Heraclea, 100.

Thompson, E. M., 33, 59.

Timothy and Aquila, Dialogue of, 99 n.

Tischendorf, 19, 26, 53, 58, 63.

Title of the Gospels, 164, 247.

Tittmann, 19.

Toinard, 15.

Trabaud, 65.

Transcriptional errors, 234 ff.

Transposition of letters and words, 236 f.

Traube, 173.

Tregelles, 6 20, 83, 141, 159.

Tremellius, 10.

Trent, Council of, 127.

Tuki, 135, 137.

Ubaldi, 60.

Ulfilas, 137.

Uncial script, 34, 8 if.

Uncial manuscripts, 53 fT.

number of, 81.

Valder, 7.

Valentinians, 198, 203.
Valla, Laurentius, 126.
Vercellone, 60 ff, 123.
Verse division, 8.
Versions :
Syriac, 95.

Latin, 107.

Egyptian, 132.

Gothic, 137.

Ethiopic, 140.

Armenian, 141.

Georgian, I42.

Arabic, 142.

other, 143.

Victor of Capua, 122, 308,

Vincent, 160.

Vogt, 139.

Vollert, 34 n., 35.

Voss, 138.

Vulgate, 25, 109, 122 ff., 127, 132.

Walton, 12.

Warfield, 159.

Weiss, 22, 229.

Wells, 16.

Westcott and Hort, their N.T., 21.

their types of text, 21.

their method, 171.

Western text, 211, 214, 221.
Wcttstein, 18.
Weymouth, 22.
White, II. J., 131.
White, Joseph, 100.
Widmanstadt, 95.
Wilcken, 33, 43.
Wilkins, 133.
William of Hirsau, 126.

INDEX I.

349

Wobbermin, 90.

Woide, 134-

Wolf, J. Chr.,66f.

Wblfflin, 118, 175.

Wordsworth and White, 123, 131, 174.

176.
Wright, Arthur, 26.
Writing, styles of, 34 f., 81 ft.
Greek terms for, 46.

Xenaia, see Philoxenian-Syriac.

Ximenes, I.

Years, reckoning of, 69 n. , 100 n„ 141 ».

Zahn, 160, 196 n. 2, 208 ff., 218, 224.

Ziegler, 118, 123, 13°-

Ziramer, 77. " 8 -

Zoega, 135- *

Zohrab, 141.

Zwingli, 86.

Zycha, 1 30.

INDEX II.

Passages of the New Testament referred to.
Note. — Passages treated in the Critical Notes are not entered here.

Matthew.

I. 2,

i. 3. •

i. ii, .

i. 16, .

i. 25, .

lii. is, .

v. 3. 4. •
v. io, .

V. 22, .

vi. 8, .
viii. 9, .
ix. 1 8, .

*• 33. ■
xiii. 17,
xvi. 23,
xviii. 20,
xix. 17,
xx. 28 f.,

1. 11, .
viii. 38,
ix. 7,
x. 40, .
xiii. 22,
xvi. 8, .

Mark.

Luke.

'• 35. ■
>• 46-55.
i. 68-79,
ii. 7, .
iii. 27, .

165
165
166

99
166
166
166
204
167
192

37
150
203

37
«43
239
216

52
150

52
37
239
67, 142

201

166

242

vi. 4f., .
ix. 26, .
xi. 2,
xiii. 7, S,
xvi. 12,
xvi. 19,
xvii. 10,
xx. 30, .
xxi. 30,
xxii. 52,
xxiii. S3.
xxiv. 4, 5, 1 1
xxiv. 26,
xxiv. 51-53,

PACE
. 64

. I50
64,87

• '93
211

• 342

• 237
. 241
. 211

226
64, 136

13. • «20

. 211

230, 245

John.

I. 14, .
i. 28, .

II. 20, .
iii. 6, .
v. 8, .
vi. 47, •
vi. 71, .

vii. 39. •
vii. 53. •
xvi. 13,
xix. 14,
xix. 34,

'■ 5.
iii. 14,
iv. 6,
iv. 12,

Acts.

201

203

. 203

" 20 5
198

• 245
242

• 245
'42, 177

. 124

• 3°
227

'36
170

243
237

PAGE

vi. 8, .

• 24s

xii. io, .

xv. 15, .

. 170

xv. 20,29, .

■ 136.

2o6,2J2

xvi. 10,

• 136

xviii. 24,

242

xix. I, .

242

xxi. 25,

. 232

xxiii. 25 {.,

xxiv. 19 f.,

Romans.

V.
XV

>4. •
• 3'-33.

1 Corinthians

205
•79

ii.

9, . . .

9. •
. 28, .

. 29, .

148
152

204

2 Corinthians

15, • 168 n.

Galatlans.

ii.
iii.

ii, .

1, . . .

186

iv.

INDEX II.

Colosslans.

i. 16, .
ii. 16, .
ii. 18, .

rAGB

204
169
168

••9.

Hebrews.
James.

pag« 1
52

2 John.

PAGE
12, . • • 36

3 John.

1 Thessalonlans.
ii. is, • • • 2U

iii. 1,
v. 7.

168
245

,3, . . • 36

1 Timothy.

H:S>, • ■ •
ui. 16, .

i. 4.
ii. 15

2 Peter.

240

243

Apocalypse.

v. 1, . • 43 n -
viii. 13, ,01

2 Timothy.

1 John.

xvii. 4, . . • 4 "•
xvii. 8, . ■ 4n-

ii. 17. •
iv. 13. •

iv. 3
v. 7.

. 152
.4.86

xviii. 17, • l68
xxii. 21, «57

0EO AOEA.

PRINTED BY NEILL AND CO., LTD., EDINBURGH.

PLATE I.

AyToyAiKryvYcDH

^oiAeiCToycMd)

N KCTCU NMUJNU)
AM II N

nApAKAAcL>A.eyM>'

AA€A^OIXN6Xe

ceeToyAoroyrH-

n A fNKXH CG(X)CKAiOf

MARpAXecuNcn*

CTIAAYMIN
re I NCJDCKeT6TON
A AC Acj>0 N H MCUN

Ay m e n o N M eeoy
e^NTAxioNecxHU'
ceeofoM A I y MA-
AC n ac AceAin km 9 3 1! ^ ? t
tac roy c h r oy m *

N OyCY M CD N K A|
H A NTACTOy CAT l"T*
AUT I 1 AZON TAI YM A«
OLA-nOTHClTAAl*

HXA^ICM CTAn AH
JCO N y M CD N A^JhN >->

rif«c «k|»ai-y«

(i) N- Codex Sinaiticus.
Last column of Hebrews (xiii. 21-25).

PLATE II.

*•*».

KuW

(HMeNOJMnOltoeAWATCOAOjACeiTONGN

KA iToyToe i"n co m A e r e i aytco AKoAoyeeiinoi

eTTiCTpA^>6icieoneTpocMeneiTONMAeHTM

ONHrATTA IHC AKQAOyeOYNTA

ocj<a i a m err e ce isi e mtcoa e m m CD
erriTocT nooc AYToy j<Aie me MAY Tto

J<e TlCeCT»hs»OTlAJ»AAlAU3MCe

ToyToNoYMeiAcpMOTTeTjocAere»^V"rcoiHy
j<e oY t ocact i • Aere iAYtcdoihc
eAhaAYTotsi oeAco Me N»e ikj oyTcoc
ecDcepAOinAiTinj»occe cyMoiAKoAoyeei
eZHAoeiMoYrJoYTocoAoiroceicToYc

(l) 1). CODI'X Hizaf. Cantaiikiciensis.
John wi. 19 23.

OYKAC^HMONei

6 Y^HTeiTXeAyTH c

OyAorrzeTAlTOKAKON

oyxAipeieniTH^MKu
cynxAireiAeTHAAHeVA

nANTAcTerei
nANTAnicTeyei
nANTAeAnizei
pta nta ynoMe'Nei
h a nXnH
OYAenoTeeKniriTej t

PLATE III.

(2) I)

(Mill

Codex Ci.aromontanus.
Corinthians xiii. 5-8.

^iqhjrfiCAhJiSqxiAcnoxTenoMaMFiCAbiTdcn
ET»ioccucndi>c<iSeTdiciTill i^equ^jLecne
1 C0MU«LSX4jAuTe<ru»eTji.t4S\i»deTd^cir\jlijari
S\jecndili<;4EbATilvs .sesuewrecn
«l*jie"ij^ c " u * > ' u ,T ,hJ ce>4A
•SUTejU* g ct vjiyg t uy eTduoTilli

done«|ut.se5"~rstjiXRAdidiTTe

hurvicQxcovjid e NjjeTj^uyd ic iTAdjhcn
dc*iehicAviTear»suid- diciTiUiiHs
Si€uonuolosiccr»AKjejie
uS3XJ€dii<nvie?>iio cjuidAdTertJcnes'esvien.e

. eXlUITeJLCO»llCW€Kbx>S. AJ»UTJ!lA"rj5jES

(1) d Codex Kezaf. Cantahrioif.nsis.
John xxi. 19 23.

NONXmblTlOS\65T
MOJqXJVGRlTquxeSUXSUWT

WOKIIKIUITXTU'R

w o w Co £ lTXTmxl u m
VJOKigxudeTSupe uiKiiquiTXTern
covjcxu dexxxjTecntjeRiTKTi
omKnxsurFemT

omvn\CR€diT
omN ixs pe tixt

Omw IX SU S T€ KJG T
CXTilTX.S

vj u cr» q ci xrr» exc 1 d e t

(2) d'™" . Codex Ci.aromontanus.
1 Corinthians xiii. 5-8.

PLATE V.

SlNAITIC SVRIAC I'AMMPSEST (Lewis).
Matthew xv. 12-27.

l'LATE IV.

m i m -rd » j a fo o n e k th«
ey'f^CTdyMWH Me»oy

K A| AN *,8A6 ^*C Kl&e<x>

|»6ycifj6'TiA.M^»«:eKy
Ki C"r kkSai go c^KirAf

M GT AC C <A> O AJ'A KAI^A
eOyCltieKTOMNHMfi
ON e'lAONNCXN ICKON

KAe h'm6non esi-roic

MOHCTOXHNA.eyK^N

KA i e^ee ami hbhcan
6 a£ a, ere i a 1 y ttX,i cm &

«?K 9AMlCIC06'lN*ZHT«l
fCTON NA^\|>HNO v N7r
€ C"T*Yf<p M6NON d r«f
£ H OY K e CJ| H CD A € )*•_

o Ton o c 6'n o y ee m k a.
^y t o" n aa A Ay n jJ. re t*

eiriAreToicM aoht*i c
£y T~dy k X i to) n €'~r fa>
QTi npo^rsiyMiceic

THN r*.MA*lAN£ KSIAflT

TONo^eceeK^euj^fli
nei^fMiN KAiea.GAQ^T'
C a 1 6<pyro N^Cn b-roY
m n h x #ci 6 1 o y el x 6 n r>p

Ay TA C Tpo MOCKAI €K
*. C T s A CI C ICA I <3 VA.6 N 3 °Y

T a€n einoM^cpo&oyN
A To ta"p : v >—

«E3 **v.w—

PLATE VI.

atfjffi

feewwt

1UUS HAt

4RitiiKts %$m

ymtss

.„.,... - .';rW-„

_p.LooiKi>BecioNis '
. jMiTCro&esYNXaxj* -

aKjrTIN<XXTKKr>StOKWf (

xuTftnsunoNis

_XTURO>\CNISFeBRIP» '

^-^aeRUNT illiunpRoex .

STXNS$upcR tLLxw KODeni^A "

'-TpeoW eT&cPisiT iLUcp>*:-

^^jictincioscihowb ■..-,.. ;;-

,{ptK£TRMu,TilJLb'f' .; . r»{

s C^ss4>«r«>cT>ocojdts5eT - -'

* XXtntMSgUlhXfieittNTINpR ;

t ": <nos tixrursL>N«5uoRi5U* i
tr ■• . OooenxNT ILos x*»euro ■

. XT iteiN^uLis oruNus tcnpo
*' Ness curxdxt eos .- -v

^jcietwiNf e-nxre> OXemoNiv &
^ x<rvUbjKicbBtiUNiriAeTC>( '■■ *
^ aeNTu <quiMTue> ciUusoi

§6»cxtorcs xuTear> OisceNOe

*?•£ pXNTeikxUXBXNr RenX 03

A««NdeNS Atixecn iNUKiup^
' |{ nxucxv» quxeeuxT

•- -SHTKJNIS

. Ko^xurrxui'cxn xicnux' jj*
nediiceRe pusill,u»v> % ™
. eTSeOtNS OoccnxT j

t _,. -OeNXUICuLXTUROXS..

-jgLbxESsxtirr MrrecoLoqul
.T^OixrrxCvsiOToNcuo _
due in'xUixkp eTLxxxTncnC

UeSTRXINCXpTURMW :'4/W%
eTRespowOeNS skikn ,V. gfj

f>IXITlUj< Tf

puxooepTOR paiTOTXtn .-,
Nocitio Lutoitxhrres ^.fJjifsi
NibiL.oq.Moxis ..' v..v VA^%g

lNuem$oxurerr>TUO.
Lxxrxuo r^tc

exouoi hoc pscissosT • ff

OONCl,USCRU'«T ptS^^RKP ft

;', trKil,TiTuC>iNea>oopi^^^|t1
• RMQ>pa»xuuxuTeLnl«cTBec%^1

CODKX AM1ATINUS, cilCil 700 A.U.
Luke iv. 36-41 ; v. 2-6.
(reduced.)

PLATE VII.

tfLuifin dtcituiiai<^uMjiaiztilc--etzno(Tufr%tt'fin[ioc '}
•f'fnuruL) -Ximor-ntm TAnaj-mxcfcdp ej f c ccA OLrxtaJT
C^t/inancxtrnot-e^t^nrnxttritn'octnJiU.yl-it-ccfutjut^e

W?X.nt^nvafpnot- dileicnoP S"f"tfc!yee»-ic<jrnndi
iJniecfVaxrefiuiocumc monetise ecluiJutznon
Qd^tffrvcreftuJtfunitcLzJmtjuerion u id&cqiumc
J<t>popeftJtI» cer« ' Cc I»o«!fnAjit£xm xAo^^tmyjfuc

^'jLuAlLctedfndiLinx ti.f i ko e r n (uum ■

'^ynmiifAKrediccfnTnmfoycfCeyiAonAzur^CTtnririiC
^^dinat^riccucjutrcnutr'cltlxnrccnu<uinxBifV"nC<v
t^^rAt^oi'ptctLxrnufc^ntndiU.ntTiiifrtAzvCAiciIJiTn diL ,

CT-ium.iionfutrrcJnmomncqtioJnitrrc cxJouinctC '
^j'niuniiu extiAixc utcrpr T A ^ tiAfrmnctcmundu^iiJcr' '
U | nr>L'Cllu^<]uuiinctc>nundunift<juvCT-ociuxinrrit|{/^'
jj» ^Uaratntc-c--<juiu«TiiBper-Ju3uarerfjLnrxiin«JiM^*
*' 7£ppn<>ntn*^u*.foLrfeJin*^jujCexfa.Ttcvi«n^'ecfpr

Ip !attttrfem<mui<i*^fpf\i|<i»frfXtigutf^cixrt<unUfuTre

• ■utrwnuiArin(e-t\a\yioncrtJiarfAu> mentLttmfaac
f Cufnanrnrtffricr^dictttttiTirnorno<luoavr(Tific*xuf?&^

"Charlemagne's uhile," or Hiiile of Grandval, of the ninth century, in the

British Museum (rechjeed).

I John iv. 16— v. 10, showing the omission of the " comma Johanneum, 1 ' v. 7.

PLATE VIII.

^M?ilTf'rilV , i>l"Y
f^FMnKl^oM*;.

^' ■^•^'" i -' , ~ '' fiiif?!t*M Mo VMKWf. $)•
H$p£«a « klV€Y<»'« MM ' -

vr jijp <*>>» fo V* M M«» j /

»v.fm • i kia'i«»^h

.^•tfOVF F <l Froafyji

Sil*** M*J F1H ?H'f
ov*l FTAiariM^I

" ■f» t wi<*p.iu;",j

iSiMW'rJUJ'FfSovei y& ,

«r<^ir-*fFMPj»fr

HY«H
yoc.t*trrX9 eh ... ,

1 : ^.'.

Sahidic MANUSCRIPT, probably 01 the fifth century, in the British Museum.
2 Thessalonians iii. 2-1 1.

PLATE IX.

u
25 l -

Q n
< -

o JS

s |

■n »j

Z o

< C

s «»

-a
c
W

ri^rt i c a.

|liE ^lvr™A'T «i*~T,\, |C« •"* ~"* "5£. ?• .
|* o^of ^iXa/ a i <r i*/ -ro « er t» i * Gy ^-6- K > aJ

f •

1T0N i

>>. tunTAMTATUfHriHA.vMWJrrmp*

^, t«W|»HtVMT'm«t*TncrtiA»MUt < TA*.**t , *>f»rAj{

MINUSCULE Evv. 274 (Par. Nat Suppl. Gr. 79) of the tenth century.
Mark xvi. 6-15, exhibiting the shorter conclusion in the lower margin.

__Heckman__

' B I N D K R Y, 1 N L.
Bound-Tb-Please"

JUNE 00

., .I/VH/-UCSTPH INDIANA46962

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

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

See other formats