Chapter XIV. Lectionaries Containing The_A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I.

Appendix A. Chief Authorities.

Appendix B. On Facsimiles.

Appendix C. On Dating By Indiction.

Appendix D. On The ῥηματα.

Appendix E. Table Of Differences Between The Fourth Edition Of Dr.

Scrivener’s Plain Introduction And Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena.

Index I. Of Greek Manuscripts.

Index II. Of Writers, Past Owners, And Collators Of Mss.

Footnotes

[Illustration.]

Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener

In templo Dei offert unusquisque quod potest: alii aurum, argentum, et

lapides pretiosos: alii byssum et purpuram et coccum offerunt et

hyacinthum. Nobiscum bene agitur, si obtulerimus pelles et caprarum pilos.

Et tamen Apostolus contemtibiliora nostra magis necessaria judicat.

HIERONYMI _Prologus Galeatus_.

Dedication

[In The Third Edition]

_To His Grace_

_Edward, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury_.

MY LORD ARCHBISHOP,

Nearly forty years ago, under encouragement from your venerated

predecessor Archbishop Howley, and with the friendly help of his Librarian

Dr. Maitland, I entered upon the work of collating manuscripts of the

Greek New Testament by examining the copies brought from the East by

Professor Carlyle, and purchased for the Lambeth Library in 1805. I was

soon called away from this employment—ἑκὼν ἀέκοντί γε θυμῷ—to less

congenial duties in that remote county, wherein long after it was your

Grace’s happy privilege to refresh the spirits of Churchmen and

Churchwomen, by giving them pious work to do, and an example in the doing

of it. What I have since been able to accomplish in the pursuits of sacred

criticism, although very much less than I once anticipated, has proved, I

would fain hope, not without its use to those who love Holy Scripture, and

the studies which help to the understanding of the same.

Among the scholars whose sympathy cheered and aided my Biblical labours

from time to time, I have had the honour of including your Grace; yet it

would be at once unseemly and fallacious to assume from that circumstance,

that the principles of textual criticism which I have consistently

advocated have approved themselves to your judgement. All that I can look

for or desire in this respect is that I may seem to you to have stated my

case fairly and temperately, in earnest controversy with opponents far my

superiors in learning and dialectic power, and for whom, in spite of

literary differences, I entertain deep respect and true regard.

My Lord, you have been called by Divine Providence to the first place in

our Communion, and have entered upon your great office attended by the

applauses, the hopeful wishes, and the hearty prayers of the whole Church.

May it please God to endow you richly with the Christian gifts as well of

wisdom as of courage: for indeed the highest minister of the Church of

England, no less than the humblest, will need courage in the coming time,

now that faith is waxing cold and adversaries are many.

I am, my Lord Archbishop,

Your obliged and faithful servant,

F. H. A. Scrivener.

HENDON VICARAGE,

_Whitsuntide_, 1883.

PREFACE TO FOURTH EDITION.

At the time of the lamented death of Dr. Scrivener a new edition of his

standard work was called for, and it was supposed that the great Master of

Textual Criticism had himself made sufficient corrections and additions

for the purpose in the margin of his copy. When the publishers committed

to me the task of preparation, I was fully aware of the absolute necessity

of going far beyond the materials placed at my disposal, if the book were

to be really useful as being abreast of the very great progress

accomplished in the last ten years. But it was not till I had laboured

with absolute loyalty for some months that I discovered from my own

observation, and from the advice of some of the first textual critics, how

much alteration must at once be made.

Dr. Scrivener evidently prepared the Third Edition under great

disadvantage. He had a parish of more than 5,500 inhabitants upon his

hands, with the necessity of making provision for increase in the

population. The result was that after adding 125 pages to his book he had

an attack of paralysis, and so it is not surprising that his work was not

wholly conducted upon the high level of his previous publications. The

book has also laboured under another and greater disadvantage of too

rapid, though unavoidable, growth. The 506 pages of the First Edition have

been successively expanded into 626 pages in the Second, 751 in the Third,

and 874 in the Fourth; while the framework originally adopted, consisting

only of nine chapters, was manifestly inadequate to the mass of material

ultimately gathered. It has therefore been found necessary, as the work

proceeded, to do violence, amidst much delicate embarrassment, to feelings

of loyalty to the author forbidding alteration. The chief changes that

have been made are as follows:—

The first intention of keeping the materials within the compass of one

volume has been abandoned, and it has been divided into two volumes, with

an increase of chapters in each.

Instead of 2,094 manuscripts, as reckoned in the third edition under the

six classes, no less than 3,791 have been recorded in this edition, being

an increase of 236 beyond the 3,555 of Dr. Gregory, without counting the

numerous vacant places which have been filled up.

Most of the accounts of ancient versions have been rewritten by

distinguished scholars, who are leaders in their several departments.

The early part of Volume I has been enriched from the admirable book on

“Greek and Latin Palaeography,” by Mr. E. Maunde Thompson, who with great

kindness placed the proof-sheets at my disposal before publication.

Changes have been made in the headlines, the indexes, and in the printing,

and sometimes in the arrangement, which will, I trust, enable the reader

to find his way more easily about the treatise.

And many corrections suggested by eminent scholars have been introduced in

different places all through the work.

A most pleasing duty now is to tender my best thanks to the Right Reverend

the Lord Bishop of Salisbury and the Rev. H. J. White, M.A., for the

rewriting of the chapter on Latin Versions by the latter under Dr. John

Wordsworth’s supervision, with help from M. Samuel Berger; to the Rev. G.

H. Gwilliam, B.D., Fellow of Hertford College, now editing the Peshitto

for the University of Oxford, for the improvement of the passages upon the

Peshitto and the Curetonian; the Rev. H. Deane, B.D., for additions to the

treatment of the Harkleian; and the Rev. Dr. Walker, Principal of St.

John’s Hall, Highbury, for the results of a collation of the Peshitto and

Curetonian; to the Rev. A. C. Headlam, M.A., Fellow of All Souls College,

for a revision of the long chapter upon Egyptian Versions; to F. C.

Conybeare, Esq., M.A., late Fellow of University College, for rewriting

the sections on the Armenian and Georgian Versions; to Professor

Margoliouth, M.A., Fellow of New College, for rewriting the sections on

the Arabic and Ethiopic Versions; to the Rev. Ll. J. M. Bebb, M.A., Fellow

of Brasenose College, for rewriting the section upon the Slavonic Version;

to Dr. James W. Bright, Assistant-Professor in the Johns Hopkins

University, for rewriting the section on the Anglo-Saxon Version, through

Mr. White’s kind offices; to E. Maunde Thompson, Esq., D.C.L., LL.D.,

F.S.A., &c., for kindness already mentioned, and other help, and to G. F.

Warner, Esq., M.A., of the Manuscript Department of the British Museum,

for correction of some of the notices of cursive MSS. belonging to the

Museum, and for other assistance; to J. Rendel Harris, Esq., M.A., Fellow

of Clare College and Reader in Palaeology in the University of Cambridge,

for much help of a varied nature; to Professor Isaac H. Hall, Ph.D., of

New York City, for sending and placing at my disposal many of his

publications; to the lamented Professor Bensly, for writing me a letter

upon the Syriac Versions; to the Rev. Nicholas Pocock, M.A., of Clifton,

for some results of a collation of F and G of St. Paul; to Professor

Bernard, D.D., Trinity College, Dublin, for a paper of suggestions; to the

Rev. Walter Slater, M.A., for preparing Index II in Vol. I; and to several

other kind friends, for assistance of various kinds freely given. The

generosity of scholars in communicating out of their stores of learning is

a most pleasing feature in the study of the present day. Whatever may be

my own shortcomings—and I fear that they have been enhanced by limitations

of time and space, and through the effects of ill-health and sorrow—the

contributions enumerated cannot but render the present edition of Dr.

Scrivener’s great work eminently useful to students.

Edward Miller.

9, BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD,

_January 17, 1894_.

[Transcriber’s Note: This book contains much Greek text, which will not be

well-rendered in plain text versions of this E-book. Also, there is much

use of Greek characters with a vertical bar across the tops of the letters

to indicate abbreviations; because the coding system used in this e-book

does not have such an “overline”, they are rendered here with underlines.]

DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE LITHOGRAPHED PLATES(1).

[Transcriber’s Note: The plates have been all placed in this section so

that the extended comments for each can be with the plates themselves.]

Plate I

[Illustration.]

Plate I.

1. (1) Alphabet from the Rosetta Stone [B.C. 196], a specimen of

capitals.

2. (2) Alphabet from Cod. Sinaiticus, specimen of uncials.

3. (3) Alphabet from Cod. Alexandrinus, specimen of uncials.

Plate II

[Illustration.]

Plate II.

1. (4) Alphabet from the Cotton Fragment (Evan. N) and Titus C. xv

[vi],

2. (5) And from Cod. Nitriensis (Evan. R, Brit. Mus. Add. 17,211).

Plate III

[Illustration.]

Plate II.

1. (6) Alphabet from Cod. Dublinensis (Evan. Z).

2. (7) From Brit. Mus. Harl. 5598 (Evst. 150), [A.D. 995].

3. (8) From Brit. Mus. Burney 19 (Evan. 569). Note that above

_psi_ in 2 stands the cross-like form of that letter as found in

Apoc., B. [viii].

Plate IV

[Illustration.]

Plate IV.

1. (9) Extract from Hyperides’ Oration for Lycophron, col. 15, 1.

23, &c. (Ὑπερίδου Λόγοι, ed. Babington, 1853). Dating between B.C.

100 to A.D. 100, on Egyptian papyrus, in a cursive or running

hand. λυντας τινα των πο|λιτων αδικως δεο|μαι υμων και ετωι|και

αντιβολωι κε|λευσαι καμε καλεσαι|τους συνερουντας >. _See_ pp. 44,

51.

2. (10) Extract from Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν (_Herculanensium

voluminum quae supersunt_, fol., Tom. 3, Col. xx. ll. 6-15). _See_

pp. 30, 33. οντως πολυμαθεστατον προς | αγορευομενον οιεται παντα

| δυνασθαι γινωσκειν και ποι|ειν ουχ οιον εαυτον οσ ενιοισ | ουδεν

τι φωραται κατεχων | και ου συνορων οτι πολλα δει|ται τριβης αν

και απο τησ αυ|τησ γινηται μεθοδου καθα|περ τα τησ ποιητικησ μερη

και | διοτι περι τουσ πολυμαθεισ.

3. (11a) Cod. Friderico-August. [iv], 2 Sam. vii. 10, 11,

Septuagint: σεαυτων καθωσ αρ|χησ και αφ ημερῶ | ων εταξα κριτασ |

επι τον λαον μου | _ισλ_ και εταπινω|σα απαντασ τους | εχθρουσ σου

και | αυξησω σε και οι|.

4. (11b) Cod. Sinaiticus, א [iv], Luke xxiv. 33-4: τη ωρα

ϋπεστρε|ψαν εισ ϊερουσα|λημ(2) και ευρον η|θροισμενουσ τουσ |

ενδεκα και τουσ | συν αυτοισ λεγο|.

5. (11c) Cod. Sin., 1 Tim. iii. 16, το τησ ευσεβειασ | μυστηριον

οσ ε with a recent correction. _See_ II. 391. There are no capital

letters in this Plate.

Plate V

[Illustration.]

Plate V.

1. (12) Cod. Alexandrinus, A [v], Gen. i. 1-2, Septuagint. These

four lines are in bright red, with breathings and accents(3).

Henceforth capital letters begin to appear. Εν ἀρχῆ ἐπόιησεν ὁ

_θσ_ τὸν ὀυ|ρανὸν και τὴν γῆν ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀό|ρατοσ κὰι

ἀκατασκεύαστοσ; | και σκότοσ ἐπάνω τῆσ αβύσσου.|

2. (13) Cod. Alex., Acts xx. 28, in common ink. _See_ II. 37.

Προσεχετε εαυτοισ και παντι τω | ποιμνιω; εν ω ϋμασ το _πνα_ το |

αγιον εθετο επισκοπουσ; | ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν | του _κυ_ ην

περιεποιησατο δια | του αιματος του ιδιου;|

3. (14) Cod. Cotton., Titus C. xv, Evan. N, with Ammonian section

and Eusebian canon in the margin. John xv. 20: του λογου ου | εγω

ειπον υ|μιν; ουκ εστιν | δουλοσ μιζῶ | του _κυ_ αυτου.

Plate VI

[Illustration.]

Plate VI.

1. (15) Cod. Burney 21 [A.D. 1292], Evan. 571. _See_ p. 257. John

xxi. 17-18: πρόβατά μου; ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω σοι; | ὅτε ἦσ νεώτεροσ,

ἐζώννϋεσ ἑ|αυτὸν; καὶ περιεπάτησ ὅπου ἤθε|λεσ; ὅταν δε γηράσησ,

ἐκτενεῖσ|.

2. (16) Cod. Arundel 547, Evst. 257 [ix or x]. _See_ p. 345. The

open work indicates stops and musical notes in red. John viii.

13-14: Αυτω ὁι θαρισᾶι | οι + σὺ περὶ σὲαυτου | μαρτυρεῖσ ἡ

μαρ|τυρία σου ὀυκ ἔσ|τιν ἀλῃθήσ + ἀπε|.

3. (17) Cod. Nitriensis, R of the Gospels, a palimpsest [vi]. Luke

v. 26: ξαζον τον θν | και επλησθη|σαν φοβου λε|γοντεσ οτι|.

Plate VII

[Illustration.]

Plate VII.

1. (18) Cod. Dublin., Z of the Gospels, a palimpsest [vi], from

Barrett. Matt. xx. 33-4: ανοιγωσιν οι οφθαλ|μοι ημων |

Σπλαγχνισθεισ δε ο _ισ_ | ηψατο των ομματῶ | αυτων και ευθεωσ|.

2. (19) Cod. Cyprius, K of the Gospels [ix], John vi. 52-3:

Ἐμάχοντο ὀῦν προσ ἀλλήλουσ ὁι ϊουδαῖοι; λε|γοντεσ; πῶσ δύναται

ὁῦτοσ ἡμῖν τὴν σάρ|κα δοῦναι φαγεῖν; ἐῖπεν ὀῦν ἀυτοῖσ ὁ _ισ_; ἀ|.

It has the Ammonian section in the margin (ξς = 66), and a

flourish in the place of the Eusebian canon. _See_ p. 137.

Plate VIII

[Illustration.]

Plate VIII.

(20) Cod. Vaticanus, B of the Gospels, Acts and Epistles [iv],

taken from Burgon’s photograph of the whole page. Mark xvi. 3-8:

μῖν τὸν λίθον ἐκ τῆς | θύρασ τόυ μνημέῖου | κὰι ἀναβλέψασαι

θεω|ροῦσιν ὅτι ἀνακεκύ|λισται ὁ λιθοσ ἦν γὰρ | μέγασ σφόδρα κὰι

ἐλ|θοῦσαι ἐισ τὸ μνημεῖ|ον ἐῖδον νεανίσκον | καθήμενον ἐν τοῖσ |

δεξιοῖσ περιβεβλημέ|νον στολὴν λευκὴν | κὰι ἐξεθαμβήθησαν | ὁ δὲ

λέγει ἀυτᾶισ μὴ | ἐκθαμβεῖσθε ἰν ζητει|τε τὸν ναζαρηνὸν τὸ |

ἐσταυρωμένον ἠγὲρ|θη ὀυκ ἐστιν ὧδε ϊδε | ὁ τόποσ ὅπου ἔθηκᾶ |

ἀυτὸν ἀλλα ϋπάγετε | ἐίπατε τοῖσ μαθητᾶισ | ἀυτοῦ κὰι τῶ πέτρω |

ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶσ ἐισ | τὴν γαλιλάιαν ἐκει ἀυ|τὸν ὄψεσθε καθὼσ

ἐι|πεν ὑμῖν κὰι ἐξελθοῦ|σαι ἔφυγον ἀπὸ τοῦ | μνημέιου ἐίχεν γὰρ |

ἀυτὰσ τρόμοσ κὰι ἔκ|στασισ κὰι ὀυδενὶ ὀυ|δὲν ἐῖπον ἐφοβοῦν|το γάρ:

Here again, as in Plate IV, no capital letters appear. What

follows on the Plate is by a later hand.

Plate IX

[Illustration.]

Plate IX.

1. (21) Cod. Par. Nat. Gr. 62, Evan. L of the Gospels [viii], as

also 3 (23) below, are from photographs given by Dean Burgon: see

pp. 133-4. In the first column stands Mark xvi. 8 with its

Ammonian section (σλγ 233) and Eusebian canon (β = 2): Καὶ

ἐξελθουσαι ἐ|φυγον ἀπο τοῦ | μνημειου + ἐι|χεν δὲ αὐτας τρο|μοσ

καὶ εκστασεισ; | καὶ ουδενι οὐδεν | εἰπον + ἐφοβουν|το γὰρ + In

the second column, after the strange note transcribed by us (II.

Ἀναστὰσ δὲ πρωϊ | πρωτη σαββατυ + (ver. 9) Xi much resembles that

in Plate XI, No. 27.

2. (22) Cod. Nanianus, Evan. U, retraced after Tregelles. Burgon

(_Guardian_, Oct. 29, 1873) considers this facsimile unworthy of

the original writing, which is “even, precise, and beautiful.”

Mark v. 18: Βάντοσ αυτου | ἐισ τὸ πλοῖο | παρεκάλει ἀυ|τὸν ὁ

δαιμο|νισθεισ ἵνα. The Ammonian section (μη = 48) is in the margin

with the Eusebian canon (Β, in error for Η) underneath. The ν on

the other side is by a much later hand. _See_ p. 149.

3. (23) Cod. Basil. of the Gospels, Evan. 1 [x?]. _See_ p. 190.

Luke i. 1, 2. (the title: ἐυαγγέ[λιον] κατὰ λουκᾶν: being under an

elegant arcade): Επειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι |

διήγησιν περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων | ἐν ἡμῖν πραγματων. καθὼς

παρέδοσαν ἡμῖ | ὀι ἀπαρχῆσ αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρεται γενόμενοι|. The

numeral in the margin must indicate the Ammonian section, not the

larger κεφάλαιον (see p. 57).

Plate X

[Illustration.]

Plate X.

1. (24) Cod. Ephraemi, C, a palimpsest [v], from Tischendorf’s

facsimile. The upper writing [xii?] is τοῦ τὴν πληθῦν τῶν | ἐμῶν

ἁμαρτημά || σομαι; οἶδα ὅτι μετὰ | τὴν γνῶσιν ἥμαρτον. Translated

from St. Ephraem the Syrian. The earlier text is 1 Tim. iii.

15-16: ωμα τησ αληθείασ; | Και ομολογουμενωσ μέγα ἐστιν το τησ

ἐυσεβειασ μυ|στηριον; θσ ἑφανερωθη εν σαρκι; εδικαιωθη ἑν πνϊ. For

the accents, &c., _see_ p. 123.

2. (25) Cod. Laud. 35, E of the Acts [vi], Latin _and_ Greek, in a

sort of stichometry. Acts xx. 28: regere | ecclesiam | domini ||

ποιμενειν | την εκκλησιαν | του _κυ_. Below are specimens of six

letters taken from other parts of the manuscript. _See_ p. 169.

3. (26) Matt i. 1-3, Greek and Latin, from the Complutensian

Polyglott, A.D. 1514. _See_ II. 176.

Plate XI

[Illustration.]

Plate XI.

1. (27) Cod. Basil., Evan. E [vii], from a photograph given by

Dean Burgon, Mark i. 5-6: Προσ αὐτὸν. πᾶσα ἡ ϊουδαία | χωρα. και

οἱ ἱεροσολυμῖται; | και ἐβαπτιζοντο παντεσ, | ἐν τὠ ἰορδάνη ποταμῶ

ὑ|π᾽ ἀυτοῦ. ἐξομολογόυμε|νοι τὰσ ἁμαρτίασ αυτῶν; | Ἦν δε ὁ ϊωάννησ

ενδεδυμένοσ. The harmonizing references will be found underneath,

and some stops in the text (_see_ p. 48). The next two specimens

are retraced after Tregelles.

2. (28) Cod. Boreeli, Evan. F [viii-x], Mark x. 13 (Ammonian

section only, ρς = 106): Καὶ προσέφερον | αὐτῶ παιδία | ἵν ἅψηται

ἀυ|τῶν; ὁι δὲ μαθη|τὰι ἐπετίμων|.

3. (29) Cod. Harleian. 5684, Evan. G [x], Matt. v. 30-1: βληθη;

εισ γεεν|ναν; τέ τῆσ _λε_. | Ἐρρηθη δέ; Ὅτι ὃσ | ἀν ἀπολυση την |

γυνἀικα ἀυτοῦ; | χαρ (ἀρχὴ) stands in the margin of the new

Lesson.

4. (30) Cod. Bodleian., Λ of the Gospels [x or ix], in _sloping_

uncials, Luke xviii. 26, 27, and 30: σαντεσ; κὰι Τίσ, | δύναται

σωθῆναι; | ὁ δὲ _ἰσ_. ἐῖπεν; || τοῦτω; κὰι ἐν | τῶ ἀιῶνι τῶ

ἐρ|χομένω ζωὴν|. _See_ p. 160.

Plate XII

[Illustration.]

Plate XII.

1. (31) Cod. Wolfii B, Evan. H [ix], John i. 38-40: τοὺσ

ἀκολουθοῦντασ λέγει ἀυτοῖσ + τί ζη|τεῖτε + ὁι δε. ἐῖπον ἀυτῶ +

ραββεί; ὃ λέγε|ται ἐρμηνευόμενον διδάσκαλε ποῦ μέ|νεισ + λέγει

ἀυτοῖσ + ἔρχεσθε και ϊδετε + ἦλ|. Retraced after Tregelles: in the

original the dark marks seen in our facsimile are no doubt red

musical notes.

2. (32) Cod. Campianus, Evan. M [ix], from a photograph of

Burgon’s. John vii. 53-viii. 2: Καὶ ἐπορέυθησαν ἔκα|στοσ: ἐισ τὸν

ὀῖκον | ἀυτοῦ; _ισ_ δὲ ἐπορεῦ|θη ἐισ τὸ ὄροσ τῶν ἐ|λαιῶν. ὄρθρου

δὲ πά|. Observe the asterisk set against the passage.

3. (33) Cod. Emman. Coll. Cantab., Act. 53, Paul. 30 [xii]. _See_

p. 288. This minute and elegant specimen, beginning Rom. v. 21,

_χυ_ τοῦ _κυ_ ἡμων; and ending vi. 7, δεδικαίωται ἀ, is left to

exercise the reader’s skill.

4. (34) Cod. Ruber., Paul. M [x]. _See_ p. 184. 2 Cor. i. 3-5:

παρακλήσεωσ; ὁ παρακαλῶν | ἡμᾶσ ἐπί πάση Τῆι θλίψει; ἐισ τὸ |

δύνασθαι ἡμᾶσ παρακαλεῖν | τοὺσ ἐν πάση θλίψει διὰ τῆσ

πα|ρακλήσεωσ ἧσ παρεκαλούμε|θα ἀυτοὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ θῦ. ὅτι καθὼσ|.

5. (35) Cod. Bodleian., Evan. Γ of the Gospels [ix]. _See_ p. 155.

Mark viii. 33: πιστραφείσ καὶ ἰδὼν τουσ μα|θητὰσ ἀυτοῦ. ἐπετίμησεν

τῶ | πέτρω λέγων. ὕπαγε ὁπίσω μυ|.

Plate XIII

[Illustration.]

Plate XIII.

1. (36) Parham. 18, Evst. 234 [A.D. 980], Luke ix. 84: γοντοσ

ἐγένετο νε|φέλη κὰι ἐπεσκίασεν | ἀυτοὺσ ἐφοβήθησᾱ|. Annexed are

six letters taken from other parts of the manuscript.

2. (37) Cod. Burney 22, Evst. 259 [A.D. 1319]. The Scripture text

is Mark vii. 30: βεβλημέν ον ἐ|πὶ κλίνην κ | τὸ δαιμόνιον

ἐξε|λἠλυθῶσ:—The subscription which follows is given at length in

p. 43, note 3.

3. (38) Cod. Monacensis, Evan. X [ix], retraced after Tregelles.

_See_ p. 152. Luke vii. 25-6: τίοισ ἠμφιεσμένον; ϊδου ὁι | ἐν

ϊματισμώ ἐνδοξω και τρυ|φῆ ὑπάρχοντεσ έν τοισ βασιλεί | οισ ἐισὶν;

άλλὰ τί ἐξεληλυθα|.

4. (39) Cod. Par. Nat. Gr. 14, or Evan. 33: from a photograph of

Burgon’s. _See_ p. 195. Luke i. 8-11: ξει τῆς ἐφημερίασ ἀυτοῦ

ἔναντι τοῦ _κυ_ κατὰ τὸ ἔθοσ τῆς ἱερατείασ. ἔλαχεν τοῦ θυμιᾶ|σαι

εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸν | ὤρα τοῦ θυμιάματοσ. ὤφθη δε ἀυτῶ ἄγγελος _κυ_

ἐστὼσ ἐκδεξιὼν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, τοῦ θυ|.

5. (40) Cod. Leicestrensis, Evan. 69, Paul. 37 [xiv]. _See_ p.

202. 1 Tim. iii. 16: τῆς εὐσεβε(?)ίας μυστήριον; ὁ θό ἐφανερώθη ἐν

σαρ|κί; ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι; ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις; | ἐκηρύχθη ἐν

ἔπιςεύθη ἐν κόσμω; ἀνελή—.

Plate XIV. Contains specimens of open leaves of the two chief bilingual

manuscripts

[Illustration.]

Plate XIV.

1. (41) Cod. Claromontanus or Paul. D (1 Cor. xiii. 5-8), p. 173.

2. (42) Cod. Bezae or Evan, and Act. D (John xxi. 19-28), p. 124.

Observe the stichometry, the breathings, &c., of the Pauline

facsimile (which we owe to Dean Burgon’s kindness). These codices,

so remarkably akin as well in their literary history as in their

style of writing and date (vi or v), will easily be deciphered by

the student.

3. (43) Cod. Rossanensis or Evan. Σ (p. 163), is one of the most

interesting, as it is amongst the latest of our discoveries. Our

passage is Matt. vi. 18, 14: πονηρου οτι | σου εστιν η βα|σιλεια

τοισ _ανοισ_ τα | παραπτωματα|. In the margin below the capital Ε

is the Ammonian section μδ (44) and the Eusebian canon ς (66):

ανοισ is an abbreviation for ἀνθρώποις. All is written in silver

on fine purple vellum.

Plate XV

[Illustration.]

Plate XV.

Cod. Beratinus or Evan. Φ, Matt. xxvi. 19-20: ως συνεταξεν |

αυτοις ϊς και ητοιμασαν το | πασχα; | Οψιας δε γενομενης ανε|κειτο

μετα των | δωδεκα μαθη|των; και αισθι|. Observe the reference

given for the paragraph to the Ammonian section and Eusebian canon

on the left: σοθ = 279, δ = 4. The MS. is written in two columns,

and the initial letters of each line are exhibited on the right,

with _Am._ and _Eus._, σπα = 279, and β = 2; which as in the other

case are in a different hand.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA.

Pages 1-224, _passim_, for reasons given in Vol. II. 96 note, _for_

Memphitic _read_ Bohairic; _for_ Thebaic _read_ Sahidic.

P. 7, l. 25, _for_ Chapter XI _read_ Chapter XII.

P. 14, l. 20, _for_ Chapter X _read_ Chapter XI.

P. 87, l. 19, _for_ Synaxaria _read_ Menologies.

P. 119, ll. 11 and 12 from bottom, _for_ 93 _read_ 94; _for_ Memoranda in

our Addenda _read_ ingenious argument in n. 1.

P. 149, Tf Horner, _add_ now in the Bodleian at Oxford.

P. 214, l. 3 from bottom, _for_ 464 _read_ iv. 64.

P. 224, Evan. 250, l. 3, _for_ p. 144 _read_ p. 150.

P. 226, Evan. 274, l. 2 from end, _for_ Chapter IX _read_ Chapter XII.

P. 255, l. 6 from bottom, _for_ Bibl. Gr. L. _read_ Bibl. Gr. d.

P. 335, l. 1, _for_ 41 _read_ 4.

P. 343, l. 12, _for_ Ev. 1 (2) _read_ Ev. 1 (1).

CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.

1. When God was pleased to make known to man His purpose of redeeming us

through the death of His Son, He employed for this end the general laws,

and worked according to the ordinary course of His Providential

government, so far as they were available for the furtherance of His

merciful design. A revelation from heaven, in its very notion, implies

supernatural interposition; yet neither in the first promulgation nor in

the subsequent propagation of Christ’s religion, can we mark any _waste_

of miracles. So far as they were needed for the assurance of honest

seekers after truth, they were freely resorted to: whensoever the

principles which move mankind in the affairs of common life were adequate

to the exigences of the case, more unusual and (as we might have thought)

more powerful means of producing conviction were withheld, as at once

superfluous and ineffectual. Those who heard not Moses and the prophets

would scarcely be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

2. As it was with respect to the _evidences_ of our faith, so also with

regard to the volume of Scripture. God willed that His Church should enjoy

the benefit of His written word, at once as a rule of doctrine and as a

guide unto holy living. For this cause He so enlightened the minds of the

Apostles and Evangelists by His Spirit, that they recorded what He had

imprinted on their hearts or brought to their remembrance, without the

risk of error in anything essential to the verity of the Gospel. But this

main point once secured, the rest was left, in a great measure, to

themselves. The style, the tone, the language, perhaps the special

occasion of writing, seem to have depended much on the taste and judgement

of the several penmen. Thus in St. Paul’s Epistles we note the profound

thinker, the great scholar, the consummate orator: St. John pours forth

the simple utterings of his gentle, untutored, affectionate soul: in St.

Peter’s speeches and letters may be traced the impetuous earnestness of

his noble yet not faultless character. Their individual tempers and

faculties and intellectual habits are clearly discernible, even while they

are speaking to us in the power and by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

3. Now this self-same parsimony in the employment of miracles which we

observe with reference to Christian evidences and to the inspiration of

Scripture, we might look for beforehand, from the analogy of divine

things, when we proceed to consider the methods by which Scripture has

been preserved and handed down to us. God _might_, if He would, have

stamped His revealed will visibly on the heavens, that all should read it

there: He _might_ have so completely filled the minds of His servants the

Prophets and Evangelists, that they should have become mere passive

instruments in the promulgation of His counsel, and the writings they have

delivered to us have borne no traces whatever of their individual

characters: but for certain causes which we can perceive, and doubtless

for others beyond the reach of our capacities, He has chosen to do neither

the one nor the other. And so again with the subject we propose to discuss

in the present work, namely, the relation our existing text of the New

Testament bears to that which originally came from the hands of the sacred

penmen. Their autographs _might_ have been preserved in the Church as the

perfect standards by which all accidental variations of the numberless

copies scattered throughout the world should be corrected to the end of

time: but we know that these autographs perished utterly in the very

infancy of Christian history. Or if it be too much to expect that the

autographs of the inspired writers should escape the fate which has

overtaken that of every other known relique of ancient literature, God

_might_ have so guided the hand or fixed the devout attention both of

copyists during the long space of fourteen hundred years before the

invention of printing, and of compositors and printers of the Bible for

the last four centuries, that no jot or tittle should have been changed of

all that was written therein. Such a course of Providential arrangement we

must confess to be quite possible, but it could have been brought about

and maintained by nothing short of a continuous, unceasing miracle;—by

making fallible men (nay, many such in every generation) for one purpose

absolutely infallible. If the complete identity of all copies of Holy

Scripture prove to be a fact, we must of course receive it as such, and

refer it to its sole Author: yet we may confidently pronounce beforehand,

that such a fact could not have been reasonably anticipated, and is not at

all agreeable to the general tenour of God’s dealings with us.

4. No one who has taken the trouble to examine any two editions of the

Greek New Testament needs be told that this supposed complete resemblance

in various copies of the holy books is not founded on fact. Even several

impressions derived from the same standard edition, and professing to

exhibit a text positively the same, differ from their archetype and from

each other, in errors of the press which no amount of care or diligence

has yet been able to get rid of. If we extend our researches to the

manuscript copies of Scripture or of its versions which abound in every

great library in Christendom, we see in the very best of them variations

which we must at once impute to the fault of the scribe, together with

many others of a graver and more perplexing nature, regarding which we can

form no probable judgement, without calling to our aid the resources of

critical learning. The more numerous and venerable the documents within

our reach, the more extensive is the view we obtain of the variations (or

VARIOUS READINGS as they are called) that prevail in manuscripts. If the

number of these variations was rightly computed at thirty thousand in

Mill’s time, a century and a half ago, they must at present amount to at

least fourfold that quantity.

5. As the New Testament far surpasses all other remains of antiquity in

value and interest, so are the copies of it yet existing in manuscript and

dating from the fourth century of our era downwards, far more numerous

than those of the most celebrated writers of Greece or Rome. Such as have

been already discovered and set down in catalogues are hardly fewer than

three thousand six hundred, and more must still linger unknown in the

monastic libraries of the East. On the other hand, manuscripts of the most

illustrious classic poets and philosophers are far rarer and comparatively

modern. We have no complete copy of Homer himself prior to the thirteenth

century, though some considerable fragments have been recently brought to

light which may plausibly be assigned to the fifth century; while more

than one work of high and deserved repute has been preserved to our times

only in a single copy. Now the experience we gain from a critical

examination of the few classical manuscripts that survive should make us

thankful for the quality and abundance of those of the New Testament.

These last present us with a vast and almost inexhaustible supply of

materials for tracing the history, and upholding (at least within certain

limits) the purity of the sacred text: every copy, if used diligently and

with judgement, will contribute somewhat to these ends. So far is the

copiousness of our stores from causing doubt or perplexity to the genuine

student of Holy Scripture, that it leads him to recognize the more fully

its general integrity in the midst of partial variation. What would the

thoughtful reader of Aeschylus give for the like guidance through the

obscurities which vex his patience, and mar his enjoyment of that sublime

poet?

6. In regard to modern works, it is fortunate that the art of printing has

wellnigh superseded the use of _verbal_ or (as it has been termed)

_Textual_ criticism. When a book once issues from the press, its author’s

words are for the most part fixed, beyond all danger of change; graven as

with an iron pen upon the rock for ever. Yet even in modern times, as in

the case of Barrow’s posthumous works and Pepys’s Diary and Lord

Clarendon’s History of the Rebellion, it has been occasionally found

necessary to correct or enlarge the early editions, from the original

autographs, where they have been preserved. The text of some of our older

English writers (Beaumont and Fletcher’s plays are a notable instance)

would doubtless have been much improved by the same process, had it been

possible; but the criticism of Shakespeare’s dramas is perhaps the most

delicate and difficult problem in the whole history of literature since

that great genius was so strangely contemptuous of the praise of

posterity, that even of the few plays that were published in his lifetime

the text seems but a gathering from the scraps of their respective parts

which had been negligently copied out for the use of the actors.

7. The design of the science of TEXTUAL CRITICISM, as applied to the Greek

New Testament, will now be readily understood. By collecting and comparing

and weighing the variations of the text to which we have access, it aims

at bringing back that text, so far as may be, to the condition in which it

stood in the sacred autographs; at removing all spurious additions, if

such be found in our present printed copies; at restoring whatsoever may

have been lost or corrupted or accidentally changed in the lapse of

eighteen hundred years. We need spend no time in proving the value of such

a science, if it affords us a fair prospect of appreciable results,

resting on grounds of satisfactory evidence. Those who believe the study

of the Scriptures to be alike their duty and privilege, will surely grudge

no pains when called upon to separate the pure gold of God’s word from the

dross which has mingled with it through the accretions of so many

centuries. Though the criticism of the sacred volume is inferior to its

right interpretation in point of dignity and practical results, yet it

must take precedence in order of time: for how can we reasonably proceed

to investigate the sense of holy writ, till we have done our utmost to

ascertain its precise language?

8. The importance of the study of Textual criticism is sometimes freely

admitted by those who deem its successful cultivation difficult, or its

conclusions precarious; the rather as Biblical scholars of deserved repute

are constantly putting forth their several recensions of the text,

differing not a little from each other. Now on this point it is right to

speak clearly and decidedly. There is certainly nothing in the nature of

critical science which ought to be thought hard or abstruse, or even

remarkably dry and repulsive. It is conversant with varied, curious, and

interesting researches, which have given a certain serious pleasure to

many intelligent minds; it patiently gathers and arranges those facts of

_external_ evidence on which alone it ventures to construct a revised

text, and applies them according to rules or canons of _internal_

evidence, whether suggested by experience, or resting for their proof on

the plain dictates of common sense. The more industry is brought to these

studies, the greater the store of materials accumulated, so much the more

fruitful and trustworthy the results have usually proved; although beyond

question the true application even of the simplest principles calls for

discretion, keenness of intellect, innate tact ripened by constant use, a

sound and impartial judgement. No man ever attained eminence in this, or

in any other worthy accomplishment, without much labour and some natural

aptitude for the pursuit; but the criticism of the Greek Testament is a

field in whose culture the humblest student may contribute a little that

shall be really serviceable; few branches of theology are able to promise,

even to those who seek but a moderate acquaintance with it, so early and

abundant reward for their pains.

9. Nor can Textual criticism be reasonably disparaged as tending to

precarious conclusions, or helping to unsettle the text of Scripture. Even

putting the matter on the lowest ground, critics have not _created_ the

variations they have discovered in manuscripts or versions. They have only

taught us how to look ascertained phenomena in the face, and try to

account for them; they would fain lead us to estimate the relative value

of various readings, to decide upon their respective worth, and thus at

length to eliminate them. While we confess that much remains to be done in

this department of Biblical learning, we are yet bound to say that,

chiefly by the exertions of scholars of the last and present generations,

the debateable ground is gradually becoming narrower, not a few strong

controversies have been decided beyond the possibility of reversal, and

while new facts are daily coming to light, critics of very opposite

sympathies are learning to agree better as to the right mode of

classifying and applying them. But even were the progress of the science

less hopeful than we believe it to be, one great truth is admitted on all

hands;—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare

suspicion of wilful corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of

every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of

every argument and every narrative through the entire volume of

Inspiration. On a point of such vital moment I am glad to cite the

well-known and powerful statement of the great Bentley, at once the

profoundest and the most daring of English critics: “The real text of the

sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost)

lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all. ’Tis competently

exact indeed in the worst MS. now extant; nor is one article of faith or

moral precept either perverted or lost in them; choose as awkwardly as you

will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.” And

again: “Make your 30,000 [variations] as many more, if numbers of copies

can ever reach that sum: all the better to a knowing and a serious reader,

who is thereby more richly furnished to select what he sees genuine. But

even put them into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most

sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one

chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will

still be the same(4).” Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the

treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance

of His church and people.

10. It is now time for us to afford to the uninitiated reader some general

notion of the nature and extent of the various readings met with in

manuscripts and versions of the Greek Testament. We shall try to reduce

them under a few distinct heads, reserving all formal discussion of their

respective characters and of the authenticity of the texts we cite for the

next volume (Chapter XI).

(1) To begin with variations of the gravest kind. In two, though happily

in only two instances, the genuineness of whole passages of considerable

extent, which are read in our printed copies of the New Testament, has

been brought into question. These are the weighty and characteristic

paragraphs Mark xvi. 9-20 and John vii. 53-viii. 11. We shall hereafter

defend these passages, the first without the slightest misgiving, the

second with certain reservations, as entitled to be regarded authentic

portions of the Gospels in which they stand.

(2) Akin to these omissions are several considerable interpolations,

which, though they have never obtained a place in the printed text, nor

been approved by any critical editor, are supported by authority too

respectable to be set aside without some inquiry. One of the longest and

best attested of these paragraphs has been appended to Matt. xx. 28, and

has been largely borrowed from other passages in the Gospels (see below,

class 9). It appears in several forms, slightly varying from each other,

and is represented as follows in a document as old as the fifth century:

“But you, seek ye that from little things ye may become great, and

not from great things may become little. Whenever ye are invited

to the house of a supper, be not sitting down in the honoured

place, lest should come he that is more honoured than thou, and to

thee the Lord of the supper should say, Come near below, and thou

be ashamed in the eyes of the guests. But if thou sit down in the

little place, and he that is less than thee should come, and to

thee the Lord of the supper shall say, Come near, and come up and

sit down, thou also shalt have more glory in the eyes of the

guests(5).”

We subjoin another paragraph, inserted after Luke vi. 4 in only a single

copy, the celebrated Codex Bezae, now at Cambridge: “On the same day he

beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said unto him, Man,

blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not,

thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.’”

(3) A shorter passage or mere clause, whether inserted or not in our

printed books, may have appeared originally in the form of a marginal

note, and from the margin have crept into the text, through the wrong

judgement or mere oversight of the scribe. Such we have reason to think is

the history of 1 John v. 7, the verse relating to the Three Heavenly

Witnesses, once so earnestly maintained, but now generally given up as

spurious. Thus too Acts viii. 37 may have been derived from some Church

Ordinal: the last clause of Rom. viii. 1 (μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ

κατὰ πνεῦμα) is perhaps like a gloss on τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ: εἰκῆ in

Matt. v. 22(6) and ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. xi. 29 might have been inserted to

modify statements that seemed too strong: τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι Gal.

iii. 1 is precisely such an addition as would help to round an abrupt

sentence (compare Gal. v. 7). Some critics would account in this way for

the adoption of the doxology Matt. vi. 13; of the section relating to the

bloody sweat Luke xxii. 43, 44; and of that remarkable verse, John v. 4:

but we may well hesitate before we assent to their views.

(4) Or a genuine clause is lost by means of what is technically called

Homoeoteleuton (ὁμοιοτέλευτον), when the clause ends in the same word as

closed the preceding sentence, and the transcriber’s eye has wandered from

the one to the other, to the entire omission of the whole passage lying

between them. This source of error (though too freely appealed to by Meyer

and some other commentators hardly less eminent than he) is familiar to

all who are engaged in copying writing, and is far more serious than might

be supposed prior to experience. In 1 John ii. 23 ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ

τὸν πατέρα ἔχει is omitted in many manuscripts, because τὸν πατέρα ἔχει

had ended the preceding clause: it is not found in our commonly received

Greek text, and even in the Authorized English version is printed in

italics. The whole verse Luke xvii. 36, were it less slenderly supported,

might possibly have been early lost through the same cause, since vv. 34,

35, 36 all end in ἀφεθήσεται. A safer example is Luke xviii. 39, which a

few copies omit for this reason only. Thus perhaps we might defend in

Matt. x. 23 the addition after φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην of κἂν ἐν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ

διώκωσιν ὑμᾶς, φεύγετε εἰς τὴν ἄλλην (ἑτέραν being substituted for the

first ἄλλην), the eye having passed from the first φεύγετε εἰς τήν to the

second. The same effect is produced, though less frequently, when two or

more sentences _begin_ with the same words, as in Matt. xxiii. 14, 15, 16

(each of which commences with οὐαὶ ὑμῖν), one of the verses being left out

in some manuscripts.

(5) Numerous variations occur in the order of words, the sense being

slightly or not at all affected; on which account this species of various

readings was at first much neglected by collators. Examples abound

everywhere: e.g. τὶ μέρος or μέρος τι Luke xi. 36; ὀνόματι Ἀνανίαν or

Ἀνανίαν ὀνόματι Acts ix. 12; ψυχρὸς οὔτε ζεστός or ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός

Apoc. iii. 16. The order of the sacred names Ἰησοῦς Χριστός is perpetually

changed, especially in St. Paul’s Epistles.

(6) Sometimes the scribe has mistaken one word for another, which differs

from it only in one or two letters. This happens chiefly in cases when the

_uncial_ or capital letters in which the oldest manuscripts are written

resemble each other, except in some fine stroke which may have decayed

through age. Hence in Mark v. 14 we find ΑΝΗΓΓΕΙΛΑΝ or ΑΠΗΓΓΕΙΛΑΝ; in Luke

xvi. 20 ΗΛΚΩΜΕΝΟΣ or ΕΙΛΚΩΜΕΝΟΣ; so we read Δαυίδ or Δαβίδ indifferently,

as, in the later or _cursive_ character, β and υ have nearly the same

shape. Akin to these errors of the eye are such transpositions as ΕΛΑΒΟΝ

for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ or ΕΒΑΛΛΟΝ, Mark xiv. 65: omissions or insertions of the same

or similar letters, as ΕΜΑΣΣΩΝΤΟ or ΕΜΑΣΩΝΤΟ Apoc. xvi. 10: ΑΓΑΛΛΙΑΣΘΗΝΑΙ

or ΑΓΑΛΛΙΑΘΗΝΑΙ John v. 35: and the dropping or repetition of the same or

a similar syllable, as ΕΚΒΑΛΛΟΝΤΑΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΑ or ΕΚΒΑΛΛΟΝΤΑΤΑΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΑ Luke ix.

49; ΟΥΔΕΔΕΔΟΞΑΣΤΑΙ or ΟΥΔΕΔΟΞΑΣΤΑΙ 2 Cor. iii. 10; ΑΠΑΞΕΞΕΔΕΧΕΤΟ or

ΑΠΕΞΕΔΕΧΕΤΟ 1 Pet. iii. 20. It is easy to see how the ancient practice of

writing uncial letters without leaving a space between the words must have

increased the risk of such variations as the foregoing.

(7) Another source of error is described by some critics as proceeding _ex

ore dictantis_, in consequence of the scribe writing from dictation,

without having a copy before him. One is not, however, very willing to

believe that manuscripts of the better class were executed on so slovenly

and careless a plan. It seems more simple to account for the _itacisms_(7)

or confusion of certain vowels and diphthongs having nearly the same

sound, which exist more or less in manuscripts of every age, by assuming

that a vicious pronunciation gradually led to a loose mode of orthography

adapted to it. Certain it is that itacisms are much more plentiful in the

original subscriptions and marginal notes of the writers of mediaeval

books, than in the text which they copied from older documents. Itacisms

prevailed the most extensively from the eighth to the twelfth century, but

not by any means during that period exclusively:—indeed, they are found

frequently in the oldest existing manuscripts. In the most ancient

manuscripts the principal changes are between ι and ει, αι and ε, though

others occur: in later times η ι and ει, η οι and υ, even ο and ω, η and

ε, are used almost promiscuously. Hence it arises that a very large

portion of the various readings brought together by collators are of this

description, and although in the vast majority of instances they serve but

to illustrate the character of the manuscripts which exhibit them, or the

fashion of the age in which they were written, they sometimes affect the

grammatical form (e.g. ἔγειρε or ἔγειραι Mark iii. 3; Acts iii. 6;

_passim_: ἴδετε or εἴδετε Phil. i. 30), or the construction (e.g. ἰάσωμαι

or ἰάσομαι Matt. xiii. 15: οὐ μὴ τιμήσῃ or οὐ μὴ τιμήσει Matt. xv. 5: ἵνα

καυθήσωμαι or ἵνα καυθήσομαι 1 Cor. xiii. 3, compare 1 Pet. iii. 1), or

even the sense (e.g. ἑταίροις or ἑτέροις Matt. xi. 16: μετὰ διωγμῶν or, as

in a few copies, μετὰ διωγμόν Mark x. 30: καυχᾶσθαι δὴ οὐ συμφέρει or

καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ; οὐ συμφέρει 2 Cor. xii. 1: ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ Κύριος or ὅτι

χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος 1 Pet. ii. 3). To this cause we may refer the perpetual

interchange of ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς, with their oblique cases, throughout the

whole Greek Testament: e.g. in the single epistle of 1 Peter, ch. i. 3;

12; ii. 21 _bis_; iii. 18; 21; v. 10. Hence we must pay the less regard to

the reading ἡμέτερον Luke xvi. 12, though found in two or three of our

chief authorities: in Acts xvii. 28 τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς, the reading of the

great Codex Vaticanus and a few late copies, is plainly absurd. On the

other hand, a few cases occur wherein that which at first sight seems a

mere _itacism_, when once understood, affords an excellent sense, e.g.

καθαρίζων Mark iii. 19, and may be really the true form.

(8) Introductory clauses or Proper Names are frequently interpolated at

the commencement of Church-lessons (περικοπαί), whether from the margin of

ordinary manuscripts of the Greek Testament (where they are usually placed

for the convenience of the reader), or from the Lectionaries or proper

Service Books, especially those of the Gospels (Evangelistaria). Thus in

our English Book of Common Prayer the name of Jesus is introduced into the

Gospels for the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Sundays after Trinity; and

whole clauses into those for the 3rd and 4th Sundays after Easter, and the

6th and 24th after Trinity(8). To this cause may be due the prefix εἶπε δὲ

ὁ Κύριος Luke vii. 31; καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε Luke x. 22; and

such appellations as ἀδελφοί or τέκνον Τιμόθεε (after σὺ δέ in 2 Tim. iv.

5) in some copies of the Epistles. The inserted prefix in Greek

Lectionaries is sometimes rather long, as in the lesson for the Liturgy on

Sept. 14 (John xix. 6-35). Hence the frequent interpolation (e.g. Matt.

iv. 18; viii. 5; xiv. 22) or changed position (John i. 44) of Ἰησοῦς. A

peculiarity of style in 1, 2 Thess. is kept out of sight by the addition

of Χριστός in the common text of 1 Thess. ii. 19; iii. 13: 2 Thess. i. 8,

12.

(9) A more extensive and perplexing species of various readings arises

from bringing into the text of one of the three earlier Evangelists

expressions or whole sentences which of right belong not to him, but to

one or both the others(9). This natural tendency to assimilate the several

Gospels must have been aggravated by the laudable efforts of Biblical

scholars (beginning with Tatian’s Διὰ τεσσάρων in the second century) to

construct a satisfactory Harmony of them all. Some of these variations

also may possibly have been mere marginal notes in the first instance. As

examples of this class we will name εἰς μετάνοιαν interpolated from Luke

v. 32 into Mark ii. 17: the prophetic citation Matt. xxvii. 35 ἵνα πληρωθῇ

κ.τ.λ. to the end of the verse, unquestionably borrowed from John xix. 24,

although the fourth Gospel seldom lends itself to corruptions of this

kind. Mark xiii. 14 τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου, is probably taken

from Matt. xxiv. 15: Luke v. 38 καὶ ἀμφότεροι συντηροῦνται from Matt. ix.

17 (where ἀμφότεροι is the true reading): the whole verse Mark xv. 28

seems spurious, being received from Luke xxii. 37. Even in the same book

we observe an anxiety to harmonize two separate narratives of the same

event, as in Acts ix. 5, 6 compared with xxvi. 14, 15.

(10) In like manner transcribers sometimes quote passages from the Old

Testament more fully than the writers of the New Testament had judged

necessary for their purpose. Thus ἐγγίζει μοι ... τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν καί

Matt. xv. 8: ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τὴν καρδίαν Luke iv. 18: αὐτοῦ

ἀκούσεσθε Acts vii. 37: οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις Rom. xiii. 9; ἤ βολίδι

κατατοξευθήσεται Heb. xii. 20, and (less certainly) καὶ κατέστησας αὐτὸν

ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου Heb. ii. 7, are all open to suspicion as being

genuine portions of the Old Testament text, but not also of the New. In

Acts xiii. 33, the Codex Bezae at Cambridge stands almost alone in adding

Ps. ii. 8 to that portion of the previous verse which was unquestionably

cited by St. Paul.

(11) Synonymous words are often interchanged, and so form various

readings, the sense undergoing some slight and refined modification, or

else being quite unaltered. Thus ἔφη should be preferred to εἶπεν Matt.

xxii. 37, where εἶπεν of the common text is supported only by two known

manuscripts, that at Leicester, and one used by Erasmus. So also ὀμμάτων

is put for ὀφθαλμῶν Matt. ix. 29 by the Codex Bezae. In Matt. xxv. 16 the

evidence is almost evenly balanced between ἐποίησεν and ἐκέρδησεν (cf.

ver. 17). Where simple verbs are interchanged with their compounds (e.g.

μετρηθήσεται with ἀντιμετρηθήσεται Matt. vii. 2; ἐτέλεσεν with συνετέλεσεν

_ibid._ ver. 28; καίεται with κατακαίεται xiii. 40), or different tenses

of the same verb (e.g. εἰληφώς with λαβών Acts xiv. 24; ἀνθέστηκε with

ἀντέστη 2 Tim. iv. 15), there is usually some _internal_ reason why one

should be chosen rather than the other, if the _external_ evidence on the

other side does not greatly preponderate. When one of two terms is

employed in a sense peculiar to the New Testament dialect, the easier

synonym may be suspected of having originated in a gloss or marginal

interpretation. Hence _caeteris paribus_ we should adopt δικαιοσύνην

rather than ἐλεημοσύνην in Matt. vi. 1; ἐσκυλμένοι rather than ἐκλελυμένοι

ix. 36; ἀθῶον rather than δίκαιον xxvii. 4.

(12) An irregular, obscure, or incomplete construction will often be

_explained_ or _supplied_ in the margin by words that are subsequently

brought into the text. Of this character is ἐμέμψαντο Mark vii. 2;

δέξασθαι ἡμᾶς 2 Cor. viii. 4; γράφω xiii. 2; προσλαβοῦ Philem. 12 (compare

ver. 17), and perhaps δῆλον 1 Tim. vi. 7. More considerable is the change

in Acts viii. 7, where the true reading πολλοὶ ... φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξήρχοντο,

if translated with grammatical rigour, affords an almost impossible sense.

Or an elegant Greek idiom may be transformed into simpler language, as in

Acts xvi. 3 ᾔδεισαν γὰρ πάντες ὅτι Ἕλλην ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὑπῆρχεν for ᾔδεισαν

γὰρ ἅπαντες τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ ὅτι Ἕλλην ὑπῆρχεν: similarly, τυγχάνοντα is

omitted by many in Luke x. 30; compare also Acts xviii. 26 _fin._; xix. 8,

34 _init._ The classical μέν has often been inserted against the best

evidence: e.g. Acts v. 23: xix. 4, 15; 1 Cor. xii. 20; 2 Cor. iv. 12; Heb.

vi. 16. On the other hand a Hebraism may be softened by transcribers, as

in Matt. xxi. 23, where for ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ many copies prefer the easier

ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ before προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ διδάσκοντι, and in Matt. xv. 5; Mark

vii. 12 (to which perhaps we may add Luke v. 35), where καί is dropped in

some copies to facilitate the sense. Hence καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι may be upheld

before οἱ ποιμένες in Luke ii. 15. This perpetual correction of harsh,

ungrammatical, or Oriental constructions characterizes the printed text of

the Apocalypse and the recent manuscripts on which it is founded (e.g. τὴν

γυναῖκα Ἰεζαβὴλ τὴν λέγουσαν ii. 20, for ἡ λέγουσα).

(13) Hence too arises the habit of changing ancient dialectic forms into

those in vogue in the transcriber’s age. The whole subject will be more

fitly discussed at length hereafter (vol. ii. c. x.); we will here merely

note a few peculiarities of this kind adopted by some recent critics from

the oldest manuscripts, but which have gradually though not entirely

disappeared in copies of lower date. Thus in recent critical editions

Καθαρναούμ, Μαθθαῖος, τέσσερες, ἔνατος are substituted for Καπερναούμ,

Ματθαῖος, τέσσαρες, ἔννατος of the common text; οὕτως (not οὕτω) is used

even before a consonant; ἤλθαμεν, ἤλθατε, ἦλθαν, γενάμενος are preferred

to ἤλθομεν, ἤλθετε, ἦλθον, γενόμενος: ἐκαθερίσθη, συνζητεῖν, λήμψομαι to

ἐκαθαρίσθη, συζητεῖν, λήψομαι: and ν ἐφελκυστικόν (as it is called) is

appended to the usual third persons of verbs, even though a consonant

follow. On the other hand the more Attic περιπεπατήκει ought not to be

converted into περιεπεπατήκει in Acts xiv. 8.

(14) Trifling variations in spelling, though very proper to be noted by a

faithful collator, are obviously of little consequence. Such is the choice

between καὶ ἐγώ and κἀγώ, ἐάν and ἄν, εὐθέως and εὐθύς, Μωυσῆς and Μωσῆς,

or even between πράττουσι and πράσσουσι, between εὐδόκησα, εὐκαίρουν and

ηὐδόκησα, ηὐκαίρουν. To this head may be referred the question whether

ἀλλά(10), γε, δέ, τε, μετά, παρά &c. should have their final vowel elided

or not when the next word begins with a vowel.

(15) A large portion of our various readings arises from the omission or

insertion of such words as cause little appreciable difference in the

sense. To this class belong the pronouns αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, αὐτῶν, αὐτοῖς, the

particles οὖν, δέ, τε, and the interchange of οὐδέ and οὔτε, as also of

καί and δέ at the opening of a sentence.

(16) Manuscripts greatly fluctuate in adding and rejecting the Greek

article, and the sense is often seriously influenced by these variations,

though they seem so minute. In Mark ii. 26 ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως “in the

time that Abiathar was high priest” would be historically incorrect, while

ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” is

suitable enough. The article will often impart vividness and reality to an

expression, where its presence is not indispensable: e.g. Luke xii. 54 τὴν

νεφέλην (if τήν be authentic, as looks probable) is the peculiar cloud

spoken of in 1 Kings xviii. 44 as portending rain. Bishop Middleton’s

monograph (“Doctrine of the Greek Article applied to the Criticism and

Illustration of the New Testament”), though apparently little known to

certain of our most highly esteemed Biblical scholars, even if its

philological groundwork be thought a little precarious, must always be

regarded as the text-book on this interesting subject, and is a lasting

monument of intellectual acuteness and exact learning.

(17) Not a few various readings may be imputed to the peculiarities of the

style of writing adopted in the oldest manuscripts. Thus

ΠΡΟΣΤΕΤΑΓΜΕΝΟΥΣΚΑΙΡΟΥΣ Acts xvii. 26 may be divided into two words or

three; ΚΑΙΤΑΠΑΝΤΑ ibid. ver. 25, by a slight change, has degenerated into

κατὰ πάντα. The habitual abridgement of such words as Θεός or Κύριος

sometimes leads to a corruption of the text. Hence possibly comes the

grave variation ΟΣ for _ΘΣ_ 1 Tim. iii. 16, and the singular reading τῷ

καιρῷ δουλεύοντες Rom. xii. 11, where the true word Κυρίῳ was first

shortened into _ΚΡΩ_(11), and then read as ΚΡΩ, Κ being employed to

indicate ΚΑΙ in very early times(12). Or a large initial letter, which the

scribe usually reserved for a subsequent review, may have been altogether

neglected: whence we have τι for Οτι before στενή Matt. vii. 14. Or

overscores, placed over a letter (especially at the end of a line and

word) to denote ν, may have been lost sight of; e.g. λίθον μέγα Matt.

xxvii. 60 in several copies, for ΜΕΓΑ [with a line over the final Α]. The

use of the symbol [symbol composed of Pi and Rho together], which in the

Herculanean rolls and now and then in Codex Sinaiticus stands for προ and

προς indifferently, may have produced that remarkable confusion of the two

prepositions when compounded with verbs which we notice in Matt. xxvi. 39;

Mark xiv. 35; Acts xii. 6; xvii. 5, 26; xx. 5, 13; xxii. 25. It will be

seen hereafter that as the earliest manuscripts have few marks of

punctuation, breathing or accent, these points (often far from

indifferent) must be left in a great measure to an editor’s taste and

judgement.

(18) Slips of the pen, whereby words are manifestly lost or repeated,

mis-spelt or half-finished, though of no interest to the critic, must yet

be noted by a faithful collator, as they will occasionally throw light on

the history of some particular copy in connexion with others, and always

indicate the degree of care or skill employed by the scribe, and

consequently the weight due to his general testimony.

The great mass of various readings we have hitherto attempted to classify

(to our _first_ and _second_ heads we will recur presently) are manifestly

due to mere inadvertence or human frailty, and certainly cannot be imputed

to any deliberate intention of transcribers to tamper with the text of

Scripture. We must give a different account of a few passages (we are glad

they are only a few) which yet remain to be noticed.

(19) The copyist may be tempted to forsake his proper function for that of

a reviser, or critical corrector. He may simply omit what he does not

understand (e.g. δευτεροπρώτῳ Luke vi. 1; τὸ μαρτύριον 1 Tim. ii. 6), or

may attempt to get over a difficulty by inversions and other changes. Thus

the μυστήριον spoken of by St. Paul 1 Cor. xv. 51, which rightly stands in

the received text πάντες μὲν οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, was

easily varied into πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ π. δὲ ἀλ., as if in mere

perplexity. From this source must arise the omission in a few manuscripts

of υἱοῦ Βαραχίου in Matt. xxiii. 35; of Ἱερεμίου in Matt. xxvii. 9; the

insertion of ἄλλου ἐκ before θυσιαστηρίου in Apoc. xvi. 7; perhaps the

substitution of τοῖς προφήταις for Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ in Mark i. 2, of οὔπω

ἀναβαίνω for οὐκ ἀναβαίνω in John vii. 8, and certainly of τρίτη for ἕκτε

in John xix. 14. The variations between Γεργεσηνῶν and Γαδαρηνῶν Matt.

viii. 28, and between Βηθαβαρᾶ and Βηθανίᾳ John i. 28, have been

attributed, we hope and believe unjustly, to the misplaced conjectures of

Origen.

Some would impute such readings as ἔχωμεν for ἔχομεν Rom. v. 1; φορέσμεν

for φορέσομεν 1 Cor. xv. 49, to a desire on the part of copyists to

_improve_ an assertion into an ethical exhortation, especially in the

Apostolical Epistles; but it is at once safer and more simple to regard

them with Bishop Chr. Wordsworth (N. T. 1 Cor. xv. 49) as instances of

_itacism_: see class (7) above.

(20) Finally, whatever conclusion we arrive at respecting the true reading

in the following passages, the discrepancy could hardly have arisen except

from doctrinal preconceptions. Matt. xix. 17 Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν? οὐδεὶς

ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἶς, ὁ Θεός; or Τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ? εἶς ἐστὶν ὁ

ἀγαθός: John i. 18 ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός or μονογενὴς Θεός: Acts xvi. 7 τὸ

πνεῦμα with or without the addition of Ἰησοῦ: Acts xx. 28 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν

τοῦ Θεοῦ or τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Κυρίου: perhaps also Jude ver. 4 δεσπότην

with or without Θεόν. I do not mention Mark xiii. 32 οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός, as there

is hardly any authority for its rejection now extant; nor Luke ii. 22,

where τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῆς of the Complutensian Polyglott and most of our

common editions is supported by almost no evidence whatever.

11. It is very possible that some scattered readings cannot be reduced to

any of the above-named classes, but enough has been said to afford the

student a general notion of the nature and extent of the subject(13). It

may be reasonably thought that a portion of these variations, and those

among the most considerable, had their origin in a cause which must have

operated at least as much in ancient as in modern times, the changes

gradually introduced after publication by the authors themselves into the

various copies yet within their reach. Such revised copies would circulate

independently of those issued previously, and now beyond the writer’s

control; and thus becoming the parents of a new family of copies, would

originate and keep up diversities from the first edition, without any

fault on the part of transcribers(14). It is thus perhaps we may best

account for the omission or insertion of whole paragraphs or verses in

manuscripts of a certain class [see above (1), (2), (3)]; or, in cases

where the work was in much request, for those minute touches and trifling

improvements in words, in construction, in tone, or in the mere colouring

of the style [(5), (11), (12)], which few authors can help attempting,

when engaged on revising their favourite compositions. Even in the Old

Testament, the song of David in 2 Sam. xxii is evidently an early draft of

the more finished composition, Ps. xviii. Traces of the writer’s _curae

secundae_ may possibly be found in John v. 3, 4; vii. 53-viii. 11; xiii.

26; Acts xx. 4, 15; xxiv. 6-8. To this list some critics feel disposed to

add portions of Luke xxi-xxiv.

12. The fullest critical edition of the Greek Testament hitherto published

contains but a comparatively small portion of the whole mass of variations

already known; as a rule, the editors neglect, and rightly neglect, mere

errors of transcription. Such things must be recorded for several reasons,

but neither they, nor real various readings that are slenderly supported,

can produce any effect in the task of amending or restoring the sacred

text. Those who wish to see for themselves how far the common printed

editions of what is called the “textus receptus” differ from the judgement

of the most recent critics, may refer if they please to the small Greek

Testament published in the series of “Cambridge Greek and Latin

Texts(15),” which exhibits in a thicker type all words and clauses wherein

Robert Stephen’s edition of 1550 (which is taken as a convenient standard)

differs from the other chief modifications of the _textus receptus_ (viz.

Beza’s 1565 and Elzevir’s 1624), as also from the revised texts of

Lachmann 1842-50, of Tischendorf 1865-72, of Tregelles 1857-72, of the

Revisers of the English New Testament (1881), and of Westcott and Hort

(1881). The student will thus be enabled to estimate for himself the

limits within which the text of the Greek Testament may be regarded as

still open to discussion, and to take a general survey of the questions on

which the theologian is bound to form an intelligent opinion.

13. The work that lies before us naturally divides itself into three

distinct parts.

I. A description of the sources from which various readings are derived

(or of their EXTERNAL EVIDENCE), comprising:

(_a_) Manuscripts of the Greek New Testament or of portions thereof.

(_b_) Ancient versions of the New Testament in various languages.

(_c_) Citations from the Greek Testament or its versions made by early

ecclesiastical writers, especially by the Fathers of the Christian Church.

(_d_) Early printed or later critical editions of the Greek Testament.

II. A discussion of the principles on which external evidence should be

applied to the recension of the sacred volume, embracing

(_a_) The laws of INTERNAL EVIDENCE, and the limits of their legitimate

use.

(_b_) The history of the text and of the principal schemes which have been

proposed for restoring it to its primitive state, including recent views

of Comparative Criticism.

(_c_) Considerations derived from the peculiar character and grammatical

form of the dialect of the Greek Testament.

III. The application of the foregoing materials and principles to the

investigation of the true reading in the chief passages of the New

Testament, on which authorities are at variance.

In this edition, as has already been explained in the preface, it has been

found necessary to divide the treatise into two volumes, which will

contain respectively—

I. First Volume:—Ancient Manuscripts.

II. Second Volume:—Versions, Citations, Editions, Principles, and Selected

Passages.

It will be found desirable to read the following pages in the order

wherein they stand, although the chief part of Chapters VII-XIV of the

first volume and some portions elsewhere (indicated by being printed like

them in smaller type) are obviously intended chiefly for reference, or for

less searching examination.

CHAPTER II. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

As the extant Greek manuscripts of the New Testament supply both the most

copious and the purest sources of Textual Criticism, we propose to present

to the reader some account of their peculiarities in regard to material,

form, style of writing, date and contents, before we enter into details

respecting individual copies, under the several subdivisions to which it

is usual to refer them.

1. The subject of the present section has been systematically discussed in

the “Palaeographia Graeca” (Paris, 1708, folio) of Bernard de Montfaucon

[1655-1741(16)], the most illustrious member of the learned Society of the

Benedictines of St. Maur. This truly great work, although its materials

are rather too exclusively drawn from manuscripts deposited in French

libraries, and its many illustrative facsimiles are somewhat rudely

engraved, still maintains a high authority on all points relating to Greek

manuscripts, even after more recent discoveries, especially among the

papyri of Egypt and Herculaneum, have necessarily modified not a few of

its statements. The four splendid volumes of M. J. B. Silvestre’s

“Paléographie Universelle” (Paris, 1839-41, &c. folio) afford us no less

than 300 plates of the Greek writing of various ages, sumptuously

executed; though the accompanying letter-press descriptions, by F. and A.

Champollion Fils, seem in this branch of the subject a little

disappointing; nor are the valuable notes appended to his translation of

their work by Sir Frederick Madden (London, 2 vols. 1850, 8vo)

sufficiently numerous or elaborate to supply the Champollions’ defects.

Much, however, may also be learnt from the “Herculanensium voluminum quae

supersunt” (Naples, 10 tom. 1793-1850, fol.); from Mr. Babington’s three

volumes of papyrus fragments of Hyperides, respectively published in 1850,

1853 and 1858; and especially from the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s

editions of the Codices Ephraemi (1843), Friderico-Augustanus (1846),

Claromontanus (1852), Sinaiticus (1862), Vaticanus (1867), and those other

like publications (e.g. Monumenta sacra inedita 1846-1870, and Anecdota

sacra et profana 1855) which have rendered his name perhaps the very

highest among scholars in this department of sacred literature. What I

have been able to add from my own observation, has been gathered from the

study of Biblical manuscripts now in England. To these sources of

information may now be added Professor Wattenbach’s “Anleitung zur

griechischen Palaeographie” second edition, Leipsic, 1877, Gardthausen’s

“Griechische Palaeographie,” Leipsic, 1879; Dr. C. R. Gregory’s

“Prolegomena” to the eighth edition of Tischendorf, and especially the

publication of “The Palaeographical Society Greek Testament,” Parts I and

II, Leipsic, 1884, 1891, “Facsimiles of Manuscripts and Inscriptions”

edited by E. A. Bond and E. M. Thompson, Parts I-XII, London, 1873-82, and

a Manual on “Greek and Latin Palaeography” from the hands of Mr. E. Maunde

Thompson, of which the proof-sheets have been most kindly placed by the

accomplished author at the disposal of the editor of this work, and have

furnished to this chapter many elements of enrichment. It may be added,

that since manuscripts have been photographed, all other facsimiles have

been put in the shade: and in this edition references as a rule will be

given only to photographed copies.

2. The _materials_ on which writing has been impressed at different

periods and stages of civilization are the following:—Leaves, bark,

especially of the lime (_liber_), linen, clay and pottery, wall-spaces,

metals, lead, bronze, wood, waxen and other tablets, papyrus, skins,

parchment and vellum, and from an early date amongst the Chinese, and in

the West after the capture of Samarcand by the Arabs in A.D. 704, paper

manufactured from fibrous substances(17). The most ancient manuscripts of

the New Testament now existing are composed of vellum or parchment

(_membrana_), the term vellum being strictly applied to the delicate skins

of very young calves, and parchment to the integuments of sheep and goats,

though the terms are as a rule employed convertibly. The word parchment

seems to be a corruption of _charta pergamena_, a name first given to

skins prepared by some improved process for Eumenes, king of Pergamum,

about B.C. 150. In judging of the date of a manuscript on skins, attention

must be paid to the quality of the material, the oldest being almost

invariably written on the thinnest and whitest vellum that could be

procured; while manuscripts of later ages, being usually composed of

parchment, are thick, discoloured, and coarsely grained. Thus the Codex

Sinaiticus of the fourth century is made of the finest skins of antelopes,

the leaves being so large, that a single animal would furnish only two

(Tischendorf, Cod. Frid.-August. Prolegomena, §. 1). Its contemporary, the

far-famed Codex Vaticanus, challenges universal admiration for the beauty

of its vellum: every visitor at the British Museum can observe the

excellence of that of the Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century: that of

the Codex Claromontanus of the sixth century is even more remarkable: the

material of those purple-dyed fragments of the Gospels which Tischendorf

denominates N, also of the sixth century, is so subtle and delicate, that

some persons have mistaken the leaves preserved in England (Brit. Mus.

Cotton, Titus C xv) for Egyptian papyrus. Paper made of cotton(18)

(_charta bombycina_, called also _charta Damascena_ from its place of

manufacture) may have been fabricated in the ninth(19) or tenth century,

and linen paper (_charta_ proper) as early as 1242 A.D.; but they were

seldom used for Biblical manuscripts sooner than the thirteenth, and had

not entirely displaced parchment at the era of the invention of printing,

about A.D. 1450. Lost portions of parchment or vellum manuscripts are

often supplied in paper by some later hand; but the Codex Leicestrensis of

the fourteenth century is composed of a mixture of inferior vellum and

worse paper, regularly arranged in the proportion of two parchment to

three paper leaves, recurring alternately throughout the whole volume.

Like it, in the mixture of parchment and paper, are codd. 233 and Brit.

Mus. Harl. 3,161—the latter however not being a New Testament MS.

3. Although parchment was in occasional, if not familiar, use at the

period when the New Testament was written (τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς

μεμβράνας 2 Tim. iv. 13), yet the more perishable papyrus of Egypt was

chiefly employed for ordinary purposes. This vegetable production had been

used for literary purposes from the earliest times. “Papyrus rolls are

represented on the sculptured walls of Egyptian temples.” The oldest roll

now extant is the papyrus Prisse at Paris, which dates from 2500 B.C., or

even earlier, unless those which have been lately discovered by Mr.

Flinders Petrie reach as far, or even farther, back(20). The ordinary name

applied in Greek to this material was χάρτης (2 John 12), though Herodotus

terms it βύβλος (ii. 100, v. 58), and in Latin _charta_ (2 Esdr. xv. 2;

Tobit vii. 14—Old Latin Version). Papyrus was in those days esteemed more

highly than skins: for Herodotus expressly states that the Ionians had

been compelled to have recourse to goats and sheep for lack of byblus or

papyrus; and Eumenes was driven to prepare parchment because the

Alexandrians were too jealous to supply him with the material which he

coveted(21). Indeed, papyrus was used far beyond the borders of Egypt, and

was plentiful in Rome under the Empire, being in fact the common material

among the Romans during that period: and as many of the manuscripts of the

New Testament must have been written upon so perishable a substance in the

earliest centuries since the Christian era, this probably is one of the

reasons why we possess no considerable copies from before the second

quarter of the fourth century. Only a few fragments of the New Testament

on papyrus remain. We find a minute, if not a very clear description of

the mode of preparing the papyrus for the scribe in the works of the elder

Pliny (Hist. Nat. xiii. 11, 12). The plant grew in Egypt, also in Syria,

and on the Niger and the Euphrates. Mainly under Christian influence it

was supplanted by parchment and vellum, which had superior claims to

durability, and its manufacture ceased altogether on the conquest of Egypt

by the Mohammedans (A.D. 638).

4. Parchment is said to have been introduced at Rome not long after its

employment by Attalus. Nevertheless, if it had been in constant and

ordinary use under the first Emperors, we can hardly suppose that

specimens of secular writing would have failed to come down to us. Its

increased growth and prevalence about synchronize with the rise of

Constantinopolitan influence. It may readily be imagined that vellum

(especially that fine sort by praiseworthy custom required for copies of

Holy Scripture) could never have been otherwise than scarce and dear.

Hence arose, at a very early period of the Christian era, the practice and

almost the necessity of erasing ancient writing from skins, in order to

make room for works in which the living generation felt more interest,

especially when clean vellum failed the scribe towards the end of his

task. This process of destruction, however, was seldom so fully carried

out, but that the strokes of the elder hand might still be traced, more or

less completely, under the more modern writing. Such manuscripts are

called _codices rescripti_ or palimpsests (παλίμψηστα(22)), and several of

the most precious monuments of sacred learning are of this description.

The Codex Ephraemi at Paris contains large fragments both of the Old and

New Testament under the later Greek works of St. Ephraem the Syrian: and

the Codex Nitriensis, more recently disinterred from a monastery in the

Egyptian desert and brought to the British Museum, comprises a portion of

St. Luke’s Gospel, nearly obliterated, and covered over by a Syriac

treatise of Severus of Antioch against Grammaticus, comparatively of no

value whatever. It will be easily believed that the collating or

transcribing of palimpsests has cost much toil and patience to those whose

loving zeal has led them to the attempt: and after all the true readings

will be sometimes (not often) rather uncertain, even though chemical

mixtures (of which “the most harmless is probably hydrosulphuret of

ammonia”) have recently been applied with much success to restore the

faded lines and letters of these venerable records.

5. We need say but little of a practice which St. Jerome(23) and others

speak of as prevalent towards the end of the fourth century, that of

dyeing the vellum purple, and of stamping rather than writing the letters

in silver and gold. The Cotton fragment of the Gospels, mentioned above

(p. 23), is one of the few remaining copies of this kind, as are the newly

discovered Codex Rossanensis and the Codex Beratinus, and it is not

unlikely that the great Dublin palimpsest of St. Matthew owes its present

wretched discoloration to some such dye. But, as Davidson sensibly

observes, “the value of a manuscript does not depend on such things”

(Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 264). We care for them only as they serve

to indicate the reverence paid to the Scriptures by men of old. The style,

however, of the pictures, illustrations, arabesques and initial ornaments

that prevail in later copies from the eighth century downwards, whose

colours and gilding are sometimes as fresh and bright as if laid on but

yesterday(24), will not only interest the student by tending to throw

light on mediaeval art and habits and modes of thought, but will often fix

the date of the books which contain them with a precision otherwise quite

beyond our reach.

6. The ink found upon ancient manuscripts is of various colours(25). Black

ink, the ordinary writing fluid of centuries (μέλαν, _atramentum_, &c.)

differs in tint at various periods and in different countries. In early

MSS. it is either pure black or slightly brown; in the Middle Ages it

varies a good deal according to age and locality. In Italy and Southern

Europe it is generally blacker than in the North, in France and Flanders

it is generally darker than in England; a Spanish MS. of the fourteenth or

fifteenth century may usually be recognized by the peculiar blackness of

the ink. Deterioration is observable in the course of time. The ink of the

fifteenth century particularly is often of a faded grey colour. Inks of

green, yellow, and other colours, are also found, but generally only for

ornamental purposes. Red, either in the form of a pigment or fluid ink, is

of very ancient and common use, being seen even in early Egyptian papyri.

Gold was also used as a writing fluid at a very early period.

Purple-stained vellum MSS. were usually written upon in gold or silver

letters, and ordinary white vellum MSS. were also written in gold,

particularly in the ninth and tenth centuries, in the reigns of the

Carlovingian kings. Gold writing _as a practice_ died out in the

thirteenth century: and writing in silver appears to have ceased

contemporaneously with the disuse of stained vellum. The ancients used the

liquid of cuttle-fish. Pliny mentions soot and gum as the ingredients of

writing-ink. Other later authors add gall-apples: metallic infusions at an

early period, and vitriol in the Middle Ages were also employed.

7. While papyrus remained in common use, the chief instrument employed was

a reed (κάλαμος 3 John ver. 13, _canna_), such as are common in the East

at present: a few existing manuscripts (e.g. the Codd. Leicestrensis and

Lambeth 1350) appear to have been thus written. Yet the firmness and

regularity of the strokes, which often remain impressed on the vellum or

paper after the ink has utterly gone, seem to prove that in the great

majority of cases the _stilus_ made of iron, bronze, or other metal, or

ivory or bone, sharp at one end to scratch the letters, and furnished with

a knob or flat head at the other for purposes of erasure, had not gone

wholly out of use. We must add to our list of Writing materials a bodkin

or needle (_acus_), by means of which and a ruler the blank leaf was

carefully divided, generally on the outer side of the skin, into columns

and lines, whose regularity much enhances the beauty of our best copies.

The vestiges of such points and marks may yet be seen deeply indented on

the surface of nearly all manuscripts, those on one side of each leaf

being usually sufficiently visible to guide the scribe when he came to

write on the reverse. The quill pen probably came into use with vellum,

for which it is obviously suited. The first notices of it occur in a story

respecting Theodoric the Ostrogoth, and in a passage of Isidore’s

“Origines”(26) (vi. 13).

8. Little need be said respecting the _form_ of manuscripts, which in this

particular (_codices_) much resemble printed books. A few are in large

folio; the greater part in small folio or quarto, the prevailing shape

being a quarto (_quaternio_ or quire) whose height but little exceeds its

breadth; some are in octavo, a not inconsiderable number smaller still:

and quires of three sheets or six leaves, and five sheets or ten leaves

(Cod. Vaticanus), are to be met with. In some copies the sheets have marks

in the lower margin of their first or last pages, like the _signatures_ of

a modern volume, the folio at intervals of two, the quarto at intervals of

four leaves, as in the Codex Bezae of the Gospels and Acts (D), and the

Codex Augiensis of St. Paul’s Epistles (F). Not to speak at present of

those manuscripts which have a Latin translation in a column parallel to

the Greek, as the Codex Bezae, the Codex Laudianus of the Acts, and the

Codices Claromontanus and Augiensis of St. Paul, many copies of every age

have two Greek columns on each page; of these the Codex Alexandrinus is

the oldest: the Codex Vaticanus has three columns on a page, the Codex

Sinaiticus four. The unique arrangement(27) of these last two has been

urged as an argument for their higher antiquity, as if they were designed

to imitate _rolled_ books, whose several skins or leaves were fastened

together lengthwise, so that their contents always appeared in parallel

columns; they were kept in scrolls which were unrolled at one end for

reading, and when read rolled up at the other. This fashion prevails in

the papyrus fragments yet remaining, and in the most venerated copies of

the Old Testament preserved in Jewish synagogues.

9. We now approach a more important question, the _style_ of writing

adopted in manuscripts, and the shapes of the several letters. These

varied widely in different ages, and form the simplest and surest criteria

for approximating to the date of the documents themselves. Greek

characters are properly divided into “majuscules” and “minuscules,” or by

a subdivision of the former, into Capitals, which are generally of a

square kind, fitted for inscriptions on stones like Ε; Uncials, or large

letters(28), and a modification of Capitals, with a free introduction of

curves, and better suited for writing, like Ε; and Cursives, or small

letters, adapted for the running hand. _Uncial_ manuscripts were written

in what have frequently been regarded as capital letters, formed

separately, having no connexion with each other, and (in the earlier

specimens) without any space between the words, the marks of punctuation

being few: the _cursive_ or running hand comprising letters more easily

and rapidly made, those in the same word being usually joined together,

with a complete system of punctuation not widely removed from that of

printed books. Speaking generally, and limiting our statement to Greek

manuscripts of the New Testament, Uncial letters or the Literary or

Book-hand prevailed from the fourth to the tenth, or (in the case of

liturgical books) as late as the eleventh century; Cursive letters were

employed as early as the ninth or tenth century, and continued in use

until the invention of printing superseded the humble labours of the

scribe. But cursive writing existed before the Christian era: and it seems

impossible to suppose that so very convenient a form of penmanship could

have fallen into abeyance in ordinary life, although few documents have

come down to us to demonstrate the truth of this supposition.

Besides the broad and palpable distinction between uncial and cursive

letters, persons who have had much experience in the study of manuscripts

are able to distinguish those of either class from one another in respect

of style and character; so that the period at which each was written can

be determined within certain inconsiderable limits. After the tenth

century many manuscripts bear dates, and such become standards to which we

can refer others resembling them which are undated. But since the earliest

dated Biblical manuscript yet discovered (Cursive Evan. 481, see below

Chap. VII) bears the date May 7, A.D. 835, we must resort to other means

for estimating the age of more venerable, and therefore more important,

copies. By studying the style and shape of the letters on Greek

inscriptions, Montfaucon was led to conclude that the more simple,

upright, and regular the form of uncial letters; the less flourish or

ornament they exhibit; the nearer their breadth is equal to their height;

so much the more ancient they ought to be considered. These results have

been signally confirmed by the subsequent discovery of Greek papyri in

Egyptian tombs especially in the third century before the Christian era;

and yet further from numerous fragments of Philodemus, of Epicurus, and

other philosophers, which were buried in the ruins of Herculaneum in A.D.

79 (“Fragmenta Herculanensia,” Walter Scott). The evidence of these

papyri, indeed, is even more weighty than that of inscriptions, inasmuch

as workers in stone, as has been remarked, were often compelled to prefer

straight lines, as better adapted to the hardness of their material, where

writings on papyrus or vellum would naturally flow into curves.

10. While we freely grant that a certain tact, the fruit of study and

minute observation, can alone make us capable of forming a trustworthy

opinion on the age of manuscripts; it is worth while to point out the

_principles_ on which a true judgement must be grounded, and to submit to

the reader a few leading facts, which his own research may hereafter

enable him to apply and to extend.

The first three plates at the beginning of this volume represent the Greek

alphabet, as found in the seven following monuments:

(1) The celebrated Rosetta stone, discovered near that place during the

French occupation of Egypt in 1799, and now in the British Museum. This

most important inscription, which in the hands of Young and Champollion

has proved the key to the mysteries of Egyptian hieroglyphics, records

events of no intrinsic consequence that occurred B.C. 196, in the reign of

Ptolemy V Epiphanes. It is written in the three several forms of

hieroglyphics, of the demotic or common characters of the country, and of

Greek Capitals, which last may represent the _lapidary_ style of the

second century before our era. The words are undivided, without

breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation, and the uncial letters

(excepting [symbol like capital Roman I] for _zeta_) approach very nearly

to our modern capital type. In shape they are simple, perhaps a little

rude; rather square than oblong: and as the carver on this hard black

stone was obliged to avoid curve lines whenever he could, the forms of Ε,

Ξ and Σ differ considerably from the specimens we shall produce from

documents described on soft materials. Plate I. No. (1).

(2) The Codex Friderico-Augustanus of the fourth century, published in

lithographed facsimile in 1846, contains on forty-three leaves fragments

of the Septuagint version, chiefly from 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, with

Nehemiah and Esther complete, in oblong folio, with four columns on each

page. The plates are so carefully executed that the very form of the

ancient letters and the colour of the ink are represented to us by

Tischendorf, who discovered it in the East. In 1859 the same indefatigable

scholar brought to Europe the remainder of this manuscript, which seems as

old as the fourth century, anterior (as he thinks) to the Codex Vaticanus

itself, and published it in 1862, in facsimile type cast for the purpose,

4 tom., with twenty pages lithographed or photographed, at the expense of

the Emperor Alexander II of Russia, to whom the original had been

presented. This book, which Tischendorf calls Codex Sinaiticus, contains,

besides much more of the Septuagint, _the whole New Testament_ with

Barnabas’ Epistle and a part of Hermas’ Shepherd annexed. As a kind of

_avant-courier_ to his great work he had previously put forth a tract

entitled “Notitia Editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici Auspiciis

Imperatoris Alexandri II susceptae” (Leipsic, 1860). Of this most valuable

manuscript a complete account will be given in the opening of the fourth

chapter, under the appellation of _Aleph_ (א), assigned to it by

Tischendorf, in the exercise of his right as its discoverer. Plate I. No.

(3) Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century (A). Plate I.

(4) Codex Purpureus Cotton.: N of the Gospels, of the sixth century. Plate

II.

(5) Codex Nitriensis Rescriptus, R of the Gospels, of the sixth century.

Plate II.

(6) Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus, Z of the Gospels, of the sixth century.

Plate III.

(7) Evangelistarium Harleian. 5598, _dated_ A.D. 995. Plate III.

The leading features of these manuscripts will be described in the fourth

and fifth chapters. At present we wish to compare them with each other for

the purpose of tracing, as closely as we may, the different styles and

fashions of uncial letters which prevailed from the fourth to the tenth or

eleventh century of the Christian era. The varying appearance of cursive

manuscripts cannot so well be seen by exhibiting their alphabets, for

since each letter is for the most part joined to the others in the same

word, _connected_ passages alone will afford us a correct notion of their

character and general features. For the moment we are considering the

uncials only.

If the Rosetta stone, by its necessary avoiding of curve lines, gives only

a notion of the manner adopted on stone and not in common writing, it

resembles our earliest uncials at least in one respect, that the letters,

being as broad as they are high, are all capable of being included within

circumscribed squares. Indeed, yet earlier inscriptions are found almost

totally destitute of curves, even Ο and Θ being represented by simple

squares, with or without a bisecting horizontal line (see _theta_, p.

35)(29). The Herculanean papyri, however (a specimen of which we have

given in Plate iv. No. 10), are much better suited than inscriptions can

be for comparison with our earliest copies of Scripture(30). Nothing can

well be conceived more elegant than these simply-formed graceful little

letters (somewhat diminished in size perhaps by the effects of heat)

running across the volume, thirty-nine lines in a column, without capitals

or breaks between the words. There are scarcely any stops, no breathings,

accents, or marks of any kind; only that >, < or [right-pointing triangle]

are now and then found at the end of a line, to fill up the space, or to

join a word or syllable with what follows. A very few abbreviations occur,

such as [symbol like Pi with Rho] in the first line of our specimen, taken

from Philodemus περὶ κακιῶν (Hercul. Volum. Tom. iii. Col. xx. ll. 6-15),

the very manuscript to which Tischendorf compared his Cod.

Friderico-Augustanus (Proleg. § 11). The papyri, buried for so many ages

from A.D. 79 downwards, may probably be a century older still, since

Philodemus the Epicurean was the contemporary and almost the friend of

Cicero(31). Hence from three to four hundred years must have elapsed

betwixt the date of the Herculanean rolls and that of our earliest

Biblical manuscripts. Yet the fashion of writing changed but little during

the interval, far less in every respect than in the four centuries which

next followed, wherein the plain, firm, upright and square uncials were

giving place to the compressed, oblong, ornamented, or even sloping forms

which predominate from the seventh or eighth century downwards. While

advising the reader to exercise his skill on facsimiles of _entire

passages_, especially in contrasting the lines from Philodemus (No. 10)

with those from the oldest uncials of the New Testament (Nos. 11-14; 17;

18; 20; 24); we purpose to examine the several alphabets (Nos. 1-7) letter

by letter, pointing out to the student those variations in shape which

palaeographers have judged the safest criteria of their relative ages.

_Alpha_, _delta_, _theta_, _xi_, _pi_, _omega_, are among the best tests

for this purpose.

_Alpha_ is not often found in its present familiar shape, except

in inscriptions, where the cross line is sometimes broken into an

angle with the vertex downwards ([Symbol]). Even on the Rosetta

stone the left limb leans against the upper part of the right

limb, but does not form an angle with its extremity, while the

cross line, springing not far from the bottom of the left limb,

_ascends_ to meet the right about half way down. Modifications of

this form may be seen in the Herculanean rolls, only that the

cross line more nearly approaches the horizontal, and sometimes is

almost entirely so. The Cod. Frid.-August.(32) does not vary much

from this form, but the three generating lines are often somewhat

curved. In other books, while the right limb is quite straight,

the left and cross line form a kind of loop or curve, as is very

observable in the Nitrian fragment R, and often in Codd. Alex.,

Ephraemi, Bezae, the newly discovered Rossanensis, and in the

Vatican more frequently still, in all which _alpha_ often

approximates to the shape of our English _a_. _And this curve may

be regarded as a proof of antiquity_; indeed Tischendorf (Proleg.

Cod. Sin. p. xxx, 1863) considers it almost peculiar to the papyri

and the Coptic character. Cod. N (which is more recent than those

named above) makes the two lines on the left form a sharp angle,

as do the Cotton fragment of Genesis (see p. 32, note 1) and Cod.

Claromontanus, Plate xiv. No. 41, only that the lines which

contain the angle in this last are very fine. In later times, as

the letters grew tall and narrow, the modern type of A became more

marked, as in the first letter of Arundel 547 (No. 16), of about

the tenth century, though the form and thickness seen in the Cod.

Claromontanus continued much in vogue to the last. Yet _alpha_

even in Cod. Claromontanus and Cotton Genesis occasionally passes

from the angle into the loop, though not so often as in Cod. A and

its companions. Cod. Borgianus (T), early in the fifth century,

exaggerated this loop into a large ellipse, if Giorgi’s facsimile

may be trusted. In Cod. Laudianus E of the Acts and Cureton’s

palimpsest Homer too the loop is very decided, the Greek and Latin

_a_ in Laud. (No. 25) being alike. Mark also its form in the

papyrus scrawl No. 9 (from one of the orations of Hyperides edited

by Mr. Babington), which _may_ be as old as the Rosetta stone. The

angular shape adopted in Cod. Z (Nos. 6, 18) is unsightly enough,

and (I believe) unique.

_Beta_ varies less than _Alpha_. Originally it consisted of a tall

perpendicular line, on the right side of which four straight lines

are so placed as to form two triangles, whereof the vertical line

comprises the bases, while a small portion of that vertical line

entirely separates the triangles ([Symbol]). This ungraceful

figure was modified very early, even in inscriptions. On the

Rosetta stone (No. 1) the triangles are rounded off into

semicircles, and the lower end of the vertical curved. Yet the

shape in manuscripts is not quite so elegant. The lower curve is

usually the larger, and the curves rarely touch each other. Such

are Codd. ANRZ, Rossanensis (sometimes), and the Cotton Genesis.

In the Herculanean rolls the letter comes near the common cursive

β; in some others (as Cod. Rossanensis at times) its shape is

quite like the modern Β. When oblong letters became common, the

top (e.g. in Cod. Bezae) and bottom extremities of the curve ran

into straight lines, by way of return into the primitive shape

(see No. 36, _dated_ A.D. 980). In the very early papyrus fragment

of Hyperides it looks like the English R standing on a base (No.

9, l. 4). But this specimen rather belongs to the semi-cursive

hand of common life, than to that of books.

_Gamma_ in its simplest form consists of two lines of equal

thickness, the shorter so placed upon the longer, which is

vertical, as to make one right angle with it on the right side.

Thus we find it in the Rosetta stone, the papyrus of Hyperides,

the Herculanean rolls, and very often in Cod. A. The next step was

to make the horizontal line very thin, and to strengthen its

extremity by a point, or knob, as in Codd. Ephraemi (No. 24), RZ:

or the point was thus strengthened without thinning the line, e.g.

Codd. Vatican., Rossanensis, N and most later copies, such as

Harl. 5598 (No. 7) or its contemporary Parham 18 (No. 36). In Cod.

Bezae (No. 42) _gamma_ much resembles the Latin r.

_Delta_ should be closely scrutinized. Its most ancient shape is

an equilateral triangle, the sides being all of the same thickness

([symbol]). Cod. Claromontanus, though of the sixth century, is in

this instance as simple as any: the Herculanean rolls, Codd.

Vatican., Sinait., and the very old copy of the Pentateuch at

Paris (Colbert) or “Cod. Sarravianus” and Leyden, much resemble

it, only that sometimes the Herculanean sides are slightly curved,

and the right descending stroke of Cod. Vatican, is thickened. In

Cod. A begins a tendency to prolong the base on one or both sides,

and to strengthen one or both ends by points. We see a little more

of this in Cod. Rossanensis and in the palimpsest Homer of the

fifth century, published by Cureton. The habit increases and

gradually becomes confirmed in Codd. Ephraemi (No. 24), the

Vatican Dio Cassius of the fifth or sixth century, in Cod. R, and

particularly in N and E of the Acts (Nos. 4, 14, 25). In the

oblong later uncials it becomes quite elaborate, e.g. Cod. B of

the Apocalypse, or Nos. 7, 21, 36. On the Rosetta stone and in the

Cod. Bezae the right side is produced beyond the triangle, and is

produced and slightly curved in Hyperides, curved and strongly

pointed in Cod. Z.

_Epsilon_ has its angular form on the Rosetta marble and other

inscriptions in stone; in the oldest manuscripts it consists as an

uncial of a semicircle, from whose centre to the right of it a

horizontal radius is drawn to the concave circumference. Thus it

appears in the Herculanean rolls (only that here the radius is

usually broken off before it meets the circle), in Codd.

Frid-August., Vatican., the two Paris Pentateuchs (Colbert-Leyden

fifth century, Coislin. sixth) and the Cotton Genesis. In Cod.

Alex. a slight trace is found of the more recent practice of

strengthening each of the three extremities with knobs, but only

the radius at times in Cod. Rossanensis. The custom increases in

Codd. Ephraemi, Bezae, and still more in Codd. NRZ, wherein the

curve becomes greater than a semicircle. In Hyperides (and in a

slighter degree in Cod. Claromon. No. 41) the shape almost

resembles the Latin _e_. The form of this and the other round

letters was afterwards much affected in the narrow oblong uncials:

see Nos, 7, 16, 36.

_Zeta_ on the Rosetta stone maintains its old form ([Symbol rather

like a Roman capital I]), which is indeed but the next letter

reversed. In manuscripts it receives its usual modern shape (Z),

the ends being pointed decidedly, slightly, or not at all, much

after the manner described for _epsilon_. In old copies the lower

horizontal line is a trifle curved (Cod. R, No. 5), or even both

the extreme lines (Cod. Z, No. 6, and Cod. Augiensis of St. Paul).

In such late books as Parham 18 (A.D. 980, facsim. No. 36) _Zeta_

is so large as to run far below the line, ending in a kind of

tail.

_Eta_ does not depart from its normal shape (Η) except that in

Cod. Ephraemi (No. 24) and some narrow and late uncials (e.g. Nos.

7, 36) the cross line is often more than half way up the letter.

In a few later uncials the cross line passes _outside_ the two

perpendiculars, as in the Cod. Augiensis, twenty-six times on the

photographed page of Scrivener’s edition.

_Theta_ deserves close attention. In some early inscriptions it is

found as a square, bisected horizontally ([Symbol]). On the

Rosetta stone and most others (but only in such monuments) it is a

circle, with a strong central _point_. On the Herculanean rolls

the central point is spread into a short horizontal line, yet not

reaching the circumference (No. 10, l. 8). Thence in our uncials

from the fourth to the sixth century the line becomes a horizontal

diameter to a true circle (Codd. Vatican., Sinait., Codd. ANRZ,

Ephraemi, Claromont., Rossanensis, and Cureton’s Homer). In the

seventh century the diameter began to pass out of the circle on

both sides: thence the circle came to be compressed into an

ellipse (sometimes very narrow), and the ends of the minor axis to

be ornamented with knobs, as in Cod. B of the Apocalypse (eighth

century), Cod. Augiensis (ninth century), LX of the Gospels, after

the manner of the tenth century (Nos. 7, 16, 21, 36, 38).

_Iota_ would need no remark but for the custom of placing over it

an _upsilon_, when they commence a syllable, either a very short

straight line, or one or two dots. After the papyrus rolls no copy

is quite without them, from the Codex Alexandrinus, the Cotton

Genesis and Paris-Leyden Pentateuch, Cod. Z and the Isaiah

included in it, to the more recent cursives; although in some

manuscripts they are much rarer than in others. By far the most

usual practice is to put two points, but Cod. Ephraemi, in its

_New_ Testament portion, stands nearly alone with the Cotton

Genesis (ch. xviii. 9) in exhibiting the straight line; Cod.

Alexandrinus in the Old Testament, but not in the New, frequently

resembles Codd. Ephraemi and the Cotton Genesis in placing a

straight line over _iota_, and more rarely over _upsilon_, instead

of the single or double dots; Cod. Sinaiticus employs two points

or a straight line (as in Z’s Isaiah) promiscuously over both

vowels, and in Wake 12, a cursive of the eleventh century, the

former frequently pass into the latter in writing. Codd. Borgianus

(T) and Claromont. have but one point; Codd. N and Rossanensis

have two for _iota_, one for _upsilon_.

_Kappa_ deserves notice chiefly because the vertex of the angle

formed by the two inclined lines very frequently does not meet the

perpendicular line, but falls short of it a little to the right:

we observe this in Codd. ANR, Ephraemi, Rossanensis, and later

books. The copies that have strong points at the end of _epsilon_

&c. (e.g. Codd. NR and AZ partly) have the same at the extremity

of the thin or upper limb of _Kappa_. In Cod. D a fine horizontal

stroke runs a little to the left from the bottom of the vertical

line. Compare also the initial letter in Cod. M, No. 32.

_Lambda_ much resembles _alpha_, but is less complicated. All our

models (except Harl. 5598, No. 7), from the Rosetta stone

downwards, have the right limb longer than the left, which thus

leans against its side, but the length of the projection varies

even in the same passage (e.g. No. 10). In most copies later than

the Herculanean rolls and Cod. Sinaiticus the shorter line is much

the thinner, and the longer slightly curved. In Cod. Z (Nos. 6,

18) the projection is curved elegantly at the end, as we saw in

_delta_.

_Mu_ varies as much as most letters. Its normal shape, resembling

the English M, is retained in the Rosetta stone and most

inscriptions, but at an early period there was a tendency to make

the letter broader, and not to bring the re-entering or middle

angle so low as in English (e.g. Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

In Cod. Ephraemi this central angle is sometimes a little rounded:

in Codd. Alex. and Parham 18 the lines forming the angle do not

always spring from the top of the vertical lines: in Arund. 547

(No. 16) they spring almost from their foot, forming a thick

inelegant loop below the line, the letter being rather narrow:

Harl. 5598 (No. 7) somewhat resembles this last, only that the

loop is higher up. In the Herculanean rolls (and to a less extent

in the Cotton Genesis) the two outer lines cease to be

perpendicular, and lean outwards until the letter looks much like

an inverted W (No. 10). In the papyrus Hyperides (No. 9) these

outer lines are low curves, and the central lines rise in a kind

of flourish above them. _Mu_ assumes this shape also in Cod. T,

and at the end of a line even in Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

This form is so much exaggerated in some examples, that by

discarding the outer curves we obtain the shape seen in Cod. Z

(Nos. 6, 18) and one or two others (e.g. Paul M in Harl. 5613, No.

34), almost exactly resembling an inverted pi. So also in the

Isaiah of Cod. Z, only that the left side and base line were made

by one stroke of the pen.

_Nu_ is easier, the only change (besides the universal transition

from the square to the oblong in the later uncials) being that in

a few cases the thin cross line does not pass from the top of the

left to the bottom of the right vertical line as in English (N),

but only from about half-way or two-thirds down the left vertical

in the Cotton Genesis, Codd. A, Rossanensis, Harl. 5598 (No. 7),

and others; in Codd. אNR Parham 18 it often neither springs from

the top of one, nor reaches the foot of the other (Nos. 4, 5, 11b,

12, 36); while in Cod. Claromont. (No. 41) it is here and there

not far from horizontal. In a few _cursives_ (e.g. 440 Evan. at

Cambridge, and Tischendorf’s loti or 61 of the Acts), H and N

almost interchange their shapes: so in Evan. 66 and Wake 34 at the

end of a line only.

_Xi_ in the Rosetta stone and Herculanean rolls consists of three

parallel straight lines, the middle one being the shortest, as in

modern printed Greek: but all our Biblical manuscripts exhibit

modifications of the small printed ξ, such as must be closely

inspected, but cannot easily be described. In the Cotton Genesis

this _xi_ is narrow and smaller than its fellows, much like an old

English [Symbol: yogh] resting on a horizontal base which curves

downwards: while in late uncials, as B of the Apocalypse, Cod.

Augiensis (l. 13 Scrivener’s _photographed page_), and especially

in Parham 18 (No. 36), the letter and its flourished finial are

continued far below the line. For the rest we must refer to our

facsimile alphabets, &c. The figures in Cod. Frid.-August. (Nos.

2, 11a, ll. 3, 8) look particularly awkward, nor does the shape in

Cod. Rossanensis much differ from these. In Cod. E, the Zurich

Psalter of the seventh century, and Mr. W. White’s fragment Wd,

_xi_ is the common Z with a large horizontal line over it,

strengthened by knobs at each end.

_Omicron_ is unchanged, excepting that in the latest uncials (No.

16, 36) the circle is mostly compressed, like _theta_, into a very

eccentric ellipse.

_Pi_ requires attention. Its original shape was doubtless two

vertical straight lines joined at top by another horizontal,

thinner perhaps but not much shorter than they. Thus we meet with

it on the Rosetta stone, Codd. R, Vatican., Sinaiticus, Ephraemi,

Claromontanus, Laud. of the Acts, the two Pentateuchs, Cureton’s

Homer, and sometimes Cod. A (No. 12). The fine horizontal line is,

however, slightly produced on both sides in such early documents

as the papyri of Hyperides and Herculaneum, and in the Cotton

Genesis, as well as in Cod. A occasionally(33). Both extremities

of this line are fortified by strong points in Codd. N and

Rossanensis, and mostly in Cod. A, but the left side only in Cod.

Z, and this in Cod. Bezae occasionally becomes a sort of hooked

curve. The later oblong _pi_ was usually very plain, with thick

vertical lines and a very fine horizontal, in Arund. 547 (No. 16)

not at all produced; in Harl. 5598 (No. 7) slightly produced on

both sides; in Parham 18 (No. 36) produced only on the right.

_Rho_ is otherwise simple, but in all our authorities except

inscriptions is produced below the line of writing, least perhaps

in the papyri and Cod. Claromont., considerably in Codd. AX (Nos.

12, 38), most in Parham 18 (No. 36): Codd. N, Rossanensis, and

many later copies have the lower extremity boldly _bevelled_. The

form is [Symbol like sans-serif bold Roman capital P] rather than

[Symbol like serif Roman capital P] in Codd. אA. In Cod. D a

horizontal stroke, longer and thicker than in _kappa_, runs to the

left from the bottom of the vertical line.

_Sigma_ retains its angular shape ([Symbol] or Σ) only on

inscriptions, as the Rosetta, and that long after the square

shapes of _omicron_ and _theta_ were discarded. The uncial or

semicircular form, however, arose early, and to this letter must

be applied all that was said of _epsilon_ as regards terminal

points (a knob at the lower extremity occurs even in Cod. א, e.g.

Acts ii. 31), and its cramped shape in later ages.

_Tau_ in its oldest form consists of two straight lines of like

thickness, the horizontal being bisected by the lower and vertical

one. As early as in Cod. Sinaiticus the horizontal line is made

thin, and strengthened on the left side _only_ by a point or small

knob (Nos. 3, 11): thus we find it in Cod. Laud. of the Acts

sometimes. In Cod. Alex. _both_ ends are slightly pointed, in

Codd. Ephraemi, Rossanensis, and others much more. In Cod. Bezae

the horizontal is curved and flourished; in the late uncials the

vertical is very thick, the horizontal fine, and the ends formed

into heavy triangles (e.g. No. 16).

_Upsilon_ on the Rosetta stone and Herculanean rolls is like our

Υ, all the strokes being of equal thickness and not running below

the line: nor do they in Hyperides or in Codd. XZ and Augiensis,

which have the upper lines neatly curved (Nos. 6, 9, 18, 38). The

right limb of many of the rest is sometimes, but not always

curved; the vertical line in Codd. Vatican. and Sinaiticus drops

slightly below the line; in Codd. A, Ephraemi, Cotton Genesis,

Cureton’s Homer, Laud. of the Acts and Rossanensis somewhat more;

in others (as Codd. Bezae NR) considerably. In the subscription to

St. Matthew’s Gospel, which may be by a somewhat later hand, a

horizontal line crosses the vertical a little below the curved

lines in Cod. Rossanensis. In later uncials (Nos. 7, 36) it

becomes a long or awkward Y, or even degenerates into a long V

(No. 16); or, in copies written by Latin scribes, into Y reversed.

We have described under _iota_ the custom of placing dots, &c.

over _upsilon_. But in Tischendorf’s Leipzig II. (fragments from

Numbers to Judges of the seventh or eighth century) _upsilon_

receives two dots, _iota_ only one. Once in Cod. Z (Matt. xxi. 5)

and oftener in its Isaiah a convex semicircle, like a circumflex,

stands over _upsilon_.

_Phi_ is a remarkable letter. In most copies it is the largest in

the alphabet, quite disproportionately large in Codd. ZL (Paris

62) and others, and to some extent in Codd. AR, Ephraemi,

Rossanensis, and Claromont. The circle (which in the Cotton

Genesis is _sometimes_ still a lozenge, see above, p. 32, note 1),

though large and in some copies even too broad (e.g. No. 18), is

usually in the line of the other letters, the vertical line being

produced _far_ upwards (Cod. Augiens. and Nos. 16, 41), or

downwards (No. 10), or both (No. 36). On the Rosetta stone the

circle is very small and the straight line short.

_Chi_ is a simple transverse cross (Χ) and never goes above or

below the line. The limb that inclines from left to right is in

the uncial form for the most part thick, the other thin (with

final points according to the practice stated for _epsilon_), and

this limb or both (as in Cod. Z) a little curved.

_Psi_ is a rare but trying letter. Its oldest form resembled an

English V with a straight line running up bisecting its interior

angle. On the Rosetta stone it had already changed into its

present form (Ψ), the curve being a small semicircle, the vertical

rising above the other letters and falling a little below the

line. In the Cotton Genesis _psi_ is rather taller than the rest,

but the vertical line does not rise above the level of the circle.

In Codd. ANR and Rossanensis the under line is prolonged: in R the

two limbs are straight lines making an angle of about 45° with the

vertical, while oftentimes in Hyperides and Cod. Augiensis

(Scrivener’s _photograph_, ll. 18, 23) they curve _downwards_; the

limbs in N and R being strongly (slightly in Rossanensis) pointed

at the ends, and the bottom of the vertical bevelled as usual. In

Cod. B of the Apocalypse, in Evan. OWdΞ, and even in Hyperides,

the limbs (strongly pointed) fall into a straight line, and the

figure becomes a large cross (No. 7). In Evan. 66 the vertical is

crossed above the semicircle by a minute horizontal line.

_Omega_ took the form Ω, even when _omicron_ and _theta_ were

square; thus it appears on the Rosetta stone, but in the Hyperides

and Herculaneum rolls it is a single curve, much like the w of

English writing, only that the central part is sometimes only a

low double curve (No. 10, l. 6). In the Cotton Genesis, Codd.

Vatican., Sinaiticus, Alex., Ephraemi, Bezae, Claromont.,

Nitriens., Rossanensis, there is little difference in shape,

though sometimes Cod. Vatican. comes near the Herculanean rolls,

and Cod. Alex, next to it: elsewhere their strokes (especially

those in the centre) are fuller and more laboured. Yet in Cod. N

it is often but a plain semicircle, bisected by a perpendicular

radius, with the ends of the curve bent inwards (No. 14, l. 2). In

the late uncials (Nos. 7, 16) it almost degenerates into an

ungraceful W, while in Cod. Augiensis (_photograph_, l. 18) the

first limb is occasionally a complete circle.

These details might be indefinitely added to by references to other

codices and monuments of antiquity, but we have employed most of the

principal copies of the Greek Testament, and have indicated to the student

the chief points to which his attention should be drawn. Three leading

principles have perhaps been sufficiently established by the foregoing

examples:

First, that the uncials used in writing differ from the capitals cut in

stone by the curved shapes which the writing hand naturally adopts(34).

Secondly, that the upright uncials of square dimensions are more ancient

than those which are narrow, oblong, or _leaning_(35).

Thirdly, that the simpler and less elaborate the style of writing, the

more remote is its probable date.

Copies of a later age occasionally aim at imitating the fashion of an

earlier period, or possibly the style of the older book from which their

text is drawn. But this anachronism of fashion may be detected, as well by

other circumstances we are soon to mention, as from the air of constraint

which pervades the whole manuscript: the rather as the scribe will now and

then fall into the more familiar manner of his contemporaries; especially

when writing those small letters which our Biblical manuscripts of all

dates (even the most venerable) perpetually crowd into the ends of lines,

in order to save space.

11. We do not intend to dwell much on the cursive handwriting. No books of

the Greek Scriptures earlier than the ninth century in this style are now

extant(36), though it was prevalent long before in the intercourse of

business or common life. The papyri of Hyperides (e.g. No. 9) and the

Herculanean rolls, in a few places, show that the process had then

commenced, for the letters of each word are often joined, and their shapes

prove that swiftness of execution was more aimed at than distinctness.

This is seen even more clearly in a petition to Ptolemy Philometor (B.C.

164) represented in the “Paléographie Universelle” (No. 56). The same

great work contains (No. 66) two really cursive charters of the Emperors

Maurice (A.D. 600) and Heraclius (A.D. 616). Other instances of early

cursive writing may be found in two Deeds of Sale, A.D. 616, and 599, a

Manumission in 355, an Official Deed in 233, a Deed of Sale in 154, in

Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens, about 100, in a Farm Account in

78-79, in a Receipt in A.D. 20, in the Casati contract in B.C. 114, in a

Letter on Egyptian Contracts in 146, a Treasury Circular in 170, in a

Steward’s letter of the third century B.C., in various documents of the

same century lying in the British Museum, at Paris, Berlin, Leyden, and

elsewhere, of which the oldest, being amongst the papyri discovered by Dr.

Flinders Petrie at Gurob is referred to B.C. 268, and the Leyden papyrus

to 260(37). Yet the earliest books of a later age known to be written in

cursive letters are Cod. 481 (Scholz 461, dated A.D. 835) the Bodleian

Euclid (dated A.D. 888) and the twenty-four dialogues of Plato in the same

Library (dated A.D. 895)(38). There is reason to believe, from the

comparatively unformed character of the writing in them all, that Burney

19 in the British Museum (from which we have extracted the alphabet No. 8,

Plate iii), and the minute, beautiful and important Codex l of the Gospels

at Basle (of which see a facsimile No. 23), are but little later than the

Oxford books, and may be referred to the tenth century. Books copied after

the cursive hand had become regularly formed, in the eleventh, twelfth and

thirteenth centuries, are hard to be distinguished by the mere

handwriting, though they are often dated, or their age fixed by the

material (see p. 23), or the style of their illuminations. Colbert. 2844,

or 33 of the Gospels (facsim. No. 39), is attributed to the eleventh

century, and Burney 21 (No. 15)(39), is dated A.D. 1292, and afford good

examples of their respective dates. _Beta_ (l. 1 letter 4), _when joined

to other letters_, is barely distinguishable from _upsilon_(40); _nu_ is

even nearer to _mu_; the tall forms of _eta_ and _epsilon_ are very

graceful, the whole style elegant and, after a little practice, easily

read. Burney 22 (facsimile No. 37) is dated about the same time, A.D.

1319, and the four Biblical lines much resemble Burney 21(41). In the

fourteenth century a careless style came into fashion, of which Cod.

Leicestrensis (No. 40) is an exaggerated instance, and during this century

and the next our manuscripts, though not devoid of a certain beauty of

appearance, are too full of arbitrary and elaborate contractions to be

conveniently read. The formidable list of abbreviations and ligatures

represented in Donaldson’s Greek Grammar (p. 20, third edition)(42)

originated at this period in the perverse ingenuity of the Greek emigrants

in the West of Europe, who subsisted by their skill as copyists; and these

pretty puzzles (for such they now are to many a fair classical scholar),

by being introduced into early printed books(43), have largely helped to

withdraw them from use in modern times.

12. We have now to describe the practice of Biblical manuscripts as

regards the insertion of ι forming a diphthong with the long vowels _eta_

and _omega_, also with _alpha_ long, whether by being _ascript_, i.e.

written by their side, or _subscript_, i.e. written under them. In the

earliest inscriptions and in the papyri of Thebes ι _ascript_ (the iota

not smaller than other letters) is invariably found. In the petition to

Ptolemy Philometor (_above_, p. 41) it occurs four times in the first

line, three times in the third: in the fragments of Hyperides it is

perpetually though not always read, even where (especially with verbs) it

has no rightful place, e.g. ετωι και αντιβολωι (facsimile No. 9, ll. 3, 4)

for αἰτῶ καὶ ἀντιβολῶ. A little before the Christian era it began to grow

obsolete, probably from its being lost in pronunciation. In the

Herculanean Philodemus (the possible limits of whose date are from B.C. 50

to A.D. 79) as in Evann. 556, 604 (Matt. ii. 12, 13), it is often dropped,

though more usually written. In Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus it is

probably not found, and from this period it almost disappears from

Biblical uncials(44); in Cureton’s Homer, of the fifth or perhaps of the

sixth century, ι _ascript_ is sometimes neglected, but usually inserted;

sometimes also ι is placed _above_ Η or Ω, an arrangement neither neat nor

convenient. With the cursive character ι _ascript_ came in again, as may

be seen from the subscriptions in the Bodleian Euclid and Plato (p. 42,

note 1). The _semicursive_ fragment of St. Paul’s Epistles in red letters

(M of St. Paul, Plate xii No. 34), used for the binding of Harleian 5613,

contains ι _ascript_ twice, but I have tried in vain to verify Griesbach’s

statement (Symbol. Crit. ii. p. 166) that it has ι _subscript_ “bis tantum

aut ter.” I can find no such instance in these leaves. The cursive

manuscripts, speaking generally, either entirely omit both forms, or, if

they give either, far more often neglect than insert them. Cod. 1 of the

Gospels exhibits the _ascript_ ι. Of forty-three codices now in England

which have been examined with a view to this matter, twelve have no

vestige of either fashion, fifteen represent the _ascript_ use, nine the

_subscript_ exclusively, while the few that remain exhibit both

indifferently(45). The earliest cursive copy ascertained to exhibit ι

_subscript_ is Matthaei’s r (Apoc. 502 [x]), and after that the Cod.

Ephesius (Evan. 71), dated A.D. 1160. The _subscript_ ι came much into

vogue during the fifteenth century, and thus was adopted in printed books.

13. Breathings (_spiritus_) and accents(46) were not applied

systematically to Greek Texts before the seventh century. But a practice

prevailed in that and the succeeding century of inserting them in older

manuscripts, where they were absent _primâ manu_. That such was done in

many instances (e.g. in Codd. Vatican. and Coislin. 202 or H of St. Paul)

appears clearly from the fact that the passages which the scribe who

retouched the old letters for any cause left unaltered, are destitute of

these marks, though they appear in all other places. Cod. א exhibits

breathings, apparently by the original scribe, in Tobit vi. 9; Gal. v. 21

only. The case of Cod. Alexandrinus is less easy. Though the rest of the

book has neither breathings (except a few here and there) nor accents, the

first four lines of _each_ column of the book of Genesis (see facsimile

No. 12), which are written in red, are fully furnished with them. These

marks Baber, who edited the Old Testament portion of Cod. A, pronounced to

be by a second hand (Notae, p. 1); Sir Frederick Madden, a more competent

judge, declares them the work of the original scribe (Madden’s Silvestre,

Vol. i. p. 194, note), and after repeated examination we know not how to

dissent from his view(47). So too in the Sarravian Pentateuch of the fifth

century we read ΤΟΝΥΝ [with several symbols written over the Υ] (Lev. xi.

7) by the first hand. The Cureton palimpsest of Homer also has them,

though they are occasionally obliterated, and some few are evidently

inserted by a corrector; the case is nearly so with the Milan Homer edited

by Mai; and the same must be stated of the Vienna Dioscorides (Silvestre,

No. 62), whose date is fixed by internal evidence to about A.D. 500. In

the papyrus fragment of the Psalms, now in the British Museum, the accents

are very accurate, and the work of the original scribe. These facts, and

others like these, may make us hesitate to adopt the notion generally

received among scholars on the authority of Montfaucon (Palaeogr. Graec.

p. 33), that breathings and accents were not introduced _primâ manu_

before the seventh or eighth century; although up to that period, no

doubt, they were placed very incorrectly, and often omitted altogether.

The breathings are much the more ancient and important of the two. The

_spiritus lenis_ indeed may be a mere invention of the Alexandrian

grammarians of the second or third century before Christ, but the

_spiritus asper_ is in fact the substitute for a real letter (H) which

appears on the oldest inscriptions; its original shape being the first

half of the H ([symbol like the left half of a Roman capital letter H]),

of which the second half was subsequently adopted for the _lenis_ ([symbol

like the right half of a Roman capital H]). This form is sometimes found

in manuscripts of about the eleventh century (e.g. Lebanon, B.M. Addit.

11300 or kscr, and usually in Lambeth 1178 or dscr) ed. of 1550, but even

in the Cod. Alexandrinus the comma and inverted comma are several times

substituted to represent the _lenis_ and _asper_ respectively (facsimile

No. 12): and at a later period this last was the ordinary, though not

quite the invariable, mode of expressing the breathings. Aristophanes of

Byzantium (keeper of the famous Library at Alexandria under Ptolemy

Euergetes, about B.C. 240), though probably not the inventor of the Greek

accents, was the first to arrange them in a system. Accentuation must have

been a welcome aid to those who employed Greek as a learned, though not as

their vernacular tongue, and is so convenient and suggestive that no

modern scholar can afford to dispense with its familiar use: yet not

being, like the rough breathing, an essential portion of the language, it

was but slowly brought into general vogue. It would seem that in

Augustine’s age [354-430] the distinction between the smooth and rough

breathing in the manuscripts was just such a point as a careful reader

would mark, a hasty one overlook(48). Hence it is not surprising that

though these marks are entirely absent both from the Theban and

Herculanean papyri, a few breathings are apparently by the first hand in

Cod. Borgianus or T (Tischendorf, N. T. 1859, Proleg. p. cxxxi). One rough

breathing is just visible in that early palimpsest of St. John’s Gospel,

Ib or Nb. Such as appear, together with some accents, in the Coislin

Octateuch of the sixth or seventh century, may not the less be _primâ

manu_ because many pages are destitute of them; those of Cod.

Claromontanus, which were once deemed original, are now pronounced by its

editor Tischendorf to be a later addition. Cod. N, the purple fragment so

often spoken of already, exhibits _primâ manu_ over certain vowels a kind

of smooth breathing or slight acute accent, sometimes little larger than a

point, but inserted on no intelligible principle, so far as we can see,

and far oftener omitted entirely. All copies of Scripture which have not

been specified, down to the end of the seventh century, are quite

destitute of breathings and accents. An important manuscript of the eighth

or ninth century, Cod. L or Paris 62 of the Gospels, has them for the most

part, but not always; though often in the wrong place, and at times in

utter defiance of all grammatical rules. Cod. B of the Apocalypse,

however, though of the same age, has breathings and accents as constantly

and correctly as most. Codices of the ninth century, with the exception of

three written in the West of Europe (Codd. Augiensis or Paul F,

Sangallensis or Δ of the Gospels, and Boernerianus or Paul G, which will

be particularly described afterwards), are all accompanied with these

marks in full, though often set down without any precise rule, so far as

our experience has enabled us to observe. The uncial Evangelistaria (e.g.

Arundel 547; Parham 18; Harleian 5598), especially, are much addicted to

prefixing the _spiritus asper_ improperly; chiefly, perhaps, to words

beginning with H, so that documents of that age are but slender

authorities on such points. Of the cursives the general tendency is to be

more and more accurate as regards the accentuation, the later the date:

but this is only a general rule, as some that are early are as careful,

and certain of the latest as negligent, as can well be imagined. All of

them are partial to placing accents or breathings over both parts of a

word compounded with a preposition (e.g. ἐπὶσυνάξαι), and on the other

hand often drop them between a preposition and its case (e.g. ἐπάροτρον).

14. The punctuation in early times was very simple. In the papyri of

Hyperides there are no stops at all, in the Herculanean rolls exceeding

few: Codd. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the latter very rarely by the first

hand) have a single point here and there on a level with the top of the

letters, and occasionally a very small break in the continuous uncials,

with or (as always in Cod. Ib of the sixth century) without the point, to

denote a pause in the sense. Codd. A N have the same point a little

oftener; in Codd. C Wa (Paris 314) Z and the Cotton Genesis the single

point stands indiscriminately at the head, middle, or foot of the letters,

while in E (Basil. A. N. iii. 12) of the Gospels and B of the Apocalypse,

as in Cod. Marchalianus of the Prophets (sixth or seventh century), this

change in the position of the point indicates a full-stop, half stop, or

comma respectively. In Cod. L, of the same date as Codd. E and B (Apoc.),

besides the full point we have the comma (::.) and semicolon (::), with a

cross also for a stop. In Codd. Y Θa (of about the eighth century) the

single point has its various powers as in Cod. E, &c., but besides this

are double, treble, and in Cod. Y quadruple, points with different powers.

In late uncials, especially Evangelistaria, the chief stop is a cross,

often in red (e.g. Arund. 547); while in Harleian 5598 [symbol like three

ovals] seems to be the note of interrogation(49). When the continuous

writing came to be broken up into separate words (of which Cod. Augiensis

in the ninth century affords one of the earliest examples) the single

point was intended to be placed after the last letter of each word, on a

level with the middle of the letters. But even in this copy it is often

omitted in parts, and in Codd. ΔG, written on the same plan, more

frequently still. Our statements refer only to the Greek portions of these

copies; the Latin semicolon (;) and the note of interrogation (?) occur in

their Latin versions. The Greek interrogation (;) first occurs about the

ninth century, and (,) used as a stop a little later. The Bodleian Genesis

of this date, or a little earlier, uses (,) also as an interrogative: so

in later times B-C. iii. 5 [xii], and Evan. 556 [xii]. In the earliest

cursives the system of punctuation is much the same as that of printed

books: the English colon (:) not being much used, but the upper single

point in its stead(50). In a few cursives (e.g. Gonville or 59 of the

Gospels), this upper point, set in a larger space, stands also for a full

stop: indeed (·) is the only stop found in Tischendorf’s loti or 61 of the

Acts (Brit. Mus. Add. 20,003): while (;) and (·) are often confused in 440

of the Gospels (Cantab. Mm. 6. 9). The English comma, placed above a

letter, is used for the apostrophus, which occurs in the very oldest

uncials, especially at the end of proper names, or to separate compounds

(e.g. απ᾽ ορφανισθεντες in Cod. Clarom.), or when the word ends in ξ or ρ

(e.g. σαρξ᾽ in Cod. B, θυγατηρ᾽ in Codd. Sinait. and A, χειρ᾽ in Cod. A,

ὡσπερ᾽ in the Dioscorides, A.D. 500), or even to divide syllables (e.g.

συριγ᾿γας in Cod. Frid.-August., πολ᾿λα, κατεστραμ᾿μενη, αναγ᾿γελι in Cod.

Sinaiticus). In Cod. Z it is found only after αλλ and μεθ, but in Z’s

Isaiah it indicates other elisions (e.g. επ). This mark is more rare in

Cod. Ephraemi than in some others, but is used more or less by all, and is

found after εξ, or ουχ, and a few like words, even in the most recent

cursives. In Cod. Bezae and others it assumes the shape of > rather than

that of a comma.

15. Abbreviated words are perhaps least met with in Cod. Vatican., but

even it has _θσ_, _κσ_, _ισ_, _χσ_, _πνα_ for θεός, κύριος, ἰησοῦς,

χριστός, πνεῦμα, &c. and their cases. [Transcriber’s Note: In this e-book,

underlines are used to represent the overlines used in the paper book.]

The Cotton Genesis has _θου_ ch. i. 27 by a later hand, but θεου ch. xli.

38. Besides these Codd. Sinaiticus, Alex., Ephraemi and the rest supply

_ανοσ_, _ουνοσ_, _πηρ_ (_πρ_ Cod. Sarrav. Num. xii. 14, &c., _πτηρ_ Cod.

Rossanensis), _μηρ_, _ιλημ_ or _ιηλμ_ or _ιλμ_ or _ιηό_ (_ιελμ_ Cod.

Sarrav.), _ιηϊ_ or _ισλ_ or _ισηλ_, _δαδ_, and some of them _σηρ_ for

σωτήρ, _υσ_ for υἱός, _παρνξς_ [with a theta above the line] for παρθένος

(Bodleian Genesis), _σρσ_ for σταυρός: Cod. L has πνευ, and Cod. Vatican.

in the _Old_ Testament _ανοσ_ and _πρσ_ occasionally, _ἐθν_ and _ιλημ_ or

_ιλμ_ often(51); Evan. 604 has _σηρ_ for σωτήρ, and _ἐθν_ for ἐθνῶν(52).

Cod. Bezae always writes at length ανθρωπος, μητηρ, υἱος, σωτηρ, οὐρανος,

δαυειδ, ἰσραηλ, ἱερουσαλημ; but abridges the sacred names into _χρσ_,

_ιησ_(53) &c. and their cases, as very frequently, but by no means

invariably, do the kindred Codd. Augiens., Sangall., and Boerner. Cod. Z

seldom abridges, and all copies often set υἱος in full. A few dots

sometimes supply the place of the line denoting abbreviation (e.g. θσ

[with dots over the letters] Cotton Genesis, ανοσ [with dots over the

letters] Colbert. Pentateuch). A straight line over the last letter of a

line, sometimes over any vowel, indicates N (or also M in the Latin of

Codd. Bezae and Claromont.) in all the Biblical uncials, but is placed

only over numerals in the Herculanean rolls: κ [with tilde below and to

the right], τ [with tilde below and to the right], and less often θ [with

tilde below and to the right] for καί (see p. 16, note 1), -ται, -θαι are

met with in Cod. Sinaiticus and all later except Cod. Z: [symbol somewhat

like Arabic number 8] for ου chiefly in Codd. L, Augiensis, B of the

Apocalypse, and the more recent uncials. Such _compendia scribendi_ as

[symbol like Pi with Rho] in the Herculanean rolls (above p. 33) occur

mostly at the end of lines: that form, with ΜΥ [with small circle between

the letters] (No. 11 a, l. 4), and a few more even in the Cod. Sinaiticus;

in Cod. Sarrav. Μ [with small circle over the letter] stands for both μου

and μοι; in Cureton’s Homer we have Πς for πους, Σς for -σας and such

like. In later books they are more numerous and complicated, particularly

in cursive writing. The terminations [small raised circle] for ος,

[horizontal line] for ν, [symbol like left single quotation mark] or

[symbol like two left quotation marks] for ον, [symbol like right double

quotation mark] for αις, [symbol like tilde] for ων or ω or ως, [symbol

like raised small sigma] for ης, [symbol like raised small upsilon] for ου

are familiar; besides others, peculiar to one or a few copies, e.g. τγ for

ττ in Burney 19, and Burdett-Coutts i. 4, h for αυ, b for ερ, — for α,

[symbol like horizontal line with circle at right edge] for αρ in the

Emmanuel College copy of the Epistles (Paul 30, No. 33), and [symbol like

colon] for α, [symbol like small raised capital sigma] or [symbol like

raised small sigma] for αν, [symbol like square root symbol] for ας in

Parham 17 of the Apocalypse. Other more rare abridgements are [symbol like

two raised small sigmas] for εις in Wake 12, [square root sign]

(Burdett-Coutts I. 4) or < or [raised small alpha] for εν, [symbol like

two dots] for ι and [symbol like Hebrew letter Tet with two dots over it]

for εσ (B-C. iii. 37), [symbol like two dots with comma below them] for εσ

and ε for σε and [symbol like tilde over Rho over Tau] for τησ (B-C. ii.

26), [symbol] for ται and [symbol] for ωσ (B-C. iii. 42), [symbol] for ην

(B-C. iii. 10), [symbol] for ισ and ὀ or [symbol] for ουν (B-C. iii. 41),

[symbol] for ιν or ἐστι, [symbol] for αν, [symbol] or [symbol] for οις,

[symbol] for ας, [symbol] or [symbol] for οις, [symbol] for τε or -τες or

τθν or τον, [symbol] for ειν, [symbol] for ους or ως (Gale O. iv. 22). The

mark > is not only met with in the Herculanean rolls, but in the Hyperides

(facsimile 9, l. 6), in Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two

Pentateuchs, Codd. Augiensis, Sangall. and Boernerianus, and seems merely

designed to fill up vacant space, like the flourishes in a legal

instrument(54).

16. Capital letters of a larger size than the rest at the beginning of

clauses, &c. are freely met with in all documents excepting in the oldest

papyri, the Herculanean rolls, Codd. Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, the Colbert

Pentateuch, Isaiah in Cod. Z, and one or two fragments besides(55). Their

absence is a proof of high antiquity. Yet even in Codd. Vaticanus,

Sinaiticus, and Sarravianus, which is the other part of the Colbert

Pentateuch (in the first most frequently in the earlier portions of the

Old Testament), the initial letter stands a little outside the line of

writing after a break in the sense, whether the preceding line had been

quite filled up or not. Such breaks occur more regularly in Codex Bezae,

as will appear when we come to describe it(56). Smaller capitals occur in

the middle of lines in Codd. Bezae and Marchalianus, of the sixth and

seventh centuries respectively. Moreover, all copies of whatever date are

apt to crowd small letters into the end of a line to save room, and if

these small letters preserve the form of the larger, it is reasonable to

conclude that the scribe is writing in a natural hand, not an assumed one,

and the argument for the antiquity of such a document, derived from the

shape of its letters, thus becomes all the stronger. The continuous form

of writing separate words must have prevailed in manuscripts long after it

was obsolete in common life: Cod. Claromont., whose text is continuous

even in its Latin version, divides the words in the inscriptions and

subscriptions to the several books.

17. The stichometry of the sacred books has next to be considered. The

Greeks and Romans measured the contents of their MSS. by lines, not only

in poetry, but also artificially in prose for a standard line of fifteen

or sixteen syllables, called by the earliest writers ἔπος, afterwards

στίχος(57). Not only do Athanasius [d. 373], Gregory Nyssen [d. 396],

Epiphanius [d. 403], and Chrysostom [d. 407] inform us that in their time

the Book of Psalms was already divided into στίχοι, while Jerome [d. 420?]

testifies the same for the prophecies of Isaiah; but Origen also [d. 254]

speaks of the second and third Epistles of St. John as both of them not

exceeding one hundred στίχοι, of St. Paul’s Epistles as consisting of few,

St. John’s first Epistle as of very few (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 25,

cited by Tischendorf, Cod. Sinait., Proleg. p. xxi, note 2, 1863). Even

the apocryphal letter of our Lord to Abgarus is described as ὀλιγοστίχου

μέν, πολυδυνάμου δὲ ἐπιστολῆς (Euseb. H. E. i. 13): while Eustathius of

Antioch in the fourth century reckoned 135 στίχοι between John viii. 59

and x. 41. More general is the use of the word in Ephraem the Syrian [d.

378], Ὅταν δὲ ἀναγινώσκῃς, ἐπιμελῶς καὶ ἐμπόνως ἀναγίνωσκε, ἐν πολλῇ

καταστάσει διερχόμενος τὸν στίχον (tom. iii. 101). As regards the Psalms,

we may see their arrangement for ourselves in Codd. Vaticanus and

Sinaiticus, wherein, according to the true principles of Hebrew poetry,

the verses do not correspond in metre or quantity of syllables, but in the

parallelism or relationship subsisting between the several members of the

same sentence or stanza(58). Such στίχοι were therefore not “space-lines,”

but “sense-lines.” It seems to have occurred to Euthalius, a deacon of

Alexandria, as it did long afterwards to Bishop Jebb when he wrote his

“Sacred Literature,” that a large portion of the New Testament might be

divided into στίχοι on the same principles: and that even where that

distribution should prove but artificial, it would guide the public reader

in the management of his voice, and remove the necessity for an elaborate

system of punctuation. Such, therefore, we conceive to be the use and

design of stichometry, as applied to the Greek Testament by Euthalius(59),

whose edition of the Acts and Epistles was published A.D. 490. Who

distributed the στίχοι of the Gospels (which are in truth better suited

for such a process than the Epistles) does not appear. Although but few

manuscripts now exist that are written στοιχηδόν or στιχηρῶς (a plan which

consumed too much vellum to become general), we read in many copies, added

usually to the subscription at the foot of each of the books of the New

Testament, a calculation of the number of στίχοι it contained, the numbers

being sufficiently unlike to show that the arrangement was not the same in

all codices, yet near enough to prove that they were divided on the same

principle(60). In the few documents written στιχηρῶς that survive, the

length of the clauses is very unequal; some (e.g. Cod. Bezae, _see_ the

description below and the facsimile, No. 42) containing as much in a line

as might be conveniently read aloud in a breath, others (e.g. Cod. Laud.

of the Acts, Plate x. No. 25) having only one or two words in a line. The

Cod. Claromontanus (facsim. No. 41) in this respect lies between those

extremes, and the fourth great example of this class (Cod. Coislin. 202, H

of St. Paul), of the sixth century, has one of its few surviving pages (of

sixteen lines each) arranged _literatim_ as follows (1 Cor. x. 22, &c.):

εσμεν | παντα μοι εξεστι | αλλ ου παντα συμφερει | παντα μοι εξεστιν | αλλ

ου παντα οικοδομει | μηδεισ το εαυτου ζη | (_ob necessitatem spatii_)

τειτω | αλλα το του ετερου | παν το εν μακελλω πω | (_ob necessitatem_)

λουμενον | εσθιετε μηδεν ανα | κρινωντες δια την | συνειδησιν | του γαρ κυ

η γη και το πλη | ρωμα αυτης. Other manuscripts written στιχηρῶς are

Matthaei’s V of the eighth century (though with verses like ours more than

with ordinary στίχοι), Bengel’s Uffenbach 3 of St. John (Evan. 101),

Alter’s Forlos. 29 (36 of the Apocalypse), and, as it would seem, the Cod.

Sangallensis Δ. In Cod. Claromontanus there are scarcely any stops (the

middle point being chiefly reserved to follow abridgements or numerals),

the stichometry being of itself an elaborate scheme of punctuation; but

the longer στίχοι of Cod. Bezae are often divided by a single point.

18. In using manuscripts of the Greek Testament, we must carefully note

whether a reading is _primâ manu_ (*) or by some subsequent corrector

(**). It will often happen that these last are utterly valueless, having

been inserted even from printed copies by a modern owner (like some

marginal variations of the Cod. Leicestrensis)(61), and such as these

really ought not to have been extracted by collators at all; while others

by the second hand are almost as weighty, for age and goodness, as the

text itself. All these points are explained by critical editors for each

document separately; in fact to discriminate the different corrections in

regard to their antiquity and importance is often the most difficult

portion of such editor’s task (e.g. in Codd. Bezae and Claromontanus), and

one on which he often feels it hard to satisfy his own judgement.

Corrections by the original scribe, or by a contemporary reviser, where

they can be satisfactorily distinguished, must be regarded as a portion of

the testimony of the manuscript itself, inasmuch as every carefully

prepared copy was reviewed and compared (ἀντεβλήθη), if not by the writer

himself, by a skilful person appointed for the task (ὁ διορθῶν, ὁ

διορθωτής), whose duty it was to amend manifest errors, sometimes also to

insert ornamental capitals in places which had been reserved for them; in

later times (and as some believe at a very early period) to set in stops,

breathings and accents; in copies destined for ecclesiastical use to

arrange the musical notes that were to guide the intonation of the reader.

Notices of this kind of revision are sometimes met with at the end of the

best manuscripts. Such is the note in Cod. H of St. Paul: εγραψα και

εξεθεμην προσ το εν Καισαρια αντιγραφον τησ διδλιοθηκησ του αγιου

Παμφιλου, the same library of the Martyr Pamphilus to which the scribe of

the Cod. Frid.-August. resorted for his model(62); and that in Birch’s

most valuable Urbino-Vatican. 2 (157 of the Gospels), written for the

Emperor John II (1118-1143), wherein at the end of the first Gospel we

read κατὰ Ματθαῖον ἐγράφη καὶ ἀντεβλήθη ἐκ τῶν ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις παλαιῶν

ἀντιγράφων τῶν ἐν ἁγίω ὄρει [Athos] ἀποκειμένων: similar subscriptions are

appended to the other Gospels. See also Evan. Λ. 20, 164, 262, 300, 376;

Act. 15, 83, in the list of manuscripts below.

CHAPTER III. DIVISIONS OF THE TEXT, AND OTHER PARTICULARS.

We have next to give some account of ancient divisions of the text, as

found in manuscripts of the New Testament; and these must be carefully

noted by the student, since few copies are without one or more of them.

1. So far as we know at present, the oldest sections still extant are

those of the Codex Vaticanus. These seem to have been formed for the

purpose of reference, and a new one always commences where there is some

break in the sense. Many, however, at least in the Gospels, consist of but

one of our modern verses, and they are so unequal in length as to be

rather inconvenient for actual use. In the four Gospels only the marginal

numerals are in red, St. Matthew containing 170 of these divisions, St.

Mark 62, St. Luke 152, St. John 80. In the Acts of the Apostles are two

sets of sections, thirty-six longer and in an older hand, sixty-nine

smaller and more recent(63). Each of these also begins after a break in

the sense, but they are quite independent of each other, as a larger

section will sometimes commence in the middle of a smaller, the latter

being in no wise a subdivision of the former. Thus the greater Γ opens

Acts ii. 1, in the middle of the lesser β, which extends from Acts i. 15

to ii. 4. The first forty-two of the lesser chapters, down to Acts xv. 40,

are found also with slight variations in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus,

written by a very old hand. As in most manuscripts, so in Codex Vaticanus,

the Catholic Epistles follow the Acts, and in them also and in St. Paul’s

Epistles there are two sets of sections, only that in the Epistles the

older sections are the more numerous. The Pauline Epistles are reckoned

throughout as one book in the elder notation, with however this remarkable

peculiarity, that though in the Cod. Vatican. itself the Epistle to the

Hebrews stands next after the second to the Thessalonians, _and on the

same leaf with it_, the sections are arranged as if it stood between the

Epistles to the Galatians and Ephesians. For whereas that to the Galatians

ends with § 58, that to the Ephesians begins with § 70, and the numbers

proceed regularly down to § 93, with which the second to the Thessalonians

ends. The Epistle to the Hebrews which then follows opens with § 59; the

last section extant (§ 64) begins at Heb. ix. 11, and the manuscript ends

abruptly at καθα ver. 14. It plainly appears, then, that the sections of

the Codex Vaticanus must have been copied from some yet older document, in

which the Epistle to the Hebrews preceded that to the Ephesians. It will

be found hereafter (vol. ii) that in the Thebaic version the Epistle to

the Hebrews preceded that to the Galatians, instead of following it, as

here. For a list of the more modern divisions in the Epistles, see the

Table given below. The Vatican sections of the Gospels have also been

discovered by Tregelles in one other copy, the palimpsest Codex Zacynthius

of St. Luke (Ξ), which he published in 1861.

2. Hardly less ancient, and indeed ascribed by some to Tatian the

Harmonist, the disciple of Justin Martyr, is the division of the Gospels

into larger chapters or κεφάλαια _majora_(64). It may be noticed that in

none of the four Gospels does the first chapter stand at its commencement.

In St. Matthew chapter A begins at chap. ii. verse 1, and has for its

title περὶ τῶν μάγων: in St. Mark at chap. i. ver. 23 περὶ τοῧ

δαιμονιζομένου: in St. Luke at chap. ii. ver. 1 περὶ τῆς ἀπογραφῆς: in St.

John at chap. ii. ver. 1 περὶ τοῦ ἐν Κανᾶ γάμου. Mill accounts for this

circumstance by supposing that in the first copies the titles at the head

of each Gospel were reserved till last for more splendid illumination, and

were thus eventually forgotten (Proleg. N. T. § 355); Griesbach holds,

that the general inscriptions of each Gospel, Κατὰ Ματθαῖον, Κατὰ Μάρκον,

&c., were regarded as the special titles of the first chapters also. On

either supposition, however, it would be hard to explain how what was

really the second chapter came to be _numbered_ as the first; and it is

worth notice that the same arrangement takes place in the κεφάλαια (though

these are of a later date) of all the other books of the New Testament

except the Acts, 2 Corinth., Ephes., 1 Thess., Hebrews, James, 1 and 2

Peter, 1 John, and the Apocalypse: e.g. the first chapter of the Epistle

to the Romans opens ch. i. ver. 18 Πρῶτον μετὰ τὸ προοίμιον, περὶ κρίσεως

τῆς κατὰ ἐθνῶν τῶν οὐ φυλασσόντων τὰ φυσικά. But the fact is that this

arrangement, strange as it may seem, is conformable to the practice of the

times when these divisions were finally settled. Both in the Institutes

and in the Digest of Justinian the first paragraph is always cited as pr.

(i.e. _principium_, προοίμιον, _Preface_), and what we should regard as

the second paragraph is numbered as the first, and so on throughout the

whole work(65).

The τίτλοι in St. Matthew amount to sixty-eight, in St. Mark to

forty-eight, in St. Luke to eighty-three, in St. John to eighteen. This

mode of division, although not met with in the Vatican and Sinaitic

manuscripts, is found in the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi of the

fifth century, and in the Codex Nitriensis of the sixth, each of which has

tables of the τίτλοι prefixed to the several Gospels: but the Codices

Alexandrinus, Rossanensis, and Dublinensis of St. Matthew, and that

portion of the purple Cotton fragment which is in the Vatican, exhibit

them in their usual position, at the top and bottom of the pages. Thus it

appears that they were too generally diffused in the fifth century not to

have originated at an earlier period; although we must concede that the

κεφάλαιον spoken of by Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. i) when quoting

Dan. xii. 12, or by Athanasius (contra Arium) on Act. ii, and the

_Capitulum_ mentioned by Tertullian (ad Uxorem ii. 2) in reference to 1

Cor. vii. 12, contain no certain allusions to any specific divisions of

the sacred text, but only to the particular paragraphs or passages in

which their citations stand. Except that the contrary habit has grown

inveterate(66), it were much to be desired that the term τίτλοι should be

applied to these longer divisions, at least in the Gospels; but since

usage has affixed the term κεφάλαια to the larger chapters and sections to

the smaller, and τίτλοι only to the subjects or headings of the former, it

would be useless to follow any other system of names.

3. The Ammonian Sections were not constructed, like the Vatican divisions

and the τίτλοι, for the purpose of easy reference, or distributed like

them according to the breaks in the sense, but for a wholly different

purpose. So far as we can ascertain, the design of Tatian’s Harmony was

simply to present to Christian readers a single connected history of our

Lord, by taking from the four Evangelists indifferently whatsoever best

suited his purpose(67). As this plan could scarcely be executed without

_omitting_ some portions of the sacred text, it is not surprising that

Tatian, possibly without any evil intention, should have incurred the

grave charge of mutilating Holy Scripture(68). A more scholar-like and

useful attempt was subsequently made by Ammonius of Alexandria, early in

the third century [A.D. 220], who, by the side of St. Matthew’s Gospel,

which he selected as his standard, arranged in parallel columns, as it

would seem, the corresponding passages of the other three Evangelists, so

as to exhibit them all at once to the reader’s eye; St. Matthew in his

proper order, the rest as the necessity of abiding by St. Matthew’s order

prescribed. This is the account given by the celebrated Eusebius, Bishop

of Caesarea, the Church historian, who in the fourth century, in his

letter to Carpianus, described his own most ingenious system of Harmony,

as founded on, or at least as suggested by, the labours of Ammonius(69).

It has been generally thought that the κεφάλαια, of which St. Matthew

contains 355, St. Mark 236(70), St. Luke 342, St. John 232, in all 1165,

were made by Ammonius for the purpose of his work, and they have commonly

received the name of the Ammonian sections: but this opinion was called in

question by Bp. Lloyd (Nov. Test. Oxon. 1827, Monitum, pp. viii-xi), who

strongly urges that, in his Epistle to Carpianus, Eusebius not only

refrains from ascribing these numerical divisions to Ammonius (whose

labours in this particular, as once seemed the case with Tatian’s, must in

that case be deemed to have perished utterly), but he almost implies that

they had their origin at the same time with his own ten canons, with which

they are so intimately connected(71). That they were essential to

Eusebius’ scheme is plain enough; their place in Ammonius’ parallel

Harmony is not easily understood, unless indeed (what is nowhere stated,

but rather the contrary) he did not set the passages from the other

Gospels at full length by the side of St. Matthew’s, but only these

numerical references to them(72).

There is, however, one ground for hesitation before we ascribe the

sections, as well as the canons, to Eusebius; namely, that not a few

ancient manuscripts (e.g. Codd. FHY) contain the former, while they omit

the latter. Of palimpsests indeed it might be said with reason, that the

rough process which so nearly obliterated the ink of the older writing,

would completely remove the coloured paint (κιννάβαρις, _vermilion_,

prescribed by Eusebius, though blue or green is occasionally found) in

which the canons were invariably noted; hence we need not wonder at their

absence from the Codices Ephraemi, Nitriensis (R), Dublinensis (Z), Codd.

IWb of Tischendorf, and the Wolfenbüttel fragments (PQ), in all which the

sections are yet legible in ink. The Codex Sinaiticus contains both; but

Tischendorf decidedly pronounces them to be in a later hand. In the Codex

Bezae too, as well as the Codex Cyprius (K), even the Ammonian sections,

without the canons, are by later hands, though the latter has prefixed the

list or table of the canons. Of the oldest copies the Cod. Alex. (A),

Tischendorf’s Codd. WaΘ, the Cotton frag. (N), and Codd. Beratinus and

Rossanensis alone contain both the sections and the canons. Even in more

modern cursive books the latter are often deficient, though the former are

present. This peculiarity we have observed in Burney 23, in the British

Museum, of the twelfth century, although the Epistle to Carpianus stands

at the beginning; in a rather remarkable copy of about the twelfth

century, in the Cambridge University Library (Mm. 6. 9, Scholz Evan. 440),

in which, however, the table of canons but not the Epistle to Carpianus

precedes; in the Gonville and Caius Gospels of the twelfth century (Evan.

59), and in a manuscript of about the thirteenth century at Trinity

College, Cambridge (B. x. 17)(73). These facts certainly seem to indicate

that in the judgement of critics and transcribers, whatever that judgement

may be deemed worth, the Ammonian sections had a previous existence to the

Eusebian canons, as well as served for an independent purpose(74).

In his letter to Carpianus, their inventor clearly yet briefly describes

the purpose of his canons, ten in number. The first contains a list of

seventy-one places in which all the four Evangelists have a narrative,

discourse, or saying in common: the second of 111 places in which the

three Matthew, Mark, Luke agree: the third of twenty-two places common to

Matthew, Luke, John: the fourth of twenty-six passages common to Matthew,

Mark, John: the fifth of eighty-two places in which the two Matthew, Luke

coincide: the sixth of forty-seven places wherein Matthew, Mark agree: the

seventh of seven places common to Matthew and John: the eighth of fourteen

places common to Luke and Mark: the ninth of twenty-one places in which

Luke and John agree: the tenth of sixty-two passages of Matthew,

twenty-one of Mark, seventy-one of Luke, and ninety-seven of John which

have no parallels, but are peculiar to a single Evangelist. Under each of

the 1165 so-named Ammonian sections, in its proper place in the margin of

a manuscript, is put in coloured ink the number of that Eusebian canon to

which it refers. On looking for that section in the proper table or canon,

there will also be found the parallel place or places in the other

Gospels, each indicated by its proper numeral, and so readily searched

out. A single example will serve to explain our meaning. In the facsimile

of the Cotton fragment (Plate v. No. 14), in the margin of the passage

(John xv. 20) we see _ΡΛΘ_ over Γ, where ΡΑΘ (139) is the proper section

of St. John, Γ (3) the number of the canon. On searching the third

Eusebian table we read MT. [symbol], Λ. _νη_, ΙΩ. _ρλθ_ and thus we learn

that the first clause of John xv. 20 is parallel in sense to the ninetieth

([symbol]) section of St. Matthew (x. 24), and to the fifty-eighth (_νη_)

of St. Luke (vi. 40). The advantage of such a system of parallels to the

exact study of the Gospels is too evident to need insisting on.

4. The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles are also divided into

_chapters_ (κεφάλαια), in design precisely the same as the κεφάλαια or

τίτλοι of the Gospels, and nearly like them in length. Since there is no

trace of these chapters in the two great Codices Alexandrinus and

Ephraemi, of the fifth century (which yet exhibit the τίτλοι, the

sections, and one of them the canons), it seems reasonable to assume that

they are of later date. They are sometimes connected with the name of

Euthalius, deacon of Alexandria, afterwards Bishop of Sulci(75), whom we

have already spoken of as the reputed author of Scriptural stichometry

(_above_, p. 53). We learn, however, from Euthalius’ own Prologue to his

edition of St. Paul’s Epistles (A.D. 458,) that the “summary of the

chapters” (and consequently the numbers of the chapters themselves) was

taken from the work of “one of our wisest and pious fathers(76),” i.e.

some Bishop that he does not wish to particularize, whom Mill (Proleg. N.

T. § 907) conjectures to be Theodore of Mopsuestia, who lay under the

censure of the Church. Soon after(77) the publication of St. Paul’s

Epistles, on the suggestion of one Athanasius, then a priest and

afterwards Patriarch of Alexandria, Euthalius put forth a similar edition

of the Acts and Catholic Epistles(78), also divided into chapters, with a

summary of contents at the head of each chapter. Even these he is thought

to have derived (at least in the Acts) from the manuscript of Pamphilus

the Martyr [d. 308], to whom the same order of chapters is ascribed in a

document published by Montfaucon (Bibliotheca Coislin. p. 78); the rather

as Euthalius fairly professes to have compared his book in the Acts and

Catholic Epistles “with the copies in the library at Caesarea” which once

belonged to “Eusebius the friend of Pamphilus(79).” The Apocalypse still

remains. It was divided, about the end of the fifth century, by Andreas,

Archbishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea, into twenty-four _paragraphs_

(λόγοι), corresponding to the number of the elders about the throne (Apoc.

iv. 4); each paragraph being subdivided into three _chapters_

(κεφάλαια)(80). The summaries which Andreas wrote of his seventy-two

chapters are still reprinted in Mill’s and other large editions of the

Greek Testament.

5. To Euthalius has been also referred a division of the Acts into sixteen

lessons (ἀναγνώσεις) and of the Pauline Epistles into thirty-one (see

table on p. 67); but these lessons are quite different from the much

shorter ones adopted by the Greek Church. He is also said to have numbered

in each Epistle of St. Paul the quotations from the Old Testament(81),

which are still noted in many of our manuscripts, and is the first known

to have used that reckoning of the στίχοι which was formerly annexed we

know not when to the Gospels and Epistles, as well as to the Acts. Besides

the division of the text into στίχοι or _lines_ (_above_, p. 52) we find

in the Gospels alone another division into ῥήματα or ῥήσεις “sentences,”

differing but little from the στίχοι in number. Of these last the precise

numbers vary in different copies, though not considerably: whether that

variation arose from the circumstance that ancient numbers were

represented by letters and so easily became corrupted, or from a different

mode of arranging the στίχοι and ῥήματα adopted by the various scribes.

6. It is proper to state that the _subscriptions_ (ὑπογραφαί) appended to

St. Paul’s Epistles in many manuscripts, and retained even in the

Authorized English version of the New Testament, are also said to be the

composition of Euthalius. In the best copies they are somewhat shorter in

form, but in any shape they do no credit to the care or skill of their

author, whoever he may be. “Six of these subscriptions,” writes Paley in

that masterpiece of acute reasoning, the Horae Paulinae, “are false or

improbable;” that is, they are either absolutely contradicted by the

contents of the epistle [1 Cor., Galat., 1 Tim.], or are difficult to be

reconciled with them [1, 2 Thess., Tit.].

The _subscriptions_ to the Gospels have not, we believe, been assigned to

any particular author, and being seldom found in printed copies of the

Greek Testament or in modern versions, are little known to the general

reader. In the earliest manuscripts the subscriptions, as well as the

_titles_ of the books, were of the simplest character. Κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, κατὰ

Μάρκον, &c. is all that the Codd. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have, whether

at the beginning or the end. Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον is the subscription

to the first Gospel in the Codex Alexandrinus; εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μάρκον is

placed at the beginning of the second Gospel in the same manuscript, and

the self-same words at the end of it by Codices Alex. and Ephraemi: in the

Codex Bezae (in which St. John stands second in order) we merely read

εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Μαθθαῖον ἐτελέσθη, ἄρχεται εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ἰωάννην. The

same is the case throughout the New Testament. After a while the titles

become more elaborate, and the subscriptions afford more information, the

truth of which it would hardly be safe to vouch for. The earliest worth

notice are found in the Codex Cyprius (K) of the eighth or ninth century,

which, together with those of several other copies, are given in Scholz’s

Prolegomena N. T. vol. i. pp. xxix, xxx. _ad fin. Matthaei_: Τὸ κατὰ

Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἐξεδόθη ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις μετὰ χρόνους ἡ

[ὀκτὼ] τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως. _Ad fin. Marci_: Τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον

εὐαγγέλιον ἐξεδόθη μετὰ χρόνους δέκα τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως. Those to

the other two Gospels exactly resemble St. Mark’s, that of St. Luke

however being dated fifteen, that of St. John thirty-two years after our

Lord’s Ascension, periods in all probability far too early to be correct.

7. The foreign matter so often inserted in later manuscripts has more

value for the antiquarian than for the critic. That splendid copy of the

Gospels Lambeth 1178, of the tenth or eleventh century, contains more such

than is often found, set off by fine illuminations. At the end of each of

the first three Gospels (but not of the fourth) are several pages relating

to them extracted from Cosmas Indicopleustes, who made the voyage which

procured him his cognomen about A.D. 522; also some iambic verses of no

great excellence, as may well be supposed. In golden letters we read: _ad

fin. Matth._ ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτωι

γραφὲν ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ; ἐν ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐξεδόθη; ἑρμηνεύθη δὲ ὑπὸ ἱωάννου;

ἐξηγεῖται δὲ τὴν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τοῦ χ_υ_ γένεσιν, καί ἐστιν ἀνθρωπόμορφον

τοῦτο τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. The last clause alludes to Apoc. iv. 7, wherein the

four living creatures were currently believed to be typical of the four

Gospels(82). _Ad fin. Marc._ ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατὰ Μάρκον εὐαγγέλιον

ὑπηγορεύθη ὑπὸ Πέτρου ἐν ῥώμηι; ἐποιήσατο δὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ προφητικοῦ

λόγου τοῦ ἐξ ὕψους ἐπιόντος τοῦ Ἡσαΐου; τὴν πτερωτικὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ

εὐαγγελίου δεικνύς. _Ad fin. Luc._ ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον

ὑπηγορεύθη ὑπὸ Παύλου ἐν ῥώμηι; ἅτε δὲ ἱερατικοῦ χαρακτῆρος ὑπάρχοντος ἀπὸ

Ζαχαρίου τοῦ ἱερέως θυμιῶντος ἤρξατο. The reader will desire no more of

this.

8. The oldest manuscript known to be accompanied by a _catena_ (or

continuous commentary by different authors) is the palimpsest Codex

Zacynthius (Ξ of Tregelles), an uncial of the eighth century. Such books

are not common, but there is a very full commentary in minute letters,

surrounding the large text in a noble copy of the Gospels, of the twelfth

century, which belonged to the late Sir Thomas Phillipps (Middle Hill

13975, since removed to Cheltenham), yet uncollated; another of St. Paul’s

Epistles (No. 27) belongs to the University Library at Cambridge (Ff. 1.

30). The Apocalypse is often attended with the exposition of Andreas (p.

64), or of Arethas, also Archbishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea in the

tenth century, or (what is more usual) with a sort of epitome of the two

(e.g. Parham No. 17), above, below, and in the margin beside the text, in

much smaller characters. In _cursive_ manuscripts only the subject

(ὑπόθεσις), especially that written by Oecumenius in the tenth century,

sometimes stands as a _Prologue_ before each book, but not so often before

the Gospels or Apocalypse as the Acts and Epistles. Before the Acts we

occasionally meet with Euthalius’ Chronology of St. Paul’s Travels, or

another Ἀποδημία Παύλου. The Leicester manuscript contains between the

Pauline Epistles and the Acts (1) An Exposition of the Creed and statement

of the errors condemned by the seven general Councils, ending with the

second at Nice. (2) Lives of the Apostles, followed by an exact

description of the limits of the five Patriarchates. The Christ Church

copy Wake 12 also has after the Apocalypse some seven or eight pages of a

Treatise Περὶ τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκουμενικῶν _ζ_ συνόδων, including some

notice περὶ τοπικῶν συνόδων. Similar treatises may be more frequent in

manuscripts of the Greek Testament than we are at present aware of.

Vatican τίτλοι κεφάλαια στίχοι ῥήματα Modern

MS. Older Ammon chap

Sections

Matthew 170 68 355 2560 2522 28

Mark 62 48 236 1616 1675 16

Luke 152 83 342 2740 3803 24

John 80 18 232 2024 1938 21

Vatican Vatican Euthal. στίχοι(83) Modern Modern

MS. Older MS. Later κεφ λ. chapters verses

Sections Sections

Acts 36 69 40 2524 28 1007

James 9 5 6 242 5 108

1 Peter 8 3 8 236 5 105

2 Peter desunt 2 4 154 3 61

1 John 14 3 7 274 5 105

2 John 1 2 2 30 1 13

3 John 2 desunt 3 32 1 15

Jude 2 desunt 4 68 1 25

In Vatican MS. older sections, there are 93 sections in Rom. 1, 2 Corinth.

Gal. Eph. Coloss. 1, 2 Thess. to Hebr. ix. 14.

Vatican MS. Euthal. κεφ στίχοι Modern Modern

Later λ. chapters verses

Sections

Romans 8 19 920 16 433

1 10 9 870 16 437

Corinth

2 9 11 590 13 256

Corinth

Galat 3 12 293 6 149

Ephes 3 10 312 6 155

Philipp 2 7 208 4 104

Coloss 3 10 208 4 95

1 Thess 2 7 193 5 89

2 Thess 2 6 106 3 47

1 Tim 18 230 6 113

2 Tim 9 172 4 83

Titus 6 3 46

Philem 2 38 1 25

Hebrews 5 to ch. 22 703 13 303

ix. 11

Apocalypse 72 1800 22 405

9. We have not thought it needful to insert in this place either a list of

the τίτλοι of the Gospels, or of the κεφάλαια of the rest of the New

Testament, or the tables of the Eusebian canons, inasmuch as they are all

accessible in such ordinary books as Stephen’s Greek Testament 1550 and

Mill’s of 1707, 1710. The Eusebian canons are given in Bishop Lloyd’s

Oxford Greek Test. of 1827 &c. and in Tischendorf’s of 1859. We exhibit,

however, for the sake of comparison, a tabular view of “Ancient and Modern

Divisions of the New Testament.” The numbers of the ῥήματα and στίχοι in

the Gospels are derived from the most approved sources, but a synopsis of

the variations of manuscripts in this respect has been drawn up by Scholz,

Prolegomena N. T. vol. i. Cap. v, pp. xxviii, xxix(84). A computation of

their number, as also of that of the ἀναγνώσματα, is often given in the

subscription at the end of a book.

10. On the divisions into chapters and verses prevailing in our modern

Bibles we need not dwell long. For many centuries the Latin Church used

the Greek τίτλοι (which they called _breves_) with the Euthalian κεφάλαια,

and some of their copies even retained the calculation by στίχοι: but

about A.D. 1248 Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, while preparing a

Concordance, or index of declinable words, for the _whole Bible_, divided

it into its present chapters, subdividing them in turn into several parts

by placing the letters A, B, C, D &c. in the margin, at equal distances

from each other, as we still see in many old printed books, e.g. Stephen’s

N. T. of 1550. Cardinal Hugo’s divisions, unless indeed he merely adopted

them from Lanfranc or some other scholar, such as was very probably

Stephen Langton the celebrated Archbishop of Canterbury, soon took

possession of copies of the Latin Vulgate; they gradually obtained a place

in later Greek manuscripts, especially those written in the West of

Europe, and are found in the earliest printed and all later editions of

the Greek Testament, though still unknown to the Eastern Church. They

certainly possess no strong claim on our preference, although they cannot

now be superseded. The chapters are inconveniently and capriciously

unequal in length; occasionally too they are distributed with much lack of

judgement. Thus Matt. xv. 39 belongs to ch. xvi, and perhaps ch. xix. 30

to ch. xx; Mark ix. 1 properly appertains to the preceding chapter; Luke

xxi. 1-4 had better be united with ch. xx, as in Mark xii. 41-44; Acts v

might as well commence with Acts iv. 32; Acts viii. 1 (or at least its

first clause) should not have been separated from ch. vii; Acts xxi

concludes with strange abruptness. Bp. Terrot (on Ernesti’s Institutes,

vol. ii. p. 21) rightly affixes 1 Cor. iv. 1-5 to ch. iii. Add that 1 Cor.

xi. 1 belongs to ch. x; 2 Cor. iv. 18 and vi. 18 to ch. v and ch. vii

respectively: Col. iv. 1 must clearly go with ch. iii.

In commendation of the modern verses still less can be said. As they are

stated to have been constructed after the model of the ancient στίχοι

(called “_versus_” in the Latin manuscripts), we have placed in the Table

the exact number of each for every book in the New Testament. Of the

στίχοι we reckon 19241 in all, of the modern verses 7959(85), so that on

the average (for we have seen that the manuscript variations in the number

of στίχοι are but inconsiderable) we may calculate about five στίχοι to

every two modern verses. The fact is that some such division is, simply

indispensable to every accurate reader of Scripture; and Cardinal Hugo’s

divisions by letters of the alphabet, as well as those adopted by Sanctes

Pagninus in his Latin version of the whole Bible (1528), having proved

inconveniently large, Robert Stephen, the justly celebrated printer and

editor of the Greek Testament, undertook to form a system of

verse-divisions, taking for his model the short verses into which the

Hebrew Bible had already been divided, as it would seem by Rabbi Nathan,

in the preceding century. We are told by Henry Stephen (Praef.

Concordantiae) that his father Robert executed this design on a journey

from Paris to Lyons “_inter equitandum_(86);” that is, we presume, while

resting at the inns on the road. Certain it is that, although every such

division must be in some measure arbitrary, a very little care would have

spared us many of the disadvantages attending that which Robert Stephen

first published at Geneva in his Greek Testament of 1551, from which it

was introduced into the text of the Genevan English Testament of 1557,

into Beza’s Greek Testament of 1565, and thence into subsequent editions.

It is now too late to correct the errors of the verse-divisions, but they

can be neutralized, at least in a great degree, by the plan adopted by

modern critics, of banishing both the verses and the chapters into the

margin, and breaking the text into paragraphs, better suited to the sense.

The _pericopae_ or sections of Bengel(87) (whose labours will be described

in their proper place) have been received with general approbation, and

adopted, with some modification, by several recent editors. Much pains

were bestowed on their arrangement of the paragraphs by the Revisers of

the English version of 1881.

11. We now come to the _contents_ of manuscripts of the Greek Testament,

and must distinguish regular copies of the sacred volume or of parts of it

from Lectionaries, or Church-lesson books, containing only extracts,

arranged in the order of Divine Service daily throughout the year. The

latter we will consider presently: with regard to the former it is right

to bear in mind, that comparatively few copies of the whole New Testament

remain; the usual practice being to write the four Gospels in one volume,

the Acts and Epistles in another: manuscripts of the Apocalypse, which was

little used for public worship, being much rarer than those of the other

books. Occasionally the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles form a single volume;

sometimes the Apocalypse is added to other books; as to the Pauline

Epistles in Lambeth 1186, or even to the Gospels, in a later hand (e.g.

Cambridge University Libr. Dd. 9. 69: Gospels No. 60, _dated_ A.D. 1297).

The Apocalypse, being a short work, is often found bound up in volumes

containing very miscellaneous matter (e.g. Vatican. 2066 or B; Brit. Mus.

Harleian. 5678, No. 31; and Oxon. Barocc. 48, No. 28). The Codex

Sinaiticus of Tischendorf is the more precious, in that it happily

exhibits the whole New Testament complete: so would also the Codices

Alexandrinus and Ephraemi, but that they are sadly mutilated: no other

uncial copies have this advantage, and very few cursives. In England only

five such are known, the great Codex Leicestrensis, which is imperfect at

the beginning and end; Butler 2 (Evan. 201) Additional 11837, dated A.D.

1357, and (Evan. 584) Additional 17469, both in the British Museum;

Canonici 34 (Evan. 488) in the Bodleian, dated A.D. 1515-16. Additional

MS. 28815 (Evan. 603, and Paul 266, and Apoc. 89) in the British Museum

and B-C. II. 4 at Sir Roger Cholmely’s School, Highgate, are separated

portions of one complete copy. The Apocalypse in the well-known Codex

Montfortianus at Dublin is usually considered to be by a later hand.

Besides these Scholz enumerates only nineteen foreign copies of the whole

New Testament(88); making but twenty-four in all, as far as was then

known, out of the vast mass of extant documents.

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. I. · 第 11 / 19 章

Chapter XIV. Lectionaries Containing The Apostolos Or Praxapostolos.